College Football Computer Ratings and Predictions For Week 12
What are the impacts of Indiana's near miss at Penn State, Texas Tech's big win over BYU, and more upheaval in the ACC?
Penn State nearly handed Indiana their first loss of the season, the two teams at the top of the Big 12 played each other in Lubbock, and both of the ACC favorites heading into the week lost. If the season ended today, should BYU still be a playoff team? What are the implications of Indiana’s close call in State College? Happy Valley is never an easy place for a road game, whether it’s a white out at night or a day game. And how likely is it that the ACC could miss the playoff altogether?
After the college football playoff rankings come out this evening, I’m planning for a special Tuesday edition of The Linked Letters After Dark examining some of the biggest questions like the Group of 5 favorite now that Memphis picked up another loss, BYU’s ranking, and whether Texas is a playoff team.
Predictive Ratings
These are forward looking ratings, meaning that they’re intended to evaluate how good a team is and predict its future success, but they don’t evaluate the quality of a team’s achievements earlier in the season. These ratings are based purely on points.
The offense and defense columns refer to each team’s point scoring tendencies instead of the efficiency ratings that some other rating systems use. The overall rating is approximately the sum of a team’s offense and defense ratings. To predict the score of a game for the home team, take the home team’s offense rating, add half of the home advantage, subtract the visiting team’s defense rating, and add the mean score. Predicting the score is similar for the visiting team. Take the visiting team’s offense rating, subtract half of the home advantage, subtract the home team’s defense rating, and add the mean score. Predicting the margin of victory for a game is done by taking the home team’s rating, adding the home advantage, and subtracting the away team’s rating. For neutral site games, the home advantage is set to zero.
The last column here is SOR, which means strength of record. Unlike all the other columns, this is a backward looking rating and evaluates the quality of a team’s wins and losses in comparison to a hypothetical team with a rating 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS mean. Such a hypothetical team would typically be ranked somewhere between #10 and #15. Strength of record is just each team’s actual winning percentage minus the expected winning percentage for that hypothetical team against the same schedule. This is negative for most teams because their record is being compared against the expected record for a pretty good team.
Predictive Ratings
Home advantage: 2.15 points
Mean score: 26.89 points
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
1 89.49 -2.19 Indiana 46.06 43.42 .205
2 86.95 +0.06 Ohio State 38.76 48.26 .171
3 83.28 -0.14 Oregon 43.07 40.30 .105
4 81.88 +0.90 Utah 42.71 39.17 -.063
5 +1 79.44 +1.90 Texas Tech 39.66 39.73 .066
6 -1 79.11 +0.80 Notre Dame 40.13 39.01 -.022
7 77.76 +0.80 Alabama 37.35 40.37 .142
8 77.03 +1.56 Texas A&M 41.97 35.01 .218
9 75.76 +1.08 USC 42.15 33.34 -.023
10 +3 73.72 +1.92 Georgia 34.53 39.18 .107
11 -1 73.43 -0.69 Miami 33.03 40.33 -.037
12 -1 72.29 -1.44 BYU 35.85 36.58 .120
13 +6 71.88 +1.87 Iowa 29.99 41.77 -.090
14 +4 71.55 +1.36 Oklahoma 29.70 41.63 -.034
15 71.08 +0.59 Vanderbilt 41.03 29.82 -.009
16 +1 71.07 +0.62 Texas 32.90 38.16 .023
17 -1 70.89 +0.42 Ole Miss 39.54 31.10 .065
18 -6 70.56 -2.15 Washington 37.23 33.25 -.144
19 +1 70.34 +0.68 Michigan 32.02 38.24 -.021
20 -6 69.41 -2.35 Florida State 37.27 32.04 -.388
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
21 68.96 +0.99 Tennessee 44.88 24.12 -.126
22 +3 68.54 +1.88 South Florida 38.34 30.21 -.086
23 68.23 +0.42 LSU 29.10 39.15 -.170
24 -2 67.99 +0.16 Illinois 35.50 32.49 -.015
25 +4 67.69 +2.73 Penn State 36.07 31.51 -.330
26 -2 66.73 -0.45 Missouri 33.19 33.72 -.125
27 65.66 -0.49 Pittsburgh 36.15 29.40 -.150
28 +3 64.97 +0.65 North Texas 42.05 22.78 -.072
29 -1 64.95 -0.19 Nebraska 33.56 31.42 -.179
30 +2 64.18 +0.01 Arizona 30.63 33.28 -.234
31 +5 63.80 +1.47 Auburn 26.83 37.25 -.349
32 -6 63.38 -3.07 Florida 27.51 35.86 -.346
33 +4 62.97 +0.89 Iowa State 30.34 32.70 -.247
34 +4 62.79 +0.82 Georgia Tech 33.70 29.05 -.060
35 62.75 +0.30 Cincinnati 33.28 29.39 -.077
36 -6 61.78 -2.75 Louisville 32.98 28.70 -.107
37 -3 61.38 -1.36 Mississippi State 33.40 27.93 -.287
38 +2 61.33 +0.81 TCU 32.84 28.35 -.259
39 -6 61.32 -1.86 Virginia 33.25 27.86 -.132
40 +16 61.17 +5.77 Kentucky 28.63 32.57 -.331
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
41 61.07 +1.12 Arizona State 25.34 35.76 -.108
42 +5 60.63 +2.24 SMU 29.94 30.86 -.212
43 -1 60.20 +0.84 Kansas State 33.03 27.02 -.405
44 -5 60.10 -1.05 East Carolina 29.08 31.24 -.269
45 +7 59.56 +3.12 Clemson 28.30 31.25 -.453
46 -1 59.14 +0.25 Arkansas 35.38 23.82 -.521
47 -3 58.95 -0.04 James Madison 25.44 33.29 -.083
48 +1 58.92 +1.29 South Carolina 23.21 35.57 -.394
49 -3 58.27 -0.35 Memphis 29.47 28.65 -.162
50 +1 58.19 +1.04 Houston 30.20 27.99 -.096
51 -3 58.18 +0.02 Duke 34.08 23.94 -.365
52 +7 57.38 +3.45 Toledo 29.19 28.01 -.416
53 -3 57.37 -0.02 NC State 32.51 24.74 -.273
54 +1 56.79 +1.27 Kansas 30.20 26.59 -.340
55 -1 56.77 +1.09 Northwestern 20.66 35.84 -.215
56 +1 55.94 +1.40 Boise State 28.25 27.69 -.206
57 +3 55.68 +1.87 Wake Forest 20.21 35.44 -.233
58 55.08 +0.88 Baylor 33.42 21.66 -.340
59 +9 54.73 +2.21 Rutgers 31.42 23.41 -.296
60 +7 54.72 +2.05 Wisconsin 20.01 34.61 -.287
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
61 +3 54.65 +1.31 Tulane 27.39 26.97 -.129
62 -1 54.60 +0.94 UCF 22.83 31.63 -.490
63 -10 54.53 -1.54 Maryland 25.83 28.68 -.385
64 -21 54.18 -5.03 San Diego State 23.73 30.43 -.212
65 53.98 +1.05 Minnesota 23.86 29.92 -.150
66 53.78 +1.06 Purdue 25.11 28.64 -.514
67 -5 53.73 +0.13 Old Dominion 27.52 26.21 -.212
68 -5 53.30 -0.10 Michigan State 28.38 24.92 -.421
69 +2 52.80 +1.21 UCLA 24.33 28.45 -.418
70 +4 52.48 +1.56 New Mexico 26.97 25.54 -.262
71 +11 51.39 +3.86 Utah State 29.88 21.39 -.312
72 -2 51.31 -0.99 Washington State 18.49 32.82 -.410
73 -4 51.12 -1.32 Louisiana Tech 22.41 28.86 -.399
74 -2 51.08 -0.14 Colorado 24.82 26.18 -.510
75 +13 50.29 +4.82 UNLV 33.10 17.14 -.203
76 -3 50.28 -0.89 UTSA 28.62 21.60 -.405
77 -1 50.05 +0.94 West Virginia 24.76 25.08 -.421
78 -3 50.03 +0.25 Army 17.22 32.88 -.378
79 +4 49.95 +2.53 UConn 29.18 20.78 -.290
80 +13 48.96 +4.67 Hawai’i 24.36 24.57 -.266
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
81 -2 48.65 +1.06 Western Michigan 17.48 31.02 -.371
82 -2 48.12 +0.56 Virginia Tech 25.46 22.69 -.562
83 -5 48.06 +0.32 Ohio 25.25 22.88 -.224
84 -7 47.33 -1.45 Kennesaw State 23.51 23.84 -.108
85 -1 47.13 +0.57 Southern Miss 25.04 22.08 -.205
86 -5 47.12 -0.42 Stanford 19.92 27.20 -.511
87 -1 47.03 +1.30 Syracuse 21.73 25.20 -.534
88 -3 47.03 +0.50 Navy 23.22 23.68 -.111
89 46.73 +1.54 California 21.50 25.15 -.350
90 45.63 +0.50 Wyoming 15.46 30.08 -.466
91 -4 45.58 +0.06 Temple 25.82 19.75 -.430
92 +5 45.42 +1.96 Western Kentucky 22.87 22.44 -.205
93 -1 45.39 +0.94 Miami (OH) 20.11 25.28 -.422
94 -3 44.50 -0.29 Fresno State 20.29 24.28 -.305
95 -1 44.48 +0.42 Marshall 29.26 15.25 -.483
96 +7 44.46 +3.61 Air Force 28.04 16.40 -.646
97 +2 44.45 +1.33 North Carolina 17.46 27.09 -.510
98 -2 43.53 -0.03 Texas State 29.80 13.57 -.633
99 -4 43.27 -0.35 San José State 22.81 20.41 -.603
100 +2 42.45 +0.99 Troy 20.64 21.85 -.308
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
101 -3 41.32 -1.85 Boston College 22.97 18.39 -.766
102 -1 40.77 -0.69 Liberty 18.35 22.45 -.539
103 -3 40.62 -1.76 Oregon State 18.83 21.78 -.633
104 +2 40.49 +1.42 Jacksonville State 20.97 19.53 -.322
105 +4 40.27 +1.91 Missouri State 17.47 22.78 -.252
106 -1 39.99 +0.62 Central Michigan 19.05 20.84 -.360
107 +1 39.32 +0.59 Arkansas State 15.93 23.28 -.472
108 +2 38.38 +0.78 Georgia Southern 24.05 14.27 -.470
109 +5 38.21 +1.81 Louisiana 19.18 18.88 -.552
110 +7 38.15 +2.76 Florida Atlantic 24.95 13.28 -.496
111 -4 37.59 -1.22 Tulsa 17.67 19.82 -.740
112 +6 37.44 +2.41 Delaware 21.55 15.97 -.434
113 -2 37.18 -0.41 App State 17.56 19.61 -.536
114 +2 37.11 +0.89 Buffalo 14.53 22.58 -.435
115 -2 37.08 +0.62 UTEP 16.22 20.86 -.717
116 -12 37.07 -3.31 Colorado State 16.06 20.97 -.712
117 +6 36.94 +3.48 Florida International 18.27 18.80 -.510
118 -3 36.53 +0.21 Coastal Carolina 16.70 19.74 -.295
119 -7 36.51 -0.72 Bowling Green 12.39 23.87 -.651
120 -1 35.90 +0.89 South Alabama 18.80 17.12 -.716
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
121 +3 35.37 +1.97 New Mexico State 14.75 20.60 -.653
122 +4 35.34 +2.40 Rice 14.09 21.27 -.480
123 -2 35.29 +0.84 UAB 21.63 13.51 -.608
124 +1 33.47 +0.38 Oklahoma State 16.18 17.29 -.654
125 +2 33.41 +2.04 Akron 15.26 18.15 -.560
126 -4 32.88 -1.48 Nevada 10.81 21.89 -.828
127 -7 32.73 -1.85 Northern Illinois 8.39 24.24 -.730
128 +1 32.00 +1.29 Ball State 13.91 18.16 -.514
129 +1 31.91 +2.03 Eastern Michigan 19.59 12.31 -.678
130 +1 29.18 -0.51 Kent State 16.48 12.61 -.477
131 -3 29.05 -2.08 Middle Tennessee 13.76 15.18 -.877
132 +1 27.32 +1.21 Charlotte 14.50 12.84 -.806
133 +2 26.82 +4.07 Sam Houston 14.83 12.01 -.825
134 -2 26.77 -0.14 Georgia State 16.11 10.57 -.772
135 -1 25.85 +0.90 UL Monroe 12.53 13.27 -.575
136 16.35 -2.20 Massachusetts 6.69 9.76 -.908Schedule Strength
There are two different measures of schedule strength in this table. 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. This should be somewhat similar to the schedule strength from ESPN’s FPI ratings.
The last two columns are also the past and future schedules, but they’re just the average of the opponents’ predictive ratings with an adjustment for the site of the game. Schedule strength is a factor in deciding which teams belong in the college football playoff, and these two columns aren’t always representative of the schedule strength for a team near the top of the ratings. These ratings should be closer to the schedule strength in Jeff Sagarin’s ratings, which are the rating a team would need to be expected to win exactly 50% of games against that team’s schedule.
Past and Future Schedule Strength
Home advantage: 2.15 points
Mean score: 26.89 points
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
1 Indiana .205 (26) .050 (76) 56.66 (29) 54.25 (62)
2 Ohio State .171 (41) .165 (44) 54.83 (40) 58.57 (44)
3 Oregon .216 (22) .315 (20) 58.11 (21) 66.05 (19)
4 Utah .160 (49) .090 (63) 56.30 (32) 58.07 (48)
5 Texas Tech .166 (46) .035 (82) 48.61 (70) 52.33 (70)
6 Notre Dame .200 (29) .106 (59) 59.37 (16) 53.99 (64)
7 Alabama .253 (9) .193 (40) 61.72 (7) 49.62 (76)
8 Texas A&M .218 (20) .177 (43) 62.37 (5) 44.10 (100)
9 USC .199 (30) .396 (8) 58.08 (22) 68.61 (15)
10 Georgia .218 (21) .164 (45) 60.69 (11) 52.30 (71)
11 Miami .186 (37) .124 (53) 55.33 (37) 57.77 (51)
12 BYU .231 (16) .119 (55) 57.08 (28) 58.84 (42)
13 Iowa .244 (14) .303 (22) 53.82 (44) 65.38 (20)
14 Oklahoma .189 (36) .375 (11) 56.47 (31) 70.19 (8)
15 Vanderbilt .191 (31) .246 (32) 54.96 (39) 65.07 (23)
16 Texas .246 (12) .377 (10) 58.08 (23) 69.25 (11)
17 Ole Miss .165 (47) .162 (46) 53.61 (46) 62.38 (31)
18 Washington .189 (34) .264 (28) 57.14 (27) 62.57 (29)
19 Michigan .202 (28) .315 (19) 59.44 (15) 66.08 (18)
20 Florida State .168 (43) .117 (57) 53.12 (49) 57.01 (52)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
21 Tennessee .207 (25) .185 (41) 56.64 (30) 55.90 (56)
22 South Florida .136 (55) .007 (111) 50.44 (62) 39.94 (113)
23 LSU .275 (6) .185 (42) 62.92 (4) 57.99 (49)
24 Illinois .318 (4) .054 (73) 61.04 (9) 54.62 (59)
25 Penn State .337 (2) .101 (60) 59.52 (14) 58.38 (46)
26 Missouri .208 (24) .240 (34) 52.41 (54) 64.74 (26)
27 Pittsburgh .072 (85) .397 (7) 47.77 (78) 71.06 (6)
28 North Texas .040 (110) .003 (125) 44.46 (92) 39.45 (119)
29 Nebraska .121 (60) .350 (13) 51.45 (56) 69.79 (9)
30 Arizona .100 (71) .144 (48) 50.93 (59) 60.35 (35)
31 Auburn .251 (10) .268 (26) 60.34 (12) 54.76 (58)
32 Florida .321 (3) .331 (15) 63.59 (2) 69.04 (12)
33 Iowa State .153 (50) .026 (89) 57.29 (25) 45.13 (92)
34 Georgia Tech .051 (100) .221 (37) 49.66 (66) 60.23 (37)
35 Cincinnati .145 (54) .232 (36) 48.45 (71) 65.21 (21)
36 Louisville .115 (62) .117 (56) 50.14 (63) 59.74 (40)
37 Mississippi State .213 (23) .320 (18) 55.44 (35) 68.81 (13)
38 TCU .074 (82) .249 (31) 53.40 (47) 65.13 (22)
39 Virginia .068 (88) .066 (69) 49.05 (68) 53.15 (67)
40 Kentucky .225 (19) .218 (38) 61.51 (8) 58.66 (43)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
41 Arizona State .226 (18) .070 (68) 59.92 (13) 54.39 (60)
42 SMU .088 (76) .065 (70) 49.56 (67) 54.25 (61)
43 Kansas State .151 (51) .267 (27) 58.74 (19) 56.19 (55)
44 East Carolina .064 (93) .035 (83) 43.68 (97) 49.62 (75)
45 Clemson .103 (69) .110 (58) 54.23 (43) 46.26 (85)
46 Arkansas .257 (8) .345 (14) 57.37 (24) 69.40 (10)
47 James Madison .028 (118) .007 (110) 41.18 (118) 40.96 (110)
48 South Carolina .273 (7) .243 (33) 61.74 (6) 56.99 (53)
49 Memphis .038 (112) .083 (65) 42.22 (109) 53.57 (66)
50 Houston .104 (68) .092 (62) 51.01 (58) 58.20 (47)
51 Duke .080 (81) .053 (74) 52.58 (52) 53.10 (68)
52 Toledo .028 (117) .006 (114) 38.18 (132) 39.84 (117)
53 NC State .171 (40) .272 (25) 55.86 (34) 61.71 (32)
54 Kansas .160 (48) .443 (4) 51.93 (55) 72.43 (4)
55 Northwestern .230 (17) .258 (29) 54.45 (42) 64.82 (25)
56 Boise State .127 (58) .037 (81) 47.92 (77) 48.27 (78)
57 Wake Forest .100 (70) .043 (79) 52.61 (51) 45.97 (87)
58 Baylor .104 (67) .327 (17) 51.13 (57) 67.37 (16)
59 Rutgers .204 (27) .558 (3) 55.00 (38) 77.32 (3)
60 Wisconsin .380 (1) .408 (5) 64.81 (1) 71.20 (5)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
61 Tulane .093 (72) .005 (118) 53.35 (48) 36.30 (125)
62 UCF .066 (90) .406 (6) 46.98 (81) 62.45 (30)
63 Maryland .171 (42) .235 (35) 52.74 (50) 63.87 (28)
64 San Diego State .011 (133) .033 (85) 40.61 (120) 49.85 (74)
65 Minnesota .183 (38) .308 (21) 50.79 (60) 64.92 (24)
66 Purdue .286 (5) .647 (1) 61.01 (10) 80.03 (1)
67 Old Dominion .121 (59) .002 (128) 44.93 (89) 35.15 (129)
68 Michigan State .245 (13) .256 (30) 59.16 (18) 64.70 (27)
69 UCLA .249 (11) .601 (2) 63.25 (3) 78.47 (2)
70 New Mexico .071 (86) .015 (100) 48.18 (72) 44.52 (97)
71 Utah State .133 (57) .031 (86) 47.09 (80) 50.96 (73)
72 Washington State .146 (53) .052 (75) 54.81 (41) 49.51 (77)
73 Louisiana Tech .045 (107) .016 (98) 42.38 (107) 44.84 (95)
74 Colorado .190 (32) .130 (52) 59.25 (17) 60.63 (34)
75 UNLV .019 (126) .011 (107) 44.42 (93) 43.69 (102)
76 UTSA .150 (52) .034 (84) 50.50 (61) 45.10 (93)
77 West Virginia .179 (39) .384 (9) 55.41 (36) 70.26 (7)
78 Army .067 (89) .016 (99) 49.68 (65) 44.97 (94)
79 UConn .010 (135) .003 (124) 37.81 (133) 41.30 (107)
80 Hawai’i .034 (115) .020 (93) 42.35 (108) 47.96 (79)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
81 Western Michigan .073 (83) .004 (123) 45.25 (88) 38.28 (122)
82 Virginia Tech .105 (66) .328 (16) 53.80 (45) 68.77 (14)
83 Ohio .109 (65) .009 (108) 43.85 (96) 34.75 (131)
84 Kennesaw State .114 (63) .004 (122) 43.07 (104) 41.23 (109)
85 Southern Miss .018 (128) .002 (126) 39.22 (129) 39.91 (115)
86 Stanford .189 (35) .293 (23) 58.50 (20) 60.77 (33)
87 Syracuse .166 (45) .356 (12) 56.00 (33) 60.21 (38)
88 Navy .112 (64) .133 (50) 41.97 (111) 58.95 (41)
89 California .050 (101) .057 (72) 47.33 (79) 53.88 (65)
90 Wyoming .090 (75) .013 (102) 46.33 (84) 42.83 (104)
91 Temple .070 (87) .154 (47) 42.80 (105) 59.81 (39)
92 Western Kentucky .018 (127) .124 (54) 37.37 (134) 46.64 (83)
93 Miami (OH) .022 (121) .020 (94) 41.70 (113) 41.45 (106)
94 Fresno State .029 (116) .011 (105) 40.05 (123) 46.05 (86)
95 Marshall .073 (84) .001 (132) 44.17 (94) 34.82 (130)
96 Air Force .020 (124) .020 (95) 44.49 (91) 47.22 (81)
97 North Carolina .045 (106) .087 (64) 46.59 (82) 57.79 (50)
98 Texas State .034 (114) .007 (112) 43.45 (98) 35.57 (127)
99 San José State .064 (92) .024 (91) 48.13 (74) 44.57 (96)
100 Troy .025 (120) .028 (88) 39.76 (127) 43.26 (103)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
101 Boston College .134 (56) .074 (66) 52.46 (53) 54.91 (57)
102 Liberty .016 (129) .017 (97) 40.13 (122) 45.85 (88)
103 Oregon State .167 (44) .022 (92) 49.84 (64) 46.60 (84)
104 Jacksonville State .011 (132) .005 (117) 36.26 (135) 42.51 (105)
105 Missouri State .081 (80) .013 (103) 43.41 (99) 44.46 (98)
106 Central Michigan .085 (78) .019 (96) 40.02 (126) 40.51 (111)
107 Arkansas State .028 (119) .001 (130) 42.15 (110) 37.70 (123)
108 Georgia Southern .086 (77) .014 (101) 43.97 (95) 44.20 (99)
109 Louisiana .048 (103) .002 (129) 42.51 (106) 32.58 (134)
110 Florida Atlantic .060 (98) .059 (71) 41.86 (112) 54.18 (63)
111 Tulsa .037 (113) .012 (104) 45.77 (86) 41.26 (108)
112 Delaware .010 (134) .029 (87) 40.05 (124) 39.86 (116)
113 App State .020 (125) .047 (78) 38.34 (131) 46.87 (82)
114 Buffalo .009 (136) .006 (113) 31.99 (136) 43.76 (101)
115 UTEP .060 (97) .002 (127) 41.18 (117) 38.41 (120)
116 Colorado State .066 (91) .048 (77) 48.08 (75) 51.68 (72)
117 Florida International .046 (105) .001 (131) 41.02 (119) 34.59 (132)
118 Coastal Carolina .038 (111) .071 (67) 40.47 (121) 52.80 (69)
119 Bowling Green .049 (102) .000 (136) 43.28 (101) 24.88 (136)
120 South Alabama .062 (95) .006 (116) 41.32 (115) 39.55 (118)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
121 New Mexico State .014 (130) .131 (51) 39.40 (128) 45.74 (89)
122 Rice .020 (123) .273 (24) 41.55 (114) 66.75 (17)
123 UAB .059 (99) .142 (49) 45.33 (87) 56.32 (54)
124 Oklahoma State .235 (15) .098 (61) 57.25 (26) 58.54 (45)
125 Akron .040 (109) .001 (134) 39.21 (130) 32.85 (133)
126 Nevada .061 (96) .011 (106) 48.81 (69) 45.68 (90)
127 Northern Illinois .048 (104) .004 (121) 44.91 (90) 30.68 (135)
128 Ball State .042 (108) .041 (80) 43.23 (103) 45.61 (91)
129 Eastern Michigan .022 (122) .006 (115) 40.04 (125) 40.32 (112)
130 Kent State .190 (33) .001 (133) 46.40 (83) 36.09 (126)
131 Middle Tennessee .012 (131) .005 (119) 41.23 (116) 36.59 (124)
132 Charlotte .083 (79) .211 (39) 47.99 (76) 60.27 (36)
133 Sam Houston .064 (94) .001 (135) 48.15 (73) 35.19 (128)
134 Georgia State .117 (61) .025 (90) 46.20 (85) 47.60 (80)
135 UL Monroe .092 (74) .004 (120) 43.25 (102) 39.93 (114)
136 Massachusetts .092 (73) .008 (109) 43.30 (100) 38.38 (121)Conference Ratings
To rate the overall quality of conferences, I calculate the expected outcome if each team in a conference were to play every FBS team at a neutral site. The Win% column is the average probability of winning for all of the possible games and for all the teams in the conference. It’s similar to the average rating of all the teams in the conference, but it should be less skewed by outliers.
However, the idea of the “best” conference is subjective, and another way to judge the quality of a conference is to consider how many of its teams are among the best in the FBS. What if instead of playing every team in the FBS, each conference opponent just plays a hypothetical opponent with a rating that’s 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS mean? In this case, the quality of a conference is determined by how its teams would be expected to perform against a hypothetical opponent ranked somewhere around #10 to #15 in the FBS. This is what I’ve done with the HighWin% column. It’s analogous to how I calculate strength of record, and each conference’s rating is impacted more when the conference has more highly rated teams.
Conference Ratings
Rank Win% Conference HighWin% Rating Offense Defense OffDef
1 .773 SEC .311 (2) 67.80 33.70 34.08 -0.38 (7)
2 .713 Big Ten .300 (3) 65.75 31.89 33.80 -1.91 (9)
3 .681 FBS Independents .334 (1) 64.53 34.65 29.89 4.76 (1)
4 .637 Big 12 .192 (4) 60.34 30.38 29.90 0.48 (4)
5 .573 ACC .119 (5) 56.50 28.26 28.20 0.07 (5)
6 .421 American Athletic .062 (6) 48.08 25.29 22.75 2.54 (2)
7 .390 Mountain West .021 (7) 46.75 23.31 23.40 -0.09 (6)
8 .372 Pac-12 .016 (8) 45.96 18.66 27.30 -8.64 (11)
9 .284 Sun Belt .013 (9) 40.60 21.33 19.21 2.11 (3)
10 .253 Conference USA .005 (11) 39.01 18.75 20.28 -1.53 (8)
11 .244 Mid-American .010 (10) 37.59 16.79 20.75 -3.95 (10)Playoff Ratings
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 .9823 +.0033 Indiana .986 .838 1.000 .994
2 +1 .9726 +.0038 Texas A&M .987 .873 1.000 .953
3 -1 .9720 -.0041 Ohio State .980 .718 1.000 .991
4 .9584 +.0045 Alabama .973 .939 .889 .958
5 +1 .9563 +.0214 Oregon .962 .867 .889 .982
6 +1 .9398 +.0096 Georgia .963 .871 .889 .926
7 -2 .9391 -.0145 BYU .967 .901 .889 .911
8 .9361 +.0215 Texas Tech .947 .698 .900 .967
9 .9138 +.0063 Ole Miss .947 .694 .900 .894
10 .9026 +.0015 Texas .926 .928 .778 .897
11 .9018 +.0048 Notre Dame .897 .823 .778 .965
12 +1 .8945 +.0075 USC .896 .819 .778 .944
13 +4 .8868 +.0119 Vanderbilt .906 .792 .800 .897
14 -2 .8806 -.0090 Miami .886 .775 .778 .923
15 .8800 +.0025 Utah .864 .673 .778 .978
16 -2 .8792 +.0010 Michigan .898 .827 .778 .887
17 +2 .8762 +.0101 Oklahoma .888 .785 .778 .902
18 .8682 -.0038 Illinois .902 .990 .667 .853
19 +2 .8460 -.0020 Iowa .839 .925 .667 .906
20 +3 .8278 +.0033 South Florida .842 .567 .778 .862
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
21 +7 .8092 +.0166 Tennessee .800 .844 .667 .868
22 +3 .8080 +.0052 North Texas .856 .166 .889 .800
23 +3 .8026 +.0024 Cincinnati .851 .609 .778 .755
24 +3 .8024 +.0075 Georgia Tech .867 .204 .889 .756
25 -9 .8011 -.0752 Washington .778 .786 .667 .890
26 -2 .7992 -.0252 Missouri .801 .846 .667 .832
27 +4 .7772 +.0102 Arizona State .820 .890 .667 .717
28 -8 .7727 -.0907 Louisville .821 .470 .778 .733
29 .7714 -.0128 LSU .746 .964 .556 .857
30 .7599 -.0172 Pittsburgh .771 .279 .778 .813
31 +2 .7599 -.0018 James Madison .845 .134 .889 .665
32 +3 .7521 +.0227 Houston .832 .415 .800 .646
33 -11 .7459 -.0838 Virginia .793 .263 .800 .722
34 +2 .7390 +.0213 Nebraska .735 .498 .700 .800
35 +5 .6994 +.0304 Tulane .796 .366 .778 .552
36 -4 .6984 -.0654 Memphis .756 .161 .800 .648
37 +1 .6894 +.0091 Minnesota .771 .766 .667 .534
38 +6 .6832 +.0288 Arizona .657 .398 .667 .784
39 +8 .6775 +.0406 SMU .688 .344 .700 .706
40 +10 .6698 +.0499 Iowa State .636 .642 .600 .759
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
41 +1 .6598 -.0052 Northwestern .685 .899 .556 .609
42 -1 .6582 -.0102 Kennesaw State .820 .465 .778 .354
43 .6537 -.0066 Navy .817 .452 .778 .347
44 +4 .6520 +.0155 Boise State .697 .524 .667 .587
45 -8 .6375 -.0560 TCU .618 .287 .667 .723
46 +3 .6284 -.0075 Old Dominion .689 .499 .667 .527
47 -8 .6262 -.0455 Mississippi State .575 .860 .500 .724
48 -14 .6233 -.1195 San Diego State .689 .095 .778 .539
49 +9 .6226 +.0536 Wake Forest .658 .401 .667 .580
50 +2 .6182 +.0146 East Carolina .602 .247 .667 .694
51 +2 .6157 +.0326 Penn State .506 .994 .333 .848
52 -1 .6067 -.0081 NC State .596 .720 .556 .625
53 +10 .5991 +.0601 UNLV .701 .114 .778 .433
54 +18 .5816 +.1150 Kentucky .504 .888 .444 .719
55 .5811 +.0031 Auburn .475 .937 .400 .777
56 -10 .5769 -.0682 Florida .479 .991 .333 .768
57 +2 .5723 +.0191 Southern Miss .699 .109 .778 .349
58 +4 .5693 +.0234 Ohio .670 .440 .667 .373
59 -14 .5685 -.0799 Florida State .412 .706 .444 .875
60 .5658 +.0163 New Mexico .614 .277 .667 .492
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
61 +3 .5654 +.0438 Rutgers .559 .833 .500 .554
62 +7 .5651 +.0883 Wisconsin .574 .999 .333 .554
63 -2 .5598 +.0132 Western Kentucky .699 .110 .778 .307
64 -7 .5354 -.0336 Kansas .489 .675 .500 .609
65 +6 .5303 +.0633 Hawai’i .607 .150 .700 .397
66 +11 .5159 +.0711 Utah State .534 .552 .556 .463
67 +7 .5145 +.0535 UConn .569 .093 .700 .423
68 -2 .5144 +.0157 Baylor .489 .419 .556 .564
69 -15 .5113 -.0678 Duke .448 .309 .556 .646
70 -3 .5023 +.0144 South Carolina .403 .963 .333 .664
71 -3 .4971 +.0125 Kansas State .386 .635 .444 .696
72 +6 .4864 +.0424 Missouri State .628 .315 .667 .195
73 -17 .4740 -.0998 Maryland .416 .718 .444 .549
74 -1 .4592 -.0068 Fresno State .546 .136 .667 .285
75 +17 .4522 +.0789 Toledo .368 .135 .556 .625
76 +4 .4418 +.0065 Troy .540 .127 .667 .239
77 +18 .4415 +.0989 Clemson .313 .412 .444 .680
78 +1 .4321 -.0068 Michigan State .360 .928 .333 .515
79 +8 .4316 +.0437 Army .428 .259 .556 .426
80 +10 .4316 +.0535 California .473 .199 .600 .339
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
81 -11 .4312 -.0380 UCLA .365 .933 .333 .501
82 -1 .4276 +.0061 Western Michigan .439 .285 .556 .389
83 +2 .4227 +.0251 Coastal Carolina .561 .162 .667 .132
84 -9 .4209 -.0305 Washington State .378 .612 .444 .460
85 -20 .4179 -.0901 Louisiana Tech .394 .183 .556 .455
86 -10 .4174 -.0294 UTSA .385 .633 .444 .432
87 +6 .4157 +.0444 Jacksonville State .517 .096 .667 .199
88 +6 .4036 +.0417 West Virginia .360 .750 .400 .426
89 -3 .3929 +.0007 Arkansas .223 .945 .222 .670
90 -1 .3802 -.0024 Central Michigan .457 .331 .556 .189
91 -8 .3664 -.0418 UCF .262 .254 .444 .551
92 +6 .3540 +.0314 Purdue .231 .973 .200 .528
93 -11 .3505 -.0591 Miami (OH) .358 .120 .556 .306
94 -10 .3475 -.0600 Temple .347 .271 .500 .310
95 -7 .3356 -.0517 Colorado .236 .790 .300 .454
96 +1 .3174 -.0092 Wyoming .294 .352 .444 .312
97 -6 .3029 -.0741 Stanford .235 .786 .300 .349
98 -2 .2933 -.0464 Marshall .272 .283 .444 .284
99 +7 .2910 +.0556 Delaware .340 .094 .556 .146
100 +1 .2889 +.0004 Buffalo .339 .093 .556 .140
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
101 +3 .2828 +.0245 Syracuse .207 .699 .300 .347
102 +6 .2685 +.0462 Georgia Southern .289 .336 .444 .161
103 +7 .2683 +.0513 North Carolina .236 .184 .444 .283
104 -5 .2669 -.0534 Arkansas State .286 .133 .500 .177
105 -2 .2637 -.0028 Virginia Tech .176 .421 .333 .375
106 +7 .2430 +.0561 Florida Atlantic .254 .233 .444 .157
107 -7 .2421 -.0617 Kent State .279 .789 .333 .052
108 +4 .2419 +.0471 Rice .276 .116 .500 .115
109 +7 .2250 +.0625 Florida International .236 .185 .444 .138
110 -8 .2217 -.0555 Liberty .201 .107 .444 .204
111 -6 .2052 -.0512 App State .205 .114 .444 .142
112 +7 .2031 +.0503 Ball State .231 .173 .444 .076
113 +4 .2000 +.0403 Louisiana .187 .193 .400 .158
114 -7 .1978 -.0369 San José State .137 .248 .333 .257
115 -4 .1810 -.0318 Texas State .112 .151 .333 .262
116 +10 .1801 +.0549 Air Force .101 .116 .333 .284
117 -8 .1771 -.0399 Oregon State .112 .705 .200 .201
118 +6 .1735 +.0424 Akron .178 .167 .400 .091
119 -5 .1515 -.0300 UAB .132 .228 .333 .114
120 .1507 -.0001 UL Monroe .163 .363 .333 .032
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
121 +2 .1371 -.0009 Oklahoma State .096 .910 .111 .092
122 -7 .1334 -.0327 Bowling Green .098 .197 .300 .131
123 -1 .1262 -.0192 New Mexico State .097 .101 .333 .115
124 -3 .1240 -.0259 Boston College .039 .557 .100 .215
125 -7 .1108 -.0485 Colorado State .062 .254 .222 .140
126 +1 .1084 -.0156 UTEP .059 .234 .222 .140
127 +2 .1041 +.0017 South Alabama .060 .241 .222 .123
128 +4 .1028 +.0334 Eastern Michigan .080 .120 .300 .075
129 -4 .1015 -.0241 Tulsa .049 .160 .222 .148
130 -2 .0862 -.0230 Northern Illinois .053 .191 .222 .084
131 -1 .0666 -.0140 Georgia State .037 .479 .111 .037
132 -1 .0607 -.0107 Nevada .022 .237 .111 .085
133 .0543 +.0020 Charlotte .027 .325 .111 .040
134 +2 .0470 +.0229 Sam Houston .023 .247 .111 .037
135 -1 .0387 -.0103 Middle Tennessee .014 .097 .111 .051
136 -1 .0253 -.0046 Massachusetts .010 .363 .000 .006Playoff Cost/Benefit Opportunity
There are many ways to calculate schedule strength, and a difficult schedule for one team might be an easy schedule for another. The difficulty of the schedule depends on who is playing it. In this case, the FutureDiff column is the difficulty of the schedule for the team playing it. It is the team’s expected losing percentage against that schedule.
Strength of record is the biggest factor in the playoff ratings. It’s based on a team’s actual winning percentage compared to the expected winning percentage for a hypothetical FBS team with a predictive rating 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS mean. There are two characteristics of a team that is likely to improve their strength of record:
They are expected to improve their winning percentage over the remainder of the season (DiffChg; negative values are more favorable)
The expected winning percentage for a team 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS mean is lower over the remainder of the season (SOSChg; positive values are more favorable)
The Opportunity column is calculated by subtracting DiffChg from SOSChg, and it attempts to measure how likely a team is to improve their strength of record (positive is better). Because strength of record is the biggest component of the playoff ratings, the Opportunity column is a forward looking predictor of how a team might move up or down in the playoff ratings. I describe this as comparing the costs, the chance of losing additional games, to the benefits, the increased schedule strength.
Future Schedule Cost/Benefit Opportunity
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
1 Indiana .002 (136) -.0538 -.1551 -.1012 (98)
2 Texas A&M .142 (120) -.0329 -.0412 -.0083 (54)
3 Ohio State .041 (131) .0039 -.0054 -.0093 (55)
4 Alabama .138 (123) -.0480 -.0598 -.0117 (57)
5 Oregon .138 (124) .0218 .0984 .0766 (25)
6 Georgia .178 (118) -.0560 -.0536 .0024 (49)
7 BYU .155 (119) -.1110 -.1123 -.0013 (52)
8 Texas Tech .013 (135) -.0991 -.1309 -.0319 (71)
9 Ole Miss .244 (110) .0222 -.0031 -.0253 (66)
10 Texas .467 (70) .1620 .1317 -.0303 (68)
11 Notre Dame .062 (130) -.0721 -.0941 -.0220 (63)
12 USC .372 (89) .1921 .1970 .0048 (48)
13 Vanderbilt .331 (94) .0833 .0557 -.0276 (67)
14 Miami .140 (121) -.0639 -.0615 .0024 (50)
15 Utah .026 (132) -.0545 -.0701 -.0156 (60)
16 Michigan .382 (86) .1072 .1135 .0062 (47)
17 Oklahoma .455 (72) .2103 .1861 -.0241 (65)
18 Illinois .140 (122) -.2811 -.2647 .0164 (42)
19 Iowa .361 (92) .0789 .0595 -.0194 (61)
20 South Florida .021 (133) -.2002 -.1291 .0710 (28)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
21 Tennessee .297 (103) -.0106 -.0221 -.0116 (56)
22 North Texas .021 (134) -.0963 -.0369 .0594 (30)
23 Cincinnati .576 (55) .2671 .0871 -.1800 (124)
24 Georgia Tech .465 (71) .2520 .1697 -.0822 (93)
25 Washington .323 (96) .0776 .0749 -.0027 (53)
26 Missouri .438 (76) .0972 .0313 -.0658 (88)
27 Arizona State .311 (102) -.1687 -.1560 .0127 (44)
28 Louisville .435 (79) .1440 .0019 -.1421 (110)
29 LSU .291 (105) -.1166 -.0898 .0268 (38)
30 Pittsburgh .659 (43) .4884 .3251 -.1633 (118)
31 James Madison .095 (128) -.0595 -.0207 .0387 (34)
32 Houston .500 (62) .1672 -.0118 -.1790 (123)
33 Virginia .286 (106) .0353 -.0016 -.0369 (76)
34 Nebraska .654 (45) .3724 .2281 -.1442 (111)
35 Tulane .119 (126) -.3457 -.0877 .2580 (3)
36 Memphis .382 (87) .1966 .0450 -.1517 (113)
37 Minnesota .680 (39) .1912 .1246 -.0666 (89)
38 Arizona .390 (85) .1252 .0443 -.0809 (92)
39 SMU .318 (99) .0221 -.0229 -.0449 (77)
40 Iowa State .130 (125) -.2713 -.1263 .1450 (10)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
41 Northwestern .713 (32) .1861 .0279 -.1583 (117)
42 Kennesaw State .312 (101) -.0468 -.1107 -.0639 (87)
43 Navy .801 (21) .4085 .0218 -.3867 (136)
44 Boise State .326 (95) .0040 -.0896 -.0936 (97)
45 TCU .601 (52) .2959 .1754 -.1205 (103)
46 Old Dominion .095 (129) -.1988 -.1197 .0791 (24)
47 Mississippi State .728 (30) .2439 .1071 -.1368 (109)
48 San Diego State .381 (88) .1893 .0226 -.1667 (120)
49 Wake Forest .278 (108) -.1726 -.0579 .1147 (15)
50 East Carolina .230 (113) .0026 -.0292 -.0318 (70)
51 Penn State .230 (112) -.1881 -.2362 -.0481 (78)
52 NC State .610 (50) .0831 .1007 .0177 (41)
53 UNLV .320 (98) -.0342 -.0088 .0254 (40)
54 Kentucky .487 (64) -.0687 -.0071 .0616 (29)
55 Auburn .420 (80) -.0600 .0166 .0766 (26)
56 Florida .673 (40) .0738 .0101 -.0636 (86)
57 Southern Miss .279 (107) -.0412 -.0151 .0261 (39)
58 Ohio .276 (109) -.0680 -.0995 -.0315 (69)
59 Florida State .204 (116) -.0508 -.0506 .0002 (51)
60 New Mexico .292 (104) -.1057 -.0566 .0491 (31)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
61 Rutgers .905 (10) .3430 .3540 .0110 (45)
62 Wisconsin .788 (23) .0919 .0286 -.0633 (85)
63 Western Kentucky .485 (66) .1671 .1064 -.0607 (84)
64 Kansas .861 (13) .3978 .2831 -.1147 (101)
65 Hawai’i .470 (69) .0951 -.0133 -.1083 (99)
66 Utah State .487 (65) .0856 -.1022 -.1878 (125)
67 UConn .240 (111) .0153 -.0062 -.0215 (62)
68 Baylor .777 (26) .2577 .2230 -.0348 (74)
69 Duke .352 (93) -.0429 -.0266 .0163 (43)
70 South Carolina .475 (68) -.1585 -.0297 .1288 (12)
71 Kansas State .392 (84) -.0618 .1159 .1777 (5)
72 Missouri State .622 (48) .0876 -.0678 -.1554 (115)
73 Maryland .742 (29) .2560 .0640 -.1920 (127)
74 Fresno State .549 (58) .0670 -.0176 -.0846 (94)
75 Toledo .110 (127) -.0660 -.0225 .0435 (32)
76 Troy .549 (57) .1232 .0025 -.1207 (104)
77 Clemson .396 (83) .0217 .0068 -.0149 (58)
78 Michigan State .779 (25) .1987 .0102 -.1885 (126)
79 Army .366 (90) -.1466 -.0508 .0958 (20)
80 California .707 (35) .1342 .0070 -.1272 (107)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
81 UCLA .959 (5) .2590 .3518 .0928 (22)
82 Western Michigan .219 (115) -.2294 -.0699 .1595 (8)
83 Coastal Carolina .852 (16) .2859 .0326 -.2533 (131)
84 Washington State .453 (73) -.1284 -.0939 .0345 (37)
85 Louisiana Tech .322 (97) .0449 -.0290 -.0739 (91)
86 UTSA .400 (81) -.0840 -.1163 -.0323 (72)
87 Jacksonville State .565 (56) .1461 -.0060 -.1521 (114)
88 West Virginia .923 (9) .2383 .2049 -.0335 (73)
89 Arkansas .790 (22) .2100 .0877 -.1223 (105)
90 Central Michigan .491 (63) -.0093 -.0654 -.0561 (81)
91 UCF .654 (44) .2418 .3398 .0980 (18)
92 Purdue .968 (4) .3193 .3615 .0422 (33)
93 Miami (OH) .400 (82) -.0387 -.0024 .0362 (36)
94 Temple .838 (20) .3426 .0841 -.2585 (132)
95 Colorado .781 (24) .0962 -.0598 -.1560 (116)
96 Wyoming .439 (75) -.0528 -.0764 -.0237 (64)
97 Stanford .705 (37) -.0276 .1044 .1319 (11)
98 Marshall .229 (114) -.2292 -.0721 .1571 (9)
99 Delaware .521 (61) -.0719 .0189 .0908 (23)
100 Buffalo .705 (36) .2747 -.0032 -.2779 (133)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
101 Syracuse .629 (47) -.0943 .1897 .2840 (2)
102 Georgia Southern .661 (42) .0757 -.0717 -.1474 (112)
103 North Carolina .861 (14) .2614 .0417 -.2196 (129)
104 Arkansas State .448 (74) -.1224 -.0262 .0962 (19)
105 Virginia Tech .946 (6) .2772 .2229 -.0543 (80)
106 Florida Atlantic .890 (11) .2852 -.0013 -.2866 (135)
107 Kent State .713 (33) .0233 -.1890 -.2123 (128)
108 Rice .993 (1) .3409 .2528 -.0882 (96)
109 Florida International .435 (78) -.1617 -.0447 .1169 (13)
110 Liberty .644 (46) .1661 .0006 -.1654 (119)
111 App State .713 (34) .1951 .0277 -.1675 (121)
112 Ball State .771 (27) .0564 -.0005 -.0569 (82)
113 Louisiana .361 (91) -.2235 -.0466 .1769 (6)
114 San José State .526 (60) -.0778 -.0396 .0382 (35)
115 Texas State .315 (100) -.1915 -.0274 .1641 (7)
116 Air Force .584 (54) .0143 -.0006 -.0149 (59)
117 Oregon State .662 (41) .0317 -.1451 -.1767 (122)
118 Akron .483 (67) -.1341 -.0389 .0952 (21)
119 UAB .875 (12) .1704 .0829 -.0875 (95)
120 UL Monroe .857 (15) .0374 -.0880 -.1254 (106)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
121 Oklahoma State .979 (3) .1409 -.1376 -.2784 (134)
122 Bowling Green .202 (117) -.4194 -.0493 .3701 (1)
123 New Mexico State .622 (49) .0057 .1172 .1116 (16)
124 Boston College .842 (19) .0712 -.0603 -.1316 (108)
125 Colorado State .849 (17) .0963 -.0171 -.1133 (100)
126 UTEP .542 (59) -.0218 -.0580 -.0363 (75)
127 South Alabama .606 (51) .0007 -.0565 -.0572 (83)
128 Eastern Michigan .728 (31) .0359 -.0163 -.0521 (79)
129 Tulsa .590 (53) -.0969 -.0255 .0715 (27)
130 Northern Illinois .438 (77) -.3014 -.0440 .2574 (4)
131 Georgia State .939 (7) .1364 -.0923 -.2287 (130)
132 Nevada .844 (18) .0190 -.0501 -.0691 (90)
133 Charlotte .983 (2) .1200 .1278 .0079 (46)
134 Sam Houston .748 (28) -.1710 -.0629 .1080 (17)
135 Middle Tennessee .684 (38) -.1224 -.0068 .1156 (14)
136 Massachusetts .935 (8) .0330 -.0841 -.1171 (102)“Major Playoff Implications”
Of the games that appeared to have significant playoff implications, many of them went roughly as expected on Saturday. Let’s talk about a few of them that didn’t, though, and if they should meaningfully affect the playoff scenarios.
Indiana-Penn State
Had Indiana not escaped with a win at Penn State (#25 Predictive), this game would have shifted the playoff ratings a bit. As it is, Indiana (#1 Predictive; #1 Playoff) came away with a win thanks to a great touchdown catch in the back of the end zone, and Indiana is still undefeated. Penn State is ranked in the vicinity of #20 to #25 in many computer ratings, so it probably shouldn’t be too surprising that the game was competitive. Therefore, this result really shouldn’t shift the playoff rankings, and it hasn’t dropped Indiana in my playoff ratings. The standard deviation in predicting margin of victory is quite large, so eventually even the best teams are going to play some games that are too close for comfort. But Indiana found a way to win, and I have a hard time dropping them out of the top spot in my playoff ratings.
BYU-Texas Tech
Based on the predictive ratings, Texas Tech (#5 Predictive) was considerably more dominant than expected, winning by three touchdowns when the expected margin was closer to one touchdown. As a result, Texas Tech should get a bit of a boost in the predictive ratings, and BYU’s rating (#12 Predictive) should be lower this week. Still, it should not and has not made a big shift in the predictive ratings. From a playoff standpoint, both BYU and Texas Tech are one loss teams, and this result hasn’t dropped BYU’s strength of record very much. The bottom line is that both BYU and Texas Tech still look like playoff teams. If anything, there would have been a bigger shift if BYU had won this game due to Texas Tech then being a two loss team. That could have opened the door to an SEC team with two losses like Texas (#16 Predictive; #10 Playoff) or Vanderbilt (#15 Predictive; #13 Playoff) to climb into a playoff spot. But as it stands, the Big 12 still seems on track to get two teams in the playoff. And Utah (#15 Playoff) isn’t far behind.
Oregon-Iowa
This was a close game, but Iowa (#13 Predictive) had a strong predictive rating, and we should have expected this to be a very competitive game. Iowa (#19 Playoff) is ranked around #15 to #20 in many computer ratings, so it’s not surprising that they were able to be very competitive against Oregon (#3 Predictive; #5 Playoff). If Oregon had picked up a second loss, that would have made them more of a bubble team for reaching the playoff. Oregon actually moves up a spot this week in my playoff ratings due to BYU’s loss at Texas Tech. Again, this result shouldn’t really shift the playoff ratings. Like I said about the Indiana-Penn State game, there’s a big standard deviation in predicting the margin of victory in games, and sometimes it’s most important to just win somehow.
Wake Forest-Virginia
Virginia (#39 Predictive; #33 Playoff) will definitely be a favorite in their final game of the season against Virginia Tech (#82 Predictive), but their game next week at Duke (#51 Predictive) is a toss-up. It’s very possible that Virginia will pick up another loss in their final two games, and they were certainly favored at home against Wake Forest (#57 Predictive). Virginia can still reach the playoff by winning the ACC, but this loss certainly makes it much more difficult to get in as an at-large team. They’re no longer the favorite, and the ACC is a lot more complicated after week 11’s games.
California-Louisville
Although this is a worse loss, the analysis is much the same as for Wake Forest-Virginia. Louisville (#36 Predictive; 28 Playoff) should be slight favorites against Clemson (#45 Predictive), but their games against SMU (#42 Predictive) and Kentucky (#40 Predictive) look like toss-ups at this point. The Cardinals couldn’t afford a loss against California (#89 Predictive) if they were going to have any margin of error going forward. There’s a good chance that Louisville will pick up a third loss, possibly in conference play, and perhaps even a fourth loss. Although the Cardinals aren’t eliminated from winning the ACC, they’re a long shot at this point. Although Louisville has just two losses right now, it’s hard to envision them reaching the playoff.
ACC Playoff Scenarios
There’s an interesting scenario that could potentially happen regarding which conferences get the five automatic bids to the college football playoff. The top five ranked conference champions receive playoff bids, but none of them are tied to specific conferences. ESPN’s FPI gives Duke (#69 Playoff) a 20.1% chance of winning the ACC. They’re 4-1 in the conference, but they’re a 5-4 team overall. Their game against Virginia (#33 Playoff) is a toss-up, they should be clear favorites at North Carolina (#97 Predictive), and they should be slight favorites at home against Wake Forest. It’s not an easy path to winning the ACC, but there’s a realistic scenario for Duke to make this happen. North Texas (#28 Predictive; #22 Playoff) and South Florida (#22 Predictive; #20 Playoff) look like they have the best chances of winning the American, and one of them could very well get a playoff bid. There’s also a good chance that James Madison (#47 Predictive; #31 Playoff) wins the Sun Belt, and they’re not ranked that far behind South Florida and North Texas in my playoff ratings. Both are ranked well ahead of Duke in my playoff rankings. If the American and Sun Belt champions were to be ranked ahead of the ACC champion in the final ratings, the Group of 5 would then be in line for two playoff bids, barring some extremely unlikely chaos in the final weeks of the season.
This isn’t an particularly likely scenario, but it also can’t be dismissed as a fringe possibility. It’s hard to envision Duke getting a playoff bid with four losses, but they can definitely win the ACC. If two of the playoff champions came from outside the ACC, that still wouldn’t automatically prevent an ACC team from reaching the playoff, either. One possibility is that Georgia Tech (#34 Predictive; #24 Playoff) wins their remaining regular season games but loses to Duke in the ACC championship game. In that scenario, Duke might get passed over for a playoff bid while Georgia Tech could be selected as an at-large team.
A second possibility is for Miami (#11 Predictive; #14 Playoff) to climb back into an at-large spot. They’re likely to rise to #16 in this week’s college football playoff rankings. It wouldn’t be surprising for Texas (#16 Predictive; #10 Playoff) and Oklahoma (#14 Predictive; #17 Playoff) to each pick up another loss, potentially moving Miami ahead of them. Vanderbilt (#15 Predictive; #13 Playoff) should be favored against Kentucky (#40 Predictive), but their game at Tennessee (#21 Predictive) looks like a toss-up, and it wouldn’t be surprising to see them finish at 9-3. Miami probably also needs Utah (#4 Predictive; #15 Playoff) to pick up an additional loss, which seems most likely to occur if they reach Big 12 championship game. Miami would certainly benefit from a bit of chaos in the Big 12 involving the three top teams in the conference each picking up more losses. Although Oregon (#3 Predictive; #5 Playoff) should be the favorite in their three remaining games, it’s plausible they could lose against USC (#9 Predictive) or Washington (#18 Predictive). Alternatively, a Notre Dame (#6 Predictive; #11 Playoff) loss at Pittsburgh (#27 Predictive) would also help to open the door for Miami.
Miami needs to win out and also get some help in front of them. All of these seem at least possible, and some of this help even seems likely. The problem is that Miami probably needs to win out and for all of these things to happen, which is for Georgia Tech, Vanderbilt, Texas, Oklahoma, Utah, and perhaps Oregon or Notre Dame to all lose at least one more game. To be clear, that means Miami must take care of business and also have at least six teams lose ahead of them, meaning that there appears to be at least seven different things that must occur. If these are independent events and each has even an 85% chance of happening, the probably of all seven occurring is just 32.1%. If each event has only an 80% chance of occurring, the probability of all seven independently happening falls to 21%. Just using rough estimates for the numbers, it seems likely that Miami will get some of the help they need, just not all of it. And the 80% and 85% numbers seem generous for at least some of the events that must occur.
All of that said, there is a scenario where two automatic bids go to Group of 5 teams but the ACC still gets a team in the playoff. Georgia Tech seems better positioned to be that playoff team if they win their remaining regular season games, including what would be a big win over Georgia (#10 Predictive) that would improve their strength of record considerably. Miami has a path, too, but it’s less likely. Yes, I’m getting closer to fringe scenarios here, but they’re fun to speculate about.
Playoff Picks
These are my subjective playoff picks, informed by my playoff ratings and the various components. I’m presenting this like an S-Curve in college basketball, where these are the ordering of which teams I believe are most deserving.
Playoff S-Curve
#1 Indiana (Automatic bid #1; #1 Seed)
#2 Ohio State (#2 Seed)
#3 Texas A&M (Automatic bid #2; #3 Seed)
#4 Alabama (#4 Seed)
#5 Oregon (#5 Seed)
#6 Georgia (#6 Seed)
#7 Texas Tech (Automatic bid #3; #7 Seed)
#8 Ole Miss (#8 Seed)
#9 BYU (#9 Seed)
#10 Notre Dame (#10 Seed)
----------------------------------------
#11 Texas
#12 Vanderbilt
#13 Miami
#14 Utah
#15 Oklahoma
#16 South Florida (Automatic bid #4; #11 Seed)
#17 Georgia Tech (Automatic bid #5; #12 Seed)
#18 Michigan
#19 USC
#20 North Texas
#21 Cincinnati
#22 James Madison
#23 Louisville
#24 Houston
#25 IllinoisIowa (#19 Playoff) would be the next team on my list if I extended it beyond 25 teams. In several of the cases, I deferred to strength of record instead of the overall playoff rating. However, I didn’t follow that for BYU’s (#7 Playoff) ranking because it’s hard to justify putting them ahead of Texas Tech (#8 Playoff) after the head to head result. I also put Notre Dame (#11 Playoff) in ahead of Texas (#10 Playoff) because Notre Dame’s two losses were by extremely close margins, and that is better reflected by the forward looking ratings that directly use margin of victory. I suspect the committee’s biggest decision this week will be whether BYU belongs in the playoff or to give the final at-large bid to Texas. At least with my ratings, BYU has an edge both in the predictive rating and strength of record. ESPN FPI’s strength of record ranks BYU at #8 and Texas at #10. Bill Connelly’s backward looking version of SP+ ranks BYU at #11 and Texas at #19. The bottom line is that there’s a very strong case for putting BYU ahead of Texas.
The biggest complaint I have with the selection committee’s rankings from last week is the absence of Group of 5 teams. There are plenty of strong candidates, and Memphis (#37 strength of record) was probably deserving prior to getting a second loss. San Diego State (#44 strength of record) also merited consideration. But there’s also South Florida (#23 strength of record), North Texas (#20 strength of record), James Madison (#22 strength of record), and Tulane (#32 strength of record) that have strong cases to be in the top 25. Perhaps even Kennesaw State (#28 strength of record) and Navy (#29 strength of record) belong in the discussion for Group of 5 teams not far outside the top 25. Overall, the committee’s rankings seemed mostly reasonable minus the omission of any Group of 5 teams when there were several deserving candidates. Even among computer ratings, there’s considerable spread in backward looking ratings, so I’m generally inclined to give the committee some latitude if teams are 2-3 spots higher or lower than where I believe they should be ranked. But it’s hard to explain why the Group of 5 was completely shut out.
Week 12 Game Predictions
Upcoming 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: Texas (-4.80, 34.72%) at Georgia (4.80, 65.28%)
Estimated score: 19.53 - 24.34, Total: 43.87
Quality: 96.85%, Team quality: 97.20%, Competitiveness: 96.16%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.18%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.43%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 26.95%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 45.27%
#2: Arizona (-0.72, 47.65%) at Cincinnati (0.72, 52.35%)
Estimated score: 27.06 - 27.96, Total: 55.03
Quality: 96.84%, Team quality: 95.34%, Competitiveness: 99.91%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.42%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 43.26%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 36.64%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 34.76%
#3: Iowa (-6.02, 31.10%) at USC (6.02, 68.90%)
Estimated score: 22.47 - 28.35, Total: 50.82
Quality: 96.27%, Team quality: 97.42%, Competitiveness: 94.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.65%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.86%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 32.84%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 38.63%
#4: Virginia (0.99, 53.22%) at Duke (-0.99, 46.78%)
Estimated score: 35.13 - 34.18, Total: 69.31
Quality: 96.11%, Team quality: 94.30%, Competitiveness: 99.84%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.44%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 43.20%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 50.30%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 22.94%
#5: Clemson (-4.37, 36.03%) at Louisville (4.37, 63.97%)
Estimated score: 25.42 - 29.70, Total: 55.12
Quality: 95.30%, Team quality: 94.55%, Competitiveness: 96.81%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.04%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.92%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 36.72%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 34.68%
#6: Memphis (-3.97, 37.25%) at East Carolina (3.97, 62.75%)
Estimated score: 24.05 - 28.40, Total: 52.45
Quality: 95.18%, Team quality: 94.11%, Competitiveness: 97.36%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.93%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 41.32%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 34.29%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 37.12%
#7: Boise State (-0.39, 48.71%) at San Diego State (0.39, 51.29%)
Estimated score: 23.63 - 24.01, Total: 47.64
Quality: 95.09%, Team quality: 92.74%, Competitiveness: 99.97%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.41%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 43.31%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 30.08%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 41.64%
#8: Oklahoma (-8.36, 24.69%) at Alabama (8.36, 75.31%)
Estimated score: 15.15 - 23.69, Total: 38.83
Quality: 94.48%, Team quality: 97.52%, Competitiveness: 88.68%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.91%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.13%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 23.05%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 50.16%
#9: Utah State (-1.05, 46.58%) at UNLV (1.05, 53.42%)
Estimated score: 38.56 - 39.68, Total: 78.23
Quality: 93.90%, Team quality: 91.07%, Competitiveness: 99.81%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.44%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 43.18%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 58.93%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 16.88%
#10: Mississippi State (-7.50, 26.97%) at Missouri (7.50, 73.03%)
Estimated score: 25.50 - 33.22, Total: 58.72
Quality: 93.85%, Team quality: 95.41%, Competitiveness: 90.81%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.39%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 36.60%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 40.08%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 31.49%
#11: Louisiana Tech (-2.34, 42.42%) at Washington State (2.34, 57.58%)
Estimated score: 15.40 - 17.60, Total: 33.00
Quality: 93.77%, Team quality: 91.22%, Competitiveness: 99.08%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.59%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.62%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 18.95%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 55.82%
#12: Ohio (-2.74, 41.13%) at Western Michigan (2.74, 58.87%)
Estimated score: 20.05 - 22.56, Total: 42.61
Quality: 92.79%, Team quality: 89.95%, Competitiveness: 98.74%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.65%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.36%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 25.95%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 46.49%
#13: Florida (-9.66, 21.46%) at Ole Miss (9.66, 78.54%)
Estimated score: 22.23 - 31.65, Total: 53.88
Quality: 92.28%, Team quality: 96.09%, Competitiveness: 85.12%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.86%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.75%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 35.59%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 35.80%
#14: Wyoming (-1.02, 46.66%) at Fresno State (1.02, 53.34%)
Estimated score: 17.00 - 18.17, Total: 35.17
Quality: 92.02%, Team quality: 88.35%, Competitiveness: 99.82%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.44%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 43.19%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 20.42%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 53.73%
#15: Notre Dame (11.30, 82.24%) at Pittsburgh (-11.30, 17.76%)
Estimated score: 36.55 - 25.10, Total: 61.65
Quality: 91.05%, Team quality: 97.08%, Competitiveness: 80.08%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.33%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.54%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 42.87%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 28.99%
#16: Kennesaw State (4.69, 64.94%) at Jacksonville State (-4.69, 35.06%)
Estimated score: 29.80 - 25.10, Total: 54.91
Quality: 90.48%, Team quality: 87.68%, Competitiveness: 96.33%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.14%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.56%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 36.52%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 34.87%
#17: Texas State (-5.75, 31.91%) at Southern Miss (5.75, 68.09%)
Estimated score: 33.54 - 39.44, Total: 72.98
Quality: 90.40%, Team quality: 88.40%, Competitiveness: 94.53%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.53%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 39.24%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 53.87%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 20.32%
#18: Arkansas (-11.24, 17.88%) at LSU (11.24, 82.12%)
Estimated score: 22.05 - 33.24, Total: 55.29
Quality: 89.94%, Team quality: 95.21%, Competitiveness: 80.27%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.27%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.65%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 36.88%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 34.53%
#19: Air Force (-7.64, 26.59%) at UConn (7.64, 73.41%)
Estimated score: 33.07 - 40.75, Total: 73.83
Quality: 89.68%, Team quality: 89.29%, Competitiveness: 90.48%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.47%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 36.37%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 54.69%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 19.73%
#20: Oregon State (0.88, 52.86%) at Tulsa (-0.88, 47.14%)
Estimated score: 24.82 - 23.86, Total: 48.68
Quality: 89.67%, Team quality: 84.96%, Competitiveness: 99.87%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.43%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 43.23%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 30.98%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 40.65%
#21: Liberty (1.68, 55.48%) at Florida International (-1.68, 44.52%)
Estimated score: 25.36 - 23.79, Total: 49.15
Quality: 89.45%, Team quality: 84.80%, Competitiveness: 99.52%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.50%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.96%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 31.38%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 40.20%
#22: Toledo (9.84, 78.97%) at Miami (OH) (-9.84, 21.03%)
Estimated score: 29.73 - 20.07, Total: 49.80
Quality: 88.87%, Team quality: 91.10%, Competitiveness: 84.59%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.00%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.40%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 31.94%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 39.59%
#23: Buffalo (-5.02, 34.05%) at Central Michigan (5.02, 65.95%)
Estimated score: 19.51 - 24.44, Total: 43.95
Quality: 88.14%, Team quality: 84.55%, Competitiveness: 95.80%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.26%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.17%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 27.02%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 45.18%
#24: Coastal Carolina (-3.99, 37.19%) at Georgia Southern (3.99, 62.81%)
Estimated score: 28.25 - 32.27, Total: 60.53
Quality: 88.14%, Team quality: 83.88%, Competitiveness: 97.33%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.94%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 41.30%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 41.80%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 29.94%
#25: Penn State (12.25, 84.19%) at Michigan State (-12.25, 15.81%)
Estimated score: 36.97 - 24.83, Total: 61.80
Quality: 88.10%, Team quality: 94.28%, Competitiveness: 76.93%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.34%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.62%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 43.01%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 28.87%
#26: UTEP (-5.35, 33.08%) at Missouri State (5.35, 66.92%)
Estimated score: 19.26 - 24.58, Total: 43.83
Quality: 88.02%, Team quality: 84.62%, Competitiveness: 95.25%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.37%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 39.77%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 26.93%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 45.30%
#27: TCU (-13.11, 14.16%) at BYU (13.11, 85.84%)
Estimated score: 22.07 - 35.46, Total: 57.54
Quality: 87.94%, Team quality: 95.91%, Competitiveness: 73.92%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.37%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.85%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 38.97%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 32.52%
#28: Michigan (13.57, 86.67%) vs. Northwestern (-13.57, 13.33%)
Estimated score: 23.07 - 9.31, Total: 32.38
Quality: 86.79%, Team quality: 95.09%, Competitiveness: 72.29%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.96%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 24.92%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 18.54%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 56.43%
#29: Eastern Michigan (-2.23, 42.76%) at Ball State (2.23, 57.24%)
Estimated score: 27.24 - 29.57, Total: 56.81
Quality: 86.01%, Team quality: 80.10%, Competitiveness: 99.16%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.57%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.69%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 38.29%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 33.17%
#30: West Virginia (-13.17, 14.06%) at Arizona State (13.17, 85.94%)
Estimated score: 14.82 - 28.23, Total: 43.04
Quality: 85.82%, Team quality: 92.59%, Competitiveness: 73.73%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.44%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.74%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 26.29%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 46.06%
#31: San José State (8.25, 75.02%) at Nevada (-8.25, 24.98%)
Estimated score: 26.74 - 18.37, Total: 45.11
Quality: 85.72%, Team quality: 84.13%, Competitiveness: 88.97%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.84%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.33%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 27.97%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 44.06%
#32: North Carolina (-13.38, 13.67%) at Wake Forest (13.38, 86.33%)
Estimated score: 7.83 - 21.08, Total: 28.91
Quality: 84.14%, Team quality: 90.35%, Competitiveness: 72.97%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.71%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.30%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 16.36%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 59.74%
#33: Kent State (-6.38, 30.08%) at Akron (6.38, 69.92%)
Estimated score: 24.15 - 30.61, Total: 54.76
Quality: 83.86%, Team quality: 79.51%, Competitiveness: 93.29%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.81%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.35%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 36.39%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 35.01%
#34: Troy (-13.43, 13.58%) at Old Dominion (13.43, 86.42%)
Estimated score: 20.24 - 33.63, Total: 53.87
Quality: 83.50%, Team quality: 89.43%, Competitiveness: 72.80%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.78%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.21%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 35.58%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 35.81%
#35: Maryland (-15.61, 10.08%) at Illinois (15.61, 89.92%)
Estimated score: 19.15 - 34.79, Total: 53.94
Quality: 83.24%, Team quality: 94.35%, Competitiveness: 64.80%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.95%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.85%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 35.64%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 35.75%
#36: South Alabama (7.90, 74.11%) at UL Monroe (-7.90, 25.89%)
Estimated score: 31.35 - 23.37, Total: 54.72
Quality: 82.55%, Team quality: 79.12%, Competitiveness: 89.84%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.62%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.93%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 36.35%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 35.04%
#37: Delaware (10.63, 80.77%) vs. Sam Houston (-10.63, 19.23%)
Estimated score: 36.43 - 25.75, Total: 62.17
Quality: 80.68%, Team quality: 79.92%, Competitiveness: 82.21%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.69%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.88%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 43.37%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 28.56%
#38: NC State (-18.21, 6.81%) at Miami (18.21, 93.19%)
Estimated score: 18.00 - 36.26, Total: 54.25
Quality: 79.31%, Team quality: 95.35%, Competitiveness: 54.87%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 16.73%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 15.99%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 35.93%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 35.46%
#39: Purdue (-18.94, 6.06%) at Washington (18.94, 93.94%)
Estimated score: 17.67 - 36.56, Total: 54.23
Quality: 77.45%, Team quality: 94.43%, Competitiveness: 52.09%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 18.26%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 14.74%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 35.90%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 35.49%
#40: Colorado State (-17.56, 7.54%) at New Mexico (17.56, 92.46%)
Estimated score: 16.34 - 33.96, Total: 50.30
Quality: 75.99%, Team quality: 87.45%, Competitiveness: 57.37%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.43%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 17.16%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 32.38%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 39.12%
#41: Marshall (15.57, 89.87%) at Georgia State (-15.57, 10.13%)
Estimated score: 44.51 - 28.83, Total: 73.34
Quality: 75.89%, Team quality: 82.03%, Competitiveness: 64.95%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.89%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.92%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 54.22%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 20.07%
#42: South Florida (19.35, 94.34%) at Navy (-19.35, 5.66%)
Estimated score: 40.48 - 20.98, Total: 61.46
Quality: 75.88%, Team quality: 93.01%, Competitiveness: 50.51%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 19.18%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 14.05%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 42.69%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 29.16%
#43: South Carolina (-20.27, 4.86%) at Texas A&M (20.27, 95.14%)
Estimated score: 14.01 - 34.36, Total: 48.38
Quality: 75.63%, Team quality: 95.86%, Competitiveness: 47.08%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 21.29%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 12.60%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 30.71%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 40.94%
#44: Georgia Tech (19.33, 94.31%) at Boston College (-19.33, 5.69%)
Estimated score: 41.13 - 21.89, Total: 63.01
Quality: 74.73%, Team quality: 90.80%, Competitiveness: 50.61%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 19.12%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 14.10%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 44.18%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 27.86%
#45: Florida Atlantic (-18.65, 6.34%) at Tulane (18.65, 93.66%)
Estimated score: 23.79 - 42.08, Total: 65.86
Quality: 74.51%, Team quality: 88.21%, Competitiveness: 53.17%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 17.66%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 15.22%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 46.95%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 25.57%
#46: Northern Illinois (14.23, 87.78%) at Massachusetts (-14.23, 12.22%)
Estimated score: 24.44 - 10.41, Total: 34.85
Quality: 72.35%, Team quality: 73.59%, Competitiveness: 69.93%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.85%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 23.60%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 20.20%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 54.03%
#47: Middle Tennessee (-18.53, 6.47%) at Western Kentucky (18.53, 93.53%)
Estimated score: 17.14 - 35.66, Total: 52.79
Quality: 71.68%, Team quality: 82.84%, Competitiveness: 53.65%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 17.39%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 15.44%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 34.60%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 36.80%
#48: Tennessee Tech (-22.35, 3.37%) at Kentucky (22.35, 96.63%)
Estimated score: 17.81 - 40.20, Total: 58.01
Quality: 68.44%, Team quality: 90.11%, Competitiveness: 39.48%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 26.57%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 9.63%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 39.41%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 32.11%
#49: UTSA (20.81, 95.57%) at Charlotte (-20.81, 4.43%)
Estimated score: 41.60 - 20.86, Total: 62.46
Quality: 68.04%, Team quality: 83.62%, Competitiveness: 45.04%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 22.61%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 11.77%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 43.65%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 28.32%
#50: Virginia Tech (-23.45, 2.75%) at Florida State (23.45, 97.25%)
Estimated score: 19.24 - 42.54, Total: 61.78
Quality: 67.61%, Team quality: 93.04%, Competitiveness: 35.71%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 29.58%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 8.28%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 43.00%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 28.88%
#51: Utah (24.65, 97.82%) at Baylor (-24.65, 2.18%)
Estimated score: 46.86 - 22.21, Total: 69.08
Quality: 66.25%, Team quality: 95.72%, Competitiveness: 31.74%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 33.07%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 6.95%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 50.07%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 23.11%
#52: App State (-23.92, 2.52%) at James Madison (23.92, 97.48%)
Estimated score: 10.08 - 33.79, Total: 43.87
Quality: 64.44%, Team quality: 88.53%, Competitiveness: 34.13%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 30.93%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 7.74%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 26.96%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 45.26%
#53: Kansas State (24.58, 97.78%) at Oklahoma State (-24.58, 2.22%)
Estimated score: 41.55 - 17.12, Total: 58.68
Quality: 62.72%, Team quality: 87.83%, Competitiveness: 31.98%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 32.85%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 7.03%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 40.04%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 31.53%
#54: UCF (-26.99, 1.36%) at Texas Tech (26.99, 98.64%)
Estimated score: 8.92 - 35.99, Total: 44.91
Quality: 60.73%, Team quality: 95.20%, Competitiveness: 24.71%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 40.28%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 4.82%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 27.80%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 44.25%
#55: North Texas (27.53, 98.79%) at UAB (-27.53, 1.21%)
Estimated score: 54.35 - 26.82, Total: 81.17
Quality: 56.93%, Team quality: 89.12%, Competitiveness: 23.24%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 42.00%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 4.41%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 61.69%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 15.14%
#56: Minnesota (-31.45, 0.50%) at Oregon (31.45, 99.50%)
Estimated score: 9.38 - 41.12, Total: 50.50
Quality: 50.48%, Team quality: 95.26%, Competitiveness: 14.17%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 54.72%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 2.19%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 32.56%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 38.94%
#57: UCLA (-36.30, 0.15%) at Ohio State (36.30, 99.85%)
Estimated score: 1.89 - 38.28, Total: 40.16
Quality: 39.55%, Team quality: 95.15%, Competitiveness: 6.83%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 69.69%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.81%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 24.05%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 48.87%
#58: New Mexico State (-35.74, 0.17%) at Tennessee (35.74, 99.83%)
Estimated score: 16.45 - 52.24, Total: 68.69
Quality: 38.99%, Team quality: 88.99%, Competitiveness: 7.49%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 68.07%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.91%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 49.70%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 23.40%
#59: Wisconsin (-36.92, 0.13%) at Indiana (36.92, 99.87%)
Estimated score: 2.40 - 39.41, Total: 41.82
Quality: 38.34%, Team quality: 95.63%, Competitiveness: 6.16%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 71.44%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.70%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 25.32%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 47.26%As I said, The Linked Letters After Dark returns this evening with a special week 11 playoff edition, though I’m not entirely sure what I’ll do with the column during the rest of the regular season. Thanks for reading!
These ratings are based on data from collegefootballdata.com.