Alternative College Football Ratings for Week 6
One final set of alternative ratings that weight 2025 games more.
For one final week, here are the alternative ratings that give more weight to 2025 games while still allowing games played last season to influence the ratings. Starting next week, there will be one set of ratings. Although I had planned to completely phase out games played in 2024 after this weekend, I’m treating it as a game time decision. This is somewhat of a subjective call, but I’m looking to see if there are still several outliers when the ratings are only influenced by games this season, or if I think it’s reasonable to phase out 2024 completely. More on that after this weekend’s games.
These ratings weight games last season at 4% of impact of a game played this season. If a team played 13 games last season and five games so far this season, ignoring other factors that influence the weights a bit, this season accounts for 90.58% of a team’s rating and last season decides the remaining 9.42%. The point is that these ratings are almost entirely determined by games played this season, though there’s still a noticeable effect from not completely phasing out last season’s games.
A lot of what I wanted to say was discussed in the article about the original rating scheme for this week, which I’ve currently pinned to the top of The Linked Letters homepage. Therefore, this article will just be have the alternative ratings and game predictions using this scheme, and I’ll refer you to that article for more commentary about the ratings.
Which rating approach is actually better? I still haven’t completely decided, but I intend to evaluate the predictions so far this season and try to provide a statistical basis for why one approach or the other should be preferred. I’ll be working on that over the next couple of weeks.
The Ratings
The offense and defense columns are combined to decide a team’s predictive rating. These ratings are forward looking, intending to measure a team’s quality right now and predict what they might do in the future. To predict the spread of a game, take the rating of the home team, add the home advantage (or not, if it’s a neutral site game), and subtract the rating of the visiting team.
The only part of this that’s not forward looking is the strength of record column. I added that here because a lot of my other tables already have too many columns, and I didn’t want to add yet another table to my articles. I already have several with schedule strength and playoff ratings. That predicts the winning percentage against each team’s schedule for a team with a rating that’s 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS mean. In other words, how would a team ranked somewhere around or just below #10 be expected to fare against each team’s schedule. Then I subtract that from the team’s actual winning percentage. This column is mostly negative because each team’s winning percentage is being compared against a team that’s around the middle of the top 25, which is a pretty high standard.
Predictive Ratings
Home advantage: 2.20 points
Mean score: 26.42 points
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
1 +1 83.96 +5.46 Ohio State 33.11 50.60 .229
2 -1 82.62 -1.13 Indiana 44.37 38.25 .166
3 +4 81.47 +8.79 Notre Dame 49.72 31.74 -.147
4 -1 78.97 +2.63 Oregon 45.58 33.37 .116
5 +1 78.89 +5.34 Miami 35.94 42.97 .294
6 -2 76.83 +1.57 Alabama 40.85 35.82 .031
7 +1 74.27 +2.06 BYU 36.76 37.39 .131
8 +6 72.68 +3.73 Michigan 36.98 35.55 .040
9 +1 72.26 +0.36 USC 45.81 26.57 -.065
10 +5 72.17 +4.11 Nebraska 37.33 34.80 -.066
11 -6 71.92 -2.09 Ole Miss 38.75 33.17 .152
12 71.41 +2.38 Florida State 38.65 32.75 -.023
13 -4 70.82 -1.34 Tennessee 45.74 25.06 -.041
14 +2 70.63 +3.05 Oklahoma 28.12 42.44 .194
15 -4 70.31 +0.59 Georgia 30.65 39.82 .030
16 -3 69.57 +0.60 Texas 30.87 38.91 -.043
17 +2 69.49 +3.11 Texas A&M 34.95 34.60 .278
18 +5 68.91 +5.49 Texas Tech 37.97 30.78 .117
19 -2 68.42 +1.43 Washington 41.05 27.39 -.055
20 +1 67.99 +2.39 LSU 29.88 38.39 .013
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
21 -3 67.90 +0.97 Vanderbilt 40.82 26.99 .081
22 +4 67.65 +5.28 Utah 34.93 32.62 -.101
23 -3 67.42 +1.34 Penn State 33.73 33.54 -.093
24 +7 65.34 +4.51 Illinois 30.56 34.79 .094
25 +2 64.17 +2.59 Florida 27.13 37.10 -.402
26 -4 63.96 -0.43 Missouri 34.88 29.00 .066
27 +16 63.60 +7.44 Virginia 39.75 23.92 -.068
28 +7 62.77 +3.24 South Florida 31.27 31.47 .036
29 +3 62.63 +2.08 Auburn 25.91 36.69 -.174
30 +6 62.63 +3.54 Iowa State 29.63 33.10 .096
31 -6 62.44 -0.54 Old Dominion 28.73 33.60 -.028
32 +2 62.08 +2.33 Cincinnati 32.61 29.60 -.061
33 -4 61.73 +0.79 North Texas 38.58 23.13 .051
34 -4 61.12 +0.24 Louisville 35.86 25.17 .061
35 +4 60.97 +2.68 Mississippi State 31.81 29.16 -.070
36 +14 60.50 +6.29 Iowa 24.82 35.63 -.165
37 -4 60.00 +0.05 Georgia Tech 31.50 28.39 .084
38 +13 59.56 +6.14 East Carolina 25.79 33.74 -.245
39 -11 58.43 -3.08 TCU 33.35 25.02 -.164
40 -2 58.21 -0.46 Arizona State 23.51 34.65 -.069
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
41 +11 57.56 +4.17 Toledo 27.80 29.70 -.344
42 +3 57.52 +1.62 South Carolina 21.05 36.43 -.221
43 -3 57.47 -0.34 Kansas 30.86 26.62 -.266
44 -7 56.98 -1.74 Houston 26.05 30.92 .055
45 -21 56.96 -6.13 Arkansas 32.02 24.97 -.319
46 +2 56.85 +1.85 Colorado 27.43 29.30 -.407
47 +27 56.06 +8.97 Duke 32.35 23.56 -.264
48 -1 55.79 +0.79 Maryland 24.44 31.15 .040
49 -5 55.55 -0.55 Memphis 27.27 28.39 .041
50 -9 55.32 -2.30 Arizona 25.14 30.00 -.137
51 +15 54.63 +5.07 NC State 28.66 25.80 -.242
52 +15 53.67 +4.22 Purdue 21.86 31.71 -.195
53 +18 53.57 +5.54 Louisiana Tech 20.60 32.84 -.096
54 +1 53.24 +1.90 Rutgers 34.14 18.86 -.315
55 -13 52.66 -3.58 Kentucky 26.20 26.39 -.292
56 +1 52.61 +1.62 Kansas State 26.15 26.54 -.462
57 -1 52.55 +1.36 Tulane 25.51 27.00 -.046
58 +1 52.31 +1.97 Michigan State 27.02 25.24 -.084
59 +11 51.72 +3.41 New Mexico 26.42 25.37 -.096
60 +1 51.18 +1.20 James Madison 21.07 30.12 -.167
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
61 +2 50.93 +1.33 Wisconsin 20.79 30.09 -.296
62 -9 50.90 -1.66 Clemson 22.06 28.95 -.572
63 -17 50.83 -4.32 UCF 23.43 27.43 -.203
64 +4 50.67 +1.60 Minnesota 23.22 27.37 -.198
65 -11 50.38 -1.95 Army 23.94 26.44 -.568
66 -2 50.32 +0.73 Boise State 28.37 21.86 -.160
67 -2 50.28 +0.71 Pittsburgh 28.38 21.81 -.434
68 -10 49.21 -1.42 Baylor 32.80 16.21 -.295
69 +7 48.91 +3.10 Ohio 25.79 22.99 -.198
70 -21 48.53 -6.33 Syracuse 25.09 23.34 -.246
71 +2 48.52 +1.12 Virginia Tech 25.66 22.83 -.407
72 +3 48.47 +2.26 Utah State 28.43 19.87 -.208
73 -11 48.25 -1.56 SMU 24.09 24.12 -.416
74 -5 47.93 -0.83 Texas State 27.97 19.98 -.166
75 -15 47.88 -2.19 Navy 24.60 23.15 .011
76 +5 47.76 +3.50 San Diego State 17.16 30.53 -.217
77 -5 46.95 -0.71 Boston College 29.40 17.41 -.684
78 -1 46.87 +1.37 UTSA 29.27 17.65 -.355
79 -1 46.56 +1.47 Fresno State 22.98 23.65 -.137
80 +5 46.55 +4.36 California 19.07 27.39 -.138
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
81 +9 46.04 +5.53 Western Michigan 19.08 26.66 -.414
82 +7 45.22 +4.50 Temple 27.58 17.48 -.328
83 44.56 +0.68 UNLV 28.15 16.33 .020
84 +11 44.31 +5.97 Wake Forest 17.02 27.22 -.417
85 -6 44.23 -0.10 Western Kentucky 24.72 19.46 -.148
86 -6 43.33 -0.99 Northwestern 11.69 31.56 -.307
87 43.20 +1.49 Stanford 18.22 25.04 -.389
88 -6 42.53 -1.51 UConn 24.99 17.54 -.364
89 -5 41.62 -1.06 Bowling Green 15.85 25.83 -.452
90 +15 41.42 +6.30 Southern Miss 24.53 16.88 -.319
91 +6 41.02 +3.60 Washington State 18.71 22.27 -.246
92 +2 40.94 +1.64 Delaware 21.24 19.60 -.181
93 40.75 +1.44 Wyoming 14.20 26.51 -.357
94 +16 40.01 +5.82 Oregon State 20.28 19.84 -.714
95 -9 39.86 -2.32 West Virginia 17.13 22.73 -.448
96 +5 39.56 +3.38 Miami (OH) 15.69 23.97 -.666
97 -5 39.21 -0.71 Marshall 25.91 13.18 -.493
98 +5 37.80 +2.29 Hawai’i 17.05 20.63 -.282
99 -11 37.80 -3.39 Jacksonville State 20.24 17.66 -.557
100 -1 37.32 +0.54 Northern Illinois 11.81 25.46 -.610
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
101 -10 37.23 -3.27 North Carolina 16.23 20.84 -.423
102 +2 37.11 +1.83 UCLA 15.17 21.86 -.858
103 -5 37.10 +0.00 Troy 17.56 19.47 -.428
104 +4 37.10 +2.49 San José State 18.44 18.50 -.608
105 +7 36.75 +3.13 South Alabama 21.58 14.82 -.650
106 -10 36.38 -1.50 Colorado State 11.31 25.08 -.613
107 +4 35.82 +1.91 UTEP 17.24 18.62 -.658
108 -2 35.47 +0.58 Florida International 14.27 21.15 -.381
109 +4 35.12 +1.87 Liberty 13.90 21.25 -.701
110 -3 34.78 -0.02 Tulsa 14.01 20.69 -.562
111 +4 34.51 +1.76 Buffalo 12.91 21.44 -.564
112 -12 34.12 -2.10 Air Force 24.83 9.27 -.699
113 -11 33.80 -1.94 Georgia Southern 21.05 12.66 -.442
114 +2 33.56 +0.98 UAB 24.67 8.71 -.345
115 +3 33.22 +1.11 Rice 11.80 21.40 -.347
116 +3 33.02 +1.02 Missouri State 14.06 18.96 -.461
117 32.69 +0.42 Kennesaw State 13.71 18.96 -.231
118 +8 32.55 +4.36 Coastal Carolina 10.91 21.56 -.357
119 -10 32.35 -2.04 Florida Atlantic 24.45 7.71 -.660
120 +9 31.53 +4.58 New Mexico State 13.61 17.75 -.419
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
121 -1 30.64 +0.31 Louisiana 16.67 13.98 -.521
122 -1 30.51 +0.21 Nevada 9.58 20.67 -.621
123 +2 30.47 +1.91 Central Michigan 14.40 16.12 -.257
124 29.64 +1.03 Ball State 16.44 13.22 -.610
125 -11 29.28 -3.70 Arkansas State 15.31 14.00 -.709
126 -4 28.23 -0.79 Oklahoma State 12.29 15.83 -.554
127 27.71 +0.05 Akron 10.74 17.03 -.635
128 +4 27.69 +3.44 UL Monroe 13.03 14.61 -.079
129 -6 27.10 -1.82 App State 11.10 15.98 -.456
130 -2 26.25 -0.74 Sam Houston 14.83 11.21 -.840
131 +2 24.58 +0.92 Middle Tennessee 10.67 13.89 -.758
132 -2 23.70 -1.36 Georgia State 16.22 7.36 -.469
133 -2 22.92 -2.09 Eastern Michigan 15.44 7.66 -.745
134 19.83 -1.96 Charlotte 7.14 12.63 -.741
135 +1 19.66 +5.13 Massachusetts 9.55 10.02 -.827
136 -1 18.99 +2.27 Kent State 15.07 3.90 -.496Schedule Strength
There are two different measures of schedule strength. The first two columns measure the difficulty a team’s past and future schedules would pose for a team that would be 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS mean. The columns are the team’s expected losing percentage against that schedule, meaning that higher numbers indicate a stronger schedule.
The last two columns are also the past and future schedules, but they’re just the average of the opponents’ predictive ratings. As I discussed in a prior article, this isn’t always representative of the true difficulty of a schedule, and it’s going to be most accurate for a team that’s a near average FBS team.
Past and Future Schedule Strength
Home advantage: 2.20 points
Mean score: 26.42 points
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
1 Ohio State .229 (16) .224 (45) 44.86 (49) 56.38 (45)
2 Indiana .166 (43) .244 (38) 45.82 (47) 56.92 (40)
3 Notre Dame .353 (1) .132 (70) 64.75 (1) 51.21 (65)
4 Oregon .116 (83) .315 (23) 44.54 (53) 62.35 (18)
5 Miami .294 (5) .163 (63) 54.04 (10) 53.24 (60)
6 Alabama .281 (9) .305 (24) 55.09 (7) 58.44 (31)
7 BYU .131 (78) .242 (39) 43.12 (69) 58.21 (34)
8 Michigan .290 (6) .277 (31) 56.25 (4) 59.81 (26)
9 USC .135 (74) .387 (4) 47.19 (40) 63.43 (11)
10 Nebraska .184 (35) .198 (55) 43.72 (62) 54.93 (52)
11 Ole Miss .152 (58) .253 (36) 49.45 (30) 54.60 (55)
12 Florida State .227 (17) .191 (58) 40.60 (82) 54.36 (56)
13 Tennessee .159 (47) .298 (26) 47.52 (37) 59.78 (27)
14 Oklahoma .194 (28) .362 (12) 50.34 (25) 61.92 (19)
15 Georgia .280 (12) .263 (34) 55.69 (6) 57.17 (39)
16 Texas .207 (23) .333 (17) 44.68 (51) 64.41 (10)
17 Texas A&M .278 (13) .270 (32) 58.76 (3) 55.86 (46)
18 Texas Tech .117 (82) .175 (60) 28.55 (134) 52.31 (63)
19 Washington .195 (27) .255 (35) 47.10 (41) 58.47 (30)
20 LSU .213 (20) .336 (15) 53.73 (13) 63.05 (13)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
21 Vanderbilt .081 (103) .374 (9) 38.25 (99) 66.04 (8)
22 Utah .099 (89) .228 (43) 43.78 (61) 58.36 (32)
23 Penn State .157 (50) .323 (20) 39.30 (90) 61.21 (21)
24 Illinois .294 (4) .250 (37) 52.86 (15) 58.16 (35)
25 Florida .348 (2) .384 (5) 54.72 (8) 66.87 (5)
26 Missouri .066 (111) .380 (6) 33.28 (125) 66.80 (6)
27 Virginia .132 (76) .108 (75) 43.55 (65) 48.14 (73)
28 South Florida .286 (8) .088 (83) 53.77 (12) 41.37 (90)
29 Auburn .226 (18) .286 (29) 51.59 (22) 59.18 (28)
30 Iowa State .096 (90) .231 (41) 44.20 (57) 56.82 (41)
31 Old Dominion .222 (19) .029 (120) 47.22 (39) 34.04 (129)
32 Cincinnati .189 (33) .215 (48) 40.35 (86) 55.27 (51)
33 North Texas .051 (123) .064 (92) 38.68 (97) 41.02 (95)
34 Louisville .061 (114) .183 (59) 40.77 (81) 53.99 (58)
35 Mississippi State .130 (79) .379 (7) 38.70 (96) 66.94 (4)
36 Iowa .235 (15) .336 (14) 44.80 (50) 63.22 (12)
37 Georgia Tech .084 (97) .163 (62) 44.03 (58) 53.61 (59)
38 East Carolina .155 (52) .069 (87) 44.52 (54) 41.34 (91)
39 TCU .086 (94) .214 (50) 43.01 (71) 56.81 (42)
40 Arizona State .131 (77) .238 (40) 49.70 (28) 58.00 (36)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
41 Toledo .056 (115) .025 (126) 35.31 (115) 34.40 (126)
42 South Carolina .179 (37) .362 (11) 50.06 (27) 62.59 (17)
43 Kansas .134 (75) .225 (44) 41.29 (78) 55.48 (49)
44 Houston .055 (116) .149 (66) 40.42 (85) 51.13 (66)
45 Arkansas .281 (10) .366 (10) 49.63 (29) 66.18 (7)
46 Colorado .193 (29) .204 (54) 53.26 (14) 56.70 (44)
47 Duke .136 (73) .115 (73) 48.74 (33) 49.62 (70)
48 Maryland .040 (129) .331 (19) 34.91 (116) 62.71 (15)
49 Memphis .041 (128) .104 (78) 34.67 (118) 46.02 (77)
50 Arizona .113 (84) .216 (47) 41.11 (79) 55.41 (50)
51 NC State .158 (48) .316 (22) 53.97 (11) 55.72 (47)
52 Purdue .305 (3) .376 (8) 54.19 (9) 65.03 (9)
53 Louisiana Tech .104 (87) .027 (123) 40.97 (80) 36.49 (116)
54 Rutgers .085 (95) .413 (3) 39.28 (91) 67.97 (3)
55 Kentucky .208 (22) .334 (16) 51.38 (23) 63.03 (14)
56 Kansas State .138 (71) .213 (51) 51.96 (18) 55.57 (48)
57 Tulane .154 (54) .092 (82) 49.01 (32) 43.94 (83)
58 Michigan State .166 (44) .339 (13) 47.71 (36) 62.65 (16)
59 New Mexico .154 (56) .049 (104) 44.61 (52) 41.15 (94)
60 James Madison .083 (100) .055 (98) 36.46 (110) 38.07 (108)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
61 Wisconsin .204 (24) .466 (1) 48.09 (35) 70.39 (1)
62 Clemson .178 (38) .160 (65) 52.30 (17) 49.77 (69)
63 UCF .047 (124) .230 (42) 29.96 (132) 54.63 (54)
64 Minnesota .052 (120) .321 (21) 30.56 (131) 61.71 (20)
65 Army .182 (36) .052 (101) 56.10 (5) 39.63 (99)
66 Boise State .090 (93) .146 (67) 35.47 (114) 48.43 (71)
67 Pittsburgh .066 (109) .301 (25) 32.90 (126) 60.63 (24)
68 Baylor .105 (86) .206 (53) 40.18 (87) 57.39 (38)
69 Ohio .202 (25) .023 (130) 48.31 (34) 33.12 (132)
70 Syracuse .154 (53) .282 (30) 46.13 (45) 57.90 (37)
71 Virginia Tech .193 (31) .296 (27) 51.80 (20) 60.52 (25)
72 Utah State .192 (32) .062 (94) 43.23 (68) 42.97 (84)
73 SMU .084 (98) .162 (64) 37.02 (107) 52.55 (62)
74 Texas State .084 (99) .030 (119) 36.72 (109) 36.66 (115)
75 Navy .011 (135) .212 (52) 25.43 (136) 53.22 (61)
76 San Diego State .033 (133) .052 (102) 35.48 (113) 41.39 (89)
77 Boston College .066 (110) .196 (56) 35.93 (111) 54.83 (53)
78 UTSA .145 (61) .138 (68) 45.59 (48) 48.16 (72)
79 Fresno State .063 (112) .049 (105) 34.28 (121) 41.30 (92)
80 California .062 (113) .135 (69) 37.71 (102) 50.83 (68)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
81 Western Michigan .186 (34) .023 (131) 51.75 (21) 32.95 (133)
82 Temple .172 (40) .109 (74) 40.46 (84) 46.70 (75)
83 UNLV .020 (134) .050 (103) 34.45 (120) 41.26 (93)
84 Wake Forest .083 (101) .168 (61) 39.25 (92) 51.30 (64)
85 Western Kentucky .052 (119) .103 (79) 31.44 (130) 42.01 (88)
86 Northwestern .193 (30) .332 (18) 43.44 (67) 60.79 (23)
87 Stanford .211 (21) .293 (28) 52.38 (16) 58.84 (29)
88 UConn .036 (132) .043 (110) 32.79 (127) 38.50 (105)
89 Bowling Green .148 (60) .028 (122) 45.97 (46) 29.95 (136)
90 Southern Miss .081 (102) .022 (132) 39.11 (94) 35.06 (124)
91 Washington State .154 (55) .195 (57) 49.23 (31) 54.30 (57)
92 Delaware .069 (108) .037 (115) 37.53 (103) 37.43 (112)
93 Wyoming .143 (63) .040 (113) 42.98 (72) 39.35 (101)
94 Oregon State .286 (7) .022 (133) 59.15 (2) 33.24 (131)
95 West Virginia .152 (57) .269 (33) 43.93 (59) 60.95 (22)
96 Miami (OH) .084 (96) .049 (106) 40.54 (83) 38.08 (107)
97 Marshall .107 (85) .061 (95) 37.03 (106) 39.50 (100)
98 Hawai’i .051 (121) .047 (108) 35.65 (112) 42.50 (85)
99 Jacksonville State .043 (126) .020 (134) 33.83 (123) 34.28 (127)
100 Northern Illinois .140 (68) .054 (100) 46.43 (43) 35.41 (122)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
101 North Carolina .077 (106) .121 (71) 36.97 (108) 50.97 (67)
102 UCLA .142 (65) .442 (2) 51.82 (19) 69.37 (2)
103 Troy .072 (107) .064 (91) 39.96 (88) 37.48 (111)
104 San José State .142 (67) .055 (99) 44.33 (55) 42.21 (86)
105 South Alabama .150 (59) .026 (124) 43.07 (70) 34.28 (128)
106 Colorado State .137 (72) .067 (89) 43.61 (63) 44.20 (82)
107 UTEP .142 (66) .018 (135) 42.56 (73) 33.91 (130)
108 Florida International .119 (81) .024 (128) 38.22 (100) 34.80 (125)
109 Liberty .099 (88) .039 (114) 41.34 (77) 37.26 (114)
110 Tulsa .038 (130) .098 (81) 37.27 (104) 45.55 (80)
111 Buffalo .036 (131) .024 (129) 28.41 (135) 32.66 (134)
112 Air Force .051 (122) .060 (96) 34.81 (117) 44.46 (81)
113 Georgia Southern .158 (49) .048 (107) 44.29 (56) 36.21 (117)
114 UAB .155 (51) .100 (80) 42.26 (74) 46.66 (76)
115 Rice .053 (118) .119 (72) 32.76 (128) 46.96 (74)
116 Missouri State .139 (70) .029 (121) 43.49 (66) 35.86 (119)
117 Kennesaw State .169 (42) .033 (117) 37.84 (101) 37.79 (110)
118 Coastal Carolina .143 (64) .088 (84) 43.80 (60) 40.33 (96)
119 Florida Atlantic .090 (92) .106 (76) 38.32 (98) 45.86 (79)
120 New Mexico State .081 (104) .082 (85) 39.43 (89) 37.82 (109)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
121 Louisiana .079 (105) .043 (111) 33.63 (124) 39.08 (103)
122 Nevada .129 (80) .072 (86) 42.18 (75) 45.90 (78)
123 Central Michigan .143 (62) .045 (109) 37.16 (105) 35.47 (121)
124 Ball State .140 (69) .058 (97) 47.48 (38) 37.38 (113)
125 Arkansas State .091 (91) .025 (125) 38.94 (95) 36.08 (118)
126 Oklahoma State .196 (26) .219 (46) 43.56 (64) 58.35 (33)
127 Akron .165 (45) .017 (136) 42.16 (76) 30.32 (135)
128 UL Monroe .171 (41) .064 (93) 34.22 (122) 42.07 (87)
129 App State .044 (125) .067 (88) 31.80 (129) 38.47 (106)
130 Sam Houston .160 (46) .041 (112) 50.69 (24) 38.57 (104)
131 Middle Tennessee .042 (127) .025 (127) 39.17 (93) 35.29 (123)
132 Georgia State .281 (11) .065 (90) 50.28 (26) 40.02 (97)
133 Eastern Michigan .055 (117) .034 (116) 34.63 (119) 39.34 (102)
134 Charlotte .009 (136) .214 (49) 28.70 (133) 56.73 (43)
135 Massachusetts .173 (39) .030 (118) 46.83 (42) 35.70 (120)
136 Kent State .254 (14) .104 (77) 46.36 (44) 39.88 (98) Playoff Ratings
As a reminder, here are the four components of the playoff ratings:
The cumulative distribution function of the team’s strength of record for a hypothetical team 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS average. (SOR; 55%)
The cumulative distribution function of the team’s predictive rating (Fwd; 30%)
The team’s winning percentage (Win%; 10%)
The cumulative distribution function of the team’s strength of schedule for a hypothetical team 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS average. (SOS; 5%)
Unlike my predictive ratings, these are based heavily on strength of record, meaning that they give more weight to a team’s past accomplishments than what they’re expected to do in the future.
Playoff Ratings
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
1 .9814 +.0138 Miami .982 .980 1.000 .973
2 +2 .9734 +.0297 Ohio State .969 .880 1.000 .988
3 .9588 +.0122 Texas A&M .980 .966 1.000 .906
4 +3 .9490 +.0144 Indiana .948 .634 1.000 .985
5 +3 .9408 +.0113 Oklahoma .959 .765 1.000 .918
6 .9256 -.0103 Ole Miss .943 .563 1.000 .930
7 +3 .9202 +.0326 BYU .933 .450 1.000 .948
8 +6 .9197 +.0489 Oregon .925 .372 1.000 .974
9 +6 .8980 +.0280 Texas Tech .926 .380 1.000 .899
10 +26 .8913 +.1156 Alabama .870 .970 .750 .964
11 +5 .8871 +.0208 Michigan .877 .977 .750 .936
12 +18 .8867 +.0697 Illinois .914 .980 .800 .851
13 -11 .8756 -.0755 Georgia .869 .968 .750 .914
14 -2 .8747 -.0039 Vanderbilt .905 .215 1.000 .887
15 +7 .8584 +.0264 Iowa State .914 .277 1.000 .806
16 -7 .8582 -.0382 LSU .855 .832 .800 .888
17 -4 .8492 -.0215 Missouri .895 .161 1.000 .829
18 -13 .8484 -.0926 Florida State .822 .875 .750 .925
19 +5 .8466 +.0233 South Florida .874 .973 .750 .808
20 -3 .8368 -.0112 Georgia Tech .907 .229 1.000 .754
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
21 +2 .8313 +.0041 Louisville .892 .147 1.000 .777
22 -3 .8291 -.0078 North Texas .885 .117 1.000 .789
23 +5 .8287 +.0106 Texas .802 .812 .750 .906
24 +9 .8286 +.0346 Tennessee .805 .601 .800 .919
25 +7 .8184 +.0222 Nebraska .778 .721 .750 .932
26 -8 .8159 -.0273 Washington .790 .768 .750 .893
27 -16 .8121 -.0678 USC .779 .475 .800 .933
28 +1 .8084 -.0089 Old Dominion .818 .862 .750 .802
29 -4 .8011 -.0217 Houston .888 .129 1.000 .688
30 +4 .7849 -.0031 Maryland .877 .092 1.000 .659
31 -4 .7835 -.0355 Memphis .878 .094 1.000 .653
32 +15 .7815 +.1008 Cincinnati .783 .742 .750 .795
33 -12 .7787 -.0542 Penn State .746 .586 .750 .880
34 +18 .7757 +.1652 Virginia .775 .454 .800 .823
35 +21 .7677 +.1658 Notre Dame .678 .998 .500 .982
36 +8 .7647 +.0695 Utah .737 .291 .800 .883
37 -11 .7599 -.0622 Mississippi State .773 .447 .800 .774
38 +4 .7431 +.0351 Arizona State .774 .451 .800 .716
39 +1 .7219 +.0066 Tulane .799 .574 .800 .578
40 -1 .7083 -.0252 Navy .853 .043 1.000 .456
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
41 -4 .6983 -.0560 Auburn .642 .874 .600 .806
42 +3 .6947 +.0021 Michigan State .757 .634 .750 .572
43 +5 .6939 +.0309 Iowa .654 .897 .600 .765
44 +2 .6876 +.0021 UNLV .861 .055 1.000 .371
45 +6 .6857 +.0664 Louisiana Tech .743 .315 .800 .604
46 +4 .6791 +.0595 New Mexico .743 .572 .750 .557
47 -16 .6672 -.1375 Arizona .691 .358 .750 .648
48 -28 .6628 -.1715 TCU .654 .234 .750 .721
49 +12 .6203 +.0633 South Carolina .574 .697 .600 .700
50 +9 .6175 +.0504 Purdue .611 .986 .500 .607
51 +18 .6085 +.1261 East Carolina .538 .578 .600 .745
52 +8 .6072 +.0453 James Madison .651 .225 .750 .543
53 +9 .6065 +.0548 Boise State .660 .251 .750 .520
54 +3 .5943 +.0052 Fresno State .691 .152 .800 .422
55 +11 .5938 +.0911 California .690 .151 .800 .421
56 -1 .5820 -.0200 Texas State .652 .227 .750 .457
57 +11 .5787 +.0847 Ohio .607 .795 .600 .483
58 -9 .5776 -.0427 NC State .543 .595 .600 .631
59 +14 .5732 +.1115 Minnesota .606 .119 .750 .529
60 -17 .5718 -.1295 Kansas .507 .467 .600 .699
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
61 -26 .5707 -.2070 UCF .600 .109 .750 .533
62 +2 .5670 +.0426 Western Kentucky .677 .121 .800 .363
63 -10 .5650 -.0455 Utah State .593 .754 .600 .471
64 +19 .5639 +.1738 Duke .510 .476 .600 .666
65 -2 .5502 +.0249 UL Monroe .763 .660 .750 .075
66 +10 .5335 +.1107 San Diego State .580 .077 .750 .453
67 -13 .5305 -.0763 Arkansas .429 .970 .400 .687
68 -30 .5261 -.2157 Syracuse .537 .574 .600 .473
69 -28 .5228 -.1917 Kentucky .468 .817 .500 .581
70 -5 .5165 +.0096 Delaware .632 .173 .750 .285
71 -4 .5056 +.0034 Wisconsin .463 .803 .500 .536
72 .4962 +.0321 Florida .312 .997 .250 .832
73 +5 .4929 +.0875 Toledo .393 .133 .600 .701
74 -16 .4897 -.0930 Rutgers .435 .233 .600 .596
75 .4783 +.0364 Baylor .464 .319 .600 .491
76 +8 .4700 +.0801 Washington State .537 .574 .600 .287
77 -7 .4516 -.0204 Colorado .306 .760 .400 .685
78 +4 .4400 +.0451 Kennesaw State .559 .650 .600 .133
79 +11 .4359 +.0849 Northwestern .447 .760 .500 .341
80 +1 .4281 +.0308 Temple .416 .665 .500 .388
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
81 -2 .4124 +.0102 UTSA .377 .526 .500 .430
82 +9 .4042 +.0579 Hawai’i .483 .119 .667 .219
83 +14 .4036 +.0758 Central Michigan .521 .516 .600 .104
84 +22 .3953 +.1280 Southern Miss .429 .216 .600 .296
85 +18 .3877 +.0971 Virginia Tech .305 .758 .400 .473
86 +18 .3688 +.0790 Kansas State .237 .487 .400 .580
87 +9 .3654 +.0301 Wyoming .374 .514 .500 .281
88 +19 .3635 +.1045 Stanford .329 .825 .400 .338
89 -18 .3630 -.1014 Pittsburgh .271 .162 .500 .519
90 -13 .3627 -.0441 SMU .294 .228 .500 .466
91 +21 .3617 +.1267 Western Michigan .296 .728 .400 .408
92 +8 .3607 +.0451 UConn .364 .083 .600 .322
93 -6 .3381 -.0229 UAB .391 .581 .500 .146
94 -9 .3313 -.0563 Wake Forest .292 .223 .500 .365
95 -21 .3222 -.1302 Rice .389 .125 .600 .141
96 +13 .3203 +.0684 Coastal Carolina .373 .513 .500 .131
97 +4 .3093 +.0009 Florida International .340 .388 .500 .177
98 -18 .2944 -.1043 Bowling Green .249 .542 .400 .301
99 -1 .2916 -.0347 Clemson .130 .690 .250 .535
100 -6 .2908 -.0496 Army .134 .713 .250 .522
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
101 -8 .2865 -.0550 West Virginia .254 .564 .400 .261
102 -7 .2792 -.0596 North Carolina .285 .201 .500 .208
103 +2 .2742 -.0129 Troy .279 .183 .500 .206
104 -18 .2583 -.1102 Georgia Southern .261 .594 .400 .150
105 -13 .2551 -.0892 New Mexico State .289 .214 .500 .117
106 -18 .2428 -.1142 Marshall .204 .331 .400 .248
107 -18 .2374 -.1167 Missouri State .239 .494 .400 .138
108 +5 .2132 -.0211 Georgia State .230 .970 .250 .044
109 -10 .2105 -.1113 App State .245 .101 .500 .069
110 +1 .1964 -.0464 Boston College .061 .162 .250 .432
111 -9 .1889 -.1042 Jacksonville State .142 .097 .400 .219
112 +6 .1882 +.0231 Kent State .200 .934 .250 .022
113 +15 .1787 +.0602 Louisiana .175 .209 .400 .106
114 +2 .1703 -.0571 Tulsa .139 .088 .400 .165
115 .1693 -.0601 Northern Illinois .103 .498 .250 .210
116 -2 .1691 -.0618 San José State .104 .507 .250 .206
117 .1678 -.0536 Buffalo .137 .084 .400 .161
118 -10 .1673 -.0845 Oklahoma State .145 .771 .250 .080
119 -9 .1620 -.0851 Colorado State .100 .481 .250 .193
120 +7 .1551 +.0300 Oregon State .049 .974 .000 .265
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
121 +11 .1515 +.0661 Miami (OH) .070 .229 .250 .255
122 +2 .1507 +.0179 South Alabama .079 .553 .200 .199
123 -4 .1409 -.0214 UTEP .074 .508 .200 .183
124 +2 .1345 +.0088 Ball State .102 .497 .250 .095
125 -2 .1311 -.0029 Nevada .096 .442 .250 .105
126 -1 .1218 -.0039 Akron .087 .630 .200 .075
127 -7 .1163 -.0410 Florida Atlantic .073 .252 .250 .128
128 +1 .1158 +.0101 Liberty .054 .294 .200 .171
129 -8 .1074 -.0489 Air Force .055 .118 .250 .155
130 +1 .0950 +.0054 UCLA .014 .508 .000 .206
131 -9 .0879 -.0603 Arkansas State .051 .255 .200 .091
132 -2 .0593 -.0341 Eastern Michigan .038 .128 .200 .040
133 .0587 -.0140 Middle Tennessee .034 .096 .200 .050
134 .0583 -.0071 Sam Houston .017 .606 .000 .062
135 .0563 -.0027 Charlotte .040 .041 .250 .025
136 .0511 +.0326 Massachusetts .019 .668 .000 .024Week 6 Game Predictions
As usual, 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.
As I’ve said in my other articles this week, there might have been a glitch in the predictions for last week’s games. I haven’t gone back to check and be certain, but it’s very possible some of the competitiveness ratings could have looked a bit odd in last week’s ratings, and they weren’t quite right. This number shouldn’t be over 100%, but I noticed in a couple of places that it was. My code predicts the margin of victory and the distribution of possible outcomes by fitting the past prediction errors to the Student’s t-distribution. If the degrees of freedom in the best fit is large enough, I just use a normal distribution. This is implemented as a ratio in my code, and one part of the ratio was with the normal distribution and the other was using the Student’s t-distribution. It wasn’t a big problem, and I’m not going to go back and edit my predictions, but it’s been fixed for this week. This system is actively under development still, so there are going to be a few glitches from time to time, and I’ll try to correct them as I become aware of the glitches.
#1: Miami (5.27, 62.18%) at Florida State (-5.27, 37.82%)
Estimated score: 28.50 - 23.20, Total: 51.70
Quality: 97.80%, Team quality: 98.40%, Competitiveness: 96.62%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.87%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.49%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.00%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.51%
#2: Texas (3.21, 57.49%) at Florida (-3.21, 42.51%)
Estimated score: 19.09 - 15.74, Total: 34.83
Quality: 97.71%, Team quality: 97.21%, Competitiveness: 98.74%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.01%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.41%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 20.90%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 53.18%
#3: Virginia (0.28, 50.66%) at Louisville (-0.28, 49.34%)
Estimated score: 39.90 - 39.47, Total: 79.36
Quality: 97.51%, Team quality: 96.29%, Competitiveness: 99.99%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.52%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.97%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 62.22%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 14.88%
#4: Iowa State (-1.66, 46.11%) at Cincinnati (1.66, 53.89%)
Estimated score: 25.34 - 27.03, Total: 52.37
Quality: 97.40%, Team quality: 96.28%, Competitiveness: 99.66%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.65%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.82%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.63%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.88%
#5: Colorado (-3.79, 41.16%) at TCU (3.79, 58.84%)
Estimated score: 27.72 - 31.57, Total: 59.29
Quality: 96.08%, Team quality: 95.03%, Competitiveness: 98.24%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.21%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.19%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 42.30%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.60%
#6: Kansas (4.44, 60.31%) at UCF (-4.44, 39.69%)
Estimated score: 28.74 - 24.33, Total: 53.07
Quality: 95.12%, Team quality: 93.90%, Competitiveness: 97.59%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.47%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.91%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 36.29%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.22%
#7: Kansas State (1.19, 52.79%) at Baylor (-1.19, 47.21%)
Estimated score: 35.25 - 33.78, Total: 69.04
Quality: 95.05%, Team quality: 92.75%, Competitiveness: 99.83%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.58%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.89%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 52.04%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 21.73%
#8: Syracuse (-1.92, 45.49%) at SMU (1.92, 54.51%)
Estimated score: 26.29 - 28.27, Total: 54.55
Quality: 94.24%, Team quality: 91.69%, Competitiveness: 99.54%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.69%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.77%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 37.70%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.84%
#9: Texas Tech (9.73, 71.62%) at Houston (-9.73, 28.38%)
Estimated score: 32.37 - 22.80, Total: 55.16
Quality: 93.76%, Team quality: 96.28%, Competitiveness: 88.92%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.16%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.20%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.28%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.28%
#10: Vanderbilt (-11.13, 25.67%) at Alabama (11.13, 74.33%)
Estimated score: 30.32 - 41.38, Total: 71.70
Quality: 93.70%, Team quality: 97.96%, Competitiveness: 85.73%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 14.60%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.89%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 54.71%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 19.81%
#11: UTSA (-0.56, 48.69%) at Temple (0.56, 51.31%)
Estimated score: 37.11 - 37.44, Total: 74.55
Quality: 93.64%, Team quality: 90.63%, Competitiveness: 99.96%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.53%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.95%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 57.54%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 17.87%
#12: Illinois (9.47, 71.11%) at Purdue (-9.47, 28.89%)
Estimated score: 24.17 - 14.59, Total: 38.76
Quality: 93.40%, Team quality: 95.42%, Competitiveness: 89.48%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.91%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.44%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 23.85%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 49.24%
#13: Mississippi State (-10.73, 26.43%) at Texas A&M (10.73, 73.57%)
Estimated score: 22.52 - 33.31, Total: 55.84
Quality: 93.27%, Team quality: 96.74%, Competitiveness: 86.68%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 14.17%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.27%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.93%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.67%
#14: Boston College (-5.54, 37.21%) at Pittsburgh (5.54, 62.79%)
Estimated score: 32.90 - 38.48, Total: 71.38
Quality: 93.22%, Team quality: 91.73%, Competitiveness: 96.27%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.01%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.33%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 54.39%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 20.04%
#15: Washington (10.42, 72.99%) at Maryland (-10.42, 27.01%)
Estimated score: 35.22 - 24.57, Total: 59.78
Quality: 93.07%, Team quality: 96.06%, Competitiveness: 87.38%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.85%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.56%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 42.79%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.17%
#16: Duke (7.31, 66.65%) at California (-7.31, 33.35%)
Estimated score: 30.27 - 23.03, Total: 53.30
Quality: 93.05%, Team quality: 92.78%, Competitiveness: 93.59%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.13%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.18%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 36.51%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.00%
#17: Western Kentucky (1.09, 52.56%) at Delaware (-1.09, 47.44%)
Estimated score: 30.44 - 29.30, Total: 59.74
Quality: 92.38%, Team quality: 88.86%, Competitiveness: 99.85%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.57%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.91%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 42.75%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.21%
#18: UNLV (1.60, 53.76%) at Wyoming (-1.60, 46.24%)
Estimated score: 26.96 - 25.39, Total: 52.34
Quality: 92.35%, Team quality: 88.89%, Competitiveness: 99.68%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.64%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.83%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.61%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.90%
#19: Wake Forest (-6.41, 35.28%) at Virginia Tech (6.41, 64.72%)
Estimated score: 19.51 - 25.95, Total: 45.46
Quality: 92.12%, Team quality: 90.70%, Competitiveness: 95.03%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.52%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.80%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.38%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 42.55%
#20: Miami (OH) (0.04, 50.08%) at Northern Illinois (-0.04, 49.92%)
Estimated score: 15.54 - 15.36, Total: 30.90
Quality: 90.74%, Team quality: 86.44%, Competitiveness: 100.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.51%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.97%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 18.17%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 57.10%
#21: South Alabama (-2.55, 44.02%) at Troy (2.55, 55.98%)
Estimated score: 27.43 - 30.26, Total: 57.69
Quality: 89.81%, Team quality: 85.46%, Competitiveness: 99.20%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.83%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.62%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 40.74%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.00%
#22: Clemson (11.46, 74.95%) at North Carolina (-11.46, 25.05%)
Estimated score: 26.53 - 14.80, Total: 41.34
Quality: 87.81%, Team quality: 89.29%, Competitiveness: 84.94%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 14.97%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.56%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 25.91%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 46.65%
#23: Florida Atlantic (-3.08, 42.80%) at Rice (3.08, 57.20%)
Estimated score: 28.36 - 31.61, Total: 59.97
Quality: 87.67%, Team quality: 82.58%, Competitiveness: 98.83%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.97%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.46%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 42.98%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.00%
#24: Florida International (-9.27, 29.29%) at UConn (9.27, 70.71%)
Estimated score: 22.05 - 31.36, Total: 53.41
Quality: 87.64%, Team quality: 86.54%, Competitiveness: 89.89%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.73%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.61%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 36.61%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.90%
#25: New Mexico (12.42, 76.69%) at San José State (-12.42, 23.31%)
Estimated score: 33.23 - 20.59, Total: 53.82
Quality: 87.06%, Team quality: 89.41%, Competitiveness: 82.54%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 16.11%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 24.59%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 37.00%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.52%
#26: Central Michigan (0.56, 51.31%) at Akron (-0.56, 48.69%)
Estimated score: 22.68 - 22.15, Total: 44.83
Quality: 85.99%, Team quality: 79.76%, Competitiveness: 99.96%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.53%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.95%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.83%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.18%
#27: Colorado State (-13.58, 21.30%) at San Diego State (13.58, 78.70%)
Estimated score: 6.10 - 19.60, Total: 25.70
Quality: 85.10%, Team quality: 88.06%, Competitiveness: 79.48%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 17.60%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 23.37%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 14.92%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 62.16%
#28: Oregon State (10.71, 73.54%) at App State (-10.71, 26.46%)
Estimated score: 29.62 - 18.77, Total: 48.39
Quality: 84.08%, Team quality: 82.79%, Competitiveness: 86.72%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 14.15%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.29%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 31.97%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.68%
#29: Army (14.62, 80.41%) at UAB (-14.62, 19.59%)
Estimated score: 40.55 - 25.75, Total: 66.30
Quality: 83.98%, Team quality: 87.92%, Competitiveness: 76.61%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 19.05%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 22.24%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 49.29%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 23.81%
#30: Sam Houston (-7.49, 32.97%) at New Mexico State (7.49, 67.03%)
Estimated score: 22.39 - 29.92, Total: 52.31
Quality: 83.79%, Team quality: 79.41%, Competitiveness: 93.28%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.26%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.05%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.57%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.93%
#31: Kentucky (-19.86, 12.37%) at Georgia (19.86, 87.63%)
Estimated score: 11.70 - 31.78, Total: 43.48
Quality: 82.23%, Team quality: 95.44%, Competitiveness: 61.03%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 27.87%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 16.47%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 27.69%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 44.52%
#32: Air Force (-15.96, 17.53%) at Navy (15.96, 82.47%)
Estimated score: 27.00 - 42.85, Total: 69.84
Quality: 82.13%, Team quality: 87.25%, Competitiveness: 72.78%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 21.07%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.77%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 52.85%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 21.14%
#33: Texas State (16.45, 83.19%) at Arkansas State (-16.45, 16.81%)
Estimated score: 39.29 - 22.85, Total: 62.14
Quality: 80.65%, Team quality: 85.74%, Competitiveness: 71.35%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 21.84%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.23%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 45.13%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 27.17%
#34: Ohio (17.06, 84.06%) at Ball State (-17.06, 15.94%)
Estimated score: 37.88 - 20.97, Total: 58.85
Quality: 80.17%, Team quality: 86.10%, Competitiveness: 69.52%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 22.85%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.55%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.88%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.98%
#35: Michigan State (-22.06, 10.00%) at Nebraska (22.06, 90.00%)
Estimated score: 17.54 - 39.61, Total: 57.15
Quality: 79.12%, Team quality: 95.50%, Competitiveness: 54.31%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 32.24%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 14.16%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 40.20%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.49%
#36: Eastern Michigan (-13.80, 20.93%) at Buffalo (13.80, 79.07%)
Estimated score: 19.31 - 32.76, Total: 52.08
Quality: 78.84%, Team quality: 78.81%, Competitiveness: 78.89%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 17.89%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 23.14%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.36%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.15%
#37: Nevada (-18.25, 14.34%) at Fresno State (18.25, 85.66%)
Estimated score: 11.24 - 29.82, Total: 41.06
Quality: 78.41%, Team quality: 85.51%, Competitiveness: 65.94%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 24.91%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 18.23%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 25.69%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 46.93%
#38: UL Monroe (-17.85, 14.87%) at Northwestern (17.85, 85.13%)
Estimated score: 6.78 - 24.60, Total: 31.38
Quality: 77.67%, Team quality: 83.54%, Competitiveness: 67.15%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 24.20%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 18.67%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 18.49%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 56.62%
#39: Wisconsin (-23.95, 8.26%) at Michigan (23.95, 91.74%)
Estimated score: 10.56 - 34.40, Total: 44.96
Quality: 76.12%, Team quality: 95.24%, Competitiveness: 48.63%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 36.26%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 12.28%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.95%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.05%
#40: Tulsa (-22.97, 9.13%) at Memphis (22.97, 90.87%)
Estimated score: 10.94 - 34.10, Total: 45.04
Quality: 74.09%, Team quality: 88.82%, Competitiveness: 51.56%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 34.15%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 13.24%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.02%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 42.96%
#41: James Madison (25.27, 92.81%) at Georgia State (-25.27, 7.19%)
Estimated score: 39.02 - 13.62, Total: 52.64
Quality: 68.04%, Team quality: 83.88%, Competitiveness: 44.78%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 39.17%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 11.06%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.88%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.62%
#42: Western Michigan (24.18, 91.93%) at Massachusetts (-24.18, 8.07%)
Estimated score: 34.37 - 10.41, Total: 44.78
Quality: 67.89%, Team quality: 80.76%, Competitiveness: 47.97%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 36.74%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 12.07%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.79%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.22%
#43: Penn State (28.11, 94.72%) at UCLA (-28.11, 5.28%)
Estimated score: 37.19 - 9.14, Total: 46.33
Quality: 67.66%, Team quality: 91.55%, Competitiveness: 36.95%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 45.64%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 8.68%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 30.14%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.69%
#44: Oklahoma State (-29.29, 4.62%) at Arizona (29.29, 95.38%)
Estimated score: 7.61 - 36.83, Total: 44.44
Quality: 63.06%, Team quality: 86.02%, Competitiveness: 33.89%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 48.41%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 7.80%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.50%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.56%
#45: Boise State (-33.35, 2.85%) at Notre Dame (33.35, 97.15%)
Estimated score: 21.94 - 55.38, Total: 77.32
Quality: 60.71%, Team quality: 95.51%, Competitiveness: 24.53%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 57.87%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 5.25%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 60.25%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 16.11%
#46: Coastal Carolina (-32.09, 3.32%) at Old Dominion (32.09, 96.68%)
Estimated score: 2.63 - 34.69, Total: 37.31
Quality: 59.87%, Team quality: 88.76%, Competitiveness: 27.23%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 54.96%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 5.96%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 22.74%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 50.69%
#47: Minnesota (-35.49, 2.19%) at Ohio State (35.49, 97.81%)
Estimated score: 0.00 - 33.26, Total: 33.26
Quality: 57.10%, Team quality: 95.66%, Competitiveness: 20.35%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 62.71%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 4.19%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 19.78%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 54.75%
#48: West Virginia (-36.62, 1.90%) at BYU (36.62, 98.10%)
Estimated score: 5.06 - 41.55, Total: 46.61
Quality: 53.91%, Team quality: 92.36%, Competitiveness: 18.37%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 65.18%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 3.71%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 30.38%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.42%
#49: Campbell (-43.87, 0.72%) at NC State (43.87, 99.28%)
Estimated score: 12.52 - 56.35, Total: 68.87
Quality: 37.52%, Team quality: 77.34%, Competitiveness: 8.83%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 79.19%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 1.57%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 51.88%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 21.85%
#50: Charlotte (-45.14, 0.60%) at South Florida (45.14, 99.40%)
Estimated score: 0.98 - 46.16, Total: 47.14
Quality: 37.38%, Team quality: 82.49%, Competitiveness: 7.67%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 81.23%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 1.34%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 30.85%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 40.90%
#51: Kent State (-53.85, 0.17%) at Oklahoma (53.85, 99.83%)
Estimated score: 0.00 - 51.74, Total: 51.74
Quality: 26.38%, Team quality: 82.58%, Competitiveness: 2.69%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 91.65%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.41%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.04%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.47%This is the final week for having two articles with different sets of ratings. One way or another, everything will be unified after this weekend, and I’ll post about it early next week. NFL ratings will follow shortly today, and I’m hopeful to have some baseball content this weekend. I’d like to look ahead to the offseason and build a system for projecting player performance in upcoming season, and I’d like to explain the details of what goes into such a system.
Thanks for reading!
The ratings in this article are based on data from collegefootballdata.com.