I’m not giving returning quarterbacks a free preseason bump

John Mateer is being treated the way returning quarterbacks usually are in August: as last year’s player, plus presumed growth. The Sooners went 10-3 overall and 6-2 in conference play in 2025.

Winning 10 games and bringing back the quarterback are advantages. Those can be real advantages, but none guarantees better production once protections break down or a defense takes away the first answer.

My rule is simple: I don’t award a quarterback improvement merely for returning. “Sometimes you are who you are.”

Penn State is the recent team-level reminder. Returning talent didn’t stop the Nittany Lions from finishing 7-6 and 3-6 in conference play last season. They begin 2026 ranked No. 18 and No. 17, a much more restrained assessment than the one attached to Oklahoma.

Clemson finished 7-6 and 4-4 in the ACC, returns Christopher Vizzina and sits only No. 23 in one major poll. LSU also finished 7-6, including 3-5 in conference play, but opens at No. 11 and No. 13 with Sam Leavitt now in the fold. Same number of wins, very different August pricing.

What surrounds the quarterback? Is he operating under the same demands? Can the offense protect him well enough to preserve the throws that produced last year’s success? When defenses change the picture after the snap, does he have answers beyond the first read?

Oklahoma gives us the cleanest early case because the waiting period is short. Mateer’s first real measuring stick comes Sept. 12 at Michigan, in the Sooners’ second game. Two weeks later, Oklahoma opens conference play at Georgia. We’ll be able to judge road communication, protection decisions, ball placement and what happens when the offense has to play beyond its preferred script.

The Sooners are following 10 wins. Maintaining that level is already a substantial assignment, and preseason optimism has placed them inside the top 10 before Mateer has taken a 2026 snap. Improvement must be demonstrated, not added as an August percentage.

Preseason projections often assume growth that hasn’t happened yet. Some quarterbacks will be better. Some will reproduce last year. Others will lose production because the system, supporting cast or decision-making around them changed. The mistake is treating improvement as automatic.

I won’t assume a quarterback is better just because he returned.

— JP