Alternative College Football Ratings for Week 4
These are likely to be my most accurate predictor of week 4 games.
These are alternative rankings for the 2025 college football season after week 3. I've been running an experiment to try to determine how aggressively to weight games from the previous season in early season ratings. It's too early in the season to only use 2025 games as the basis for the ratings because there aren't enough games to accurately rate some teams. Some FBS teams have only played two games, and that's just not a large enough sample size in some cases to get a good estimate of a team's quality. If I only use 2025 games as the basis for the ratings, many teams actually are ranked in reasonable spots, but there are a few teams that are rated in positions that seem a bit exaggerated. For example, while Florida State is greatly improved over last season, rating them #1 by a wide margin seems too high, but that’s what happens if my ratings are based only on 2025 games. At lower divisions, especially Division III, not all of the teams are connected.
The alternative ratings are a compromise in the approach, giving greater weight to 2025 games early in the season, but still retaining some influence of 2024 games until week 6. Right now, prior season games are each weighted 12% of the influence given to each game in the 2025 season. This doesn't sound like 2024 games can affect the ratings much, but there are more games from 2024, and collectively these still do have a significant impact. For a team that played 13 games last season and 3 games so far in 2025, the current season accounts for approximately 65.79% of a team's rating, but games from last season still influence the remaining 34.21%. These are approximate, however, and there are other factors that also change how much or little a game is weighted. The main point is that games from the previous season do still have a meaningful and significant effect on the ratings, though that is being phased out. Of all the ratings I’m comparing on this site, the alternative ratings in this article are probably the most accurate predictor of a team’s success and of upcoming games. For example, Oklahoma is favored by roughly a touchdown over Auburn, and that’s probably the most reliable projection out of any of the ratings I’m currently testing. Illinois-Indiana is a game that might not have seemed that interesting from preseason ratings, but it’s actually a good test for two highly-rated Big Ten teams. Although Illinois is ranked highly in the polls, Indiana has surged upward in computer ratings and is actually favored by a significant margin according to these ratings.
My commentary on this week has been posted in the article on the original ratings, though the ratings in that article are probably less accurate in most cases at this point than the alternative ratings. In future seasons, I'll likely just use the alternative ratings as the primary ratings early in the season. As a reminder, after week 6, all ratings will be based solely on games played in the 2025 season.
The Ratings
Here are the current alternative ratings following week 3 in college football.
Overall Ratings
Home advantage: 2.76 points
Mean score: 26.34 points
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
1 75.91 Oregon 43.57 32.02
2 74.37 Ohio State 33.97 40.48
3 71.49 Indiana 38.93 32.46
4 70.39 Alabama 38.40 32.27
5 68.79 Tennessee 42.70 26.21
6 68.07 USC 40.80 27.14
7 67.36 Notre Dame 35.59 31.75
8 67.23 Ole Miss 38.87 28.42
9 65.93 Georgia 32.83 33.10
10 64.68 BYU 32.01 32.85
11 64.38 Penn State 33.96 30.38
12 64.12 Utah 32.35 31.64
13 63.87 Texas 27.33 36.46
14 63.39 Miami 33.45 29.96
15 63.09 Nebraska 31.75 31.22
16 62.30 Oklahoma 25.75 36.51
17 61.90 Illinois 27.20 34.97
18 61.64 Michigan 28.91 32.62
19 61.61 Missouri 34.49 26.92
20 61.28 Texas A&M 33.81 27.41
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
21 61.12 Vanderbilt 30.91 30.36
22 61.08 Florida State 30.17 31.15
23 59.97 LSU 24.23 35.70
24 59.58 Arkansas 31.95 27.54
25 57.74 Auburn 24.19 33.34
26 56.90 Louisville 33.51 23.32
27 56.89 TCU 32.11 24.71
28 56.62 Washington 29.40 27.08
29 55.63 Florida 24.84 30.90
30 54.89 Georgia Tech 27.51 27.31
31 54.70 Arizona State 24.70 29.98
32 54.63 Iowa State 24.66 29.98
33 54.22 Cincinnati 26.73 27.41
34 53.57 Old Dominion 27.58 25.99
35 53.12 North Texas 33.59 19.62
36 52.60 South Carolina 20.85 31.70
37 52.58 Tulane 26.41 26.09
38 52.25 Kansas 26.64 25.39
39 52.16 Houston 21.46 30.65
40 51.83 UCF 25.77 25.95
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
41 51.68 Arizona 22.76 29.04
42 51.38 Toledo 26.94 24.46
43 51.10 Kentucky 22.21 29.02
44 51.07 Mississippi State 26.52 24.55
45 51.05 Clemson 23.42 27.69
46 50.60 Rutgers 32.60 17.92
47 50.54 Memphis 24.44 26.06
48 50.36 Texas Tech 33.80 16.63
49 50.35 Wisconsin 20.81 29.38
50 49.19 Colorado 23.49 25.93
51 49.06 South Florida 22.86 26.27
52 48.72 Pittsburgh 28.25 20.52
53 48.71 Minnesota 20.62 28.30
54 48.35 Baylor 32.23 16.12
55 48.33 Army 21.53 27.03
56 47.98 Iowa 19.69 28.23
57 47.84 SMU 24.40 23.48
58 47.42 Maryland 21.79 25.71
59 47.40 Syracuse 27.31 20.09
60 47.15 East Carolina 21.97 25.04
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
61 47.03 Kansas State 24.13 22.90
62 46.29 Ohio 19.44 26.71
63 45.72 California 19.14 26.73
64 45.32 NC State 25.07 20.31
65 44.65 Virginia 26.01 18.89
66 44.63 James Madison 17.87 26.63
67 44.44 Texas State 27.22 17.23
68 44.31 Navy 23.87 20.49
69 44.27 Boston College 27.58 16.97
70 43.77 Louisiana Tech 17.50 26.19
71 43.71 Boise State 23.56 20.14
72 43.59 Northwestern 12.59 30.89
73 43.22 West Virginia 19.48 23.53
74 43.11 Duke 25.83 17.42
75 42.48 Virginia Tech 22.51 19.76
76 42.26 Western Kentucky 23.51 18.75
77 42.26 Michigan State 20.74 21.66
78 42.14 Purdue 16.31 25.74
79 42.09 UNLV 24.82 17.16
80 42.04 UTSA 26.98 15.05
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
81 41.72 New Mexico 24.30 17.63
82 39.96 Utah State 25.46 14.34
83 39.79 UConn 24.73 14.82
84 39.74 Fresno State 20.57 19.32
85 39.53 Stanford 15.90 23.82
86 39.37 Jacksonville State 20.95 18.40
87 38.57 North Carolina 18.28 20.31
88 38.47 South Alabama 22.70 15.69
89 38.01 Bowling Green 13.94 24.17
90 36.31 Marshall 17.35 19.12
91 35.59 Florida International 13.89 21.76
92 35.11 Miami (OH) 11.13 23.93
93 34.62 Wyoming 9.03 25.54
94 34.34 Northern Illinois 11.32 23.11
95 34.22 UTEP 15.10 19.24
96 34.14 Temple 19.11 14.72
97 33.88 UCLA 12.94 20.89
98 33.21 Wake Forest 11.44 21.64
99 32.97 Western Michigan 14.19 18.55
100 32.32 Troy 15.85 16.46
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
101 31.84 Georgia Southern 20.21 11.72
102 31.82 Washington State 15.19 16.41
103 31.58 Air Force 16.33 15.35
104 31.31 Oklahoma State 16.25 15.13
105 31.09 Arkansas State 18.90 12.33
106 30.96 Liberty 14.00 17.10
107 30.81 Hawai'i 12.22 18.55
108 30.45 Florida Atlantic 20.68 9.75
109 30.42 Louisiana 12.32 18.12
110 30.41 San José State 13.23 17.25
111 30.28 Buffalo 16.05 14.35
112 29.32 Rice 11.99 17.23
113 29.11 Colorado State 15.65 13.55
114 28.46 San Diego State 11.46 17.15
115 28.27 Sam Houston 14.95 13.34
116 28.24 Southern Miss 16.41 11.95
117 27.38 Delaware 14.75 12.76
118 26.99 Missouri State 14.65 12.23
119 26.92 Oregon State 13.88 13.06
120 26.84 Tulsa 13.21 13.81
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
121 26.14 Nevada 7.96 18.09
122 26.03 App State 11.22 14.56
123 25.36 Kennesaw State 9.95 15.29
124 24.70 UAB 20.66 4.06
125 23.43 Central Michigan 12.44 11.03
126 22.11 New Mexico State 8.53 13.62
127 21.70 Middle Tennessee 9.87 11.84
128 21.11 Georgia State 11.52 9.38
129 20.93 Ball State 13.94 7.08
130 20.81 Eastern Michigan 15.33 5.35
131 19.71 Charlotte 7.28 12.38
132 18.38 UL Monroe 8.62 9.68
133 17.89 Coastal Carolina 4.81 12.85
134 17.79 Akron 6.33 11.48
135 10.47 Massachusetts 7.54 2.95
136 10.35 Kent State 6.89 3.56 Game Predictions
As always, games are ranked based on the projected quality. This factors in the overall strength of the two teams and the potential for a competitive game. Game quality ratings are not directly comparable between college football and the NFL. NFL games are typically decided by smaller margins than college games, the teams are more balanced in their quality, and there's just not as much scoring in the NFL. Thresholds for close games and blowouts are also different between college and the NFL for the same reasons.
Beside each team, there are two numbers in parentheses. One is the predicted margin of victory (positive) or defeat (negative), the other is the probability of winning. These margins are sometimes larger than what's indicated by the predicted score. That's because there's nothing in the math that prevents a prediction of negative points with a sufficiently lopsided matchup. This is, of course, impossible, so the score is set to zero in those instances. There's no cap on how many points a team can be projected to score, though.
#1: Michigan (-4.21, 39.05%) at Nebraska (4.21, 60.95%)
Estimated score: 22.65 - 26.84, Total: 49.50
Quality: 97.61%, Team quality: 97.66%, Competitiveness: 97.51%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.15%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 34.31%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 32.17%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 37.36%
#2: North Texas (2.03, 55.33%) at Army (-2.03, 44.67%)
Estimated score: 31.52 - 29.63, Total: 61.15
Quality: 96.27%, Team quality: 94.74%, Competitiveness: 99.42%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.51%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.30%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 44.59%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 25.81%
#3: Arizona State (3.59, 59.37%) at Baylor (-3.59, 40.63%)
Estimated score: 33.54 - 29.98, Total: 63.51
Quality: 96.04%, Team quality: 94.99%, Competitiveness: 98.19%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.92%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 34.66%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 47.22%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 23.72%
#4: Auburn (-7.31, 31.46%) at Oklahoma (7.31, 68.54%)
Estimated score: 12.63 - 20.13, Total: 32.76
Quality: 95.63%, Team quality: 97.16%, Competitiveness: 92.65%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.85%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.83%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 17.56%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 55.84%
#5: Arkansas (6.28, 66.09%) at Memphis (-6.28, 33.91%)
Estimated score: 30.85 - 24.61, Total: 55.46
Quality: 95.50%, Team quality: 95.99%, Competitiveness: 94.53%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.18%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.78%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 38.38%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.22%
#6: Iowa (-5.38, 36.11%) at Rutgers (5.38, 63.89%)
Estimated score: 26.74 - 32.09, Total: 58.83
Quality: 94.76%, Team quality: 94.16%, Competitiveness: 95.96%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.68%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 33.51%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 42.03%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 27.96%
#7: NC State (-0.56, 48.53%) at Duke (0.56, 51.47%)
Estimated score: 32.61 - 33.24, Total: 65.85
Quality: 94.66%, Team quality: 92.11%, Competitiveness: 99.96%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.33%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.58%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 49.83%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 21.74%
#8: Maryland (-5.69, 35.35%) at Wisconsin (5.69, 64.65%)
Estimated score: 17.37 - 22.82, Total: 40.19
Quality: 94.50%, Team quality: 94.00%, Competitiveness: 95.49%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.84%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 33.27%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 23.46%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 47.55%
#9: Syracuse (-6.41, 33.61%) at Clemson (6.41, 66.39%)
Estimated score: 24.58 - 31.05, Total: 55.63
Quality: 94.18%, Team quality: 94.11%, Competitiveness: 94.31%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.26%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.67%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 38.56%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.05%
#10: Florida (-10.51, 24.42%) at Miami (10.51, 75.58%)
Estimated score: 19.85 - 30.26, Total: 50.11
Quality: 92.92%, Team quality: 96.96%, Competitiveness: 85.35%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.65%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.26%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 32.79%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.71%
#11: Illinois (-12.35, 20.80%) at Indiana (12.35, 79.20%)
Estimated score: 19.71 - 31.67, Total: 51.38
Quality: 91.81%, Team quality: 98.17%, Competitiveness: 80.31%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.76%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.90%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 34.09%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.37%
#12: UNLV (4.22, 60.98%) at Miami (OH) (-4.22, 39.02%)
Estimated score: 25.85 - 21.69, Total: 47.54
Quality: 91.80%, Team quality: 89.07%, Competitiveness: 97.50%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.15%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 34.30%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 30.23%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.45%
#13: South Carolina (-11.76, 21.92%) at Missouri (11.76, 78.08%)
Estimated score: 18.89 - 30.50, Total: 49.40
Quality: 91.30%, Team quality: 96.34%, Competitiveness: 81.99%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.05%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.67%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 32.08%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 37.46%
#14: Stanford (-7.88, 30.14%) at Virginia (7.88, 69.86%)
Estimated score: 21.97 - 29.90, Total: 51.87
Quality: 91.08%, Team quality: 90.87%, Competitiveness: 91.51%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.27%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.26%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 34.60%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.86%
#15: SMU (-11.82, 21.83%) at TCU (11.82, 78.17%)
Estimated score: 24.65 - 36.35, Total: 60.99
Quality: 90.38%, Team quality: 94.97%, Competitiveness: 81.84%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.11%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.61%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 44.42%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 25.95%
#16: Fresno State (6.17, 65.82%) at Hawai'i (-6.17, 34.18%)
Estimated score: 26.98 - 20.62, Total: 47.60
Quality: 89.42%, Team quality: 86.88%, Competitiveness: 94.72%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.11%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.87%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 30.29%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.39%
#17: West Virginia (-11.79, 21.87%) at Kansas (11.79, 78.13%)
Estimated score: 19.06 - 30.83, Total: 49.89
Quality: 89.32%, Team quality: 93.27%, Competitiveness: 81.91%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.08%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.64%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 32.57%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.94%
#18: Troy (-0.72, 48.09%) at Buffalo (0.72, 51.91%)
Estimated score: 26.46 - 27.31, Total: 53.77
Quality: 89.10%, Team quality: 84.14%, Competitiveness: 99.93%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.34%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.57%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 36.58%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.91%
#19: Boise State (9.36, 73.15%) at Air Force (-9.36, 26.85%)
Estimated score: 33.17 - 23.91, Total: 57.08
Quality: 88.23%, Team quality: 88.24%, Competitiveness: 88.22%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.52%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.64%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 40.12%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.63%
#20: BYU (14.77, 83.41%) at East Carolina (-14.77, 16.59%)
Estimated score: 31.92 - 16.84, Total: 48.77
Quality: 87.54%, Team quality: 95.88%, Competitiveness: 72.99%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 16.12%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 22.62%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 31.45%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.13%
#21: Arkansas State (2.97, 57.78%) at Kennesaw State (-2.97, 42.22%)
Estimated score: 28.56 - 25.34, Total: 53.90
Quality: 86.97%, Team quality: 81.61%, Competitiveness: 98.75%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.73%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 34.95%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 36.72%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.78%
#22: James Madison (10.92, 76.40%) at Liberty (-10.92, 23.60%)
Estimated score: 25.73 - 15.09, Total: 40.82
Quality: 86.90%, Team quality: 88.22%, Competitiveness: 84.30%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.08%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.76%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 24.00%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 46.85%
#23: UTSA (10.18, 74.88%) at Colorado State (-10.18, 25.12%)
Estimated score: 38.39 - 28.31, Total: 66.71
Quality: 86.63%, Team quality: 86.84%, Competitiveness: 86.22%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.30%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.68%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 50.79%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 21.04%
#24: Idaho (-6.24, 34.02%) at San José State (6.24, 65.98%)
Estimated score: 17.96 - 24.29, Total: 42.25
Quality: 85.90%, Team quality: 81.86%, Competitiveness: 94.61%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.15%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.82%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 25.27%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 45.25%
#25: Tulsa (-7.23, 31.66%) at Oklahoma State (7.23, 68.34%)
Estimated score: 23.04 - 30.16, Total: 53.20
Quality: 85.56%, Team quality: 82.14%, Competitiveness: 92.82%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.79%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.91%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 35.98%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.50%
#26: Texas Tech (-16.52, 13.93%) at Utah (16.52, 86.07%)
Estimated score: 27.12 - 43.44, Total: 70.56
Quality: 85.38%, Team quality: 96.13%, Competitiveness: 67.36%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 18.95%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.21%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 55.09%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 18.06%
#27: Tulane (-17.41, 12.69%) at Ole Miss (17.41, 87.31%)
Estimated score: 22.95 - 40.51, Total: 63.45
Quality: 84.47%, Team quality: 96.73%, Competitiveness: 64.41%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 20.53%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.00%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 47.16%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 23.77%
#28: Delaware (-10.97, 23.48%) at Florida International (10.97, 76.52%)
Estimated score: 17.95 - 28.85, Total: 46.80
Quality: 83.92%, Team quality: 83.80%, Competitiveness: 84.15%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.14%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.69%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 29.51%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 40.25%
#29: Louisiana (6.85, 67.44%) at Eastern Michigan (-6.85, 32.56%)
Estimated score: 31.92 - 24.94, Total: 56.86
Quality: 83.67%, Team quality: 79.14%, Competitiveness: 93.53%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.54%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.27%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 39.89%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.84%
#30: North Carolina (-16.01, 14.67%) at UCF (16.01, 85.33%)
Estimated score: 17.29 - 33.17, Total: 50.46
Quality: 83.49%, Team quality: 91.83%, Competitiveness: 69.01%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 18.09%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.91%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 33.15%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.33%
#31: Toledo (15.66, 84.80%) at Western Michigan (-15.66, 15.20%)
Estimated score: 33.34 - 17.45, Total: 50.80
Quality: 83.04%, Team quality: 90.35%, Competitiveness: 70.16%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 17.51%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.40%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 33.49%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.98%
#32: Rice (6.84, 67.43%) at Charlotte (-6.84, 32.57%)
Estimated score: 24.57 - 17.77, Total: 42.34
Quality: 82.96%, Team quality: 78.13%, Competitiveness: 93.54%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.53%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.28%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 25.35%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 45.16%
#33: California (14.50, 82.96%) at San Diego State (-14.50, 17.04%)
Estimated score: 26.95 - 12.45, Total: 39.40
Quality: 82.66%, Team quality: 87.46%, Competitiveness: 73.85%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.70%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 22.99%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 22.78%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 48.43%
#34: Marshall (11.85, 78.23%) at Middle Tennessee (-11.85, 21.77%)
Estimated score: 30.47 - 18.46, Total: 48.93
Quality: 81.73%, Team quality: 81.73%, Competitiveness: 81.75%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.14%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.57%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 31.61%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 37.96%
#35: Wyoming (-17.33, 12.79%) at Colorado (17.33, 87.21%)
Estimated score: 8.06 - 25.67, Total: 33.73
Quality: 80.63%, Team quality: 90.03%, Competitiveness: 64.67%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 20.39%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.10%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 18.27%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 54.76%
#36: Northern Illinois (-19.49, 10.13%) at Mississippi State (19.49, 89.87%)
Estimated score: 11.73 - 31.13, Total: 42.86
Quality: 77.63%, Team quality: 90.21%, Competitiveness: 57.48%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 24.53%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 16.25%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 25.82%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 44.58%
#37: Southern Miss (-18.29, 11.56%) at Louisiana Tech (18.29, 88.44%)
Estimated score: 15.18 - 33.28, Total: 48.45
Quality: 77.08%, Team quality: 86.29%, Competitiveness: 61.49%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 22.16%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 17.82%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 31.13%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.47%
#38: Nevada (-18.88, 10.83%) at Western Kentucky (18.88, 89.17%)
Estimated score: 14.17 - 33.14, Total: 47.30
Quality: 75.44%, Team quality: 84.94%, Competitiveness: 59.51%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 23.31%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 17.04%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 30.00%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.71%
#39: Bowling Green (-21.65, 7.89%) at Louisville (21.65, 92.11%)
Estimated score: 15.58 - 37.06, Total: 52.65
Quality: 75.38%, Team quality: 92.28%, Competitiveness: 50.30%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 29.16%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 13.57%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 35.40%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.06%
#40: UT Martin (-14.30, 17.36%) at Missouri State (14.30, 82.64%)
Estimated score: 18.98 - 33.16, Total: 52.14
Quality: 74.29%, Team quality: 74.21%, Competitiveness: 74.45%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.42%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 23.26%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 34.87%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.59%
#41: Washington (22.04, 92.46%) at Washington State (-22.04, 7.54%)
Estimated score: 37.95 - 15.83, Total: 53.78
Quality: 73.89%, Team quality: 90.69%, Competitiveness: 49.04%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 30.03%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 13.12%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 36.59%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.91%
#42: UL Monroe (-18.60, 11.17%) at UTEP (18.60, 88.83%)
Estimated score: 14.34 - 33.14, Total: 47.48
Quality: 71.95%, Team quality: 78.51%, Competitiveness: 60.44%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 22.77%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 17.40%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 30.18%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.52%
#43: Temple (-23.50, 6.31%) at Georgia Tech (23.50, 93.69%)
Estimated score: 16.75 - 40.50, Total: 57.26
Quality: 71.41%, Team quality: 90.64%, Competitiveness: 44.33%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 33.45%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 11.47%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 40.31%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.46%
#44: Ball State (-21.62, 7.92%) at UConn (21.62, 92.08%)
Estimated score: 24.08 - 45.37, Total: 69.45
Quality: 69.46%, Team quality: 81.54%, Competitiveness: 50.41%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 29.09%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 13.61%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 53.85%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 18.89%
#45: Duquesne (-13.65, 18.46%) at Akron (13.65, 81.54%)
Estimated score: 20.28 - 34.05, Total: 54.34
Quality: 68.26%, Team quality: 64.50%, Competitiveness: 76.46%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 14.48%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 24.15%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 37.18%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.34%
#46: Coastal Carolina (-23.34, 6.43%) at South Alabama (23.34, 93.57%)
Estimated score: 14.07 - 37.58, Total: 51.65
Quality: 65.61%, Team quality: 79.37%, Competitiveness: 44.84%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 33.06%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 11.65%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 34.36%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.10%
#47: Purdue (-27.98, 3.52%) at Notre Dame (27.98, 96.48%)
Estimated score: 9.51 - 37.57, Total: 47.08
Quality: 65.21%, Team quality: 94.39%, Competitiveness: 31.13%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 44.71%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 7.27%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 29.79%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.95%
#48: Michigan State (-28.57, 3.25%) at USC (28.57, 96.75%)
Estimated score: 18.56 - 46.86, Total: 65.42
Quality: 64.14%, Team quality: 94.46%, Competitiveness: 29.57%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 46.24%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 6.81%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 49.35%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 22.10%
#49: Maine (-25.02, 5.21%) at Georgia Southern (25.02, 94.79%)
Estimated score: 14.10 - 39.15, Total: 53.25
Quality: 58.92%, Team quality: 71.86%, Competitiveness: 39.62%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 37.15%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 9.91%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 36.03%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.44%
#50: South Carolina State (-31.21, 2.24%) at South Florida (31.21, 97.76%)
Estimated score: 13.14 - 44.49, Total: 57.63
Quality: 54.25%, Team quality: 83.16%, Competitiveness: 23.09%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 53.20%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 5.01%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 40.72%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.10%
#51: McNeese (-29.57, 2.82%) at Utah State (29.57, 97.18%)
Estimated score: 18.35 - 47.71, Total: 66.06
Quality: 54.09%, Team quality: 76.57%, Competitiveness: 26.99%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 48.89%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 6.08%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 50.07%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 21.56%
#52: Nicholls (-30.64, 2.43%) at Texas State (30.64, 97.57%)
Estimated score: 12.19 - 42.85, Total: 55.03
Quality: 53.78%, Team quality: 79.82%, Competitiveness: 24.41%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 51.70%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 5.37%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 37.92%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.65%
#53: Wofford (-31.21, 2.24%) at Virginia Tech (31.21, 97.76%)
Estimated score: 4.50 - 35.52, Total: 40.02
Quality: 51.86%, Team quality: 77.72%, Competitiveness: 23.09%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 53.20%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 5.01%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 23.31%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 47.74%
#54: Gardner-Webb (-32.50, 1.85%) at Ohio (32.50, 98.15%)
Estimated score: 11.60 - 43.85, Total: 55.45
Quality: 50.69%, Team quality: 80.14%, Competitiveness: 20.28%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 56.58%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 4.28%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 38.37%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.22%
#55: Wagner (-27.77, 3.62%) at Central Michigan (27.77, 96.38%)
Estimated score: 8.39 - 36.23, Total: 44.62
Quality: 48.66%, Team quality: 60.29%, Competitiveness: 31.70%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 44.16%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 7.44%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 27.44%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 42.64%
#56: SE Louisiana (-37.78, 0.82%) at LSU (37.78, 99.18%)
Estimated score: 0.00 - 37.24, Total: 37.24
Quality: 43.90%, Team quality: 86.89%, Competitiveness: 11.20%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 69.62%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 2.13%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 20.99%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 50.85%
#57: Sam Houston (-38.36, 0.74%) at Texas (38.36, 99.26%)
Estimated score: 3.45 - 41.71, Total: 45.15
Quality: 43.51%, Team quality: 88.88%, Competitiveness: 10.43%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 70.95%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 1.96%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 27.94%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 42.05%
#58: Georgia State (-42.77, 0.36%) at Vanderbilt (42.77, 99.64%)
Estimated score: 6.12 - 49.25, Total: 55.37
Quality: 34.68%, Team quality: 84.79%, Competitiveness: 5.80%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 79.97%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 1.02%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 38.28%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.31%
#59: Murray State (-40.19, 0.55%) at Jacksonville State (40.19, 99.45%)
Estimated score: 11.81 - 52.03, Total: 63.84
Quality: 33.57%, Team quality: 67.70%, Competitiveness: 8.26%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 74.90%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 1.51%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 47.58%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 23.43%
#60: UAB (-46.84, 0.18%) at Tennessee (46.84, 99.82%)
Estimated score: 19.41 - 66.36, Total: 85.77
Quality: 28.89%, Team quality: 87.31%, Competitiveness: 3.16%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 86.53%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.54%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 71.04%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 9.02%
#61: Oregon State (-51.74, 0.07%) at Oregon (51.74, 99.93%)
Estimated score: 6.82 - 58.23, Total: 65.06
Quality: 22.24%, Team quality: 88.74%, Competitiveness: 1.40%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 92.19%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.24%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 48.95%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 22.40%
#62: Kent State (-53.50, 0.05%) at Florida State (53.50, 99.95%)
Estimated score: 0.70 - 54.33, Total: 55.03
Quality: 18.27%, Team quality: 77.38%, Competitiveness: 1.02%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 93.69%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.17%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 37.92%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.64%Although these ratings are referred to as alternative ratings, they're actually likely to be a better predictor of a team's future success at this point of the season than the original ratings. Therefore, these game predictions are probably more accurate than those in the other article.
Game quality is based heavily on the expected quality of teams and how balanced each matchup seems to be. In some cases, however, there’s still a lot of uncertainty about the quality of a few FBS teams. For example, according to ESPN’s FPI, Texas Tech has played the weakest schedule of all 136 FBS teams so far. They weren’t highly ranked last season, but they also haven’t played a strong enough schedule where winning by a large margin can vault Texas Tech high in the ratings. It’s not the fault of the ratings in this case, where even just using 2025 games to decide the ratings only puts Texas Tech at #43. Still, Utah-Texas Tech might be the most intriguing FBS game this week since it will be the first real test of Texas Tech’s skill this season.
I'll post more commentary on college football in the next few days with discussions about schedule strength and also about developing backward-looking strength of record ratings. Although the ratings in this article attempt to measure a team's quality, as in which teams are strongest and most likely to have success in future games, they're not always good at tracking what a team has accomplished to date with winning games. That's where the backward-looking ratings will come in, which should be better for assessing questions like whether a team is deserving of being in the college football playoff.
Thanks for reading!
This article uses data from collegefootballdata.com.