
By SuperWest Sports Staff
Sports
Updated All-Time AP Football Polls by Program and Year
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.
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:
- 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
| 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
| 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
| 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
| 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.
Sports
Picking all 63 NCAA Tournament games with 63 reasons why each team will win
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.
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.
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Ⓡ.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sports
Champions League: How Barcelona exploited Newcastle’s defensive weakness – analysis
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.
Sports
Jaylen Waddle thrilled about reunion with Broncos star Patrick Surtain II
Dec 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.
“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. “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.” –Field Level Media
Sports
Cam Ward crashes Wan’Dale Robinson’s presser as Titans’ new WR reveals reason for joining Tennessee
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.
Thanks for the submission!
“Wandale, how excited are you to play with Cam Ward,” the Titans quarterback asked.
•
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!
“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.
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.
Edited by Priyam Hazarika
Sports
All Miami Open matches postponed due to rain
Mar 18, 2026; Miami Gardens, FL, USA; A worker dries Butch Buchholz Court during a rain delay on day 2 of the 2026 Miami Open at Hard Rock Stadium. Mandatory Credit: Geoff Burke-Imagn Images Heavy, unrelenting rain prevented play at the Miami Open on Wednesday, with all matches being postponed.
Among the matchups that originally were scheduled for the day included France’s Alexandre Muller against Italy’s Matteo Berrettini as well as American Reilly Opelka vs. Portugal’s Nuno Borges.
The Thursday WTA slate will feature an all-Polish matchup of No. 2 Iga Swiatek against Magda Linette. Eighth-seeded Mirra Andreeva of Russia will oppose the United States’ McCartney Kessler, and Jennifer Brady will take on Sloane Stephens in an all-U.S. clash. Three-time Miami champion Venus Williams is set to oppose Great Britain’s Francesca Jones.
On the ATP side, Alex Michelsen of the U.S. will face Italian qualifier Mattia Bellucci, Greece’s Stefanos Tsitsipas will meet British qualifier Arthur Fery, and Croatia’s Marin Cilic will square off with Australia’s Alexei Popyrin. –Field Level Media
Sports
Prairie View A&M bests Lehigh for 1st NCAA tourney win
Mar 18, 2026; Dayton, OH, USA; Prairie View A&M Panthers guard Dontae Horne (2) shoots the ball over Lehigh Mountain Hawks guard Joshua Ingram (4) in the first half during a first four game of the men’s 2026 NCAA Tournament at University of Dayton Arena. Mandatory Credit: Rick Osentoski-Imagn Images Dontae Horne scored 25 points as Prairie View A&M earned its first ever NCAA Tournament victory with a 67-55 win over Lehigh in a First Four matchup Wednesday in Dayton, Ohio.
In a contest between 16th-seeded longshots, the Panthers (19-17) dominated the second half, outscoring the Mountain Hawks (18-17) by a 40-26 margin. Prairie View A&M advances to face South Region No. 1 seed Florida, the defending tournament champion, on Friday in Tampa.
Cory Wells contributed 19 points, 11 rebounds, three steals and three blocks for the Panthers, who only had five players score. Lance Williams pitched in with 10 points, while Horne added seven rebounds and four steals.
“I believed in these guys from the very start,” Panthers coach Byron Smith said. “A great group of kids. … I knew we were going to get it going.”
Hank Alvey notched 23 points and a career-high 15 rebounds for Lehigh, which was in the Big Dance for the first time since 2012. Nasir Whitlock, who came in averaging a team-leading 21.0 points, managed only five points on 2-of-15 shooting from the field.
After trailing by two at halftime, Prairie View A&M scored eight of the first nine points in the second half to go in front 35-30.
Lehigh got within 37-36 on Alvey’s layup a few minutes later, but the Panthers promptly made another push.
Horne scored 10 points in about four minutes to help Prairie View A&M take a 49-41 lead. Wells followed with a jumper to give the Panthers their first double-digit advantage. Joshua Ingram countered with a 3-pointer for the Mountain Hawks, but Williams and Horne responded with a bucket apiece to restore a double-digit lead.
Horne made multiple contested layups down the stretch to highlight his 16-point second half.
“First half, we kind of struggled,” Horne said. “We were trying to feel them out. But the second half, we came out playing harder, playing tougher. And we all had to really lock in. That was it.”
The game was tied at 15-all midway through the first half before Andre Urosevic made back-to-back 3-pointers as part of an 8-0 Lehigh run. The Panthers never caught up in the first half, although Horne’s bucket in the final minute got Prairie View A&M within 29-27 at the break.
Alvey led all players with 10 points and nine rebounds in the first half.
–Field Level Media
Sports
‘Not happy’ – Man City Champions League regret as Pep Guardiola legacy question lingers
Manchester City’s Champions League hopes are over for another year after defeat to Real Madrid in the last-16. It means the Blues’ triumph in 2023 remains their sole success in the competition
It may well have been Bernardo Silva’s final Champions League act for Manchester City – thrusting out his elbow to block a Real Madrid shot on the line.
The skipper saw red after a VAR review and trudged off the Etihad pitch knowing his side’s long odds of a stunning comeback had just got longer. In the end the task was beyond the 10 men of City and their European aspirations are over for another year.
It’s prompted the debate of whether Pep Guardiola and City should have achieved more than one Champions League victory, achieved in 2023 as part of an historic treble. For his part, Guardiola has been steadfast in his belief that the competition is incredibly difficult to win.
Get MEN Premium now for just £1 HERE – or get involved in our City WhatsApp group by clicking HERE. You can also join our City Facebook page by clicking HERE and don’t miss out on our brilliant selection of newsletters HERE.
Real are the only side to defend the title since 1990 and the only multiple winner in the last 12 editions. Madrid may have cracked the continental formula but few others have. Guardiola himself has three Champions League victories, second only in manager terms to Carlo Ancelotti, while City were beaten in the 2021 final by Chelsea and suffered scarcely believable exits to Tottenham in 2019 and Real in 2022.
Guardiola referenced the Real game after the midweek defeat: “The 4-3 was the most unfair result I have ever experienced in my career.
In the build-up to the second leg he was asked by Marca about a ‘culture of failure’ and the possibility that City could be out early again in the Champions League. Guardiola referenced how Real have ‘only’ won 15 European Cups out of ‘probably 100 attempts,’ and highlighted the ‘Quinta del Buitre’ team that Real had in the 1980s – one that dominated Spanish football yet failed to win the biggest European prize – as one of the best he has ever seen to make his point that failure is a matter of personal opinion.
But while the manager pointed out the context and complications competing in Europe poses, his skipper – one of the central figures of the latest early exit – was more forthright.
“I’m not happy so he’s probably not very happy,” Bernardo said when asked by Amazon Prime on the eve of the game if he felt Guardiola was content with just one Champions League victory at City. “Of course one is better than zero, and we are very happy with the one we have won, but with the team that we have and the way our team has played in the past, we should have won more.”
For Bernardo, that ship looks to have sailed, with the 31-year-old widely expected to depart in the summer. For his manager, there might be one last European dance at City.
Buy Carabao Cup Final VIP tickets

The Carabao Cup Final will see Arsenal v Manchester City at London’s Wembley Stadium this March.
Sports
Alpha Sofie chases Caulfield rebound in 2026 Don Casboult Classic
Peter Moody expresses optimism regarding Alpha Sofie’s ability to turn things around in her upcoming Stakes race at Caulfield.
Her pristine record with trainers Peter Moody and Katherine Coleman took a hit when Alpha Sofie bombed out badly in the $1 million Inglis Sprint (1200m) over Flemington’s track on February 28.
Post a detailed inspection of the mare, Moody is convinced Alpha Sofie is fit to race once more, entering her in the Group 3 Don Casboult Classic (1200m) this Saturday.
Starting out in Queensland with two closing wins for Jason Edwards, Alpha Sofie wasted no time making her mark for Moody and Coleman via success in the Listed Atlantic Jewel Stakes (1200m) at Moonee Valley in the prior spring carnival.
Spelled after that triumph, she came back firing with a firm Caulfield win on February 7 in the Group 3 Peter Le Grand Stakes (1100m) before faltering along the Flemington straight.
Moody indicated Alpha Sofie has shaken off that result and he looks ahead to the filly navigating turns in her next outing.
“She’s flying,” Moody said.
“She just got a bump at the start the other day and then pulled her head off, which she’s never done before.
“That was down the straight for the first time for her. She charged and got lost.”
Such is Moody’s conviction in the filly that plans include the Group 1 Robert Sangster Stakes (1200m) at Morphettville late in April for Alpha Sofie.
“Hopefully this run will set her up to go to Adelaide for the Sangster,” Moody said.
“That was where she was going the other day if she had won, so she can have this one to get her back on track.”
Zac Spain, having partnered the filly in all three of her runs for Moody and Coleman, travels to Sydney for Group 1 contention on Victorious Spirit in the Rosehill Guineas, leaving Luke Nolen to ride on Saturday.
Visit leading online bookmakers to check betting markets for the race in the Don Casboult Classic.
Sports
R Ashwin On Shivam Dube’s Train Ride After T20 World Cup Victory: “Don’t Want To Read”
Veteran cricketer Ravichandran Ashwin has reacted to news of India all-rounder Shivam Dube commuting by train following the 2026 T20 World Cup final. Hours after India defeated New Zealand in the final at the Narendra Modi Stadium on March 8, Dube, accompanied by his wife and a friend, boarded a train from Ahmedabad to Mumbai. The moment went viral on social media, with fans praising Dube’s simplicity. The all-rounder later revealed he was anxious to reunite with his son and father and chose the 5:10 am train over waiting for the official team flight.
Reacting to the hype during a RevSportz event, Ashwin dismissed the “big deal” surrounding the journey, stating: “I’m seeing news pieces on how Shivam Dube traveled by train. I don’t want to read pieces like that. What’s the big deal? I have traveled by train.”
Ashwin elaborated his opinion further. He wants star cricketers, who is always in the spotlight and under scrutiny, to get the chance to enjoy small joys of life.
“I would love for us… for international cricketers to be able to go to the chaiwalas and have chai with the people. In fact, we have forgotten that life’s joys are in very small moments,” he added.
Dube had boarded the Mumbai-bound Sayaji Nagari Express from Ahmedabad in the early hours of Monday, along with his wife Anjum and a friend.
To avoid being recognised by co-passengers, Dube reportedly wore a cap, mask and a full-sleeved T-shirt as he boarded the train at 5.10 am and climbed onto his upper berth after entering an AC three-tier coach.
An official said that after noticing his name on the train reservation chart, a ticket checker wondered if he was the cricketer Dube. However, his wife deftly handled the situation, saying why the cricketer would travel by train.
A Government Railway Police official said that before the train reached Borivali, Dube sought police assistance to ensure his exit was as discreet as it had been in Ahmedabad.
Policemen in plain clothes were sent to escort the cricketer to his vehicle outside the station to avoid drawing public attention, the official added.
(With PTI Inputs)
Topics mentioned in this article
Sports
Women’s March Madness 2026 schedule: NCAA Tournament bracket, where to watch First Four
The 2026 NCAA Tournament has arrived, and women’s March Madness officially began Wednesday with the First Four. The 68-team field was unveiled Sunday night, and we know when and where everyone will be playing this weekend.
UConn, the undefeated reigning champion, was named the No. 1 overall seed. UCLA, Texas and South Carolina joined them on the top line. Those four teams, the title favorites, are among the 16 teams that will host games in the first and second rounds next weekend. Every 1-4 seed in the field will play host before the action shifts to the regional sites later in the month. Once again, there are just two regional sites for the women’s tournament: Sacramento and Fort Worth. The 2026 Final Four is set for Phoenix, with the championship game on Sunday, April 5.
Game times and TV information for the First Four and the first round were announced on Sunday night as well. The full schedule for the first four days of the 2026 NCAA Tournament is below.
2026 NCAA Women’s NCAA Tournament schedule
All times Eastern. All games are available to stream on fubo (Try for free).
Wednesday, March 18: First Four
- Nebraska 75, Richmond 56
- Missouri State 85, Stephen F. Austin 75
Thursday, March 19: First Four
- Southern vs. Samford, 7 p.m., ESPN2
- Virginia vs. Arizona State, 9 p.m., ESPN2
Friday, March 20: First round
- No. 3 Duke vs. No. 14 Charleston, 11:30 a.m., ESPN2
- No. 3 TCU vs. No. 14 UC San Diego, 12 p.m., ESPN
- No. 8 Oregon vs. No. 9 Virginia Tech, 1:30 p.m., ESPN2
- No. 6 Baylor vs. No. 11 Nebraska/Richmond, 2 p.m., ESPN
- No. 6 Washington vs. No. 11 South Dakota State, 2:30 p.m., ESPNews
- No. 5 Maryland vs. No. 12 Murray State, 3 p.m., ESPNU
- No. 5 Ole Miss vs. No. 12 Gonzaga, 3:30 p.m., ESPN2
- No. 1 Texas vs. No. 16 Missouri State/Stephen F. Austin, 4 p.m., ESPN
- No. 2 Michigan vs. No. 15 Holy Cross, 5:30 p.m., ESPN2
- No. 4 North Carolina vs. No. 13 Western Illinois, 5:30 p.m., ESPNews
- No. 2 LSU vs. No. 15 Jacksonville, 6 p.m., ESPN
- No. 4 Minnesota vs. No. 13 Green Bay, 6 p.m., ESPNU
- No. 5 Michigan State vs. No. 12 Colorado State, 7:30 p.m. ESPNews
- No. 7 NC State vs. No. 10 Tennessee, 8 p.m., ESPN
- No. 7 Texas Tech vs. No. 10 Villanova, 8:30 p.m., ESPNU
- No. 4 Oklahoma vs. No. 13 Idaho, 10 p.m., ESPN
Saturday, March 21: First round
- No. 3 Ohio State vs. No. 14 Howard, 11:30 a.m., ESPN2
- No. 3 Louisville vs. No. 14 Vermont, 12 p.m., ESPN
- No. 1 South Carolina vs. No. 16 Southern/Samford, 1 p.m., ABC
- No. 7 Georgia vs. No 10 Virginia/Arizona State, 1:30 p.m., ESPN2
- No. 6 Notre Dame vs. No. 11 Fairfield, 2 p.m., ESPN
- No. 5 Kentucky vs. No. 12 James Madison, 2:30 p.m., ESPNU
- No. 6 Alabama vs. No. 11 Rhode Island, 2:30 p.m., ESPNews
- No. 1 UConn vs. No. 16 UTSA, 3 p.m., ABC
- No. 8 Clemson vs. No. 9 USC, 3:30 p.m., ESPN2
- No. 2 Iowa vs. No. 15 Fairleigh Dickinson, 4 p.m., ESPN
- No. 4 West Virginia vs. No. 13 Miami (Ohio), 5 p.m., ESPNU
- No. 8 Iowa State vs. No. 9 Syracuse, 5:30 p.m., ESPN2
- No. 2 Vanderbilt vs. No. 15 High Point, 7 p.m., ESPNews
- No. 8 Oklahoma State vs. No. 9 Princeton, 7:30 p.m., ESPN2
- No. 7 Illinois vs. No. 10 Colorado, 9:30 p.m., ESPN2
- No. 1 UCLA vs. No. 16 Cal Baptist, 10 p.m., ESPN
Sunday, March 22: Second round
Monday, March 23: Second round
Friday, March 27: Sweet 16
- Four Sweet 16 games in Fort Worth and Sacramento
Saturday, March 28: Sweet 16
- Four Sweet 16 games in Fort Worth and Sacramento
Sunday, March 29: Elite Eight
- Two Elite Eight games in Fort Worth and Sacramento
Monday, March 30: Elite Eight
- Two Elite Eight games in Fort Worth and Sacramento
Friday, April 3
- Two Final Four games in Phoenix
Sunday, April 5
- Championship game in Phoenix, 3:30 p.m. ET on ABC/fubo
And here’s the full NCAA Tournament bracket, which will be updated as the field is revealed:
2026 NCAA Tournament women’s bracket
UConn, led by Sarah Strong and Azzi Fudd, is the heavy favorite to win it all and complete another perfect season. If the Huskies win it all, they will become the 11th team to go undefeated and the first team to win back-to-back titles since they won four in a row from 2013-16.
2026 women’s NCAA Tournament title odds
Odds as of March 18 via DraftKings
- UConn: -265
- UCLA: +550
- Texas: +700
- South Carolina: +800
- LSU: +1600
- Vanderbilt: +5000
- Michigan: +8000
- Iowa: +10000
- Duke: +10000
- Louisville: +10000
-
Crypto World5 days agoHYPE Token Enters Net Deflation as HyperCore Buybacks Outpace Staking Rewards
-
Tech3 days agoYour Legally Registered ‘Motorcycle’ Might Not Count Under Proposed US Law
-
Fashion6 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Addict Lip Glow
-
Tech2 days agoAre Split Spacebars the Next Big Gaming Keyboard Trend?
-
Sports5 days ago
Why Duke and Michigan Are Dead Even Entering Selection Sunday
-
Business3 days agoSearch for Savannah Guthrie’s Mother Enters Seventh Week with No Arrests
-
Business5 days agoUS Airports Launch Donation Drives for Unpaid TSA Workers as Partial Government Shutdown Enters Fifth Week
-
Crypto World5 days agoCoinbase and Bybit in Investment Talks: Could Bybit Finally Enter the US Crypto Market?
-
Business3 days agoAustralian shares drop as Iran war enters third week
-
Business5 days agoCountry star Brantley Gilbert enters growing non-alcoholic beer market
-
Crypto World3 days agoCrypto Lender BlockFills Enters Chapter 11 with Up to $500M in Liabilities
-
Sports5 days agoCollege Basketball Best Bets: Conference Tournament Semifinal Picks
-
Politics21 hours agoThe House | The new register to protect children from their abusers shows Parliament at its best
-
Business6 days agoTrump demands Powell cut rates as Iran conflict raises energy prices
-
Fashion3 days ago25 Celebrities with Curly Hair That Are Naturally Beautiful
-
News Videos13 hours agoRBA board divided on rate cut, unusually buoyant share market | Finance Report | ABC NEWS
-
Crypto World6 days agoSenate Votes to Include CBDC Ban in Bipartisan Housing Bill
-
NewsBeat6 days agoDeane Road crash near Bolton colleges and university
-
News Videos6 days agoTom Lee: The 100x Opportunity EVEN Bigger Than Bitcoin (New Ethereum Prediction 2026)
-
Crypto World14 hours agoCanada’s FINTRAC revokes registrations of 23 crypto MSBs in AML crackdown

You must be logged in to post a comment Login