College Football Ratings for Week 6
Is there an argument that the Big Ten is actually the best conference?
Last weekend featured a lot of big games, headlined by Alabama-Georgia and Penn State-Oregon, and there were a few surprises along the way. In The Linked Letters After Dark last weekend, I discussed some of the factors influencing why some teams moved in the ratings while the four teams in the weekend’s biggest matchups didn’t move a whole lot. I’ve run three sets of ratings, and when the ratings are only based on games played this season, there’s a noticeable shift in the teams at the top of the ratings. Specifically, there are more Big Ten teams at the top of the ratings while SEC teams generally fall a bit. Does it matter, and is the Big Ten now the best conference? I’ll get to that when I introduce my conference ratings, and I’ll continue to track this throughout the season.
For one final week, there are original and alternative ratings, and then there will be just a single set of ratings. You’ve read about this for weeks, and you’re probably tired of hearing about the reasons for this. Therefore, I’ll mostly skip the discussion except for the contributions from last season and this season. If a team has played five games this season and played 13 games a season ago, this season is approximately responsible for 65.79% of that team’s rating. Last season accounts for the remaining 34.21% in this scenario. That can vary up or down a bit because of a few factors. However, even with the more conservative weighting, these ratings are now mostly decided by games played this season.
This rating system is still in development, and I might choose to maintain a single rating system that gives a very small amount of weight to 2024 games for another week or two, perhaps even three weeks, if I think it’s appropriate. If I do that, I’ll run those ratings and also discuss what happens if only games from 2025 are considered. Either way, there are no more original and alternative ratings after this week, and I’ll explain my decision on upcoming weeks after this weekend’s games. I’m mainly looking for a convergence of the different rating schemes and a lack of outliers when I’m only rating the teams based on games played this season.
The Ratings
Without any delay, here are the new ratings for this week. In the other sets of ratings, which I’ll summarize in a moment, there are more Big Ten teams in the top 10, and some of the top SEC teams have been displaced downward.
Almost without interruption for over a decade, the SEC has been heralded as the best conference from top to bottom. When CBS still had the rights to broadcast the SEC game of the week, they advertised it at one point as “the best game from the best conference” in recognition of the conference’s reputation. Maybe I’m just pointing that out because I already have nostalgia for the SEC on CBS. But one way or another, this is the final weekend for the original and alternative ratings, and unless there’s some big surprises, a few highly ranked SEC teams will likely drop in next week’s ratings. Is the SEC still the best conference, or has the Big Ten taken their place? I’ll address this a bit later on.
Strength of record is included in this table despite that being a backward looking rating everything else being forward looking. This is the raw strength of record, meaning that it’s a team’s actual winning percentage with the expected winning percentage of a team 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS mean subtracted out. Most of these will be negative just because most teams won’t have records as good as a hypothetical team that would be ranked somewhere around #10 or slightly below.
Predictive Ratings
Home advantage: 2.44 points
Mean score: 26.42 points
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
1 82.12 +1.73 Ohio State 35.73 46.38 .239
2 78.68 +1.55 Indiana 42.39 36.28 .141
3 +3 77.82 +4.49 Notre Dame 43.29 34.48 -.194
4 -1 77.51 +2.58 Oregon 42.93 34.55 .132
5 75.05 +0.98 Alabama 39.14 35.99 -.013
6 -2 72.85 -1.61 Ole Miss 38.97 34.00 .153
7 72.11 -0.78 Texas 32.80 39.37 -.034
8 +4 71.06 +3.48 Miami 36.80 34.23 .254
9 -1 70.40 -1.41 Tennessee 42.28 28.09 -.048
10 69.48 +0.24 Georgia 32.86 36.65 .049
11 69.29 +1.43 USC 41.28 28.01 -.100
12 -3 68.76 -0.85 Penn State 33.74 34.98 -.086
13 68.66 +1.92 BYU 33.03 35.58 .102
14 +1 66.67 +2.58 Michigan 31.50 35.24 -.020
15 +2 65.62 +1.76 Texas A&M 33.68 32.16 .269
16 +2 65.36 +1.52 LSU 29.55 35.68 .018
17 +3 65.29 +2.35 Oklahoma 27.71 37.56 .155
18 -2 65.08 +1.18 Vanderbilt 36.77 28.37 .094
19 +2 64.85 +2.85 Nebraska 32.33 32.56 -.110
20 -6 64.21 -0.36 Missouri 33.03 31.12 .075
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
21 +9 64.11 +4.72 Utah 31.16 32.85 -.131
22 +4 63.87 +2.96 Washington 34.27 29.59 -.049
23 +1 63.12 +1.41 Iowa State 29.85 33.24 .091
24 -5 62.74 -0.98 Louisville 35.16 27.62 .060
25 +8 61.86 +3.47 Illinois 29.49 32.41 .079
26 -1 61.64 +0.70 Auburn 26.08 35.60 -.176
27 +7 61.43 +3.42 Texas Tech 36.71 24.66 .106
28 +1 61.29 +0.86 Florida 25.68 35.50 -.453
29 -7 61.14 -0.68 Arizona State 27.98 33.22 -.053
30 -3 60.77 +0.03 TCU 32.99 27.78 -.123
31 +1 60.59 +1.65 Iowa 26.01 34.65 -.153
32 -9 60.45 -1.29 South Carolina 25.87 34.56 -.217
33 +13 59.69 +5.64 Florida State 31.58 27.96 -.053
34 +9 57.64 +2.90 Cincinnati 29.44 28.20 -.090
35 -4 57.48 -1.51 Kansas 30.57 26.86 -.274
36 -8 57.43 -3.21 Arkansas 31.67 25.64 -.296
37 57.39 +0.14 Georgia Tech 29.46 27.93 .076
38 +10 57.27 +3.51 Mississippi State 31.22 26.06 -.059
39 56.29 -0.48 Colorado 28.02 28.29 -.446
40 +18 56.15 +4.15 North Texas 34.81 21.22 .037
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
41 +10 56.13 +2.77 Old Dominion 27.19 29.09 -.023
42 +15 55.96 +3.95 South Florida 28.70 27.28 .010
43 +2 55.32 +1.08 Memphis 28.51 26.76 .037
44 +20 55.32 +4.56 Virginia 32.56 22.72 -.135
45 -9 55.10 -2.20 Baylor 33.78 21.29 -.265
46 -11 54.98 -2.47 SMU 28.41 26.46 -.384
47 -7 54.82 -1.69 Tulane 27.08 27.74 -.037
48 -10 54.51 -2.58 UCF 26.73 27.74 -.196
49 +1 54.45 +0.91 Houston 22.61 31.87 .044
50 -9 54.25 -2.01 Minnesota 24.04 30.26 -.202
51 -4 53.94 +0.02 Kansas State 27.34 26.59 -.464
52 +3 53.82 +1.25 Maryland 25.31 28.51 .040
53 -11 53.63 -2.05 Clemson 25.08 28.55 -.591
54 +14 53.38 +5.13 Duke 28.78 24.50 -.279
55 -1 53.29 +0.68 Rutgers 32.68 20.72 -.307
56 +13 53.16 +5.58 East Carolina 24.26 28.78 -.282
57 -13 53.13 -1.34 Kentucky 24.60 28.72 -.268
58 -6 52.76 -0.25 Boise State 29.67 23.04 -.192
59 +3 52.71 +1.21 Arizona 24.62 28.09 -.124
60 -1 51.99 +0.26 Pittsburgh 28.97 22.89 -.423
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
61 +9 51.87 +4.53 Toledo 25.33 26.64 -.355
62 -6 51.83 -0.22 Wisconsin 21.20 30.59 -.292
63 +3 51.31 +1.33 James Madison 22.69 28.71 -.150
64 -11 50.45 -2.50 Army 22.89 27.52 -.621
65 -4 49.81 -1.69 Virginia Tech 24.43 25.47 -.435
66 -1 49.44 -1.29 Navy 25.16 24.24 .005
67 -7 49.41 -2.19 UNLV 29.81 19.57 .017
68 -1 49.40 -0.11 Texas State 28.46 20.93 -.146
69 +4 49.22 +3.08 NC State 26.84 22.33 -.302
70 -21 49.12 -4.48 Syracuse 27.30 21.85 -.237
71 48.87 +1.79 Michigan State 24.14 24.84 -.093
72 -9 48.86 -2.29 Boston College 27.88 21.03 -.704
73 +1 47.52 +1.39 Ohio 23.34 24.09 -.189
74 +1 47.51 +1.40 California 19.86 27.59 -.144
75 +14 46.61 +5.34 Purdue 21.63 24.90 -.200
76 +2 46.39 +1.51 UTSA 27.82 18.60 -.367
77 +13 45.61 +4.93 Louisiana Tech 17.62 28.09 -.107
78 +7 45.52 +3.30 New Mexico 26.80 18.84 -.117
79 -3 45.47 +0.06 Northwestern 15.19 30.25 -.284
80 +8 44.96 +3.47 Utah State 28.61 16.27 -.218
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
81 -1 44.90 +1.10 Fresno State 22.58 22.29 -.141
82 +2 44.14 +1.10 Western Kentucky 23.37 20.74 -.167
83 +15 42.96 +4.84 San Diego State 15.67 27.23 -.224
84 -7 42.92 -2.11 North Carolina 20.46 22.41 -.397
85 -3 42.53 -1.13 UConn 23.57 18.94 -.373
86 -14 42.43 -3.89 West Virginia 20.86 21.64 -.457
87 42.37 +0.76 Miami (OH) 17.20 25.07 -.657
88 -9 42.00 -2.00 Marshall 25.18 17.07 -.483
89 -8 41.92 -1.86 UCLA 16.54 25.19 -.874
90 +6 41.47 +3.26 Wake Forest 17.89 23.65 -.446
91 -5 41.27 -0.64 Bowling Green 17.45 23.69 -.454
92 -1 41.22 +0.72 Washington State 21.51 19.71 -.290
93 -1 40.84 +0.70 Stanford 18.89 21.91 -.434
94 +14 40.21 +5.29 Western Michigan 18.48 21.73 -.464
95 -12 39.98 -3.38 Jacksonville State 22.27 17.75 -.555
96 +9 39.47 +3.65 Temple 22.75 16.83 -.357
97 +4 38.75 +1.54 Wyoming 13.78 25.08 -.370
98 -5 38.40 -1.16 South Alabama 21.97 16.36 -.661
99 -5 37.93 -0.88 Northern Illinois 11.56 26.41 -.638
100 -1 37.92 -0.01 San José State 19.11 18.72 -.582
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
101 +6 37.55 +2.61 Oregon State 19.02 18.53 -.741
102 +8 37.02 +2.17 Hawai’i 16.18 20.84 -.297
103 36.70 +0.50 Troy 16.96 19.65 -.422
104 +11 36.31 +2.30 Delaware 19.09 17.12 -.185
105 -3 35.94 -0.27 Rice 13.71 22.17 -.352
106 -6 35.69 -1.77 Louisiana 19.82 15.88 -.511
107 -12 35.56 -2.78 Georgia Southern 20.95 14.64 -.446
108 -11 35.31 -2.85 Oklahoma State 17.83 17.41 -.528
109 35.22 +0.31 Liberty 14.04 21.18 -.727
110 -6 35.18 -0.99 Colorado State 13.05 22.29 -.634
111 +19 35.00 +7.26 Southern Miss 19.28 15.69 -.352
112 -1 34.71 +0.06 Florida International 15.40 19.37 -.362
113 -1 34.67 +0.13 Buffalo 15.34 19.34 -.557
114 -8 34.40 -1.27 Air Force 21.15 13.23 -.709
115 +1 34.38 +1.02 Missouri State 17.32 17.06 -.451
116 +5 33.37 +1.40 UTEP 15.55 18.02 -.654
117 -3 32.83 -1.27 Florida Atlantic 21.73 10.95 -.671
118 +1 32.75 +0.14 UAB 23.91 8.85 -.325
119 +7 32.57 +3.61 Tulsa 14.74 17.78 -.561
120 -7 32.09 -2.44 Sam Houston 16.48 15.56 -.803
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
121 +1 31.61 +0.12 Coastal Carolina 13.05 18.63 -.418
122 -4 31.42 -1.19 Nevada 11.53 19.98 -.600
123 -6 30.98 -1.76 Arkansas State 16.83 14.19 -.704
124 30.15 +0.65 Central Michigan 15.45 14.94 -.269
125 -5 30.09 -2.08 App State 14.13 15.91 -.456
126 -3 29.95 +0.19 UL Monroe 13.91 16.09 -.070
127 +4 28.79 +2.07 Kennesaw State 10.91 17.89 -.235
128 +4 27.58 +1.16 Ball State 16.38 11.02 -.631
129 26.79 -1.09 Akron 11.33 15.50 -.680
130 -5 26.51 -2.66 Charlotte 11.39 15.04 -.742
131 -4 26.15 -2.34 Eastern Michigan 15.97 10.28 -.742
132 +2 26.08 +3.08 New Mexico State 10.86 15.10 -.465
133 -5 26.03 -2.03 Georgia State 16.41 9.73 -.445
134 -1 24.38 +0.54 Middle Tennessee 11.51 12.83 -.764
135 20.12 +0.61 Massachusetts 11.24 8.82 -.811
136 12.96 +1.67 Kent State 10.52 2.65 -.586Summary of Rating Scheme Differences
In this rating summary, the alternative ratings are almost entirely determined by games played this season. They’re a closer approximation to what the ratings will look like next weekend when the impact of last season’s games is completely phased out or very nearly so. There are still some differences between the three approaches, and I drew attention to some of the highly ranked SEC teams dropping a bit when the impact of games played last season are completely removed. There are other differences, but that’s very notable near the top of the ratings.
There are a few teams that appear out of place here compared to some other rating systems I regularly cite like ESPN’s FPI, Bill Connelly’s SP+, and Jeff Sagarin’s pure points ratings. There are many different computer rating systems, and Kenneth Massey maintains an ensemble of many of the more well-known systems. Not all of the rating systems on that page are intended to be predictive, and quite a few are actually backward looking rating systems trying to weigh the strength of a team’s wins and losses. Even with the different objectives for some of the rating systems on that page, it does provide plenty of context for which team ratings are actually outliers.
For example, BYU is ranked #6 in my ratings that only include games from 2025. Although this seems a bit high to me, there are a number of ratings that rank BYU in the range of #7-9. so a rating of #6 doesn’t seem too crazy. On the other hand, the highest ranking for Nebraska is #14, so a ranking of #10 really is an outlier. That said, earlier this season, Nebraska was highly ranked in some systems, so I’m not entirely certain this is a crazy rating.
Predictive Ratings
Rank Rating Team Alternative Only 2025
1 82.12 Ohio State 83.96 (1) 82.99 (3)
2 78.68 Indiana 82.62 (2) 85.98 (1)
3 77.82 Notre Dame 81.47 (3) 82.18 (4)
4 77.51 Oregon 78.97 (4) 75.81 (8)
5 75.05 Alabama 76.83 (6) 76.76 (5)
6 72.85 Ole Miss 71.92 (11) 70.60 (14)
7 72.11 Texas 69.57 (16) 66.80 (23)
8 71.06 Miami 78.89 (5) 83.22 (2)
9 70.40 Tennessee 70.82 (13) 68.46 (20)
10 69.48 Georgia 70.31 (15) 69.53 (17)
11 69.29 USC 72.26 (9) 71.63 (13)
12 68.76 Penn State 67.42 (23) 64.18 (29)
13 68.66 BYU 74.27 (7) 76.62 (6)
14 66.67 Michigan 72.68 (8) 75.25 (9)
15 65.62 Texas A&M 69.49 (17) 70.15 (16)
16 65.36 LSU 67.99 (20) 69.23 (18)
17 65.29 Oklahoma 70.63 (14) 73.49 (12)
18 65.08 Vanderbilt 67.90 (21) 69.06 (19)
19 64.85 Nebraska 72.17 (10) 75.21 (10)
20 64.21 Missouri 63.96 (26) 62.45 (33)
Rank Rating Team Alternative Only 2025
21 64.11 Utah 67.65 (22) 68.27 (21)
22 63.87 Washington 68.42 (19) 70.50 (15)
23 63.12 Iowa State 62.63 (30) 60.45 (35)
24 62.74 Louisville 61.12 (34) 59.09 (38)
25 61.86 Illinois 65.34 (24) 65.10 (27)
26 61.64 Auburn 62.63 (29) 62.46 (32)
27 61.43 Texas Tech 68.91 (18) 74.24 (11)
28 61.29 Florida 64.17 (25) 65.61 (24)
29 61.14 Arizona State 58.21 (40) 54.53 (51)
30 60.77 TCU 58.43 (39) 54.06 (53)
31 60.59 Iowa 60.50 (36) 61.53 (34)
32 60.45 South Carolina 57.52 (42) 55.76 (47)
33 59.69 Florida State 71.41 (12) 76.20 (7)
34 57.64 Cincinnati 62.08 (32) 64.47 (28)
35 57.48 Kansas 57.47 (43) 57.28 (40)
36 57.43 Arkansas 56.96 (45) 56.35 (45)
37 57.39 Georgia Tech 60.00 (37) 60.17 (37)
38 57.27 Mississippi State 60.97 (35) 60.25 (36)
39 56.29 Colorado 56.85 (46) 56.57 (43)
40 56.15 North Texas 61.73 (33) 64.11 (30)
Rank Rating Team Alternative Only 2025
41 56.13 Old Dominion 62.44 (31) 65.46 (26)
42 55.96 South Florida 62.77 (28) 65.55 (25)
43 55.32 Memphis 55.55 (49) 54.87 (49)
44 55.32 Virginia 63.60 (27) 67.95 (22)
45 55.10 Baylor 49.21 (68) 44.09 (82)
46 54.98 SMU 48.25 (73) 41.83 (86)
47 54.82 Tulane 52.55 (57) 50.04 (61)
48 54.51 UCF 50.83 (63) 46.58 (72)
49 54.45 Houston 56.98 (44) 56.82 (41)
50 54.25 Minnesota 50.67 (64) 47.60 (69)
51 53.94 Kansas State 52.61 (56) 51.82 (56)
52 53.82 Maryland 55.79 (48) 54.62 (50)
53 53.63 Clemson 50.90 (62) 48.56 (64)
54 53.38 Duke 56.06 (47) 55.84 (46)
55 53.29 Rutgers 53.24 (54) 51.24 (58)
56 53.16 East Carolina 59.56 (38) 63.05 (31)
57 53.13 Kentucky 52.66 (55) 51.25 (57)
58 52.76 Boise State 50.32 (66) 48.17 (66)
59 52.71 Arizona 55.32 (50) 54.19 (52)
60 51.99 Pittsburgh 50.28 (67) 47.21 (71)
Rank Rating Team Alternative Only 2025
61 51.87 Toledo 57.56 (41) 58.35 (39)
62 51.83 Wisconsin 50.93 (61) 48.11 (68)
63 51.31 James Madison 51.18 (60) 50.56 (60)
64 50.45 Army 50.38 (65) 50.81 (59)
65 49.81 Virginia Tech 48.52 (71) 48.20 (65)
66 49.44 Navy 47.88 (75) 44.78 (81)
67 49.41 UNLV 44.56 (83) 39.54 (94)
68 49.40 Texas State 47.93 (74) 45.73 (75)
69 49.22 NC State 54.63 (51) 56.50 (44)
70 49.12 Syracuse 48.53 (70) 45.06 (79)
71 48.87 Michigan State 52.31 (58) 52.95 (55)
72 48.86 Boston College 46.95 (77) 45.38 (77)
73 47.52 Ohio 48.91 (69) 49.12 (62)
74 47.51 California 46.55 (80) 45.08 (78)
75 46.61 Purdue 53.67 (52) 55.42 (48)
76 46.39 UTSA 46.87 (78) 45.44 (76)
77 45.61 Louisiana Tech 53.57 (53) 56.70 (42)
78 45.52 New Mexico 51.72 (59) 53.11 (54)
79 45.47 Northwestern 43.33 (86) 40.26 (91)
80 44.96 Utah State 48.47 (72) 48.71 (63)
Rank Rating Team Alternative Only 2025
81 44.90 Fresno State 46.56 (79) 46.06 (74)
82 44.14 Western Kentucky 44.23 (85) 41.14 (89)
83 42.96 San Diego State 47.76 (76) 48.17 (67)
84 42.92 North Carolina 37.23 (101) 30.95 (117)
85 42.53 UConn 42.53 (88) 40.58 (90)
86 42.43 West Virginia 39.86 (95) 38.70 (95)
87 42.37 Miami (OH) 39.56 (96) 35.26 (105)
88 42.00 Marshall 39.21 (97) 35.53 (103)
89 41.92 UCLA 37.11 (102) 33.46 (110)
90 41.47 Wake Forest 44.31 (84) 44.82 (80)
91 41.27 Bowling Green 41.62 (89) 41.51 (87)
92 41.22 Washington State 41.02 (91) 42.93 (85)
93 40.84 Stanford 43.20 (87) 43.69 (83)
94 40.21 Western Michigan 46.04 (81) 47.29 (70)
95 39.98 Jacksonville State 37.80 (99) 35.92 (101)
96 39.47 Temple 45.22 (82) 46.09 (73)
97 38.75 Wyoming 40.75 (93) 39.94 (93)
98 38.40 South Alabama 36.75 (105) 36.46 (96)
99 37.93 Northern Illinois 37.32 (100) 35.43 (104)
100 37.92 San José State 37.10 (104) 35.99 (100)
Rank Rating Team Alternative Only 2025
101 37.55 Oregon State 40.01 (94) 39.96 (92)
102 37.02 Hawai’i 37.80 (98) 36.22 (98)
103 36.70 Troy 37.10 (103) 36.22 (97)
104 36.31 Delaware 40.94 (92) 41.39 (88)
105 35.94 Rice 33.22 (115) 29.95 (118)
106 35.69 Louisiana 30.64 (121) 26.63 (126)
107 35.56 Georgia Southern 33.80 (113) 31.75 (116)
108 35.31 Oklahoma State 28.23 (126) 22.33 (132)
109 35.22 Liberty 35.12 (109) 35.10 (106)
110 35.18 Colorado State 36.38 (106) 36.04 (99)
111 35.00 Southern Miss 41.42 (90) 43.45 (84)
112 34.71 Florida International 35.47 (108) 33.77 (109)
113 34.67 Buffalo 34.51 (111) 32.94 (112)
114 34.40 Air Force 34.12 (112) 32.47 (114)
115 34.38 Missouri State 33.02 (116) 29.53 (120)
116 33.37 UTEP 35.82 (107) 35.72 (102)
117 32.83 Florida Atlantic 32.35 (119) 29.62 (119)
118 32.75 UAB 33.56 (114) 32.06 (115)
119 32.57 Tulsa 34.78 (110) 32.99 (111)
120 32.09 Sam Houston 26.25 (130) 21.17 (133)
Rank Rating Team Alternative Only 2025
121 31.61 Coastal Carolina 32.55 (118) 34.08 (107)
122 31.42 Nevada 30.51 (122) 27.89 (124)
123 30.98 Arkansas State 29.28 (125) 28.19 (123)
124 30.15 Central Michigan 30.47 (123) 29.45 (121)
125 30.09 App State 27.10 (129) 25.35 (128)
126 29.95 UL Monroe 27.69 (128) 27.11 (125)
127 28.79 Kennesaw State 32.69 (117) 33.88 (108)
128 27.58 Ball State 29.64 (124) 29.43 (122)
129 26.79 Akron 27.71 (127) 25.54 (127)
130 26.51 Charlotte 19.83 (134) 14.02 (136)
131 26.15 Eastern Michigan 22.92 (133) 20.32 (134)
132 26.08 New Mexico State 31.53 (120) 32.74 (113)
133 26.03 Georgia State 23.70 (132) 22.48 (130)
134 24.38 Middle Tennessee 24.58 (131) 22.92 (129)
135 20.12 Massachusetts 19.66 (135) 19.16 (135)
136 12.96 Kent State 18.99 (136) 22.44 (131) Conference Ratings
If the quality of a conference is determined mainly by its best teams, the best conference might be the one with the most teams in the top 25. But that’s not a rating of the entire conference, and we probably should evaluate conferences on being the best from top to bottom. There’s another problem here that the cutoff of being in the top 25 is arbitrary. Why not pick the top 20 or the top 30? There’s always going to be a team that’s just outside that cutoff, and that makes this approach problematic. I’ll suggest a better one later on that still rewards having more highly ranked teams and gives more weight to that in comparing the conferences.
The obvious answer to rate the conferences is to just average the ratings of all the teams in the conference. But that can also introduce some issues. A conference that has one or two teams that are outliers can skew the rating for the entire conference. Just like I showed that the average of a team’s opponents’ ratings isn’t necessarily a good measure of schedule strength, it could also be an issue for conference ratings. Oklahoma State is easily the lowest rated team from the Power 4 conferences, but how much should they lower the Big 12’s rating?
Conference Ratings - Original Rating Scheme
Rank Win% Conference HighWin% Rating Offense Defense OffDef
1 .776 SEC .380 (1) 64.79 32.00 32.82 -0.82 (8)
2 .692 Big Ten .314 (3) 60.57 29.47 31.11 -1.64 (10)
3 .655 FBS Independents .373 (2) 60.18 33.43 26.71 6.72 (1)
4 .639 Big 12 .208 (4) 56.19 28.35 27.83 0.52 (6)
5 .568 ACC .145 (5) 52.35 27.08 25.24 1.84 (3)
6 .431 American Athletic .077 (6) 44.41 23.39 20.98 2.41 (2)
7 .367 Mountain West .037 (7) 41.27 20.66 20.62 0.05 (7)
8 .329 Pac-12 .019 (10) 39.39 20.27 19.12 1.15 (5)
9 .311 Sun Belt .033 (8) 37.77 19.77 18.04 1.73 (4)
10 .262 Mid-American .022 (9) 33.82 16.12 17.71 -1.58 (9)
11 .257 Conference USA .013 (11) 34.59 16.20 18.39 -2.19 (11)
Conference Ratings - Alternative Rating Scheme
Rank Win% Conference HighWin% Rating Offense Defense OffDef
1 .751 SEC .363 (2) 65.90 32.48 33.43 -0.96 (8)
2 .683 Big Ten .325 (3) 62.30 30.65 31.57 -0.93 (6)
3 .650 FBS Independents .374 (1) 62.00 37.36 24.64 12.72 (1)
4 .608 Big 12 .213 (4) 56.22 28.13 28.05 0.08 (5)
5 .561 ACC .174 (5) 53.55 27.53 25.97 1.55 (4)
6 .443 American Athletic .103 (6) 45.45 23.99 21.40 2.59 (2)
7 .384 Mountain West .052 (7) 42.17 20.58 21.52 -0.95 (7)
8 .353 Pac-12 .034 (10) 40.51 19.50 21.06 -1.56 (9)
9 .312 Sun Belt .046 (8) 37.20 19.40 17.73 1.68 (3)
10 .290 Conference USA .029 (11) 35.92 16.59 19.28 -2.69 (11)
11 .288 Mid-American .037 (9) 34.99 16.20 18.77 -2.57 (10)
Conference Ratings - Only 2025 Games
Rank Win% Conference HighWin% Rating Offense Defense OffDef
1 .789 SEC .258 (3) 65.51 32.19 33.34 -1.14 (7)
2 .706 Big Ten .275 (2) 61.77 30.57 31.30 -0.73 (6)
3 .656 FBS Independents .417 (1) 61.38 38.99 22.70 16.29 (1)
4 .616 Big 12 .123 (4) 55.06 27.57 27.55 0.02 (5)
5 .568 ACC .119 (5) 52.93 27.08 25.91 1.17 (4)
6 .440 American Athletic .040 (6) 44.53 23.62 20.98 2.65 (2)
7 .369 Pac-12 .001 (11) 41.44 19.54 21.90 -2.36 (9)
8 .365 Mountain West .003 (10) 41.03 19.88 21.14 -1.25 (8)
9 .286 Sun Belt .016 (7) 36.36 19.18 17.22 1.96 (3)
10 .262 Conference USA .004 (9) 35.00 16.30 18.85 -2.55 (10)
11 .261 Mid-American .005 (8) 34.33 15.63 18.79 -3.16 (11)My preferred approach is to calculate the expected outcome if each team in a conference were to play every FBS team at a neutral site. That’s exactly what the Win% column does. It’s similar to the average rating of all the teams in the conference, but it should be less skewed by outliers. From this standpoint, the SEC is still on top, and that’s true even if the ratings only consider games played this season.
But the idea of the “best” conference is somewhat subjective, and it’s not unreasonable to say that the quality of a conference is defined more by how many of its teams are among the best in the FBS. What if instead of playing every team in the FBS, each conference team just plays a hypothetical opponent with a rating that’s 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS mean? This is what I’ve done with the HighWin% column. It’s analogous to how I calculate strength of record and rewards conferences for having more highly rated teams.
In this scenario, the SEC is still on top for the original and alternative ratings. However, if the ratings are only determined by games played in 2025, the Big Ten actually comes out slightly ahead of the SEC.
Will this hold up over the course of the season? It’s too early to tell, and compared to preseason expectations, there are some unexpected teams near the top of the ratings like Indiana, Michigan, and Nebraska. Kenneth Massey’s ensemble of computer ratings does have Ohio State, Indiana, Oregon, and Michigan all highly ranked from the Big Ten. But Nebraska’s rating is an outlier, and Ole Miss is also ranked relatively low compared to most ratings in Massey’s composite. I believe there’s a good chance that when more games have been played, the SEC will move back out front. But at least right now, there’s a statistical argument that the Big Ten is actually the better conference by a small margin.
I believe the SEC still comes out on top, but it’s also considerably closer than last season where the SEC was clearly the best. The argument for the Big Ten really comes down to one approach for rating the strength of conferences and only rating the teams and conferences based on 2025 games. There are a couple of outliers in my ratings compared to other systems, and this becomes more pronounced when only games from 2025 are used. Some FBS teams have only played four games, and there are FCS teams with even fewer games played. The FCS ratings do influence the FBS ratings a bit. Overall, I just don’t think there have been enough games played yet in 2025 to rely too much on that particular set of ratings. That’s also why I’m considering not completely phasing out games from last season next week, and why I might delay that for 1-3 more weeks. That said, the discussion about conference superiority really should be about bragging rights for fans instead of conference commissioners invoking this reasoning to influence the selection committee to get more teams in the playoff.
Finally, to explain the remaining column, OffDef just takes the Offense column and subtracts the Defense column. This is a rough estimate of whether a conference tends to be stronger defensively (negative), or if the conference has a lot of teams with strong offenses but lacks quality defensively (positive). In the case of the Big Ten and SEC, they lean slightly toward favoring defense, but not nearly to the extent of the MAC or Conference USA.
Schedule Strength
There are two different measures of schedule strength. 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.
The last two columns are also the past and future schedules, but they’re just the average of the opponents’ predictive ratings. As I discussed in a prior article, this isn’t always representative of the true difficulty of a schedule, and it’s going to be most accurate for a team that’s a near average FBS team.
Past and Future Schedule Strength
Home advantage: 2.44 points
Mean score: 26.42 points
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
1 Ohio State .239 (13) .213 (44) 44.44 (52) 55.65 (49)
2 Indiana .141 (56) .245 (33) 42.45 (61) 55.96 (46)
3 Notre Dame .306 (1) .122 (68) 60.18 (1) 50.83 (64)
4 Oregon .132 (66) .314 (17) 46.09 (39) 61.34 (17)
5 Alabama .237 (14) .313 (19) 52.74 (5) 57.19 (31)
6 Ole Miss .153 (47) .245 (34) 49.89 (21) 53.10 (57)
7 Texas .216 (21) .313 (20) 45.15 (45) 62.13 (11)
8 Miami .254 (11) .145 (65) 49.14 (27) 52.30 (61)
9 Tennessee .152 (48) .287 (25) 46.19 (38) 57.27 (29)
10 Georgia .299 (5) .275 (28) 54.46 (4) 57.16 (32)
11 USC .100 (87) .370 (9) 44.97 (48) 61.77 (13)
12 Penn State .164 (37) .313 (18) 38.95 (88) 60.08 (19)
13 BYU .102 (86) .224 (40) 41.09 (74) 57.09 (34)
14 Michigan .230 (16) .257 (32) 51.45 (11) 57.43 (28)
15 Texas A&M .269 (8) .294 (24) 56.48 (3) 56.05 (44)
16 LSU .218 (20) .332 (16) 51.56 (10) 61.52 (14)
17 Oklahoma .155 (44) .415 (4) 47.25 (34) 61.37 (16)
18 Vanderbilt .094 (91) .411 (5) 38.28 (93) 65.64 (4)
19 Nebraska .140 (58) .210 (50) 39.64 (85) 55.37 (50)
20 Missouri .075 (102) .365 (12) 35.42 (117) 64.26 (8)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
21 Utah .069 (104) .232 (37) 42.56 (60) 58.26 (25)
22 Washington .201 (25) .235 (36) 46.62 (36) 56.69 (37)
23 Iowa State .091 (95) .231 (39) 45.05 (47) 57.10 (33)
24 Louisville .060 (107) .168 (58) 40.83 (76) 53.68 (54)
25 Illinois .279 (7) .232 (38) 49.85 (22) 56.37 (40)
26 Auburn .224 (18) .300 (23) 50.89 (17) 58.31 (24)
27 Texas Tech .106 (83) .180 (57) 25.64 (135) 53.49 (55)
28 Florida .297 (6) .385 (7) 50.22 (18) 64.76 (7)
29 Arizona State .147 (51) .213 (47) 50.96 (15) 56.01 (45)
30 TCU .127 (70) .206 (51) 47.23 (35) 56.45 (39)
31 Iowa .247 (12) .337 (14) 44.41 (53) 61.85 (12)
32 South Carolina .183 (29) .367 (10) 49.71 (24) 60.99 (18)
33 Florida State .197 (27) .162 (61) 36.48 (106) 52.41 (60)
34 Cincinnati .160 (41) .220 (43) 38.05 (97) 56.18 (41)
35 Kansas .126 (71) .213 (45) 40.34 (80) 55.37 (51)
36 Arkansas .304 (3) .384 (8) 49.60 (26) 64.88 (6)
37 Georgia Tech .076 (101) .154 (63) 42.12 (65) 53.12 (56)
38 Mississippi State .141 (57) .418 (3) 38.74 (90) 66.49 (2)
39 Colorado .154 (45) .222 (41) 49.65 (25) 57.24 (30)
40 North Texas .037 (128) .039 (99) 37.63 (99) 40.58 (91)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
41 Old Dominion .227 (17) .026 (112) 46.34 (37) 35.41 (120)
42 South Florida .260 (9) .075 (82) 51.58 (9) 41.92 (85)
43 Memphis .037 (126) .072 (83) 35.44 (116) 44.60 (79)
44 Virginia .065 (106) .112 (70) 38.82 (89) 48.79 (71)
45 Baylor .135 (63) .195 (54) 44.18 (55) 56.53 (38)
46 SMU .116 (80) .151 (64) 39.43 (87) 51.90 (62)
47 Tulane .163 (39) .069 (84) 49.02 (28) 43.10 (83)
48 UCF .054 (112) .205 (52) 32.89 (128) 54.06 (52)
49 Houston .044 (120) .164 (59) 40.25 (82) 52.92 (58)
50 Minnesota .048 (116) .309 (22) 30.41 (133) 59.43 (22)
51 Kansas State .136 (61) .211 (49) 51.26 (12) 56.13 (42)
52 Maryland .040 (124) .284 (26) 34.84 (119) 59.69 (21)
53 Clemson .159 (42) .158 (62) 50.92 (16) 49.68 (67)
54 Duke .121 (74) .093 (72) 47.40 (33) 49.03 (69)
55 Rutgers .093 (94) .408 (6) 40.34 (81) 65.28 (5)
56 East Carolina .118 (77) .063 (86) 41.47 (73) 41.48 (88)
57 Kentucky .232 (15) .366 (11) 51.61 (8) 62.19 (10)
58 Boise State .058 (109) .127 (67) 35.47 (115) 46.52 (73)
59 Arizona .126 (72) .213 (46) 42.11 (66) 55.76 (47)
60 Pittsburgh .077 (100) .242 (35) 34.63 (121) 56.75 (36)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
61 Toledo .045 (118) .019 (118) 33.86 (126) 33.70 (125)
62 Wisconsin .208 (24) .465 (1) 47.68 (32) 68.19 (1)
63 James Madison .100 (88) .040 (98) 38.19 (94) 39.02 (102)
64 Army .129 (69) .049 (92) 52.16 (7) 39.85 (97)
65 Virginia Tech .165 (36) .222 (42) 48.97 (29) 56.11 (43)
66 Navy .005 (136) .183 (55) 24.92 (136) 50.60 (66)
67 UNLV .017 (134) .035 (103) 36.37 (107) 40.00 (95)
68 Texas State .104 (84) .021 (114) 38.18 (95) 37.50 (109)
69 NC State .098 (89) .271 (29) 50.14 (19) 52.61 (59)
70 Syracuse .163 (40) .284 (27) 45.54 (42) 58.21 (26)
71 Michigan State .157 (43) .332 (15) 44.74 (51) 61.50 (15)
72 Boston College .046 (117) .211 (48) 35.10 (118) 55.67 (48)
73 Ohio .211 (23) .011 (132) 47.77 (30) 33.07 (132)
74 California .056 (111) .128 (66) 36.86 (103) 51.08 (63)
75 Purdue .300 (4) .365 (13) 51.26 (13) 63.28 (9)
76 UTSA .133 (64) .095 (71) 45.22 (44) 46.56 (72)
77 Louisiana Tech .093 (93) .015 (126) 36.84 (104) 36.37 (114)
78 New Mexico .133 (65) .046 (96) 41.56 (72) 41.13 (90)
79 Northwestern .216 (22) .313 (21) 44.88 (49) 58.39 (23)
80 Utah State .182 (30) .052 (87) 42.25 (64) 43.06 (84)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
81 Fresno State .059 (108) .037 (100) 34.08 (125) 40.22 (94)
82 Western Kentucky .033 (131) .082 (79) 32.77 (130) 39.27 (99)
83 San Diego State .026 (133) .034 (106) 36.03 (111) 40.43 (92)
84 North Carolina .103 (85) .085 (73) 40.83 (77) 48.81 (70)
85 UConn .027 (132) .034 (105) 31.89 (131) 38.63 (103)
86 West Virginia .143 (54) .264 (30) 44.08 (57) 59.95 (20)
87 Miami (OH) .093 (92) .028 (109) 42.30 (62) 36.59 (113)
88 Marshall .117 (78) .042 (97) 38.00 (98) 39.67 (98)
89 UCLA .126 (73) .426 (2) 51.13 (14) 66.28 (3)
90 Wake Forest .054 (113) .121 (69) 36.36 (108) 49.35 (68)
91 Bowling Green .146 (53) .013 (130) 44.84 (50) 28.61 (136)
92 Washington State .110 (82) .163 (60) 45.65 (41) 50.64 (65)
93 Stanford .166 (34) .262 (31) 50.04 (20) 57.65 (27)
94 Western Michigan .136 (62) .017 (124) 47.71 (31) 33.47 (128)
95 Jacksonville State .045 (119) .009 (135) 33.71 (127) 33.40 (129)
96 Temple .143 (55) .084 (75) 38.09 (96) 46.18 (74)
97 Wyoming .130 (68) .027 (111) 41.74 (68) 39.15 (101)
98 South Alabama .139 (59) .021 (115) 41.85 (67) 35.17 (121)
99 Northern Illinois .112 (81) .034 (107) 43.98 (58) 33.60 (126)
100 San José State .168 (33) .027 (110) 43.90 (59) 39.99 (96)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
101 Oregon State .259 (10) .013 (131) 56.67 (2) 33.55 (127)
102 Hawai’i .037 (127) .035 (104) 35.69 (113) 41.53 (87)
103 Troy .078 (99) .046 (93) 40.66 (79) 37.70 (108)
104 Delaware .065 (105) .019 (117) 35.67 (114) 36.73 (112)
105 Rice .048 (114) .083 (76) 34.74 (120) 44.94 (76)
106 Louisiana .089 (96) .036 (102) 36.22 (109) 39.17 (100)
107 Georgia Southern .154 (46) .028 (108) 44.17 (56) 35.63 (118)
108 Oklahoma State .222 (19) .199 (53) 45.38 (43) 56.91 (35)
109 Liberty .073 (103) .015 (127) 40.82 (78) 33.83 (124)
110 Colorado State .116 (79) .050 (89) 40.84 (75) 43.22 (82)
111 Southern Miss .048 (115) .018 (119) 37.53 (101) 37.02 (110)
112 Florida International .138 (60) .017 (122) 36.07 (110) 35.49 (119)
113 Buffalo .043 (122) .016 (125) 28.43 (134) 33.14 (131)
114 Air Force .041 (123) .052 (88) 34.59 (122) 44.26 (80)
115 Missouri State .149 (50) .009 (134) 45.84 (40) 32.94 (133)
116 UTEP .146 (52) .008 (136) 42.28 (63) 33.26 (130)
117 Florida Atlantic .079 (98) .083 (77) 37.54 (100) 44.65 (78)
118 UAB .175 (32) .068 (85) 41.61 (69) 45.22 (75)
119 Tulsa .039 (125) .076 (81) 38.62 (91) 43.42 (81)
120 Sam Houston .197 (26) .017 (123) 52.50 (6) 35.97 (116)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
121 Coastal Carolina .082 (97) .083 (78) 39.87 (83) 41.44 (89)
122 Nevada .150 (49) .050 (91) 41.59 (70) 44.65 (77)
123 Arkansas State .096 (90) .018 (121) 39.63 (86) 36.91 (111)
124 Central Michigan .131 (67) .023 (113) 37.00 (102) 32.90 (134)
125 App State .044 (121) .050 (90) 32.84 (129) 38.29 (105)
126 UL Monroe .180 (31) .046 (95) 34.39 (123) 41.66 (86)
127 Kennesaw State .165 (35) .015 (128) 36.72 (105) 35.97 (115)
128 Ball State .119 (76) .036 (101) 45.14 (46) 35.73 (117)
129 Akron .120 (75) .011 (133) 39.75 (84) 29.53 (135)
130 Charlotte .008 (135) .182 (56) 31.83 (132) 53.84 (53)
131 Eastern Michigan .058 (110) .021 (116) 35.86 (112) 38.45 (104)
132 New Mexico State .035 (130) .085 (74) 34.22 (124) 37.85 (107)
133 Georgia State .305 (2) .046 (94) 49.77 (23) 40.23 (93)
134 Middle Tennessee .036 (129) .014 (129) 38.35 (92) 35.03 (122)
135 Massachusetts .189 (28) .018 (120) 44.37 (54) 33.94 (123)
136 Kent State .164 (38) .080 (80) 41.58 (71) 38.24 (106)Playoff Ratings
As a reminder, 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 .9795 +.0127 Ohio State .974 .929 1.000 .992
2 +1 .9687 +.0158 Miami .977 .953 1.000 .946
3 +1 .9537 +.0078 Texas A&M .980 .970 1.000 .888
4 +4 .9407 +.0395 Indiana .942 .549 1.000 .984
5 .9389 +.0009 Ole Miss .947 .613 1.000 .958
6 +5 .9351 +.0616 Oregon .938 .501 1.000 .981
7 -1 .9175 +.0145 Oklahoma .948 .625 1.000 .883
8 +6 .9021 +.0422 BYU .923 .343 1.000 .924
9 -7 .8935 -.0671 Georgia .890 .989 .750 .932
10 -3 .8843 -.0186 Vanderbilt .919 .301 1.000 .880
11 +15 .8777 +.0749 Illinois .910 .978 .800 .828
12 +33 .8748 +.2013 Alabama .841 .926 .750 .971
13 .8736 +.0054 Iowa State .917 .288 1.000 .850
14 +7 .8730 +.0309 Texas Tech .925 .363 1.000 .820
15 -6 .8702 -.0261 Missouri .907 .219 1.000 .867
16 -6 .8662 -.0282 LSU .867 .882 .800 .884
17 .8562 +.0004 Texas .821 .876 .750 .953
18 +2 .8551 +.0109 Louisville .898 .164 1.000 .843
19 +4 .8496 +.0299 Michigan .834 .911 .750 .901
20 +8 .8360 +.0376 Tennessee .806 .609 .800 .940
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
21 -2 .8307 -.0159 Georgia Tech .908 .222 1.000 .734
22 .8176 -.0048 Washington .805 .827 .750 .862
23 -5 .8064 -.0446 Penn State .765 .668 .750 .925
24 +11 .8061 +.0384 South Florida .860 .960 .750 .700
25 +7 .8008 +.0221 North Texas .881 .096 1.000 .704
26 -2 .7949 -.0093 Memphis .882 .097 1.000 .684
27 +12 .7937 +.0505 Arizona State .801 .580 .800 .814
28 -16 .7921 -.0789 Florida State .801 .815 .750 .785
29 .7918 -.0035 Houston .887 .115 1.000 .661
30 +6 .7884 +.0239 Old Dominion .831 .904 .750 .704
31 -16 .7875 -.0695 USC .749 .332 .800 .930
32 -1 .7843 +.0047 Maryland .883 .103 1.000 .644
33 +8 .7705 +.0355 Nebraska .737 .546 .750 .877
34 -4 .7644 -.0161 Tulane .818 .667 .800 .671
35 -10 .7638 -.0396 Mississippi State .794 .548 .800 .731
36 +16 .7477 +.1375 Cincinnati .760 .650 .750 .740
37 +9 .7396 +.0747 Utah .710 .193 .800 .866
38 +20 .7379 +.1773 Notre Dame .625 .992 .500 .982
39 -23 .7369 -.1197 TCU .720 .473 .750 .807
40 -2 .7360 -.0217 UNLV .866 .059 1.000 .522
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
41 -1 .7295 -.0127 Navy .856 .041 1.000 .523
42 .7231 -.0112 Iowa .682 .943 .600 .804
43 -10 .7095 -.0691 Auburn .650 .897 .600 .824
44 +12 .6816 +.1178 Virginia .705 .179 .800 .684
45 -11 .6782 -.0900 Arizona .719 .468 .750 .614
46 +1 .6749 +.0129 Michigan State .757 .635 .750 .506
47 +4 .6641 +.0528 South Carolina .592 .760 .600 .801
48 +5 .6412 +.0321 James Madison .685 .331 .750 .576
49 -1 .6288 -.0091 Texas State .691 .351 .750 .521
50 +7 .6265 +.0630 Louisiana Tech .741 .299 .800 .414
51 +8 .6238 +.0639 New Mexico .727 .504 .750 .412
52 -25 .6232 -.1773 UCF .622 .144 .750 .663
53 +12 .6151 +.0802 Minnesota .613 .124 .750 .656
54 +10 .6132 +.0750 Boise State .628 .157 .750 .616
55 +8 .6094 +.0658 California .694 .150 .800 .468
56 +11 .5912 +.0567 Ohio .632 .861 .600 .468
57 -3 .5902 +.0014 Fresno State .698 .161 .800 .395
58 -15 .5836 -.1462 Kansas .508 .469 .600 .736
59 +2 .5762 +.0205 Baylor .521 .519 .600 .678
60 +8 .5711 +.0627 Purdue .616 .989 .500 .442
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
61 -12 .5709 -.0490 Arkansas .474 .991 .400 .735
62 .5698 +.0166 UL Monroe .783 .744 .750 .091
63 -19 .5672 -.1416 Kentucky .516 .914 .500 .626
64 +6 .5605 +.0617 Western Kentucky .662 .087 .800 .374
65 -28 .5572 -.2022 Syracuse .563 .667 .600 .514
66 +10 .5465 +.1376 Duke .500 .439 .600 .633
67 +11 .5420 +.1382 East Carolina .496 .426 .600 .627
68 -13 .5410 -.0303 Utah State .590 .753 .600 .396
69 -3 .5340 -.0009 Wisconsin .481 .851 .500 .590
70 -20 .5165 -.0991 Rutgers .459 .299 .600 .630
71 +13 .5013 +.1167 San Diego State .582 .074 .750 .342
72 .4913 +.0092 Delaware .638 .180 .750 .189
73 -13 .4877 -.0695 NC State .466 .324 .600 .517
74 +6 .4875 +.0901 Northwestern .492 .875 .500 .410
75 -4 .4639 -.0343 SMU .347 .412 .500 .675
76 -1 .4615 +.0259 Florida .258 .988 .250 .817
77 +13 .4569 +.1085 Toledo .388 .118 .600 .591
78 +17 .4343 +.1051 Washington State .483 .382 .600 .298
79 -5 .4300 -.0220 Colorado .266 .621 .400 .708
80 +9 .4286 +.0632 Kennesaw State .566 .677 .600 .078
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
81 .4103 +.0168 UTSA .371 .507 .500 .436
82 -13 .4017 -.0974 Pittsburgh .295 .225 .500 .595
83 +14 .3963 +.0742 Central Michigan .515 .497 .600 .093
84 +20 .3953 +.0848 Kansas State .245 .525 .400 .648
85 +14 .3930 +.0744 Hawai’i .474 .096 .667 .203
86 +15 .3874 +.0715 Virginia Tech .279 .674 .400 .533
87 +6 .3665 +.0325 Temple .385 .560 .500 .256
88 +17 .3628 +.0539 UConn .363 .076 .600 .331
89 -4 .3619 -.0195 UAB .432 .723 .500 .128
90 -7 .3510 -.0380 North Carolina .330 .347 .500 .341
91 +7 .3485 +.0285 Wyoming .367 .492 .500 .240
92 -19 .3368 -.1201 Rice .393 .126 .600 .182
93 -2 .3330 -.0129 Florida International .379 .536 .500 .159
94 +20 .3311 +.1245 Southern Miss .392 .124 .600 .164
95 -3 .3161 -.0262 Clemson .122 .646 .250 .639
96 +16 .3152 +.0910 Stanford .281 .681 .400 .288
97 -15 .3056 -.0859 West Virginia .253 .561 .400 .328
98 -19 .2993 -.1026 Bowling Green .256 .576 .400 .299
99 -12 .2946 -.0818 Wake Forest .266 .143 .500 .304
100 +7 .2836 -.0047 Troy .296 .231 .500 .196
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
101 +20 .2824 +.1298 Western Michigan .244 .522 .400 .273
102 -25 .2787 -.1299 Marshall .223 .419 .400 .317
103 -3 .2700 -.0467 Army .101 .486 .250 .551
104 -16 .2699 -.1023 Georgia Southern .266 .620 .400 .175
105 +6 .2614 +.0291 Coastal Carolina .301 .246 .500 .111
106 -20 .2591 -.1191 Missouri State .260 .595 .400 .154
107 +3 .2374 -.0109 Georgia State .267 .991 .250 .053
108 -14 .2229 -.1104 App State .254 .114 .500 .092
109 -6 .2171 -.0949 Oklahoma State .176 .891 .250 .170
110 -2 .2135 -.0542 Boston College .056 .119 .250 .506
111 +9 .2134 +.0493 Louisiana .193 .281 .400 .177
112 -16 .2092 -.1165 Jacksonville State .151 .117 .400 .268
113 -11 .2043 -.1098 New Mexico State .243 .092 .500 .053
114 -8 .1968 -.1013 San José State .129 .691 .250 .221
115 +11 .1814 +.0503 Miami (OH) .079 .299 .250 .327
116 -7 .1752 -.0806 Buffalo .149 .112 .400 .159
117 -1 .1628 -.0394 Tulsa .146 .102 .400 .125
118 -5 .1606 -.0530 Northern Illinois .090 .394 .250 .222
119 -2 .1586 -.0251 South Alabama .077 .539 .200 .232
120 -1 .1511 -.0142 Nevada .115 .601 .250 .109
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
121 -6 .1469 -.0586 Colorado State .092 .416 .250 .168
122 +5 .1352 +.0114 Oregon State .042 .960 .000 .214
123 -5 .1345 -.0404 UTEP .081 .579 .200 .137
124 +9 .1288 +.0297 Kent State .125 .668 .250 .005
125 .1251 -.0203 UCLA .013 .467 .000 .315
126 +2 .1178 +.0069 Ball State .094 .429 .250 .066
127 -3 .1145 -.0330 Florida Atlantic .071 .234 .250 .129
128 +1 .1070 -.0038 Liberty .047 .212 .200 .168
129 -7 .1060 -.0430 Air Force .054 .106 .250 .154
130 -7 .0972 -.0506 Arkansas State .056 .311 .200 .103
131 -1 .0964 -.0129 Akron .067 .437 .200 .059
132 -1 .0900 -.0186 Sam Houston .025 .816 .000 .118
133 +1 .0672 -.0096 Charlotte .042 .045 .250 .057
134 -2 .0667 -.0340 Eastern Michigan .042 .155 .200 .054
135 +1 .0582 +.0269 Massachusetts .023 .784 .000 .021
136 -1 .0563 -.0184 Middle Tennessee .035 .095 .200 .041Week 6 Game Predictions
As usual, games are ranked based on the projected quality. This factors in the overall strength of the two teams and the potential for a competitive game. Game quality ratings are not directly comparable between college football and the NFL. NFL games are typically decided by smaller margins than college games, the teams are more balanced in their quality, and there’s just not as much scoring in the NFL. Thresholds for close games and blowouts are also different between college and the NFL for the same reasons.
Beside each team, there are two numbers in parentheses. One is the predicted margin of victory (positive) or defeat (negative), the other is the probability of winning. These margins are sometimes larger than what’s indicated by the predicted score. That’s because there’s nothing in the math that prevents a prediction of negative points with a sufficiently lopsided matchup. This is, of course, impossible, so the score is set to zero in those instances. There’s no cap on how many points a team can be projected to score, though.
I haven’t gone back to check and be certain, but it’s very possible some of the competitiveness ratings could have looked a bit odd in last week’s ratings, and they weren’t quite right. This number shouldn’t be over 100%, but I noticed in a couple of places that it was. My code predicts the margin of victory and the distribution of possible outcomes by fitting the past prediction errors to the Student’s t-distribution. If the degrees of freedom in the best fit is large enough, I just use a normal distribution. This is implemented as a ratio in my code, and one part of the ratio was with the normal distribution and the other was using the Student’s t-distribution. It wasn’t a big problem, and I’m not going to go back and edit my predictions, but it’s been fixed for this week. This system is actively under development still, so there are going to be a few glitches from time to time, and I’ll try to correct them as I become aware of the glitches.
#1: Iowa State (3.04, 58.31%) at Cincinnati (-3.04, 41.69%)
Estimated score: 26.84 - 23.84, Total: 50.68
Quality: 97.02%, Team quality: 96.22%, Competitiveness: 98.64%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.29%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 36.32%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 33.42%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.97%
#2: Kansas (0.53, 51.45%) at UCF (-0.53, 48.55%)
Estimated score: 28.03 - 27.51, Total: 55.54
Quality: 96.66%, Team quality: 95.05%, Competitiveness: 99.96%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.87%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.04%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.18%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.27%
#3: Texas Tech (4.54, 62.29%) at Houston (-4.54, 37.71%)
Estimated score: 30.03 - 25.59, Total: 55.63
Quality: 96.04%, Team quality: 95.57%, Competitiveness: 97.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.82%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.42%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.27%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.18%
#4: Kansas State (-3.60, 40.19%) at Baylor (3.60, 59.81%)
Estimated score: 31.25 - 34.83, Total: 66.08
Quality: 95.73%, Team quality: 94.56%, Competitiveness: 98.10%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.46%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 36.02%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 49.04%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 23.06%
#5: Texas (8.38, 71.83%) at Florida (-8.38, 28.17%)
Estimated score: 22.50 - 13.95, Total: 36.45
Quality: 94.93%, Team quality: 97.44%, Competitiveness: 90.11%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.21%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.76%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 21.13%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 51.63%
#6: Colorado (-6.92, 31.66%) at TCU (6.92, 68.34%)
Estimated score: 25.43 - 32.34, Total: 57.77
Quality: 94.83%, Team quality: 95.68%, Competitiveness: 93.16%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.12%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 33.36%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 40.43%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 30.19%
#7: Duke (3.42, 59.33%) at California (-3.42, 40.67%)
Estimated score: 26.38 - 23.00, Total: 49.38
Quality: 94.80%, Team quality: 93.11%, Competitiveness: 98.29%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.40%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 36.12%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 32.19%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.26%
#8: Washington (7.61, 70.01%) at Maryland (-7.61, 29.99%)
Estimated score: 30.96 - 23.35, Total: 54.32
Quality: 94.41%, Team quality: 95.75%, Competitiveness: 91.78%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.61%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.64%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 36.96%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.43%
#9: Miami (8.92, 73.08%) at Florida State (-8.92, 26.92%)
Estimated score: 34.04 - 24.99, Total: 59.03
Quality: 94.33%, Team quality: 97.19%, Competitiveness: 88.85%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.67%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.11%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.72%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.05%
#10: Boston College (-5.58, 35.03%) at Pittsburgh (5.58, 64.97%)
Estimated score: 30.18 - 35.58, Total: 65.76
Quality: 93.87%, Team quality: 93.06%, Competitiveness: 95.51%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.32%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 34.62%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 48.70%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 23.32%
#11: Virginia (-9.86, 24.83%) at Louisville (9.86, 75.17%)
Estimated score: 30.13 - 40.08, Total: 70.22
Quality: 92.56%, Team quality: 95.73%, Competitiveness: 86.54%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.55%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.93%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 53.36%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 19.89%
#12: Syracuse (-8.30, 28.36%) at SMU (8.30, 71.64%)
Estimated score: 26.04 - 34.20, Total: 60.24
Quality: 92.48%, Team quality: 93.59%, Competitiveness: 90.29%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.14%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.86%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 42.96%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 27.97%
#13: UTSA (4.48, 62.14%) at Temple (-4.48, 37.86%)
Estimated score: 36.19 - 31.79, Total: 67.98
Quality: 92.06%, Team quality: 89.64%, Competitiveness: 97.08%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.80%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.46%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 51.02%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 21.57%
#14: Mississippi State (-10.79, 22.85%) at Texas A&M (10.79, 77.15%)
Estimated score: 24.26 - 35.26, Total: 59.52
Quality: 92.04%, Team quality: 96.30%, Competitiveness: 84.08%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.51%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.69%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 42.21%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.62%
#15: Miami (OH) (2.00, 55.49%) at Northern Illinois (-2.00, 44.51%)
Estimated score: 15.99 - 14.12, Total: 30.11
Quality: 91.75%, Team quality: 88.14%, Competitiveness: 99.41%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.04%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 36.74%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 16.65%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 58.20%
#16: Clemson (8.28, 71.59%) at North Carolina (-8.28, 28.41%)
Estimated score: 27.87 - 19.55, Total: 47.42
Quality: 91.50%, Team quality: 92.08%, Competitiveness: 90.34%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.12%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.88%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 30.37%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 40.24%
#17: Vanderbilt (-12.40, 19.63%) at Alabama (12.40, 80.37%)
Estimated score: 25.97 - 38.41, Total: 64.38
Quality: 91.31%, Team quality: 97.88%, Competitiveness: 79.47%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.42%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.43%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 47.26%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 24.44%
#18: New Mexico (5.17, 63.92%) at San José State (-5.17, 36.08%)
Estimated score: 33.28 - 27.90, Total: 61.18
Quality: 91.30%, Team quality: 88.97%, Competitiveness: 96.13%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.11%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 34.95%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 43.93%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 27.15%
#19: South Alabama (-0.74, 47.97%) at Troy (0.74, 52.03%)
Estimated score: 27.51 - 28.24, Total: 55.75
Quality: 90.81%, Team quality: 86.57%, Competitiveness: 99.92%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.88%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.02%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.40%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.06%
#20: Western Kentucky (5.39, 64.49%) at Delaware (-5.39, 35.51%)
Estimated score: 31.44 - 25.98, Total: 57.42
Quality: 90.60%, Team quality: 88.11%, Competitiveness: 95.80%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.22%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 34.77%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 40.08%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 30.51%
#21: UNLV (8.22, 71.46%) at Wyoming (-8.22, 28.54%)
Estimated score: 29.92 - 21.85, Total: 51.77
Quality: 90.23%, Team quality: 90.11%, Competitiveness: 90.46%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.08%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.95%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.47%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.89%
#22: Illinois (12.81, 81.14%) at Purdue (-12.81, 18.86%)
Estimated score: 29.78 - 16.86, Total: 46.64
Quality: 88.53%, Team quality: 94.16%, Competitiveness: 78.26%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.95%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.84%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.66%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.03%
#23: Wake Forest (-10.78, 22.88%) at Virginia Tech (10.78, 77.12%)
Estimated score: 17.62 - 28.41, Total: 46.03
Quality: 88.49%, Team quality: 90.75%, Competitiveness: 84.12%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.50%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.71%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.11%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.65%
#24: Florida Atlantic (-5.55, 35.09%) at Rice (5.55, 64.91%)
Estimated score: 24.76 - 30.39, Total: 55.15
Quality: 87.92%, Team quality: 84.34%, Competitiveness: 95.54%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.31%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 34.64%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 37.79%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.63%
#25: Oregon State (5.02, 63.54%) at App State (-5.02, 36.46%)
Estimated score: 28.31 - 23.24, Total: 51.55
Quality: 87.90%, Team quality: 83.96%, Competitiveness: 96.35%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.04%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.07%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.26%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.11%
#26: Colorado State (-10.22, 24.06%) at San Diego State (10.22, 75.94%)
Estimated score: 11.01 - 21.01, Total: 32.02
Quality: 86.66%, Team quality: 87.19%, Competitiveness: 85.62%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.91%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.46%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 17.94%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 56.23%
#27: Florida International (-10.26, 23.97%) at UConn (10.26, 76.03%)
Estimated score: 21.66 - 31.83, Total: 53.49
Quality: 86.44%, Team quality: 86.91%, Competitiveness: 85.50%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.95%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.41%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 36.15%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.22%
#28: Central Michigan (0.92, 52.53%) at Akron (-0.92, 47.47%)
Estimated score: 25.15 - 24.03, Total: 49.17
Quality: 86.08%, Team quality: 79.92%, Competitiveness: 99.88%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.90%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.00%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 32.00%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.47%
#29: Sam Houston (3.57, 59.73%) at New Mexico State (-3.57, 40.27%)
Estimated score: 26.57 - 22.94, Total: 49.52
Quality: 85.90%, Team quality: 80.37%, Competitiveness: 98.14%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.45%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 36.04%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 32.32%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.12%
#30: Wisconsin (-17.28, 11.67%) at Michigan (17.28, 88.33%)
Estimated score: 11.16 - 28.54, Total: 39.70
Quality: 83.40%, Team quality: 95.44%, Competitiveness: 63.68%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 19.08%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.22%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 23.69%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 48.22%
#31: Eastern Michigan (-10.95, 22.51%) at Buffalo (10.95, 77.49%)
Estimated score: 21.82 - 32.70, Total: 54.52
Quality: 81.91%, Team quality: 81.06%, Competitiveness: 83.64%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.69%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.47%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 37.17%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.23%
#32: Army (15.26, 85.36%) at UAB (-15.26, 14.64%)
Estimated score: 39.24 - 24.02, Total: 63.26
Quality: 81.90%, Team quality: 88.30%, Competitiveness: 70.47%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.56%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 22.21%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 46.09%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 25.37%
#33: Kentucky (-18.79, 9.76%) at Georgia (18.79, 90.24%)
Estimated score: 13.15 - 31.78, Total: 44.93
Quality: 81.34%, Team quality: 95.89%, Competitiveness: 58.52%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 22.01%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 17.05%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.12%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 42.79%
#34: Michigan State (-18.42, 10.21%) at Nebraska (18.42, 89.79%)
Estimated score: 16.78 - 35.12, Total: 51.90
Quality: 81.22%, Team quality: 94.66%, Competitiveness: 59.79%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 21.27%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 17.57%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.60%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.76%
#35: Texas State (15.98, 86.47%) at Arkansas State (-15.98, 13.53%)
Estimated score: 39.47 - 23.54, Total: 63.00
Quality: 80.42%, Team quality: 87.41%, Competitiveness: 68.07%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 16.76%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.14%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 45.83%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 25.59%
#36: Nevada (-15.93, 13.61%) at Fresno State (15.93, 86.39%)
Estimated score: 14.43 - 30.23, Total: 44.67
Quality: 79.72%, Team quality: 86.16%, Competitiveness: 68.24%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 16.67%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.21%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 27.89%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.06%
#37: Air Force (-17.48, 11.40%) at Navy (17.48, 88.60%)
Estimated score: 22.10 - 39.57, Total: 61.68
Quality: 78.88%, Team quality: 88.27%, Competitiveness: 62.99%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 19.46%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 18.92%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 44.44%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 26.72%
#38: Ohio (17.50, 88.62%) at Ball State (-17.50, 11.38%)
Estimated score: 37.51 - 19.92, Total: 57.43
Quality: 77.25%, Team quality: 85.60%, Competitiveness: 62.93%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 19.49%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 18.89%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 40.09%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 30.50%
#39: UL Monroe (-17.96, 10.78%) at Northwestern (17.96, 89.22%)
Estimated score: 8.86 - 26.74, Total: 35.59
Quality: 76.64%, Team quality: 85.65%, Competitiveness: 61.36%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 20.37%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 18.23%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 20.49%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 52.52%
#40: Oklahoma State (-19.83, 8.57%) at Arizona (19.83, 91.43%)
Estimated score: 14.94 - 34.85, Total: 49.79
Quality: 75.88%, Team quality: 89.17%, Competitiveness: 54.95%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 24.19%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 15.60%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 32.58%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 37.85%
#41: Western Michigan (17.65, 88.82%) at Massachusetts (-17.65, 11.18%)
Estimated score: 34.85 - 17.15, Total: 52.00
Quality: 73.76%, Team quality: 80.19%, Competitiveness: 62.41%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 19.78%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 18.67%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.69%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.67%
#42: Penn State (24.40, 95.38%) at UCLA (-24.40, 4.62%)
Estimated score: 33.75 - 9.20, Total: 42.95
Quality: 70.47%, Team quality: 93.66%, Competitiveness: 39.90%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 34.98%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 9.99%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 26.39%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 44.84%
#43: James Madison (22.84, 94.24%) at Georgia State (-22.84, 5.76%)
Estimated score: 38.15 - 15.34, Total: 53.49
Quality: 69.05%, Team quality: 85.66%, Competitiveness: 44.87%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 31.09%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 11.75%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 36.15%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.22%
#44: Tulsa (-25.19, 4.12%) at Memphis (25.19, 95.88%)
Estimated score: 13.17 - 38.37, Total: 51.54
Quality: 66.44%, Team quality: 88.47%, Competitiveness: 37.46%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 37.02%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 9.16%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.25%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.12%
#45: Boise State (-27.51, 2.89%) at Notre Dame (27.51, 97.11%)
Estimated score: 20.39 - 47.89, Total: 68.28
Quality: 65.79%, Team quality: 96.24%, Competitiveness: 30.74%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 43.18%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 7.00%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 51.34%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 21.34%
#46: Coastal Carolina (-26.96, 3.15%) at Old Dominion (26.96, 96.85%)
Estimated score: 9.16 - 36.20, Total: 45.36
Quality: 63.07%, Team quality: 88.18%, Competitiveness: 32.26%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 41.71%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 7.47%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.51%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 42.34%
#47: West Virginia (-28.67, 2.40%) at BYU (28.67, 97.60%)
Estimated score: 10.47 - 39.03, Total: 49.50
Quality: 62.18%, Team quality: 93.28%, Competitiveness: 27.63%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 46.35%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 6.06%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 32.30%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.14%
#48: Minnesota (-30.31, 1.83%) at Ohio State (30.31, 98.17%)
Estimated score: 2.86 - 33.10, Total: 35.96
Quality: 60.38%, Team quality: 96.66%, Competitiveness: 23.57%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 50.85%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 4.90%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 20.77%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 52.13%
#49: Charlotte (-31.89, 1.39%) at South Florida (31.89, 98.61%)
Estimated score: 9.30 - 41.30, Total: 50.60
Quality: 52.82%, Team quality: 85.81%, Competitiveness: 20.01%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 55.19%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 3.94%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 33.35%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 37.05%
#50: Campbell (-41.80, 0.20%) at NC State (41.80, 99.80%)
Estimated score: 12.72 - 54.45, Total: 67.17
Quality: 31.80%, Team quality: 74.78%, Competitiveness: 5.75%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 79.20%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.78%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 50.18%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 22.20%
#51: Kent State (-54.77, 0.01%) at Oklahoma (54.77, 99.99%)
Estimated score: 0.00 - 52.69, Total: 52.69
Quality: 15.54%, Team quality: 78.70%, Competitiveness: 0.61%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 95.62%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.05%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.37%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.99%I’ll post a brief article with the alternative ratings a bit later today, and NFL ratings will also be posted. I still plan to upload the source code to Github for my rating system and all the other tools I’ve developed alongside it. I’m late in getting that done, but the system has been under active development, and I’ll get those posted in the next week or two. The actual rating system hasn’t really been changed during the past few weeks, but I’ve made large changes to some of the tools for postprocessing the data and generating the tables you see in these articles. I probably won’t be making many significant changes to the ratings during football season, but I am working on some new baseball-related content that should get posted in the next few days. I’m also planning to run NBA ratings, college basketball ratings, and perhaps even NHL ratings. I probably won’t predict games like I do here, but I’ll at least rank the teams.
Thanks for reading!
The ratings discussed in this article are based on data acquired from collegefootballdata.com.