College Football FBS Bowl Game Projections
Predictions for the first round of the college football playoff
I hesitate about posting postseason game predictions other than the college football playoff, mostly because many top players opt out of bowl games, and the ratings don’t reflect the current state of the teams. The predictions for these games are almost certainly going to be less accurate than they were late in the regular season. But I’ll go ahead and post these anyway, and I’ll make additional predictions later in the winter as the college football playoff progresses.
I’ve highlighted Oregon with the photo for this article because they’re heavily favored over James Madison according to my ratings. My predictive ratings have been favorable to Oregon all season long, but James Madison has been very impressive throughout the season, and I’m intrigued to see if they are actually much more competitive against Oregon. Although I expect the Ducks to win, I’m not convinced this will actually be a blowout like the ratings suggest.
The ratings in this article do include the result of the Army-Navy game, and there’s little movement over the previous ratings due to the lack of additional FBS games being played.
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: 1.83 points
Mean score: 26.84 points
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
1 90.25 +0.16 Indiana 46.02 44.17 .241
2 86.57 -0.18 Ohio State 38.15 48.45 .157
3 84.59 -0.19 Oregon 43.60 41.04 .178
4 82.56 -0.28 Texas Tech 41.25 41.43 .080
5 81.97 -0.30 Notre Dame 43.23 38.66 -.001
6 77.98 -0.39 Utah 42.59 35.57 -.022
7 75.77 -0.27 Miami 33.88 41.89 .004
8 73.78 -0.34 USC 40.22 33.70 -.002
9 73.43 -0.48 Alabama 36.29 37.14 .021
10 73.41 -0.19 Georgia 32.77 40.64 .120
11 73.22 -0.11 Washington 38.23 35.00 -.121
12 72.67 -0.32 Vanderbilt 41.71 30.93 .007
13 72.13 -0.25 Iowa 30.49 41.45 -.065
14 72.00 -0.27 BYU 34.98 37.03 .086
15 71.87 -0.23 Texas A&M 38.35 33.48 .115
16 71.49 -0.22 Oklahoma 29.11 42.29 .049
17 71.22 -0.28 Ole Miss 40.15 31.25 .066
18 71.10 +0.14 Penn State 36.51 34.49 -.217
19 69.65 -0.03 Michigan 33.53 36.10 -.019
20 +1 68.19 +0.06 Texas 31.84 36.17 .007
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
21 -1 68.09 -0.24 South Florida 39.09 28.99 -.141
22 67.13 -0.17 Missouri 32.14 34.98 -.136
23 66.98 -0.23 Tennessee 41.42 25.52 -.149
24 66.42 -0.12 Arizona 32.00 34.46 -.145
25 +1 65.67 +0.00 Illinois 32.85 32.71 -.073
26 -1 65.17 -0.63 Florida State 33.83 31.44 -.433
27 +1 64.63 +0.13 North Texas 41.43 23.18 -.113
28 -1 64.24 -0.37 LSU 25.90 38.43 -.183
29 63.92 -0.41 Auburn 28.57 35.28 -.351
30 63.31 -0.27 Pittsburgh 34.89 28.46 -.176
31 62.96 -0.53 Iowa State 29.51 33.47 -.198
32 62.44 -0.15 Louisville 31.57 30.87 -.209
33 61.88 -0.19 James Madison 29.82 32.01 -.051
34 +1 61.70 -0.04 SMU 30.52 31.18 -.240
35 +1 61.52 -0.09 Virginia 30.69 30.83 -.164
36 -2 61.47 -0.44 Florida 27.05 34.67 -.380
37 +1 61.14 +0.24 Nebraska 31.25 29.76 -.251
38 -1 60.87 -0.30 TCU 31.81 29.10 -.218
39 60.14 -0.15 Kansas State 32.33 27.59 -.314
40 +1 59.42 -0.08 Georgia Tech 31.28 28.09 -.158
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
41 +2 59.39 +0.10 Cincinnati 31.22 28.09 -.257
42 -2 59.31 -0.30 South Carolina 25.27 33.97 -.426
43 -1 58.97 -0.32 Arizona State 24.80 34.16 -.146
44 58.88 -0.36 Clemson 27.68 31.13 -.324
45 58.20 -0.09 Houston 28.29 29.90 -.139
46 +1 57.95 -0.06 Toledo 26.69 31.28 -.314
47 +4 57.76 -0.03 Mississippi State 32.25 25.53 -.375
48 -2 57.72 -0.30 East Carolina 28.38 29.44 -.271
49 -1 57.63 -0.33 NC State 31.22 26.20 -.223
50 57.49 -0.35 Arkansas 34.53 22.78 -.578
51 +1 57.43 -0.03 Wisconsin 20.51 36.91 -.281
52 -3 57.35 -0.51 Northwestern 23.73 33.61 -.265
53 57.13 -0.07 Duke 34.01 23.14 -.307
54 +1 57.13 +0.17 Boise State 28.09 29.04 -.201
55 -1 56.72 -0.36 Kentucky 26.08 30.61 -.357
56 +1 56.51 -0.22 Kansas 29.81 26.79 -.374
57 -1 56.49 -0.31 Tulane 25.88 30.53 -.074
58 55.82 -0.38 Memphis 28.33 27.55 -.288
59 55.27 -0.30 Old Dominion 26.50 28.74 -.152
60 +1 55.04 -0.03 Wake Forest 23.17 31.78 -.256
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
61 +2 54.89 -0.08 Rutgers 31.76 23.01 -.304
62 -2 54.85 -0.35 San Diego State 21.76 33.12 -.228
63 -1 54.57 -0.42 Michigan State 27.90 26.67 -.419
64 +1 54.39 -0.18 Minnesota 25.43 28.93 -.199
65 -1 54.36 -0.24 Washington State 21.39 33.12 -.360
66 53.06 -0.32 Baylor 32.49 20.68 -.427
67 52.84 -0.50 UTSA 30.48 22.26 -.392
68 +1 52.55 -0.13 Maryland 24.83 27.69 -.474
69 -1 52.50 -0.44 New Mexico 24.71 27.76 -.190
70 52.03 -0.34 UNLV 32.57 19.38 -.204
71 +1 51.50 -0.27 UCF 22.60 28.96 -.432
72 +1 51.46 -0.04 Purdue 24.09 27.28 -.477
73 -2 51.39 -0.39 UCLA 24.35 27.00 -.409
74 51.18 +0.22 Utah State 28.33 22.71 -.398
75 50.59 -0.16 Navy 25.32 25.28 -.046
76 49.30 -0.35 Army 18.20 31.07 -.441
77 48.93 -0.07 UConn 27.87 21.06 -.241
78 48.65 -0.18 Virginia Tech 24.46 24.16 -.583
79 48.47 -0.15 Colorado 23.52 24.95 -.575
80 48.09 -0.30 West Virginia 24.34 23.87 -.460
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
81 +1 48.01 -0.23 Western Michigan 18.64 29.53 -.256
82 -1 47.55 -0.71 Stanford 21.01 26.47 -.452
83 47.23 -0.43 Hawai’i 22.96 24.34 -.293
84 +2 47.05 +0.12 Fresno State 21.10 25.91 -.307
85 -1 46.90 -0.47 Louisiana Tech 21.58 25.31 -.386
86 -1 46.63 -0.34 California 23.02 23.68 -.356
87 +1 46.03 -0.35 Western Kentucky 23.35 22.57 -.298
88 -1 45.99 -0.57 Texas State 29.61 16.42 -.470
89 45.85 -0.19 Ohio 23.72 22.12 -.250
90 45.17 -0.05 Miami (OH) 20.66 24.50 -.434
91 44.96 -0.09 Kennesaw State 22.99 22.03 -.151
92 44.89 -0.01 Boston College 24.94 19.89 -.702
93 43.90 -0.36 Temple 24.85 19.05 -.500
94 43.70 -0.13 Air Force 24.91 18.61 -.642
95 43.25 -0.43 North Carolina 17.85 25.52 -.610
96 +1 42.63 -0.11 Marshall 24.97 17.62 -.523
97 -1 42.57 -0.23 Syracuse 20.71 21.88 -.549
98 40.91 -0.33 Troy 18.22 22.66 -.345
99 40.57 -0.16 Wyoming 12.15 28.36 -.603
100 +1 40.49 -0.10 Florida International 20.35 20.07 -.373
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
101 -1 40.18 -0.45 Southern Miss 21.33 18.73 -.407
102 39.97 -0.46 Missouri State 20.35 19.66 -.356
103 39.85 -0.34 Jacksonville State 20.08 19.94 -.378
104 +1 39.64 -0.10 Central Michigan 17.49 22.19 -.354
105 -1 39.52 -0.47 Liberty 19.73 19.59 -.645
106 39.13 -0.30 Tulsa 18.87 20.27 -.638
107 39.09 +0.02 Oregon State 17.62 21.45 -.675
108 +1 38.10 +0.02 Florida Atlantic 24.72 13.27 -.607
109 -1 37.99 -0.50 Oklahoma State 16.09 21.97 -.704
110 37.52 -0.23 Nevada 14.56 23.00 -.688
111 36.83 -0.48 Colorado State 17.30 19.50 -.757
112 +1 36.79 -0.32 Arkansas State 16.51 20.21 -.477
113 -1 36.74 -0.39 Louisiana 19.85 16.91 -.453
114 36.58 -0.49 Georgia Southern 22.40 14.14 -.430
115 +2 35.79 -0.18 Delaware 21.92 13.76 -.487
116 -1 35.71 -0.33 Bowling Green 12.89 22.85 -.628
117 +1 35.68 -0.14 UAB 21.44 14.34 -.589
118 -2 35.65 -0.33 San José State 19.92 15.78 -.701
119 35.39 -0.24 South Alabama 18.96 16.37 -.616
120 34.64 -0.39 App State 17.79 16.94 -.549
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
121 34.47 -0.43 Buffalo 15.21 19.34 -.574
122 34.22 -0.12 Rice 14.16 20.06 -.517
123 33.51 +0.04 New Mexico State 13.70 19.79 -.630
124 33.05 -0.20 Northern Illinois 11.44 21.48 -.718
125 32.34 -0.33 Eastern Michigan 18.76 13.57 -.653
126 32.19 -0.12 UTEP 16.85 15.43 -.796
127 31.75 -0.34 Akron 15.09 16.58 -.556
128 31.27 -0.14 Coastal Carolina 17.56 13.67 -.447
129 31.05 -0.19 Middle Tennessee 15.53 15.61 -.736
130 29.48 -0.21 Kent State 17.83 11.64 -.443
131 29.40 +0.08 Ball State 12.17 17.27 -.625
132 28.26 -0.23 Charlotte 11.81 16.37 -.801
133 28.01 -0.44 Georgia State 14.60 13.44 -.812
134 24.90 -0.48 UL Monroe 10.25 14.78 -.689
135 23.92 -0.43 Sam Houston 12.88 11.07 -.793
136 12.45 +0.09 Massachusetts 5.50 6.95 -.927Schedule 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: 1.83 points
Mean score: 26.84 points
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
1 Indiana .241 (15) --- 58.55 (17) ---
2 Ohio State .234 (19) --- 58.02 (24) ---
3 Oregon .262 (8) .130 (29) 61.03 (5) 60.05 (29)
4 Texas Tech .156 (50) --- 50.21 (65) ---
5 Notre Dame .166 (45) --- 57.53 (29) ---
6 Utah .144 (55) .149 (27) 55.40 (40) 61.14 (27)
7 Miami .170 (43) .486 (5) 55.28 (42) 73.70 (5)
8 USC .248 (13) .144 (28) 60.23 (9) 60.87 (28)
9 Alabama .251 (12) .474 (6) 59.11 (13) 73.32 (6)
10 Georgia .197 (35) --- 57.96 (25) ---
11 Washington .212 (28) .087 (41) 58.42 (18) 57.13 (41)
12 Vanderbilt .174 (42) .436 (10) 55.13 (45) 72.13 (10)
13 Iowa .268 (7) .453 (9) 56.97 (33) 72.67 (9)
14 BYU .240 (17) .120 (30) 58.36 (20) 59.42 (30)
15 Texas A&M .198 (33) .493 (3) 57.32 (32) 73.94 (3)
16 Oklahoma .216 (25) .419 (12) 59.06 (14) 71.60 (12)
17 Ole Miss .150 (54) .060 (46) 54.32 (48) 54.66 (46)
18 Penn State .283 (5) .111 (33) 60.43 (7) 58.88 (33)
19 Michigan .231 (22) .317 (15) 60.82 (6) 68.19 (15)
20 Texas .257 (10) .360 (14) 58.28 (21) 69.65 (14)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
21 South Florida .109 (65) .066 (43) 48.18 (77) 55.27 (43)
22 Missouri .197 (34) .156 (26) 53.95 (51) 61.52 (26)
23 Tennessee .184 (40) .249 (20) 54.76 (47) 65.67 (20)
24 Arizona .105 (68) .160 (25) 52.82 (56) 61.70 (25)
25 Illinois .260 (9) .283 (18) 59.35 (12) 66.98 (18)
26 Florida State .150 (53) --- 53.46 (52) ---
27 North Texas .041 (107) .061 (45) 44.71 (91) 54.85 (45)
28 LSU .233 (20) .101 (34) 60.18 (10) 58.20 (34)
29 Auburn .233 (21) --- 57.48 (31) ---
30 Pittsburgh .158 (49) .094 (37) 53.14 (54) 57.72 (37)
31 Iowa State .135 (58) --- 55.25 (43) ---
32 Louisville .124 (60) .098 (35) 52.87 (55) 57.95 (35)
33 James Madison .026 (124) .837 (1) 40.70 (111) 86.42 (1)
34 SMU .094 (72) .268 (19) 50.01 (66) 66.42 (19)
35 Virginia .067 (85) .287 (17) 49.75 (69) 67.13 (17)
36 Florida .286 (4) --- 62.76 (4) ---
37 Nebraska .166 (46) .621 (2) 54.07 (50) 77.98 (2)
38 TCU .115 (63) .489 (4) 55.24 (44) 73.78 (4)
39 Kansas State .186 (39) --- 57.73 (26) ---
40 Georgia Tech .092 (74) .432 (11) 51.17 (61) 72.00 (11)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
41 Cincinnati .160 (47) .030 (53) 52.15 (59) 50.59 (53)
42 South Carolina .241 (16) --- 58.81 (15) ---
43 Arizona State .188 (38) .087 (40) 57.67 (27) 57.13 (40)
44 Clemson .092 (73) .404 (13) 51.10 (62) 71.10 (13)
45 Houston .111 (64) .214 (22) 51.73 (60) 64.24 (22)
46 Toledo .020 (129) .175 (24) 37.93 (131) 62.44 (24)
47 Mississippi State .208 (30) .063 (44) 55.96 (38) 55.04 (44)
48 East Carolina .062 (90) .193 (23) 44.83 (89) 63.31 (23)
49 NC State .194 (36) .071 (42) 56.54 (35) 55.82 (42)
50 Arkansas .255 (11) --- 58.64 (16) ---
51 Wisconsin .385 (1) --- 66.25 (2) ---
52 Northwestern .235 (18) .003 (71) 56.48 (37) 39.64 (71)
53 Duke .078 (79) .113 (32) 52.48 (57) 58.97 (32)
54 Boise State .107 (67) .471 (7) 48.95 (72) 73.22 (7)
55 Kentucky .226 (23) --- 60.03 (11) ---
56 Kansas .209 (29) --- 55.39 (41) ---
57 Tulane .080 (77) .465 (8) 49.92 (68) 73.05 (8)
58 Memphis .046 (104) .093 (38) 43.76 (95) 57.63 (38)
59 Old Dominion .098 (71) .314 (16) 41.63 (106) 68.09 (16)
60 Wake Forest .077 (81) .095 (36) 49.73 (70) 57.76 (36)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
61 Rutgers .279 (6) --- 58.37 (19) ---
62 San Diego State .022 (128) .223 (21) 42.66 (100) 64.63 (21)
63 Michigan State .247 (14) --- 60.34 (8) ---
64 Minnesota .218 (24) .042 (50) 54.24 (49) 52.50 (50)
65 Washington State .140 (56) .033 (52) 53.23 (53) 51.18 (52)
66 Baylor .156 (51) --- 54.95 (46) ---
67 UTSA .108 (66) .004 (67) 48.62 (76) 40.49 (67)
68 Maryland .193 (37) --- 55.51 (39) ---
69 New Mexico .060 (96) .057 (47) 47.06 (81) 54.39 (47)
70 UNLV .027 (122) .012 (62) 45.05 (87) 45.85 (62)
71 UCF .152 (52) --- 50.40 (63) ---
72 Purdue .356 (2) --- 64.30 (3) ---
73 UCLA .341 (3) --- 66.92 (1) ---
74 Utah State .102 (70) .057 (48) 47.31 (80) 54.36 (48)
75 Navy .121 (61) .119 (31) 45.79 (85) 59.39 (31)
76 Army .059 (97) .022 (56) 48.80 (73) 48.93 (56)
77 UConn .009 (135) .023 (54) 37.79 (132) 49.30 (54)
78 Virginia Tech .167 (44) --- 57.50 (30) ---
79 Colorado .175 (41) --- 58.15 (23) ---
80 West Virginia .207 (31) --- 56.70 (34) ---
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
81 Western Michigan .051 (100) .010 (64) 42.82 (98) 44.96 (64)
82 Stanford .214 (26) --- 58.26 (22) ---
83 Hawai’i .040 (109) .009 (65) 42.39 (103) 44.80 (65)
84 Fresno State .027 (123) .010 (63) 40.66 (112) 45.17 (63)
85 Louisiana Tech .031 (117) .000 (78) 40.81 (110) 31.27 (78)
86 California .061 (91) .022 (55) 48.64 (75) 49.06 (55)
87 Western Kentucky .035 (114) .003 (68) 39.10 (124) 40.18 (68)
88 Texas State .030 (118) .001 (77) 40.32 (116) 34.22 (77)
89 Ohio .084 (75) .039 (51) 40.18 (117) 52.03 (51)
90 Miami (OH) .027 (121) .015 (58) 41.89 (104) 47.05 (58)
91 Kennesaw State .080 (78) .018 (57) 41.58 (107) 48.01 (57)
92 Boston College .131 (59) --- 52.44 (58) ---
93 Temple .084 (76) --- 45.70 (86) ---
94 Air Force .025 (125) --- 44.16 (93) ---
95 North Carolina .057 (98) --- 48.71 (74) ---
96 Marshall .061 (93) --- 41.74 (105) ---
97 Syracuse .201 (32) --- 56.54 (36) ---
98 Troy .039 (110) .003 (70) 41.26 (108) 39.85 (70)
99 Wyoming .063 (87) --- 44.79 (90) ---
100 Florida International .044 (105) .044 (49) 38.96 (126) 52.84 (49)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
101 Southern Miss .010 (134) .012 (60) 37.73 (133) 46.03 (60)
102 Missouri State .060 (94) .001 (72) 42.73 (99) 36.79 (72)
103 Jacksonville State .007 (136) .004 (66) 37.03 (134) 40.91 (66)
104 Central Michigan .063 (88) .090 (39) 38.46 (130) 57.35 (39)
105 Liberty .022 (127) --- 40.56 (113) ---
106 Tulsa .029 (119) --- 44.57 (92) ---
107 Oregon State .158 (48) --- 50.01 (67) ---
108 Florida Atlantic .060 (95) --- 45.00 (88) ---
109 Oklahoma State .213 (27) --- 57.56 (28) ---
110 Nevada .062 (89) --- 47.99 (78) ---
111 Colorado State .076 (82) --- 49.50 (71) ---
112 Arkansas State .023 (126) .003 (69) 39.70 (120) 39.97 (69)
113 Louisiana .047 (103) .001 (75) 40.04 (118) 35.79 (75)
114 Georgia Southern .070 (84) .001 (76) 42.63 (101) 34.64 (76)
115 Delaware .013 (132) .001 (73) 38.92 (127) 36.74 (73)
116 Bowling Green .039 (111) --- 39.05 (125) ---
117 UAB .078 (80) --- 47.67 (79) ---
118 San José State .049 (102) --- 46.80 (82) ---
119 South Alabama .051 (101) --- 39.64 (121) ---
120 App State .034 (115) .001 (74) 39.56 (123) 36.58 (74)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
121 Buffalo .010 (133) --- 34.13 (136) ---
122 Rice .067 (86) .012 (61) 46.20 (83) 45.99 (61)
123 New Mexico State .037 (113) --- 39.63 (122) ---
124 Northern Illinois .032 (116) --- 40.48 (115) ---
125 Eastern Michigan .014 (130) --- 38.85 (129) ---
126 UTEP .038 (112) --- 38.90 (128) ---
127 Akron .027 (120) --- 36.49 (135) ---
128 Coastal Carolina .053 (99) .015 (59) 42.94 (97) 46.90 (59)
129 Middle Tennessee .014 (131) --- 39.96 (119) ---
130 Kent State .140 (57) --- 42.54 (102) ---
131 Ball State .042 (106) --- 43.15 (96) ---
132 Charlotte .115 (62) --- 50.40 (64) ---
133 Georgia State .105 (69) --- 46.04 (84) ---
134 UL Monroe .061 (92) --- 40.48 (114) ---
135 Sam Houston .040 (108) --- 43.76 (94) ---
136 Massachusetts .073 (83) --- 41.13 (109) --- 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 .755 SEC .282 (3) 66.08 32.71 33.35 -0.64 (7)
2 .718 Big Ten .309 (2) 65.67 31.86 33.78 -1.92 (9)
3 .689 FBS Independents .378 (1) 65.45 35.55 29.86 5.69 (1)
4 .633 Big 12 .192 (4) 59.69 29.85 29.88 -0.03 (5)
5 .574 ACC .119 (5) 55.97 27.92 28.03 -0.11 (6)
6 .436 American Athletic .064 (6) 48.20 25.21 22.98 2.23 (2)
7 .404 Pac-12 .030 (7) 46.73 19.51 27.29 -7.78 (11)
8 .396 Mountain West .026 (8) 46.35 22.36 23.96 -1.60 (8)
9 .279 Sun Belt .019 (9) 39.37 20.60 18.76 1.84 (3)
10 .248 Conference USA .004 (11) 37.85 19.11 18.74 0.37 (4)
11 .244 Mid-American .011 (10) 36.56 16.62 19.95 -3.32 (10)Bowl Game Predictions
As a caution, I do not adjust for changes to rosters between the regular season and bowl games. The ratings are based on the quality of teams during the season, and they may well not reflect the current quality of the teams due to players opting out. I expect that these predictions will be considerably less accurate than my projections during the final weeks of the regular season.
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. Of course, there’s only one game to rank here, so it’s automatically #1. 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: Alabama (0.11, 50.36%) at Oklahoma (-0.11, 49.64%)
Estimated score: 19.92 - 19.73, Total: 39.65
Quality: 98.34%, Team quality: 97.52%, Competitiveness: 100.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 2.04%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.43%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 23.25%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 49.36%
#2: Iowa (-0.54, 48.29%) vs. Vanderbilt (0.54, 51.71%)
Estimated score: 26.39 - 27.10, Total: 53.49
Quality: 98.32%, Team quality: 97.51%, Competitiveness: 99.95%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 2.05%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.40%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 34.97%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 35.92%
#3: Miami (2.07, 56.56%) at Texas A&M (-2.07, 43.44%)
Estimated score: 26.32 - 24.21, Total: 50.53
Quality: 98.24%, Team quality: 97.72%, Competitiveness: 99.29%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 2.21%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 41.92%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 32.29%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 38.71%
#4: Michigan (1.46, 54.64%) vs. Texas (-1.46, 45.36%)
Estimated score: 24.19 - 22.57, Total: 46.76
Quality: 97.81%, Team quality: 96.90%, Competitiveness: 99.65%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 2.13%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.18%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 29.00%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 42.34%
#5: Tennessee (1.31, 54.17%) vs. Illinois (-1.31, 45.83%)
Estimated score: 35.54 - 34.16, Total: 69.71
Quality: 97.48%, Team quality: 96.38%, Competitiveness: 99.71%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 2.11%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.23%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 50.70%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 22.24%
#6: Arizona (4.71, 64.68%) vs. SMU (-4.71, 35.32%)
Estimated score: 27.65 - 22.90, Total: 50.56
Quality: 96.01%, Team quality: 95.83%, Competitiveness: 96.35%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 2.96%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 39.81%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 32.31%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 38.68%
#7: Arizona State (1.84, 55.84%) vs. Duke (-1.84, 44.16%)
Estimated score: 28.50 - 26.68, Total: 55.18
Quality: 95.92%, Team quality: 94.20%, Competitiveness: 99.44%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 2.18%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.03%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 36.55%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 34.35%
#8: Memphis (-1.81, 44.24%) vs. NC State (1.81, 55.76%)
Estimated score: 28.97 - 30.51, Total: 59.48
Quality: 95.63%, Team quality: 93.77%, Competitiveness: 99.45%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 2.17%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.04%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 40.64%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 30.51%
#9: Virginia (-5.61, 32.70%) vs. Missouri (5.61, 67.30%)
Estimated score: 22.55 - 28.14, Total: 50.69
Quality: 95.54%, Team quality: 95.88%, Competitiveness: 94.86%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 3.35%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.77%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 32.43%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 38.56%
#10: Toledo (-4.49, 35.98%) vs. Louisville (4.49, 64.02%)
Estimated score: 22.65 - 27.12, Total: 49.78
Quality: 95.44%, Team quality: 94.82%, Competitiveness: 96.68%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 2.87%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.04%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 31.62%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 39.42%
#11: Wake Forest (-2.72, 41.39%) vs. Mississippi State (2.72, 58.61%)
Estimated score: 24.47 - 27.30, Total: 51.78
Quality: 95.33%, Team quality: 93.66%, Competitiveness: 98.77%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 2.34%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 41.54%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 33.41%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 37.52%
#12: Pittsburgh (5.59, 67.26%) vs. East Carolina (-5.59, 32.74%)
Estimated score: 32.28 - 26.76, Total: 59.05
Quality: 94.89%, Team quality: 94.89%, Competitiveness: 94.89%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 3.35%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.78%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 40.22%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 30.89%
#13: New Mexico (-1.89, 44.00%) vs. Minnesota (1.89, 56.00%)
Estimated score: 22.61 - 24.50, Total: 47.12
Quality: 94.82%, Team quality: 92.61%, Competitiveness: 99.41%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 2.18%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.00%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 29.30%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 41.99%
#14: LSU (6.04, 68.54%) vs. Houston (-6.04, 31.46%)
Estimated score: 22.83 - 16.69, Total: 39.53
Quality: 94.74%, Team quality: 95.08%, Competitiveness: 94.06%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 3.57%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.21%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 23.16%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 49.48%
#15: Washington State (3.17, 60.01%) vs. Utah State (-3.17, 39.99%)
Estimated score: 25.52 - 22.04, Total: 47.56
Quality: 94.29%, Team quality: 92.34%, Competitiveness: 98.33%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 2.45%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 41.22%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 29.68%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 41.57%
#16: UConn (-0.37, 48.82%) vs. Army (0.37, 51.18%)
Estimated score: 23.63 - 23.98, Total: 47.61
Quality: 93.78%, Team quality: 90.83%, Competitiveness: 99.98%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 2.04%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.42%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 29.72%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 41.51%
#17: California (-2.43, 42.30%) at Hawai’i (2.43, 57.70%)
Estimated score: 24.60 - 27.03, Total: 51.63
Quality: 92.78%, Team quality: 89.81%, Competitiveness: 99.02%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 2.28%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 41.72%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 33.28%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 37.66%
#18: Miami (OH) (-1.87, 44.05%) vs. Fresno State (1.87, 55.95%)
Estimated score: 21.59 - 23.44, Total: 45.03
Quality: 92.63%, Team quality: 89.41%, Competitiveness: 99.42%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 2.18%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.01%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 27.53%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 44.04%
#19: Kennesaw State (-3.05, 40.36%) vs. Western Michigan (3.05, 59.64%)
Estimated score: 20.29 - 23.45, Total: 43.74
Quality: 92.45%, Team quality: 89.58%, Competitiveness: 98.46%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 2.42%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 41.31%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 26.48%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 45.31%
#20: UNLV (6.18, 68.95%) vs. Ohio (-6.18, 31.05%)
Estimated score: 37.28 - 31.17, Total: 68.46
Quality: 91.69%, Team quality: 90.67%, Competitiveness: 93.78%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 3.65%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.01%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 49.46%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 23.17%
#21: North Texas (9.78, 78.30%) vs. San Diego State (-9.78, 21.70%)
Estimated score: 35.14 - 25.41, Total: 60.55
Quality: 91.25%, Team quality: 94.56%, Competitiveness: 84.99%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 6.31%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.22%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 41.67%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 29.58%
#22: Navy (-8.80, 24.08%) vs. Cincinnati (8.80, 75.92%)
Estimated score: 24.06 - 32.78, Total: 56.84
Quality: 91.22%, Team quality: 93.03%, Competitiveness: 87.71%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 5.44%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 33.96%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 38.10%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 32.85%
#23: Troy (1.05, 53.36%) vs. Jacksonville State (-1.05, 46.64%)
Estimated score: 25.12 - 24.25, Total: 49.37
Quality: 90.59%, Team quality: 86.30%, Competitiveness: 99.82%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 2.08%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.30%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 31.26%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 39.81%
#24: Western Kentucky (5.86, 68.02%) vs. Southern Miss (-5.86, 31.98%)
Estimated score: 31.46 - 25.60, Total: 57.06
Quality: 89.93%, Team quality: 87.77%, Competitiveness: 94.41%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 3.48%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.45%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 38.31%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 32.66%
#25: Missouri State (3.18, 60.05%) vs. Arkansas State (-3.18, 39.95%)
Estimated score: 26.97 - 23.68, Total: 50.65
Quality: 89.26%, Team quality: 85.05%, Competitiveness: 98.32%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 2.45%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 41.22%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 32.40%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 38.59%
#26: Penn State (12.22, 83.57%) vs. Clemson (-12.22, 16.43%)
Estimated score: 32.22 - 20.03, Total: 52.24
Quality: 89.26%, Team quality: 95.87%, Competitiveness: 77.38%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 9.03%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.60%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 33.83%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 37.08%
#27: Georgia Tech (-12.58, 15.72%) vs. BYU (12.58, 84.28%)
Estimated score: 21.08 - 33.73, Total: 54.81
Quality: 88.89%, Team quality: 96.03%, Competitiveness: 76.16%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 9.50%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.90%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 36.20%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 34.69%
#28: Louisiana (0.95, 53.04%) vs. Delaware (-0.95, 46.96%)
Estimated score: 32.92 - 31.85, Total: 64.77
Quality: 88.77%, Team quality: 83.71%, Competitiveness: 99.85%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 2.08%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.32%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 45.81%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 26.06%
#29: USC (12.92, 84.92%) vs. TCU (-12.92, 15.08%)
Estimated score: 37.95 - 24.94, Total: 62.90
Quality: 88.65%, Team quality: 96.37%, Competitiveness: 75.01%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 9.96%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.24%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 43.96%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 27.60%
#30: Georgia Southern (1.94, 56.15%) vs. App State (-1.94, 43.85%)
Estimated score: 32.30 - 30.49, Total: 62.78
Quality: 88.32%, Team quality: 83.26%, Competitiveness: 99.38%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 2.19%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 41.98%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 43.85%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 27.69%
#31: Old Dominion (-12.82, 15.27%) vs. South Florida (12.82, 84.73%)
Estimated score: 24.35 - 37.18, Total: 61.53
Quality: 87.94%, Team quality: 95.00%, Competitiveness: 75.36%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 9.82%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.44%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 42.62%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 28.75%
#32: Florida International (-12.35, 16.16%) vs. UTSA (12.35, 83.84%)
Estimated score: 24.92 - 37.24, Total: 62.17
Quality: 84.99%, Team quality: 89.32%, Competitiveness: 76.93%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 9.20%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.34%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 43.25%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 28.21%
#33: Boise State (-16.09, 9.91%) vs. Washington (16.09, 90.09%)
Estimated score: 19.92 - 36.02, Total: 55.94
Quality: 83.53%, Team quality: 95.76%, Competitiveness: 63.56%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 15.11%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.13%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 37.26%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 33.66%
#34: Rice (-11.77, 17.33%) vs. Texas State (11.77, 82.67%)
Estimated score: 24.57 - 36.39, Total: 60.96
Quality: 83.40%, Team quality: 85.76%, Competitiveness: 78.86%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 8.47%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.48%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 42.07%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 29.23%
#35: Nebraska (-16.84, 8.90%) vs. Utah (16.84, 91.10%)
Estimated score: 22.51 - 39.66, Total: 62.17
Quality: 82.80%, Team quality: 96.68%, Competitiveness: 60.72%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 16.56%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 18.73%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 43.25%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 28.21%
#36: Tulane (-16.56, 9.27%) at Ole Miss (16.56, 90.73%)
Estimated score: 20.56 - 37.37, Total: 57.93
Quality: 82.55%, Team quality: 95.41%, Competitiveness: 61.79%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 16.01%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.25%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 39.14%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 31.88%
#37: Coastal Carolina (-15.63, 10.57%) vs. Louisiana Tech (15.63, 89.43%)
Estimated score: 19.09 - 34.74, Total: 53.83
Quality: 77.75%, Team quality: 84.85%, Competitiveness: 65.28%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 14.26%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.00%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 35.29%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 35.60%
#38: Central Michigan (-17.71, 7.84%) vs. Northwestern (17.71, 92.16%)
Estimated score: 10.72 - 28.37, Total: 39.09
Quality: 77.40%, Team quality: 89.83%, Competitiveness: 57.46%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 18.34%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 17.18%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 22.83%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 49.91%
#39: James Madison (-24.54, 2.49%) at Oregon (24.54, 97.51%)
Estimated score: 14.70 - 39.34, Total: 54.04
Quality: 67.75%, Team quality: 97.00%, Competitiveness: 33.04%
Blowout probability (margin >= 29.0 pts): 36.06%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 7.46%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 35.48%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 35.41%Thanks for reading!
These ratings are based on data from collegefootballdata.com.