For the first time in years, Clemson Tigers open an offseason staring at a national preseason picture that does not include them.
Both major “way-too-early” Top 25 projections released this week left Clemson outside the rankings, with the Tigers appearing only in the “also receiving votes” category. It’s not a verdict on what Clemson will be in 2026, but it is a clear snapshot of how the program is currently perceived: respected, relevant — and no longer presumed.
That alone marks a shift.
A program no longer granted the benefit of the doubt
For much of the past decade, Clemson occupied a rare space in college football’s hierarchy. Even after roster turnover or uneven regular seasons, the Tigers were almost always penciled into preseason rankings based on infrastructure, quarterback pedigree and postseason credibility.
That cushion is gone.
Early projections instead favor roster continuity, portal aggression and recent playoff relevance. Clemson, which continues to operate on a more selective roster model than most of its national peers, finds itself caught between eras — no longer defined by championship-level certainty, but not rebuilt enough yet to command automatic inclusion.
Context matters — but perception still counts
Way-too-early rankings are volatile by design. Rosters remain fluid. Depth charts are incomplete. August evaluations often look nothing like January guesses.
Still, perception shapes momentum.
Programs like Texas Tech, Indiana and BYU earned Top 15 placements largely because of stability at quarterback and visible portal-driven roster upgrades. Clemson’s offseason storylines, by contrast, have centered more on internal development, retention decisions and targeted additions rather than splashy transformations.
That approach may ultimately prove effective. But in January, it reads as restraint — and restraint doesn’t move preseason polls.
Pressure returns to familiar ground
If there’s a silver lining, it’s this: Clemson has thrived most when expectations narrow rather than expand.
The Tigers are not rebuilding. They are recalibrating. But until results force a narrative change, they will be evaluated less on history and more on projection — the same standard applied to everyone else.
For a program accustomed to being assumed, that reality may feel unfamiliar. It may also be clarifying.
Because when Clemson reenters the rankings — not if, but when — it will likely be because the Tigers earned their way back in, rather than being placed there by default.