College Football Computer Ratings for Rivalry Week
Will the selection committee move BYU back into a playoff spot?
The next round of college football playoff rankings are released tonight, and there are plenty of opportunities for the rankings to shift after this coming weekend’s games. While it doesn’t seem all that likely that there will be changes in the playoff bracket following last weekend’s games, but there are a couple of teams that might have justification for moving up. For me, the bigger question is whether BYU will continue to be excluded from a playoff spot despite having just one loss.
It seems rather unlikely that a team with three losses before their conference championship game will reach the college football playoff. It should be reasonably safe to now exclude Houston and USC from contention for a playoff spot. It’s possible there might be reason to consider a team with three losses if there’s absolute chaos in the final weekend of the regular season, which can’t be ruled out at this point, but it seems unlikely.
Last weekend, Alabama and Texas A&M steamrolled FCS opponents. Georgia dominated one of the lowest rated teams in the FBS. As expected, Notre Dame won in a blowout against one of the weakest Power 4 teams. None of these games should do much to influence the playoff race because none of these games were reasonably expected to be close. Among at-large teams projected to be in the playoff from Tuesday’s rankings, Indiana, Ole Miss, and Texas Tech didn’t play.
This means that among teams currently projected in the playoff, only Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oregon, Miami, and Tulane played games that should reasonably influence the playoff. Of these games, only Oregon winning over USC and Oklahoma only holding Missouri to two field goals should really have a significant impact. Those are the two games that should have the biggest impact on strength of record. The scores in Ohio State’s win over Rutgers, Miami’s win at Virginia Tech, and Tulane’s win at Temple weren’t close, but none of the opponents in those three games were strong enough where a blowout win would be grounds for rethinking a team’s rating. There are valid arguments for moving Oregon and Oklahoma up based on their quality wins, but there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot else that should shift the rankings.
For me, the real question at this point is why BYU is probably still going to be in a position where they’re left out of the playoff. The justification seems to be that BYU didn’t play well in their loss to Texas Tech. But they also have a quality win over Utah and have overall played a competitive schedule. Alabama didn’t play well in their season opener against Florida State, but they’re still a playoff team on the basis of the rest of the season. Oklahoma has put together a string of quality wins, but they didn’t play well in their 23-6 loss to Texas. Why don’t those games knock Alabama and Oklahoma out of the playoff?
The answer is that deciding which teams are most deserving requires examining their results over the entire season. With the exception of conference championship games in some circumstances, one game isn’t enough to decide if a team belongs or doesn’t belong. That’s exactly why there are statistical metrics like strength of record. They are backward looking ratings used to evaluate a team’s accomplishments over an entire season in an objective manner. My strength of record calculation ranks BYU (#5) ahead of Alabama (#8), Oklahoma (#9), Texas Tech (#10), and Notre Dame (#12). ESPN FPI’s strength of record puts BYU (#6) ahead of Oklahoma (#8), Alabama (#9), Texas Tech (#10), and Notre Dame (#12). Bill Connelly has his own backward looking measure that is somewhat similar to strength of record and places BYU (#9) behind Texas Tech (#4) and Notre Dame (#7), but they’re ahead of Oklahoma (#13) and Alabama (#14). Justin Williams wrote for The Athletic that BYU’s metrics are comparable to Oklahoma, Alabama, Notre Dame, and Oregon. He points out that we don’t know the exact metrics the selection committee uses, so it’s possible that they might have a metric that does rank BYU lower. But there are good reasons to rank BYU’s accomplishments comparably to other teams that are currently in playoff spots. This is based on the consensus of multiple rating systems, not just one single rating that might be an outlier. If the reason for putting BYU last among these teams really is the loss to Texas Tech, that reasoning doesn’t make sense and defeats the purpose of metrics like strength of record.
The rankings will be released this evening, but I’m not expecting there to be any differences in which teams are in the playoff as of this week’s rankings.
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: 1.93 points
Mean score: 26.85 points
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
1 88.33 -0.14 Indiana 45.94 42.48 .201
2 86.29 -0.56 Ohio State 39.12 47.17 .158
3 83.86 +0.35 Oregon 43.88 39.91 .142
4 +1 82.20 +1.27 Notre Dame 42.26 39.98 .002
5 +1 79.32 -0.88 Texas Tech 40.27 38.98 .056
6 -2 78.75 -3.31 Utah 43.14 35.62 -.036
7 76.46 -0.76 Alabama 37.83 38.63 .069
8 74.46 -1.10 USC 41.33 33.21 -.002
9 73.45 -2.05 Texas A&M 39.86 33.62 .194
10 73.24 -2.26 Georgia 33.90 39.36 .111
11 73.23 -2.00 Miami 33.38 40.00 -.020
12 +2 73.19 +0.51 Washington 39.07 34.05 -.105
13 -1 72.92 -1.04 BYU 34.95 38.06 .116
14 -1 72.28 -0.67 Oklahoma 29.20 43.12 .064
15 +2 71.85 +1.14 Vanderbilt 41.69 30.17 -.001
16 -1 71.04 -1.22 Ole Miss 40.32 30.72 .072
17 +4 70.72 +1.50 Penn State 35.62 34.99 -.251
18 -2 70.68 -1.23 Iowa 29.00 41.39 -.089
19 +1 70.43 +0.88 Michigan 34.11 36.31 .008
20 -1 69.27 -0.29 Tennessee 42.95 26.48 -.089
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
21 +1 67.82 -0.69 Texas 32.40 35.59 -.018
22 +2 67.41 -1.01 Missouri 32.87 34.48 -.137
23 -5 67.17 -2.46 Florida State 34.06 33.18 -.396
24 +2 67.05 -0.10 South Florida 38.41 28.52 -.158
25 +2 65.70 -0.31 North Texas 42.51 23.18 -.056
26 -3 65.57 -2.91 Illinois 33.13 32.44 -.086
27 +4 65.39 +1.07 Auburn 28.97 36.29 -.315
28 +1 65.30 +0.23 Arizona 31.67 33.59 -.168
29 -1 64.72 -0.38 Pittsburgh 35.79 28.99 -.146
30 -5 64.34 -2.88 LSU 25.63 38.71 -.139
31 +4 63.38 +0.39 Iowa State 30.23 33.27 -.221
32 -2 62.53 -2.10 Nebraska 31.39 31.14 -.213
33 +8 62.21 +1.50 SMU 29.87 32.33 -.188
34 +4 61.68 +0.18 South Carolina 26.59 35.18 -.360
35 -2 61.67 -1.39 Virginia 32.79 28.88 -.118
36 60.51 -1.69 Cincinnati 31.78 28.93 -.201
37 -3 60.26 -2.77 Kentucky 27.91 32.38 -.308
38 +1 60.18 -1.11 James Madison 28.08 32.02 -.067
39 -7 60.11 -3.20 Florida 25.27 34.78 -.423
40 +5 59.89 -0.10 Arizona State 25.46 34.28 -.093
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
41 +5 59.42 -0.24 TCU 30.64 28.39 -.241
42 +7 59.29 +0.63 Kansas State 32.47 26.82 -.355
43 +1 58.94 -1.09 Arkansas 36.00 22.84 -.542
44 -2 58.76 -1.59 Mississippi State 32.98 26.02 -.337
45 -5 58.46 -2.55 Georgia Tech 31.86 26.51 -.127
46 +11 58.38 +2.33 Wisconsin 21.29 37.05 -.217
47 -10 58.34 -3.71 Louisville 29.85 28.34 -.240
48 58.09 -0.89 Toledo 28.14 29.88 -.336
49 +2 57.35 -0.95 Houston 28.29 29.08 -.169
50 57.29 -1.18 Memphis 29.14 28.31 -.229
51 +1 57.12 -0.38 Northwestern 23.72 33.37 -.221
52 +4 56.95 +0.89 NC State 30.35 26.59 -.245
53 -6 56.95 -2.62 Clemson 26.69 30.30 -.373
54 +6 56.37 +1.13 Wake Forest 22.60 33.69 -.193
55 +3 56.19 +0.49 Boise State 28.76 27.67 -.245
56 -13 56.16 -4.08 East Carolina 28.63 27.55 -.294
57 +2 56.13 +0.77 Old Dominion 27.36 28.68 -.171
58 -4 55.61 -0.95 San Diego State 22.16 33.34 -.166
59 -6 55.04 -2.19 Kansas 29.51 25.62 -.375
60 +5 54.97 +0.86 Tulane 26.36 28.55 -.104
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
61 -6 54.41 -1.93 Duke 31.96 22.47 -.388
62 54.19 -0.90 Rutgers 30.93 23.27 -.276
63 +11 53.87 +3.15 UTSA 30.51 23.19 -.335
64 53.81 -0.53 Washington State 20.43 33.32 -.391
65 +3 53.71 +1.06 Michigan State 26.82 26.87 -.461
66 -3 53.61 -1.14 Baylor 33.31 20.26 -.378
67 -6 53.42 -1.76 Maryland 24.62 28.90 -.429
68 -2 53.12 -0.77 Minnesota 25.40 27.32 -.226
69 +1 52.72 +0.14 Purdue 24.38 28.30 -.504
70 +3 52.10 +1.32 New Mexico 24.33 27.77 -.211
71 +6 51.58 +1.43 UNLV 32.51 18.92 -.162
72 -3 50.89 -1.71 UCLA 24.75 26.14 -.403
73 -6 50.77 -2.16 UCF 21.31 29.69 -.431
74 +2 50.75 +0.49 Utah State 28.62 22.23 -.347
75 -3 49.54 -1.27 West Virginia 24.94 24.54 -.469
76 +3 48.74 -0.47 Navy 25.39 23.47 -.064
77 +3 48.48 -0.63 Virginia Tech 25.42 23.17 -.569
78 +3 48.37 -0.66 Western Michigan 18.65 29.73 -.301
79 -1 48.23 -1.68 UConn 27.81 20.50 -.244
80 -5 48.16 -2.17 Army 17.54 30.73 -.442
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
81 -10 47.97 -2.83 Colorado 24.01 23.98 -.549
82 +6 47.29 +0.35 Stanford 20.08 27.13 -.459
83 46.89 -1.55 Louisiana Tech 20.99 26.02 -.421
84 +8 46.81 +1.58 Western Kentucky 23.15 23.60 -.234
85 -1 46.67 -1.75 Ohio 24.15 22.52 -.272
86 -4 46.07 -2.69 Hawai’i 22.62 23.37 -.323
87 +6 45.78 +0.62 Miami (OH) 20.05 25.77 -.423
88 +1 45.45 -1.17 Texas State 29.07 16.41 -.512
89 -3 45.15 -1.85 Fresno State 19.79 25.37 -.337
90 +1 44.86 -0.42 Kennesaw State 22.65 22.24 -.179
91 -6 44.24 -3.01 California 20.54 23.85 -.409
92 -2 44.14 -1.84 Temple 24.82 19.32 -.481
93 -6 43.72 -3.23 Syracuse 21.87 21.84 -.510
94 43.43 -1.59 Marshall 26.72 16.68 -.481
95 43.04 -1.12 North Carolina 17.43 25.86 -.590
96 +3 42.46 -0.63 Boston College 24.46 18.00 -.773
97 41.74 -1.80 Air Force 23.48 18.16 -.703
98 -2 41.29 -2.38 Southern Miss 22.16 19.03 -.352
99 -1 41.07 -2.47 Wyoming 12.60 28.47 -.567
100 41.00 -0.14 Missouri State 20.08 20.89 -.295
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
101 +5 40.21 +0.31 Tulsa 19.41 20.78 -.607
102 +1 40.05 -0.43 Central Michigan 18.52 21.44 -.295
103 +4 39.59 -0.20 Florida Atlantic 26.26 13.32 -.580
104 +1 39.55 -0.54 Liberty 18.78 20.85 -.615
105 -3 39.45 -1.18 Troy 18.03 21.57 -.336
106 -5 39.29 -1.50 Jacksonville State 20.37 19.07 -.358
107 -3 39.25 -0.89 Oregon State 17.61 21.64 -.661
108 +6 38.33 +1.00 Nevada 14.99 23.34 -.663
109 +4 38.14 +0.37 Florida International 18.71 19.55 -.407
110 38.10 -0.52 Louisiana 20.17 17.92 -.495
111 -3 38.10 -0.79 Colorado State 17.59 20.46 -.736
112 36.97 -1.17 San José State 20.46 16.59 -.675
113 -4 36.92 -1.80 Arkansas State 16.09 20.87 -.518
114 +5 36.51 +0.76 South Alabama 19.25 17.22 -.577
115 +9 36.18 +0.90 Oklahoma State 15.37 20.92 -.702
116 -5 35.54 -2.77 Georgia Southern 23.11 12.38 -.470
117 35.54 -0.48 Rice 14.77 20.72 -.503
118 +7 35.26 +0.07 New Mexico State 14.95 20.43 -.589
119 +3 34.97 -0.53 UAB 21.17 13.88 -.636
120 +6 34.94 -0.15 App State 17.14 17.81 -.510
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
121 -6 34.84 -2.19 Bowling Green 11.55 23.08 -.690
122 +1 34.64 -0.69 UTEP 16.81 17.85 -.778
123 -2 34.62 -0.94 Northern Illinois 11.68 22.95 -.688
124 -4 34.06 -1.58 Buffalo 14.52 19.27 -.537
125 -9 33.77 -2.70 Coastal Carolina 17.63 16.13 -.403
126 -8 33.45 -2.56 Delaware 19.83 13.69 -.530
127 32.63 -1.16 Eastern Michigan 18.96 13.72 -.616
128 31.98 -0.36 Akron 15.59 16.32 -.553
129 +2 30.24 +0.52 Middle Tennessee 14.80 15.38 -.801
130 -1 30.15 -0.65 Ball State 11.36 18.80 -.586
131 -1 28.63 -1.63 Kent State 16.88 11.94 -.481
132 +2 27.87 +0.56 Charlotte 12.40 15.59 -.794
133 27.10 -0.35 Georgia State 14.68 12.42 -.805
134 -2 25.98 -1.72 Sam Houston 13.28 12.69 -.775
135 24.60 +0.12 UL Monroe 9.71 14.78 -.651
136 13.33 -0.39 Massachusetts 5.23 8.10 -.922Schedule 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: 1.93 points
Mean score: 26.85 points
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
1 Indiana .201 (30) .060 (62) 56.17 (32) 54.65 (61)
2 Ohio State .158 (48) .448 (13) 53.92 (49) 72.35 (13)
3 Oregon .233 (18) .537 (8) 59.22 (12) 75.12 (8)
4 Notre Dame .183 (34) .023 (74) 58.16 (16) 49.22 (74)
5 Texas Tech .147 (54) .035 (72) 47.89 (74) 51.47 (72)
6 Utah .146 (55) .086 (49) 55.05 (40) 56.96 (49)
7 Alabama .250 (14) .297 (25) 57.83 (18) 67.32 (25)
8 USC .271 (10) .022 (75) 61.22 (5) 48.96 (75)
9 Texas A&M .194 (31) .367 (18) 56.83 (26) 69.75 (18)
10 Georgia .202 (29) .106 (45) 57.26 (25) 58.46 (45)
11 Miami .162 (46) .278 (26) 54.00 (48) 66.65 (26)
12 Washington .168 (42) .739 (3) 56.32 (31) 81.93 (3)
13 BYU .207 (28) .022 (76) 56.46 (30) 48.85 (76)
14 Oklahoma .246 (15) .176 (33) 59.19 (13) 62.41 (33)
15 Vanderbilt .181 (36) .412 (16) 54.73 (43) 71.20 (16)
16 Ole Miss .163 (44) .143 (40) 54.31 (47) 60.69 (40)
17 Penn State .294 (5) .076 (54) 59.59 (9) 56.12 (54)
18 Iowa .275 (9) .222 (29) 56.08 (33) 64.46 (29)
19 Michigan .190 (33) .798 (2) 59.09 (14) 84.36 (2)
20 Tennessee .183 (35) .372 (17) 54.38 (45) 69.92 (17)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
21 Texas .255 (13) .422 (14) 58.12 (17) 71.52 (14)
22 Missouri .227 (21) .146 (39) 54.34 (46) 60.87 (39)
23 Florida State .149 (53) .169 (34) 52.56 (53) 62.04 (34)
24 South Florida .114 (65) .001 (123) 49.42 (65) 33.61 (123)
25 North Texas .035 (114) .005 (95) 43.55 (94) 42.21 (95)
26 Illinois .278 (6) .066 (59) 59.53 (10) 55.19 (58)
27 Auburn .230 (19) .518 (10) 57.54 (22) 74.53 (10)
28 Arizona .105 (68) .164 (35) 51.69 (56) 61.82 (35)
29 Pittsburgh .127 (59) .415 (15) 51.02 (57) 71.30 (15)
30 LSU .225 (22) .508 (11) 59.52 (11) 74.21 (11)
31 Iowa State .142 (56) .002 (110) 55.87 (35) 38.11 (110)
32 Nebraska .151 (52) .337 (22) 52.62 (52) 68.75 (22)
33 SMU .085 (75) .013 (84) 49.42 (66) 46.17 (84)
34 South Carolina .276 (7) .064 (61) 59.97 (8) 55.02 (60)
35 Virginia .063 (91) .014 (81) 48.86 (68) 46.55 (81)
36 Cincinnati .163 (45) .155 (37) 51.02 (58) 61.35 (37)
37 Kentucky .238 (16) .135 (42) 60.15 (7) 60.27 (42)
38 James Madison .024 (125) .001 (117) 41.14 (115) 35.70 (117)
39 Florida .304 (4) .241 (28) 63.08 (3) 65.24 (28)
40 Arizona State .180 (37) .197 (32) 56.77 (27) 63.37 (32)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
41 TCU .123 (61) .108 (44) 55.19 (39) 58.58 (44)
42 Kansas State .191 (32) .012 (85) 57.74 (19) 46.04 (85)
43 Arkansas .276 (8) .247 (27) 58.81 (15) 65.48 (27)
44 Mississippi State .208 (25) .348 (19) 55.45 (37) 69.11 (19)
45 Georgia Tech .055 (97) .476 (12) 48.81 (70) 73.24 (12)
46 Wisconsin .420 (1) .064 (60) 67.13 (1) 55.05 (59)
47 Louisville .124 (60) .104 (46) 51.73 (55) 58.33 (46)
48 Toledo .027 (122) .005 (97) 38.15 (130) 41.98 (97)
49 Houston .104 (70) .069 (56) 50.96 (59) 55.54 (56)
50 Memphis .044 (106) .015 (80) 43.31 (98) 46.81 (80)
51 Northwestern .234 (17) .301 (24) 55.40 (38) 67.50 (24)
52 NC State .210 (24) .004 (101) 57.68 (20) 41.11 (101)
53 Clemson .081 (77) .203 (30) 49.50 (64) 63.61 (30)
54 Wake Forest .079 (78) .078 (52) 48.85 (69) 56.34 (52)
55 Boise State .118 (63) .044 (71) 48.19 (73) 52.68 (70)
56 East Carolina .070 (83) .005 (98) 45.62 (83) 41.52 (98)
57 Old Dominion .102 (71) .000 (132) 42.79 (101) 25.17 (132)
58 San Diego State .016 (131) .054 (66) 41.40 (112) 54.03 (65)
59 Kansas .171 (40) .591 (6) 52.94 (51) 76.83 (6)
60 Tulane .078 (80) .000 (131) 50.95 (60) 25.94 (131)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
61 Duke .067 (87) .058 (63) 50.90 (61) 54.44 (62)
62 Rutgers .270 (11) .339 (21) 57.36 (24) 68.79 (21)
63 UTSA .120 (62) .013 (83) 48.80 (71) 46.23 (83)
64 Washington State .155 (51) .002 (112) 54.79 (42) 37.32 (112)
65 Michigan State .267 (12) .049 (69) 60.53 (6) 53.42 (69)
66 Baylor .168 (41) .068 (58) 54.85 (41) 55.42 (57)
67 Maryland .208 (26) .052 (67) 55.81 (36) 53.71 (66)
68 Minnesota .228 (20) .080 (51) 53.74 (50) 56.45 (51)
69 Purdue .314 (3) .841 (1) 61.98 (4) 86.41 (1)
70 New Mexico .062 (93) .051 (68) 46.61 (81) 53.68 (68)
71 UNLV .019 (129) .003 (103) 44.12 (90) 40.26 (103)
72 UCLA .324 (2) .577 (7) 65.98 (2) 76.39 (7)
73 UCF .114 (66) .528 (9) 47.72 (75) 74.85 (9)
74 Utah State .108 (67) .057 (64) 46.58 (82) 54.26 (63)
75 West Virginia .167 (43) .608 (5) 54.53 (44) 77.39 (5)
76 Navy .136 (58) .068 (57) 44.58 (86) 53.69 (67)
77 Virginia Tech .159 (47) .202 (31) 56.64 (29) 63.60 (31)
78 Western Michigan .062 (92) .001 (121) 44.07 (92) 34.56 (121)
79 UConn .006 (135) --- 37.05 (133) ---
80 Army .058 (95) .047 (70) 47.62 (76) 52.27 (71)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
81 Colorado .178 (38) .153 (38) 57.61 (21) 61.22 (38)
82 Stanford .177 (39) .694 (4) 56.06 (34) 80.27 (4)
83 Louisiana Tech .034 (116) .006 (94) 41.31 (113) 42.93 (94)
84 Western Kentucky .039 (112) .004 (100) 38.84 (129) 41.22 (100)
85 Ohio .091 (73) .001 (116) 40.95 (117) 35.99 (116)
86 Hawai’i .041 (109) .003 (107) 42.54 (102) 39.14 (107)
87 Miami (OH) .032 (118) .000 (128) 42.95 (99) 28.22 (128)
88 Texas State .033 (117) .001 (120) 41.15 (114) 34.58 (120)
89 Fresno State .026 (124) .002 (108) 40.69 (118) 38.90 (108)
90 Kennesaw State .094 (72) .005 (99) 41.70 (108) 41.48 (99)
91 California .045 (105) .136 (41) 46.70 (80) 60.28 (41)
92 Temple .065 (89) .305 (23) 43.50 (95) 67.63 (23)
93 Syracuse .217 (23) .004 (102) 57.36 (23) 40.53 (102)
94 Marshall .065 (88) .001 (122) 42.53 (103) 33.61 (122)
95 North Carolina .046 (104) .113 (43) 47.14 (78) 58.88 (43)
96 Boston College .136 (57) .011 (86) 52.35 (54) 45.65 (86)
97 Air Force .024 (126) .003 (105) 44.20 (88) 40.02 (105)
98 Southern Miss .011 (133) .002 (111) 37.78 (131) 37.52 (111)
99 Wyoming .069 (84) .018 (77) 44.30 (87) 48.00 (77)
100 Missouri State .069 (86) .010 (88) 42.91 (100) 44.96 (88)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
101 Tulsa .029 (120) .001 (124) 45.24 (84) 33.04 (124)
102 Central Michigan .069 (85) .076 (53) 37.20 (132) 56.16 (53)
103 Florida Atlantic .056 (96) .056 (65) 43.83 (93) 54.23 (64)
104 Liberty .022 (127) .006 (93) 40.20 (120) 42.93 (93)
105 Troy .027 (123) .007 (92) 39.23 (127) 43.22 (92)
106 Jacksonville State .006 (136) .010 (89) 35.59 (135) 44.88 (89)
107 Oregon State .158 (49) .071 (55) 49.03 (67) 55.74 (55)
108 Nevada .064 (90) .025 (73) 47.55 (77) 49.65 (73)
109 Florida International .048 (103) .000 (130) 40.18 (122) 25.98 (130)
110 Louisiana .050 (101) .000 (133) 41.76 (107) 22.67 (133)
111 Colorado State .083 (76) .003 (106) 49.79 (62) 39.81 (106)
112 San José State .053 (98) .007 (91) 46.70 (79) 43.22 (91)
113 Arkansas State .028 (121) .001 (114) 40.19 (121) 36.87 (114)
114 South Alabama .060 (94) .016 (79) 39.24 (126) 47.38 (79)
115 Oklahoma State .207 (27) .157 (36) 56.71 (28) 61.45 (36)
116 Georgia Southern .075 (82) .011 (87) 42.52 (104) 45.36 (87)
117 Rice .042 (108) .344 (20) 44.19 (89) 68.98 (20)
118 New Mexico State .048 (102) .000 (127) 41.52 (110) 28.31 (127)
119 UAB .091 (74) .005 (96) 48.56 (72) 42.14 (96)
120 App State .035 (115) .001 (119) 40.06 (123) 34.99 (119)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
121 Bowling Green .038 (113) .000 (134) 41.13 (116) 15.26 (134)
122 UTEP .040 (110) .001 (118) 39.33 (125) 35.38 (118)
123 Northern Illinois .040 (111) .000 (129) 42.37 (105) 26.70 (129)
124 Buffalo .009 (134) .009 (90) 32.99 (136) 44.74 (90)
125 Coastal Carolina .052 (99) .103 (47) 41.62 (109) 58.25 (47)
126 Delaware .016 (132) .000 (126) 39.64 (124) 32.71 (126)
127 Eastern Michigan .020 (128) .013 (82) 38.85 (128) 46.45 (82)
128 Akron .031 (119) --- 36.71 (134) ---
129 Middle Tennessee .017 (130) .002 (113) 40.45 (119) 37.19 (113)
130 Ball State .050 (100) .017 (78) 43.42 (96) 47.71 (78)
131 Kent State .156 (50) .001 (115) 43.34 (97) 36.55 (115)
132 Charlotte .115 (64) .085 (50) 49.61 (63) 56.90 (50)
133 Georgia State .104 (69) .100 (48) 45.02 (85) 58.06 (48)
134 Sam Houston .043 (107) .002 (109) 44.07 (91) 38.14 (109)
135 UL Monroe .076 (81) .003 (104) 41.49 (111) 40.03 (104)
136 Massachusetts .078 (79) .000 (125) 42.00 (106) 32.91 (125)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 .770 SEC .307 (3) 67.02 33.40 33.65 -0.25 (6)
2 .719 Big Ten .310 (2) 65.53 31.92 33.57 -1.66 (9)
3 .684 FBS Independents .383 (1) 65.22 35.03 30.24 4.80 (1)
4 .629 Big 12 .188 (4) 59.33 29.84 29.50 0.33 (4)
5 .563 ACC .113 (5) 55.28 27.59 27.71 -0.12 (5)
6 .435 American Athletic .063 (6) 48.16 25.52 22.65 2.87 (2)
7 .400 Pac-12 .028 (7) 46.53 19.02 27.48 -8.46 (11)
8 .392 Mountain West .024 (8) 46.14 22.33 23.81 -1.48 (8)
9 .281 Sun Belt .017 (9) 39.53 20.66 18.85 1.81 (3)
10 .249 Conference USA .004 (11) 38.01 18.70 19.35 -0.65 (7)
11 .248 Mid-American .012 (10) 36.86 16.56 20.27 -3.71 (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 .9813 +.0023 Indiana .986 .814 1.000 .993
2 .9681 +.0003 Ohio State .979 .654 1.000 .990
3 +1 .9676 +.0135 Oregon .975 .895 .909 .985
4 -1 .9600 -.0068 Texas A&M .985 .791 1.000 .928
5 +1 .9420 -.0008 BYU .968 .830 .909 .923
6 -1 .9413 -.0075 Georgia .967 .815 .909 .926
7 .9375 -.0008 Alabama .952 .928 .818 .953
8 .9325 -.0014 Texas Tech .946 .607 .909 .969
9 +2 .9252 +.0122 Oklahoma .950 .920 .818 .917
10 -1 .9199 -.0057 Ole Miss .953 .675 .909 .903
11 -1 .9183 +.0004 Notre Dame .917 .755 .818 .980
12 .9051 -.0066 USC .915 .955 .727 .937
13 +2 .8963 +.0139 Vanderbilt .916 .744 .818 .912
14 +2 .8961 +.0137 Michigan .921 .777 .818 .896
15 -2 .8919 +.0022 Utah .891 .601 .818 .966
16 -2 .8902 +.0005 Miami .903 .672 .818 .926
17 +1 .8748 +.0034 Texas .905 .934 .727 .860
18 +2 .8462 +.0208 Iowa .845 .959 .636 .899
19 +2 .8412 +.0196 Washington .829 .694 .727 .926
20 -1 .8394 +.0132 Tennessee .845 .755 .727 .881
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
21 +2 .8278 +.0095 North Texas .876 .156 .909 .825
22 -5 .8252 -.0494 Illinois .849 .962 .636 .822
23 -1 .8006 -.0177 Missouri .794 .883 .636 .853
24 +2 .7867 +.0027 James Madison .866 .126 .909 .711
25 +2 .7839 +.0099 Arizona State .842 .742 .727 .704
26 -1 .7827 -.0013 LSU .791 .877 .636 .800
27 +2 .7724 +.0123 South Florida .768 .459 .727 .848
28 +3 .7716 +.0255 Pittsburgh .784 .516 .727 .807
29 -1 .7657 -.0071 Virginia .815 .245 .818 .745
30 +4 .7546 +.0239 Arizona .756 .415 .727 .818
31 -7 .7363 -.0545 Georgia Tech .805 .215 .818 .669
32 +4 .7271 +.0208 Tulane .830 .300 .818 .579
33 +6 .7173 +.0381 SMU .729 .328 .727 .756
34 +9 .7144 +.0546 Penn State .637 .975 .455 .899
35 +2 .7085 +.0099 Navy .868 .557 .800 .410
36 -3 .7059 -.0275 Nebraska .695 .624 .636 .763
37 -5 .7042 -.0404 Cincinnati .712 .674 .636 .718
38 +3 .7024 +.0361 Iowa State .682 .586 .636 .781
39 -9 .7009 -.0520 Houston .755 .412 .727 .641
40 +2 .6894 +.0276 Old Dominion .752 .402 .727 .610
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
41 -1 .6833 +.0146 San Diego State .759 .109 .818 .596
42 +4 .6700 +.0309 Wake Forest .722 .307 .727 .616
43 +5 .6656 +.0428 Northwestern .683 .897 .545 .635
44 +9 .6655 +.0771 Wisconsin .689 1.000 .364 .667
45 +6 .6557 +.0502 TCU .653 .497 .636 .693
46 +3 .6533 +.0367 UNLV .763 .116 .818 .487
47 -12 .6489 -.0716 Louisville .655 .502 .636 .666
48 -3 .6432 -.0028 Memphis .672 .181 .727 .640
49 +6 .6420 +.0597 NC State .648 .840 .545 .631
50 +2 .6301 +.0387 Auburn .535 .890 .455 .819
51 -13 .6287 -.0565 Minnesota .675 .886 .545 .529
52 +2 .6265 +.0437 Boise State .647 .477 .636 .611
53 +6 .6186 +.0474 New Mexico .698 .240 .727 .501
54 -7 .6056 -.0300 Kentucky .548 .905 .455 .713
55 +5 .5921 +.0220 Kennesaw State .741 .366 .727 .311
56 +2 .5899 +.0164 Rutgers .599 .953 .455 .558
57 -13 .5741 -.0803 East Carolina .571 .270 .636 .610
58 -2 .5650 -.0146 Mississippi State .500 .835 .455 .677
59 +6 .5619 +.0387 South Carolina .462 .960 .364 .745
60 +3 .5553 +.0151 UConn .649 .089 .750 .396
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
61 -4 .5543 -.0241 Western Kentucky .664 .166 .727 .360
62 -12 .5532 -.0589 Florida State .404 .616 .455 .849
63 +3 .5501 +.0279 Kansas State .471 .779 .455 .689
64 +4 .5440 +.0317 Toledo .501 .135 .636 .660
65 +7 .5207 +.0206 Ohio .605 .356 .636 .356
66 +13 .5207 +.0727 UTSA .504 .484 .545 .549
67 +8 .5026 +.0301 Western Michigan .558 .241 .636 .400
68 +5 .5019 +.0081 Clemson .441 .314 .545 .631
69 -7 .4963 -.0447 Kansas .439 .707 .455 .581
70 -9 .4880 -.0614 Florida .362 .981 .273 .709
71 -1 .4813 -.0277 Baylor .434 .694 .455 .542
72 +11 .4812 +.0522 Utah State .484 .427 .545 .464
73 -2 .4690 -.0357 Washington State .413 .641 .455 .548
74 +6 .4661 +.0216 Duke .417 .257 .545 .564
75 -11 .4620 -.0707 Hawai’i .523 .171 .636 .341
76 -9 .4568 -.0574 Missouri State .568 .265 .636 .224
77 +7 .4516 +.0398 Central Michigan .569 .266 .636 .205
78 -9 .4404 -.0700 Fresno State .500 .132 .636 .318
79 -3 .4337 -.0268 Maryland .354 .834 .364 .537
80 -3 .4330 -.0217 UCLA .393 .989 .273 .468
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
81 +4 .4066 +.0161 Michigan State .306 .950 .273 .545
82 +6 .4041 +.0321 Troy .501 .135 .636 .194
83 +4 .4002 +.0270 UCF .350 .458 .455 .465
84 -10 .3989 -.0737 Southern Miss .475 .099 .636 .230
85 -7 .3817 -.0670 Jacksonville State .466 .088 .636 .191
86 .3804 -.0083 Arkansas .200 .960 .182 .681
87 +7 .3717 +.0297 Louisiana Tech .366 .151 .545 .362
88 -7 .3637 -.0773 California .384 .185 .545 .296
89 -7 .3635 -.0695 Army .334 .227 .500 .395
90 -1 .3622 -.0098 West Virginia .294 .693 .364 .431
91 +7 .3614 +.0558 Miami (OH) .363 .146 .545 .333
92 +1 .3584 +.0156 Purdue .247 .986 .182 .518
93 +4 .3538 +.0445 Stanford .308 .731 .364 .372
94 +7 .3283 +.0530 Florida International .387 .192 .545 .170
95 -5 .3130 -.0466 Coastal Carolina .394 .206 .545 .105
96 -5 .2988 -.0528 Temple .278 .250 .455 .294
97 -5 .2940 -.0547 Marshall .278 .250 .455 .277
98 +2 .2870 +.0085 Syracuse .239 .860 .273 .284
99 -4 .2864 -.0452 Colorado .192 .734 .273 .390
100 +6 .2804 +.0391 Texas State .236 .150 .455 .325
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
101 +1 .2752 +.0057 Virginia Tech .171 .657 .273 .403
102 -6 .2594 -.0532 Georgia Southern .292 .290 .455 .129
103 +8 .2481 +.0399 Louisiana .258 .199 .455 .170
104 -5 .2376 -.0540 Kent State .278 .644 .364 .054
105 .2290 -.0180 Rice .248 .175 .455 .129
106 -3 .2232 -.0416 Arkansas State .229 .135 .455 .150
107 +6 .2206 +.0441 App State .239 .155 .455 .120
108 -4 .2125 -.0487 Wyoming .173 .267 .364 .226
109 -1 .2085 -.0263 North Carolina .150 .187 .364 .268
110 -3 .1994 -.0356 Delaware .215 .108 .455 .101
111 -2 .1962 -.0379 Buffalo .206 .093 .455 .109
112 -2 .1937 -.0213 Florida Atlantic .159 .219 .364 .196
113 +10 .1806 +.0458 South Alabama .163 .232 .364 .143
114 +5 .1796 +.0377 Tulsa .134 .140 .364 .208
115 +2 .1779 +.0331 Akron .188 .144 .417 .085
116 -4 .1713 -.0186 Liberty .127 .121 .364 .196
117 +9 .1666 +.0394 New Mexico State .151 .192 .364 .125
118 -2 .1585 +.0020 Oregon State .092 .652 .182 .190
119 -5 .1510 -.0130 Ball State .154 .201 .364 .067
120 -5 .1421 -.0159 Air Force .067 .126 .273 .240
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
121 -3 .1417 -.0018 UAB .110 .355 .273 .121
122 +8 .1417 +.0408 Nevada .091 .249 .273 .173
123 -3 .1392 -.0027 Eastern Michigan .126 .118 .364 .092
124 .1339 +.0029 Boston College .037 .559 .091 .255
125 .1292 -.0016 Oklahoma State .067 .832 .091 .138
126 -5 .1285 -.0106 San José State .083 .208 .273 .151
127 +2 .1131 -.0013 Colorado State .051 .319 .182 .169
128 -6 .1119 -.0236 Bowling Green .074 .162 .273 .119
129 -2 .1119 -.0148 Northern Illinois .075 .168 .273 .116
130 -2 .1054 -.0151 UL Monroe .099 .294 .273 .030
131 .0811 -.0055 UTEP .035 .170 .182 .116
132 +2 .0636 +.0153 Charlotte .030 .462 .091 .049
133 +2 .0596 +.0211 Middle Tennessee .029 .111 .182 .068
134 -2 .0581 -.0077 Sam Houston .036 .178 .182 .037
135 -2 .0579 -.0035 Georgia State .028 .412 .091 .044
136 .0207 -.0019 Massachusetts .008 .301 .000 .004Week 14 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: Vanderbilt (0.66, 52.10%) at Tennessee (-0.66, 47.90%)
Estimated score: 41.09 - 40.59, Total: 81.68
Quality: 98.12%, Team quality: 97.23%, Competitiveness: 99.93%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.60%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.58%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 63.39%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 14.30%
#2: Texas A&M (3.70, 61.70%) at Texas (-3.70, 38.30%)
Estimated score: 30.15 - 26.59, Total: 56.75
Quality: 97.40%, Team quality: 97.23%, Competitiveness: 97.73%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.06%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.97%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 38.92%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 32.87%
#3: Cincinnati (-0.84, 47.31%) at TCU (0.84, 52.69%)
Estimated score: 29.27 - 29.52, Total: 58.79
Quality: 96.48%, Team quality: 94.83%, Competitiveness: 99.88%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.61%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.55%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 40.90%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 31.04%
#4: Kentucky (-0.01, 49.95%) at Louisville (0.01, 50.05%)
Estimated score: 25.45 - 25.29, Total: 50.74
Quality: 96.39%, Team quality: 94.63%, Competitiveness: 100.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.59%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.63%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 33.31%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 38.46%
#5: Arizona (3.48, 61.02%) at Arizona State (-3.48, 38.98%)
Estimated score: 23.27 - 19.68, Total: 42.96
Quality: 96.34%, Team quality: 95.52%, Competitiveness: 97.99%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.01%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 41.16%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 26.57%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 46.06%
#6: Florida State (5.13, 66.00%) at Florida (-5.13, 34.00%)
Estimated score: 25.16 - 19.90, Total: 45.07
Quality: 95.73%, Team quality: 95.76%, Competitiveness: 95.67%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.52%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 39.49%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 28.32%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 43.97%
#7: Miami (6.58, 70.16%) at Pittsburgh (-6.58, 29.84%)
Estimated score: 30.27 - 23.61, Total: 53.88
Quality: 95.56%, Team quality: 96.90%, Competitiveness: 92.95%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.15%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.60%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 36.20%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 35.50%
#8: Wake Forest (0.03, 50.09%) at Duke (-0.03, 49.91%)
Estimated score: 26.00 - 26.08, Total: 52.09
Quality: 95.53%, Team quality: 93.37%, Competitiveness: 100.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.59%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.63%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 34.54%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 37.18%
#9: Iowa (6.22, 69.16%) at Nebraska (-6.22, 30.84%)
Estimated score: 23.74 - 17.81, Total: 41.55
Quality: 95.50%, Team quality: 96.42%, Competitiveness: 93.67%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.98%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.10%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 25.43%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 47.46%
#10: Houston (1.81, 55.78%) at Baylor (-1.81, 44.22%)
Estimated score: 33.91 - 32.04, Total: 65.95
Quality: 95.38%, Team quality: 93.40%, Competitiveness: 99.45%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.70%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.23%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 47.96%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 25.03%
#11: Maryland (-0.28, 49.10%) vs. Michigan State (0.28, 50.90%)
Estimated score: 24.60 - 24.77, Total: 49.36
Quality: 95.08%, Team quality: 92.71%, Competitiveness: 99.99%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.59%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.63%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 32.07%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 39.78%
#12: San Diego State (1.58, 55.06%) at New Mexico (-1.58, 44.94%)
Estimated score: 20.27 - 18.80, Total: 39.06
Quality: 95.02%, Team quality: 92.82%, Competitiveness: 99.58%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.67%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.33%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 23.47%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 49.94%
#13: Wisconsin (3.33, 60.55%) at Minnesota (-3.33, 39.45%)
Estimated score: 19.86 - 16.15, Total: 36.01
Quality: 95.01%, Team quality: 93.48%, Competitiveness: 98.16%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.97%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 41.29%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 21.20%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 52.98%
#14: Missouri (6.53, 70.03%) at Arkansas (-6.53, 29.97%)
Estimated score: 35.91 - 29.33, Total: 65.24
Quality: 94.76%, Team quality: 95.62%, Competitiveness: 93.05%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.13%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.66%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 47.25%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 25.59%
#15: Oregon (8.74, 75.88%) at Washington (-8.74, 24.12%)
Estimated score: 35.71 - 26.97, Total: 62.68
Quality: 94.67%, Team quality: 98.29%, Competitiveness: 87.83%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.46%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 34.15%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 44.72%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 27.69%
#16: Boise State (3.51, 61.10%) at Utah State (-3.51, 38.90%)
Estimated score: 32.41 - 28.77, Total: 61.17
Quality: 94.39%, Team quality: 92.65%, Competitiveness: 97.96%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.01%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 41.14%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 43.23%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 28.97%
#17: Clemson (-6.67, 29.60%) at South Carolina (6.67, 70.40%)
Estimated score: 17.39 - 24.10, Total: 41.49
Quality: 93.96%, Team quality: 94.56%, Competitiveness: 92.77%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.20%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.47%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 25.38%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 47.51%
#18: Alabama (9.14, 76.87%) at Auburn (-9.14, 23.13%)
Estimated score: 27.43 - 18.14, Total: 45.58
Quality: 93.58%, Team quality: 97.20%, Competitiveness: 86.75%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.76%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 33.45%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 28.76%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 43.47%
#19: LSU (-9.87, 21.37%) at Oklahoma (9.87, 78.63%)
Estimated score: 8.38 - 18.29, Total: 26.68
Quality: 92.51%, Team quality: 96.70%, Competitiveness: 84.67%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.35%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.12%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 15.08%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 62.10%
#20: Ole Miss (10.35, 79.73%) at Mississippi State (-10.35, 20.27%)
Estimated score: 40.18 - 30.07, Total: 70.24
Quality: 91.51%, Team quality: 95.95%, Competitiveness: 83.25%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.77%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.23%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 52.23%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 21.74%
#21: Louisiana Tech (3.97, 62.50%) at Missouri State (-3.97, 37.50%)
Estimated score: 25.98 - 21.88, Total: 47.85
Quality: 91.25%, Team quality: 88.32%, Competitiveness: 97.40%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.14%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.73%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 30.73%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 41.24%
#22: Army (-7.64, 26.96%) at UTSA (7.64, 73.04%)
Estimated score: 20.23 - 27.59, Total: 47.83
Quality: 91.25%, Team quality: 91.58%, Competitiveness: 90.59%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.74%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.99%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 30.70%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 41.27%
#23: Boston College (-3.19, 39.88%) at Syracuse (3.19, 60.12%)
Estimated score: 28.50 - 31.68, Total: 60.18
Quality: 91.22%, Team quality: 87.87%, Competitiveness: 98.31%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.94%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 41.39%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 42.25%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 29.82%
#24: Northwestern (-10.38, 20.21%) at Illinois (10.38, 79.79%)
Estimated score: 17.16 - 27.57, Total: 44.73
Quality: 90.91%, Team quality: 95.04%, Competitiveness: 83.17%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.79%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.18%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 28.04%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 44.31%
#25: Kennesaw State (3.38, 60.71%) at Liberty (-3.38, 39.29%)
Estimated score: 27.68 - 24.35, Total: 52.03
Quality: 90.82%, Team quality: 87.38%, Competitiveness: 98.10%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.98%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 41.24%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 34.49%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 37.23%
#26: Air Force (1.71, 55.48%) at Colorado State (-1.71, 44.52%)
Estimated score: 28.90 - 27.24, Total: 56.14
Quality: 90.34%, Team quality: 86.07%, Competitiveness: 99.51%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.69%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.27%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 38.35%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 33.41%
#27: Western Kentucky (5.60, 67.36%) at Jacksonville State (-5.60, 32.64%)
Estimated score: 29.97 - 24.58, Total: 54.55
Quality: 90.09%, Team quality: 87.80%, Competitiveness: 94.86%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.70%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.93%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 36.83%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 34.88%
#28: Troy (-3.77, 38.09%) at Southern Miss (3.77, 61.91%)
Estimated score: 24.87 - 28.40, Total: 53.27
Quality: 89.93%, Team quality: 86.31%, Competitiveness: 97.64%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.08%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.91%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 35.64%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 36.06%
#29: Wyoming (-6.93, 28.87%) at Hawai’i (6.93, 71.13%)
Estimated score: 15.11 - 21.97, Total: 37.08
Quality: 89.40%, Team quality: 88.04%, Competitiveness: 92.20%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.34%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.08%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 21.98%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 51.91%
#30: Navy (-10.48, 19.98%) at Memphis (10.48, 80.02%)
Estimated score: 22.96 - 33.48, Total: 56.43
Quality: 89.03%, Team quality: 92.28%, Competitiveness: 82.87%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.89%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.99%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 38.63%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 33.15%
#31: Fresno State (6.25, 69.23%) at San José State (-6.25, 30.77%)
Estimated score: 29.09 - 22.91, Total: 51.99
Quality: 88.92%, Team quality: 86.65%, Competitiveness: 93.63%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.99%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.06%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 34.45%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 37.27%
#32: Arkansas State (0.04, 50.14%) at App State (-0.04, 49.86%)
Estimated score: 24.17 - 24.09, Total: 48.25
Quality: 88.70%, Team quality: 83.54%, Competitiveness: 100.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.59%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.63%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 31.08%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 40.86%
#33: Ohio State (13.93, 86.86%) at Michigan (-13.93, 13.14%)
Estimated score: 28.68 - 14.75, Total: 43.43
Quality: 88.26%, Team quality: 98.17%, Competitiveness: 71.35%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.85%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 24.24%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 26.96%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 45.59%
#34: UTEP (-0.73, 47.65%) at Delaware (0.73, 52.35%)
Estimated score: 29.00 - 29.79, Total: 58.80
Quality: 87.75%, Team quality: 82.24%, Competitiveness: 99.91%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.61%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.57%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 40.90%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 31.04%
#35: UAB (-7.17, 28.21%) at Tulsa (7.17, 71.79%)
Estimated score: 26.27 - 33.34, Total: 59.61
Quality: 86.81%, Team quality: 84.48%, Competitiveness: 91.66%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.47%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 36.71%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 41.70%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 30.32%
#36: Colorado (-13.24, 14.36%) at Kansas State (13.24, 85.64%)
Estimated score: 23.07 - 36.30, Total: 59.37
Quality: 85.71%, Team quality: 92.38%, Competitiveness: 73.79%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.92%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.61%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 41.46%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 30.53%
#37: Georgia (14.77, 88.24%) vs. Georgia Tech (-14.77, 11.76%)
Estimated score: 34.23 - 19.35, Total: 53.58
Quality: 85.71%, Team quality: 96.01%, Competitiveness: 68.31%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.06%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 22.60%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 35.92%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 35.78%
#38: UNLV (11.32, 81.86%) at Nevada (-11.32, 18.14%)
Estimated score: 35.05 - 23.88, Total: 58.93
Quality: 85.70%, Team quality: 88.57%, Competitiveness: 80.23%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.71%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.37%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 41.03%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 30.92%
#39: Penn State (14.61, 87.98%) at Rutgers (-14.61, 12.02%)
Estimated score: 38.23 - 23.75, Total: 61.98
Quality: 85.46%, Team quality: 95.17%, Competitiveness: 68.91%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.82%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 22.92%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 44.02%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 28.29%
#40: Georgia Southern (-9.82, 21.50%) at Marshall (9.82, 78.50%)
Estimated score: 32.32 - 42.15, Total: 74.47
Quality: 85.31%, Team quality: 85.55%, Competitiveness: 84.84%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.30%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.22%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 56.42%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 18.77%
#41: South Alabama (-10.88, 19.10%) at Texas State (10.88, 80.90%)
Estimated score: 28.73 - 39.67, Total: 68.39
Quality: 84.78%, Team quality: 86.39%, Competitiveness: 81.65%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.26%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.23%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 50.39%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 23.12%
#42: Ohio (10.68, 80.47%) at Buffalo (-10.68, 19.53%)
Estimated score: 30.76 - 19.81, Total: 50.57
Quality: 84.76%, Team quality: 86.04%, Competitiveness: 82.25%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.08%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.60%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 33.16%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 38.62%
#43: Middle Tennessee (-6.95, 28.81%) at New Mexico State (6.95, 71.19%)
Estimated score: 20.25 - 27.38, Total: 47.63
Quality: 84.67%, Team quality: 81.16%, Competitiveness: 92.16%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.35%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.05%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 30.54%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 41.46%
#44: Kent State (-7.92, 26.21%) at Northern Illinois (7.92, 73.79%)
Estimated score: 19.82 - 27.54, Total: 47.36
Quality: 83.37%, Team quality: 80.28%, Competitiveness: 89.90%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.91%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.52%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 30.30%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 41.72%
#45: Virginia Tech (-15.12, 11.21%) at Virginia (15.12, 88.79%)
Estimated score: 22.43 - 37.43, Total: 59.86
Quality: 83.27%, Team quality: 92.81%, Competitiveness: 67.02%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.60%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.92%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 41.94%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 30.10%
#46: East Carolina (14.65, 88.05%) at Florida Atlantic (-14.65, 11.95%)
Estimated score: 41.19 - 26.52, Total: 67.71
Quality: 82.17%, Team quality: 89.82%, Competitiveness: 68.77%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.87%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 22.85%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 49.71%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 23.65%
#47: SMU (16.04, 90.14%) at California (-16.04, 9.86%)
Estimated score: 31.91 - 16.02, Total: 47.92
Quality: 81.38%, Team quality: 92.05%, Competitiveness: 63.60%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.10%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.17%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 30.79%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 41.18%
#48: North Carolina (-15.84, 10.15%) at NC State (15.84, 89.85%)
Estimated score: 16.72 - 32.30, Total: 49.03
Quality: 80.91%, Team quality: 90.71%, Competitiveness: 64.36%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.76%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.55%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 31.77%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 40.11%
#49: Western Michigan (13.82, 86.67%) at Eastern Michigan (-13.82, 13.33%)
Estimated score: 30.80 - 17.04, Total: 47.85
Quality: 80.91%, Team quality: 85.91%, Competitiveness: 71.75%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.69%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 24.47%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 30.72%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 41.25%
#50: Toledo (16.11, 90.23%) at Central Michigan (-16.11, 9.77%)
Estimated score: 32.58 - 16.45, Total: 49.03
Quality: 80.22%, Team quality: 90.27%, Competitiveness: 63.35%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.22%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.04%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 31.77%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 40.10%
#51: Florida International (12.16, 83.59%) vs. Sam Houston (-12.16, 16.41%)
Estimated score: 32.87 - 20.58, Total: 53.45
Quality: 79.38%, Team quality: 80.35%, Competitiveness: 77.49%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.62%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.73%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 35.80%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 35.90%
#52: Oregon State (-16.49, 9.24%) at Washington State (16.49, 90.76%)
Estimated score: 10.17 - 26.60, Total: 36.77
Quality: 78.87%, Team quality: 89.02%, Competitiveness: 61.90%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.89%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.32%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 21.75%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 52.22%
#53: UL Monroe (-15.44, 10.73%) at Louisiana (15.44, 89.27%)
Estimated score: 17.66 - 33.21, Total: 50.87
Quality: 74.69%, Team quality: 79.54%, Competitiveness: 65.86%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.10%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.32%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 33.42%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 38.34%
#54: Ball State (-17.56, 7.91%) at Miami (OH) (17.56, 92.09%)
Estimated score: 11.47 - 29.06, Total: 40.53
Quality: 74.20%, Team quality: 84.01%, Competitiveness: 57.89%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.87%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 17.39%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 24.62%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 48.47%
#55: Utah (21.79, 96.01%) at Kansas (-21.79, 3.99%)
Estimated score: 43.40 - 21.71, Total: 65.11
Quality: 72.92%, Team quality: 95.90%, Competitiveness: 42.16%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 25.47%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 10.69%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 47.12%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 25.70%
#56: Temple (-23.49, 2.95%) at North Texas (23.49, 97.05%)
Estimated score: 27.52 - 51.00, Total: 78.53
Quality: 67.51%, Team quality: 92.12%, Competitiveness: 36.25%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 30.05%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 8.53%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 60.38%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 16.16%
#57: UCF (-24.07, 2.65%) at BYU (24.07, 97.35%)
Estimated score: 9.13 - 33.07, Total: 42.20
Quality: 67.39%, Team quality: 94.42%, Competitiveness: 34.34%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 31.69%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 7.87%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 25.95%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 46.82%
#58: Bowling Green (19.58, 94.23%) at Massachusetts (-19.58, 5.77%)
Estimated score: 29.33 - 9.96, Total: 39.29
Quality: 64.52%, Team quality: 73.12%, Competitiveness: 50.24%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 20.12%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 13.96%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 23.65%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 49.71%
#59: UCLA (-25.50, 2.02%) at USC (25.50, 97.98%)
Estimated score: 17.42 - 43.00, Total: 60.42
Quality: 64.35%, Team quality: 94.55%, Competitiveness: 29.80%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 35.89%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 6.40%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 42.48%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 29.62%
#60: James Madison (24.48, 97.55%) at Coastal Carolina (-24.48, 2.45%)
Estimated score: 37.84 - 13.42, Total: 51.26
Quality: 63.68%, Team quality: 88.47%, Competitiveness: 33.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 32.87%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 7.43%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 33.78%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 37.97%
#61: Iowa State (25.26, 97.89%) at Oklahoma State (-25.26, 2.11%)
Estimated score: 35.19 - 9.91, Total: 45.10
Quality: 62.66%, Team quality: 89.75%, Competitiveness: 30.54%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 35.17%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 6.63%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 28.35%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 43.94%
#62: Texas Tech (27.85, 98.74%) at West Virginia (-27.85, 1.26%)
Estimated score: 41.61 - 13.77, Total: 55.38
Quality: 59.24%, Team quality: 94.85%, Competitiveness: 23.11%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 43.14%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 4.43%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 37.62%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 34.11%
#63: Charlotte (-29.03, 0.98%) at Tulane (29.03, 99.02%)
Estimated score: 9.74 - 38.59, Total: 48.32
Quality: 52.48%, Team quality: 84.74%, Competitiveness: 20.13%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 46.89%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 3.64%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 31.14%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 40.79%
#64: Georgia State (-30.96, 0.64%) at Old Dominion (30.96, 99.36%)
Estimated score: 11.88 - 42.75, Total: 54.63
Quality: 48.34%, Team quality: 84.56%, Competitiveness: 15.80%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 53.08%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 2.59%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 36.91%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 34.80%
#65: Notre Dame (32.99, 99.60%) at Stanford (-32.99, 0.40%)
Estimated score: 41.01 - 7.92, Total: 48.93
Quality: 47.49%, Team quality: 94.48%, Competitiveness: 12.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 59.48%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 1.77%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 31.68%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 40.20%
#66: Indiana (33.69, 99.66%) at Purdue (-33.69, 0.34%)
Estimated score: 43.51 - 9.71, Total: 53.23
Quality: 46.38%, Team quality: 95.88%, Competitiveness: 10.85%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 61.65%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 1.54%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 35.60%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 36.11%
#67: Rice (-33.44, 0.36%) at South Florida (33.44, 99.64%)
Estimated score: 12.13 - 45.50, Total: 57.63
Quality: 44.80%, Team quality: 89.41%, Competitiveness: 11.25%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 60.89%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 1.62%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 39.77%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 32.08%I’ll post more content later this week including NFL ratings ahead of the Thanksgiving games. Thanks for reading!
The ratings in this article are based on data from collegefootballdata.com.