Alternative Week 3 College Football Game Predictions
If I weight early season games more, how does that impact the ratings and game predictions for this weekend?
Over the first few weeks of this season, I'm running an experiment about how to weight games from last season and the current season to get the most accurate ratings and game predictions early in the season. Rating teams and predicting games early in the season is more challenging than later on because there’s very limited data to go on with current rosters. I suspected that my original plan gave too little weight to early season games this year, so I’m also running a parallel set of ratings that allows teams to move up or down farther in the ratings based on the results of the first couple of weekends. If a team played 13 games last season and two this season, the first two weekends of this season would account for roughly 49.02% of a team's rating with last season being responsible for the remaining 50.98%. While Ohio State is on top of the original ratings that weight last season's games more, Oregon tops these ratings after a dominant win over Oklahoma State.
I've talked a lot about some of the factors influencing this week’s ratings in another article, so I'm going to stick to posting the alternative ratings and game predictions here. In a lot of cases, the ratings are fairly similar in both approaches. However, teams that have rapidly moved up or down the ratings early in the season will likely move farther here. Overall, I believe these ratings are probably superior in predicting the first few weeks of the season, and this approach to rating the early season will probably be the default next season.
The Alternative Ratings
These ratings are likely a better approximation of a team's quality early in the season than the default ratings. The algorithm is the same except for the weighting of 2025 games being larger here.
Overall Ratings
Home advantage: 2.81 points
Mean score: 26.28 points
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
1 78.72 Oregon 44.41 34.31
2 78.37 Ohio State 35.88 42.40
3 70.00 Alabama 38.11 32.20
4 69.65 Notre Dame 33.63 36.24
5 69.21 Ole Miss 38.59 30.52
6 69.13 Tennessee 41.31 27.82
7 68.90 Texas 30.56 38.34
8 68.16 USC 41.08 27.02
9 67.34 Indiana 36.95 30.39
10 66.43 Penn State 31.74 34.70
11 63.38 Utah 32.05 31.36
12 62.11 Georgia 30.65 31.19
13 61.95 BYU 29.65 32.44
14 61.47 TCU 33.74 27.94
15 60.67 Nebraska 28.37 32.35
16 59.82 Missouri 31.78 28.20
17 59.70 Miami 33.98 25.41
18 59.52 Iowa State 28.73 30.65
19 59.02 Illinois 28.20 30.82
20 58.73 Vanderbilt 31.83 26.74
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
21 58.69 Florida State 28.77 30.08
22 58.66 Auburn 26.03 32.69
23 58.57 Louisville 33.54 25.02
24 58.34 Florida 27.45 31.00
25 58.21 South Carolina 26.60 31.93
26 57.70 LSU 25.24 32.43
27 56.95 Texas A&M 30.25 26.64
28 56.51 Oklahoma 24.80 31.83
29 56.39 Minnesota 23.70 32.58
30 56.28 Washington 29.75 26.46
31 56.04 Arkansas 27.91 27.81
32 55.82 Georgia Tech 28.33 27.36
33 54.15 Baylor 35.50 18.65
34 53.84 Michigan 21.60 32.05
35 53.34 Pittsburgh 31.60 21.74
36 53.23 South Florida 24.88 28.36
37 53.11 Iowa 21.87 31.15
38 53.02 Colorado 24.33 28.69
39 53.00 Tulane 26.26 26.78
40 52.97 UCF 27.12 25.67
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
41 52.92 Arizona State 27.03 25.73
42 52.30 Kansas 28.26 24.05
43 52.17 Kentucky 20.60 31.57
44 51.89 Clemson 24.18 27.84
45 51.57 Boston College 32.10 19.47
46 51.15 SMU 28.87 22.15
47 50.96 Rutgers 31.49 19.33
48 50.80 Cincinnati 24.23 26.69
49 50.41 Arizona 24.04 26.43
50 50.22 Texas Tech 34.63 15.63
51 50.17 Syracuse 26.97 22.99
52 49.82 Wisconsin 19.21 30.38
53 49.55 Maryland 21.97 27.58
54 48.94 Houston 17.35 31.61
55 48.36 Kansas State 25.00 23.20
56 47.94 Old Dominion 23.51 24.32
57 47.81 Army 21.97 26.01
58 47.21 Memphis 25.38 21.98
59 47.01 Virginia Tech 21.88 25.32
60 46.62 Boise State 24.06 22.66
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
61 46.60 Michigan State 20.47 26.17
62 46.00 Virginia 24.40 21.49
63 45.95 Mississippi State 22.97 22.98
64 45.51 Toledo 23.38 22.16
65 45.24 Ohio 18.99 26.45
66 44.61 UNLV 25.61 18.91
67 44.57 Texas State 28.96 15.61
68 44.37 James Madison 19.66 24.71
69 44.36 North Texas 27.67 16.54
70 43.92 UConn 24.33 19.75
71 43.86 Navy 22.81 21.17
72 43.74 NC State 23.77 19.81
73 42.99 West Virginia 20.04 22.99
74 42.99 California 16.73 26.30
75 42.77 East Carolina 21.09 21.55
76 42.75 Jacksonville State 22.04 20.73
77 41.76 Duke 23.42 18.30
78 41.70 UCLA 17.94 23.77
79 41.42 Washington State 20.45 20.95
80 40.00 Western Kentucky 22.77 17.23
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
81 39.77 Fresno State 18.65 21.17
82 39.55 Northwestern 12.31 27.24
83 39.40 UTSA 25.15 14.26
84 38.78 North Carolina 18.86 19.91
85 38.07 South Alabama 23.15 14.92
86 37.11 Louisiana Tech 11.16 25.98
87 36.84 Purdue 16.33 20.51
88 36.64 Bowling Green 15.76 20.79
89 36.52 Buffalo 19.67 16.85
90 36.34 Temple 20.58 15.74
91 36.15 Northern Illinois 11.89 24.19
92 36.10 Stanford 15.58 20.62
93 35.23 Miami (OH) 12.76 22.64
94 35.18 Louisiana 14.91 20.28
95 35.14 Utah State 21.62 13.30
96 35.08 Oklahoma State 18.54 16.48
97 35.00 Florida International 15.43 19.34
98 34.33 San José State 16.53 17.87
99 34.13 Air Force 13.95 20.33
100 33.76 Liberty 15.19 18.65
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
101 33.50 New Mexico 22.36 11.11
102 33.35 Wake Forest 12.12 21.43
103 33.26 Wyoming 8.04 25.14
104 32.91 Troy 17.35 15.57
105 32.76 Marshall 14.39 18.45
106 32.70 Rice 13.09 19.54
107 32.61 Western Michigan 16.87 15.71
108 31.71 Florida Atlantic 19.92 11.57
109 31.65 Hawai'i 14.25 17.40
110 30.95 San Diego State 13.45 17.39
111 30.66 Central Michigan 13.26 17.39
112 30.31 Nevada 14.25 16.10
113 29.69 Georgia Southern 18.12 11.82
114 29.41 App State 14.32 15.01
115 29.23 Sam Houston 14.94 14.27
116 29.06 UTEP 13.22 15.81
117 28.90 Oregon State 17.33 11.56
118 28.26 Colorado State 14.65 13.47
119 27.55 UAB 23.28 4.40
120 26.23 Arkansas State 17.97 8.22
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
121 25.84 Missouri State 17.34 8.50
122 25.73 Tulsa 12.36 13.50
123 24.71 Delaware 11.09 13.63
124 23.91 Kennesaw State 8.40 15.50
125 23.60 Georgia State 13.43 10.11
126 23.11 Coastal Carolina 10.74 12.37
127 22.71 Southern Miss 12.32 10.18
128 22.21 New Mexico State 6.62 15.62
129 21.43 UL Monroe 9.89 11.63
130 21.18 Charlotte 7.12 13.77
131 20.38 Eastern Michigan 12.39 8.00
132 19.47 Ball State 10.99 8.48
133 17.09 Middle Tennessee 11.02 5.96
134 16.51 Akron 7.30 9.20
135 11.71 Massachusetts 7.81 4.06
136 7.19 Kent State 4.99 2.20 Week 3 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: Vanderbilt (-2.29, 43.56%) at South Carolina (2.29, 56.44%)
Estimated score: 24.78 - 27.56, Total: 52.33
Quality: 97.61%, Team quality: 96.82%, Competitiveness: 99.21%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.99%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.54%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 35.01%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.32%
#2: Florida (-2.18, 43.87%) at LSU (2.18, 56.13%)
Estimated score: 19.90 - 21.93, Total: 41.82
Quality: 97.56%, Team quality: 96.71%, Competitiveness: 99.28%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.97%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.58%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 24.79%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 45.71%
#3: Colorado (1.26, 53.56%) at Houston (-1.26, 46.44%)
Estimated score: 17.60 - 16.35, Total: 33.95
Quality: 96.36%, Team quality: 94.71%, Competitiveness: 99.76%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.83%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.86%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 18.33%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 54.54%
#4: Old Dominion (-1.88, 44.69%) at Virginia Tech (1.88, 55.31%)
Estimated score: 23.06 - 25.24, Total: 48.31
Quality: 95.37%, Team quality: 93.39%, Competitiveness: 99.46%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.92%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.69%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 30.91%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.58%
#5: Kansas State (-4.87, 36.50%) at Arizona (4.87, 63.50%)
Estimated score: 23.44 - 28.52, Total: 51.97
Quality: 94.87%, Team quality: 94.09%, Competitiveness: 96.45%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.80%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.93%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 34.63%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.70%
#6: Clemson (-6.74, 31.65%) at Georgia Tech (6.74, 68.35%)
Estimated score: 21.70 - 28.18, Total: 49.88
Quality: 94.78%, Team quality: 95.53%, Competitiveness: 93.28%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.78%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 34.13%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 32.49%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.89%
#7: Georgia (-9.83, 24.33%) at Tennessee (9.83, 75.67%)
Estimated score: 27.71 - 37.81, Total: 65.52
Quality: 93.90%, Team quality: 98.02%, Competitiveness: 86.17%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.18%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.24%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 49.46%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 21.91%
#8: South Florida (-9.28, 25.56%) at Miami (9.28, 74.44%)
Estimated score: 24.34 - 33.31, Total: 57.65
Quality: 93.23%, Team quality: 96.18%, Competitiveness: 87.60%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.68%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.00%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 40.70%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.99%
#9: Pittsburgh (7.53, 70.32%) at West Virginia (-7.53, 29.68%)
Estimated score: 33.49 - 25.99, Total: 59.48
Quality: 92.91%, Team quality: 93.53%, Competitiveness: 91.67%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.30%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 33.23%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 42.71%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 27.25%
#10: Washington State (-5.76, 34.15%) at North Texas (5.76, 65.85%)
Estimated score: 28.78 - 34.41, Total: 63.19
Quality: 92.48%, Team quality: 91.22%, Competitiveness: 95.05%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.23%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.13%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 46.84%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 23.90%
#11: Minnesota (10.59, 77.32%) at California (-10.59, 22.68%)
Estimated score: 22.28 - 11.84, Total: 34.13
Quality: 90.57%, Team quality: 93.98%, Competitiveness: 84.11%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.93%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.15%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 18.46%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 54.35%
#12: Air Force (-3.82, 39.33%) at Utah State (3.82, 60.67%)
Estimated score: 25.53 - 28.98, Total: 54.51
Quality: 90.01%, Team quality: 86.35%, Competitiveness: 97.80%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.40%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 36.72%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 37.30%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.10%
#13: Texas State (-11.16, 21.50%) at Arizona State (11.16, 78.50%)
Estimated score: 28.11 - 39.11, Total: 67.21
Quality: 89.74%, Team quality: 93.59%, Competitiveness: 82.51%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.53%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.32%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 51.36%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 20.52%
#14: NC State (7.58, 70.43%) at Wake Forest (-7.58, 29.57%)
Estimated score: 27.21 - 20.00, Total: 47.21
Quality: 89.67%, Team quality: 88.74%, Competitiveness: 91.57%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.33%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 33.17%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 29.83%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.77%
#15: Liberty (-5.70, 34.32%) at Bowling Green (5.70, 65.68%)
Estimated score: 19.28 - 24.80, Total: 44.08
Quality: 89.42%, Team quality: 86.68%, Competitiveness: 95.16%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.19%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.19%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 26.84%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.20%
#16: Florida Atlantic (-6.10, 33.26%) at Florida International (6.10, 66.74%)
Estimated score: 25.46 - 31.54, Total: 57.00
Quality: 88.29%, Team quality: 85.36%, Competitiveness: 94.46%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.41%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 34.79%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 39.99%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.62%
#17: Texas A&M (-15.51, 13.71%) at Notre Dame (15.51, 86.29%)
Estimated score: 18.88 - 34.68, Total: 53.56
Quality: 86.72%, Team quality: 97.44%, Competitiveness: 68.68%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.44%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.58%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 36.30%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.05%
#18: Memphis (11.49, 79.17%) at Troy (-11.49, 20.83%)
Estimated score: 34.69 - 23.05, Total: 57.74
Quality: 86.69%, Team quality: 89.38%, Competitiveness: 81.55%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.90%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.83%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 40.80%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.90%
#19: Boston College (12.66, 81.44%) at Stanford (-12.66, 18.56%)
Estimated score: 36.36 - 23.81, Total: 60.16
Quality: 86.64%, Team quality: 91.31%, Competitiveness: 78.01%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.31%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.04%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 43.47%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 26.62%
#20: Jacksonville State (10.25, 76.59%) at Georgia Southern (-10.25, 23.41%)
Estimated score: 35.10 - 25.08, Total: 60.19
Quality: 86.41%, Team quality: 87.10%, Competitiveness: 85.05%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.59%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.64%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 43.50%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 26.60%
#21: New Mexico (-11.01, 21.81%) at UCLA (11.01, 78.19%)
Estimated score: 23.46 - 34.52, Total: 57.98
Quality: 86.24%, Team quality: 87.93%, Competitiveness: 82.94%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.37%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.54%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 41.06%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.68%
#22: Arkansas (-15.98, 13.01%) at Ole Miss (15.98, 86.99%)
Estimated score: 22.26 - 38.46, Total: 60.72
Quality: 85.95%, Team quality: 97.29%, Competitiveness: 67.09%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 16.22%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.86%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 44.09%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 26.11%
#23: Duke (-14.05, 16.07%) at Tulane (14.05, 83.93%)
Estimated score: 21.51 - 35.64, Total: 57.15
Quality: 85.91%, Team quality: 92.84%, Competitiveness: 73.57%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.20%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 23.87%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 40.16%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.47%
#24: App State (3.89, 60.87%) at Southern Miss (-3.89, 39.13%)
Estimated score: 29.02 - 25.00, Total: 54.01
Quality: 85.17%, Team quality: 79.51%, Competitiveness: 97.72%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.42%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 36.67%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 36.78%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.59%
#25: New Hampshire (1.40, 53.96%) at Ball State (-1.40, 46.04%)
Estimated score: 22.84 - 21.43, Total: 44.27
Quality: 82.68%, Team quality: 75.30%, Competitiveness: 99.70%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.85%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.83%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 27.02%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 42.99%
#26: Monmouth (-2.82, 42.07%) at Charlotte (2.82, 57.93%)
Estimated score: 33.76 - 36.17, Total: 69.93
Quality: 82.12%, Team quality: 74.87%, Competitiveness: 98.79%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.11%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.30%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 54.41%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 18.42%
#27: Oklahoma (17.36, 88.91%) at Temple (-17.36, 11.09%)
Estimated score: 33.93 - 16.43, Total: 50.37
Quality: 80.87%, Team quality: 92.14%, Competitiveness: 62.31%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 18.67%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 18.74%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 32.98%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.38%
#28: Navy (15.32, 86.00%) at Tulsa (-15.32, 14.00%)
Estimated score: 34.18 - 18.88, Total: 53.06
Quality: 79.82%, Team quality: 85.65%, Competitiveness: 69.32%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.14%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.88%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 35.77%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.57%
#29: UConn (16.40, 87.59%) at Delaware (-16.40, 12.41%)
Estimated score: 35.58 - 19.04, Total: 54.62
Quality: 78.10%, Team quality: 85.18%, Competitiveness: 65.64%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 16.94%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.21%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 37.42%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.98%
#30: Eastern Kentucky (-14.05, 16.06%) at Marshall (14.05, 83.94%)
Estimated score: 13.76 - 27.92, Total: 41.68
Quality: 77.60%, Team quality: 79.71%, Competitiveness: 73.55%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.21%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 23.87%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 24.66%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 45.87%
#31: East Carolina (16.85, 88.22%) at Coastal Carolina (-16.85, 11.78%)
Estimated score: 33.59 - 16.88, Total: 50.47
Quality: 76.82%, Team quality: 84.12%, Competitiveness: 64.08%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 17.74%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.51%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 33.09%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.26%
#32: Akron (-13.85, 16.42%) at UAB (13.85, 83.58%)
Estimated score: 27.79 - 41.78, Total: 69.56
Quality: 74.70%, Team quality: 74.93%, Competitiveness: 74.23%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.91%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 24.19%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 54.00%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 18.70%
#33: New Mexico State (-17.71, 10.64%) at Louisiana Tech (17.71, 89.36%)
Estimated score: 5.52 - 23.23, Total: 28.75
Quality: 73.97%, Team quality: 81.40%, Competitiveness: 61.07%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 19.33%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 18.21%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 14.70%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 60.28%
#34: Wisconsin (-22.99, 5.39%) at Alabama (22.99, 94.61%)
Estimated score: 11.89 - 35.42, Total: 47.31
Quality: 73.54%, Team quality: 96.27%, Competitiveness: 42.91%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 30.99%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 11.11%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 29.92%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.66%
#35: Middle Tennessee (-16.03, 12.93%) at Nevada (16.03, 87.07%)
Estimated score: 19.80 - 35.97, Total: 55.78
Quality: 73.02%, Team quality: 76.29%, Competitiveness: 66.90%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 16.31%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.77%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 38.67%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 30.82%
#36: Incarnate Word (-19.07, 9.01%) at UTSA (19.07, 90.99%)
Estimated score: 21.02 - 40.11, Total: 61.13
Quality: 72.64%, Team quality: 82.51%, Competitiveness: 56.30%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 22.04%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 16.22%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 44.54%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 25.73%
#37: Richmond (-19.78, 8.24%) at North Carolina (19.78, 91.76%)
Estimated score: 11.10 - 30.97, Total: 42.07
Quality: 71.05%, Team quality: 81.62%, Competitiveness: 53.83%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 23.53%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 15.22%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 25.01%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 45.44%
#38: South Alabama (-23.40, 5.09%) at Auburn (23.40, 94.91%)
Estimated score: 15.34 - 38.80, Total: 54.14
Quality: 70.77%, Team quality: 92.35%, Competitiveness: 41.57%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 32.02%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 10.64%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 36.91%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.47%
#39: SMU (22.50, 94.24%) at Missouri State (-22.50, 5.76%)
Estimated score: 45.24 - 22.87, Total: 68.12
Quality: 69.69%, Team quality: 87.19%, Competitiveness: 44.52%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 29.80%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 11.69%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 52.38%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 19.81%
#40: Merrimack (-15.62, 13.55%) at Kennesaw State (15.62, 86.45%)
Estimated score: 9.84 - 25.55, Total: 35.39
Quality: 69.41%, Team quality: 69.97%, Competitiveness: 68.31%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.62%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.41%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 19.43%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 52.93%
#41: Oregon State (-24.14, 4.59%) at Texas Tech (24.14, 95.41%)
Estimated score: 26.58 - 50.76, Total: 77.34
Quality: 67.01%, Team quality: 87.60%, Competitiveness: 39.21%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 33.90%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 9.83%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 62.53%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 13.39%
#42: Central Michigan (-25.99, 3.50%) at Michigan (25.99, 96.50%)
Estimated score: 6.09 - 31.90, Total: 37.99
Quality: 64.22%, Team quality: 88.91%, Competitiveness: 33.51%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 38.82%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 7.96%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 21.51%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 50.01%
#43: Utah (27.31, 97.13%) at Wyoming (-27.31, 2.87%)
Estimated score: 31.79 - 4.37, Total: 36.16
Quality: 63.05%, Team quality: 91.82%, Competitiveness: 29.73%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 42.43%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 6.80%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 20.02%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 52.07%
#44: Louisiana (-27.46, 2.81%) at Missouri (27.46, 97.19%)
Estimated score: 11.58 - 39.19, Total: 50.77
Quality: 62.58%, Team quality: 91.42%, Competitiveness: 29.32%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 42.85%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 6.67%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 33.40%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.95%
#45: USC (28.50, 97.61%) at Purdue (-28.50, 2.39%)
Estimated score: 45.44 - 17.00, Total: 62.44
Quality: 61.39%, Team quality: 93.40%, Competitiveness: 26.52%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 45.77%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 5.86%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 46.01%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 24.56%
#46: Western Michigan (-29.22, 2.13%) at Illinois (29.22, 97.87%)
Estimated score: 10.92 - 40.18, Total: 51.10
Quality: 58.62%, Team quality: 90.32%, Competitiveness: 24.69%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 47.79%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 5.34%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 33.73%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.61%
#47: Youngstown State (-28.88, 2.25%) at Michigan State (28.88, 97.75%)
Estimated score: 12.08 - 41.03, Total: 53.12
Quality: 55.82%, Team quality: 82.55%, Competitiveness: 25.53%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 46.85%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 5.58%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 35.83%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.51%
#48: Iowa State (30.48, 98.26%) at Arkansas State (-30.48, 1.74%)
Estimated score: 45.38 - 15.02, Total: 60.40
Quality: 55.36%, Team quality: 88.50%, Competitiveness: 21.66%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 51.37%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 4.52%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 43.73%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 26.40%
#49: Buffalo (26.51, 96.76%) at Kent State (-26.51, 3.24%)
Estimated score: 42.35 - 15.83, Total: 58.18
Quality: 55.23%, Team quality: 72.57%, Competitiveness: 31.98%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 40.24%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 7.48%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 41.28%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.49%
#50: Towson (-30.92, 1.62%) at Maryland (30.92, 98.38%)
Estimated score: 5.03 - 35.91, Total: 40.94
Quality: 52.46%, Team quality: 83.57%, Competitiveness: 20.67%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 52.60%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 4.26%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 24.01%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 46.70%
#51: Portland State (-28.58, 2.36%) at Hawai'i (28.58, 97.64%)
Estimated score: 13.84 - 42.40, Total: 56.24
Quality: 49.97%, Team quality: 68.87%, Competitiveness: 26.31%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 46.00%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 5.80%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 39.17%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 30.37%
#52: Ohio (-35.94, 0.68%) at Ohio State (35.94, 99.32%)
Estimated score: 1.46 - 37.12, Total: 38.58
Quality: 47.03%, Team quality: 95.53%, Competitiveness: 11.40%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 66.31%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 2.05%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 21.99%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 49.35%
#53: Oregon (36.36, 99.37%) at Northwestern (-36.36, 0.63%)
Estimated score: 42.05 - 5.69, Total: 47.74
Quality: 45.92%, Team quality: 94.70%, Competitiveness: 10.79%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 67.38%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 1.92%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 30.35%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.18%
#54: Eastern Michigan (-34.60, 0.86%) at Kentucky (34.60, 99.14%)
Estimated score: 5.69 - 40.30, Total: 45.99
Quality: 45.41%, Team quality: 83.30%, Competitiveness: 13.49%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 62.80%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 2.51%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 28.65%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.10%
#55: Murray State (-28.83, 2.27%) at Georgia State (28.83, 97.73%)
Estimated score: 19.20 - 47.93, Total: 67.14
Quality: 44.99%, Team quality: 59.57%, Competitiveness: 25.66%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 46.71%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 5.61%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 51.28%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 20.59%
#56: William & Mary (-35.37, 0.75%) at Virginia (35.37, 99.25%)
Estimated score: 9.54 - 44.96, Total: 54.51
Quality: 42.02%, Team quality: 77.81%, Competitiveness: 12.25%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 64.84%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 2.23%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 37.30%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.10%
#57: Morgan State (-35.33, 0.76%) at Toledo (35.33, 99.24%)
Estimated score: 7.86 - 43.42, Total: 51.28
Quality: 41.95%, Team quality: 77.41%, Competitiveness: 12.32%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 64.72%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 2.25%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 33.92%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.41%
#58: Prairie View A&M (-33.59, 1.03%) at Rice (33.59, 98.97%)
Estimated score: 4.47 - 37.94, Total: 42.41
Quality: 40.50%, Team quality: 65.99%, Competitiveness: 15.25%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 60.06%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 2.92%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 25.32%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 45.05%
#59: Abilene Christian (-41.84, 0.23%) at TCU (41.84, 99.77%)
Estimated score: 10.40 - 52.41, Total: 62.81
Quality: 33.02%, Team quality: 85.46%, Competitiveness: 4.93%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 79.87%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.77%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 46.42%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 24.23%
#60: UTEP (-42.66, 0.19%) at Texas (42.66, 99.81%)
Estimated score: 0.00 - 42.45, Total: 42.45
Quality: 32.61%, Team quality: 89.41%, Competitiveness: 4.34%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 81.44%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.67%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 25.35%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 45.02%
#61: Colgate (-43.42, 0.17%) at Syracuse (43.42, 99.83%)
Estimated score: 7.68 - 50.99, Total: 58.67
Quality: 28.00%, Team quality: 75.58%, Competitiveness: 3.84%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 82.83%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.59%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 41.82%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.01%
#62: Massachusetts (-44.21, 0.14%) at Iowa (44.21, 99.86%)
Estimated score: 1.53 - 45.49, Total: 47.03
Quality: 27.28%, Team quality: 77.56%, Competitiveness: 3.37%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 84.20%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.51%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 29.65%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.96%
#63: Villanova (-49.28, 0.05%) at Penn State (49.28, 99.95%)
Estimated score: 0.00 - 43.47, Total: 43.47
Quality: 21.39%, Team quality: 84.30%, Competitiveness: 1.38%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 91.21%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.20%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 26.28%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.88%
#64: Southern (-46.94, 0.08%) at Fresno State (46.94, 99.92%)
Estimated score: 0.00 - 45.45, Total: 45.45
Quality: 20.12%, Team quality: 62.14%, Competitiveness: 2.11%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 88.35%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.31%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 28.13%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.69%
#65: Norfolk State (-49.35, 0.05%) at Rutgers (49.35, 99.95%)
Estimated score: 7.46 - 56.83, Total: 64.29
Quality: 19.09%, Team quality: 71.55%, Competitiveness: 1.36%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 91.29%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.19%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 48.08%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 22.95%
#66: Houston Christian (-52.82, 0.02%) at Nebraska (52.82, 99.98%)
Estimated score: 0.00 - 49.90, Total: 49.90
Quality: 16.02%, Team quality: 77.47%, Competitiveness: 0.69%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 94.48%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.10%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 32.51%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.87%
#67: Samford (-53.02, 0.02%) at Baylor (53.02, 99.98%)
Estimated score: 5.56 - 58.63, Total: 64.19
Quality: 14.98%, Team quality: 71.49%, Competitiveness: 0.66%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 94.64%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.09%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 47.97%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 23.03%
#68: Alcorn State (-52.26, 0.03%) at Mississippi State (52.26, 99.97%)
Estimated score: 0.00 - 48.20, Total: 48.20
Quality: 14.65%, Team quality: 63.93%, Competitiveness: 0.77%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 94.04%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.11%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 30.80%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.70%
#69: Indiana State (-58.13, 0.01%) at Indiana (58.13, 99.99%)
Estimated score: 2.09 - 60.06, Total: 62.15
Quality: 11.05%, Team quality: 78.90%, Competitiveness: 0.22%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 97.47%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.03%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 45.68%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 24.81%
#70: Northwestern State (-65.85, 0.00%) at Cincinnati (65.85, 100.00%)
Estimated score: 0.00 - 59.05, Total: 59.05
Quality: 4.65%, Team quality: 56.21%, Competitiveness: 0.03%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 99.31%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.01%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 42.24%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 27.65%NFL predictions for this weekend and an updated simulation of the NFL season will be posted a bit later today. Thanks for reading!
These ratings and game predictions use data from collegefootballdata.com.