Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Sports

Updated All-Time AP Football Polls by Program and Year

Published

on


  By SuperWest Sports Staff


The Associated Press (AP) Football Poll has run continuously since 1936. Up to 1960, the poll ranked only 20 teams. From 1961 to 1967, it was reduced to just the Top 10.

The Poll returned to ranking the Top 20 teams in 1968, retaining that format through 1988. In 1989, it was expanded to the Top 25 and has not altered its count since.

Initially, AP did not conduct a preseason poll, adding it in 1950.

Advertisement

Through 1968, except for the 1965 poll, AP crowned its national football champion after the regular season, before the bowl games were played.

That changed in 1964, when the regular-season AP champ, Alabama, lost the Orange Bowl to Texas.

Consequently, the news organization made plans to hold its poll after the bowl season, beginning in 1967, to award its national title.

Below you will find tables for the top football programs in the West, including:

Advertisement
  • The years in which they have appeared in the AP Poll
  • The number of appearances for each season
  • The percentage of the season in which they were ranked
  • Their high and low rankings for each year
  • Their preseason and final rankings, if any

Following those lists is a table with the total number of polls each program has appeared in its history.

USC leads the way in that category, having missed just five of the 90 all-time polls (as of the 2025 Final Poll).

Air Force
Season App Pct Pre High Low Final
2023 3 19% NR 17 22 NR
2019 3 18% NR 22 25 22
2010 2 13% NR 23 25 NR
2002 3 17% NR 18 22 NR
1999 1 6% NR 24 24 NR
1998 8 50% NR 13 25 13
1997 6 33% NR 18 24 NR
1995 1 6% NR 21 21 NR
1991 1 6% NR 25 25 25
1989 4 24% NR 17 24 NR
1985 13 76% NR 4 19 8
1983 4 25% NR 13 18 13
1972 4 27% NR 16 19 NR
1971 2 13% NR 18 20 NR
1970 13 87% NR 7 20 16
1969 4 29% NR 19 20 NR
1959 5 38% 15 15 18 NR
1958 7 58% NR 6 14 6

*Air Force has been ranked in 18 out of 90 polls.


Arizona football Pac-12Arizona
Year App Pct Pre High Low Final
2025 2 12% NR 21 22 NR
2024 3 18% 21 20 21 NR
2023 6 38% NR 11 23 11
2017 1 6% NR 23 23 NR
2015 4 25% 22 16 22 NR
2014 11 65% NR 8 21 19
2012 3 19% NR 22 24 NR
2010 11 69% NR 9 24 NR
2009 4 25% NR 18 23 NR
2000 3 18% NR 21 24 NR
1999 4 24% 4 4 19 NR
1998 16 100% 24 4 24 4
1995 5 29% 19 17 25 NR
1994 17 100% 7 6 20 20
1993 17 100% 14 7 19 10
1992 8 47% NR 9 23 NR
1990 7 44% NR 16 25 NR
1989 9 53% 18 15 25 25
1986 13 87% NR 10 17 11
1983 8 50% 14 3 19 NR
1975 15 100% 16 11 18 18
1974 9 60% 17 9 19 NR
1973 2 13% NR 19 19 NR
1968 1 7% NR 19 19 NR

*Arizona has been ranked in 24 out of 90 polls.


Arizona State
Year App Pct Pre High Low Final
2025 5 29% 11 11 25 NR
2024 5 29% NR 7 21 7
2021 5 31% 25 18 25 NR
2019 5 29% NR 17 24 NR
2018 1 6% NR 23 23 NR
2015 1 6% 15 15 15 NR
2014 16 94% 19 7 20 12
2013 10 59% NR 11 25 20
2011 7 44% NR 18 25 NR
2008 3 18% 15 15 15 NR
2007 12 75% NR 6 23 16
2006 4 25% 24 22 25 NR
2005 6 38% 20 14 20 NR
2004 13 81% NR 15 23 19
2003 4 24% 22 16 22 NR
2002 3 17% NR 16 25 NR
1999 4 24% 25 22 25 NR
1998 2 13% 8 8 14 NR
1997 13 72% NR 12 25 14
1996 18 100% 20 2 20 4
1993 1 6% NR 23 23 NR
1991 2 13% NR 24 25 NR
1990 3 19% NR 21 25 NR
1987 7 44% 14 12 20 20
1986 13 87% NR 4 18 4
1984 2 13% 13 12 13 NR
1983 4 25% NR 13 20 NR
1982 16 100% 19 3 19 6
1981 13 87% 20 9 20 16
1980 1 6% NR 20 20 NR
1979 1 7% 18 18 18 NR
1978 2 13% NR 12 14 NR
1977 8 57% 17 12 20 18
1976 2 14% 3 3 18 NR
1975 13 87% NR 2 18 2
1974 10 67% 15 7 18 NR
1973 15 100% 14 8 14 9
1972 12 80% 12 10 19 13
1971 15 100% 14 8 16 8
1970 14 93% 19 6 20 6
1969 1 7% NR 18 18 NR
1968 5 36% 17 14 20 NR
1960 1 8% NR 18 18 NR
1957 3 25% NR 11 17 12

*Arizona State has been ranked in 44 out of 90 polls.


Boise State
Season App Pct Pre High Low Final
2025 1 6% 25 25 25 NR
2024 13 76% NR 8 25 8
2020 2 12% NR 21 25 NR
2019 16 94% NR 14 24 23
2018 8 50% 22 17 23 23
2017 3 19% NR 22 25 22
2016 9 56% NR 13 24 NR
2015 4 25% 23 20 25 NR
2014 4 24% NR 16 25 16
2013 1 6% 19 19 19 NR
2012 10 63% 24 18 25 18
2011 16 100% 5 4 10 8
2010 16 100% 3 2 10 9
2009 16 100% 14 4 14 4
2008 13 76% NR 9 19 11
2007 8 50% 24 17 24 NR
2006 13 81% NR 5 25 5
2005 1 6% 18 18 18 NR
2004 14 88% NR 10 23 12
2003 6 35% NR 16 24 16
2002 5 28% NR 15 23 15

*Boise State has been ranked in 21 out of 90 polls.


BYU
Season App Pct Pre High Low Final
2025 13 76% NR 8 25 11
2024 13 76% NR 7 22 13
2022 6 38% 25 12 25 NR
2021 13 81% NR 10 25 19
2020 16 94% NR 8 22 11
2018 2 13% NR 20 25 NR
2015 2 13% NR 19 22 NR
2014 4 24% NR 18 25 NR
2012 1 6% NR 25 25 NR
2009 15 94% 20 7 25 12
2008 17 100% 16 8 25 25
2007 4 25% NR 14 23 14
2006 6 38% NR 16 25 16
2001 14 82% NR 8 25 25
1999 9 53% NR 15 25 NR
1997 6 33% 19 19 24 NR
1996 16 89% NR 5 24 5
1994 10 59% NR 18 25 18
1993 7 41% 19 19 21 NR
1992 5 29% 24 24 25 NR
1991 4 25% 19 19 25 23
1990 16 100% 16 4 22 22
1989 13 76% 19 18 25 22
1988 1 6% NR 20 20 NR
1986 3 20% 18 11 18 NR
1985 17 100% 10 7 18 16
1984 15 94% NR 1 13 1
1983 11 69% NR 7 20 7
1981 12 80% 16 8 18 13
1980 9 56% NR 12 19 12
1979 11 73% NR 9 20 13
1977 12 86% NR 13 20 20
1974 2 13% NR 17 20 NR

*BYU has been ranked in 33 out of 90 polls.


California
Year App Pct Pre High Low Final
2019 2 12% NR 15 23 NR
2018 1 6% NR 24 24 NR
2015 4 25% NR 20 24 NR
2009 8 50% 12 6 24 NR
2008 3 18% NR 21 25 NR
2007 10 63% 12 2 24 NR
2006 16 100% 9 8 22 14
2005 11 69% 19 10 25 25
2004 16 100% 12 4 12 9
2002 1 6% NR 23 23 NR
1996 2 11% NR 19 21 NR
1993 6 35% NR 16 25 25
1992 4 24% 20 17 24 NR
1991 13 81% NR 6 24 8
1977 5 36% NR 14 20 NR
1976 1 7% 15 15 15 NR
1975 6 40% NR 11 18 14
1974 4 27% NR 18 20 NR
1968 7 50% NR 8 18 NR
1958 3 25% NR 16 19 16
1954 3 25% 12 12 18 NR
1953 2 18% 14 14 16 NR
1952 6 55% 8 3 11 NR
1951 11 100% 5 1 19 12
1950 10 100% 14 4 14 5
1949 9 100% NA 2 10 3
1948 9 100% NA 4 9 4
1947 10 100% NA 4 15 15
1944 1 11% NA 12 12 NR
1943 1 11% NA 20 20 NR
1938 8 100% NA 3 14 14
1937 7 100% NA 1 2 2

*Cal has been ranked in 32 out of 90 polls.


Colorado
Year App Pct Pre High Low Final
2024 8 47% NR 16 25 25
2023 3 19% NR 18 22 NR
2020 1 6% NR 21 21 NR
2018 2 13% NR 19 21 NR
2016 9 56% NR 9 23 17
2005 3 19% NR 22 25 NR
2003 2 12% NR 17 24 NR
2002 14 78% 7 7 23 20
2001 11 65% NR 3 25 9
2000 2 12% 24 23 24 NR
1999 2 12% 15 14 15 NR
1998 8 50% NR 14 24 NR
1997 8 44% 8 8 24 NR
1996 18 100% 5 5 12 8
1995 17 100% 13 4 14 5
1994 17 100% 8 2 8 3
1993 17 100% 11 7 23 16
1992 17 100% 12 7 16 13
1991 16 100% 13 12 25 20
1990 16 100% 5 1 20 1
1989 17 100% 14 1 14 4
1988 1 6% NR 19 19 NR
1978 4 27% NR 13 19 NR
1977 8 57% 12 3 15 NR
1976 7 50% NR 12 19 16
1975 11 73% NR 9 19 16
1973 7 47% 11 10 19 NR
1972 15 100% 2 2 16 16
1971 14 93% NR 3 13 3
1970 6 40% NR 8 19 NR
1969 2 14% NR 16 18 16
1967 8 67% 10 3 10 NR
1961 8 67% NR 6 10 7
1960 1 8% NR 18 18 NR
1958 3 25% NR 9 19 NR
1957 1 8% NR 18 18 NR
1956 4 33% NR 18 20 20
1955 2 17% NR 14 20 NR
1954 2 17% NR 11 17 NR
1937 4 57% NA 16 17 17

*Colorado has been ranked in 40 out of 90 polls.

Colorado State
Season App Pct Pre High Low Final
2014 3 18% NR 21 23 NR
2003 1 6% 23 23 23 NR
2002 11 61% NR 16 25 NR
2001 2 12% 24 24 24 NR
2000 3 18% NR 14 23 14
1999 2 12% NR 23 24 NR
1998 1 6% 15 15 15 NR
1997 8 44% NR 17 25 17
1994 12 71% NR 10 24 16

*Colorado State has been ranked in 9 out of 90 polls.


Fresno State
Year App Pct Pre High Low Final
2023 2 13% NR 24 25 NR
2022 1 6% NR 24 24 24
2021 3 19% NR 18 25 NR
2018 5 31% NR 16 25 18
2017 1 6% NR 25 25 NR
2013 12 71% NR 15 25 NR
2008 5 29% NR 21 25 NR
2005 10 63% 24 16 24 NR
2004 4 25% NR 17 22 22
2001 11 65% NR 8 23 NR
1993 2 12% NR 25 25 NR
1992 1 6% NR 24 24 24
1991 1 6% NR 25 25 NR
1990 2 13% NR 24 24 NR
1989 3 18% NR 23 25 NR
1986 1 7% NR 19 19 NR
1942 1 13% NR 18 18 NR

*Fresno State has been ranked in 17 out of 90 polls.

Hawai’i
Season App Pct Pre High Low Final
2010 2 13% NR 24 25 NR
2007 16 100% 23 10 24 19
2006 2 13% NR 24 25 NR
1992 2 12% NR 20 24 20
1989 5 29% NR 23 25 NR
1981 1 7% NR 19 19 NR

*Hawai’i has been ranked in 6 out of 90 polls.

Nevada
Season App Pct Pre High Low Final
2010 10 63% NR 11 25 11
1948 6 67% N/A 10 19 NR

*Nevada has been ranked in 2 out of 90 polls.

New Mexico

No appearances.


Oregon Ducks Logo Pac-12Oregon
Year App Pct Pre High Low Final
2025 17 100% 7 2 8 4
2024 17 100% 3 1 9 3
2023 16 100% 15 5 15 6
2022 15 94% 11 6 25 15
2021 16 100% 11 3 22 22
2020 12 71% 9 9 25 NR
2019 17 100% 11 5 16 5
2018 9 56% 24 12 24 NR
2017 1 6% NR 24 24 NR
2016 3 19% 24 22 24 NR
2015 9 56% 7 7 23 19
2014 17 100% 3 2 12 2
2013 17 100% 3 2 12 9
2012 16 100% 5 1 6 2
2011 16 100% 3 3 13 4
2010 16 100% 11 1 11 3
2009 13 81% 16 7 16 11
2008 11 65% 21 10 24 10
2007 13 81% NR 2 23 23
2006 11 69% 21 11 25 NR
2005 12 75% NR 6 25 12
2004 2 13% 23 23 24 NR
2003 3 18% NR 10 22 NR
2002 13 72% 15 6 23 NR
2001 17 100% 7 2 11 2
2000 12 71% NR 5 20 7
1999 2 12% NR 19 25 19
1998 14 88% NR 11 24 NR
1996 1 6% NR 25 25 NR
1995 15 88% NR 10 24 18
1994 7 41% NR 11 21 11
1990 5 31% NR 19 25 NR
1989 2 12% NR 22 23 NR
1988 3 18% NR 18 20 NR
1987 1 6% NR 16 16 NR
1970 2 13% NR 16 19 NR
1964 2 18% NR 7 10 NR
1960 1 8% NR 19 19 NR
1959 5 38% NR 11 16 NR
1958 2 17% NR 14 15 NR
1957 5 42% NR 13 18 NR
1956 1 8% NR 18 18 NR
1954 2 17% 18 16 18 NR
1948 6 67% NA 9 16 9
1946 1 11% NA 19 19 NR
1941 1 13% NA 16 16 NR
1939 1 11% NA 11 11 NR

*Oregon has been ranked in 47 out of 90 polls.


Oregon State
Year App Pct Pre High Low Final
2023 15 94% 18 10 21 NR
2022 6 38% NR 16 25 17
2013 1 6% 25 25 25 NR
2012 12 75% NR 7 20 20
2010 4 25% 24 24 25 NR
2009 4 25% NR 13 20 NR
2008 6 35% NR 17 25 18
2007 1 6% NR 25 25 25
2006 2 13% NR 21 24 21
2003 2 12% NR 22 24 NR
2002 1 6% NR 23 23 NR
2001 5 29% 11 10 22 NR
2000 11 65% NR 4 23 4
1968 10 71% 6 6 20 15
1967 3 25% NR 7 8 7
1964 3 27% NR 8 8 8
1960 4 33% NR 10 18 NR
1958 1 8% 12 12 12 NR
1957 6 50% 13 7 19 NR
1956 6 50% NR 10 17 10
1955 1 8% NR 19 19 NR
1951 2 18% NR 15 18 NR
1941 5 63% NA 12 18 12
1940 2 25% NA 18 19 NR
1939 3 33% NA 11 19 NR

*Oregon State has been ranked in 25 out of 90 polls.


San Diego State
Season App Pct Pre High Low Final
2021 8 50% NR 19 25 25
2019 2 12% NR 24 25 NR
2017 4 25% NR 19 22 NR
2016 4 25% NR 19 25 25
1995 1 6% NR 25 25 NR
1992 2 12% NR 21 23 NR
1977 3 21% NR 16 16 16
1975 2 13% NR 13 18 NR
1974 1 7% NR 20 20 NR
1970 5 33% NR 14 17 NR

*San Diego State has been ranked in 10 out of 90 polls.

San Jose State
Season App Pct Pre High Low Final
2020 3 18% NR 19 25 24
2012 2 13% NR 21 24 21
1975 1 7% NR 20 20 NR
1939 2 22% N/A 18 19 NR

*San Jose State has been ranked in 4 out of 90 polls.


Stanford
Year App Pct Pre High Low Final
2019 2 12% 25 23 25 NR
2018 7 44% 13 7 24 NR
2017 12 75% 14 14 23 20
2016 9 56% 8 7 17 12
2015 14 88% 21 3 21 3
2014 8 47% 11 11 25 NR
2013 17 100% 4 4 13 11
2012 16 100% 21 7 25 7
2011 16 100% 7 3 8 7
2010 15 94% NR 4 25 4
2009 4 25% NR 14 25 NR
2001 11 65% NR 10 23 16
1999 2 12% NR 22 22 NR
1997 9 50% 18 16 25 NR
1995 4 24% NR 16 23 NR
1994 2 12% NR 24 25 NR
1993 5 29% 15 15 23 NR
1992 17 100% 17 8 21 9
1991 5 31% NR 17 22 22
1986 5 33% NR 16 20 NR
1981 2 13% 18 18 19 NR
1980 6 38% 15 11 20 NR
1979 1 7% 13 13 13 NR
1978 4 27% NR 17 20 17
1977 1 7% NR 15 15 15
1975 2 13% 20 18 20 NR
1974 2 13% NR 19 20 NR
1972 7 47% 20 13 20 NR
1971 15 100% 19 10 19 10
1970 15 100% 10 3 13 8
1969 13 93% 16 13 19 19
1968 2 14% NR 14 18 NR
1957 2 17% NR 16 17 NR
1956 4 33% 14 10 20 NR
1955 4 33% NR 16 20 16
1954 1 8% NR 17 17 NR
1953 7 64% NR 11 20 19
1952 2 18% 13 13 13 NR
1951 9 82% NR 3 19 7
1950 4 40% 7 6 8 NR
1949 3 33% NA 12 17 NR
1946 1 11% NA 17 17 NR
1942 2 25% NA 12 12 12
1941 5 63% NA 6 19 NR
1940 8 100% NA 2 10 2
1937 1 14% NA 13 13 NR

*Stanford has been ranked in 46 out of 90 polls.

UNLV
Season App Pct Pre High Low Final
2024 6 35% NR 19 25 23

*UNLV has been ranked in 1 out of 90 polls.


UCLA
Year App Pct Pre High Low Final
2023 6 38% NR 18 25 NR
2022 11 69% NR 9 21 21
2021 4 25% NR 13 24 NR
2017 1 6% NR 16 25 NR
2016 1 6% 16 16 16 NR
2015 11 69% 13 7 24 NR
2014 16 94% 7 7 25 10
2013 17 100% 21 9 22 16
2012 9 56% NR 15 25 NR
2008 1 6% NR 23 23 NR
2007 3 19% 14 11 14 NR
2005 13 81% NR 7 25 16
2002 3 17% NR 20 25 NR
2001 12 71% 17 4 20 NR
2000 7 41% NR 6 23 NR
1999 5 29% 16 14 21 NR
1998 16 100% 7 2 8 8
1997 14 78% NR 5 24 5
1995 7 41% 16 12 24 NR
1994 5 29% 14 13 18 NR
1993 11 65% NR 10 25 18
1992 7 41% 18 11 19 NR
1991 10 63% 24 19 25 19
1990 2 13% 19 19 19 NR
1989 6 35% 9 6 25 NR
1988 17 100% 5 1 9 6
1987 16 100% 3 3 13 9
1986 14 93% 4 4 19 14
1985 15 88% 20 7 20 7
1984 10 63% 5 4 19 9
1983 2 13% 20 17 20 17
1982 16 100% 20 5 20 5
1981 10 67% 13 6 19 NR
1980 13 81% NR 2 18 13
1979 2 13% NR 17 20 NR
1978 15 100% 12 8 18 14
1977 5 36% 11 11 20 NR
1976 14 100% 17 2 17 15
1975 13 87% 14 5 19 5
1974 4 27% 12 12 18 NR
1973 15 100% 10 8 18 12
1972 14 93% NR 6 15 15
1971 1 7% 15 15 15 NR
1970 10 67% 18 13 19 NR
1969 14 100% 17 6 17 13
1968 4 29% 16 8 16 NR
1967 11 92% 8 1 8 NR
1966 13 100% 4 2 8 5
1965 6 46% NR 4 8 4
1961 1 8% NR 9 9 NR
1960 8 67% NR 8 19 NR
1959 2 15% NR 17 20 NR
1957 2 17% NR 15 19 NR
1956 2 17% 17 17 19 NR
1955 12 100% 1 1 9 4
1954 12 100% 8 1 8 2
1953 11 100% 4 4 12 5
1952 11 100% 18 3 18 6
1951 3 27% NR 15 18 17
1950 4 40% NR 13 19 NR
1949 3 33% NA 13 20 NR
1947 6 60% NA 16 19 NR
1946 9 100% NA 4 5 4
1945 1 11% NA 12 12 NR
1942 7 88% NA 10 18 13
1939 7 78% NA 7 19 7

*UCLA has been ranked in 66 out of 90 polls.


usc logoUSC
Year App Pct Pre High Low Final
2025 11 65% NR 16 25 20
2024 6 35% 23 11 23 NR
2023 10 63% 6 5 24 NR
2022 16 100% 14 4 14 12
2021 2 13% 15 14 15 NR
2020 13 76% 17 13 25 21
2019 5 29% NR 21 25 NR
2018 3 19% 15 15 22 NR
2017 16 100% 4 4 21 12
2016 6 38% 20 3 20 3
2015 8 50% 8 6 24 NR
2014 11 65% 15 9 24 20
2013 5 29% 24 19 25 19
2012 12 75% 1 1 21 NR
2011 10 63% 25 5 25 6
2010 7 44% 14 14 24 NR
2009 15 94% 4 3 24 22
2008 17 100% 3 1 9 3
2007 16 100% 1 1 13 3
2006 16 100% 6 2 9 4
2005 16 100% 1 1 2 2
2004 16 100% 1 1 1 1
2003 17 100% 8 1 10 1
2002 18 100% 20 4 20 4
2000 7 41% 15 8 18 NR
1999 6 35% 19 16 22 NR
1998 5 31% NR 18 22 NR
1997 4 22% 22 22 23 NR
1996 7 39% 7 7 19 NR
1995 17 100% 7 5 18 12
1994 14 82% 17 13 25 13
1993 2 12% 18 18 22 NR
1992 12 71% NR 11 23 NR
1991 3 19% 16 16 22 NR
1990 16 100% 9 5 23 20
1989 17 100% 5 5 13 8
1988 17 100% 6 2 8 7
1987 5 31% 19 16 19 18
1986 9 60% NR 9 18 NR
1985 5 29% 6 3 18 NR
1984 11 69% NR 7 20 10
1983 4 25% 8 8 14 NR
1982 16 100% 10 10 19 15
1981 15 100% 5 1 14 14
1980 16 100% 4 2 17 11
1979 15 100% 1 1 4 2
1978 15 100% 9 2 9 2
1977 12 86% 4 1 20 13
1976 13 93% 8 2 19 2
1975 12 80% 5 3 17 17
1974 15 100% 5 2 18 2
1973 15 100% 1 1 9 8
1972 15 100% 8 1 8 1
1971 9 60% 5 5 20 20
1970 12 80% 3 3 18 15
1969 14 100% 5 3 7 3
1968 14 100% 2 1 4 4
1967 12 100% 7 1 7 1
1966 11 85% 9 5 10 NR
1965 11 85% 7 4 10 10
1964 2 18% NR 2 10 10
1963 4 31% 1 1 8 NR
1962 11 92% NR 1 9 1
1960 1 8% 6 6 6 NR
1959 12 92% NR 4 14 14
1957 1 8% 19 19 19 NR
1956 11 92% 15 6 20 18
1955 9 75% 13 9 16 13
1954 11 92% 17 7 17 17
1953 10 91% 8 7 20 NR
1952 11 100% 16 2 16 5
1951 8 73% NR 6 20 NR
1950 1 10% 12 12 12 NR
1949 6 67% NA 8 19 NR
1947 10 100% NA 3 20 8
1946 4 44% NA 10 16 NR
1945 5 56% NA 6 20 11
1944 7 78% NA 7 15 7
1943 6 67% NA 4 10 NR
1942 2 25% NA 14 16 NR
1940 2 25% NA 17 17 NR
1939 9 100% NA 1 8 3
1938 7 88% NA 7 19 7
1937 1 14% NA 11 11 NR
1936 4 57% NA 6 15 NR

*USC has been ranked in 85 out of 90 polls.


Utah
Year App Pct Pre High Low Final
2025 12 71% NR 13 25 14
2024 7 41% 12 10 18 NR
2023 12 75% 14 10 18 NR
2022 16 100% 7 7 20 10
2021 7 44% 24 10 24 12
2020 1 6% 22 22 22 NR
2019 17 100% 14 5 19 16
2018 6 38% NR 16 23 NR
2017 3 19% NR 20 23 NR
2016 11 69% NR 11 24 23
2015 14 88% NR 3 24 17
2014 10 59% NR 18 25 21
2010 14 88% NR 6 25 NR
2009 12 75% 19 16 24 18
2008 16 94% NR 2 22 2
2004 16 100% 20 4 20 4
2003 3 18% NR 21 25 21
1996 4 22% NR 20 24 NR
1994 11 65% NR 9 25 10
1947 1 10% NA 18 18 NR

*Utah has been ranked in 20 out of 90 polls.

Utah State
Season App Pct Pre High Low Final
2021 1 6% NR 24 24 24
2018 5 31% NR 14 22 22
2012 4 25% NR 16 25 16
1961 1 8% NR 10 10 10
1960 2 17% NR 18 19 NR

*Utah State has been ranked in 5 out of 90 polls.


Washington football pac-12Washington
Year App Pct Pre High Low Final
2025 1 6% NR 24 24 NR
2023 16 100% 10 2 10 2
2022 9 56% NR 8 24 8
2021 1 6% 20 20 20 NR
2020 1 6% NR 23 23 NR
2019 7 41% 13 13 25 NR
2018 15 94% 6 6 20 13
2017 16 100% 8 5 16 16
2016 16 100% 14 4 14 4
2014 1 6% 25 25 25 NR
2013 8 47% NR 15 25 25
2012 1 6% NR 23 23 NR
2011 1 6% NR 22 22 NR
2009 1 6% NR 24 24 NR
2003 6 35% 17 17 22 NR
2002 9 50% 9 9 22 NR
2001 17 100% 15 8 21 19
2000 17 100% 13 3 15 3
1999 1 6% NR 23 23 NR
1998 5 31% 18 9 20 NR
1997 18 100% 4 2 21 18
1996 14 78% NR 12 25 16
1995 16 94% 24 15 24 NR
1994 13 76% 23 9 25 NR
1993 11 65% 12 12 25 NR
1992 17 100% 2 1 11 11
1991 16 100% 4 2 4 2
1990 16 100% 20 2 22 5
1989 4 24% NR 11 23 23
1988 7 41% NR 16 20 NR
1987 5 31% 13 10 18 NR
1986 15 100% 16 6 18 18
1985 2 12% 12 12 12 NR
1984 16 100% 18 1 19 2
1983 12 75% 18 9 20 NR
1982 16 100% 2 1 13 7
1981 11 73% 15 10 18 10
1980 10 63% 20 13 20 16
1979 15 100% 15 6 20 11
1978 5 33% 11 11 20 NR
1977 4 29% NR 10 19 10
1972 8 53% 9 9 18 NR
1971 10 67% NR 11 20 19
1970 1 7% NR 20 20 NR
1964 2 18% 7 7 10 NR
1963 1 8% 10 10 10 NR
1962 6 50% 10 7 10 NR
1960 12 100% 3 3 13 6
1959 8 62% NR 8 18 8
1955 4 33% NR 12 19 NR
1952 1 9% NR 17 17 NR
1951 3 27% 8 8 20 NR
1950 8 80% NR 10 19 11
1945 2 22% NA 18 18 NR
1943 7 78% NA 11 19 12
1941 1 13% NA 20 20 NR
1940 8 100% NA 10 17 10
1937 1 14% NA 13 13 NR
1936 7 100% NA 4 10 5

*Washington has been ranked in 59 out of 90 polls.


Washington State
Year App Pct Pre High Low Final
2024 4 24% NR 19 25 NR
2023 5 31% NR 13 23 NR
2019 4 24% 23 19 23 NR
2018 9 56% NR 7 25 10
2017 15 94% 24 8 25 NR
2016 4 25% NR 20 25 NR
2015 2 13% NR 20 24 NR
2006 1 6% NR 25 25 NR
2003 14 82% NR 6 24 9
2002 18 100% 11 3 17 10
2001 10 59% NR 9 19 10
1997 14 78% NR 8 19 9
1994 13 76% NR 16 24 21
1993 1 6% NR 25 25 NR
1992 9 53% NR 13 25 15
1989 7 41% NR 15 23 NR
1988 6 35% NR 16 20 16
1981 7 47% NR 14 20 NR
1977 1 7% NR 15 15 NR
1972 5 33% NR 19 20 19
1958 1 8% NR 10 10 NR
1957 1 8% NR 19 19 NR
1952 1 9% 15 15 15 NR
1951 7 64% NR 16 18 18
1942 5 63% NA 10 17 17
1941 1 13% NA 19 19 19
1940 1 13% NA 19 19 NR
1936 4 57% NA 14 20 NR

*Washington State has been ranked in 28 out of 90 polls.

Wyoming
Season App Pct Pre High Low Final
1998 1 6% NR 25 25 NR
1996 12 67% NR 16 25 22
1993 2 12% NR 23 24 NR
1990 5 31% NR 18 25 NR
1988 11 65% NR 10 18 NR
1969 5 36% NR 15 19 NR
1968 4 29% NR 19 20 NR
1967 7 58% NR 6 10 6
1966 1 8% NR 10 10 NR
1959 2 15% NR 16 16 16
1956 1 8% NR 19 19 NR
1950 5 50% NR 12 18 12

*Wyoming has been ranked in 12 out of 90 polls.

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Sports

Picking all 63 NCAA Tournament games with 63 reasons why each team will win

Published

on

One March, when I was in middle school, I raced to the school bus and pulled out my cellphone. It was March Madness, and instead of being able to sit at home and watch basketball all day, I had been forced to go to school. The horror!

This was before smart phones, of course. I knew even spending a minute or two trying to fetch the Internet on this now-archaic flip phone would cost a bazillion dollars … and that I would barely be able to decipher the scores on the tiny screen displaying a not-mobile-friendly website … and that my parents would question why they had a huge charge on the phone bill. But I couldn’t resist. I was hooked. How was my bracket doing? I had to know. Sorry, mom and dad.

Fast forward to 2025, and all of that obsessing paid off. I won’t lie: Last year’s bracket was … really good. I got multiple “thank you” messages from people who had won bracket pools by copying it, and that filled me with as much joy as me winning my own bracket pools. OK, not really. But it did mean a lot.

Years like last year only come around every once in a while. I have been watching a ton of college hoops for years. I have never done as well as I did last year. I might never do as well as I did last year. Think of everything that has to go right in a bracket. Florida had to pull off so many comebacks last year. If one of those comebacks doesn’t happen, my bracket stinks. Same for Derik Queen’s buzzer beater, Duke’s stunning collapse against Houston, etc. etc. etc.

Advertisement

Basically, you can do all the work and still get it wrong. That’s March Madness. That’s basketball. That’s life.

But the work still matters. Watching a lifetime-high amount of college basketball last year did help. So did all the research. I watched a ton of games, consulted a bunch of websites and learned from my excellent colleagues at CBS Sports, who have done a tremendous job this year. Luck, they say, is when preparation meets opportunity.

Then comes the hard part: Actually making the picks. There are so many things to consider, but at the end of the day, you have to chose one victor, over and over again. Somewhere along the way, I started doing 63 picks in 63 sentences. Boil it down and pick a winner.

I haven’t watched as much college basketball this year — I’m now an NFL writer here at CBS Sports — but I’ve still watched a lot. I still have my principles: Good guards win in March, experience matters, versatility is crucial, yada yada yada.

Advertisement

So let’s give it another spin: 63 picks, 63 sentences. Let’s make middle-school me proud again.

Fill out your brackets now and enter them into our Bracket Challenge for your chance to win a dream trip to the 2027 Final FourⓇ.

Mark Mitchell will try and lead No. 10 seed Mizzou to a win over No. 7 seed Miami.
Imagn Images

First round

East

  • (1) Duke over (16) Siena: Duke’s injuries worry me, but not yet.
  • (8) Ohio State over (9) TCU: Bruce Thornton is finally in the NCAA Tournament in his fourth season with the Buckeyes, and he’ll make it count.
  • (5) St. John’s over (12) Northern Iowa: The Panthers will make it tough with their slow pace, but Zuby Ejiofor will be too much to handle.
  • (4) Kansas over (13) Cal Baptist: The Jayhawks are the hardest No. 4 seed to project given Darryn Peterson’s stop-and-start year and the team-wide inconsistency, too.
  • (6) Louisville over (11) South Florida: I was really high on the Cardinals entering the season, but they haven’t come close to being the sum of their parts; I’ll take them here, though, thanks to Ryan Conwell.
  • (3) Michigan State over (14) North Dakota State: The Spartans are too big, too tough and too athletic.
  • (7) UCLA over (10) UCF: The Bruins’ guards lead the way here.
  • (2) UConn over (15) Furman: The Paladins have pulled upsets before, but it won’t happen here.

West

Midwest

South

  • (1) Florida over (16) Prairie View A&M: The Gators looked tremendous entering the SEC Tournament, and they’ll regain their form.
  • (8) Clemson over (9) Iowa: It pains me to see Bennett Stirtz go out this way, but there’s just not enough around him.
  • (5) Vanderbilt over (12) McNeese: Tyler Tanner and Duke Miles form a tremendous backcourt, and Mark Byington can coach with anyone.
  • (4) Nebraska over (13) Troy: The Huskers get their first-ever NCAA Tournament win.
  • (11) VCU over (6) North Carolina: VCU was one of the most memorable Cinderellas in 2011, and 15 years later, the Rams pull another upset.
  • (3) Illinois over (14) Penn: The Illini had some bumps down the stretch, but there’s way too much talent for them to fall short here.
  • (10) Texas A&M over (7) Saint Mary’s: Prepare for Bucky Ball: Bucky McMillan’s Aggies will run and run and run.
  • (2) Houston over (15) Idaho: These aren’t Kelvin Sampson’s best Cougars, but his guards are excellent.
Vanderbilt’s Duke Miles has the Commodores peaking at the right time. 
Imagn Images

Second round

East

  • (1) Duke over (8) Ohio State: Cameron Boozer can carry the Blue Devils when needed, and he does so here.
  • (4) Kansas over (5) St. John’s: Ejiofor against Big 12 Defensive Player of the Year Flory Bidunga will be must-watch stuff.
  • (3) Michigan State over (6) Louisville: The Spartans dominate the glass, and their athleticism is off the charts.
  • (2) UConn over (7) UCLA: Dan Hurley will have his troops ready to go, and Tarris Reed Jr. will have a big game.

West

  • (1) Arizona over (9) Utah State: Montiejus Krivacs and the Wildcats are too big and too skilled. 
  • (4) Arkansas over (5) Wisconsin: I’m trusting — against my normal judgment — youing guards, but Acuff just plays so far beyond his years.
  • (3) Gonzaga over (6) BYU: I’d feel way more confident if Braden Huff could be back, but for now, I’ll trust Ike to make up the difference.
  • (2) Purdue over (10) Missouri: I heavily considered the Tigers here, but ultimately I couldn’t get there due to the turnover issues.

Midwest

  • (1) Michigan over (8) Georgia: The Bulldgos just don’t have the “dogs” up front to hang with Aday Mara, Morez Johnson and Yaxel Lendeborg.
  • (5) Texas Tech over (4) Alabama: Anderson is one of my favorite players in the sport, and Grant McCasland does a terrific job.
  • (3) Virginia over (6) Tennessee: I was encouraged by Virginia’s showing in the ACC Tournament; guard Malik Thomas is a guy who can lift the ‘Hoos from a Tournament team to a second-weekend team, and he played well in Charlotte.
  • (2) Iowa State over (7) Kentucky: Get to know Joshua Jefferson, one of the least-appreciated stars nationally.

South

  • (1) Florida over (8) Clemson: Thomas Haugh was a big reason I took the Gators to win it all last year, and he’ll be a big reason they march onto the Sweet 16.
  • (5) Vanderbilt over (4) Nebraska: The Huskers struggled down the stretch, while the Commodores surged.
  • (3) Illinois over (11) VCU: Kylan Boswell and Keaton Wagler will lead the way in what should be a really fun contest.
  • (2) Houston over (10) Texas A&M: Kingston Flemings might get the most praise, but Milos Uzan and Emanuel Sharp are the heartbeat here.
No. 1 seed Michigan’s path to the Final Four has plenty of challenges. 
Getty Images

Sweet 16

East

  • (1) Duke over (4) Kansas: Since Valentine’s Day, the Jayhawks are 1-4 away from home against NCAA Tournament teams, and here, they struggle again facing Duke’s excellent defense.
  • (2) UConn over (3) Michigan State: The Huskies at their best are among the very elite in the sport, while the Spartans, even at their best, are just a half-step below.

West

  • (1) Arizona over (4) Arkansas: The Wildcats have so much defensive ability and length, and they’ll be able to limit Acuff enough.
  • (2) Purdue over (3) Gonzaga: I don’t have a ton of trust in either of their teams, but I’m going with the experienced big three of Braden Smith, Trey Kaufman-Renn and Oscar Cluff as my fallback decider.

Midwest

  • (1) Michigan over (5) Texas Tech: The Wolverines will dominate up front.
  • (2) Iowa State over (3) Virginia: The Cyclones simply have too many options and can space the floor with Jefferson and Milan Momcilovic in an effort to limit the Cavaliers’ excellent rim protection.

South

  • (1) Florida over (5) Vanderbilt: In a rematch of the SEC Tournament semifinal, the Gators get revenge.
  • (3) Illinois over (2) Houston: Finally, Brad Underwood wins a big, big NCAA Tournament game.

Elite Eight

East

  • (1) Duke over (2) UConn: Keep an eye on Isaiah Evans throughout this tournament; the deadeye shooter takes Duke to another level when he’s on.

West

  • (1) Arizona over (2) Purdue: I’ve gotten this deep and I still haven’t mentioned Jaden Bradley, the outstanding guard who will prove the difference here; Arizona’s massive size helps, too.

Midwest

  • (2) Iowa State over (1) Michigan: The Wolverines were my title pick until LJ Cason tore his ACL, and his absence will be felt here against the relentless Cyclones.

South

  • (1) Florida over (2) Houston: The Gators make back-to-back Final Fours, and their efficient offense takes advantage of a Houston defense that isn’t quite as good as recent Cougars teams have had.

Final Four

  • (1) Florida over (2) UConn: In a rematch from last year’s second-round thriller, the Gators prevail again.
  • (1) Arizona over (2) Iowa State: Again, it’s too much size, too much skill and too many options for the Wildcats.
Arizona’s Koa Peat got the better of Florida’s Alex Condon on opening night and could do it again on the last night of the season.
Getty Images

National championship

  • (1) Arizona over (1) Florida: Tommy Lloyd has had some disappointing NCAA Tournaments, but this time he’s a hero, and Arizona returns to the top of the basketball world for the first time since 1997.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Sports

Champions League: How Barcelona exploited Newcastle’s defensive weakness – analysis

Published

on

Champions League Match of the Day pundits Stephen Warnock and Nedum Onuoha look at how Barcelona were able to repeatedly expose Newcastle United’s centre-backs Dan Burn and Malick Thiaw during their 7-2 victory in the second leg of their last 16 tie in the Champions League.

MATCH REPORT: Barcelona 7-2 Newcastle

Available to UK users only.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Sports

Jaylen Waddle thrilled about reunion with Broncos star Patrick Surtain II

Published

on

NFL: Cincinnati Bengals at Miami DolphinsDec 21, 2025; Miami Gardens, Florida, USA; Miami Dolphins wide receiver Jaylen Waddle (17) runs the ball during the second quarter against the Cincinnati Bengals at Hard Rock Stadium. Mandatory Credit: Sam Navarro-Imagn Images

One of the perks of being traded to the Denver Broncos for wide receiver Jaylen Waddle is the opportunity to be a teammate of close friend Patrick Surtain II.

The former Alabama teammates often discussed being on the same NFL team at some point during their careers, even more so when both were top-10 picks in the 2021 NFL Draft. Waddle went sixth overall to the Miami Dolphins and Surtain, a cornerback, was chosen at No. 9 by the Broncos.

But Wednesday, the duo officially became NFL teammates when the Broncos formally announced they acquired Waddle and a fourth-round pick in the 2026 draft from the Dolphins for three 2026 picks – a first-rounder, a third-rounder and a fourth-rounder.

“It was special,” Waddle said of learning he’d be playing with Surtain, the 2024 NFL Defensive Player of the Year. “He was one of the first calls that I made. We talked about this earlier in our careers, we wanted to get together and play with each other. Just seeing it happen, it’s special.”

The frequent conversations allowed Waddle to glean some information about Denver coach Sean Payton’s methods.

Advertisement

“Not too many details,” Waddle said. “We kept in contact through the years when Coach Payton has been here. He’s been keeping me in the loop without even knowing.”

The acquisition of Waddle gives Denver another solid target for quarterback Bo Nix. The Broncos feature two-time Pro Bowl wideout Courtland Sutton, who led the team in catches (74), receiving yards (1,017) and receiving touchdowns (seven) in 2025.

The 5-foot-10 Waddle recorded 64 catches for 910 yards and six touchdowns in 16 games last season for the Dolphins. He is signed through the 2028 season.

Advertisement

“I don’t think there are No. 1s, everyone is here to make plays and try to win,” Waddle said of the receiving room. “That’s ultimately the goal for the team and for the organization.”

Waddle, 27, has 373 receptions for 5,039 yards and 26 touchdowns in 78 career games (all starts) since entering the NFL. He topped 1,000 receiving yards in each of his first three seasons and had a career-high 104 catches as a rookie in 2021.

Best of the deal for Waddle is he gets to play on a team expected to contend for a second straight AFC Championship Game berth. The Dolphins aren’t part of that conversation after going 7-10 last season and entering a rebuilding phase.

“It’s exciting, like I said, just playing with great players,” Waddle said. “Everyone is talking about how great and close the team is. I’m excited to be around the guys, get to know them, and they get to know me and go from there.”

Advertisement

–Field Level Media

Source link

Continue Reading

Sports

Cam Ward crashes Wan’Dale Robinson’s presser as Titans’ new WR reveals reason for joining Tennessee

Published

on

Wide receiver Wan’Dale Robinson had his introductory press conference on Wednesday after joining the Tennessee Titans.

During this interview, quarterback Cam Ward crashed the press conference, which was held virtually. He questioned Robinson about his thoughts on playing alongside him on the Titans.

“Wandale, how excited are you to play with Cam Ward,” the Titans quarterback asked.

Advertisement

Wan’Dale Robinson was initially surprised by Ward’s presence in the press conference. He then revealed that the quarterback was one of the reasons why he decided to join the team.

Looking to predict NFL playoff Scenarios? Try our NFL Playoff Predictor for real-time simulations and stay ahead of the game!

Advertisement

“My dog! I appreciate you,” Robinson said. “You know, I’m ready to play with you. That’s part of the reason I came.”

Wan’Dale Robinson began his NFL journey with the New York Giants. They drafted him with the 43rd overall pick in 2022. In four seasons, he recorded 2,465 yards on 268 receptions and nine touchdowns. However, the wide receiver failed to make the playoffs even once.

Last season, the Giants finished dead last in the NFC East with a 4-13 record. Robinson recorded 1,014 yards on 92 receptions and four touchdowns. Last Thursday, he finalized a four-year deal worth $78 million with the Titans.

This move reunites him with his former coach Brian Daboll. He coached the Giants from 2022 to 2025, but was fired midway through last season. In January, Titans new coach Robert Saleh hired him as the new offensive coordinator of the team.


ALSO READ: Ex-NFL QB raises major Cam Ward question as Mel Kiper links Jeremiyah Love to Titans in latest mock draft

Advertisement

ALSO READ: “Good replacement for Wan’Dale Robinson” “Another weapon for Jaxson Dart”: NFL fans react as Giants sign Darnell Mooney in free agency


Wan’Dale Robinson reveals what the Titans can expect from him in 2026

During his introductory press conference, Wan’Dale Robinson did not shy away from talking about his strengths. He also opened up about what to expect from him as he joins the Titans for a new journey.

“I think the biggest thing is toughness, and making impact plays,” Robinson said as per SI. “Just doing a lot of different things for an offense, being able to move the chess piece that can always line up in different places where defenses can’t exactly know what and when I’m going to do stuff.

“Obviously, they believed in me, and it’s great to have that feeling of being wanted. So obviously, you want to make them proud and make them feel like they made the right decision in choosing me. And for myself, I want to show I can have success here and help this thing get going on the right track.”

Last season, the Titans finished fourth in the AFC South with a 3-14 record. This resulted in the firing of coach Brian Callahan in October after a 1-5 start. In February, new Giants coach John Harbaugh hired him as the quarterbacks coach and pass game coordinator.