Edge Labs EDGE LABS Market intelligence
CFB NFL
Edge Labs · CFB · Talent vs Record

The talent a roster signed vs what it did.

Every FBS team's recruiting talent (the 4-year composite, and its national rank that season) lined up against its actual record. The gap is the story · who outran the roster they had, and who left blue-chip talent on the field. National rank, record, and the sample behind each, on every team.

Read this first

Talent is a leading indicator and records drift back toward the roster. In our point-in-time test (2020·2025, n>150 each side), teams that outran their recruiting talent fell about 15 win-percentage points the next season, and the ones that underachieved rose about as much. So these gaps tend to close next year. That is a direction the data leans, not a guaranteed pick and not a bet.

+98gap · pts Biggest overachiever · 2026
New Mexico
Mountain West · talent #134 of 137 · 2-0 (2 g)
thin talent (#134 of 137), went 2-0. Outran the roster.
-72gap · pts Biggest underachiever · 2026
Georgia Tech
ACC · talent #39 of 137 · 0-2 (2 g)
mid-pack talent (#39 of 137), went 0-2. Left it on the field.

Filters

season · league
Overachiever · won more than the talent rank implied. Underrated roster.
Underachiever · blue-chip talent, thin record. Wasted talent.
Gap = win% minus where the talent rank sits in the field, in percentage points.
All FBS · 2026 · underachievers Talent vs record · biggest gaps first
n=36 teams · 129 ranked
Team Talent rank Composite Record Win% Gap (pts)
Georgia TechACC #39 / 137 72.8 0-2 (2g) 0% -72
RutgersBig Ten #43 / 137 72.4 0-2 (2g) 0% -69
East CarolinaAAC #66 / 137 69.9 0-2 (2g) 0% -52
Ohio StateBig Ten #1 / 137 85.4 1-1 (2g) 50% -50
CharlotteAAC #71 / 137 69.4 0-2 (2g) 0% -49
Oregon StatePac-12 #78 / 137 68.4 0-2 (2g) 0% -43
OregonBig Ten #11 / 137 80.4 1-1 (2g) 50% -43
OklahomaSEC #12 / 137 79.8 1-1 (2g) 50% -42
Florida StateACC #14 / 137 79.4 1-1 (2g) 50% -40
ClemsonACC #15 / 137 79.1 1-1 (2g) 50% -40
Western KentuckyC-USA #89 / 137 67.0 0-2 (2g) 0% -35
TCUBig 12 #21 / 137 75.5 1-1 (2g) 50% -35
WisconsinBig Ten #23 / 137 75.0 1-1 (2g) 50% -34
BaylorBig 12 #25 / 137 74.4 1-1 (2g) 50% -32
Washington StatePac-12 #93 / 137 66.2 0-2 (2g) 0% -32
UCFBig 12 #30 / 137 73.9 1-1 (2g) 50% -29
KentuckySEC #33 / 137 73.7 1-1 (2g) 50% -26
StanfordACC #35 / 137 73.4 1-1 (2g) 50% -25
Texas StateSun Belt #109 / 137 64.9 0-2 (2g) 0% -21
Utah StatePac-12 #111 / 137 64.8 0-2 (2g) 0% -19
Boston CollegeACC #44 / 137 72.3 1-1 (2g) 50% -18
LouisvilleACC #46 / 137 72.2 1-1 (2g) 50% -17
ArizonaBig 12 #48 / 137 71.9 1-1 (2g) 50% -15
Sam HoustonC-USA #116 / 137 64.3 0-2 (2g) 0% -15
Oklahoma StateBig 12 #49 / 137 71.8 1-1 (2g) 50% -15
KansasBig 12 #51 / 137 71.6 1-1 (2g) 50% -13
MinnesotaBig Ten #52 / 137 71.5 1-1 (2g) 50% -12
Iowa StateBig 12 #53 / 137 71.5 1-1 (2g) 50% -12
Bowling GreenMAC #122 / 137 63.1 0-2 (2g) 0% -11
SyracuseACC #55 / 137 71.5 1-1 (2g) 50% -10
ArkansasSEC #56 / 137 71.3 1-1 (2g) 50% -10
Arizona StateBig 12 #57 / 137 71.0 1-1 (2g) 50% -9
Northern IllinoisMountain West #125 / 137 62.7 0-2 (2g) 0% -9
TulaneAAC #59 / 137 70.8 1-1 (2g) 50% -7
NC StateACC #60 / 137 70.8 1-1 (2g) 50% -7
Jacksonville StateC-USA #84 / 137 68.0 1-2 (3g) 33% -6
National talent rank is across all 129 FBS programs with a composite this season · record is regular season from game results · gap = win% minus the talent-rank percentile, in points · a frequency and a direction, never a pick or a bet.

This is talent intelligence, not a betting edge. The recruiting composite does not beat the spread · we tested it and it lands near a coin flip against the number in every bucket. What it does do is show where a roster's talent and its record pulled apart, and that gap tends to regress. Every number ships with its sample (games behind the record, programs behind the rank). Research, not advice.