College Football Ratings and Predictions for Week 13
Where does Alabama rank after losing to Oklahoma? Can the SEC get five teams in the playoff?
With Duke losing last weekend, it’s a lot harder to envision an ACC champion with four losses on the season. And that also makes it much less likely that the Group of 5 gets two teams in the playoff. Although there’s still a nonzero probability of the Group of 5 getting a second team in the playoff, it seems a lot safer to predict that four of the five automatic bids will go to the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, and ACC.
For now, there are three undefeated teams left: Indiana, Ohio State, and Texas A&M. Then there are six more Power 4 teams with just one loss: Oregon, Georgia, BYU, Texas Tech, Ole Miss, and Georgia Tech. The highest ranked Group of 5 team in my playoff ratings is North Texas, which also gives them a playoff bid. Assuming all of those teams reach the playoff and the committee doesn’t leave a one loss team like BYU out, then there are just two spots left. The Power 4 teams with two losses are Alabama, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, USC, Utah, Miami, Vanderbilt, Michigan, Virginia, and Houston. It seems unlikely that the committee would overlook all of these teams in favor of one with three losses.
Alabama still has a good strength of record and high predictive rating, so it’s hard to imagine them being left out of the playoff. But winning against Alabama was a quality win for Oklahoma, and they do have a better strength of record than Notre Dame. So there’s an argument for the Sooners moving ahead of Notre Dame in this week’s playoff rankings. The committee will probably move Oklahoma ahead of Alabama, too. My guess is that the selection committee puts all of these teams in ahead of BYU, a decision that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. If Oklahoma is the final team in, BYU has a better strength of record and a better predictive rating according to my system. They’re also ahead in ESPN’s FPI strength of record. Although Notre Dame has a higher predictive rating than BYU, their strength of record is lower due to two losses. My guess is the playoff committee will choose Ohio State, Indiana, Texas A&M, Georgia, Oregon, Texas Tech, Ole Miss, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Alabama, Georgia Tech, and North Texas. I would put BYU in Oklahoma’s spot, then move Notre Dame out of the playoff.
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: 1.97 points
Mean score: 26.87 points
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
1 88.47 -1.02 Indiana 45.90 42.48 .194
2 86.85 -0.09 Ohio State 39.90 47.04 .159
3 83.51 +0.22 Oregon 43.79 39.74 .099
4 82.06 +0.18 Utah 43.46 38.63 -.046
5 +1 80.93 +1.82 Notre Dame 40.43 40.37 .005
6 -1 80.20 +0.75 Texas Tech 40.83 39.35 .060
7 77.22 -0.54 Alabama 37.52 39.62 .076
8 +1 75.56 -0.20 USC 41.86 33.73 .013
9 -1 75.50 -1.53 Texas A&M 42.09 33.51 .211
10 75.50 +1.77 Georgia 35.74 39.84 .124
11 75.24 +1.81 Miami 33.83 41.41 -.027
12 73.95 +1.66 BYU 36.14 37.87 .117
13 +1 72.95 +1.41 Oklahoma 30.50 42.45 .033
14 +4 72.68 +2.12 Washington 38.70 34.00 -.126
15 +2 72.26 +1.37 Ole Miss 40.70 31.53 .084
16 -3 71.91 +0.03 Iowa 29.91 41.98 -.120
17 -2 70.71 -0.37 Vanderbilt 41.25 29.46 -.015
18 +2 69.63 +0.22 Florida State 36.66 32.92 -.344
19 +2 69.55 +0.59 Tennessee 44.24 25.26 -.105
20 -1 69.55 -0.79 Michigan 32.47 37.00 -.006
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
21 +4 69.22 +1.53 Penn State 35.27 33.75 -.296
22 -6 68.51 -2.56 Texas 31.07 37.47 -.020
23 +1 68.48 +0.50 Illinois 34.68 33.80 -.012
24 +2 68.41 +1.68 Missouri 34.38 33.76 -.109
25 -2 67.22 -1.01 LSU 28.04 39.16 -.150
26 -4 67.15 -1.39 South Florida 38.88 28.19 -.170
27 +1 66.01 +1.04 North Texas 42.19 23.68 -.066
28 -1 65.10 -0.56 Pittsburgh 35.36 29.56 -.173
29 +1 65.07 +0.89 Arizona 31.77 33.16 -.189
30 -1 64.63 -0.32 Nebraska 33.23 31.40 -.183
31 64.32 +0.52 Auburn 26.65 37.64 -.341
32 63.31 -0.07 Florida 27.68 35.61 -.373
33 +6 63.07 +1.75 Virginia 33.32 29.71 -.113
34 +6 63.03 +1.86 Kentucky 29.17 33.85 -.289
35 -2 62.99 +0.02 Iowa State 30.28 32.76 -.251
36 -1 62.20 -0.54 Cincinnati 32.97 29.23 -.155
37 -1 62.05 +0.27 Louisville 32.32 29.75 -.180
38 +10 61.50 +2.59 South Carolina 25.38 36.24 -.389
39 +8 61.29 +2.34 James Madison 28.26 32.97 -.073
40 -6 61.01 -1.78 Georgia Tech 33.06 27.99 -.059
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
41 +1 60.71 +0.08 SMU 29.55 31.16 -.212
42 -5 60.35 -1.03 Mississippi State 33.73 26.60 -.327
43 +1 60.25 +0.15 East Carolina 29.31 30.96 -.234
44 +2 60.03 +0.89 Arkansas 35.19 24.87 -.533
45 -4 59.99 -1.09 Arizona State 24.72 35.09 -.100
46 -8 59.66 -1.67 TCU 32.32 27.34 -.286
47 -2 59.57 +0.01 Clemson 27.77 31.83 -.397
48 +4 58.98 +1.61 Toledo 28.62 30.45 -.367
49 -6 58.66 -1.54 Kansas State 30.46 28.03 -.365
50 -1 58.48 +0.20 Memphis 30.03 28.52 -.227
51 -1 58.30 +0.11 Houston 30.17 28.11 -.097
52 +3 57.51 +0.74 Northwestern 21.97 35.49 -.261
53 +1 57.22 +0.44 Kansas 30.57 26.58 -.338
54 +10 56.56 +2.38 San Diego State 23.76 32.86 -.183
55 -4 56.34 -1.84 Duke 32.87 23.47 -.419
56 -3 56.06 -1.31 NC State 31.88 24.29 -.291
57 +3 56.05 +1.33 Wisconsin 20.42 35.72 -.270
58 -2 55.70 -0.23 Boise State 27.28 28.54 -.279
59 +8 55.36 +1.64 Old Dominion 27.17 28.22 -.188
60 -3 55.24 -0.44 Wake Forest 20.85 34.47 -.210
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
61 +2 55.18 +0.65 Maryland 24.88 30.19 -.406
62 -3 55.09 +0.36 Rutgers 31.79 23.10 -.292
63 -5 54.76 -0.33 Baylor 34.47 20.32 -.349
64 +8 54.35 +3.04 Washington State 20.51 33.69 -.350
65 -4 54.10 -0.55 Tulane 26.87 27.33 -.114
66 -1 53.89 -0.09 Minnesota 24.07 29.73 -.158
67 -5 52.93 -1.67 UCF 22.59 30.34 -.474
68 52.64 -0.65 Michigan State 26.91 25.86 -.461
69 52.60 -0.20 UCLA 25.29 27.22 -.388
70 -4 52.58 -1.20 Purdue 24.62 27.94 -.513
71 +3 50.81 -0.27 Colorado 24.63 26.13 -.511
72 +5 50.80 +0.75 West Virginia 25.43 25.36 -.461
73 -3 50.78 -1.70 New Mexico 25.87 25.09 -.242
74 +2 50.73 +0.44 UTSA 27.75 22.88 -.374
75 +3 50.34 +0.31 Army 17.96 32.32 -.379
76 -5 50.27 -1.13 Utah State 28.22 22.05 -.388
77 -2 50.15 -0.14 UNLV 32.58 17.58 -.183
78 +1 49.91 -0.04 UConn 27.57 22.39 -.265
79 +9 49.21 +2.18 Navy 25.61 23.58 -.072
80 +2 49.11 +0.99 Virginia Tech 25.31 23.60 -.569
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
81 49.04 +0.39 Western Michigan 17.72 31.37 -.330
82 -2 48.76 -0.20 Hawai’i 24.50 24.24 -.264
83 -10 48.45 -2.68 Louisiana Tech 21.33 27.01 -.458
84 -1 48.42 +0.36 Ohio 24.96 23.51 -.300
85 +4 47.24 +0.51 California 22.08 24.84 -.346
86 +8 47.00 +2.50 Fresno State 21.08 25.96 -.273
87 46.95 -0.08 Syracuse 22.37 24.54 -.537
88 -2 46.94 -0.18 Stanford 19.83 27.00 -.501
89 +9 46.63 +3.10 Texas State 30.88 15.75 -.568
90 +1 45.97 +0.39 Temple 26.13 19.79 -.429
91 -7 45.29 -2.04 Kennesaw State 21.99 23.34 -.200
92 45.23 -0.19 Western Kentucky 23.60 21.73 -.184
93 45.16 -0.23 Miami (OH) 19.07 26.25 -.471
94 +1 45.01 +0.53 Marshall 28.20 16.81 -.425
95 +2 44.16 -0.29 North Carolina 17.73 26.38 -.553
96 -11 43.66 -3.46 Southern Miss 22.17 21.51 -.287
97 -1 43.54 -0.92 Air Force 26.14 17.49 -.680
98 -8 43.54 -2.09 Wyoming 14.08 29.46 -.516
99 +2 43.08 +1.76 Boston College 24.70 18.18 -.776
100 +5 41.14 +0.86 Missouri State 18.74 22.46 -.229
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
101 +3 40.79 +0.30 Jacksonville State 21.49 19.27 -.293
102 -2 40.63 -1.82 Troy 18.77 21.83 -.369
103 +3 40.48 +0.50 Central Michigan 19.62 20.66 -.331
104 -1 40.14 -0.48 Oregon State 18.14 22.10 -.664
105 -3 40.09 -0.68 Liberty 18.42 21.55 -.580
106 +5 39.90 +2.31 Tulsa 18.85 20.89 -.666
107 +3 39.79 +1.64 Florida Atlantic 25.34 14.45 -.543
108 +8 38.89 +1.82 Colorado State 16.68 22.15 -.728
109 -2 38.72 -0.60 Arkansas State 16.22 22.43 -.472
110 -1 38.62 +0.41 Louisiana 19.76 18.83 -.544
111 -3 38.31 -0.07 Georgia Southern 25.10 13.20 -.421
112 -13 38.14 -5.13 San José State 21.52 16.55 -.654
113 +4 37.77 +0.83 Florida International 19.42 18.34 -.456
114 +12 37.33 +4.46 Nevada 14.48 22.82 -.742
115 +4 37.04 +0.53 Bowling Green 12.90 24.01 -.651
116 +2 36.47 -0.06 Coastal Carolina 18.38 18.12 -.361
117 +5 36.02 +0.68 Rice 14.70 21.33 -.478
118 -6 36.01 -1.43 Delaware 20.06 15.84 -.492
119 +1 35.75 -0.15 South Alabama 18.26 17.95 -.642
120 -6 35.64 -1.47 Buffalo 14.83 20.83 -.491
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
121 +6 35.56 +2.83 Northern Illinois 11.13 24.50 -.656
122 +1 35.49 +0.20 UAB 21.70 13.92 -.626
123 -8 35.33 -1.75 UTEP 16.43 18.88 -.757
124 35.28 +1.81 Oklahoma State 15.12 20.19 -.680
125 -4 35.19 -0.18 New Mexico State 13.74 21.39 -.652
126 -13 35.09 -2.10 App State 18.02 17.12 -.565
127 +2 33.79 +1.88 Eastern Michigan 19.58 14.21 -.613
128 -3 32.35 -1.07 Akron 15.77 16.52 -.600
129 -1 30.80 -1.19 Ball State 11.96 18.70 -.563
130 30.26 +1.08 Kent State 18.02 12.37 -.424
131 29.72 +0.67 Middle Tennessee 14.73 14.85 -.887
132 +1 27.70 +0.88 Sam Houston 14.68 13.21 -.754
133 +1 27.45 +0.69 Georgia State 14.96 12.41 -.790
134 -2 27.30 -0.02 Charlotte 12.71 14.76 -.827
135 24.47 -1.37 UL Monroe 11.22 13.33 -.620
136 13.72 -2.64 Massachusetts 5.24 8.35 -.914Schedule 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: 1.97 points
Mean score: 26.87 points
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
1 Indiana .194 (32) .050 (73) 56.55 (31) 54.55 (62)
2 Ohio State .159 (45) .217 (33) 54.56 (48) 62.32 (29)
3 Oregon .199 (29) .479 (5) 57.93 (25) 74.12 (4)
4 Utah .154 (48) .087 (59) 56.28 (33) 57.94 (47)
5 Notre Dame .205 (27) .013 (96) 60.41 (11) 46.94 (82)
6 Texas Tech .151 (49) .037 (80) 48.92 (72) 52.77 (68)
7 Alabama .276 (10) .123 (48) 63.21 (5) 38.85 (114)
8 USC .213 (22) .416 (8) 59.37 (18) 68.05 (16)
9 Texas A&M .211 (24) .182 (35) 62.31 (6) 37.84 (117)
10 Georgia .224 (18) .066 (67) 61.45 (9) 43.17 (101)
11 Miami .173 (42) .146 (44) 55.34 (40) 59.07 (44)
12 BYU .217 (21) .111 (52) 57.18 (27) 57.57 (49)
13 Oklahoma .233 (17) .234 (32) 59.22 (19) 65.85 (25)
14 Washington .174 (41) .379 (10) 57.18 (28) 68.05 (16)
15 Ole Miss .175 (40) .156 (41) 55.45 (39) 62.32 (28)
16 Iowa .280 (9) .139 (47) 56.27 (34) 58.63 (45)
17 Vanderbilt .185 (37) .264 (27) 55.04 (45) 66.29 (24)
18 Florida State .156 (46) .154 (42) 52.80 (54) 61.66 (35)
19 Tennessee .195 (31) .266 (26) 55.03 (46) 67.01 (19)
20 Michigan .194 (34) .435 (7) 59.39 (17) 71.02 (7)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
21 Penn State .304 (6) .119 (50) 59.56 (16) 59.86 (41)
22 Texas .280 (8) .274 (24) 59.58 (15) 65.80 (26)
23 Illinois .288 (7) .073 (61) 60.06 (12) 56.78 (53)
24 Missouri .191 (35) .327 (16) 53.02 (53) 68.46 (12)
25 LSU .250 (13) .255 (31) 62.27 (7) 59.09 (43)
26 South Florida .130 (57) .001 (129) 51.09 (63) 35.75 (123)
27 North Texas .034 (115) .004 (112) 44.34 (94) 41.00 (108)
28 Pittsburgh .127 (59) .310 (20) 51.15 (61) 68.12 (15)
29 Arizona .111 (68) .093 (55) 52.44 (56) 57.37 (50)
30 Nebraska .117 (64) .366 (12) 51.32 (59) 70.56 (8)
31 Auburn .259 (12) .258 (29) 60.75 (10) 56.78 (52)
32 Florida .327 (2) .281 (22) 64.34 (3) 67.62 (18)
33 Virginia .069 (90) .012 (98) 50.23 (66) 47.14 (80)
34 Kentucky .211 (23) .312 (19) 59.87 (14) 68.35 (14)
35 Iowa State .149 (52) .029 (83) 57.02 (29) 46.25 (88)
36 Cincinnati .145 (53) .277 (23) 50.26 (65) 66.81 (20)
37 Louisville .120 (63) .148 (43) 51.83 (58) 61.87 (33)
38 South Carolina .311 (4) .041 (77) 63.96 (4) 46.05 (90)
39 James Madison .027 (123) .018 (90) 40.88 (120) 45.41 (91)
40 Georgia Tech .041 (109) .348 (14) 48.87 (73) 69.32 (10)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
41 SMU .088 (75) .068 (65) 49.67 (69) 54.65 (60)
42 Mississippi State .219 (20) .358 (13) 56.74 (30) 70.30 (9)
43 East Carolina .066 (91) .020 (86) 45.25 (88) 47.22 (79)
44 Arkansas .267 (11) .306 (21) 58.74 (22) 68.46 (13)
45 Arizona State .200 (28) .104 (54) 58.92 (21) 57.94 (48)
46 TCU .114 (65) .119 (49) 55.32 (41) 60.25 (38)
47 Clemson .103 (70) .090 (57) 54.78 (47) 39.28 (112)
48 Toledo .033 (117) .002 (118) 40.04 (126) 35.64 (124)
49 Kansas State .135 (54) .396 (9) 56.29 (32) 66.44 (23)
50 Memphis .046 (103) .013 (97) 44.17 (96) 47.24 (78)
51 Houston .103 (71) .077 (60) 51.09 (62) 57.21 (51)
52 Northwestern .239 (16) .204 (34) 55.70 (38) 62.17 (30)
53 Kansas .162 (44) .440 (6) 52.51 (55) 72.53 (6)
54 San Diego State .017 (128) .019 (88) 43.28 (102) 44.46 (99)
55 Duke .081 (79) .025 (85) 53.10 (52) 49.70 (75)
56 NC State .209 (25) .143 (45) 58.01 (24) 54.93 (59)
57 Wisconsin .430 (1) .157 (40) 67.63 (1) 61.19 (37)
58 Boise State .121 (62) .017 (92) 49.37 (70) 44.58 (98)
59 Old Dominion .112 (67) .001 (123) 44.19 (95) 32.88 (130)
60 Wake Forest .090 (74) .045 (74) 51.24 (60) 46.17 (89)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
61 Maryland .194 (33) .158 (39) 55.32 (42) 60.11 (39)
62 Rutgers .208 (26) .572 (3) 55.26 (43) 78.04 (3)
63 Baylor .151 (50) .166 (36) 53.91 (50) 61.69 (34)
64 Washington State .150 (51) .088 (58) 55.09 (44) 50.71 (71)
65 Tulane .086 (76) .007 (108) 52.13 (57) 36.64 (122)
66 Minnesota .242 (14) .063 (68) 54.27 (49) 55.79 (57)
67 UCF .126 (60) .269 (25) 50.29 (64) 54.62 (61)
68 Michigan State .239 (15) .263 (28) 59.89 (13) 64.53 (27)
69 UCLA .312 (3) .480 (4) 65.75 (2) 74.12 (4)
70 Purdue .305 (5) .830 (1) 62.25 (8) 86.50 (1)
71 Colorado .189 (36) .106 (53) 58.95 (20) 59.32 (42)
72 West Virginia .175 (39) .610 (2) 55.90 (35) 78.23 (2)
73 New Mexico .058 (93) .030 (82) 46.78 (81) 50.05 (73)
74 UTSA .126 (61) .053 (70) 48.82 (74) 53.32 (66)
75 Army .065 (92) .019 (87) 49.74 (67) 46.61 (87)
76 Utah State .112 (66) .031 (81) 46.79 (80) 51.35 (70)
77 UNLV .017 (129) .007 (109) 44.62 (92) 43.05 (102)
78 UConn .008 (135) .004 (114) 37.94 (132) 41.76 (106)
79 Navy .128 (58) .073 (62) 45.13 (89) 55.39 (58)
80 Virginia Tech .131 (56) .333 (15) 55.86 (36) 69.15 (11)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
81 Western Michigan .070 (88) .001 (125) 45.48 (87) 36.64 (121)
82 Hawai’i .036 (113) .018 (89) 42.32 (113) 46.85 (85)
83 Louisiana Tech .042 (108) .003 (115) 42.80 (105) 40.61 (109)
84 Ohio .100 (72) .001 (132) 44.97 (91) 24.68 (135)
85 California .054 (98) .057 (69) 47.73 (78) 53.83 (64)
86 Fresno State .027 (122) .009 (106) 41.15 (119) 44.20 (100)
87 Syracuse .163 (43) .374 (11) 55.84 (37) 62.01 (32)
88 Stanford .199 (30) .321 (18) 58.58 (23) 62.12 (31)
89 Texas State .032 (118) .000 (135) 43.72 (100) 28.14 (134)
90 Temple .071 (87) .162 (38) 43.06 (103) 60.06 (40)
91 Kennesaw State .100 (73) .003 (117) 42.50 (109) 40.61 (109)
92 Western Kentucky .016 (130) .165 (37) 36.60 (134) 55.97 (56)
93 Miami (OH) .029 (120) .001 (131) 43.90 (98) 33.22 (129)
94 Marshall .075 (82) .001 (126) 43.77 (99) 36.70 (120)
95 North Carolina .047 (101) .068 (64) 47.59 (79) 56.20 (55)
96 Southern Miss .013 (131) .001 (120) 39.00 (129) 38.19 (115)
97 Air Force .020 (126) .010 (103) 44.57 (93) 44.83 (94)
98 Wyoming .084 (78) .013 (95) 46.28 (83) 43.05 (102)
99 Boston College .133 (55) .018 (91) 53.20 (51) 48.92 (77)
100 Missouri State .071 (86) .012 (102) 42.44 (110) 46.87 (83)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
101 Jacksonville State .007 (136) .004 (113) 36.33 (135) 41.50 (107)
102 Troy .031 (119) .004 (111) 41.41 (118) 35.56 (126)
103 Central Michigan .069 (89) .037 (79) 38.68 (130) 44.62 (96)
104 Oregon State .154 (47) .067 (66) 49.73 (68) 56.32 (54)
105 Liberty .020 (127) .015 (94) 40.12 (125) 46.87 (83)
106 Tulsa .034 (116) .017 (93) 45.48 (86) 42.91 (104)
107 Florida Atlantic .057 (96) .052 (71) 43.93 (97) 53.11 (67)
108 Colorado State .072 (85) .043 (75) 49.31 (71) 49.62 (76)
109 Arkansas State .028 (121) .001 (124) 41.58 (117) 36.85 (119)
110 Louisiana .056 (97) .001 (122) 42.89 (104) 31.60 (132)
111 Georgia Southern .079 (81) .027 (84) 42.73 (106) 50.19 (72)
112 San José State .046 (102) .051 (72) 46.41 (82) 51.78 (69)
113 Florida International .044 (105) .001 (127) 40.79 (121) 33.26 (128)
114 Nevada .058 (94) .012 (101) 47.95 (76) 46.85 (85)
115 Bowling Green .049 (99) .000 (136) 43.63 (101) 23.03 (136)
116 Coastal Carolina .039 (110) .142 (46) 40.51 (123) 61.40 (36)
117 Rice .022 (125) .257 (30) 42.33 (112) 66.58 (22)
118 Delaware .008 (134) .039 (78) 38.67 (131) 45.28 (92)
119 South Alabama .058 (95) .010 (104) 39.91 (128) 45.14 (93)
120 Buffalo .009 (133) .008 (107) 32.94 (136) 44.82 (95)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
121 Northern Illinois .044 (106) .006 (110) 42.62 (107) 37.68 (118)
122 UAB .074 (83) .111 (51) 47.78 (77) 53.52 (65)
123 UTEP .043 (107) .001 (128) 40.45 (124) 35.60 (125)
124 Oklahoma State .220 (19) .093 (56) 57.56 (26) 57.96 (46)
125 New Mexico State .048 (100) .001 (133) 42.18 (114) 32.52 (131)
126 App State .035 (114) .003 (116) 40.73 (122) 39.90 (111)
127 Eastern Michigan .024 (124) .012 (100) 40.00 (127) 47.07 (81)
128 Akron .036 (112) .002 (119) 37.75 (133) 39.01 (113)
129 Ball State .037 (111) .072 (63) 42.55 (108) 54.04 (63)
130 Kent State .176 (38) .001 (121) 45.06 (90) 38.02 (116)
131 Middle Tennessee .013 (132) .001 (134) 42.15 (115) 31.44 (133)
132 Sam Houston .046 (104) .001 (130) 46.04 (85) 34.73 (127)
133 Georgia State .110 (69) .041 (76) 46.17 (84) 49.96 (74)
134 Charlotte .073 (84) .325 (17) 48.13 (75) 66.77 (21)
135 UL Monroe .080 (80) .010 (105) 41.80 (116) 44.59 (97)
136 Massachusetts .086 (77) .012 (99) 42.33 (111) 42.73 (105)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 .776 SEC .312 (2) 68.15 33.96 34.18 -0.22 (6)
2 .714 Big Ten .301 (3) 65.91 31.98 33.90 -1.92 (9)
3 .686 FBS Independents .357 (1) 65.42 34.00 31.38 2.62 (1)
4 .632 Big 12 .190 (4) 60.31 30.37 29.91 0.47 (4)
5 .571 ACC .118 (5) 56.56 28.21 28.30 -0.09 (5)
6 .429 American Athletic .061 (6) 48.62 25.57 23.04 2.53 (2)
7 .397 Pac-12 .025 (7) 47.24 19.32 27.89 -8.57 (11)
8 .386 Mountain West .021 (8) 46.72 23.02 23.73 -0.72 (7)
9 .284 Sun Belt .016 (9) 40.53 21.24 19.32 1.92 (3)
10 .249 Mid-American .011 (10) 37.79 16.88 20.90 -4.03 (10)
11 .243 Conference USA .004 (11) 38.56 18.72 19.82 -1.10 (8) 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 .9789 -.0034 Indiana .985 .790 1.000 .993
2 +1 .9679 -.0041 Ohio State .978 .656 1.000 .990
3 -1 .9668 -.0058 Texas A&M .987 .841 1.000 .939
4 +1 .9541 -.0022 Oregon .962 .806 .900 .982
5 +1 .9488 +.0090 Georgia .970 .874 .900 .939
6 +1 .9428 +.0037 BYU .968 .857 .900 .926
7 -3 .9382 -.0202 Alabama .954 .959 .800 .952
8 .9338 -.0022 Texas Tech .947 .624 .909 .969
9 .9256 +.0118 Ole Miss .957 .722 .909 .908
10 +1 .9179 +.0161 Notre Dame .918 .824 .800 .973
11 +6 .9130 +.0369 Oklahoma .934 .894 .800 .915
12 .9116 +.0171 USC .923 .845 .800 .940
13 +2 .8897 +.0097 Utah .881 .636 .800 .977
14 .8897 +.0091 Miami .896 .714 .800 .937
15 -2 .8824 -.0044 Vanderbilt .905 .759 .800 .889
16 .8824 +.0032 Michigan .911 .789 .800 .873
17 +1 .8746 +.0065 Illinois .907 .970 .700 .857
18 -8 .8714 -.0312 Texas .902 .963 .700 .858
19 +2 .8262 +.0171 Tennessee .827 .793 .700 .873
20 -1 .8253 -.0207 Iowa .811 .963 .600 .904
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
21 +4 .8215 +.0205 Washington .804 .717 .700 .913
22 +4 .8183 +.0191 Missouri .823 .780 .700 .856
23 -1 .8183 +.0103 North Texas .865 .155 .900 .816
24 .7908 -.0117 Georgia Tech .870 .173 .900 .711
25 +4 .7840 +.0126 LSU .776 .926 .600 .837
26 +5 .7839 +.0241 James Madison .858 .135 .900 .718
27 .7740 -.0032 Arizona State .832 .809 .700 .687
28 +5 .7728 +.0268 Virginia .819 .269 .818 .757
29 -9 .7601 -.0677 South Florida .750 .531 .700 .836
30 +2 .7529 +.0008 Houston .835 .407 .800 .645
31 -1 .7461 -.0138 Pittsburgh .747 .517 .700 .799
32 -9 .7446 -.0579 Cincinnati .769 .598 .700 .739
33 +1 .7334 -.0055 Nebraska .733 .470 .700 .790
34 +4 .7307 +.0475 Arizona .725 .445 .700 .798
35 -7 .7204 -.0522 Louisville .737 .486 .700 .735
36 -1 .7063 +.0069 Tulane .817 .335 .800 .533
37 +6 .6987 +.0450 Navy .859 .520 .800 .401
38 -1 .6852 -.0042 Minnesota .766 .913 .600 .528
39 .6792 +.0017 SMU .692 .342 .700 .704
40 +8 .6687 +.0454 San Diego State .733 .112 .800 .600
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
41 -1 .6663 -.0034 Iowa State .634 .614 .600 .756
42 +4 .6618 +.0334 Old Dominion .726 .447 .700 .568
43 +8 .6599 +.0442 Penn State .564 .981 .400 .869
44 +6 .6544 +.0362 East Carolina .661 .258 .700 .693
45 -9 .6460 -.0524 Memphis .671 .188 .727 .649
46 +3 .6391 +.0165 Wake Forest .695 .350 .700 .564
47 +7 .6356 +.0540 Kentucky .575 .842 .500 .757
48 -7 .6227 -.0371 Northwestern .618 .906 .500 .624
49 +4 .6166 +.0176 UNLV .733 .112 .800 .426
50 +9 .6122 +.0437 Florida State .486 .647 .500 .874
51 -6 .6055 -.0320 TCU .580 .458 .600 .679
52 +3 .5914 +.0103 Auburn .490 .939 .400 .784
53 +9 .5885 +.0233 Wisconsin .605 1.000 .300 .586
54 -10 .5828 -.0692 Boise State .591 .491 .600 .577
55 -3 .5824 -.0243 NC State .572 .837 .500 .586
56 -9 .5796 -.0466 Mississippi State .513 .861 .455 .696
57 +6 .5784 +.0186 Western Kentucky .732 .111 .800 .300
58 +3 .5735 +.0081 Rutgers .570 .834 .500 .560
59 +1 .5712 +.0054 New Mexico .649 .229 .700 .443
60 -18 .5701 -.0880 Kennesaw State .709 .393 .700 .302
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
61 -5 .5494 -.0275 Florida .438 .990 .300 .763
62 +2 .5410 +.0056 Kansas .495 .670 .500 .617
63 +4 .5402 +.0257 UConn .613 .093 .727 .420
64 +1 .5327 +.0024 Hawai’i .615 .160 .700 .389
65 +5 .5232 +.0209 South Carolina .413 .984 .300 .723
66 +5 .5222 +.0251 Kansas State .452 .554 .500 .654
67 +5 .5142 +.0278 Missouri State .668 .274 .700 .211
68 +7 .5124 +.0602 Toledo .448 .150 .600 .662
69 +5 .5103 +.0511 Fresno State .601 .136 .700 .344
70 -2 .5090 -.0054 Baylor .477 .623 .500 .551
71 +13 .5047 +.0838 Washington State .476 .620 .500 .540
72 -14 .5001 -.0691 Ohio .557 .395 .600 .380
73 +4 .4938 +.0524 Clemson .401 .410 .500 .677
74 -17 .4726 -.0998 Southern Miss .578 .104 .700 .264
75 +7 .4725 +.0449 Western Michigan .509 .273 .600 .396
76 -3 .4605 -.0135 Maryland .386 .790 .400 .563
77 +4 .4548 +.0236 UCLA .414 .984 .300 .492
78 +9 .4487 +.0330 Jacksonville State .569 .093 .700 .204
79 +7 .4481 +.0307 UTSA .436 .511 .500 .441
80 -11 .4445 -.0669 Duke .365 .312 .500 .594
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
81 -1 .4410 +.0095 California .482 .215 .600 .350
82 -3 .4330 +.0014 Army .428 .253 .556 .431
83 -17 .4289 -.0869 Utah State .414 .448 .500 .429
84 +6 .4118 +.0316 Central Michigan .507 .269 .600 .198
85 -7 .3905 -.0417 Michigan State .304 .907 .300 .494
86 +3 .3887 -.0042 Arkansas .209 .949 .200 .688
87 +4 .3731 +.0067 UCF .285 .514 .400 .502
88 -12 .3720 -.0697 Troy .445 .146 .600 .201
89 -1 .3720 -.0316 West Virginia .303 .722 .364 .444
90 -7 .3596 -.0631 Coastal Carolina .458 .169 .600 .131
91 +3 .3515 +.0040 Temple .350 .273 .500 .318
92 +6 .3487 +.0554 Marshall .356 .289 .500 .295
93 -1 .3429 -.0111 Purdue .233 .981 .182 .492
94 -9 .3419 -.0759 Louisiana Tech .307 .176 .500 .381
95 .3316 -.0040 Colorado .236 .774 .300 .444
96 +6 .3126 +.0442 Georgia Southern .363 .307 .500 .159
97 .3093 +.0064 Stanford .248 .805 .300 .342
98 -5 .3056 -.0449 Miami (OH) .289 .141 .500 .299
99 +8 .2916 +.0495 Kent State .358 .726 .400 .061
100 +1 .2786 -.0042 Syracuse .204 .673 .300 .342
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
101 +8 .2753 +.0503 Florida International .311 .183 .500 .150
102 +3 .2695 +.0058 Virginia Tech .170 .536 .300 .398
103 +1 .2648 -.0021 Arkansas State .287 .138 .500 .166
104 -8 .2612 -.0563 Wyoming .230 .327 .400 .261
105 +3 .2470 +.0051 Rice .279 .124 .500 .124
106 +9 .2413 +.0602 Texas State .170 .148 .400 .334
107 -8 .2350 -.0559 Delaware .260 .094 .500 .124
108 -5 .2348 -.0335 North Carolina .187 .192 .400 .275
109 -9 .2341 -.0549 Buffalo .261 .095 .500 .119
110 -4 .2150 -.0280 Florida Atlantic .197 .223 .400 .185
111 +2 .2082 +.0083 Louisiana .196 .220 .400 .164
112 -2 .1898 -.0319 Liberty .158 .118 .400 .191
113 -2 .1765 -.0287 App State .173 .156 .400 .112
114 -2 .1640 -.0391 Ball State .175 .161 .400 .065
115 +1 .1580 -.0221 Air Force .079 .120 .300 .261
116 +1 .1565 -.0205 Oregon State .089 .637 .182 .191
117 +1 .1447 -.0288 Akron .139 .160 .364 .080
118 +1 .1435 -.0080 UAB .117 .285 .300 .117
119 +10 .1419 +.0404 Tulsa .088 .153 .300 .187
120 +8 .1419 +.0390 Eastern Michigan .128 .128 .364 .096
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
121 -7 .1391 -.0587 San José State .096 .189 .300 .156
122 .1355 +.0021 Bowling Green .098 .198 .300 .139
123 +4 .1348 +.0307 South Alabama .104 .226 .300 .120
124 .1311 +.0071 Boston College .036 .542 .091 .251
125 -4 .1308 -.0063 Oklahoma State .079 .864 .100 .114
126 -3 .1273 +.0011 New Mexico State .098 .195 .300 .113
127 +3 .1266 +.0405 Northern Illinois .095 .183 .300 .118
128 -8 .1205 -.0302 UL Monroe .122 .312 .300 .026
129 -4 .1144 +.0036 Colorado State .054 .279 .200 .169
130 +2 .1009 +.0402 Nevada .048 .229 .200 .143
131 -5 .0865 -.0219 UTEP .042 .179 .200 .115
132 +2 .0658 +.0188 Sam Houston .043 .188 .200 .042
133 -2 .0614 -.0052 Georgia State .031 .439 .100 .041
134 -1 .0483 -.0061 Charlotte .022 .283 .100 .040
135 .0386 -.0001 Middle Tennessee .012 .103 .100 .056
136 .0226 -.0027 Massachusetts .009 .333 .000 .004Playoff 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 .003 (136) -.0563 -.1438 -.0875 (90)
2 Ohio State .055 (129) .0172 .0589 .0418 (40)
3 Texas A&M .171 (114) -.0273 -.0290 -.0017 (55)
4 Oregon .223 (106) .1197 .2796 .1599 (13)
5 Georgia .060 (127) -.1493 -.1577 -.0084 (58)
6 BYU .122 (122) -.1072 -.1064 .0009 (51)
7 Alabama .094 (125) -.1281 -.1534 -.0253 (66)
8 Texas Tech .013 (133) -.0855 -.1142 -.0287 (68)
9 Ole Miss .210 (108) -.0065 -.0191 -.0126 (61)
10 Notre Dame .003 (135) -.1131 -.1923 -.0792 (87)
11 Oklahoma .282 (98) .0132 .0015 -.0117 (60)
12 USC .406 (84) .2056 .2037 -.0019 (56)
13 Utah .026 (131) -.0540 -.0670 -.0130 (62)
14 Miami .139 (120) -.0267 -.0264 .0003 (53)
15 Vanderbilt .371 (88) .1157 .0791 -.0366 (71)
16 Michigan .525 (63) .2404 .2413 .0009 (52)
17 Illinois .172 (113) -.2090 -.2153 -.0063 (57)
18 Texas .428 (78) .0318 -.0068 -.0387 (72)
19 Tennessee .419 (80) .1388 .0714 -.0674 (81)
20 Iowa .188 (110) -.1399 -.1412 -.0013 (54)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
21 Washington .417 (81) .2155 .2057 -.0097 (59)
22 Missouri .501 (68) .1984 .1363 -.0621 (79)
23 North Texas .024 (132) -.0771 -.0307 .0464 (39)
24 Georgia Tech .724 (32) .4996 .3071 -.1926 (116)
25 LSU .380 (87) -.0302 .0050 .0352 (44)
26 James Madison .133 (121) .0090 -.0087 -.0178 (64)
27 Arizona State .439 (76) -.0260 -.0957 -.0697 (84)
28 Virginia .098 (123) -.1357 -.0569 .0788 (29)
29 South Florida .006 (134) -.2307 -.1293 .1014 (25)
30 Houston .465 (73) .1363 -.0257 -.1620 (112)
31 Pittsburgh .589 (54) .3404 .1830 -.1574 (111)
32 Cincinnati .634 (50) .2967 .1315 -.1652 (113)
33 Nebraska .685 (41) .3988 .2495 -.1492 (107)
34 Arizona .280 (99) .0075 -.0183 -.0259 (67)
35 Louisville .494 (69) .1820 .0276 -.1545 (108)
36 Tulane .159 (117) -.2863 -.0788 .2075 (8)
37 Navy .678 (44) .2552 -.0549 -.3101 (134)
38 Minnesota .561 (58) .0237 -.1789 -.2026 (119)
39 SMU .327 (93) .0344 -.0201 -.0545 (78)
40 San Diego State .214 (107) .0158 .0018 -.0140 (63)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
41 Iowa State .142 (119) -.2510 -.1200 .1310 (17)
42 Old Dominion .059 (128) -.2019 -.1103 .0916 (28)
43 Penn State .229 (104) -.1434 -.1856 -.0422 (74)
44 East Carolina .168 (115) -.0726 -.0464 .0263 (46)
45 Memphis .181 (112) -.0421 -.0332 .0089 (48)
46 Wake Forest .321 (94) -.1016 -.0442 .0574 (33)
47 Kentucky .658 (46) .1819 .1004 -.0815 (88)
48 Northwestern .619 (52) .0763 -.0347 -.1110 (93)
49 UNLV .291 (97) -.0655 -.0102 .0553 (34)
50 Florida State .267 (100) .0301 -.0029 -.0331 (69)
51 TCU .519 (65) .1244 .0049 -.1194 (97)
52 Auburn .415 (82) -.0703 -.0002 .0701 (30)
53 Wisconsin .648 (47) -.0686 -.2732 -.2046 (121)
54 Boise State .226 (105) -.1260 -.1040 .0220 (47)
55 NC State .478 (71) -.1142 -.0664 .0478 (38)
56 Mississippi State .790 (23) .2680 .1394 -.1286 (102)
57 Western Kentucky .697 (37) .3961 .1485 -.2476 (129)
58 Rutgers .918 (13) .3613 .3635 .0022 (49)
59 New Mexico .478 (72) .0873 -.0287 -.1159 (94)
60 Kennesaw State .353 (90) -.0332 -.0966 -.0634 (80)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
61 Florida .637 (49) .0227 -.0463 -.0690 (83)
62 Kansas .852 (16) .3955 .2779 -.1176 (96)
63 UConn .254 (102) .0302 -.0039 -.0341 (70)
64 Hawai’i .444 (74) .0649 -.0179 -.0828 (89)
65 South Carolina .195 (109) -.4315 -.2702 .1612 (12)
66 Kansas State .596 (53) .1574 .2606 .1032 (22)
67 Missouri State .679 (43) .1868 -.0591 -.2459 (128)
68 Toledo .048 (130) -.1233 -.0305 .0928 (27)
69 Fresno State .415 (83) -.0197 -.0182 .0014 (50)
70 Baylor .696 (38) .1394 .0150 -.1244 (100)
71 Washington State .430 (77) -.0916 -.0620 .0295 (45)
72 Ohio .096 (124) -.2762 -.0993 .1768 (11)
73 Clemson .312 (95) -.0779 -.0137 .0642 (31)
74 Southern Miss .328 (92) -.0654 -.0118 .0536 (35)
75 Western Michigan .158 (118) -.2876 -.0695 .2181 (7)
76 Maryland .631 (51) .1041 -.0362 -.1402 (106)
77 UCLA .954 (8) .2219 .1676 -.0542 (77)
78 Jacksonville State .523 (64) .1161 -.0036 -.1198 (98)
79 UTSA .577 (56) .1310 -.0728 -.2037 (120)
80 Duke .303 (96) -.1507 -.0554 .0953 (26)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
81 California .689 (39) .1191 .0030 -.1162 (95)
82 Army .399 (85) -.1084 -.0462 .0622 (32)
83 Utah State .535 (62) .1171 -.0811 -.1982 (118)
84 Central Michigan .581 (55) .1233 -.0319 -.1553 (109)
85 Michigan State .770 (26) .1466 .0240 -.1226 (99)
86 Arkansas .750 (30) .1653 .0396 -.1257 (101)
87 UCF .512 (66) .0087 .1424 .1337 (15)
88 Troy .384 (86) -.1280 -.0264 .1016 (23)
89 West Virginia .987 (4) .3119 .4354 .1235 (20)
90 Coastal Carolina .977 (6) .4095 .1027 -.3068 (133)
91 Temple .827 (21) .3246 .0911 -.2334 (126)
92 Marshall .250 (103) -.1872 -.0736 .1136 (21)
93 Purdue .997 (1) .3026 .5248 .2221 (6)
94 Louisiana Tech .267 (101) -.0795 -.0385 .0411 (41)
95 Colorado .754 (29) .0736 -.0832 -.1568 (110)
96 Georgia Southern .825 (22) .2712 -.0525 -.3237 (135)
97 Stanford .721 (33) -.0068 .1220 .1288 (19)
98 Miami (OH) .181 (111) -.3137 -.0283 .2854 (3)
99 Kent State .736 (31) .0741 -.1747 -.2488 (130)
100 Syracuse .658 (45) -.0585 .2115 .2700 (4)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
101 Florida International .370 (89) -.2002 -.0434 .1568 (14)
102 Virginia Tech .939 (12) .2517 .2015 -.0502 (76)
103 Arkansas State .440 (75) -.1282 -.0267 .1015 (24)
104 Wyoming .487 (70) -.0506 -.0712 -.0206 (65)
105 Rice .992 (3) .3406 .2354 -.1053 (92)
106 Texas State .087 (126) -.3555 -.0316 .3239 (2)
107 Delaware .686 (40) .1019 .0307 -.0712 (85)
108 North Carolina .833 (19) .2069 .0206 -.1863 (115)
109 Buffalo .770 (25) .2839 -.0006 -.2845 (132)
110 Florida Atlantic .840 (18) .2157 -.0042 -.2198 (124)
111 Louisiana .331 (91) -.2482 -.0544 .1938 (9)
112 Liberty .701 (36) .2087 -.0049 -.2137 (123)
113 App State .647 (48) .0464 -.0317 -.0782 (86)
114 Ball State .950 (9) .2192 .0349 -.1843 (114)
115 Air Force .540 (61) -.0485 -.0101 .0384 (42)
116 Oregon State .906 (14) .2627 -.0873 -.3500 (136)
117 Akron .706 (35) .1038 -.0343 -.1381 (105)
118 UAB .845 (17) .1053 .0372 -.0682 (82)
119 Tulsa .573 (57) -.0545 -.0164 .0381 (43)
120 Eastern Michigan .860 (15) .2120 -.0115 -.2235 (125)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
121 San José State .832 (20) .1380 .0047 -.1333 (104)
122 Bowling Green .168 (116) -.4502 -.0488 .4014 (1)
123 South Alabama .768 (27) .2018 -.0474 -.2492 (131)
124 Boston College .682 (42) -.0761 -.1149 -.0387 (73)
125 Oklahoma State .963 (7) .1183 -.1270 -.2453 (127)
126 New Mexico State .420 (79) -.2366 -.0476 .1891 (10)
127 Northern Illinois .551 (59) -.0892 -.0382 .0510 (36)
128 UL Monroe .940 (11) .1230 -.0706 -.1935 (117)
129 Colorado State .761 (28) .0172 -.0292 -.0464 (75)
130 Nevada .779 (24) .0463 -.0462 -.0925 (91)
131 UTEP .509 (67) -.0909 -.0420 .0489 (37)
132 Sam Houston .710 (34) -.1741 -.0450 .1291 (18)
133 Georgia State .941 (10) .1411 -.0685 -.2096 (122)
134 Charlotte .995 (2) .1203 .2523 .1320 (16)
135 Middle Tennessee .550 (60) -.2626 -.0120 .2506 (5)
136 Massachusetts .979 (5) .0590 -.0734 -.1323 (103)Week 13 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: Pittsburgh (2.12, 56.84%) at Georgia Tech (-2.12, 43.16%)
Estimated score: 33.27 - 31.36, Total: 64.63
Quality: 96.53%, Team quality: 95.21%, Competitiveness: 99.24%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.63%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.46%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 45.76%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 26.62%
#2: Louisville (-0.63, 47.96%) at SMU (0.63, 52.04%)
Estimated score: 27.05 - 27.66, Total: 54.71
Quality: 96.45%, Team quality: 94.76%, Competitiveness: 99.93%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.50%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.98%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 36.39%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 35.09%
#3: Tennessee (4.28, 63.58%) at Florida (-4.28, 36.42%)
Estimated score: 34.52 - 30.28, Total: 64.80
Quality: 96.33%, Team quality: 96.01%, Competitiveness: 96.96%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.10%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.77%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 45.92%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 26.49%
#4: TCU (-0.61, 48.02%) at Houston (0.61, 51.98%)
Estimated score: 30.09 - 30.69, Total: 60.78
Quality: 95.97%, Team quality: 94.04%, Competitiveness: 99.94%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.50%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.98%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 42.06%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 29.79%
#5: Missouri (-6.51, 29.85%) at Oklahoma (6.51, 70.15%)
Estimated score: 17.83 - 24.60, Total: 42.43
Quality: 95.57%, Team quality: 96.86%, Competitiveness: 93.05%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.97%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.96%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 25.87%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 46.67%
#6: Nebraska (-6.56, 29.70%) at Penn State (6.56, 70.30%)
Estimated score: 25.37 - 31.73, Total: 57.10
Quality: 95.03%, Team quality: 96.09%, Competitiveness: 92.94%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.00%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.88%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 38.60%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 32.96%
#7: Minnesota (-3.61, 38.46%) vs. Northwestern (3.61, 61.54%)
Estimated score: 15.46 - 19.11, Total: 34.57
Quality: 94.52%, Team quality: 92.92%, Competitiveness: 97.82%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.92%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 41.40%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 20.08%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 54.30%
#8: USC (-9.91, 21.04%) at Oregon (9.91, 78.96%)
Estimated score: 28.00 - 37.91, Total: 65.91
Quality: 93.35%, Team quality: 98.14%, Competitiveness: 84.45%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.20%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.17%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 47.00%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 25.60%
#9: Utah State (1.30, 54.20%) at Fresno State (-1.30, 45.80%)
Estimated score: 28.15 - 26.88, Total: 55.03
Quality: 93.17%, Team quality: 90.05%, Competitiveness: 99.72%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.54%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.82%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 36.68%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 34.81%
#10: Kansas (-7.74, 26.49%) at Iowa State (7.74, 73.51%)
Estimated score: 23.71 - 31.55, Total: 55.26
Quality: 92.93%, Team quality: 94.28%, Competitiveness: 90.29%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.64%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 36.05%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 36.89%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 34.60%
#11: Hawai’i (-3.36, 39.24%) at UNLV (3.36, 60.76%)
Estimated score: 32.81 - 36.20, Total: 69.01
Quality: 92.91%, Team quality: 90.41%, Competitiveness: 98.11%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.86%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 41.62%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 50.01%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 23.24%
#12: California (-1.66, 44.63%) at Stanford (1.66, 55.37%)
Estimated score: 20.96 - 22.85, Total: 43.82
Quality: 92.60%, Team quality: 89.32%, Competitiveness: 99.54%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.57%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.68%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 26.98%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 45.33%
#13: Arizona State (7.21, 72.10%) at Colorado (-7.21, 27.90%)
Estimated score: 24.48 - 17.40, Total: 41.88
Quality: 92.33%, Team quality: 92.73%, Competitiveness: 91.52%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.34%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 36.89%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 25.45%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 47.20%
#14: BYU (9.78, 78.66%) at Cincinnati (-9.78, 21.34%)
Estimated score: 32.80 - 22.97, Total: 55.77
Quality: 92.29%, Team quality: 96.27%, Competitiveness: 84.83%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.09%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.42%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 37.36%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 34.15%
#15: Kentucky (-9.65, 21.66%) at Vanderbilt (9.65, 78.34%)
Estimated score: 25.60 - 35.26, Total: 60.86
Quality: 92.27%, Team quality: 96.01%, Competitiveness: 85.21%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.98%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.66%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 42.14%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 29.72%
#16: East Carolina (7.55, 73.02%) at UTSA (-7.55, 26.98%)
Estimated score: 32.32 - 24.65, Total: 56.96
Quality: 92.08%, Team quality: 92.76%, Competitiveness: 90.74%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.53%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 36.35%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 38.47%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 33.08%
#17: Tulane (6.16, 69.15%) at Temple (-6.16, 30.85%)
Estimated score: 32.96 - 26.66, Total: 59.62
Quality: 91.65%, Team quality: 90.61%, Competitiveness: 93.77%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.81%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.47%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 40.97%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 30.77%
#18: Washington State (-8.91, 23.47%) at James Madison (8.91, 76.53%)
Estimated score: 13.43 - 22.43, Total: 35.86
Quality: 91.40%, Team quality: 93.52%, Competitiveness: 87.29%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.41%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 34.03%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 20.97%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 53.05%
#19: New Mexico (5.27, 66.57%) at Air Force (-5.27, 33.43%)
Estimated score: 34.28 - 28.91, Total: 63.18
Quality: 91.29%, Team quality: 89.30%, Competitiveness: 95.40%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.44%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 39.64%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 44.37%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 27.79%
#20: Arkansas (-10.44, 19.82%) at Texas (10.44, 80.18%)
Estimated score: 23.61 - 34.06, Total: 57.67
Quality: 91.00%, Team quality: 95.36%, Competitiveness: 82.86%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.66%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.16%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 39.13%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 32.46%
#21: Illinois (10.46, 80.23%) at Wisconsin (-10.46, 19.77%)
Estimated score: 24.85 - 14.47, Total: 39.32
Quality: 90.64%, Team quality: 94.83%, Competitiveness: 82.80%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.68%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.12%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 23.49%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 49.69%
#22: Jacksonville State (1.06, 53.41%) at Florida International (-1.06, 46.59%)
Estimated score: 29.03 - 28.02, Total: 57.05
Quality: 89.69%, Team quality: 85.03%, Competitiveness: 99.81%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.52%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.89%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 38.55%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 33.01%
#23: Missouri State (-6.11, 30.97%) at Kennesaw State (6.11, 69.03%)
Estimated score: 21.29 - 27.39, Total: 48.68
Quality: 89.38%, Team quality: 87.23%, Competitiveness: 93.85%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.79%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.53%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 31.03%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 40.68%
#24: Florida State (11.60, 82.69%) at NC State (-11.60, 17.31%)
Estimated score: 38.26 - 26.82, Total: 65.08
Quality: 89.38%, Team quality: 94.95%, Competitiveness: 79.20%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.79%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.89%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 46.20%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 26.26%
#25: Louisiana (-2.07, 43.33%) at Arkansas State (2.07, 56.67%)
Estimated score: 23.22 - 25.25, Total: 48.46
Quality: 89.26%, Team quality: 84.64%, Competitiveness: 99.28%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.62%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.49%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 30.84%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 40.88%
#26: UConn (8.16, 74.61%) at Florida Atlantic (-8.16, 25.39%)
Estimated score: 39.01 - 30.81, Total: 69.81
Quality: 88.44%, Team quality: 88.03%, Competitiveness: 89.26%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.90%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.34%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 50.79%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 22.64%
#27: Michigan (12.40, 84.30%) at Maryland (-12.40, 15.70%)
Estimated score: 28.17 - 15.74, Total: 43.91
Quality: 88.27%, Team quality: 94.79%, Competitiveness: 76.54%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.67%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.30%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 27.05%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 45.24%
#28: Duke (10.21, 79.65%) at North Carolina (-10.21, 20.35%)
Estimated score: 32.38 - 22.12, Total: 54.50
Quality: 88.16%, Team quality: 90.56%, Competitiveness: 83.57%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.45%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.61%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 36.20%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 35.29%
#29: Southern Miss (5.94, 68.54%) at South Alabama (-5.94, 31.46%)
Estimated score: 30.11 - 24.61, Total: 54.72
Quality: 88.09%, Team quality: 85.20%, Competitiveness: 94.18%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.71%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.76%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 36.40%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 35.09%
#30: Baylor (-12.28, 15.93%) at Arizona (12.28, 84.07%)
Estimated score: 27.19 - 39.31, Total: 66.51
Quality: 87.97%, Team quality: 94.07%, Competitiveness: 76.93%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.53%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.53%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 47.58%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 25.14%
#31: New Mexico State (-2.11, 43.21%) at UTEP (2.11, 56.79%)
Estimated score: 20.75 - 22.90, Total: 43.65
Quality: 87.68%, Team quality: 82.41%, Competitiveness: 99.26%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.63%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.47%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 26.85%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 45.49%
#32: Miami (OH) (7.55, 73.01%) at Buffalo (-7.55, 26.99%)
Estimated score: 24.13 - 16.44, Total: 40.57
Quality: 87.25%, Team quality: 85.56%, Competitiveness: 90.74%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.53%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 36.36%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 24.43%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 48.47%
#33: Marshall (7.96, 74.10%) at App State (-7.96, 25.90%)
Estimated score: 36.97 - 29.07, Total: 66.04
Quality: 86.78%, Team quality: 85.33%, Competitiveness: 89.75%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.77%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.68%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 47.12%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 25.51%
#34: Nevada (-8.18, 25.33%) at Wyoming (8.18, 74.67%)
Estimated score: 10.91 - 19.12, Total: 30.03
Quality: 86.75%, Team quality: 85.56%, Competitiveness: 89.20%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.91%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.31%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 17.12%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 58.65%
#35: Liberty (-10.33, 20.08%) at Louisiana Tech (10.33, 79.92%)
Estimated score: 17.30 - 27.64, Total: 44.94
Quality: 86.13%, Team quality: 87.63%, Competitiveness: 83.21%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.56%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.38%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 27.89%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 44.25%
#36: Akron (-6.66, 29.43%) at Bowling Green (6.66, 70.57%)
Estimated score: 17.65 - 24.24, Total: 41.89
Quality: 85.37%, Team quality: 81.90%, Competitiveness: 92.74%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.05%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.74%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 25.45%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 47.19%
#37: Central Michigan (8.26, 74.88%) at Kent State (-8.26, 25.12%)
Estimated score: 33.15 - 25.22, Total: 58.37
Quality: 84.48%, Team quality: 82.31%, Competitiveness: 89.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.96%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.17%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 39.78%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 31.86%
#38: Western Michigan (11.51, 82.51%) at Northern Illinois (-11.51, 17.49%)
Estimated score: 19.11 - 7.61, Total: 26.72
Quality: 84.08%, Team quality: 86.47%, Competitiveness: 79.48%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.70%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.07%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 15.15%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 61.76%
#39: Tulsa (-12.40, 15.69%) at Army (12.40, 84.31%)
Estimated score: 12.42 - 24.93, Total: 37.35
Quality: 83.97%, Team quality: 87.96%, Competitiveness: 76.51%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.68%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.29%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 22.04%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 51.60%
#40: Sam Houston (-3.99, 37.29%) at Middle Tennessee (3.99, 62.71%)
Estimated score: 25.72 - 29.38, Total: 55.10
Quality: 83.65%, Team quality: 77.54%, Competitiveness: 97.35%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.02%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 41.05%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 36.75%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 34.74%
#41: Old Dominion (15.09, 88.98%) at Georgia Southern (-15.09, 11.02%)
Estimated score: 39.86 - 24.74, Total: 64.60
Quality: 80.73%, Team quality: 88.67%, Competitiveness: 66.92%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.30%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.92%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 45.73%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 26.64%
#42: Washington (18.11, 92.94%) at UCLA (-18.11, 7.06%)
Estimated score: 37.37 - 19.15, Total: 56.51
Quality: 79.17%, Team quality: 94.59%, Competitiveness: 55.46%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 16.72%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 16.27%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 38.05%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 33.48%
#43: Georgia State (-15.14, 10.94%) at Troy (15.14, 89.06%)
Estimated score: 19.02 - 34.22, Total: 53.24
Quality: 75.88%, Team quality: 80.93%, Competitiveness: 66.72%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.39%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.82%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 35.05%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 36.44%
#44: Colorado State (-18.79, 6.35%) at Boise State (18.79, 93.65%)
Estimated score: 14.03 - 32.99, Total: 47.02
Quality: 74.62%, Team quality: 88.61%, Competitiveness: 52.91%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 18.12%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 15.11%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 29.62%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 42.26%
#45: Michigan State (-21.24, 4.23%) at Iowa (21.24, 95.77%)
Estimated score: 10.82 - 31.91, Total: 42.73
Quality: 73.01%, Team quality: 94.29%, Competitiveness: 43.77%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 23.83%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 11.29%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 26.11%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 46.38%
#46: Oklahoma State (-19.62, 5.55%) at UCF (19.62, 94.45%)
Estimated score: 10.67 - 30.26, Total: 40.93
Quality: 72.14%, Team quality: 86.86%, Competitiveness: 49.75%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 19.96%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 13.74%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 24.71%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 48.12%
#47: San José State (-20.38, 4.89%) at San Diego State (20.38, 95.11%)
Estimated score: 14.55 - 35.08, Total: 49.63
Quality: 71.62%, Team quality: 88.49%, Competitiveness: 46.90%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 21.74%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 12.54%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 31.85%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 39.78%
#48: Delaware (-21.19, 4.26%) at Wake Forest (21.19, 95.74%)
Estimated score: 11.48 - 32.87, Total: 44.35
Quality: 69.55%, Team quality: 87.53%, Competitiveness: 43.92%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 23.73%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 11.35%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 27.41%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 44.82%
#49: Miami (24.16, 97.51%) at Virginia Tech (-24.16, 2.49%)
Estimated score: 36.11 - 11.75, Total: 47.87
Quality: 66.76%, Team quality: 94.05%, Competitiveness: 33.63%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 31.77%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 7.60%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 30.33%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 41.45%
#50: Western Kentucky (-23.96, 2.59%) at LSU (23.96, 97.41%)
Estimated score: 10.33 - 34.17, Total: 44.50
Quality: 66.24%, Team quality: 92.05%, Competitiveness: 34.31%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 31.17%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 7.83%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 27.53%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 44.67%
#51: Kansas State (-25.38, 1.97%) at Utah (25.38, 98.03%)
Estimated score: 17.72 - 43.28, Total: 61.00
Quality: 65.01%, Team quality: 96.07%, Competitiveness: 29.77%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 35.36%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 6.35%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 42.28%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 29.60%
#52: Mercer (-26.01, 1.73%) at Auburn (26.01, 98.27%)
Estimated score: 12.02 - 38.01, Total: 50.02
Quality: 61.00%, Team quality: 90.25%, Competitiveness: 27.86%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 37.29%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 5.77%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 32.19%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 39.42%
#53: UL Monroe (-24.12, 2.51%) at Texas State (24.12, 97.49%)
Estimated score: 21.37 - 45.41, Total: 66.78
Quality: 60.51%, Team quality: 81.01%, Competitiveness: 33.76%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 31.65%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 7.65%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 47.84%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 24.93%
#54: Coastal Carolina (-27.00, 1.42%) at South Carolina (27.00, 98.58%)
Estimated score: 8.03 - 35.12, Total: 43.16
Quality: 58.11%, Team quality: 88.60%, Competitiveness: 25.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 40.38%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 4.93%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 26.45%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 45.97%
#55: North Texas (28.02, 98.86%) at Rice (-28.02, 1.14%)
Estimated score: 46.75 - 18.88, Total: 65.63
Quality: 56.24%, Team quality: 89.44%, Competitiveness: 22.24%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 43.62%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 4.16%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 46.73%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 25.83%
#56: South Florida (29.69, 99.21%) at UAB (-29.69, 0.79%)
Estimated score: 50.85 - 21.37, Total: 72.22
Quality: 52.55%, Team quality: 89.38%, Competitiveness: 18.17%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 49.00%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 3.12%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 53.13%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 20.92%
#57: Ball State (-30.15, 0.72%) at Toledo (30.15, 99.28%)
Estimated score: 7.39 - 37.78, Total: 45.18
Quality: 50.25%, Team quality: 86.04%, Competitiveness: 17.14%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 50.48%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 2.88%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 28.08%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 44.02%
#58: Rutgers (-33.73, 0.31%) at Ohio State (33.73, 99.69%)
Estimated score: 10.64 - 44.66, Total: 55.30
Quality: 45.73%, Team quality: 95.61%, Competitiveness: 10.46%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 61.90%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 1.45%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 36.93%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 34.56%
#59: Syracuse (-35.95, 0.18%) at Notre Dame (35.95, 99.82%)
Estimated score: 7.89 - 43.75, Total: 51.63
Quality: 40.21%, Team quality: 93.50%, Competitiveness: 7.44%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 68.55%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.91%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 33.61%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 37.91%
#60: Massachusetts (-36.67, 0.14%) at Ohio (36.67, 99.86%)
Estimated score: 7.62 - 44.46, Total: 52.08
Quality: 33.55%, Team quality: 75.57%, Competitiveness: 6.61%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 70.61%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.78%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 34.01%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 37.50%
#61: Furman (-44.49, 0.02%) at Clemson (44.49, 99.98%)
Estimated score: 3.36 - 47.78, Total: 51.13
Quality: 21.28%, Team quality: 79.24%, Competitiveness: 1.54%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 88.04%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.11%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 33.17%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 38.38%
#62: Charlotte (-50.16, 0.00%) at Georgia (50.16, 100.00%)
Estimated score: 0.00 - 48.85, Total: 48.85
Quality: 14.65%, Team quality: 86.03%, Competitiveness: 0.42%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 94.92%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.02%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 31.17%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 40.52%
#63: Eastern Illinois (-65.82, 0.00%) at Alabama (65.82, 100.00%)
Estimated score: 0.00 - 54.78, Total: 54.78
Quality: 3.01%, Team quality: 78.49%, Competitiveness: 0.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 99.82%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.00%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 36.45%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 35.03%
#64: Samford (-70.30, 0.00%) at Texas A&M (70.30, 100.00%)
Estimated score: 0.00 - 64.55, Total: 64.55
Quality: 1.71%, Team quality: 74.34%, Competitiveness: 0.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 99.95%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.00%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 45.68%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 26.68%Thanks for reading!
The ratings in this article are based on data from collegefootballdata.com.