College Football Computer Ratings and Predictions for Week 10
Final computer ratings and predictions heading into this week's games, including a look at which teams' remaining schedules may help their playoff chances the most
Week 10 of the college football season begins shortly. I’m posting an abbreviated article now with updated ratings with the plan of looking at some of Saturday’s matchups in more detail later this week. At this point in the season, the computer ratings are based entirely on games played this season.
Some of the biggest games likely to affect the playoff race this weekend are Vanderbilt-Texas, Navy-North Texas, and Georgia-Florida. Oklahoma-Tennessee looks like a playoff elimination game, with the losing team having three losses and likely being out of playoff contention. Nebraska is likely out of playoff contention, but they could give USC another loss and likely eliminate the Trojans from having a realistic chance of reaching the playoff.
I’ve introduced a new statistic this week looking at the costs and benefits of a team’s remaining schedule and its potential to make the playoffs. The cost is the potential for a team to pick up additional losses and push them out of playoff contention. But the benefits of playing a tough schedule is that winning difficult games improves a team’s strength of record. In my prior articles, I described teams with difficult schedules during the remainder of the season as having the benefit of being able to improve their strength of record significantly, but a difficult schedule also brings the risk of additional losses. The purpose of my new statistic is to try to measure whether the benefits outweigh the costs for each team.
Predictive Ratings
These are forward looking ratings, meaning that they’re intended to evaluate how good a team is and predict its future success, but they don’t evaluate the quality of a team’s achievements earlier in the season. These ratings are based purely on points.
The offense and defense columns refer to each team’s point scoring tendencies instead of the efficiency ratings that some other rating systems use. The overall rating is approximately the sum of a team’s offense and defense ratings. To predict the score of a game for the home team, take the home team’s offense rating, add half of the home advantage, subtract the visiting team’s defense rating, and add the mean score. Predicting the score is similar for the visiting team. Take the visiting team’s offense rating, subtract half of the home advantage, subtract the home team’s defense rating, and add the mean score. Predicting the margin of victory for a game is done by taking the home team’s rating, adding the home advantage, and subtracting the away team’s rating. For neutral site games, the home advantage is set to zero.
The last column here is SOR, which means strength of record. Unlike all the other columns, this is a backward looking rating and evaluates the quality of a team’s wins and losses in comparison to a hypothetical team with a rating 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS mean. Such a hypothetical team would typically be ranked somewhere between #10 and #15. Strength of record is just each team’s actual winning percentage minus the expected winning percentage for that hypothetical team against the same schedule. This is negative for most teams because their record is being compared against the expected record for a pretty good team.
Predictive Ratings
Home advantage: 2.11 points
Mean score: 26.83 points
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
1 90.05 +1.39 Indiana 45.35 44.71 .185
2 87.43 -1.15 Ohio State 37.53 49.84 .172
3 83.10 -2.89 Oregon 43.55 39.60 .036
4 82.46 -2.06 Notre Dame 43.14 39.36 -.014
5 +3 80.71 +3.23 Utah 42.37 38.33 -.105
6 -1 78.67 -1.48 Miami 35.33 43.40 .101
7 -1 77.63 -2.25 Alabama 38.23 39.50 .127
8 +1 76.89 +0.11 Texas Tech 38.73 38.07 .002
9 +2 76.39 +1.95 Texas A&M 42.36 34.08 .217
10 -3 76.34 -1.87 USC 43.88 32.42 -.069
11 -1 73.87 -0.88 Georgia 33.23 40.44 .070
12 73.79 +0.59 BYU 37.96 35.54 .148
13 +1 73.66 +1.09 Washington 39.73 33.94 -.041
14 -1 72.29 -0.88 Michigan 32.46 39.74 -.031
15 +1 71.28 -0.81 Florida State 38.65 32.60 -.365
16 +6 71.27 +0.19 Ole Miss 40.73 30.40 .046
17 71.22 -0.64 Vanderbilt 38.42 32.75 .029
18 -3 70.73 -1.44 Oklahoma 29.22 41.39 -.093
19 -1 70.54 -1.21 Texas 32.47 38.11 -.026
20 +10 70.11 +3.15 Iowa 29.81 40.42 -.081
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
21 +2 70.07 -0.46 Tennessee 45.38 24.69 -.078
22 -2 69.17 -1.98 South Florida 38.62 30.65 -.064
23 +1 68.56 -1.54 Missouri 34.91 33.50 -.088
24 -5 68.11 -3.07 LSU 30.22 37.82 -.163
25 -4 67.92 -3.20 Illinois 36.56 31.28 -.013
26 67.27 -0.65 Florida 28.49 38.68 -.248
27 66.59 -0.64 Pittsburgh 36.38 30.11 -.168
28 +3 66.36 -0.45 North Texas 44.49 21.91 -.083
29 +5 65.93 +0.30 Georgia Tech 33.59 32.21 .040
30 -1 65.70 -1.40 Penn State 35.98 29.68 -.405
31 +2 65.46 -0.63 Cincinnati 33.55 31.88 -.065
32 -4 65.42 -1.73 Nebraska 36.31 29.04 -.158
33 -8 65.17 -3.48 Louisville 35.22 29.85 .017
34 +1 64.96 +0.06 Auburn 26.64 38.29 -.271
35 +1 63.95 -0.90 Iowa State 32.11 31.82 -.228
36 -4 62.86 -3.66 Virginia 35.60 27.38 -.042
37 62.65 -0.45 Mississippi State 33.31 29.28 -.308
38 +4 61.29 -0.00 Arizona 29.10 31.90 -.313
39 +11 61.27 +2.39 Kansas State 32.03 29.40 -.426
40 -2 61.23 -0.82 Arkansas 35.62 25.45 -.467
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
41 +2 60.28 -0.86 Boise State 30.48 29.55 -.102
42 +7 60.18 +1.27 Memphis 29.15 31.05 -.083
43 -4 60.14 -1.23 TCU 34.11 26.00 -.205
44 +10 59.56 +0.89 Houston 28.47 30.94 -.036
45 -5 59.41 -1.94 Duke 33.31 26.30 -.353
46 -1 59.28 -0.39 East Carolina 27.53 31.70 -.348
47 +12 59.20 +1.61 San Diego State 26.60 32.60 -.134
48 -2 58.84 -0.63 South Carolina 23.36 35.39 -.397
49 -5 58.60 -1.39 Arizona State 23.99 34.62 -.176
50 +5 58.48 -0.09 UCF 26.31 32.21 -.363
51 +5 58.24 -0.07 Maryland 26.50 31.76 -.341
52 +8 57.38 -0.16 Tulane 26.91 30.26 -.055
53 -12 57.35 -3.98 Kansas 31.45 25.90 -.334
54 +3 57.28 -0.96 Clemson 26.00 31.28 -.494
55 -2 57.14 -1.57 SMU 27.75 29.35 -.335
56 +8 56.44 -0.28 Northwestern 19.66 36.88 -.209
57 -9 56.31 -2.70 NC State 30.83 25.63 -.319
58 +4 55.99 -0.97 Wake Forest 21.04 34.78 -.247
59 +2 55.99 -1.39 James Madison 23.56 32.33 -.104
60 -8 55.69 -3.11 Colorado 26.27 29.63 -.415
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
61 -14 54.72 -4.33 Toledo 27.08 27.70 -.483
62 +13 54.67 +2.78 Washington State 20.73 33.93 -.328
63 54.37 -2.57 Kentucky 26.97 27.33 -.498
64 +6 53.63 +0.70 Michigan State 28.87 24.85 -.356
65 -7 53.55 -4.38 Old Dominion 28.83 24.75 -.246
66 +11 53.54 +2.24 Wisconsin 20.89 32.63 -.367
67 53.40 -0.61 Rutgers 31.48 22.01 -.303
68 -17 53.02 -5.79 Minnesota 23.62 29.17 -.189
69 -4 52.47 -2.55 Purdue 23.73 28.65 -.549
70 -1 52.08 -1.33 UCLA 24.26 27.82 -.387
71 +2 51.88 -0.19 Army 20.50 31.37 -.492
72 +4 51.68 +0.12 New Mexico 26.47 25.24 -.293
73 -5 51.63 -1.81 Baylor 33.28 18.40 -.405
74 -8 50.93 -3.34 Louisiana Tech 20.90 30.06 -.377
75 -4 49.67 -2.75 Western Michigan 17.33 32.37 -.427
76 -4 49.47 -2.69 Syracuse 23.58 25.99 -.498
77 +11 49.32 +2.17 Kennesaw State 25.21 24.05 -.141
78 +2 49.17 -0.88 UTSA 25.54 23.64 -.440
79 +3 48.55 -1.27 Virginia Tech 27.42 21.12 -.527
80 -2 48.48 -1.83 Ohio 25.68 22.56 -.257
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
81 -2 48.44 -1.81 Temple 28.99 19.19 -.304
82 +4 48.01 +0.46 Marshall 31.15 16.79 -.349
83 -9 47.69 -4.32 UConn 28.75 19.04 -.372
84 -3 47.28 -2.75 Utah State 27.13 20.08 -.363
85 -2 47.25 -1.52 Navy 24.06 23.20 .003
86 -2 47.21 -1.53 Stanford 19.48 27.69 -.400
87 +3 47.14 +0.71 West Virginia 21.12 26.15 -.550
88 -3 47.10 -1.63 UNLV 31.69 15.62 -.119
89 -2 46.86 -0.62 Southern Miss 24.83 21.96 -.233
90 -1 46.37 -0.28 Texas State 30.37 16.05 -.551
91 +4 46.33 +2.00 Wyoming 15.89 30.51 -.413
92 44.84 -1.12 California 20.53 24.22 -.347
93 +5 44.72 +1.06 Miami (OH) 20.19 24.41 -.362
94 -3 43.89 -2.49 Hawai’i 20.61 23.35 -.229
95 +2 43.81 -0.24 Troy 22.47 21.58 -.229
96 43.75 -0.55 Western Kentucky 22.68 20.88 -.239
97 +4 43.07 -0.12 San José State 23.04 20.05 -.648
98 +4 41.49 -1.13 Air Force 29.22 12.16 -.698
99 +10 41.31 +2.05 North Carolina 15.64 25.47 -.667
100 +5 41.13 +0.19 Boston College 24.18 16.93 -.794
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
101 -1 40.82 -2.40 Jacksonville State 21.46 19.26 -.412
102 -8 40.78 -3.58 Bowling Green 15.31 25.51 -.556
103 +1 40.70 -1.56 Oregon State 20.98 19.67 -.683
104 -11 40.57 -4.52 Fresno State 19.00 21.55 -.355
105 -6 40.42 -3.19 Colorado State 18.98 21.43 -.664
106 +1 39.55 +0.04 Central Michigan 19.09 20.62 -.279
107 +3 39.51 +1.02 Tulsa 18.98 20.34 -.712
108 -5 39.44 -2.97 Delaware 20.65 18.76 -.417
109 +4 39.33 +1.52 Missouri State 17.34 21.97 -.333
110 -4 38.50 -1.68 Liberty 14.84 23.74 -.559
111 +8 37.72 +1.16 Arkansas State 15.42 22.35 -.467
112 +8 37.60 +1.09 App State 18.55 18.90 -.476
113 +3 37.35 -0.11 Florida Atlantic 24.94 12.39 -.556
114 36.85 -0.74 South Alabama 19.57 17.36 -.678
115 +6 36.81 +0.35 UAB 24.38 12.43 -.500
116 -8 36.71 -2.78 Georgia Southern 24.00 12.91 -.539
117 -2 35.52 -1.97 UTEP 15.23 20.30 -.651
118 +6 35.46 +0.69 Northern Illinois 9.25 26.22 -.704
119 +3 35.36 +0.03 Nevada 10.95 24.28 -.820
120 -8 35.26 -2.64 Florida International 14.05 20.99 -.530
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
121 -4 35.24 -1.60 Louisiana 17.11 18.19 -.695
122 -4 35.18 -1.42 New Mexico State 14.96 20.22 -.562
123 -12 33.85 -4.35 Buffalo 13.04 20.70 -.494
124 +4 33.57 +1.84 Rice 14.46 19.11 -.487
125 +4 32.73 +2.10 Middle Tennessee 13.80 18.79 -.846
126 -3 32.65 -2.40 Coastal Carolina 13.13 19.68 -.386
127 31.88 -0.62 Oklahoma State 15.51 16.39 -.647
128 -2 31.84 -0.74 Akron 13.39 18.46 -.631
129 -4 31.70 -2.60 Ball State 15.53 16.08 -.584
130 +1 29.98 +0.23 Kent State 18.73 11.25 -.431
131 -1 29.92 -0.00 Eastern Michigan 18.47 11.48 -.769
132 26.52 -0.37 Georgia State 15.43 11.30 -.752
133 +1 26.47 -0.12 Charlotte 11.95 14.68 -.802
134 -1 24.68 -1.98 Sam Houston 13.44 11.23 -.938
135 24.36 -1.69 UL Monroe 13.20 11.15 -.532
136 19.16 -1.81 Massachusetts 7.17 12.00 -.904Schedule 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: 2.11 points
Mean score: 26.83 points
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
1 Indiana .185 (33) .106 (55) 55.02 (35) 58.54 (49)
2 Ohio State .172 (37) .141 (53) 53.24 (39) 58.77 (47)
3 Oregon .161 (44) .352 (10) 54.91 (36) 68.28 (14)
4 Notre Dame .272 (5) .064 (69) 65.05 (2) 50.75 (73)
5 Utah .145 (51) .090 (63) 55.77 (31) 58.93 (46)
6 Miami .243 (8) .087 (64) 58.41 (19) 56.03 (59)
7 Alabama .252 (7) .186 (43) 61.47 (7) 53.57 (65)
8 Texas Tech .127 (57) .151 (50) 43.82 (101) 60.17 (39)
9 Texas A&M .217 (16) .205 (40) 62.36 (6) 50.32 (74)
10 USC .216 (18) .277 (23) 57.53 (23) 65.01 (23)
11 Georgia .213 (19) .186 (45) 60.21 (12) 58.15 (51)
12 BYU .148 (49) .252 (27) 53.36 (38) 65.24 (22)
13 Washington .209 (22) .198 (41) 58.67 (17) 60.30 (37)
14 Michigan .219 (15) .245 (31) 60.57 (10) 63.12 (28)
15 Florida State .206 (23) .102 (58) 53.67 (37) 57.50 (54)
16 Ole Miss .171 (38) .109 (54) 57.83 (22) 51.28 (72)
17 Vanderbilt .154 (47) .246 (30) 51.34 (51) 64.98 (24)
18 Oklahoma .157 (46) .374 (7) 55.08 (34) 71.09 (4)
19 Texas .224 (14) .346 (11) 55.98 (29) 69.62 (8)
20 Iowa .169 (39) .395 (4) 50.35 (55) 69.62 (7)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
21 Tennessee .172 (36) .224 (37) 55.08 (33) 60.05 (40)
22 South Florida .186 (32) .005 (116) 52.76 (44) 41.70 (107)
23 Missouri .162 (43) .287 (22) 49.86 (58) 67.75 (16)
24 LSU .212 (20) .290 (20) 60.91 (8) 63.33 (26)
25 Illinois .362 (2) .038 (78) 62.66 (5) 54.35 (61)
26 Florida .323 (3) .304 (17) 62.80 (4) 68.17 (15)
27 Pittsburgh .082 (75) .376 (6) 48.12 (71) 68.57 (12)
28 North Texas .042 (105) .003 (123) 45.22 (88) 41.52 (109)
29 Georgia Tech .040 (107) .178 (46) 49.51 (60) 60.00 (41)
30 Penn State .166 (41) .401 (3) 50.89 (53) 70.41 (5)
31 Cincinnati .060 (95) .336 (13) 45.13 (89) 68.98 (10)
32 Nebraska .092 (67) .259 (26) 49.44 (61) 66.06 (20)
33 Louisville .160 (45) .034 (80) 52.02 (49) 52.01 (69)
34 Auburn .229 (10) .244 (32) 58.87 (16) 58.95 (45)
35 Iowa State .147 (50) .057 (70) 56.54 (27) 51.99 (70)
36 Virginia .083 (74) .042 (75) 48.60 (66) 52.20 (68)
37 Mississippi State .192 (30) .298 (18) 52.73 (45) 68.73 (11)
38 Arizona .115 (60) .097 (61) 49.73 (59) 58.17 (50)
39 Kansas State .074 (83) .316 (16) 56.65 (25) 61.29 (33)
40 Arkansas .283 (4) .270 (25) 58.44 (18) 67.46 (17)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
41 Boise State .148 (48) .033 (82) 48.41 (68) 46.87 (84)
42 Memphis .042 (103) .042 (76) 42.49 (107) 49.37 (77)
43 TCU .045 (101) .232 (33) 50.83 (54) 65.69 (21)
44 Houston .089 (68) .053 (71) 49.30 (62) 54.35 (62)
45 Duke .075 (82) .049 (72) 52.11 (48) 53.45 (66)
46 East Carolina .080 (78) .022 (88) 46.15 (85) 44.74 (92)
47 San Diego State .009 (131) .023 (86) 39.85 (117) 48.63 (80)
48 South Carolina .228 (12) .274 (24) 59.79 (13) 59.40 (43)
49 Arizona State .199 (26) .093 (62) 58.39 (20) 57.02 (58)
50 UCF .066 (92) .250 (28) 44.92 (94) 59.17 (44)
51 Maryland .088 (70) .321 (15) 47.45 (75) 67.46 (18)
52 Tulane .088 (69) .034 (81) 53.22 (40) 44.74 (92)
53 Kansas .166 (42) .247 (29) 52.79 (43) 59.45 (42)
54 Clemson .078 (81) .145 (52) 52.11 (47) 54.00 (64)
55 SMU .040 (108) .177 (47) 47.51 (74) 57.45 (55)
56 Northwestern .166 (40) .343 (12) 51.07 (52) 68.45 (13)
57 NC State .181 (34) .289 (21) 56.09 (28) 63.24 (27)
58 Wake Forest .038 (110) .150 (51) 48.35 (69) 55.28 (60)
59 James Madison .039 (109) .010 (103) 39.09 (124) 44.28 (94)
60 Colorado .210 (21) .076 (68) 60.70 (9) 57.07 (57)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
61 Toledo .017 (121) .002 (125) 38.73 (128) 37.86 (128)
62 Washington State .172 (35) .021 (89) 57.89 (21) 47.08 (82)
63 Kentucky .217 (17) .225 (35) 60.41 (11) 62.85 (29)
64 Michigan State .269 (6) .169 (48) 59.76 (14) 62.29 (32)
65 Old Dominion .129 (55) .001 (133) 47.01 (77) 32.85 (134)
66 Wisconsin .383 (1) .390 (5) 65.25 (1) 71.16 (3)
67 Rutgers .197 (27) .358 (9) 52.93 (42) 69.82 (6)
68 Minnesota .186 (31) .225 (34) 50.15 (57) 61.15 (34)
69 Purdue .201 (24) .668 (1) 56.98 (24) 80.86 (1)
70 UCLA .238 (9) .509 (2) 62.94 (3) 75.71 (2)
71 Army .080 (79) .008 (109) 51.94 (50) 45.17 (90)
72 New Mexico .082 (76) .019 (93) 47.86 (73) 47.05 (83)
73 Baylor .095 (65) .222 (38) 50.35 (56) 63.95 (25)
74 Louisiana Tech .052 (98) .012 (100) 44.99 (92) 39.75 (119)
75 Western Michigan .073 (85) .002 (128) 46.25 (84) 38.35 (124)
76 Syracuse .127 (56) .370 (8) 55.39 (32) 60.89 (36)
77 Kennesaw State .145 (52) .001 (131) 45.66 (86) 38.29 (126)
78 UTSA .131 (54) .097 (60) 48.06 (72) 52.41 (67)
79 Virginia Tech .098 (61) .332 (14) 53.04 (41) 69.50 (9)
80 Ohio .118 (59) .006 (115) 43.92 (99) 36.85 (129)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
81 Temple .071 (87) .105 (56) 40.90 (115) 58.72 (48)
82 Marshall .079 (80) .007 (112) 43.35 (104) 38.32 (125)
83 UConn .003 (135) .016 (97) 35.50 (134) 42.71 (103)
84 Utah State .137 (53) .022 (87) 46.98 (78) 45.83 (87)
85 Navy .003 (136) .295 (19) 33.02 (135) 66.85 (19)
86 Stanford .225 (13) .214 (39) 59.50 (15) 57.75 (53)
87 West Virginia .200 (25) .187 (42) 55.97 (30) 62.68 (31)
88 UNLV .024 (116) .005 (118) 43.85 (100) 43.30 (100)
89 Southern Miss .017 (123) .002 (127) 38.37 (129) 41.19 (112)
90 Texas State .021 (119) .009 (106) 41.39 (113) 39.44 (121)
91 Wyoming .087 (71) .031 (83) 45.05 (91) 45.81 (88)
92 California .028 (114) .103 (57) 44.32 (97) 58.09 (52)
93 Miami (OH) .013 (125) .011 (102) 39.82 (118) 42.19 (105)
94 Hawai’i .021 (117) .020 (91) 38.79 (126) 48.92 (79)
95 Troy .021 (118) .015 (98) 39.32 (122) 41.16 (113)
96 Western Kentucky .011 (128) .085 (66) 37.16 (131) 44.21 (95)
97 San José State .067 (91) .024 (85) 48.47 (67) 43.68 (96)
98 Air Force .017 (124) .010 (104) 42.54 (106) 47.37 (81)
99 North Carolina .047 (99) .047 (73) 46.48 (81) 54.10 (63)
100 Boston College .081 (77) .225 (36) 48.64 (65) 62.69 (30)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
101 Jacksonville State .017 (122) .002 (126) 36.45 (133) 39.74 (120)
102 Bowling Green .069 (90) .000 (136) 45.64 (87) 28.69 (136)
103 Oregon State .192 (29) .021 (90) 52.20 (46) 43.38 (98)
104 Fresno State .020 (120) .037 (79) 38.80 (125) 49.24 (78)
105 Colorado State .086 (73) .043 (74) 48.99 (63) 50.14 (75)
106 Central Michigan .096 (62) .012 (101) 39.50 (121) 42.05 (106)
107 Tulsa .038 (111) .009 (107) 46.68 (80) 41.68 (108)
108 Delaware .011 (129) .017 (94) 39.23 (123) 41.12 (114)
109 Missouri State .096 (63) .007 (113) 44.94 (93) 41.49 (110)
110 Liberty .012 (127) .008 (110) 41.14 (114) 42.43 (104)
111 Arkansas State .033 (113) .003 (124) 42.38 (109) 40.88 (116)
112 App State .024 (115) .019 (92) 38.35 (130) 43.55 (97)
113 Florida Atlantic .069 (89) .039 (77) 43.49 (103) 49.91 (76)
114 South Alabama .072 (86) .004 (120) 41.77 (111) 38.21 (127)
115 UAB .071 (88) .087 (65) 46.32 (83) 51.68 (71)
116 Georgia Southern .086 (72) .009 (105) 43.61 (102) 42.95 (102)
117 UTEP .063 (93) .005 (117) 38.77 (127) 41.24 (111)
118 Northern Illinois .046 (100) .016 (95) 44.46 (96) 38.38 (123)
119 Nevada .055 (97) .008 (111) 48.87 (64) 45.95 (86)
120 Florida International .042 (104) .001 (134) 42.57 (105) 35.21 (133)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
121 Louisiana .055 (96) .001 (129) 42.41 (108) 36.33 (130)
122 New Mexico State .009 (132) .083 (67) 37.06 (132) 46.70 (85)
123 Buffalo .006 (134) .003 (121) 30.33 (136) 43.38 (99)
124 Rice .013 (126) .153 (49) 39.57 (120) 57.08 (56)
125 Middle Tennessee .011 (130) .001 (130) 44.09 (98) 35.52 (132)
126 Coastal Carolina .043 (102) .030 (84) 42.29 (110) 44.79 (91)
127 Oklahoma State .228 (11) .101 (59) 56.57 (26) 60.26 (38)
128 Akron .036 (112) .001 (132) 41.59 (112) 29.27 (135)
129 Ball State .041 (106) .016 (96) 45.07 (90) 39.83 (118)
130 Kent State .194 (28) .000 (135) 48.30 (70) 35.69 (131)
131 Eastern Michigan .009 (133) .003 (122) 39.59 (119) 40.01 (117)
132 Georgia State .123 (58) .015 (99) 47.01 (76) 45.56 (89)
133 Charlotte .073 (84) .186 (44) 46.81 (79) 60.98 (35)
134 Sam Houston .062 (94) .006 (114) 46.46 (82) 41.08 (115)
135 UL Monroe .093 (66) .008 (108) 40.78 (116) 43.00 (101)
136 Massachusetts .096 (64) .005 (119) 44.63 (95) 39.14 (122)Conference Ratings
To rate the overall quality of conferences, I calculate the expected outcome if each team in a conference were to play every FBS team at a neutral site. The Win% column is the average probability of winning for all of the possible games and for all the teams in the conference. It’s similar to the average rating of all the teams in the conference, but it should be less skewed by outliers.
However, the idea of the “best” conference is subjective, and another way to judge the quality of a conference is to consider how many of its teams are among the best in the FBS. What if instead of playing every team in the FBS, each conference opponent just plays a hypothetical opponent with a rating that’s 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS mean? In this case, the quality of a conference is determined by how its teams would be expected to perform against a hypothetical opponent ranked somewhere around #10 to #15 in the FBS. This is what I’ve done with the HighWin% column. It’s analogous to how I calculate strength of record, and each conference’s rating is impacted more when the conference has more highly rated teams.
Conference Ratings
Rank Win% Conference HighWin% Rating Offense Defense OffDef
1 .773 SEC .295 (2) 67.98 33.72 34.19 -0.47 (7)
2 .712 Big Ten .289 (3) 65.82 32.23 33.58 -1.35 (8)
3 .670 FBS Independents .372 (1) 65.07 35.94 29.20 6.75 (1)
4 .636 Big 12 .173 (4) 60.24 30.40 29.82 0.57 (4)
5 .577 ACC .125 (5) 57.01 28.50 28.49 0.01 (6)
6 .434 American Athletic .059 (6) 48.77 25.75 23.00 2.76 (2)
7 .406 Pac-12 .020 (7) 47.68 20.86 26.80 -5.94 (11)
8 .381 Mountain West .020 (8) 46.39 23.34 23.04 0.30 (5)
9 .279 Sun Belt .008 (9) 40.16 21.26 18.95 2.31 (3)
10 .249 Conference USA .003 (11) 38.79 17.88 20.85 -2.97 (9)
11 .242 Mid-American .005 (10) 37.68 16.94 20.72 -3.78 (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 .9771 -.0034 Indiana .980 .803 1.000 .994
2 .9720 -.0031 Ohio State .977 .755 1.000 .990
3 .9694 +.0081 Texas A&M .985 .892 1.000 .943
4 .9517 -.0003 Alabama .965 .952 .875 .952
5 .9464 -.0055 Miami .956 .940 .857 .959
6 .9431 +.0119 BYU .971 .656 1.000 .921
7 +1 .9265 +.0018 Oregon .927 .711 .875 .979
8 -1 .9254 +.0003 Georgia .944 .882 .857 .921
9 +4 .9058 +.0197 Ole Miss .933 .753 .875 .892
10 -1 .9056 +.0000 Notre Dame .896 .971 .714 .977
11 +1 .8984 +.0120 Texas Tech .907 .561 .875 .947
12 +2 .8966 +.0119 Vanderbilt .923 .681 .875 .892
13 +6 .8765 +.0125 Michigan .882 .896 .750 .905
14 +9 .8756 +.0409 Washington .875 .873 .750 .919
15 +6 .8730 +.0254 Texas .887 .907 .750 .883
16 +2 .8665 -.0009 USC .850 .891 .714 .943
17 -1 .8637 -.0191 Louisville .916 .707 .857 .796
18 -1 .8635 -.0079 Georgia Tech .929 .184 1.000 .811
19 -8 .8587 -.0326 Illinois .896 .999 .625 .845
20 +7 .8459 +.0308 Utah .814 .642 .750 .970
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
21 -11 .8444 -.0536 South Florida .855 .804 .750 .864
22 +3 .8388 +.0145 Tennessee .842 .755 .750 .877
23 +5 .8368 +.0388 Iowa .839 .744 .750 .877
24 -9 .8303 -.0534 Oklahoma .827 .695 .750 .885
25 -5 .8247 -.0381 Missouri .832 .715 .750 .855
26 .8107 -.0073 Cincinnati .854 .255 .875 .802
27 -5 .8103 -.0245 Virginia .874 .349 .875 .750
28 +1 .8026 +.0053 North Texas .837 .189 .875 .818
29 +3 .7921 +.0330 Houston .879 .379 .875 .674
30 -6 .7720 -.0525 LSU .748 .881 .625 .848
31 +3 .7651 +.0247 Boise State .818 .656 .750 .691
32 -1 .7649 +.0022 Tulane .863 .373 .857 .620
33 +8 .7640 +.0621 Memphis .837 .190 .875 .689
34 -1 .7495 +.0010 Nebraska .754 .393 .750 .801
35 +1 .7469 +.0216 Pittsburgh .741 .348 .750 .822
36 +7 .7209 +.0541 San Diego State .783 .101 .857 .665
37 .7184 -.0023 James Madison .816 .180 .857 .584
38 +2 .7093 +.0059 Navy .907 .089 1.000 .353
39 -9 .7014 -.0648 Arizona State .730 .845 .625 .650
40 -5 .6891 -.0451 Iowa State .659 .652 .625 .772
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
41 +1 .6888 +.0112 Florida .629 .994 .429 .834
42 +2 .6722 +.0102 TCU .692 .202 .750 .688
43 +9 .6606 +.0808 Auburn .595 .917 .500 .792
44 -5 .6554 -.0553 Northwestern .686 .734 .625 .595
45 +6 .6512 +.0684 Kennesaw State .774 .641 .714 .406
46 -8 .6468 -.0729 Minnesota .714 .807 .625 .505
47 .6374 -.0005 UNLV .800 .137 .857 .349
48 -3 .6102 -.0332 Mississippi State .537 .826 .500 .745
49 +7 .6021 +.0396 Wake Forest .630 .179 .714 .584
50 .5995 -.0040 Florida State .447 .866 .429 .893
51 +4 .5944 +.0299 Old Dominion .632 .570 .625 .519
52 +1 .5874 +.0160 Arizona .528 .503 .571 .715
53 -5 .5523 -.0829 NC State .519 .788 .500 .592
54 +20 .5455 +.0700 Rutgers .544 .839 .500 .515
55 -9 .5450 -.0937 Kansas .496 .733 .500 .619
56 +16 .5422 +.0590 Ohio .616 .516 .625 .384
57 +9 .5421 +.0388 Southern Miss .651 .119 .750 .343
58 +3 .5349 +.0138 Maryland .485 .373 .571 .641
59 -1 .5343 +.0065 East Carolina .473 .338 .571 .667
60 +4 .5333 +.0236 Penn State .385 .734 .429 .806
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
61 +18 .5305 +.0777 Washington State .506 .757 .500 .549
62 -8 .5300 -.0395 Duke .465 .317 .571 .670
63 +12 .5285 +.0549 New Mexico .560 .346 .625 .469
64 -15 .5274 -.0951 SMU .494 .183 .625 .613
65 -5 .5253 -.0015 Hawai’i .658 .130 .750 .273
66 +7 .5245 +.0435 Troy .657 .129 .750 .271
67 +9 .5148 +.0499 Western Kentucky .643 .106 .750 .270
68 -3 .5131 +.0080 UCF .451 .278 .571 .648
69 -10 .4984 -.0291 South Carolina .397 .914 .375 .657
70 -3 .4962 -.0059 Michigan State .462 .969 .375 .521
71 +10 .4915 +.0465 Temple .544 .301 .625 .383
72 +16 .4749 +.0776 Wisconsin .444 .999 .250 .518
73 +10 .4743 +.0584 Kansas State .354 .311 .500 .714
74 +15 .4592 +.0620 Central Michigan .583 .413 .625 .185
75 +3 .4573 -.0002 Colorado .370 .875 .375 .576
76 +9 .4550 +.0448 UCLA .413 .932 .375 .479
77 .4502 -.0137 Arkansas .295 .979 .250 .713
78 +6 .4448 +.0303 Marshall .471 .334 .571 .372
79 -22 .4386 -.1139 Louisiana Tech .429 .224 .571 .448
80 -12 .4336 -.0574 Utah State .449 .605 .500 .354
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
81 -12 .4220 -.0688 Baylor .385 .405 .500 .467
82 -19 .4192 -.0931 California .474 .146 .625 .295
83 -21 .4162 -.0974 UConn .436 .089 .625 .364
84 +13 .4059 +.0789 Missouri State .498 .411 .571 .181
85 +1 .4045 +.0020 Stanford .393 .909 .375 .352
86 +10 .4042 +.0767 Miami (OH) .452 .110 .625 .292
87 .3872 -.0128 Clemson .260 .327 .429 .617
88 -17 .3844 -.1008 Fresno State .462 .126 .625 .204
89 -19 .3836 -.1039 Western Michigan .352 .307 .500 .415
90 +3 .3758 +.0270 UTSA .333 .580 .429 .402
91 -9 .3756 -.0530 Kentucky .255 .891 .286 .541
92 +10 .3727 +.0972 Wyoming .373 .369 .500 .330
93 -13 .3718 -.0802 Toledo .274 .119 .500 .550
94 -2 .3462 -.0031 Army .263 .336 .429 .474
95 .3321 +.0045 Jacksonville State .375 .119 .571 .209
96 -6 .3288 -.0656 Syracuse .255 .561 .375 .410
97 -6 .3215 -.0685 Purdue .195 .852 .250 .490
98 -4 .3208 -.0186 Coastal Carolina .414 .192 .571 .087
99 +5 .3190 +.0481 Delaware .366 .106 .571 .183
100 +5 .2947 +.0255 Virginia Tech .219 .419 .375 .386
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
101 +10 .2878 +.0702 Kent State .346 .830 .375 .062
102 -4 .2790 -.0190 West Virginia .193 .849 .250 .350
103 +12 .2671 +.0637 Arkansas State .296 .163 .500 .154
104 -3 .2587 -.0363 App State .284 .138 .500 .152
105 +2 .2545 +.0085 Texas State .192 .128 .429 .331
106 +4 .2383 +.0146 UAB .252 .300 .429 .140
107 +11 .2323 +.0685 Rice .268 .109 .500 .097
108 -9 .2279 -.0699 Buffalo .260 .095 .500 .100
109 -9 .2170 -.0801 Bowling Green .186 .289 .375 .208
110 -4 .2107 -.0492 Georgia Southern .206 .367 .375 .139
111 -8 .2067 -.0680 Florida International .216 .189 .429 .118
112 -4 .1996 -.0374 Florida Atlantic .187 .292 .375 .148
113 +1 .1993 -.0058 Liberty .183 .108 .429 .167
114 -2 .1831 -.0337 UL Monroe .214 .398 .375 .028
115 -6 .1821 -.0495 New Mexico State .180 .101 .429 .117
116 +1 .1769 +.0070 San José State .105 .281 .286 .255
117 +3 .1609 +.0078 Oregon State .082 .826 .125 .207
118 -5 .1569 -.0561 Ball State .158 .185 .375 .077
119 .1552 -.0070 North Carolina .092 .208 .286 .219
120 -4 .1550 -.0258 Colorado State .094 .363 .250 .201
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
121 .1415 -.0035 Air Force .073 .118 .286 .222
122 +3 .1401 +.0226 Oklahoma State .106 .915 .125 .079
123 -1 .1347 +.0024 UTEP .102 .266 .286 .122
124 +3 .1302 +.0369 Akron .118 .170 .333 .079
125 +3 .1290 +.0366 South Alabama .085 .303 .250 .141
126 -3 .1256 -.0066 Tulsa .066 .178 .250 .185
127 -3 .1132 -.0186 Louisiana .075 .234 .250 .118
128 -2 .1126 +.0072 Boston College .033 .342 .125 .215
129 +2 .1098 +.0363 Northern Illinois .070 .202 .250 .121
130 -1 .0772 -.0076 Georgia State .048 .539 .125 .038
131 -1 .0746 -.0005 Nevada .026 .234 .125 .120
132 .0686 -.0032 Eastern Michigan .042 .101 .222 .061
133 +1 .0573 +.0062 Middle Tennessee .021 .105 .143 .088
134 -1 .0564 +.0049 Charlotte .031 .308 .125 .038
135 .0304 +.0012 Massachusetts .012 .410 .000 .012
136 .0264 +.0001 Sam Houston .008 .264 .000 .029Playoff Cost/Benefit Opportunity
There are many ways to calculate schedule strength, and a difficult schedule for one team might be an easy schedule for another. The difficulty of the schedule depends on who is playing it. In this case, the FutureDiff column is the difficulty of the schedule for the team playing it. It is the team’s expected losing percentage against that schedule.
Strength of record is the biggest factor in the playoff ratings. It’s based on a team’s actual winning percentage compared to the expected winning percentage for a hypothetical FBS team with a predictive rating 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS mean. There are two characteristics of a team that is likely to improve their strength of record:
They are expected to improve their winning percentage over the remainder of the season (DiffChg; negative values are more favorable)
The expected winning percentage for a team 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS mean is lower over the remainder of the season (SOSChg; positive values are more favorable)
The Opportunity column is calculated by subtracting DiffChg from SOSChg, and it attempts to measure how likely a team is to improve their strength of record (positive is better). Because strength of record is the biggest component of the playoff ratings, the Opportunity column is a forward looking predictor of how a team might move up or down in the playoff ratings. I describe this as comparing the costs, the chance of losing additional games, to the benefits, the increased schedule strength.
Future Schedule Cost/Benefit Opportunity
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
1 Indiana .009 (136) -.0439 -.0796 -.0357 (62)
2 Ohio State .031 (132) -.0089 -.0305 -.0216 (55)
3 Texas A&M .182 (118) -.0140 -.0120 .0020 (43)
4 Alabama .139 (125) -.0600 -.0660 -.0060 (49)
5 Miami .054 (130) -.1250 -.1564 -.0315 (57)
6 BYU .281 (102) .1135 .1045 -.0090 (50)
7 Oregon .166 (121) .0673 .1915 .1242 (9)
8 Georgia .213 (112) -.0238 -.0271 -.0032 (46)
9 Ole Miss .173 (120) -.0674 -.0624 .0050 (40)
10 Notre Dame .024 (133) -.1184 -.2083 -.0899 (94)
11 Texas Tech .124 (127) .0110 .0234 .0124 (36)
12 Vanderbilt .342 (96) .1328 .0920 -.0408 (66)
13 Michigan .284 (101) .0121 .0265 .0144 (35)
14 Washington .216 (110) -.0142 -.0114 .0028 (42)
15 Texas .480 (76) .1873 .1217 -.0655 (83)
16 USC .256 (104) .0557 .0601 .0044 (41)
17 Louisville .153 (124) -.1431 -.1253 .0177 (34)
18 Georgia Tech .372 (90) .2260 .1379 -.0881 (93)
19 Illinois .124 (126) -.3545 -.3237 .0308 (30)
20 Utah .036 (131) -.0506 -.0549 -.0044 (47)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
21 South Florida .019 (135) -.2650 -.1801 .0849 (14)
22 Tennessee .349 (94) .0972 .0526 -.0447 (71)
23 Iowa .514 (70) .2833 .2266 -.0567 (77)
24 Oklahoma .507 (71) .2684 .2168 -.0516 (73)
25 Missouri .476 (77) .2117 .1258 -.0859 (92)
26 Cincinnati .580 (53) .3938 .2762 -.1176 (107)
27 Virginia .209 (113) -.0416 -.0407 .0009 (44)
28 North Texas .022 (134) -.0954 -.0384 .0569 (22)
29 Houston .349 (93) .0546 -.0362 -.0908 (95)
30 LSU .433 (85) .0712 .0779 .0068 (39)
31 Boise State .192 (116) -.0828 -.1152 -.0324 (58)
32 Tulane .254 (105) -.1316 -.0537 .0779 (17)
33 Memphis .248 (106) .0736 -.0003 -.0739 (89)
34 Nebraska .528 (68) .2825 .1670 -.1154 (106)
35 Pittsburgh .576 (54) .3984 .2939 -.1045 (103)
36 San Diego State .214 (111) .1180 .0141 -.1039 (102)
37 James Madison .204 (114) .0126 -.0282 -.0408 (67)
38 Navy .896 (10) .6745 .2917 -.3828 (136)
39 Arizona State .463 (79) -.0364 -.1054 -.0690 (84)
40 Iowa State .233 (109) -.1510 -.0896 .0614 (21)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
41 Florida .536 (66) .0183 -.0193 -.0376 (63)
42 TCU .658 (41) .3856 .1866 -.1990 (127)
43 Auburn .431 (87) -.0087 .0146 .0232 (33)
44 Northwestern .787 (23) .3067 .1767 -.1300 (115)
45 Kennesaw State .180 (119) -.1892 -.1435 .0457 (25)
46 Minnesota .627 (45) .1335 .0391 -.0944 (97)
47 UNLV .378 (89) -.0465 -.0195 .0269 (32)
48 Mississippi State .694 (32) .2661 .1057 -.1604 (119)
49 Wake Forest .505 (73) .1714 .1118 -.0596 (80)
50 Florida State .161 (123) -.1135 -.1040 .0094 (38)
51 Old Dominion .068 (129) -.2565 -.1284 .1280 (8)
52 Arizona .405 (88) .0527 -.0179 -.0707 (85)
53 NC State .665 (39) .1075 .1081 .0005 (45)
54 Rutgers .832 (17) .2806 .1615 -.1191 (109)
55 Kansas .612 (46) .1233 .0812 -.0421 (68)
56 Ohio .265 (103) -.0598 -.1118 -.0520 (74)
57 Southern Miss .315 (98) .0065 -.0149 -.0214 (54)
58 Maryland .688 (35) .3513 .2335 -.1179 (108)
59 East Carolina .195 (115) -.1034 -.0584 .0450 (26)
60 Penn State .551 (59) .2728 .2344 -.0385 (64)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
61 Washington State .290 (100) -.3050 -.1508 .1541 (7)
62 Duke .330 (97) -.0385 -.0263 .0122 (37)
63 New Mexico .366 (91) -.0276 -.0629 -.0353 (61)
64 SMU .488 (74) .1792 .1371 -.0422 (69)
65 Hawai’i .651 (43) .2342 -.0012 -.2354 (131)
66 Troy .451 (82) .0534 -.0064 -.0599 (81)
67 Western Kentucky .442 (83) .0784 .0734 -.0050 (48)
68 UCF .541 (64) .2482 .1845 -.0638 (82)
69 South Carolina .558 (57) -.0285 .0463 .0748 (19)
70 Michigan State .739 (28) .1627 -.1009 -.2637 (132)
71 Temple .785 (24) .3988 .0336 -.3652 (135)
72 Wisconsin .837 (16) .1341 .0064 -.1277 (113)
73 Kansas State .527 (69) .1672 .2425 .0752 (18)
74 Central Michigan .559 (55) .0848 -.0844 -.1692 (120)
75 Colorado .545 (63) -.0792 -.1333 -.0541 (75)
76 UCLA .944 (5) .2416 .2711 .0295 (31)
77 Arkansas .692 (33) .1154 -.0125 -.1279 (114)
78 Marshall .246 (107) -.1084 -.0722 .0361 (29)
79 Louisiana Tech .244 (108) -.0797 -.0397 .0400 (28)
80 Utah State .463 (81) -.0135 -.1149 -.1014 (100)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
81 Baylor .796 (20) .1987 .1275 -.0712 (86)
82 California .837 (15) .2919 .0750 -.2169 (129)
83 UConn .351 (92) .1319 .0127 -.1192 (110)
84 Missouri State .558 (56) -.0306 -.0892 -.0586 (78)
85 Stanford .663 (40) -.0551 -.0104 .0447 (27)
86 Miami (OH) .442 (84) .0316 -.0023 -.0339 (60)
87 Clemson .556 (58) .1936 .0673 -.1262 (112)
88 Fresno State .726 (30) .1929 .0174 -.1755 (121)
89 Western Michigan .187 (117) -.2698 -.0710 .1988 (5)
90 UTSA .597 (49) .1424 -.0339 -.1763 (122)
91 Kentucky .727 (29) .0414 .0085 -.0329 (59)
92 Wyoming .474 (78) .0460 -.0556 -.1016 (101)
93 Toledo .106 (128) -.1235 -.0147 .1088 (11)
94 Army .297 (99) -.2563 -.0720 .1842 (6)
95 Jacksonville State .463 (80) .0396 -.0147 -.0543 (76)
96 Syracuse .592 (50) -.1004 .2427 .3432 (2)
97 Purdue .986 (3) .3984 .4666 .0682 (20)
98 Coastal Carolina .755 (26) .0876 -.0126 -.1003 (99)
99 Delaware .536 (67) .0320 .0056 -.0264 (56)
100 Virginia Tech .948 (4) .3075 .2341 -.0734 (87)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
101 Kent State .687 (36) -.0114 -.1933 -.1819 (123)
102 West Virginia .869 (13) .1067 -.0132 -.1199 (111)
103 Arkansas State .600 (48) .0101 -.0304 -.0405 (65)
104 App State .639 (44) .1408 -.0051 -.1459 (117)
105 Texas State .345 (95) -.0657 -.0115 .0543 (23)
106 UAB .795 (21) .1207 .0155 -.1052 (104)
107 Rice .879 (12) .2258 .1406 -.0852 (91)
108 Buffalo .792 (22) .3164 -.0028 -.3192 (134)
109 Bowling Green .165 (122) -.4149 -.0686 .3462 (1)
110 Georgia Southern .668 (37) .0634 -.0772 -.1406 (116)
111 Florida International .505 (72) -.1620 -.0411 .1209 (10)
112 Florida Atlantic .798 (19) .1551 -.0306 -.1857 (124)
113 Liberty .609 (47) .0377 -.0047 -.0424 (70)
114 UL Monroe .914 (9) .1089 -.0852 -.1941 (126)
115 New Mexico State .720 (31) .1650 .0736 -.0914 (96)
116 San José State .487 (75) -.1266 -.0424 .0842 (15)
117 Oregon State .589 (51) -.0741 -.1713 -.0972 (98)
118 Ball State .657 (42) -.1108 -.0245 .0863 (13)
119 North Carolina .842 (14) .1926 -.0008 -.1934 (125)
120 Colorado State .741 (27) .0682 -.0421 -.1103 (105)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
121 Air Force .689 (34) .0772 -.0067 -.0838 (90)
122 Oklahoma State .993 (1) .1549 -.1276 -.2825 (133)
123 UTEP .667 (38) .1458 -.0578 -.2036 (128)
124 Akron .432 (86) -.2772 -.0348 .2425 (3)
125 South Alabama .538 (65) -.0504 -.0680 -.0176 (52)
126 Tulsa .550 (60) -.1075 -.0293 .0782 (16)
127 Louisiana .548 (61) -.1006 -.0531 .0475 (24)
128 Boston College .919 (7) .2029 .1440 -.0589 (79)
129 Northern Illinois .546 (62) -.1219 -.0292 .0927 (12)
130 Georgia State .915 (8) .1098 -.1082 -.2180 (130)
131 Nevada .810 (18) .0267 -.0470 -.0737 (88)
132 Eastern Michigan .781 (25) .0432 -.0058 -.0489 (72)
133 Middle Tennessee .585 (52) -.2145 -.0095 .2050 (4)
134 Charlotte .990 (2) .1221 .1125 -.0096 (51)
135 Massachusetts .935 (6) .0549 -.0913 -.1462 (118)
136 Sam Houston .892 (11) -.0380 -.0559 -.0179 (53) Upcoming 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 (-1.42, 45.11%) at Texas (1.42, 54.89%)
Estimated score: 26.09 - 27.60, Total: 53.69
Quality: 97.76%, Team quality: 96.82%, Competitiveness: 99.65%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.02%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 45.10%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 36.50%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 36.15%
#2: Oklahoma (-1.44, 45.04%) at Tennessee (1.44, 54.96%)
Estimated score: 30.30 - 31.87, Total: 62.18
Quality: 97.69%, Team quality: 96.73%, Competitiveness: 99.64%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.02%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 45.09%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 44.41%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 28.81%
#3: Mississippi State (-0.69, 47.64%) at Arkansas (0.69, 52.36%)
Estimated score: 33.64 - 34.22, Total: 67.86
Quality: 96.45%, Team quality: 94.76%, Competitiveness: 99.92%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 0.98%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 45.33%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 49.86%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 24.32%
#4: Duke (0.02, 50.08%) at Clemson (-0.02, 49.92%)
Estimated score: 27.80 - 27.58, Total: 55.38
Quality: 95.73%, Team quality: 93.67%, Competitiveness: 100.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 0.97%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 45.40%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 38.04%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 34.63%
#5: Georgia (6.60, 71.54%) vs. Florida (-6.60, 28.46%)
Estimated score: 21.39 - 14.88, Total: 36.27
Quality: 95.34%, Team quality: 96.72%, Competitiveness: 92.63%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.26%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 39.34%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 22.20%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 52.63%
#6: Arizona (3.48, 61.81%) at Colorado (-3.48, 38.19%)
Estimated score: 25.24 - 22.25, Total: 47.49
Quality: 95.08%, Team quality: 93.70%, Competitiveness: 97.91%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.30%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 43.62%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 31.04%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 41.88%
#7: Michigan State (-1.50, 44.87%) at Minnesota (1.50, 55.13%)
Estimated score: 25.47 - 26.65, Total: 52.13
Quality: 94.38%, Team quality: 91.87%, Competitiveness: 99.61%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.03%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 45.07%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 35.09%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 37.57%
#8: UCF (4.75, 65.89%) at Baylor (-4.75, 34.11%)
Estimated score: 33.68 - 28.95, Total: 62.64
Quality: 93.69%, Team quality: 92.49%, Competitiveness: 96.15%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.61%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.16%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 44.85%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 28.43%
#9: USC (8.81, 77.64%) at Nebraska (-8.81, 22.36%)
Estimated score: 40.61 - 31.78, Total: 72.39
Quality: 93.42%, Team quality: 96.74%, Competitiveness: 87.12%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.42%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.16%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 54.21%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 21.03%
#10: Arizona State (-7.46, 26.00%) at Iowa State (7.46, 74.00%)
Estimated score: 17.94 - 25.38, Total: 43.31
Quality: 93.19%, Team quality: 94.48%, Competitiveness: 90.65%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.65%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.81%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 27.58%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 45.86%
#11: Georgia Tech (7.51, 74.16%) at NC State (-7.51, 25.84%)
Estimated score: 33.73 - 26.50, Total: 60.22
Quality: 93.11%, Team quality: 94.43%, Competitiveness: 90.52%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.68%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.70%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 42.56%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 30.43%
#12: New Mexico (2.47, 58.45%) at UNLV (-2.47, 41.55%)
Estimated score: 36.62 - 34.33, Total: 70.96
Quality: 93.02%, Team quality: 90.19%, Competitiveness: 98.94%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.13%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 44.50%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 52.84%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 22.04%
#13: Tulane (6.10, 70.06%) at UTSA (-6.10, 29.94%)
Estimated score: 29.04 - 23.16, Total: 52.20
Quality: 92.41%, Team quality: 91.78%, Competitiveness: 93.69%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.05%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.17%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 35.16%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 37.51%
#14: Hawai’i (-1.29, 45.58%) at San José State (1.29, 54.42%)
Estimated score: 26.33 - 27.57, Total: 53.90
Quality: 91.22%, Team quality: 87.25%, Competitiveness: 99.71%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.01%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 45.16%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 36.69%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 35.97%
#15: James Madison (7.51, 74.13%) at Texas State (-7.51, 25.87%)
Estimated score: 33.28 - 25.92, Total: 59.21
Quality: 90.76%, Team quality: 90.87%, Competitiveness: 90.54%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.68%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.72%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 41.60%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 31.30%
#16: East Carolina (8.73, 77.43%) at Temple (-8.73, 22.57%)
Estimated score: 34.11 - 25.18, Total: 59.29
Quality: 90.37%, Team quality: 91.93%, Competitiveness: 87.35%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.37%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.33%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 41.68%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 31.23%
#17: Delaware (-1.17, 45.98%) at Liberty (1.17, 54.02%)
Estimated score: 22.69 - 23.96, Total: 46.64
Quality: 89.39%, Team quality: 84.62%, Competitiveness: 99.76%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.00%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 45.20%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 30.32%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 42.69%
#18: Army (8.28, 76.25%) at Air Force (-8.28, 23.75%)
Estimated score: 34.11 - 25.73, Total: 59.84
Quality: 88.70%, Team quality: 88.76%, Competitiveness: 88.56%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.10%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 36.23%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 42.20%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 30.76%
#19: Louisiana (-3.72, 37.41%) at South Alabama (3.72, 62.59%)
Estimated score: 25.52 - 29.27, Total: 54.79
Quality: 87.40%, Team quality: 82.70%, Competitiveness: 97.62%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.35%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 43.38%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 37.50%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 35.16%
#20: Texas Tech (13.51, 87.81%) at Kansas State (-13.51, 12.19%)
Estimated score: 35.10 - 21.84, Total: 56.94
Quality: 87.21%, Team quality: 96.25%, Competitiveness: 71.61%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.76%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 24.88%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 39.48%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 33.26%
#21: Kentucky (-12.70, 13.66%) at Auburn (12.70, 86.34%)
Estimated score: 14.45 - 27.19, Total: 41.64
Quality: 86.90%, Team quality: 93.82%, Competitiveness: 74.56%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.80%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.68%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 26.24%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 47.46%
#22: Florida International (-6.17, 29.72%) at Missouri State (6.17, 70.28%)
Estimated score: 17.86 - 24.24, Total: 42.09
Quality: 86.69%, Team quality: 83.46%, Competitiveness: 93.53%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.08%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.05%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 26.60%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 47.03%
#23: Arkansas State (-8.19, 23.99%) at Troy (8.19, 76.01%)
Estimated score: 19.62 - 28.00, Total: 47.62
Quality: 86.61%, Team quality: 85.54%, Competitiveness: 88.79%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.05%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 36.40%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 31.15%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 41.76%
#24: Jacksonville State (5.98, 69.71%) at Middle Tennessee (-5.98, 30.29%)
Estimated score: 28.44 - 22.42, Total: 50.87
Quality: 86.58%, Team quality: 83.13%, Competitiveness: 93.92%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.01%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.36%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 33.97%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 38.74%
#25: North Carolina (-10.26, 18.80%) at Syracuse (10.26, 81.20%)
Estimated score: 15.42 - 25.99, Total: 41.42
Quality: 86.25%, Team quality: 88.02%, Competitiveness: 82.81%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.46%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.10%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 26.07%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 47.68%
#26: Washington State (11.87, 84.70%) at Oregon State (-11.87, 15.30%)
Estimated score: 26.84 - 14.93, Total: 41.77
Quality: 85.05%, Team quality: 89.09%, Competitiveness: 77.52%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.90%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.55%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 26.35%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 47.34%
#27: South Carolina (-14.53, 10.50%) at Ole Miss (14.53, 89.50%)
Estimated score: 18.73 - 33.22, Total: 51.95
Quality: 85.04%, Team quality: 95.27%, Competitiveness: 67.75%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.12%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 22.63%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 34.93%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 37.74%
#28: Buffalo (-9.04, 21.77%) at Bowling Green (9.04, 78.23%)
Estimated score: 13.31 - 22.49, Total: 35.80
Quality: 84.38%, Team quality: 83.35%, Competitiveness: 86.47%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.57%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 34.68%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 21.87%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 53.08%
#29: Louisville (14.51, 89.46%) at Virginia Tech (-14.51, 10.54%)
Estimated score: 39.87 - 25.46, Total: 65.32
Quality: 83.59%, Team quality: 92.79%, Competitiveness: 67.85%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.08%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 22.68%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 47.43%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 26.27%
#30: Central Michigan (-12.23, 14.58%) at Western Michigan (12.23, 85.42%)
Estimated score: 12.50 - 24.59, Total: 37.09
Quality: 83.58%, Team quality: 87.50%, Competitiveness: 76.26%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.27%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.75%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 22.79%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 51.84%
#31: New Mexico State (-10.68, 17.85%) at Western Kentucky (10.68, 82.15%)
Estimated score: 19.86 - 30.35, Total: 50.21
Quality: 83.57%, Team quality: 84.63%, Competitiveness: 81.49%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.80%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.19%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 33.39%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 39.34%
#32: West Virginia (-14.52, 10.52%) at Houston (14.52, 89.48%)
Estimated score: 15.96 - 30.21, Total: 46.17
Quality: 82.78%, Team quality: 91.46%, Competitiveness: 67.82%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.09%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 22.66%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 29.92%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 43.14%
#33: Wyoming (-14.97, 9.83%) at San Diego State (14.97, 90.17%)
Estimated score: 9.06 - 23.97, Total: 33.03
Quality: 81.91%, Team quality: 91.19%, Competitiveness: 66.08%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.75%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.68%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 19.95%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 55.72%
#34: UAB (-12.98, 13.14%) at UConn (12.98, 86.86%)
Estimated score: 31.12 - 44.20, Total: 75.32
Quality: 81.73%, Team quality: 86.15%, Competitiveness: 73.56%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.12%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.06%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 57.01%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 19.05%
#35: Cincinnati (-17.35, 6.72%) at Utah (17.35, 93.28%)
Estimated score: 20.99 - 38.37, Total: 59.36
Quality: 81.05%, Team quality: 96.89%, Competitiveness: 56.72%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.77%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 16.81%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 41.74%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 31.17%
#36: Rutgers (-16.62, 7.58%) at Illinois (16.62, 92.42%)
Estimated score: 25.97 - 42.43, Total: 68.41
Quality: 80.72%, Team quality: 93.93%, Competitiveness: 59.61%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.43%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 18.25%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 50.39%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 23.91%
#37: Marshall (13.25, 87.34%) at Coastal Carolina (-13.25, 12.66%)
Estimated score: 37.24 - 24.22, Total: 61.47
Quality: 80.64%, Team quality: 85.00%, Competitiveness: 72.58%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.43%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.46%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 43.74%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 29.39%
#38: Virginia (15.91, 91.50%) at California (-15.91, 8.50%)
Estimated score: 37.16 - 21.03, Total: 58.19
Quality: 80.59%, Team quality: 91.57%, Competitiveness: 62.41%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.22%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.70%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 40.65%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 32.17%
#39: Wake Forest (-17.40, 6.67%) at Florida State (17.40, 93.33%)
Estimated score: 14.21 - 31.75, Total: 45.96
Quality: 79.77%, Team quality: 94.76%, Competitiveness: 56.53%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.86%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 16.72%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 29.75%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 43.33%
#40: Pittsburgh (17.27, 93.18%) at Stanford (-17.27, 6.82%)
Estimated score: 34.46 - 17.25, Total: 51.71
Quality: 78.82%, Team quality: 92.64%, Competitiveness: 57.05%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.61%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 16.97%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 34.71%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 37.96%
#41: UTEP (-15.91, 8.50%) at Kennesaw State (15.91, 91.50%)
Estimated score: 16.96 - 32.79, Total: 49.75
Quality: 77.30%, Team quality: 86.04%, Competitiveness: 62.41%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.22%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.70%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 32.98%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 39.77%
#42: Miami (19.43, 95.31%) at SMU (-19.43, 4.69%)
Estimated score: 31.75 - 12.23, Total: 43.98
Quality: 76.34%, Team quality: 95.73%, Competitiveness: 48.54%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 18.09%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 13.06%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 28.11%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 45.22%
#43: Navy (-21.21, 3.37%) at North Texas (21.21, 96.63%)
Estimated score: 27.93 - 49.18, Total: 77.10
Quality: 70.85%, Team quality: 92.33%, Competitiveness: 41.72%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 22.42%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 10.27%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 58.69%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 17.90%
#44: Purdue (-21.93, 2.93%) at Michigan (21.93, 97.07%)
Estimated score: 9.76 - 31.69, Total: 41.46
Quality: 70.21%, Team quality: 94.13%, Competitiveness: 39.06%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 24.32%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 9.26%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 26.10%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 47.64%
#45: Fresno State (-21.82, 2.99%) at Boise State (21.82, 97.01%)
Estimated score: 15.22 - 36.81, Total: 52.03
Quality: 68.20%, Team quality: 89.64%, Competitiveness: 39.48%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 24.01%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 9.42%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 35.00%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 37.67%
#46: Penn State (-23.84, 1.99%) at Ohio State (23.84, 98.01%)
Estimated score: 11.91 - 35.73, Total: 47.65
Quality: 67.37%, Team quality: 97.21%, Competitiveness: 32.35%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 29.76%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 6.93%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 31.17%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 41.74%
#47: Memphis (24.50, 98.27%) at Rice (-24.50, 1.73%)
Estimated score: 35.82 - 11.29, Total: 47.11
Quality: 61.42%, Team quality: 87.64%, Competitiveness: 30.17%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 31.76%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 6.23%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 30.72%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 42.25%
#48: Oklahoma State (-27.58, 0.87%) at Kansas (27.58, 99.13%)
Estimated score: 15.38 - 42.94, Total: 58.32
Quality: 53.84%, Team quality: 86.04%, Competitiveness: 21.08%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 41.72%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 3.65%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 40.77%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 32.06%
#49: Old Dominion (27.08, 99.03%) at UL Monroe (-27.08, 0.97%)
Estimated score: 43.45 - 16.33, Total: 59.78
Quality: 53.51%, Team quality: 82.70%, Competitiveness: 22.41%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 40.07%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 4.00%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 42.14%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 30.81%
#50: Indiana (29.71, 99.48%) at Maryland (-29.71, 0.52%)
Estimated score: 39.37 - 9.67, Total: 49.04
Quality: 52.91%, Team quality: 96.46%, Competitiveness: 15.92%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 48.99%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 2.43%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 32.37%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 40.43%
#51: Sam Houston (-28.35, 0.72%) at Louisiana Tech (28.35, 99.28%)
Estimated score: 9.15 - 37.55, Total: 46.70
Quality: 50.35%, Team quality: 81.76%, Competitiveness: 19.09%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 44.35%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 3.16%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 30.37%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 42.63%
#52: Notre Dame (39.22, 99.96%) at Boston College (-39.22, 0.04%)
Estimated score: 51.98 - 12.71, Total: 64.69
Quality: 30.16%, Team quality: 92.25%, Competitiveness: 3.22%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 78.68%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.27%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 46.82%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 26.77%Enjoy the early week football games. Thanks for reading!
The ratings and analysis in this article are based on data from collegefootballdata.com.