College Football Playoff Releases Third 2025 Rankings

Lead

The College Football Playoff selection committee published its third Top 25 rankings on Nov. 18, 2025, reflecting games played through Saturday, Nov. 15. Ohio State sits atop the list at 10-0, followed by undefeated Indiana (11-0) and Texas A&M (10-0). The list frames the race for the 12-team CFP field, including implications for first-round byes and seeding. Fans and programs will watch the remaining regular-season games closely as conference titles and strength-of-schedule considerations become decisive.

Key Takeaways

• Ohio State is No. 1 with a 10-0 record after games through Nov. 15; Indiana (11-0) and Texas A&M (10-0) round out the top three.
• Four Power Five programs remain unbeaten in the top five: Ohio State, Indiana, Texas A&M and Georgia (Georgia is 9-1 at No. 4).
• Notre Dame (8-2) and Alabama (8-2) both sit inside the top 10 at Nos. 9 and 10, preserving at-large contention for programs outside conference-title routes.
• Several one-loss teams — Texas Tech (10-1), Ole Miss (10-1) and Oregon (9-1) — are clustered in the No. 5–7 range, keeping the race for top-12 seeding tight.
• Mid-major representation appears limited in this set of rankings; BYU (9-1) is the highest-ranked non-Power Five program at No. 11.
• The committee’s next ranking will further incorporate conference-championship scenarios and remaining head-to-head outcomes that could reshuffle the field.

Background

The College Football Playoff (CFP) selection committee releases periodic Top 25 rankings during the regular season to indicate positioning ahead of final seeding. In the pending 12-team format, the five highest-ranked conference champions plus the next seven highest-ranked teams are seeded into the bracket, with the top four teams receiving first-round byes. That structure elevates the importance of both overall records and conference-title results when the regular season concludes.

This year’s college football calendar has produced multiple unbeaten Power Five teams and a crowded group of one-loss contenders, prompting the committee to weigh strength of schedule, head-to-head results and conference championships. Past seasons under the CFP have shown that late-season conference matchups and championship-game outcomes frequently trigger significant ranking changes. Committee deliberations are meant to balance objective metrics with qualitative context about injuries, late-season form and comparative schedules.

Main Event

The committee’s third ranking places Ohio State at No. 1 (10-0), signaling the Buckeyes’ continued claim to a top seed ahead of conference finales. Indiana’s 11-0 mark secures the No. 2 slot, rewarding the Hoosiers’ undefeated run through Big Ten play to date. Texas A&M, also undefeated at 10-0, earns No. 3 and remains in position for a high seed depending on its forthcoming results.

Georgia, at 9-1, occupies No. 4 despite its lone loss; the Bulldogs’ resume keeps them inside the top quartet of teams vying for a bye if they win out and secure the SEC title. Ranks five through eight include Texas Tech (10-1), Ole Miss (10-1), Oregon (9-1) and Oklahoma (8-2), a mix of one- and two-loss squads that the committee appears to view as closely matched.

The remainder of the top 25 includes programs with a range of records and profiles: Notre Dame (8-2) at No. 9, Alabama (8-2) at No. 10, BYU (9-1) at No. 11, Utah (8-2) at No. 12, Miami (8-2) at No. 13 and Vanderbilt (8-2) at No. 14. Georgia Tech (9-1) appears at No. 16, while other notable teams such as Michigan (8-2), Virginia (9-2) and Houston (8-2) fill mid-to-lower top-25 slots.

Full CFP Third Rankings (Games through Nov. 15)

1. No. 1 — Ohio State (10-0)
2. No. 2 — Indiana (11-0)
3. No. 3 — Texas A&M (10-0)
4. No. 4 — Georgia (9-1)
5. No. 5 — Texas Tech (10-1)
6. No. 6 — Ole Miss (10-1)
7. No. 7 — Oregon (9-1)
8. No. 8 — Oklahoma (8-2)
9. No. 9 — Notre Dame (8-2)
10. No. 10 — Alabama (8-2)
11. No. 11 — BYU (9-1)
12. No. 12 — Utah (8-2)
13. No. 13 — Miami (8-2)
14. No. 14 — Vanderbilt (8-2)
15. No. 15 — Southern California (8-2)
16. No. 16 — Georgia Tech (9-1)
17. No. 17 — Texas (7-3)
18. No. 18 — Michigan (8-2)
19. No. 19 — Virginia (9-2)
20. No. 20 — Tennessee (7-3)
21. No. 21 — Illinois (7-3)
22. No. 22 — Missouri (7-3)
23. No. 23 — Houston (8-2)
24. No. 24 — Tulane (8-2)
25. No. 25 — Arizona State (7-3)

Comparison & Data

The table highlights clustering at the top: three unbeaten teams and multiple one-loss programs occupying the Nos. 4–7 range. That density suggests small swings in perception or head-to-head outcomes could produce significant movement when the committee issues its next set of rankings. Conference championship games and remaining regular-season matchups will be the primary drivers of overhaul risk for teams ranked 5–12.

Analysis & Implications

The immediate implication of these rankings is positional clarity for teams chasing a top-four seed and a first-round bye. Ohio State, Indiana and Texas A&M are positioned to claim those byes if they maintain form and win remaining marquee matchups; for Georgia, winning the SEC title would likely secure a top-four slot despite its one loss. A top-four finish now looks more attainable for unbeaten programs, but any late-season slip could open the door for one-loss teams with strong schedules.

For mid-tier contenders, placement inside the top 12 as of this ranking still leaves work to do: teams ranked Nos. 5–12 will host or travel for first-round games depending on final seeding, and small differences in resume credit (quality wins, losses, margin trends) matter. BYU at No. 11 is the highest-ranked non-Power Five program and will need continued strong results to remain in the at-large conversation given the conference-champion automatic slots in the 12-team model.

Economically and culturally, these rankings continue to shape media attention, recruiting narratives and TV-market exposure for programs near the top. Higher seeding typically increases the likelihood of placement in marquee bowl venues for quarterfinals and semifinals, which affects institutional revenue and recruiting visibility. Internationally, the CFP’s expansion to 12 teams further concentrates attention around conference-play outcomes and could amplify the stakes of late-season scheduling choices made by athletic departments.

Looking ahead, the committee will face constrained decision windows as conference championships conclude; that compression favors teams that finish strongly and have clear head-to-head or common-opponent edges. The coming two weeks will be decisive: a single upset in a major conference title game could cascade through the rankings and alter the projected bracket composition.

Reactions & Quotes

“Our ranking process continues to center on results, strength of schedule and head-to-head outcomes as we approach championship week.”

College Football Playoff (official statement)

The committee reiterated the stated criteria in a brief release accompanying the rankings, emphasizing a transparent balance of quantitative and qualitative factors. That message is designed to remind programs and fans that late-season context carries weight.

“The top of the board reflects consistency; the next fortnight will tell us which teams deserve protected seeding or must fight through the first round.”

Independent college football analyst (media)

Analysts noted how three unbeaten programs hold leverage for bye positioning while one-loss teams remain close enough to pounce on any slip-ups. Public reaction across team fan bases has been mixed but largely focused on matchup implications for conference finales.

Unconfirmed

• The precise internal weighting the committee applied to recent one-score losses versus opponent quality has not been disclosed by the committee.
• How potential late-season injuries to key players will shift final seeding remains speculative until teams submit official injury reports.
• Any private, deliberative notes or vote breakdowns used by committee members have not been released publicly.

Bottom Line

The third CFP ranking clarifies current positioning but does not finalize the bracket: Ohio State, Indiana and Texas A&M currently control the narrative for top seeding, while a dense cluster of one-loss teams remain within striking distance. Conference championship outcomes and a few remaining regular-season games are likely to produce substantive movement on the next ballot.

Fans, team officials and media should treat this ranking as a snapshot shaped by games through Nov. 15, 2025; the committee’s final seeding will hinge on conference results and late-season head-to-head evidence. With the national championship set for Jan. 19, 2026, at Hard Rock Stadium, the coming weeks are decisive for programs pursuing byes, home first-round games or at-large berths.

Sources

• College Football Playoff — official CFP rankings release (official)