Scouts and executives name Drew Mestemaker and Arch Manning among college football’s most overrated entering 2026

College football enters another cycle of preseason evaluation, but this one came with a provocative twist. CBS Sports used a large player pool it had already assembled for the 2026 season, then asked NFL scouts, college general managers and personnel executives to identify which prospects were “most overrated.” In that process, multiple players drew negative reviews, with Oklahoma State’s Drew Mestemaker and Texas’ Arch Manning receiving the most votes, according to the report.

The framework matters. CBS Sports first compiled what it described as a top 150 players entering the 2026 season, then narrowed attention to the top 10 from that list for the overrating discussion. Rather than a pure statistical assessment, it reflects how NFL and college decision-makers view hype versus projection, using human scouting consensus instead of a point-based player ranking.

Manning’s inclusion is easy to understand in the context of how college quarterbacks are discussed. As a high-profile report-caller with national attention, he is the type of player who inevitably attracts scrutiny whenever outside expectations run ahead of what a prospect has shown on the field. Still, the report’s findings do not provide a detailed critique of his performance, only that he was repeatedly cited by voters in this particular “overrated” exercise.

Mestemaker, playing at Oklahoma State, drew similarly strong negative reception in the same vote. The report does not spell out a specific reason for each voter’s rating, but the presence of a non-franchise-newcomer on a “most overrated” list underscores a broader theme in college football recruiting and preseason forecasting: when a player rises into the national spotlight, evaluators tend to separate current production, development trajectory, and NFL translation in ways that can cut against popular perception.

What makes the story more than internet chatter is that it shows the tension between projection and reputation. Teams across the sport prepare year-round using film study, player development history, and scheme fit. When personnel executives choose to criticize players who are already widely discussed, it can reveal where they see a gap, even if the gap is not spelled out in the report itself.

For fans and programs, the next practical question is whether those “overrated” labels fade through results, or harden into a narrative. In 2026, the most watchable answer will come from the quarterbacks’ and teams’ ability to turn preseason expectations into consistent, repeatable production, including against higher-level competition and in high-pressure game plans.

Until additional context is available, it is best to treat this as a preseason temperature check rather than a verdict. The report reflects one outlet’s polling methodology and the perceptions of a specific group of evaluators, not an official league assessment or a quantified performance measure. Still, the fact that Manning and Mestemaker led the vote will likely shape early-season conversations around star power and how scouts separate hype from readiness.