8-4 or 7-5

Reloading on the oline will hurt

We lose to LSU OU Bama and tu

Maybe a loss to a random miss or other random game

ElephantRider said:

---

8-4 with losses to LSU, Bama, OU, and tu

Give all the money to volleyball

---

I agree with losses to LSU, Alabama, and Oklahoma, and I think the home game against Texas will mean the difference between 8-4 or 9-3. Hopefully, we can snap a 3-game losing streak to Texas and beat Texas for the first time since 2010 and at Kyle Field for the first time since 2007. I am predicting a win over Texas.

If we don't get 3 solid starters on the OL, we're 7-5.

Floor is 10 Wins.
Ceiling is undefeated.

infinity ag said:

---

Coaches will come and go. Players will come and go. So who really knows what will happen? I don't have a crystal ball either.

We had an easy schedule in 2025, it won't be that easy in 2026.

But I thought it would be fun to make a prediction on 2026 based on what we know today. I will bump it up same time next year so see how I did. Everyone, post your predictions too.

W-L = 10-2.
I think we will NOT make the playoff but the team will be a stronger and better coached one with a bright 2027.

2026 Predictions.

Quote:

---

Sept. 5: vs. Missouri State - WIN

Sept. 12: vs. Arizona State - WIN

Sept. 19: vs. Kentucky - WIN

Sept. 26: at LSU - WIN

Oct. 3: vs. Arkansas - WIN

Oct. 10: at Missouri - WIN

Oct. 17: vs. Citadel - WIN

Oct. 24: at Alabama - LOSS

Oct. 31: OFF

Nov. 7: at South Carolina - WIN

Nov. 14: vs. Tennessee - WIN

Nov. 21: at Oklahoma - LOSS

Nov. 27: vs. Texas - WIN (but not very confident)

---

---

Given the players we are losing and the turnover with the coaching staff and the much harder schedule we are not going 10-2. Maybe 8-4 but not 10-2.

Dont sleep on ASU. Dilly is no joke.

No way we win 8 games next year.

I see 4-7 right now. We'll see what happens in the portal, but we have no OL, subpar backs, and an inaccurate QB. DL, LB's will be depleted. Secondary could be decent.

Only reason a 10-2 team (Vandy) didn't make it was because we had 6 10-win teams. That is just not going to happen now that everyone is playing 9 sec games.

Sec will get 5 in nearly every year, and a 10-win sec team is 99% sure to make it moving forward.

Most years, it would be shocking if we had 5 10-win teams, let alone 6 like this year.

SABUILDERAG said:

---

I see 4-7 right now. We'll see what happens in the portal, but we have no OL, subpar backs, and an inaccurate QB. DL, LB's will be depleted. Secondary could be decent.

---

Lol. Okay. I'll take that bet. Ready to make it? We go 6-6 or better. 10k right now?

That's giving you 1.5 more games than you currently predict. Seems like a no brainer for you.

No way, huh?

You have seen our roster? You have seen our opponents rosters?

Anyone predicting any record right now with a straight face is being ridiculous.

Tech has 11 first year transfers starting.

Ole Miss has 11 first year transfers starting and 21 total in their two deep.

Oregon has 8.

Indiana has 9.

Miami has 10.

Bama doesn't have a lot of transfers but does have 3 true freshmen starting.

Georgia doesn't have a lot of transfers, but has 10 first year starters out of their starting 22.

Ohio State looks like the best starting lineup in the field on paper but still has 7 true freshmen in their two deep

Those of you acting like the current playoff teams have perfect rosters and didn't experience tons of turnover last year, many of which going into the portal needing a ton of pieces, are completely ignoring reality of today's college football landscape. The best roster managers (and I have zero reason to doubt Elko here) will have the better team's year in and year out. I don't know if we will do enough in the portal to be a 10/11 win team and make the playoffs. It will take a very good offseason. But I have no doubts we will be serious players to upgrade our roster this January.

The vast majority of our opponents next year will experience high turnover. Just like most teams will most years moving forward. Trying to make any reasonable prediction before even seeing how things shake out is ridiculous.

See post above. Yes, there is South Carolina (who pales in comparison to our portal/nil funding we will have this year)

But there's also 6 of 8 playoff teams that had a ton of turnover in their lineup this past offseason. 5 of the 8 teams (and 8 of 12 overall in the playoff) went heavy portal this offseason. Including a couple of the sec schools. I still think some of you have failed to adjust to this new portal world. MOST teams are going to have a lot of turnover every offseason, including a ton of the teams we play.

We are much more comparable to Oregon, Tech, Ole Miss, etc., in terms of what we are willing to do in the portal than we are South Carolina. And actually, probably even more so than two of those schools. No guarantees that matters. But it sure does increase your chances.

Time will tell how successful it is.

rootube said:

---

If we finish 10-2 and our only losses are to Bama and OU we are going to the playoffs. So I guess you are pretty high on our team.

---

Vandy says Hello!
This year busted the myth of any team in the SEC going 10-2 being an absolute shoe-in for the playoffs. With these mega conferences and everyone not playing each other, to ensure a spot I think 11-1 is now necessary. We just saw an 11-1 team at 7th. That's a long way down the list for a 1 loss SEC team.

I like the way you think. Embrace the future. Cheers and Gig 'em again!!

9 game sec schedule says hello. It will be dang near mathematically impossible to have 6 ten win teams.

Moving forward, 10-2 is a virtual lock. I'd say at least 95% chance, if not 99%. But 10-2 against these schedules will get you in basically every time.

Most years there will be 4-5 ten win teams as opposed to 6 like this year.

beerad12man already explained why Vandy was left out. I think we can all agree that Vandy was hosed by the inclusion of the G5 schools in the playoffs. Vandy belonged more than those schools did.

Going forward with the 9 game schedule in the SEC there are a bunch more losses that will be distributed to SEC teams. Math says the likelihood of undefeated SEC teams going forward are near zero. This isn't the Big 10 and 12 which have cupcakes in the mid to lower tier of the conference. A 2 loss SEC team will rank high in every metric. This year we had 4 7-1 SEC teams. That's just not going to happen anymore with the extra game. More like 1 8-1 and 2 7-2 teams.

Now whether the committee respects any of this is yet to be seen. The CFP has to be aware that stiffing the SEC on playoff teams with this scheduling change could result in the implosion of the CFP. The CFP needs the SEC more than than SEC needs the CFP.

Gotta see how the portal shakes out but we have to replace a LOT of talent and the schedule is much tougher next year. Also I agree with the people that Reed needs competition at QB. He is good but man did he devolve down the stretch (and that may have been from better competition) but regardless he doesn't seem like the guy who can lead you to a title right now

This year ended badly, but before the season we were supposed to be 8-4, 7-5 and ended up 11-2 and it sucked the way it ended. Elko is changing this culture let's see what he can do next season. I'm the same way but dam most of this season was great but we do have gaps and a talented roster and we'll no doubt add talent via the portal. We have a ton of spring enrollees.
Let's tap the brakes for a bit.

Win - Missouri State, Arizona State, Kentucky, Arkansas, Citadel

Tossup - Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee

Loss - LSU, Alabama, OU, Texas

tu struggled with youth this year, I think they will spend next year looking a lot like the team that beat us. Obviously, it's too early to know how some teams like Arkansas, UT, or USCe will do in the portal but that will affect things.

8-4

Sept. 5: vs. Missouri State - WIN

Sept. 12: vs. Arizona State - WIN

Sept. 19: vs. Kentucky - WIN

Sept. 26: at LSU - LOSS

Oct. 3: vs. Arkansas - WIN

Oct. 10: at Missouri - WIN

Oct. 17: vs. Citadel - WIN

Oct. 24: at Alabama - LOSS

Oct. 31: OFF

Nov. 7: at South Carolina - WIN

Nov. 14: vs. Tennessee - WIN

Nov. 21: at Oklahoma - LOSS

Nov. 27: vs. Texas - LOSS

zooguy96 said:

---

The SEC teams we beat this year were a combined 12-44 in SEC play. That's horrible.

That's the only reason we won 11 games. We were a paper tiger.

---

There is some truth to this and it played into us being overrated, but I do think that just parroting that narrative has become a bit tired. I think a few of the teams we beat were better than their records showed and a number of squads were still littered with NFL talent. It is not like we were playing Kansas, Toledo, and the Mississippi School for the Deaf Blind and Dumb week in and week out.

We beat Notre Dame, they were objectively a very very good team and were likely better than most of the teams in the CFP field.

Missouri was a good team. Three of their four losses came to playoff teams, their loss to a non-playoff team was Vandy who almost got in, Mizzou also lost their QB in that game. They lost to Bama by three, Vandy by seven, OU by 11, and they lost at home to us by 21.

Auburn had horrible QB play, fired their coach, and finished 5-7. They were better than their record showed. They lost to OU by a touchdown in a game the refs HOSED them in. They lost to us by six. They lost to UGA by 10. They lost to Vandy by seven. They lost to Bama by seven. Their lone loss to a non-contender was Kentucky by a TD.

LSU lost five games. Four of their five losses came to CFP teams. The lone non-CFP team loss was to Vanderbilt. All of their losses were one-score games except for the Bama game (that they lost by 11) and our game where they lost by 24.

I'm reserving my opinion until all of the NIL/Portal auctions are over and I see what our replacement stock looks like.

Zachary Klement said:

---

zooguy96 said:

---

The SEC teams we beat this year were a combined 12-44 in SEC play. That's horrible.

That's the only reason we won 11 games. We were a paper tiger.

---

There is some truth to this and it played into us being overrated, but I do think that just parroting that narrative has become a bit tired. I think a few of the teams we beat were better than their records showed and a number of squads were still littered with NFL talent. It is not like we were playing Kansas, Toledo, and the Mississippi School for the Deaf Blind and Dumb week in and week out.

We beat Notre Dame, they were objectively a very very good team and were likely better than most of the teams in the CFP field.

Missouri was a good team. Three of their four losses came to playoff teams, their loss to a non-playoff team was Vandy who almost got in, Mizzou also lost their QB in that game. They lost to Bama by three, Vandy by seven, OU by 11, and they lost at home to us by 21.

Auburn had horrible QB play, fired their coach, and finished 5-7. They were better than their record showed. They lost to OU by a touchdown in a game the refs HOSED them in. They lost to us by six. They lost to UGA by 10. They lost to Vandy by seven. They lost to Bama by seven. Their lone loss to a non-contender was Kentucky by a TD.

LSU lost five games. Four of their five losses came to CFP teams. The lone non-CFP team loss was to Vanderbilt. All of their losses were one-score games except for the Bama game (that they lost by 11) and our game where they lost by 24.

---

I respectfully disagree.

Missouri wasn't very good when we played them; they were starting their third string quarterback, who couldn't throw a forward pass. They're two running back, still went for 100 yards each despite not being able to throw the ball.

Auburn; also a quarterback, who couldn't throw a forward pass when we played them.

I concede LSU as a reasonable win.

We still played a bunch of bad teams.

zooguy96 said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

zooguy96 said:

---

The SEC teams we beat this year were a combined 12-44 in SEC play. That's horrible.

That's the only reason we won 11 games. We were a paper tiger.

---

There is some truth to this and it played into us being overrated, but I do think that just parroting that narrative has become a bit tired. I think a few of the teams we beat were better than their records showed and a number of squads were still littered with NFL talent. It is not like we were playing Kansas, Toledo, and the Mississippi School for the Deaf Blind and Dumb week in and week out.

We beat Notre Dame, they were objectively a very very good team and were likely better than most of the teams in the CFP field.

Missouri was a good team. Three of their four losses came to playoff teams, their loss to a non-playoff team was Vandy who almost got in, Mizzou also lost their QB in that game. They lost to Bama by three, Vandy by seven, OU by 11, and they lost at home to us by 21.

Auburn had horrible QB play, fired their coach, and finished 5-7. They were better than their record showed. They lost to OU by a touchdown in a game the refs HOSED them in. They lost to us by six. They lost to UGA by 10. They lost to Vandy by seven. They lost to Bama by seven. Their lone loss to a non-contender was Kentucky by a TD.

LSU lost five games. Four of their five losses came to CFP teams. The lone non-CFP team loss was to Vanderbilt. All of their losses were one-score games except for the Bama game (that they lost by 11) and our game where they lost by 24.

---

I respectfully disagree.

Missouri wasn't very good when we played them; they were starting their third string quarterback, who couldn't throw a forward pass. They're two running back, still went for 100 yards each despite not being able to throw the ball.

Auburn; also a quarterback, who couldn't throw a forward pass when we played them.

I concede LSU as a reasonable win.

We still played a bunch of bad teams.

---

I am not saying any of those teams were great teams, I just think that they were a bit better than their records showed.

I think things can go both ways, we weren't necessarily as good as our record may have implied, but some of the teams we beat were not necessarily as bad as their record implied.

You're 100% correct.

It's overplayed. It helped. But in most years it would equate to about a game. So if you want to say we likely go 10-2, so be it.

There's a reason it was still a top 20 strength of schedule based on every advanced metric and we were 3rd in SOR. The computers know what we did.

We were not elite, but we were damn good. Our schedule was not elite, but it was also still better than the national narrative leads you to believe.

We were a top 8-12 team this year by every metric. All the advanced metrics have us between 8-11. Sagarin, Massey, espn fei, bcftoys

We weren't a top 3-4 team like we hoped after starting 11-0. So that's the disappointment.

zooguy96 said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

zooguy96 said:

---

The SEC teams we beat this year were a combined 12-44 in SEC play. That's horrible.

That's the only reason we won 11 games. We were a paper tiger.

---

There is some truth to this and it played into us being overrated, but I do think that just parroting that narrative has become a bit tired. I think a few of the teams we beat were better than their records showed and a number of squads were still littered with NFL talent. It is not like we were playing Kansas, Toledo, and the Mississippi School for the Deaf Blind and Dumb week in and week out.

We beat Notre Dame, they were objectively a very very good team and were likely better than most of the teams in the CFP field.

Missouri was a good team. Three of their four losses came to playoff teams, their loss to a non-playoff team was Vandy who almost got in, Mizzou also lost their QB in that game. They lost to Bama by three, Vandy by seven, OU by 11, and they lost at home to us by 21.

Auburn had horrible QB play, fired their coach, and finished 5-7. They were better than their record showed. They lost to OU by a touchdown in a game the refs HOSED them in. They lost to us by six. They lost to UGA by 10. They lost to Vandy by seven. They lost to Bama by seven. Their lone loss to a non-contender was Kentucky by a TD.

LSU lost five games. Four of their five losses came to CFP teams. The lone non-CFP team loss was to Vanderbilt. All of their losses were one-score games except for the Bama game (that they lost by 11) and our game where they lost by 24.

---

I respectfully disagree.

Missouri wasn't very good when we played them; they were starting their third string quarterback, who couldn't throw a forward pass. They're two running back, still went for 100 yards each despite not being able to throw the ball.

Auburn; also a quarterback, who couldn't throw a forward pass when we played them.

I concede LSU as a reasonable win.

We still played a bunch of bad teams.

---

Stop looking at record.

What was the offense rank of each team we played? Defense?

Now compare to Ohio State, Indiana, Oregon, and Tech.

Here's defnesive rank by yards per play.



We played 2 top 25 defenses, 4 in the top 30, and 6 in the top 40. That's half our schedule.

Tech played 1 top 30 and 3 in the top 40. They literally had the equivalent of 3 more "easy games" than we did.

Indiana played 2 in the top 10 before playing Ohio State in the championship. That's it. 2 games in the regular season against top 40 defenses. 4 more "easy" games than we had.

Ohio state played 2 top 20. That's it. 2 games in the regular season against top 40 defenses. 4 more "easy" games than we had.

Oregon played 1 top 10, 2 in the top 15, and 4 in the top 20. Two more easy games than we had.

And it's arguable that those Big 10 defensive ranks are inflated from playing the terrible offenses from the bottom 2/3 of the Big 10 who would struggle to compete in the ACC.

Narratives are easy to adopt when you are miserable and pessimistic. Facts, again, as always, show that an SEC schedule is significantly harder than a "hard" Big 10 schedule and ANY schedule the Big 12 can muster up.

I feel like people are really underrating how hard it is to beat every bad and mediocre team you play in a given season. It's not like the 4 losses in all those 8-4 seasons were all to certified world-beaters.

Hahahahaha I love the 'but not very confident' caveat for just Texas.

There's also the chance that the schedule isn't as bad as it looks- there's always a few teams that you expect to be good coming in that turn out to fall apart. Maybe it's us, but maybe OU or Alabama or Tennessee or Texas turn out just to be okay (again). Maybe LSU isn't a world-beater in year 1 under Lane. I don't think many people would've looked at our schedule going into this season and said "this is an ultra-soft conference slate."

njohn87 said:

---

There's also the chance that the schedule isn't as bad as it looks- there's always a few teams that you expect to be good coming in that turn out to fall apart. Maybe it's us, but maybe OU or Alabama or Tennessee or Texas turn out just to be okay (again). Maybe LSU isn't a world-beater in year 1 under Lane. I don't think many people would've looked at our schedule going into this season and said "this is an ultra-soft conference slate."

---

They literally all picked us to go no better than 8-4. Let them whine and wallow in their wrongness.

I love all of these predictions stating matter of factly "X wins is the ceiling" or "we will lose to x,y,z team" when we dont even know what our team, nor the competition will look like next year. Guys, hold your breath for a sec and at least wait for the first round of the portal, because right now everything is a wild ass guess.

I see 10-2

upside 12-0
downside 8-4


biggest issue is rebuilding offensive and defensive lines

njohn87 said:

---

I feel like people are really underrating how hard it is to beat every bad and mediocre team you play in a given season. It's not like the 4 losses in all those 8-4 seasons were all to certified world-beaters.

---

This.

It's harder to start 11-0 against that schedule than it would be to start 9-2 even if you swapped out miss state and Auburn for Georgia and bama and had a top 5 schedule

Next year, our goal (realistically, obviously optimistic goal is to go 16-0) should be to start 9-2, and have a shot at a playofff birth come the last day of the season against Texas at Kyle. We are 0-2 in the last home game of the year. Hopefully 3rd times a charm should that happen.

Too early to say, it all comes down to what elko does in the portal. We lose a lot of experience, so hes gonna need to reload

I'm not too worried about turnover on the defensive side of the ball; Elko & Co. have proven to be really strong talent developers with those guys.