College Football Computer Ratings and Predictions for Week 8
The 12 games most likely to shake up the playoff picture, and why those games have major playoff implications.
In this week’s edition of The Linked Letters After Dark, I posted the preliminary playoff ratings and examined the current playoff scenario after last week’s games. The final ratings for week 8 are in, and I’ll discuss the playoff implications the 12 games this week that I believe are most likely to disrupt the playoff scenario.
Games from 2024 still account for a small amount of each team’s rating, with each game from last season having 2% of the influence of a game played this season. For a team that played 13 games last season and six games so far in 2025, last season accounts for 4.15% of their rating and this season for the remaining 95.85%. This is, of course, an approximation, and it can vary a bit. Including last season’s games doesn’t change things a whole lot at this point, especially at these weights, but it can still influence the ratings a bit. The effects are a bit more significant in lower divisions where some teams haven’t played at many games in 2025.
I have a new landing page where I’ll post updated FBS ratings as they’re available. I won’t be posting preliminary ratings there, only the final ratings each week and the predictions for upcoming games. At least for this season, I’ll still continue to send out a weekly article in addition to the Saturday night or Sunday morning editions of The Linked Letters After Dark.
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: 2.59 points
Mean score: 26.45 points
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
1 89.71 +4.97 Indiana 45.57 44.34 .269
2 88.07 +4.98 Ohio State 37.72 50.29 .244
3 84.32 +3.66 Notre Dame 46.47 37.65 -.040
4 83.69 +3.28 Miami 35.98 47.69 .367
5 81.43 +2.16 Oregon 44.46 36.84 .041
6 78.49 -0.46 Alabama 38.17 40.41 .138
7 +5 77.55 +5.79 Texas Tech 40.14 37.63 .156
8 +10 77.21 +7.06 Utah 40.19 37.02 -.030
9 -1 76.36 +2.19 USC 45.12 31.19 -.004
10 +3 75.52 +3.89 Texas A&M 37.93 37.61 .256
11 -4 75.41 +0.78 Florida State 42.34 32.95 -.213
12 +10 74.21 +6.33 Washington 41.07 33.50 .029
13 -2 73.49 +1.72 Georgia 32.07 41.76 .063
14 +7 72.24 +4.21 Texas 32.59 39.76 -.062
15 -5 71.32 -0.70 LSU 30.93 40.34 .031
16 +3 71.08 +1.76 BYU 37.85 33.30 .112
17 -3 70.34 -1.06 Michigan 32.51 37.95 -.072
18 +14 70.23 +7.65 South Florida 40.51 29.68 .093
19 -2 70.21 -0.22 Nebraska 40.23 30.02 -.018
20 -4 70.14 -0.55 Tennessee 45.24 24.89 -.021
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
21 +2 70.08 +2.43 Illinois 36.49 33.64 .069
22 -13 70.06 -3.89 Ole Miss 38.05 32.00 .130
23 +1 69.83 +2.34 Florida 31.16 38.55 -.259
24 -4 69.74 +0.45 Vanderbilt 40.49 29.26 -.003
25 -10 69.35 -1.35 Oklahoma 27.44 42.03 .003
26 +10 68.20 +7.64 Iowa 28.84 39.53 -.112
27 67.98 +3.61 Missouri 37.42 30.47 -.032
28 -3 67.39 +2.56 Virginia 40.53 26.91 .002
29 +1 66.00 +2.90 Cincinnati 33.84 32.26 -.010
30 +4 65.77 +4.35 Louisville 36.94 28.83 -.067
31 +4 64.93 +3.81 Georgia Tech 34.46 30.40 .099
32 +17 64.26 +7.52 Pittsburgh 33.29 31.01 -.184
33 64.03 +1.88 Iowa State 31.05 33.27 -.131
34 -6 63.56 -0.08 Auburn 26.92 36.78 -.253
35 -6 63.35 +0.12 Penn State 34.68 28.75 -.373
36 -10 62.65 -1.97 Old Dominion 31.47 31.32 -.161
37 +2 62.14 +2.44 Duke 36.49 25.40 -.201
38 -7 62.00 -0.91 North Texas 42.01 19.88 -.074
39 +1 61.44 +2.03 Memphis 30.92 30.33 .038
40 -2 61.01 +0.85 Mississippi State 31.44 29.94 -.160
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
41 +1 60.70 +1.58 Kansas 32.19 28.57 -.223
42 +10 60.33 +5.33 Clemson 25.95 34.40 -.365
43 +1 60.31 +2.67 Arkansas 32.92 27.44 -.372
44 -7 60.20 +0.02 TCU 34.71 25.53 -.239
45 +2 59.79 +2.61 Maryland 27.30 32.58 -.192
46 -5 59.77 +0.38 East Carolina 26.48 33.41 -.370
47 -2 59.56 +1.99 South Carolina 22.60 37.02 -.281
48 +2 59.15 +3.03 NC State 28.80 30.34 -.196
49 +11 59.00 +5.41 Boise State 28.69 30.37 -.117
50 +1 58.47 +3.37 Arizona 26.71 31.93 -.205
51 +5 58.02 +3.83 Colorado 26.63 31.39 -.400
52 -9 57.77 -0.69 Toledo 29.24 28.53 -.444
53 +18 57.66 +8.18 San Diego State 27.32 30.33 -.137
54 +8 56.87 +4.53 Rutgers 33.95 22.71 -.329
55 +6 56.72 +3.88 Kansas State 30.05 26.62 -.447
56 -3 56.63 +2.08 Houston 25.98 30.89 -.057
57 +1 56.53 +2.45 Tulane 27.04 29.51 -.025
58 -12 56.50 -0.78 Arizona State 22.98 33.62 -.146
59 +15 56.23 +8.23 Wake Forest 24.27 31.89 -.250
60 -6 55.02 +0.50 Purdue 25.90 29.20 -.387
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
61 +2 54.61 +3.01 UCF 23.25 31.28 -.385
62 -3 54.46 +0.71 Kentucky 27.60 27.17 -.367
63 +1 54.42 +3.08 SMU 26.93 27.58 -.269
64 +8 54.04 +5.28 Minnesota 26.58 27.48 -.153
65 +17 53.84 +8.37 UTSA 30.66 22.99 -.378
66 -1 52.62 +1.32 New Mexico 28.34 24.33 -.366
67 +9 52.48 +5.08 Northwestern 18.12 34.36 -.151
68 +2 52.12 +2.62 Syracuse 26.08 26.19 -.339
69 -21 51.78 -5.00 Louisiana Tech 21.05 30.75 -.238
70 +19 51.20 +7.83 UCLA 23.66 27.54 -.493
71 -14 51.16 -2.98 Wisconsin 21.35 29.90 -.413
72 -17 50.99 -3.43 Michigan State 27.46 23.38 -.308
73 -5 50.81 +1.10 Baylor 32.80 17.99 -.242
74 +5 50.47 +3.81 Ohio 25.38 25.18 -.320
75 -8 50.29 +0.31 James Madison 17.49 32.89 -.102
76 -1 50.08 +2.59 Virginia Tech 26.48 23.61 -.530
77 -4 49.94 +1.89 UNLV 31.08 18.94 .033
78 +2 49.79 +3.21 Western Michigan 18.07 31.77 -.310
79 -13 49.69 -1.13 Army 19.54 30.23 -.395
80 -3 49.48 +2.26 UConn 29.99 19.64 -.303
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
81 +13 49.16 +8.57 Washington State 18.90 30.18 -.287
82 +16 48.70 +9.27 Marshall 31.16 17.62 -.378
83 +3 48.49 +4.13 West Virginia 22.76 25.77 -.421
84 -15 47.93 -1.75 Utah State 29.68 18.37 -.325
85 +8 47.61 +6.08 Bowling Green 20.17 27.58 -.349
86 -8 47.60 +0.84 Temple 27.46 20.19 -.377
87 -6 47.04 +0.81 Navy 24.53 22.58 .019
88 -5 46.32 +1.02 Texas State 29.61 16.73 -.443
89 -1 46.24 +2.86 California 18.77 27.47 -.251
90 -5 46.03 +1.34 Western Kentucky 24.64 21.41 -.124
91 +19 45.68 +10.76 Colorado State 21.11 24.64 -.522
92 +15 45.34 +9.90 Kennesaw State 20.47 24.64 -.154
93 -3 44.94 +2.32 Miami (OH) 18.89 26.05 -.441
94 -7 44.52 +0.39 Southern Miss 25.40 19.10 -.282
95 +5 44.41 +5.20 Troy 22.82 21.48 -.252
96 +1 43.89 +4.27 Wyoming 17.20 26.59 -.375
97 -13 43.32 -1.97 Fresno State 22.21 21.07 -.233
98 -3 42.66 +2.81 Delaware 21.19 21.33 -.344
99 -8 42.62 +0.44 Stanford 17.24 25.44 -.493
100 +3 42.36 +5.02 Hawai’i 19.70 22.72 -.240
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
101 +1 41.17 +3.40 Air Force 29.44 11.73 -.770
102 -6 41.10 +1.28 San José State 21.17 19.99 -.558
103 -11 40.77 -1.21 Boston College 25.80 14.98 -.729
104 39.70 +3.25 Liberty 15.14 24.59 -.594
105 -6 39.22 +0.01 Jacksonville State 20.16 19.08 -.462
106 -5 38.72 +0.85 Oregon State 20.36 18.44 -.774
107 +5 38.51 +4.34 Buffalo 14.65 23.76 -.463
108 37.83 +2.46 North Carolina 17.25 20.62 -.512
109 +6 36.96 +3.11 Missouri State 16.23 20.67 -.369
110 +12 36.92 +5.14 App State 17.14 19.79 -.287
111 -6 36.68 +0.52 South Alabama 21.24 15.56 -.715
112 +4 36.41 +2.87 Florida Atlantic 25.81 10.60 -.433
113 -2 36.32 +1.57 Georgia Southern 23.85 12.55 -.540
114 -1 36.06 +2.10 Tulsa 14.99 21.07 -.597
115 -6 35.94 +0.72 Northern Illinois 8.36 27.59 -.732
116 -2 35.58 +1.65 New Mexico State 14.04 21.56 -.353
117 +8 35.07 +4.54 Louisiana 18.77 16.17 -.578
118 +6 34.58 +3.31 Central Michigan 18.19 16.29 -.368
119 +4 34.13 +2.77 Arkansas State 16.93 17.18 -.587
120 -14 34.07 -1.66 UTEP 14.48 19.65 -.727
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
121 33.93 +2.06 Coastal Carolina 11.04 22.93 -.366
122 -3 32.86 -0.04 Nevada 11.08 21.92 -.747
123 -6 31.71 -1.53 Ball State 14.25 17.46 -.556
124 +3 31.55 +2.36 Akron 10.67 20.86 -.615
125 -7 31.49 -1.73 UAB 22.55 8.85 -.571
126 -6 31.26 -0.88 Rice 11.45 19.84 -.524
127 -1 31.14 +1.87 Florida International 11.97 19.27 -.520
128 +7 29.91 +7.45 Kent State 19.67 10.12 -.400
129 +1 29.81 +3.16 Middle Tennessee 12.31 17.50 -.793
130 -1 29.69 +2.20 Oklahoma State 15.03 14.63 -.657
131 +1 29.17 +5.01 Eastern Michigan 17.47 11.69 -.678
132 +2 28.21 +5.16 Charlotte 11.89 16.29 -.740
133 27.71 +4.40 Sam Houston 15.62 11.96 -.886
134 -6 25.56 -2.31 Georgia State 15.05 10.58 -.653
135 -4 25.28 -0.61 UL Monroe 13.26 12.01 -.370
136 18.80 -1.37 Massachusetts 6.11 12.97 -.855Rating Comparison
At this point, there’s not a whole lot of difference for FBS teams if I include or ignore games from 2024. The differences are a bit larger at lower divisions, but I’ll completely phase this out in two more weeks. This table isn’t as interesting as in some prior weeks, but it still shows where some teams might have their ratings bolstered or decreased because of the influence of games played last season.
Predictive Ratings
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
1 89.71 Indiana 91.99 (1)
2 88.07 Ohio State 87.87 (2)
3 84.32 Notre Dame 84.36 (4)
4 83.69 Miami 86.05 (3)
5 81.43 Oregon 81.23 (5)
6 78.49 Alabama 78.83 (8)
7 77.55 Texas Tech 80.86 (6)
8 77.21 Utah 78.84 (7)
9 76.36 USC 76.63 (10)
10 75.52 Texas A&M 76.14 (11)
11 75.41 Florida State 77.40 (9)
12 74.21 Washington 75.74 (12)
13 73.49 Georgia 73.78 (13)
14 72.24 Texas 72.23 (14)
15 71.32 LSU 71.95 (15)
16 71.08 BYU 71.07 (17)
17 70.34 Michigan 69.90 (23)
18 70.23 South Florida 71.73 (16)
19 70.21 Nebraska 70.39 (20)
20 70.14 Tennessee 69.03 (27)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
21 70.08 Illinois 70.12 (22)
22 70.06 Ole Miss 70.20 (21)
23 69.83 Florida 70.41 (19)
24 69.74 Vanderbilt 70.81 (18)
25 69.35 Oklahoma 69.62 (24)
26 68.20 Iowa 69.51 (25)
27 67.98 Missouri 68.07 (28)
28 67.39 Virginia 69.36 (26)
29 66.00 Cincinnati 66.84 (30)
30 65.77 Louisville 66.84 (29)
31 64.93 Georgia Tech 65.11 (32)
32 64.26 Pittsburgh 65.58 (31)
33 64.03 Iowa State 63.92 (34)
34 63.56 Auburn 64.00 (33)
35 63.35 Penn State 62.53 (38)
36 62.65 Old Dominion 63.46 (36)
37 62.14 Duke 62.93 (37)
38 62.00 North Texas 63.57 (35)
39 61.44 Memphis 61.80 (39)
40 61.01 Mississippi State 61.25 (42)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
41 60.70 Kansas 61.73 (40)
42 60.33 Clemson 59.33 (50)
43 60.31 Arkansas 60.59 (43)
44 60.20 TCU 59.51 (48)
45 59.79 Maryland 59.91 (45)
46 59.77 East Carolina 61.30 (41)
47 59.56 South Carolina 59.59 (46)
48 59.15 NC State 60.12 (44)
49 59.00 Boise State 59.46 (49)
50 58.47 Arizona 58.48 (52)
51 58.02 Colorado 57.90 (53)
52 57.77 Toledo 59.57 (47)
53 57.66 San Diego State 59.23 (51)
54 56.87 Rutgers 56.89 (55)
55 56.72 Kansas State 56.61 (57)
56 56.63 Houston 57.08 (54)
57 56.53 Tulane 56.82 (56)
58 56.50 Arizona State 55.63 (59)
59 56.23 Wake Forest 56.39 (58)
60 55.02 Purdue 55.47 (60)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
61 54.61 UCF 53.91 (62)
62 54.46 Kentucky 54.45 (61)
63 54.42 SMU 53.54 (64)
64 54.04 Minnesota 53.65 (63)
65 53.84 UTSA 53.53 (65)
66 52.62 New Mexico 52.78 (67)
67 52.48 Northwestern 52.57 (68)
68 52.12 Syracuse 51.17 (70)
69 51.78 Louisiana Tech 53.00 (66)
70 51.20 UCLA 51.50 (69)
71 51.16 Wisconsin 50.38 (75)
72 50.99 Michigan State 50.93 (72)
73 50.81 Baylor 49.81 (80)
74 50.47 Ohio 50.95 (71)
75 50.29 James Madison 50.56 (74)
76 50.08 Virginia Tech 49.86 (79)
77 49.94 UNLV 49.08 (82)
78 49.79 Western Michigan 50.81 (73)
79 49.69 Army 49.88 (78)
80 49.48 UConn 48.92 (83)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
81 49.16 Washington State 50.27 (76)
82 48.70 Marshall 50.09 (77)
83 48.49 West Virginia 49.73 (81)
84 47.93 Utah State 48.20 (85)
85 47.61 Bowling Green 48.47 (84)
86 47.60 Temple 48.08 (86)
87 47.04 Navy 46.14 (89)
88 46.32 Texas State 46.13 (90)
89 46.24 California 45.54 (93)
90 46.03 Western Kentucky 45.73 (91)
91 45.68 Colorado State 47.16 (88)
92 45.34 Kennesaw State 48.07 (87)
93 44.94 Miami (OH) 43.97 (95)
94 44.52 Southern Miss 45.54 (92)
95 44.41 Troy 44.41 (94)
96 43.89 Wyoming 43.97 (96)
97 43.32 Fresno State 42.42 (98)
98 42.66 Delaware 42.59 (97)
99 42.62 Stanford 42.35 (99)
100 42.36 Hawai’i 42.27 (100)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
101 41.17 Air Force 40.80 (102)
102 41.10 San José State 41.42 (101)
103 40.77 Boston College 39.37 (104)
104 39.70 Liberty 39.94 (103)
105 39.22 Jacksonville State 38.10 (107)
106 38.72 Oregon State 38.68 (105)
107 38.51 Buffalo 38.35 (106)
108 37.83 North Carolina 36.57 (112)
109 36.96 Missouri State 37.22 (110)
110 36.92 App State 37.46 (108)
111 36.68 South Alabama 37.23 (109)
112 36.41 Florida Atlantic 35.42 (115)
113 36.32 Georgia Southern 35.57 (114)
114 36.06 Tulsa 36.58 (111)
115 35.94 Northern Illinois 35.30 (116)
116 35.58 New Mexico State 36.17 (113)
117 35.07 Louisiana 34.59 (118)
118 34.58 Central Michigan 34.72 (117)
119 34.13 Arkansas State 34.33 (121)
120 34.07 UTEP 34.46 (119)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
121 33.93 Coastal Carolina 34.42 (120)
122 32.86 Nevada 32.89 (122)
123 31.71 Ball State 31.89 (123)
124 31.55 Akron 31.14 (125)
125 31.49 UAB 31.03 (126)
126 31.26 Rice 30.81 (127)
127 31.14 Florida International 30.33 (129)
128 29.91 Kent State 31.82 (124)
129 29.81 Middle Tennessee 30.80 (128)
130 29.69 Oklahoma State 28.41 (131)
131 29.17 Eastern Michigan 29.10 (130)
132 28.21 Charlotte 27.81 (132)
133 27.71 Sam Houston 26.60 (133)
134 25.56 Georgia State 26.14 (134)
135 25.28 UL Monroe 25.16 (135)
136 18.80 Massachusetts 19.49 (136) Schedule 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: 2.59 points
Mean score: 26.45 points
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
1 Indiana .269 (10) .138 (70) 56.91 (15) 55.25 (63)
2 Ohio State .244 (18) .174 (60) 53.18 (32) 57.99 (51)
3 Notre Dame .293 (6) .156 (64) 64.58 (2) 53.86 (68)
4 Miami .367 (2) .141 (68) 61.85 (3) 55.12 (64)
5 Oregon .207 (27) .282 (30) 53.68 (31) 63.47 (26)
6 Alabama .305 (4) .245 (39) 60.51 (6) 57.57 (53)
7 Texas Tech .156 (53) .140 (69) 41.92 (110) 52.85 (72)
8 Utah .137 (63) .208 (49) 52.11 (39) 60.55 (39)
9 USC .163 (50) .381 (6) 52.42 (37) 67.97 (9)
10 Texas A&M .256 (14) .283 (29) 61.68 (4) 57.45 (54)
11 Florida State .287 (7) .176 (59) 54.78 (24) 57.24 (55)
12 Washington .196 (30) .271 (33) 55.42 (22) 63.20 (28)
13 Georgia .230 (21) .260 (36) 58.63 (8) 60.18 (40)
14 Texas .271 (9) .298 (26) 54.59 (25) 65.76 (17)
15 LSU .197 (29) .348 (10) 57.17 (14) 66.57 (16)
16 BYU .112 (87) .327 (18) 47.02 (68) 66.60 (15)
17 Michigan .261 (12) .271 (32) 59.05 (7) 63.00 (29)
18 South Florida .260 (13) .069 (86) 54.51 (28) 43.58 (98)
19 Nebraska .148 (57) .221 (44) 47.99 (63) 60.94 (37)
20 Tennessee .146 (58) .303 (24) 49.92 (50) 62.91 (30)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
21 Illinois .354 (3) .189 (56) 61.57 (5) 58.38 (50)
22 Ole Miss .130 (72) .270 (34) 51.16 (43) 59.26 (46)
23 Florida .408 (1) .323 (20) 64.86 (1) 67.00 (13)
24 Vanderbilt .163 (49) .303 (25) 47.03 (67) 65.75 (18)
25 Oklahoma .170 (47) .369 (7) 50.62 (46) 69.59 (6)
26 Iowa .221 (23) .321 (21) 48.18 (62) 65.20 (20)
27 Missouri .135 (64) .326 (19) 42.91 (103) 67.45 (11)
28 Virginia .168 (48) .090 (78) 49.48 (53) 50.28 (75)
29 Cincinnati .156 (52) .226 (42) 47.89 (64) 57.91 (52)
30 Louisville .133 (68) .178 (58) 50.42 (48) 55.34 (61)
31 Georgia Tech .099 (95) .204 (53) 49.35 (55) 59.09 (47)
32 Pittsburgh .149 (56) .313 (22) 46.26 (74) 64.47 (22)
33 Iowa State .155 (54) .166 (62) 53.12 (33) 55.12 (65)
34 Auburn .247 (16) .255 (38) 56.26 (18) 60.12 (41)
35 Penn State .127 (76) .425 (4) 44.91 (89) 71.54 (4)
36 Old Dominion .172 (44) .025 (124) 48.23 (61) 36.46 (132)
37 Duke .132 (69) .153 (65) 52.21 (38) 56.03 (58)
38 North Texas .092 (101) .030 (118) 46.16 (76) 39.91 (110)
39 Memphis .038 (129) .116 (74) 37.63 (126) 49.39 (78)
40 Mississippi State .174 (42) .352 (9) 45.95 (79) 68.99 (7)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
41 Kansas .205 (28) .217 (47) 51.64 (41) 56.70 (56)
42 Clemson .135 (65) .208 (51) 51.90 (40) 55.27 (62)
43 Arkansas .295 (5) .336 (16) 55.26 (23) 67.74 (10)
44 TCU .095 (99) .200 (54) 49.67 (52) 59.51 (45)
45 Maryland .141 (62) .310 (23) 46.76 (71) 65.29 (19)
46 East Carolina .130 (74) .066 (90) 47.78 (65) 43.93 (97)
47 South Carolina .219 (24) .327 (17) 55.88 (20) 63.75 (25)
48 NC State .233 (20) .342 (13) 56.23 (19) 64.70 (21)
49 Boise State .217 (25) .062 (94) 51.20 (42) 46.23 (88)
50 Arizona .128 (75) .179 (57) 45.23 (85) 58.97 (48)
51 Colorado .171 (45) .215 (48) 56.52 (17) 60.00 (42)
52 Toledo .056 (120) .028 (121) 39.07 (121) 37.71 (127)
53 San Diego State .030 (135) .062 (95) 39.45 (120) 47.05 (84)
54 Rutgers .171 (46) .384 (5) 48.61 (59) 69.62 (5)
55 Kansas State .125 (79) .290 (28) 54.58 (27) 61.15 (34)
56 Houston .109 (89) .120 (73) 45.09 (87) 54.85 (66)
57 Tulane .142 (61) .085 (79) 52.87 (35) 46.20 (89)
58 Arizona State .187 (32) .208 (50) 54.59 (26) 59.67 (44)
59 Wake Forest .083 (106) .218 (46) 46.87 (70) 56.64 (57)
60 Purdue .280 (8) .445 (3) 58.51 (9) 71.95 (3)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
61 UCF .115 (85) .219 (45) 43.44 (100) 55.71 (59)
62 Kentucky .233 (19) .295 (27) 57.49 (12) 64.41 (24)
63 SMU .065 (114) .224 (43) 42.13 (109) 59.70 (43)
64 Minnesota .180 (36) .268 (35) 46.25 (75) 61.98 (33)
65 UTSA .122 (82) .166 (61) 46.03 (78) 54.40 (67)
66 New Mexico .134 (67) .052 (103) 50.57 (47) 45.01 (90)
67 Northwestern .182 (34) .337 (15) 47.52 (66) 66.87 (14)
68 Syracuse .161 (51) .340 (14) 52.60 (36) 62.63 (31)
69 Louisiana Tech .096 (97) .032 (113) 44.58 (92) 40.37 (107)
70 UCLA .174 (41) .518 (2) 57.76 (10) 76.39 (1)
71 Wisconsin .253 (15) .519 (1) 57.73 (11) 76.26 (2)
72 Michigan State .192 (31) .342 (12) 52.97 (34) 68.00 (8)
73 Baylor .091 (102) .239 (41) 43.96 (98) 62.18 (32)
74 Ohio .180 (37) .026 (123) 50.30 (49) 36.19 (133)
75 James Madison .064 (115) .065 (91) 36.71 (129) 46.28 (87)
76 Virginia Tech .185 (33) .365 (8) 55.65 (21) 67.18 (12)
77 UNLV .033 (133) .067 (88) 41.22 (114) 46.74 (85)
78 Western Michigan .119 (83) .027 (122) 45.39 (83) 39.54 (116)
79 Army .105 (92) .071 (85) 48.25 (60) 47.47 (82)
80 UConn .031 (134) .042 (109) 34.95 (134) 40.54 (105)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
81 Washington State .213 (26) .113 (75) 57.32 (13) 50.78 (74)
82 Marshall .122 (81) .022 (128) 44.72 (91) 38.22 (121)
83 West Virginia .245 (17) .205 (52) 54.11 (29) 60.58 (38)
84 Utah State .175 (40) .067 (89) 45.73 (81) 46.47 (86)
85 Bowling Green .151 (55) .007 (136) 50.94 (44) 30.42 (136)
86 Temple .123 (80) .102 (76) 43.54 (99) 49.57 (76)
87 Navy .019 (136) .276 (31) 31.24 (136) 61.11 (35)
88 Texas State .057 (118) .035 (112) 39.81 (119) 40.09 (109)
89 California .082 (107) .137 (71) 43.98 (97) 53.02 (71)
90 Western Kentucky .042 (127) .102 (77) 35.03 (133) 43.14 (101)
91 Colorado State .144 (60) .076 (82) 50.63 (45) 48.16 (81)
92 Kennesaw State .179 (38) .016 (135) 45.82 (80) 36.98 (131)
93 Miami (OH) .059 (117) .049 (106) 41.88 (111) 42.04 (103)
94 Southern Miss .051 (122) .018 (134) 41.03 (115) 36.98 (130)
95 Troy .081 (108) .057 (98) 44.02 (96) 37.87 (125)
96 Wyoming .125 (78) .056 (100) 46.13 (77) 44.70 (92)
97 Fresno State .053 (121) .084 (80) 36.94 (127) 49.40 (77)
98 Delaware .056 (119) .042 (110) 39.98 (117) 39.79 (111)
99 Stanford .173 (43) .347 (11) 53.72 (30) 64.43 (23)
100 Hawai’i .045 (126) .064 (92) 38.32 (124) 48.17 (80)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
101 Air Force .063 (116) .053 (102) 42.76 (105) 47.08 (83)
102 San José State .109 (90) .055 (101) 46.71 (72) 44.21 (95)
103 Boston College .104 (93) .240 (40) 45.02 (88) 60.97 (36)
104 Liberty .073 (111) .031 (114) 43.19 (101) 39.71 (114)
105 Jacksonville State .038 (130) .019 (132) 35.77 (132) 38.17 (123)
106 Oregon State .226 (22) .030 (116) 56.53 (16) 37.08 (128)
107 Buffalo .037 (131) .029 (119) 32.52 (135) 37.99 (124)
108 North Carolina .088 (104) .143 (67) 44.15 (94) 55.50 (60)
109 Missouri State .131 (71) .029 (120) 44.87 (90) 39.60 (115)
110 App State .046 (125) .072 (84) 36.54 (130) 43.47 (100)
111 South Alabama .118 (84) .018 (133) 44.23 (93) 35.15 (134)
112 Florida Atlantic .067 (113) .145 (66) 36.45 (131) 53.18 (70)
113 Georgia Southern .126 (77) .050 (104) 45.64 (82) 40.31 (108)
114 Tulsa .070 (112) .063 (93) 44.14 (95) 43.95 (96)
115 Northern Illinois .102 (94) .057 (99) 45.22 (86) 39.74 (113)
116 New Mexico State .047 (124) .083 (81) 36.75 (128) 43.52 (99)
117 Louisiana .089 (103) .024 (125) 39.82 (118) 38.56 (119)
118 Central Michigan .132 (70) .049 (105) 41.29 (113) 40.40 (106)
119 Arkansas State .080 (110) .022 (129) 42.52 (107) 38.99 (118)
120 UTEP .106 (91) .023 (126) 40.95 (116) 38.35 (120)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
121 Coastal Carolina .134 (66) .059 (96) 45.38 (84) 42.89 (102)
122 Nevada .087 (105) .072 (83) 46.56 (73) 49.08 (79)
123 Ball State .111 (88) .044 (108) 49.48 (54) 38.22 (122)
124 Akron .099 (96) .022 (130) 42.58 (106) 33.83 (135)
125 UAB .096 (98) .128 (72) 43.04 (102) 51.75 (73)
126 Rice .047 (123) .165 (63) 38.66 (122) 53.37 (69)
127 Florida International .080 (109) .021 (131) 41.31 (112) 37.82 (126)
128 Kent State .266 (11) .045 (107) 49.68 (51) 40.73 (104)
129 Middle Tennessee .040 (128) .023 (127) 42.77 (104) 37.06 (129)
130 Oklahoma State .177 (39) .255 (37) 48.69 (58) 63.27 (27)
131 Eastern Michigan .036 (132) .041 (111) 37.66 (125) 44.38 (94)
132 Charlotte .093 (100) .198 (55) 42.35 (108) 58.87 (49)
133 Sam Houston .114 (86) .031 (115) 49.29 (56) 39.33 (117)
134 Georgia State .181 (35) .068 (87) 48.74 (57) 44.65 (93)
135 UL Monroe .130 (73) .057 (97) 38.59 (123) 44.94 (91)
136 Massachusetts .145 (59) .030 (117) 46.94 (69) 39.78 (112)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 .738 SEC .339 (2) 67.94 33.31 34.71 -1.40 (8)
2 .688 Big Ten .319 (3) 65.75 32.83 32.96 -0.12 (7)
3 .681 FBS Independents .382 (1) 66.90 38.23 28.64 9.59 (1)
4 .604 Big 12 .210 (4) 59.17 29.76 29.48 0.28 (6)
5 .578 ACC .198 (5) 57.85 29.27 28.57 0.70 (5)
6 .432 American Athletic .101 (6) 47.97 25.42 22.53 2.88 (2)
7 .400 Mountain West .060 (7) 46.46 23.92 22.58 1.34 (4)
8 .358 Pac-12 .040 (8) 43.94 19.63 24.31 -4.68 (11)
9 .307 Sun Belt .039 (9) 40.06 21.09 18.99 2.10 (3)
10 .290 Mid-American .034 (10) 38.52 17.01 21.53 -4.52 (10)
11 .277 Conference USA .024 (11) 38.33 17.28 21.04 -3.76 (9) 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 .9905 +.0020 Miami .994 .998 1.000 .979
2 +1 .9863 +.0291 Indiana .984 .947 1.000 .993
3 +1 .9810 +.0247 Ohio State .980 .902 1.000 .990
4 -2 .9664 +.0055 Texas A&M .982 .926 1.000 .933
5 +1 .9412 +.0060 Alabama .949 .982 .833 .955
6 +2 .9388 +.0200 Texas Tech .956 .561 1.000 .949
7 +2 .9075 -.0073 Oregon .897 .794 .833 .971
8 -3 .9037 -.0363 Ole Miss .946 .426 1.000 .873
9 +7 .9036 +.0476 South Florida .929 .934 .833 .876
10 +1 .9024 +.0083 Georgia .912 .867 .833 .914
11 +2 .8985 +.0072 BYU .938 .333 1.000 .887
12 -2 .8864 -.0240 Illinois .915 .997 .714 .873
13 +5 .8857 +.0395 Washington .888 .747 .833 .922
14 -2 .8772 -.0169 LSU .890 .754 .833 .890
15 +8 .8696 +.0378 USC .863 .595 .833 .940
16 +10 .8657 +.0407 Notre Dame .829 .974 .667 .981
17 +2 .8630 +.0175 Georgia Tech .932 .276 1.000 .789
18 +12 .8519 +.0580 Utah .839 .460 .833 .947
19 -12 .8511 -.0703 Oklahoma .868 .627 .833 .863
20 -5 .8482 -.0144 Vanderbilt .863 .595 .833 .869
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
21 .8411 +.0048 Virginia .867 .621 .833 .833
22 .8393 +.0065 Nebraska .850 .520 .833 .875
23 +1 .8368 +.0064 Tennessee .847 .505 .833 .874
24 +10 .8280 +.0834 Texas .807 .950 .667 .901
25 +2 .8253 +.0046 Cincinnati .857 .561 .833 .809
26 -9 .8189 -.0341 Missouri .837 .449 .833 .842
27 -13 .8144 -.0738 Michigan .796 .936 .667 .877
28 +1 .8114 +.0018 Memphis .895 .082 1.000 .717
29 +3 .7838 +.0321 Louisville .801 .437 .800 .805
30 +14 .7747 +.0808 Iowa .749 .841 .667 .846
31 +2 .7512 +.0033 Tulane .844 .485 .833 .599
32 -12 .7509 -.0860 North Texas .793 .247 .833 .729
33 -2 .7300 -.0617 Iowa State .726 .554 .714 .772
34 +8 .7261 +.0214 Houston .812 .322 .833 .601
35 +2 .7216 +.0009 UNLV .891 .072 1.000 .427
36 +15 .7151 +.0861 Boise State .744 .826 .667 .660
37 -9 .7144 -.1011 Florida State .611 .968 .500 .932
38 -13 .6984 -.1268 Old Dominion .685 .639 .667 .743
39 +4 .6930 -.0034 Navy .881 .050 1.000 .354
40 +1 .6892 -.0189 Mississippi State .687 .647 .667 .707
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
41 +29 .6846 +.1944 Pittsburgh .653 .522 .667 .776
42 -7 .6698 -.0621 Arizona State .706 .711 .667 .598
43 +15 .6694 +.0861 San Diego State .718 .066 .833 .627
44 +4 .6537 +.0067 Duke .628 .434 .667 .732
45 +5 .6502 +.0180 NC State .637 .875 .571 .664
46 -7 .6477 -.0663 Maryland .642 .483 .667 .679
47 +13 .6440 +.0833 Minnesota .697 .679 .667 .534
48 -2 .6426 -.0163 Florida .542 1.000 .333 .870
49 +3 .6400 +.0129 James Madison .761 .147 .833 .436
50 -1 .6343 -.0107 Kansas .596 .786 .571 .700
51 +13 .6333 +.1116 Northwestern .699 .687 .667 .493
52 -12 .6272 -.0842 Auburn .551 .909 .500 .762
53 -8 .6238 -.0580 Arizona .622 .413 .667 .647
54 -16 .6010 -.1182 TCU .573 .257 .667 .688
55 +1 .5903 -.0085 Western Kentucky .734 .091 .833 .329
56 +17 .5764 +.1098 Kennesaw State .695 .674 .667 .313
57 -4 .5727 -.0480 South Carolina .507 .833 .500 .673
58 +21 .5598 +.1112 Wake Forest .555 .211 .667 .591
59 -23 .5381 -.1904 Louisiana Tech .574 .262 .667 .475
60 +11 .5271 +.0545 SMU .527 .148 .667 .544
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
61 +1 .5260 -.0164 Baylor .568 .244 .667 .449
62 +10 .5026 +.0324 Rutgers .434 .634 .500 .607
63 -9 .5004 -.1068 Penn State .368 .409 .500 .758
64 -3 .4932 -.0510 Arkansas .371 .975 .333 .691
65 +19 .4886 +.0828 Clemson .380 .447 .500 .692
66 +8 .4872 +.0236 Washington State .499 .815 .500 .407
67 +8 .4820 +.0209 California .554 .208 .667 .334
68 -9 .4793 -.1011 East Carolina .372 .422 .500 .678
69 -22 .4789 -.1722 Michigan State .466 .730 .500 .454
70 -15 .4771 -.1292 Fresno State .581 .115 .714 .267
71 +16 .4679 +.0911 Troy .552 .204 .667 .291
72 +14 .4639 +.0651 Hawai’i .570 .097 .714 .247
73 +8 .4626 +.0328 Ohio .448 .679 .500 .440
74 +6 .4571 +.0269 Western Michigan .463 .367 .571 .423
75 +3 .4556 +.0060 UConn .475 .069 .667 .415
76 -8 .4549 -.0454 Kentucky .377 .876 .400 .545
77 .4546 +.0037 Syracuse .419 .583 .500 .484
78 +10 .4469 +.0878 Colorado .330 .637 .429 .636
79 -16 .4411 -.0946 Purdue .349 .961 .333 .560
80 +2 .4389 +.0216 Southern Miss .506 .112 .667 .294
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
81 -24 .4375 -.1497 Utah State .440 .654 .500 .375
82 -17 .4297 -.0909 New Mexico .379 .445 .500 .497
83 +14 .4261 +.1215 UTSA .361 .382 .500 .529
84 -8 .4250 -.0351 UCF .351 .348 .500 .549
85 +14 .4087 +.1235 Bowling Green .403 .531 .500 .368
86 -17 .3938 -.1051 Toledo .270 .123 .500 .630
87 +8 .3906 +.0802 Kansas State .267 .396 .429 .603
88 +6 .3902 +.0780 App State .498 .099 .667 .148
89 -23 .3883 -.1160 Wisconsin .312 .922 .333 .458
90 +15 .3862 +.1434 Marshall .361 .383 .500 .395
91 -24 .3788 -.1228 Temple .362 .387 .500 .367
92 -2 .3767 +.0205 Army .337 .304 .500 .420
93 -4 .3684 +.0108 Delaware .411 .123 .600 .253
94 -1 .3609 +.0397 West Virginia .301 .906 .333 .390
95 +7 .3545 +.1007 Wyoming .365 .397 .500 .280
96 -5 .3229 -.0189 New Mexico State .398 .102 .600 .129
97 +7 .3215 +.0753 Missouri State .374 .427 .500 .149
98 +15 .3204 +.1194 UCLA .212 .649 .333 .460
99 +1 .3130 +.0392 Coastal Carolina .379 .446 .500 .107
100 -2 .3126 +.0116 Central Michigan .375 .432 .500 .116
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
101 -16 .3068 -.0954 Texas State .272 .126 .500 .336
102 +4 .2984 +.0611 Miami (OH) .274 .131 .500 .303
103 -7 .2879 -.0210 Virginia Tech .173 .699 .286 .430
104 -21 .2866 -.1270 UL Monroe .373 .423 .500 .035
105 +6 .2815 +.0781 Kent State .329 .944 .333 .066
106 -14 .2576 -.0688 Stanford .211 .645 .333 .252
107 +8 .2572 +.0678 Florida Atlantic .286 .157 .500 .141
108 +19 .2539 +.1334 Colorado State .181 .499 .333 .321
109 +5 .2464 +.0522 Jacksonville State .248 .082 .500 .186
110 -1 .2417 +.0187 Buffalo .246 .079 .500 .174
111 +1 .2057 +.0038 North Carolina .192 .231 .400 .163
112 -9 .1965 -.0539 San José State .147 .320 .333 .221
113 -12 .1851 -.0744 Georgia Southern .163 .406 .333 .139
114 +2 .1740 -.0052 Florida International .183 .200 .400 .077
115 -5 .1698 -.0492 Rice .179 .102 .429 .078
116 +13 .1648 +.0461 Liberty .117 .173 .333 .195
117 -9 .1563 -.0708 Ball State .149 .329 .333 .083
118 -1 .1530 -.0212 Louisiana .130 .233 .333 .122
119 +2 .1454 -.0011 Tulsa .115 .164 .333 .136
120 -13 .1451 -.0845 UAB .135 .261 .333 .081
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
121 +1 .1437 +.0045 Arkansas State .123 .199 .333 .110
122 -3 .1225 -.0445 Akron .102 .275 .286 .081
123 -3 .1199 -.0274 Boston College .043 .298 .167 .215
124 +1 .1124 -.0112 Oregon State .030 .856 .000 .178
125 -1 .1108 -.0216 Oklahoma State .076 .662 .167 .064
126 +4 .1075 -.0020 Air Force .031 .144 .167 .223
127 -1 .1050 -.0169 South Alabama .049 .364 .167 .145
128 -10 .1048 -.0681 Georgia State .078 .681 .167 .037
129 -1 .0947 -.0242 Northern Illinois .043 .288 .167 .134
130 -7 .0890 -.0438 UTEP .044 .307 .167 .109
131 +3 .0863 +.0382 Eastern Michigan .065 .079 .286 .060
132 -1 .0770 -.0222 Nevada .037 .224 .167 .095
133 .0668 +.0048 Charlotte .040 .250 .167 .053
134 -2 .0543 -.0087 Middle Tennessee .025 .086 .167 .065
135 +1 .0377 +.0001 Sam Houston .010 .345 .000 .049
136 -1 .0366 -.0036 Massachusetts .014 .503 .000 .013“Major Playoff Implications”
If you’ve read my prior articles, you’ve probably noticed that I’m a fan of motorsports. Many fans often commented and sometimes complained that a former commentator for NBC’s NASCAR broadcasts, Rick Allen, had a few phrases he liked to use often during races. One of these phrases was “major playoff implications”, typically used when a car lost a lot of positions either due to an incident on track or a poor pit stop, and the car would likely have a poor finish in the race.
I’ve decided to adopt the phrase for the title of one of the sections of my articles, referring to past or upcoming games where there’s a good chance that the outcome will significantly shift the chances for a team to make the college football playoff. My standard for upcoming games is that at least one of the participants has a reasonably strong chance of reaching the playoff, and that the game is likely to be somewhat competitive.
Washington (53.04%) at Michigan (46.96%)
Washington hasn’t received a lot of respect in the polls. This isn’t entirely surprising since their toughest game to date was at home against Ohio State, a game they lost 24-6. However, their computer ratings are generally more favorable (#12 Predictive; #22 FPI; #20 Sagarin Predictor), and they have played a respectable though not exceptionally difficult schedule (#30 Past SOS). Michigan (#17 Predictive; #17 FPI; #24 Sagarin Predictor) has a pair of losses but also has strong computer ratings. For Michigan, a third loss would make them just a fringe playoff contender with little opportunity to change this perception outside of playing Ohio State at the end of the season. A win for Michigan would keep their playoff chances alive. Computer ratings have have generally been favorable for Washington, and a win against Michigan would boost their profile as a playoff contender. Computer ratings certainly believe the Huskies are for real, and a win could nudge their spot in the polls a bit closer to the computer ratings.
LSU (47.60%) at Vanderbilt (52.40%)
Despite their only loss being by five points to Ole Miss (#22 Predictive; #8 Playoff), LSU (#15 Predictive, #14 Playoff) is ranked fifth among SEC teams in many computer ratings, including my own. The Tigers (#10 Future SOS) have plenty of opportunities for quality wins with upcoming games against Texas A&M (#10 Predictive), Alabama (#6 Predictive), and Oklahoma (#25 Predictive). A win against the Commodores would be a good start toward pushing LSU above being ranked in fifth place among SEC teams. For Vanderbilt (#24 Predictive), their only loss is a 16 point defeat at Alabama, but their 31-7 win over South Carolina (#47 Predictive) doesn’t look as impressive now. As with LSU, Vanderbilt (#25 Future SOS) has plenty of opportunities later in the season to pick up good wins, with games against Missouri (#27 Predictive), Texas (#14 Predictive), Auburn (#34 Predictive), and Tennessee (#20 Predictive). That said, they’re ranked a bit farther down among SEC teams, and their upcoming schedule isn’t quite as strong as LSU’s. It’s not a must win game for Vanderbilt, but a loss would deliver a significant blow to their playoff chances.
Utah (58.31%) at BYU (41.69%)
There’s a good consensus that Texas Tech is strongly favored to win the Big 12 and therefore likely reach the playoff. I don’t intend to challenge that here. BYU (#16 Predictive; #11 Playoff) and Utah (#8 Predictive; #18 Playoff) appear to be the strongest contenders for the Big 12 to get a second conference team in the playoff. Unlike BYU (#18 Future SOS), Utah (#49 Future SOS) doesn’t have as many future opportunities for quality wins to show that they belong in the playoff. Both have games against Cincinnati (#29 Predictive, #25 Playoff), but BYU also has a game at Texas Tech (#7 Predictive, #6 Playoff) and one fewer loss so far than Utah. Aside from Texas Tech and Cincinnati, BYU’s strongest remaining opponents are Iowa State (#33 Predictive) and TCU (#44 Predictive). For Utah, it’s Kansas (#41 Predictive) and Colorado (#51 Predictive). Although I don’t consider this an elimination game for Utah, a second loss would make it quite difficult to reach the playoff. If BYU wins, they’re in a strong position to join Texas Tech in the playoff. However, they would also have a strong case for a playoff spot with a loss to Utah but a win at Texas Tech.
Missouri (54.31%) at Auburn (45.69%)
With three losses already, it’s hard to envision Auburn (#34 Predictive; #52 Playoff; #38 Future SOS) as a realistic playoff contender. Their only chance is to win all of their remaining regular season games. Missouri (#27 Predictive; #26 Playoff; #19 Future SOS) lost by three points against Alabama (#6 Predictive) and has just one loss to date. The toughest opponents remaining on Missouri’s schedule are Vanderbilt (#24 Predictive), Texas A&M (#10 Predictive), and Oklahoma (#25 Predictive). It would be easy to overlook Auburn and their 3-3 record, but this is a very competitive matchup. Missouri has no easy games left on their schedule with their other opponents being Mississippi State (#40 Predictive) and Arkansas (#43 Predictive). If Missouri loses to Texas A&M, the most difficult game remaining on their schedule, but wins all the other games, they would have a good argument to make the playoff. But it would be difficult to jump over a few other SEC teams and make the playoff if they pick up a second loss against Auburn.
Georgia Tech (50.46%) at Duke (49.54%)
Many projections have Georgia Tech (#31 Predictive; #17 Playoff; #53 Future SOS) as a playoff team based on what they’ve accomplished to date. Although this game is a toss-up in my ratings, other systems like ESPN’s FPI have this game leaning toward Duke (#37 Predictive; #44 Playoff; #65 Future SOS). It’s hard to envision Duke, already with two losses, reaching the playoff without winning out. Georgia Tech has other very competitive games on their schedule against Pittsburgh (#32 Predictive) and at NC State (#48 Predictive). The Yellow Jackets also end the season with a home game against Georgia (#13 Predictive). Their win over Clemson (#42 Predictive) looks much less impressive at this point of the season. Georgia Tech is likely to be a significant underdog against Georgia, and their path to the playoff will become considerably more difficult if they have two losses. If Georgia Tech wins, this is a quality win and places them in strong position to join Miami as a second ACC team in the playoff.
Ole Miss (36.02%) at Georgia (63.98%)
Texas A&M (#10 Predictive, #4 Playoff) and Alabama (#6 Predictive, #5 Playoff) appear to be in the best positions to reach the playoff from the SEC. After that, are Georgia (#13 Predictive; #10 Playoff), Ole Miss (#22 Predictive; #8 Playoff), and LSU (#15 Predictive; #14 Playoff). Neither Ole Miss (#34 Future SOS) nor Georgia (#36 Future SOS) have exceptionally difficult schedules the rest of the way. For the winner of this game, they have a good chance to finish the regular season with just one or two losses total. However, the team that loses this game will probably drop to fifth among SEC teams in the playoff ratings assuming LSU also wins against Vanderbilt. It’s certainly reasonable for either of these teams to make the playoff with a second loss, but this game should help to sort out the playoff picture in the SEC below Texas A&M and Alabama.
Oklahoma (66.53%) at South Carolina (33.47%)
South Carolina (#47 Predictive; #17 Future SOS; #57 Playoff) was viewed as a playoff contender to start the season, but their only path to the playoff at this point is to win out. There are opportunities for the Gamecocks to pick up a few quality wins over the remainder of the season, but they’d quite possibly still be just on the wrong side of the bubble at 9-3. Oklahoma (#25 Predictive; #7 Future SOS; #19 Playoff) is currently behind five SEC teams in my playoff ratings, but their difficult remaining schedule can be viewed both as a good and a bad thing. It certainly means Oklahoma has more opportunities to pick up more losses. However, they can absolutely reach the playoff with another loss, and even two more losses wouldn’t exclude the Sooners with the difficulty of their schedule. With Ole Miss (#22 Predictive), Tennessee (#20 Predictive), Alabama (#6 Predictive), Missouri (#27 Predictive), and LSU (#15 Predictive) as Oklahoma’s other remaining games, this appears to be the easiest game left on their schedule. My ratings put South Carolina (#30 FPI; #28 Sagarin Predictor; #40 SP+) considerably lower than other predictive systems, meaning that it’s possible that this game is closer than my rating system predicts. If Oklahoma wins this game, they have a very realistic chance to make the playoff despite the very tough remaining schedule. A loss in this game gives the Sooners much less room for error.
USC (26.60%) at Notre Dame (73.40%)
After losses to Miami (#4 Predictive; #1 Playoff) and Texas A&M (#10 Predictive; #4 Playoff) to start the season, both playoff contenders, Notre Dame (#3 Predictive; #64 Future SOS; #16 Playoff) has won four straight games decisively against weaker competition. USC (#9 Predictive; #6 Future SOS; #15 Playoff) is the toughest of their remaining games, though Pittsburgh (#32 Predictive) is also a quality opponent. It’s possible for Notre Dame to reach the playoff at 9-3, though they won’t have the benefit of playing in a conference championship game and perhaps adding another quality win. The Trojans are also looking for another quality win in addition to their 18 point victory over Michigan (#17 Predictive). USC has more tough opponents left on their schedule with games at Nebraska (#19 Predictive), at home against Iowa (#26 Predictive), and at Oregon (#5 Predictive). It’s very possible that the Big Ten could put four teams in the playoff. The most likely candidates for the first three spots are Indiana (#1 Predictive; #2 Playoff), Ohio State (#2 Predictive; #3 Playoff), and Oregon (#5 Predictive; #7 Playoff). That leaves USC competing with Illinois (#21 Predictive; #12 Playoff), Washington (#12 Predictive; #13 Playoff), and Nebraska (#19 Predictive; #21 Playoff) for the fourth spot. Michigan (#17 Predictive; #27 Playoff) and Iowa (#26 Predictive; #30 Playoff) have two losses, but they also can’t be ruled out from climbing into contention. USC has a much easier road to the playoff if they win against Notre Dame.
Tennessee (25.83%) at Alabama (74.17%)
Alabama (#6 Predictive; #4 Past SOS; #5 Playoff) appears to be in a good position to make the playoff with three high quality wins in their last three games. Tennessee (#20 Predictive; #58 Past SOS; #23 Playoff) has the same record at 5-1 but lacks the same difficulty of schedule. All three of Tennessee’s SEC games have been decided by one score, which may not bode well for the rest of their conference schedule. The Volunteers (#24 Future SOS) play a tougher schedule going forward, and they would probably get in the playoff at 10-2 even with a loss to Alabama. However, this game against Alabama is perhaps their best opportunity for the Volunteers to show that they belong in the playoff. The scenario of losing to Alabama and going 10-2 depends on them winning out, and that’s certainly not guaranteed with future games against Oklahoma (#25 Predictive), Florida (#23 Predictive), and Vanderbilt (#24 Predictive). Alabama’s (#39 Future SOS) future schedule is a bit easier overall, but games against LSU (#15 Predictive), Oklahoma (#25 Predictive), Auburn (#34 Predictive), and possibly South Carolina (#47 Predictive) could pose a challenge. The Tide should be favored in all of their remaining games, but that doesn’t mean they’ll win out. Alabama will have a much easier path to the playoff if they win against Tennessee, and they should have around a 70-75% chance of winning this game.
Army (28.79%) at Tulane (71.21%)
Army (#79 Predictive; #92 Playoff) had a strong run last season, but three losses so far this season have knocked them out of playoff contention. There are five automatic bids to the playoffs for conference champions, and the fifth team will probably come from the American. The most likely candidates appear to be South Florida (#18 Predictive; #9 Playoff) and Memphis (#39 Predictive; #28 Playoff). However, Navy (#87 Predictive; #39 Playoff), North Texas (#38 Predictive; #32 Playoff), and Tulane (#57 Predictive; #31 Playoff) are also in contention right now. The Green Wave (#79 Future SOS) have a fairly strong remaining schedule for a team from the Group of 5, and their visit to Memphis on the first weekend of November could have bigger playoff implications. But for that game to be relevant for Tulane’s chances of making the playoff, they first need to win against Army this weekend. Picking up a second loss would probably knock Tulane out of contention.
UTSA (26.19%) at North Texas (73.81%)
For North Texas (#38 Predictive; #32 Playoff), they’re in a fairly similar situation to Tulane, but without the future game against Memphis. The favorites in the American are South Florida (#18 Predictive; #9 Playoff) and Memphis (#39 Predictive; #28 Playoff), and North Texas lost to South Florida by 27 points. The Mean Green can’t afford a second loss because they must win the American and also be ranked higher than any other conference champion from the Group of 5 if they’re going to reach the playoff. That’s a bigger issue for the Mean Green (#118 Future SOS) than for Tulane, so this is a must win game if they’re going to have a realistic chance of reaching the playoff.
UNLV (24.50%) at Boise State (75.50%)
This game isn’t quite the Group of 5 heavyweight fight this season as it was last season, but this is game can still impact the playoff picture. UNLV (#77 Predictive; #35 Playoff) is undefeated, whereas Boise State (#49 Predictive; #36 Playoff) has a couple of losses that make their road to the playoff very difficult. The Broncos (#25 Past SOS) have played a quality schedule, but the two strongest opponents on their schedule handed them two lopsided defeats. For that reason, Boise State appears to be a fringe playoff contender at this time. UNLV (#133 Past SOS; #88 Future SOS) doesn’t have the predictive rating of the other teams on this list, and schedule strength does them no favors. But if they win out while the top teams in the American pick up losses during their remaining schedule, UNLV could get a playoff bid. If UNLV loses, it’s hard to imagine them reaching the playoff with their remaining schedule, though that scenario would help Boise State keep their slight playoff chances alive. However, if UNLV wins, they would have a very plausible chance to make the playoff by winning out. Their 30-23 win over UCLA (#70 Predictive; #98 Playoff) certainly looks better now that the Bruins have picked up a couple of wins against Big Ten competition.
Weekly Predictions
As usual, games are ranked based on the projected quality. This factors in the overall strength of the two teams and the potential for a competitive game. Game quality ratings are not directly comparable between college football and the NFL. NFL games are typically decided by smaller margins than college games, the teams are more balanced in their quality, and there’s just not as much scoring in the NFL. Thresholds for close games and blowouts are also different between college and the NFL for the same reasons.
Beside each team, there are two numbers in parentheses. One is the predicted margin of victory (positive) or defeat (negative), the other is the probability of winning. These margins are sometimes larger than what’s indicated by the predicted score. That’s because there’s nothing in the math that prevents a prediction of negative points with a sufficiently lopsided matchup. This is, of course, impossible, so the score is set to zero in those instances. There’s no cap on how many points a team can be projected to score, though.
#1: Washington (1.28, 53.04%) at Michigan (-1.28, 46.96%)
Estimated score: 28.27 - 26.77, Total: 55.04
Quality: 98.10%, Team quality: 97.26%, Competitiveness: 99.79%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.30%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.13%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.76%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.19%
#2: LSU (-1.01, 47.60%) at Vanderbilt (1.01, 52.40%)
Estimated score: 26.83 - 27.90, Total: 54.73
Quality: 97.92%, Team quality: 96.96%, Competitiveness: 99.87%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.27%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.17%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.47%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.47%
#3: Utah (3.53, 58.31%) at BYU (-3.53, 41.69%)
Estimated score: 32.04 - 28.58, Total: 60.62
Quality: 97.85%, Team quality: 97.55%, Competitiveness: 98.46%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.83%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.54%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 43.95%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.44%
#4: Missouri (1.82, 54.31%) at Auburn (-1.82, 45.69%)
Estimated score: 25.79 - 24.20, Total: 49.99
Quality: 97.16%, Team quality: 95.98%, Competitiveness: 99.59%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.38%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.04%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.22%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.73%
#5: Georgia Tech (0.19, 50.46%) at Duke (-0.19, 49.54%)
Estimated score: 34.22 - 33.84, Total: 68.06
Quality: 96.93%, Team quality: 95.44%, Competitiveness: 100.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.22%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.22%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 51.01%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 23.63%
#6: Ole Miss (-6.03, 36.02%) at Georgia (6.03, 63.98%)
Estimated score: 21.44 - 27.83, Total: 49.27
Quality: 96.61%, Team quality: 97.14%, Competitiveness: 95.56%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.00%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.26%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 33.59%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.39%
#7: Arizona (-0.76, 48.20%) at Houston (0.76, 51.80%)
Estimated score: 20.98 - 21.80, Total: 42.78
Quality: 95.73%, Team quality: 93.70%, Competitiveness: 99.93%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.25%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.19%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.14%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 45.45%
#8: Penn State (-7.44, 32.94%) at Iowa (7.44, 67.06%)
Estimated score: 20.31 - 27.83, Total: 48.14
Quality: 95.03%, Team quality: 95.90%, Competitiveness: 93.30%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.94%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.28%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 32.61%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 40.43%
#9: Oklahoma (7.19, 66.53%) at South Carolina (-7.19, 33.47%)
Estimated score: 15.57 - 8.32, Total: 23.90
Quality: 94.97%, Team quality: 95.59%, Competitiveness: 93.73%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.76%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.46%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 15.15%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 63.19%
#10: Purdue (-0.05, 49.87%) at Northwestern (0.05, 50.13%)
Estimated score: 16.69 - 16.67, Total: 33.36
Quality: 94.83%, Team quality: 92.35%, Competitiveness: 100.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.22%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.22%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 21.08%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 54.41%
#11: USC (-10.55, 26.60%) at Notre Dame (10.55, 73.40%)
Estimated score: 32.63 - 43.04, Total: 75.67
Quality: 94.36%, Team quality: 98.28%, Competitiveness: 86.97%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.70%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.59%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 58.20%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 18.41%
#12: Maryland (5.99, 63.91%) at UCLA (-5.99, 36.09%)
Estimated score: 24.91 - 18.83, Total: 43.74
Quality: 93.81%, Team quality: 92.92%, Competitiveness: 95.61%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.98%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.28%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.92%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 44.54%
#13: Tennessee (-10.95, 25.83%) at Alabama (10.95, 74.17%)
Estimated score: 29.98 - 41.04, Total: 71.02
Quality: 93.50%, Team quality: 97.47%, Competitiveness: 86.04%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 14.13%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.20%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 53.83%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 21.50%
#14: SMU (-8.51, 30.69%) at Clemson (8.51, 69.31%)
Estimated score: 17.68 - 26.13, Total: 43.81
Quality: 92.78%, Team quality: 93.51%, Competitiveness: 91.33%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.78%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.43%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.97%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 44.48%
#15: Pittsburgh (9.54, 71.42%) at Syracuse (-9.54, 28.58%)
Estimated score: 32.26 - 22.82, Total: 55.08
Quality: 92.21%, Team quality: 93.74%, Competitiveness: 89.22%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.70%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.53%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.79%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.16%
#16: Texas State (-4.97, 38.40%) at Marshall (4.97, 61.60%)
Estimated score: 37.15 - 42.18, Total: 79.33
Quality: 92.00%, Team quality: 89.61%, Competitiveness: 96.96%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.43%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.88%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 61.59%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 16.17%
#17: Mississippi State (-11.42, 24.94%) at Florida (11.42, 75.06%)
Estimated score: 18.04 - 28.98, Total: 47.02
Quality: 91.96%, Team quality: 95.71%, Competitiveness: 84.90%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 14.66%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.73%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 31.65%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.47%
#18: Old Dominion (9.77, 71.87%) at James Madison (-9.77, 28.13%)
Estimated score: 23.73 - 13.92, Total: 37.66
Quality: 91.66%, Team quality: 93.15%, Competitiveness: 88.73%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.92%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.32%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 24.16%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 50.33%
#19: Wyoming (0.12, 50.30%) at Air Force (-0.12, 49.70%)
Estimated score: 30.63 - 30.60, Total: 61.23
Quality: 91.19%, Team quality: 87.08%, Competitiveness: 100.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.22%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.22%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 44.52%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.94%
#20: Texas A&M (12.62, 77.24%) at Arkansas (-12.62, 22.76%)
Estimated score: 35.65 - 23.06, Total: 58.71
Quality: 91.19%, Team quality: 96.24%, Competitiveness: 81.86%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 16.09%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 24.49%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 42.15%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.03%
#21: West Virginia (-8.71, 30.27%) at UCF (8.71, 69.73%)
Estimated score: 16.63 - 25.23, Total: 41.86
Quality: 91.18%, Team quality: 91.31%, Competitiveness: 90.93%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.95%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.26%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 27.40%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 46.33%
#22: UTSA (-10.76, 26.19%) at North Texas (10.76, 73.81%)
Estimated score: 35.94 - 46.77, Total: 82.71
Quality: 91.17%, Team quality: 93.61%, Competitiveness: 86.48%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.93%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.38%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 64.63%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 14.27%
#23: Army (-9.44, 28.79%) at Tulane (9.44, 71.21%)
Estimated score: 15.19 - 24.56, Total: 39.75
Quality: 91.08%, Team quality: 91.92%, Competitiveness: 89.43%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.61%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.62%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 25.75%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 48.33%
#24: UConn (6.12, 64.18%) at Boston College (-6.12, 35.82%)
Estimated score: 40.17 - 33.91, Total: 74.08
Quality: 90.68%, Team quality: 88.39%, Competitiveness: 95.43%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.05%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.20%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 56.72%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 19.43%
#25: Delaware (0.85, 52.01%) at Jacksonville State (-0.85, 47.99%)
Estimated score: 27.26 - 26.58, Total: 53.85
Quality: 90.53%, Team quality: 86.17%, Competitiveness: 99.91%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.26%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.18%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 37.67%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.25%
#26: Hawai’i (-5.92, 36.26%) at Colorado State (5.92, 63.74%)
Estimated score: 20.21 - 26.14, Total: 46.35
Quality: 90.37%, Team quality: 87.81%, Competitiveness: 95.71%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.94%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.32%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 31.09%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 42.09%
#27: UNLV (-11.66, 24.50%) at Boise State (11.66, 75.50%)
Estimated score: 25.86 - 37.50, Total: 63.36
Quality: 89.59%, Team quality: 92.35%, Competitiveness: 84.31%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 14.93%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.49%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 46.53%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 27.23%
#28: Baylor (-11.98, 23.90%) at TCU (11.98, 76.10%)
Estimated score: 32.43 - 44.47, Total: 76.90
Quality: 89.54%, Team quality: 92.72%, Competitiveness: 83.49%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.31%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.15%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 59.35%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 17.63%
#29: Nebraska (13.57, 78.88%) at Minnesota (-13.57, 21.12%)
Estimated score: 37.90 - 24.31, Total: 62.22
Quality: 89.32%, Team quality: 94.78%, Competitiveness: 79.33%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 17.32%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 23.47%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 45.45%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.14%
#30: San José State (-9.42, 28.82%) at Utah State (9.42, 71.18%)
Estimated score: 27.96 - 37.44, Total: 65.40
Quality: 88.45%, Team quality: 87.94%, Competitiveness: 89.47%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.59%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.64%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 48.48%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 25.63%
#31: Southern Miss (6.85, 65.79%) at Louisiana (-6.85, 34.21%)
Estimated score: 34.39 - 27.43, Total: 61.81
Quality: 88.24%, Team quality: 85.36%, Competitiveness: 94.30%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.52%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.71%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 45.07%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.47%
#32: Texas (15.18, 81.50%) at Kentucky (-15.18, 18.50%)
Estimated score: 30.57 - 15.59, Total: 46.16
Quality: 87.75%, Team quality: 95.04%, Competitiveness: 74.80%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 19.63%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.68%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 30.92%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 42.27%
#33: New Mexico State (-6.71, 34.51%) at Liberty (6.71, 65.49%)
Estimated score: 14.60 - 21.33, Total: 35.93
Quality: 87.38%, Team quality: 84.02%, Competitiveness: 94.52%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.43%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.80%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 22.89%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 51.97%
#34: Arkansas State (-5.15, 37.97%) at South Alabama (5.15, 62.03%)
Estimated score: 26.53 - 31.81, Total: 58.34
Quality: 87.06%, Team quality: 82.59%, Competitiveness: 96.73%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.52%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.77%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.80%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.35%
#35: Coastal Carolina (-5.58, 37.01%) at App State (5.58, 62.99%)
Estimated score: 16.41 - 21.96, Total: 38.37
Quality: 86.89%, Team quality: 82.59%, Competitiveness: 96.18%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.75%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.53%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 24.69%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 49.65%
#36: North Carolina (-11.01, 25.72%) at California (11.01, 74.28%)
Estimated score: 14.93 - 25.90, Total: 40.83
Quality: 86.29%, Team quality: 86.49%, Competitiveness: 85.89%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 14.20%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.14%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 26.59%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 47.30%
#37: Akron (-2.75, 43.51%) at Ball State (2.75, 56.49%)
Estimated score: 18.37 - 21.14, Total: 39.51
Quality: 85.87%, Team quality: 79.94%, Competitiveness: 99.06%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.59%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.80%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 25.56%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 48.57%
#38: UTEP (6.35, 64.70%) vs. Sam Houston (-6.35, 35.30%)
Estimated score: 28.97 - 22.42, Total: 51.39
Quality: 84.24%, Team quality: 79.29%, Competitiveness: 95.08%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.20%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.05%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.46%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 37.45%
#39: Texas Tech (18.45, 86.12%) at Arizona State (-18.45, 13.88%)
Estimated score: 31.67 - 13.10, Total: 44.77
Quality: 84.20%, Team quality: 95.80%, Competitiveness: 65.04%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 25.05%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 18.01%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.76%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.58%
#40: Louisville (-20.52, 11.41%) at Miami (20.52, 88.59%)
Estimated score: 14.40 - 34.90, Total: 49.30
Quality: 82.16%, Team quality: 97.23%, Competitiveness: 58.67%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 28.96%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 15.73%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 33.62%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.36%
#41: Central Michigan (-15.62, 17.83%) at Bowling Green (15.62, 82.17%)
Estimated score: 15.77 - 31.63, Total: 47.40
Quality: 81.39%, Team quality: 85.63%, Competitiveness: 73.53%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 20.30%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.19%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 31.97%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.12%
#42: Northern Illinois (-17.12, 15.65%) at Ohio (17.12, 84.35%)
Estimated score: 8.33 - 25.55, Total: 33.88
Quality: 80.39%, Team quality: 86.72%, Competitiveness: 69.09%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 22.72%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.50%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 21.44%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 53.92%
#43: Washington State (-20.82, 11.08%) at Virginia (20.82, 88.92%)
Estimated score: 17.15 - 38.10, Total: 55.25
Quality: 79.43%, Team quality: 93.16%, Competitiveness: 57.74%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 29.56%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 15.40%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.94%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.01%
#44: Oregon (21.97, 90.11%) at Rutgers (-21.97, 9.89%)
Estimated score: 46.90 - 24.86, Total: 71.76
Quality: 79.41%, Team quality: 96.09%, Competitiveness: 54.22%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 31.89%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 14.20%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 54.53%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 20.99%
#45: Georgia State (-13.35, 21.49%) at Georgia Southern (13.35, 78.51%)
Estimated score: 27.66 - 41.02, Total: 68.68
Quality: 79.25%, Team quality: 78.92%, Competitiveness: 79.91%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 17.04%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 23.70%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 51.60%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 23.17%
#46: Temple (16.80, 83.90%) at Charlotte (-16.80, 16.10%)
Estimated score: 36.33 - 19.45, Total: 55.78
Quality: 78.77%, Team quality: 83.54%, Competitiveness: 70.04%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 22.19%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.86%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 39.43%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.54%
#47: Florida International (-17.49, 15.14%) at Western Kentucky (17.49, 84.86%)
Estimated score: 15.72 - 33.12, Total: 48.83
Quality: 78.22%, Team quality: 83.91%, Competitiveness: 67.97%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 23.35%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.09%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 33.21%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.79%
#48: Lafayette (-15.41, 18.16%) at Oregon State (15.41, 81.84%)
Estimated score: 24.39 - 39.79, Total: 64.18
Quality: 77.86%, Team quality: 79.78%, Competitiveness: 74.15%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 19.97%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.43%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 47.32%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 26.58%
#49: Troy (16.54, 83.52%) at UL Monroe (-16.54, 16.48%)
Estimated score: 35.97 - 19.53, Total: 55.49
Quality: 77.78%, Team quality: 81.50%, Competitiveness: 70.83%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 21.75%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.16%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 39.17%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.80%
#50: Eastern Michigan (-18.36, 13.99%) at Miami (OH) (18.36, 86.01%)
Estimated score: 16.58 - 34.95, Total: 51.53
Quality: 76.52%, Team quality: 82.83%, Competitiveness: 65.31%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 24.89%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 18.10%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.58%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 37.32%
#51: Buffalo (17.11, 84.34%) at Massachusetts (-17.11, 15.66%)
Estimated score: 26.84 - 10.10, Total: 36.94
Quality: 74.14%, Team quality: 76.79%, Competitiveness: 69.10%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 22.71%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.51%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 23.63%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 51.01%
#52: Nevada (-22.36, 9.51%) at New Mexico (22.36, 90.49%)
Estimated score: 11.91 - 34.17, Total: 46.09
Quality: 73.17%, Team quality: 85.93%, Competitiveness: 53.05%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 32.70%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 13.80%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 30.86%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 42.34%
#53: Tulsa (-26.30, 6.27%) at East Carolina (26.30, 93.73%)
Estimated score: 6.73 - 33.16, Total: 39.90
Quality: 68.61%, Team quality: 88.27%, Competitiveness: 41.46%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 41.40%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 10.07%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 25.86%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 48.19%
#54: Memphis (27.36, 94.43%) at UAB (-27.36, 5.57%)
Estimated score: 47.22 - 19.96, Total: 67.19
Quality: 66.51%, Team quality: 87.39%, Competitiveness: 38.52%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 43.86%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 9.18%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 50.18%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 24.28%
#55: Florida State (30.19, 95.98%) at Stanford (-30.19, 4.02%)
Estimated score: 42.07 - 12.04, Total: 54.11
Quality: 64.44%, Team quality: 92.58%, Competitiveness: 31.23%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 50.51%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 7.06%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 37.90%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.02%
#56: Kent State (-30.45, 3.90%) at Toledo (30.45, 96.10%)
Estimated score: 16.29 - 46.87, Total: 63.16
Quality: 60.71%, Team quality: 85.52%, Competitiveness: 30.60%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 51.13%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 6.89%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 46.35%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 27.38%
#57: Ohio State (34.32, 97.58%) at Wisconsin (-34.32, 2.42%)
Estimated score: 32.98 - 0.00, Total: 32.98
Quality: 58.61%, Team quality: 95.33%, Competitiveness: 22.16%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 60.16%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 4.64%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 20.81%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 54.78%
#58: Cincinnati (33.71, 97.38%) at Oklahoma State (-33.71, 2.62%)
Estimated score: 44.36 - 10.51, Total: 54.88
Quality: 56.24%, Team quality: 87.23%, Competitiveness: 23.38%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 58.76%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 4.95%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.60%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.34%
#59: Florida Atlantic (-36.42, 1.85%) at South Florida (36.42, 98.15%)
Estimated score: 21.28 - 57.66, Total: 78.94
Quality: 52.74%, Team quality: 89.50%, Competitiveness: 18.31%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 64.87%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 3.69%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 61.23%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 16.40%
#60: Michigan State (-41.32, 0.96%) at Indiana (41.32, 99.04%)
Estimated score: 8.27 - 49.94, Total: 58.22
Quality: 46.61%, Team quality: 94.85%, Competitiveness: 11.25%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 74.87%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 2.07%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.69%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.45%New NFL predictions will be posted tomorrow, then it’s time that I post a few baseball articles. Thanks for reading!
The ratings in this article are based on data from collegefootballdata.com.