Clemson’s “underrated” label returns as ESPN’s way-too-early top 25 leaves the Tigers off the radar

ESPN’s preseason gaze is already focusing on favorites, and once again Clemson is not part of the top tier. In an early way-too-early top 25 release discussed this week, the Tigers were not included among the country’s presumed best teams, a storyline that has followed Clemson through multiple offseason ranking cycles.

The immediate point is simple, Clemson is being treated as a program that will need to prove itself rather than something expected to arrive at full strength on Day 1. Sports Illustrated, discussing the ESPN list, framed it as a familiar disconnect between early projections and Clemson’s actual performance, especially in ACC play. The broader question for the Tigers is whether that projection gap becomes extra motivation or merely another talking point that loses meaning once the nonconference slate closes.

Coach Brad Brownell’s posture, at least as described by that coverage, is built around being undervalued. Over the last several seasons, Sports Illustrated noted that Brownell has been unusually steady as Clemson’s leader, implying that the program’s identity does not depend on ranking hype. In that view, the preseason respect Clemson lacks is less important than the habits the staff expects to carry into conference matchups.

What makes the “underrated” theme stick is that Clemson’s postseason résumé and conference positioning have not consistently aligned with its national perception. Sports Illustrated pointed to the Tigers repeatedly finishing near the top of the ACC seed line, stating that Clemson has been a top-six seed at the end of the ACC regular season in each of the last four seasons. It also cited that three of those four seasons ended with NCAA Tournament appearances, including a run to the Elite Eight in 2024.

Those details matter because Clemson’s ceiling often shows up in the later part of the year. A team that is routinely in the top bracket of conference seeding can use favorable tournament pathways, even if the broader media market does not treat it as a true national favorite. For Clemson, that means ESPN’s early tiering does not change the internal goal. The Tigers still need to build consistent defensive and offensive execution across a long conference schedule, then play their best basketball when the NCAA Tournament compresses margin for error.

There is also a roster-building implication to the rankings conversation, even when preseason lists cannot predict matchups perfectly. When a program is consistently left out of early top-team conversations, it can change how fans interpret development and how players feel the urgency of each stretch of the season. Brownell’s reputation for stability, as highlighted in the discussion around the ESPN list, suggests Clemson’s message to its players is designed to keep expectations focused on process rather than external noise.

The next practical test will be how Clemson handles the bridge from summer to the first meaningful results of the season. Early rankings provide a storyline, but they do not replace what happens in conference play, where the ACC’s depth usually determines who rises and who settles. If Clemson ends the year as it has in recent seasons, the ESPN omission will look like another preseason overcorrection. If it underperforms, the preseason skepticism will find a more durable footing.