ACC, at a glance.
Top 10 by power rating — 2026 season, through the latest games.
Home Conferences FBS 2026 season
The weekly grind · 2026
Miami holds the ACC lead heading into this week's games.
ACC is more top-heavy than deep. Miami gives the league punch, but the middle tier falls away faster than the top leagues.
Top 10 by power rating — 2026 season, through the latest games.
Miami went 13-3 in 2025 and holds the ACC's highest power rating entering 2026 — the strongest the program has looked since winning the 2001 national title. Meanwhile Clemson, who won six straight ACC titles from 2015-2021, went 7-6 last year. The power structure in the ACC just flipped.




The depth argument for this conference rests on how many credible opponents are clustered behind the leader. A wide talent spread separates the haves from the have-nots.
Miami holds the ACC lead heading into this week's games.
Miami went 13-3 in 2025 and enters 2026 as the conference’s top-rated program. They’re recruiting at an elite level and winning games at a rate the program hasn’t seen since the 2001 title. The 2026 Miami-Clemson game is the conference’s defining matchup — a reigning dynasty against a program reclaiming the standard.
The Fallen DynastyClemson won six ACC titles in a row from 2015-2021 and finished 2025 at 7-6. Dabo Swinney’s program has never had a losing conference season in that stretch, but the recruiting gap with Miami and Florida State is closing. Whether 2025 was a down year or the start of a longer slide is the most important question in the ACC entering 2026.
Why it matters →
The Wild CardVirginia went 11-3 in 2025 with a recruiting class ranked #58 nationally — the biggest overperformance relative to talent in the ACC. A program that had four consecutive losing seasons from 2020-2023 is now winning eleven games. The question heading into 2026 is whether they can sustain it against a Miami program that’s now actively competing for the same recruits.
Why it matters →Can Louisville maintain its ranking despite the defeat?
How will the ongoing investigation and coaching changes impact North Carolina's performance?
Can NC State bounce back after this embarrassing loss?
Can Syracuse's strong defensive start carry through the season?
Can Dabo Swinney turn around Clemson's fortunes?
Where each ACC program stands nationally in fan sentiment (100th = most positive in FBS, 0 = least). Conference median: 35th percentile. The label is the band (Bullish, Leaning, Mixed, Souring); the number after it is the change in percentile points since the prior week.
Most volatile: Louisville
Fan confidence has swung 81 percentile points in the last 8 weeks — currently at the 53rd percentile nationally.
Positive gap means the coaching staff won more than the recruiting class predicted. Data: ACC teams, 17 programs.
2026 season, in progress — sorted by power rating. The tag beside a team is its long-run program standing.
| # | Team | Record | Power | Resume |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
MiamiPower Program I#11
|
8-0 | +30.8 | +99.7 |
| 2 |
Wake ForestNational Program III#58
|
7-1 | +27.4 | +98.7 |
| 3 |
LouisvillePower Program III#28
|
5-3 | +25.8 | +91.8 |
| 4 |
SMUNational Program I#34
|
6-2 | +24.9 | +56.2 |
| 5 |
DukeNational Program II#51
|
6-2 | +23.8 | +87.9 |
| 6 |
ClemsonBlue Blood#4
|
5-3 | +23.4 | +79.6 |
| 7 |
PittsburghNational Program I#36
|
6-3 | +22.2 | +67.2 |
| 8 |
Virginia TechNational Program I#42
|
6-2 | +21.3 | +85.3 |
| 9 |
NC StateNational Program I#41
|
4-4 | +20.4 | +42.3 |
| 10 |
North CarolinaNational Program II#54
|
4-4 | +20.3 | +96.1 |
| 11 |
Florida StatePower Program II#21▼
|
3-5 | +19.7 | +85.9 |
| 12 |
VirginiaNational Program III#65
|
4-5 | +18.7 | +47.8 |
| 13 |
SyracuseRegional Program II#88
|
4-4 | +16.5 | +90.1 |
| 14 |
Boston CollegeRegional Program I#81
|
4-4 | +15.4 | +84.1 |
| 15 |
Georgia TechNational Program II#57
|
2-6 | +14.7 | +41.2 |
| 16 |
CaliforniaRegional Program I#74▼
|
3-6 | +13.6 | +40.0 |
| 17 |
StanfordRegional Program I#71
|
4-5 | +13.4 | +78.9 |
Projected standings · ACC · 2026
Odds of winning at least N conference games from current power ratings — full slate played out, not locked to results. Avg = expected wins; W-L = most-likely record.
| # | Team | W-L | Pwr | Avg | ≥9 | ≥8 | ≥7 | ≥6 | ≥5 | ≥4 | ≥3 | ≥2 | ≥1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Favorites | |||||||||||||
| 1 | Miami | 7-2 | +10.1 | 6.5 | 5 | 23 | 52 | 78 | 93 | 98 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| 2 | Wake Forest | 6-3 | +6.7 | 5.8 | 2 | 10 | 30 | 58 | 82 | 95 | 99 | ✓ | ✓ |
| 3 | Louisville | 6-3 | +5.1 | 5.7 | 2 | 10 | 30 | 57 | 81 | 94 | 99 | ✓ | ✓ |
| Challengers | |||||||||||||
| 4 | SMU | 6-3 | +4.2 | 5.7 | 1 | 9 | 29 | 57 | 81 | 94 | 99 | ✓ | ✓ |
| 5 | Duke | 5-4 | +3.0 | 5.1 | 4 | 16 | 39 | 67 | 87 | 97 | ✓ | ✓ | |
| 6 | Pittsburgh | 5-4 | +1.5 | 4.9 | 3 | 14 | 35 | 63 | 85 | 96 | 99 | ✓ | |
| 7 | Virginia Tech | 5-4 | +0.6 | 4.8 | 2 | 11 | 31 | 59 | 82 | 95 | 99 | ✓ | |
| 8 | Clemson | 5-3 | +2.7 | 4.6 | 1 | 8 | 26 | 53 | 79 | 94 | 99 | ✓ | |
| The field | |||||||||||||
| 9 | NC State | 5-4 | −0.3 | 4.7 | 2 | 10 | 28 | 54 | 78 | 93 | 99 | ✓ | |
| 10 | Virginia | 4-5 | −2.1 | 4.1 | 1 | 5 | 17 | 39 | 66 | 87 | 97 | ✓ | |
| 11 | Syracuse | 4-5 | −4.2 | 3.6 | 2 | 10 | 27 | 52 | 78 | 93 | 99 | ||
| 12 | North Carolina | 4-4 | −0.4 | 3.6 | 2 | 8 | 25 | 51 | 78 | 94 | 99 | ||
| 13 | Florida State | 3-5 | −1.0 | 3.5 | 1 | 7 | 23 | 49 | 76 | 93 | 99 | ||
| 14 | Boston College | 3-5 | −5.3 | 2.9 | 3 | 11 | 32 | 61 | 86 | 98 | |||
| Rebuilding | |||||||||||||
| 15 | California | 3-6 | −7.1 | 3.1 | 1 | 5 | 16 | 37 | 65 | 88 | 98 | ||
| 16 | Georgia Tech | 3-5 | −6.1 | 2.8 | 2 | 10 | 28 | 56 | 83 | 97 | |||
| 17 | Stanford | 3-6 | −7.3 | 2.7 | 2 | 9 | 26 | 54 | 81 | 96 | |||
Six advanced-stat dimensions per team, ranked against all 134 FBS programs, 2026 season. Every column reads higher-is-better. Click a column to sort.
| Team | Scoring | Converts | Defense | Identity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Miami | +0.39 | 52.6% | −0.04 | Efficient offense |
Wake Forest | +0.36 | 48.9% | −0.02 | Efficient offense |
Louisville | +0.34 | 49.9% | −0.06 | Big-play offense |
SMU | +0.27 | 48.9% | −0.07 | Efficient offense |
Duke | +0.25 | 42.1% | +0.04 | Lockdown defense |
Clemson | −0.02 | 36.4% | +0.00 | Can't sustain drives |
Pittsburgh | +0.15 | 44.0% | +0.01 | Balanced |
Virginia Tech | +0.20 | 44.9% | −0.03 | Balanced |
NC State | +0.20 | 45.5% | −0.13 | Balanced |
North Carolina | +0.16 | 46.7% | −0.09 | Grind-it-out |
Florida State | +0.20 | 43.4% | −0.18 | Big-play offense |
Virginia | +0.12 | 42.2% | −0.08 | No explosive plays |
Syracuse | +0.07 | 42.3% | −0.10 | High-tempo |
Boston College | +0.01 | 40.7% | −0.05 | Balanced |
Georgia Tech | +0.11 | 41.6% | −0.19 | Defense is the problem |
California | −0.02 | 37.3% | −0.18 | Can't sustain drives |
Stanford | +0.07 | 37.3% | −0.33 | Defense is the problem |
Identity is the single dimension where a team is most above or below the FBS average (pace, defense, big plays, or converting drives) — "Balanced" means nothing stands out either way. CFBD 2026 advanced stats, excludes garbage time.
ACC's highest CFB Zeitgeist Scores, 2026 season so far.
| # | Player | Team | National |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Malachi ToneyWR | Miami | #1 of 465 |
| 2 | Elliot Washington IICB | Clemson | #3 of 344 |
| 3 | Umari HatcherWR | Syracuse | #5 of 465 |
| 4 | Tawfiq ThomasIDL | Georgia Tech | #3 of 300 |
| 5 | Kaleb BeasleyS | Louisville | #2 of 537 |
| 6 | Nate SheppardRB | Duke | #3 of 330 |
| 7 | Davien KerrCB | Syracuse | #5 of 344 |
| 8 | Carlos HernandezWR | Wake Forest | #7 of 465 |
| 9 | Will HeldtEDGE | Clemson | #7 of 405 |
| 10 | Rashard PerryIDL | Syracuse | #6 of 300 |
Conference strength, as a round-robin adjusted power rating.
Best available American odds · sportsbook consensus.
| # | Team | Odds |
|---|---|---|
| 1 |
Miami (FL)
|
−400 |
| 2 |
SMU
|
+520 |
| 3 |
Louisville
|
+750 |
| 4 |
Virginia
|
+1550 |
| 5 |
Pittsburgh
|
+2100 |
| 6 |
Clemson
|
+2300 |
| 7 |
Virginia Tech
|
+2400 |
| 8 |
California
|
+6000 |
| 9 |
Duke
|
+7500 |
| 10 |
Georgia Tech
|
+8000 |