College Football Ratings Going Into Week 2
Examining the impact of the Alabama-Florida State game, updated ratings, and predictions for week 2 games
Week 1 of college football is in the books, so it's time to post my updated team ratings and game predictions for week 2. But let’s also talk about the biggest surprise in week 1, what happens to the computer ratings if I increase the impact of week 1, and the results if I let the computer totally overreact to week 1 games.
What Happens to Alabama and Florida State
Let's get right to the big question: where should Florida State and Alabama be ranked after last weekend's surprising result in Tallahassee? The polls have dropped Alabama a dozen spots or more while placing previously unranked Florida State ahead of them. If Florida State is the 14th best team in the country, as the AP Poll ranks them, why does losing to them on the road by two touchdowns warrant dropping Alabama 13 spots? If the evidence that Florida State is actually a really good team comes from a dominant win over Alabama, that only makes sense if Alabama is also a pretty good team. My point is that the polls seem to have overreacted, and we need another weekend or two to really know how good these two teams are.
I don't try to adjust my preseason ratings based on returning production, transfers, or recruiting rankings, so the initial ratings are just the final ratings from the previous season. Obviously those can add skill to the ratings in the early weeks of the season, but there's really no substitute for playing a few games and judging teams by their results. I’m also quite conservative in how the ratings react to results in the first couple of weeks that seem surprising.
My ratings place Alabama at #10. Jeff Sagarin's predictor is another system that's based purely on points, and those ratings put Alabama at #7. Bill Connelly does adjust his SP+ ratings during the offseason for roster changes, and he has Alabama at #11. ESPN's FPI has Alabama at #13. The consensus among computer ratings seems to be to keep Alabama highly ranked at this point, and to a greater extent than the polls.
There's a much bigger spread with Florida State. My ratings have them all the way down at #79, which is because the ratings are still mainly influenced by last season's games. Jeff Sagarin's predictor put them at #32. Bill Connelly's SP+ ranks Florida State at #31. And FPI puts them at #40. By comparison, my boost to Florida State's rating is very conservative, and the consensus of other computer ratings is to have them somewhere around #35.
Although I don't make offseason adjustments to the ratings based on roster changes, a lot of the difference is really in how much the ratings react to week 1 games. My official ratings weight week 1 games equally with games from the prior season. If I weight each of last season's games at 80%, Alabama stays at #10 while Florida State rises to #77. If I lower the weighting to 50%, Alabama is still at #10, but Florida State rises to #73. Lower the weight to 20% and Alabama falls to #16 while Florida State jumps to #52. If I drop that to 10%, Alabama is at #23 while Florida State ascends to #40.
If I want to allow the ratings to overreact a lot, I can cut the weight of last season's games to 5%, which lowers Alabama to #27 while Florida State moves in front of them at #25. Going all the way to a weight of 2%, Alabama plummets to #40 while Florida State rises to #23. This seems to be a bit of a plateau for Florida State, so I don’t really see a lot of support for putting them in the top 15. Weighting the prior season’s games at 2% means the ratings are based heavily on week 1 games, and the result is a massive overreaction to week 1 games. And even that doesn’t support how high the AP and Coaches Polls have ranked Florida State.
Just to put some numbers on what those percentages mean, if a team played 13 games last season, this game shows the approximate impact of this season's games in the overall ratings if a team plays one game per week over the first six weeks:
Weight Scheme Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6
100% 7.14% 13.33% 18.75% 23.53% 27.78% 31.58%
80% 8.77% 16.13% 22.39% 27.78% 32.47% 36.59%
50% 13.33% 23.53% 31.58% 38.10% 43.48% 48.00%
20% 27.78% 43.48% 53.57% 60.61% 65.79% 69.77%
10% 43.48% 60.61% 69.77% 75.47% 79.37% 82.19%
5% 60.61% 75.47% 82.19% 86.02% 88.50% 90.23%
2% 79.37% 88.50% 92.02% 93.90% 95.06% 95.85%
Planned 7.14% 16.13% 27.78% 43.48% 65.79% 100.00% As we get later into September, you'll see the ratings shift more and the current season's games have a bigger impact. My plan is to cut the weight of the prior season's games to 80% in week 2 and decrease it by 20% more in each successive week. After the first weekend in October, the ratings will be solely based on this season's games. We'll also have a lot more games this season to evaluate the teams instead of just a single week of games. I plan to revisit this approach in the future and evaluate if it's too conservative. This is a work in progress and I'm still experimenting, so I'll also post another article ahead of this weekend's games with predictions if I weight the week 1 quite a bit more heavily than I have here.
Here's the Python code I used to create that table, and you can modify it to add more weeks or include different schemes for weighting the weeks:
last_season_pct_list = [100, 80, 50, 20, 10, 5, 2]
week_range = range(1, 7, 1)
planned_weight = [100, 80, 60, 40, 20, 0] + ([0] * max((len(week_range) - 6), 0))
output_header = ['Weight Scheme'] + ['Week ' + '{:d}'.format(x) for x in week_range]
output_text = [output_header]
for last_season_pct in last_season_pct_list:
text_row = ['{:d}'.format(last_season_pct) + '%']
for week in week_range:
text_row.append('{0:.2f}'.format(100 * week / (week + (float(last_season_pct * 13) / 100))) + '%')
output_text.append(text_row)
text_row = ['Planned']
for week in week_range:
text_row.append('{0:.2f}'.format(100 * week / (week + (float(planned_weight[week - 1] * 13) / 100))) + '%')
output_text.append(text_row)
output_alignment = ['>'] + ([''] * len(week_range))
output_column_width = []
for cur_column in range(0, len(output_header), 1):
output_column_width.append(max([len(x[cur_column]) for x in output_text]) + int(cur_column > 0))
for cur_line in range(0, len(output_text), 1):
cur_line_text = ''
for cur_column in range(0, len(output_header), 1):
if cur_column > 0:
cur_line_text += ' '
cur_line_text += ('{:' + output_alignment[cur_column] + str(int(output_column_width[cur_column])) + 's}').format(output_text[cur_line][cur_column])
print(cur_line_text)The first line of code can be adjusted to include more weights for prior season games, and I’ve just included the settings that I calculated ratings with. The second line can be adjusted to print more or fewer weeks by changing the 7 to something else. The third line is my planned rating scheme, and that can also be modified.
Okay, so what’s my answer to the question? Based on week 1 alone, I would subjectively put Florida State around #50, then moving them up if they continue to look strong in future weeks. As for Alabama, I would probably rank them somewhere around #15. This is fairly close to the 20% weighting of prior season games, and it seems reasonable to me. I certainly believe that Florida State belongs ahead of Alabama, and I definitely don’t see any support right now for including them in the top 15 on the basis of week 1. That can easily change if Florida State continues to be impressive, but one week isn’t enough to justify that. Like I pointed out earlier, even if I allow the computer ratings to have a massive overreaction to week 1 results, they seem to plateau Florida State just inside the top 25.
Official Ratings After Week 1
These are the official week 1 ratings that I’m using for the predictions at the end of the article. These ratings weight each game in the prior season equally to the week 1 games this season, so they're going to be very conservative in moving teams up and down. That will, of course, change as more games are played.
Overall Ratings
Home advantage: 2.54 points
Mean score: 26.29 points
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
1 77.91 Ohio State 36.93 40.99
2 74.38 Notre Dame 37.13 37.36
3 73.55 Texas 34.71 38.93
4 73.42 Ole Miss 37.84 35.76
5 70.60 Indiana 37.70 32.99
6 69.97 Tennessee 35.28 34.51
7 69.81 Oregon 37.90 31.96
8 69.54 Georgia 34.83 34.82
9 69.46 Penn State 33.33 36.07
10 69.11 Alabama 35.55 33.58
11 66.46 South Carolina 31.92 34.63
12 66.16 Miami 40.94 25.27
13 64.18 Louisville 36.02 28.13
14 63.97 USC 34.65 29.32
15 63.93 BYU 31.79 32.26
16 62.93 Iowa State 30.80 31.91
17 62.59 Arizona State 32.79 29.72
18 62.42 LSU 31.17 31.42
19 62.36 Florida 30.63 31.78
20 61.48 SMU 33.37 28.16
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
21 61.15 Texas A&M 31.18 30.14
22 61.02 Clemson 32.35 28.68
23 60.49 Colorado 30.98 29.53
24 59.35 Minnesota 25.04 34.28
25 59.10 Missouri 27.35 31.62
26 59.04 Baylor 33.78 25.26
27 58.57 TCU 31.26 27.34
28 58.53 Iowa 28.20 30.46
29 58.19 Michigan 24.15 34.04
30 58.12 Tulane 29.61 28.50
31 57.99 Auburn 27.44 30.55
32 57.90 Oklahoma 26.44 31.69
33 57.84 Kansas 29.36 28.51
34 57.55 Virginia Tech 26.56 30.99
35 57.39 Kansas State 29.78 27.63
36 57.26 Utah 24.11 33.08
37 56.13 Illinois 26.96 29.10
38 55.84 Vanderbilt 27.58 28.28
39 55.71 Arkansas 28.37 27.33
40 55.44 UCF 29.41 26.21
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
41 55.28 Georgia Tech 27.24 28.04
42 54.52 Nebraska 22.13 32.33
43 53.84 Boise State 29.17 24.65
44 53.58 Boston College 27.72 25.83
45 52.81 UNLV 28.91 23.93
46 52.79 Texas Tech 34.46 18.57
47 52.71 Syracuse 30.87 21.84
48 52.61 Wisconsin 22.19 30.45
49 52.51 Washington 23.16 29.27
50 52.49 Cincinnati 24.41 27.97
51 52.30 Pittsburgh 29.52 22.80
52 52.23 Kentucky 20.94 31.14
53 51.84 Army 22.65 29.23
54 50.85 Navy 26.01 24.78
55 50.40 Memphis 27.68 22.70
56 50.37 Rutgers 28.61 21.91
57 50.08 California 21.27 28.80
58 48.76 West Virginia 27.32 21.60
59 48.46 Duke 23.16 25.30
60 48.20 Maryland 25.44 22.76
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
61 48.17 Texas State 28.30 19.97
62 47.89 Marshall 24.68 23.27
63 47.75 UCLA 20.84 26.87
64 47.55 James Madison 23.02 24.56
65 47.51 Virginia 21.67 25.83
66 47.11 Mississippi State 26.92 20.17
67 46.61 Houston 15.42 31.27
68 46.33 Oklahoma State 25.73 20.61
69 45.54 North Carolina 26.23 19.34
70 45.29 Washington State 26.72 18.60
71 45.21 Ohio 20.27 25.12
72 45.18 UConn 23.53 21.72
73 45.14 Old Dominion 22.52 22.56
74 43.92 NC State 23.95 19.85
75 43.79 Arizona 21.57 22.22
76 43.77 South Florida 23.99 19.63
77 43.72 Michigan State 16.91 26.93
78 43.23 Jacksonville State 25.60 17.61
79 42.98 Florida State 16.39 26.51
80 42.95 Miami (OH) 16.51 26.46
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
81 42.62 South Alabama 24.06 18.71
82 42.46 Northwestern 17.52 25.20
83 42.39 Louisiana 21.02 21.64
84 42.06 Toledo 20.74 21.34
85 41.38 Fresno State 19.89 21.50
86 41.18 North Texas 26.61 14.81
87 41.18 UTSA 24.71 16.30
88 40.88 Georgia Southern 21.27 19.56
89 40.83 Northern Illinois 14.40 26.52
90 40.33 Bowling Green 17.92 22.52
91 40.10 East Carolina 21.43 18.70
92 39.93 Western Kentucky 19.54 20.47
93 39.47 Stanford 20.35 19.15
94 38.41 Wake Forest 19.89 18.58
95 38.16 Sam Houston 16.59 21.65
96 37.88 Rice 15.53 22.29
97 37.64 San José State 19.69 18.13
98 37.49 App State 20.65 17.03
99 36.24 Nevada 17.71 18.51
100 35.98 Buffalo 18.46 17.52
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
101 35.59 Colorado State 17.47 17.96
102 35.40 Oregon State 17.69 17.72
103 34.90 Troy 17.91 16.96
104 34.75 Air Force 12.43 22.32
105 34.68 New Mexico 26.81 7.88
106 34.53 Coastal Carolina 20.11 14.45
107 34.26 Liberty 16.04 18.46
108 34.02 Florida International 16.23 17.72
109 33.92 Utah State 24.31 9.65
110 33.73 UL Monroe 14.50 19.31
111 33.54 Wyoming 11.26 22.45
112 33.49 Louisiana Tech 11.12 22.43
113 33.03 Western Michigan 19.97 13.14
114 32.99 Arkansas State 18.99 13.92
115 32.61 Purdue 17.69 14.98
116 32.44 Georgia State 18.44 14.12
117 31.47 San Diego State 13.91 17.66
118 31.06 Hawai'i 11.56 19.54
119 30.92 Central Michigan 15.44 15.51
120 30.59 Charlotte 16.14 14.43
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
121 30.57 Eastern Michigan 16.76 13.71
122 30.57 UAB 20.87 9.51
123 30.19 Florida Atlantic 15.91 14.23
124 28.87 Temple 13.39 15.54
125 27.62 Akron 12.32 15.28
126 27.16 Delaware 16.00 11.21
127 26.98 Missouri State 19.69 7.22
128 23.75 Ball State 16.55 7.24
129 23.49 UTEP 11.38 11.99
130 23.15 Massachusetts 15.14 7.94
131 21.58 Kennesaw State 7.00 14.49
132 20.57 New Mexico State 10.72 9.88
133 19.62 Tulsa 14.30 5.28
134 19.50 Southern Miss 9.06 10.37
135 18.77 Middle Tennessee 10.02 8.79
136 9.26 Kent State 6.91 2.45 Rating System Updates
In the interest of transparency, I need to talk a bit about some of the updates to the rating system. I wrote an article on why some games are weighted more than others in the ratings, and I've made a few tweaks to my rating system that I’m introducing this week. I suspected that I might be weighting some games too heavily compared to others using my original approach. Although the results generally appeared reasonable to me, I was concerned that I might be getting the right answer for the wrong reasons. With my recent update, there’s still a significant difference in the highest and lowest weighted games, but it’s also considerably smaller than what I used previously. This makes me much more confident that the rating system is behaving how I want it to, and the team ratings haven't changed that much with the changes. A few teams moved up or down a couple of places, but the most significant difference was a reduction in the home advantage from 3.17 points to 2.54 points.
Both numbers are smaller than the home advantage calculated by Jeff Sagarin's ratings, which is actually 3.73 points this week. However, I believe Sagarin only rates FBS and FCS teams, whereas my ratings actually encompass all connected teams down to Division III. I haven't posted ratings from lower divisions, but they are included in the calculations. My theory is that home advantage is largest in the FBS because the stadiums and crowds are generally larger and road teams might also be at a greater disadvantage from traveling longer distances. There’s just no equivalent at Division III to a team from California traveling to Ann Arbor to play a game at the Big House, all the swaying in the stands at Kyle Field, or many of the other unique home field advantages in the FBS. I expect my number is lower because it's averaged across all divisions, but 2.54 points is actually very much in line with older versions of my ratings that I tested. Overall, I'm more confident in the ratings now, including this change.
I'll release the code in the next few days, perhaps with the next round of ratings. In addition to the changes I talked about above, I also made a few other improvements like making some of the code run on multiple CPU cores if they're available. With the old quad-core Xeon I'm using to generate the ratings, running the code in parallel makes the fans run full speed to cool the processor. But it also cuts the time by nearly a factor of four, which is very welcome. This doesn't change the results at all, only that they’re available to me much faster when I run my code.
Overreacting to Week 1?
Changing the weight for prior season games doesn't just affect the ratings for Florida State and Alabama. The ratings shift for other teams as well, sometimes quite significantly. Yes, many of the results seem a bit ridiculous when I set the prior season weight down to 2% allow the computer to overreact heavily to week 1. But seeing some teams move up or down in the ratings as I weight the 2024 games less also hints at teams that might be overrated or underrated.
Overall Ratings
Rank Rating Team 80% Weight 50% Weight 20% Weight
1 77.91 Ohio State 78.37 (1) 79.10 (1) 79.68 (1)
2 74.38 Notre Dame 74.75 (2) 75.14 (3) 75.60 (3)
3 73.55 Texas 73.73 (4) 74.75 (4) 75.33 (4)
4 73.42 Ole Miss 74.07 (3) 75.29 (2) 76.97 (2)
5 70.60 Indiana 70.61 (5) 70.64 (8) 69.33 (10)
6 69.97 Tennessee 69.94 (8) 70.85 (7) 71.26 (7)
7 69.81 Oregon 70.38 (6) 71.81 (5) 75.30 (5)
8 69.54 Georgia 70.24 (7) 71.40 (6) 73.29 (6)
9 69.46 Penn State 69.31 (9) 70.40 (9) 70.22 (9)
10 69.11 Alabama 68.83 (10) 68.42 (10) 65.58 (16)
11 66.46 South Carolina 66.78 (11) 67.60 (12) 68.85 (12)
12 66.16 Miami 66.53 (12) 67.89 (11) 70.35 (8)
13 64.18 Louisville 64.29 (15) 64.81 (16) 64.53 (20)
14 63.97 USC 64.38 (14) 66.23 (13) 69.05 (11)
15 63.93 BYU 64.48 (13) 65.93 (14) 68.48 (13)
16 62.93 Iowa State 63.74 (16) 65.24 (15) 67.70 (14)
17 62.59 Arizona State 62.84 (18) 62.75 (19) 62.32 (24)
18 62.42 LSU 62.81 (19) 63.98 (18) 65.64 (15)
19 62.36 Florida 63.15 (17) 64.06 (17) 65.44 (17)
20 61.48 SMU 61.67 (20) 61.64 (21) 59.64 (29)
Rank Rating Team 80% Weight 50% Weight 20% Weight
21 61.15 Texas A&M 61.65 (21) 62.29 (20) 63.13 (22)
22 61.02 Clemson 61.21 (22) 61.59 (22) 61.71 (25)
23 60.49 Colorado 61.01 (23) 61.09 (24) 60.19 (27)
24 59.35 Minnesota 59.39 (27) 59.14 (31) 57.44 (36)
25 59.10 Missouri 59.43 (26) 61.05 (25) 62.77 (23)
26 59.04 Baylor 59.72 (24) 60.03 (28) 59.57 (30)
27 58.57 TCU 59.54 (25) 61.28 (23) 65.12 (18)
28 58.53 Iowa 58.53 (30) 58.31 (34) 56.85 (40)
29 58.19 Michigan 58.07 (33) 58.69 (32) 58.09 (33)
30 58.12 Tulane 58.58 (29) 59.61 (29) 60.40 (26)
31 57.99 Auburn 58.84 (28) 60.51 (27) 63.70 (21)
32 57.90 Oklahoma 58.25 (31) 59.35 (30) 59.53 (31)
33 57.84 Kansas 57.79 (34) 58.18 (35) 57.43 (37)
34 57.55 Virginia Tech 57.74 (35) 58.39 (33) 58.42 (32)
35 57.39 Kansas State 57.62 (36) 57.44 (36) 56.26 (42)
36 57.26 Utah 58.19 (32) 60.58 (26) 64.58 (19)
37 56.13 Illinois 56.34 (37) 56.91 (38) 57.56 (35)
38 55.84 Vanderbilt 56.09 (39) 56.49 (41) 56.01 (43)
39 55.71 Arkansas 56.21 (38) 56.74 (39) 57.68 (34)
40 55.44 UCF 56.06 (40) 56.70 (40) 57.19 (38)
Rank Rating Team 80% Weight 50% Weight 20% Weight
41 55.28 Georgia Tech 55.87 (41) 57.41 (37) 59.96 (28)
42 54.52 Nebraska 54.91 (42) 55.81 (42) 56.68 (41)
43 53.84 Boise State 53.63 (45) 52.34 (53) 48.29 (70)
44 53.58 Boston College 53.87 (43) 55.22 (43) 57.12 (39)
45 52.81 UNLV 52.63 (51) 52.13 (54) 49.91 (64)
46 52.79 Texas Tech 53.64 (44) 54.26 (44) 54.60 (45)
47 52.71 Syracuse 53.02 (46) 53.61 (47) 54.44 (47)
48 52.61 Wisconsin 52.88 (47) 53.74 (45) 54.41 (48)
49 52.51 Washington 52.66 (50) 52.97 (49) 52.35 (55)
50 52.49 Cincinnati 52.81 (48) 53.59 (48) 54.49 (46)
51 52.30 Pittsburgh 52.66 (49) 53.74 (46) 55.48 (44)
52 52.23 Kentucky 51.97 (52) 52.80 (50) 53.24 (50)
53 51.84 Army 51.94 (53) 52.37 (52) 50.93 (59)
54 50.85 Navy 51.06 (54) 51.91 (55) 50.89 (60)
55 50.40 Memphis 50.87 (55) 52.41 (51) 53.91 (49)
56 50.37 Rutgers 50.62 (56) 51.01 (57) 50.84 (61)
57 50.08 California 50.52 (57) 51.18 (56) 53.11 (51)
58 48.76 West Virginia 49.38 (58) 50.48 (58) 51.39 (57)
59 48.46 Duke 48.63 (59) 49.26 (62) 49.59 (66)
60 48.20 Maryland 48.36 (61) 49.80 (59) 52.61 (54)
Rank Rating Team 80% Weight 50% Weight 20% Weight
61 48.17 Texas State 48.60 (60) 49.79 (60) 50.39 (63)
62 47.89 Marshall 47.85 (64) 47.75 (67) 46.08 (76)
63 47.75 UCLA 47.47 (66) 47.11 (69) 44.66 (80)
64 47.55 James Madison 47.93 (63) 48.83 (64) 49.64 (65)
65 47.51 Virginia 47.99 (62) 49.72 (61) 52.62 (53)
66 47.11 Mississippi State 47.37 (67) 47.78 (66) 47.84 (71)
67 46.61 Houston 47.59 (65) 49.07 (63) 50.66 (62)
68 46.33 Oklahoma State 46.78 (68) 47.93 (65) 48.64 (69)
69 45.54 North Carolina 45.39 (72) 45.26 (77) 43.24 (85)
70 45.29 Washington State 45.44 (71) 45.67 (75) 44.29 (82)
71 45.21 Ohio 45.38 (73) 46.49 (74) 47.48 (73)
72 45.18 UConn 45.63 (70) 46.94 (72) 48.99 (67)
73 45.14 Old Dominion 45.97 (69) 46.98 (71) 48.68 (68)
74 43.92 NC State 44.08 (76) 44.71 (79) 45.29 (78)
75 43.79 Arizona 44.86 (74) 46.98 (70) 50.94 (58)
76 43.77 South Florida 44.61 (75) 47.12 (68) 51.83 (56)
77 43.72 Michigan State 43.94 (78) 44.78 (78) 45.98 (77)
78 43.23 Jacksonville State 43.89 (79) 45.27 (76) 47.23 (75)
79 42.98 Florida State 44.06 (77) 46.75 (73) 52.82 (52)
80 42.95 Miami (OH) 43.23 (80) 43.45 (81) 42.81 (87)
Rank Rating Team 80% Weight 50% Weight 20% Weight
81 42.62 South Alabama 42.74 (81) 42.51 (88) 40.91 (91)
82 42.46 Northwestern 42.68 (82) 43.19 (84) 43.51 (84)
83 42.39 Louisiana 42.61 (83) 43.10 (85) 42.83 (86)
84 42.06 Toledo 42.41 (85) 43.23 (83) 44.53 (81)
85 41.38 Fresno State 41.70 (87) 42.94 (87) 43.84 (83)
86 41.18 North Texas 42.58 (84) 44.14 (80) 47.50 (72)
87 41.18 UTSA 41.84 (86) 43.33 (82) 45.15 (79)
88 40.88 Georgia Southern 40.54 (90) 39.88 (92) 35.50 (113)
89 40.83 Northern Illinois 40.68 (89) 40.56 (91) 39.25 (94)
90 40.33 Bowling Green 40.36 (92) 40.77 (90) 40.64 (92)
91 40.10 East Carolina 40.50 (91) 41.64 (89) 42.48 (88)
92 39.93 Western Kentucky 41.00 (88) 43.05 (86) 47.46 (74)
93 39.47 Stanford 39.87 (93) 39.63 (94) 38.48 (98)
94 38.41 Wake Forest 38.44 (95) 38.17 (97) 36.79 (107)
95 38.16 Sam Houston 38.29 (96) 38.91 (96) 37.49 (100)
96 37.88 Rice 38.68 (94) 39.85 (93) 41.94 (89)
97 37.64 San José State 37.95 (98) 37.95 (98) 37.31 (101)
98 37.49 App State 38.27 (97) 39.06 (95) 40.94 (90)
99 36.24 Nevada 36.41 (99) 36.54 (103) 36.29 (110)
100 35.98 Buffalo 36.36 (100) 37.58 (99) 39.63 (93)
Rank Rating Team 80% Weight 50% Weight 20% Weight
101 35.59 Colorado State 36.15 (101) 36.94 (100) 37.24 (103)
102 35.40 Oregon State 35.56 (102) 35.83 (105) 35.89 (111)
103 34.90 Troy 35.07 (105) 35.92 (104) 36.53 (109)
104 34.75 Air Force 35.46 (103) 36.84 (101) 38.94 (95)
105 34.68 New Mexico 35.38 (104) 36.74 (102) 38.54 (97)
106 34.53 Coastal Carolina 34.44 (108) 33.94 (115) 31.88 (118)
107 34.26 Liberty 34.64 (106) 35.66 (107) 36.82 (106)
108 34.02 Florida International 34.43 (109) 34.76 (111) 34.97 (114)
109 33.92 Utah State 34.56 (107) 35.46 (108) 36.53 (108)
110 33.73 UL Monroe 33.87 (112) 34.52 (112) 34.50 (115)
111 33.54 Wyoming 34.29 (110) 35.46 (109) 37.03 (105)
112 33.49 Louisiana Tech 34.22 (111) 35.82 (106) 37.52 (99)
113 33.03 Western Michigan 33.12 (115) 33.28 (116) 33.07 (117)
114 32.99 Arkansas State 33.50 (113) 34.23 (114) 35.57 (112)
115 32.61 Purdue 33.18 (114) 34.81 (110) 37.28 (102)
116 32.44 Georgia State 32.65 (116) 32.37 (118) 31.29 (121)
117 31.47 San Diego State 32.31 (117) 34.39 (113) 38.56 (96)
118 31.06 Hawai'i 31.48 (118) 31.70 (120) 31.61 (120)
119 30.92 Central Michigan 31.26 (119) 32.47 (117) 33.97 (116)
120 30.59 Charlotte 30.56 (122) 30.56 (124) 28.75 (125)
Rank Rating Team 80% Weight 50% Weight 20% Weight
121 30.57 Eastern Michigan 30.50 (123) 31.35 (121) 30.93 (122)
122 30.57 UAB 30.84 (120) 30.93 (123) 30.35 (124)
123 30.19 Florida Atlantic 30.57 (121) 31.31 (122) 31.68 (119)
124 28.87 Temple 30.22 (124) 32.35 (119) 37.09 (104)
125 27.62 Akron 27.72 (125) 28.32 (125) 27.81 (126)
126 27.16 Delaware 27.12 (126) 27.20 (126) 25.46 (129)
127 26.98 Missouri State 26.85 (127) 26.48 (127) 23.47 (130)
128 23.75 Ball State 23.68 (129) 23.24 (131) 21.13 (133)
129 23.49 UTEP 24.04 (128) 25.10 (128) 26.54 (128)
130 23.15 Massachusetts 22.67 (130) 22.42 (132) 20.03 (134)
131 21.58 Kennesaw State 22.28 (131) 23.98 (130) 26.70 (127)
132 20.57 New Mexico State 20.92 (133) 21.44 (133) 21.72 (132)
133 19.62 Tulsa 21.00 (132) 24.05 (129) 30.65 (123)
134 19.50 Southern Miss 19.94 (134) 21.21 (134) 22.86 (131)
135 18.77 Middle Tennessee 19.11 (135) 19.02 (135) 17.66 (135)
136 9.26 Kent State 9.47 (136) 10.68 (136) 11.92 (136) The more conservative ratings are above. The left column is the original ratings, and the three columns to the right show what happens when I cut the weight of prior season games to 80%, 50% and 20%, respectively. The 20% column is where some teams start to move up and down more, and I'm really interested in those might perform better than the more conservative approach I'm using now.
Overall Ratings
Rank Rating Team 10% Weight 5% Weight 2% Weight
1 77.91 Ohio State 79.44 (1) 76.29 (1) 69.08 (2)
2 74.38 Notre Dame 74.23 (5) 70.73 (6) 63.82 (5)
3 73.55 Texas 74.53 (4) 71.61 (4) 64.85 (4)
4 73.42 Ole Miss 76.33 (3) 74.32 (3) 67.12 (3)
5 70.60 Indiana 66.39 (15) 62.03 (20) 52.58 (21)
6 69.97 Tennessee 71.02 (7) 68.26 (9) 60.81 (11)
7 69.81 Oregon 76.37 (2) 75.61 (2) 69.27 (1)
8 69.54 Georgia 73.07 (6) 70.83 (5) 63.80 (6)
9 69.46 Penn State 68.67 (10) 65.03 (15) 56.43 (17)
10 69.11 Alabama 61.78 (23) 56.27 (28) 45.84 (40)
11 66.46 South Carolina 68.52 (11) 65.83 (12) 58.20 (15)
12 66.16 Miami 70.98 (8) 69.21 (7) 62.44 (8)
13 64.18 Louisville 63.31 (21) 60.06 (21) 52.51 (22)
14 63.97 USC 69.49 (9) 68.59 (8) 62.81 (7)
15 63.93 BYU 68.45 (12) 67.46 (10) 61.08 (9)
16 62.93 Iowa State 68.08 (13) 65.52 (14) 58.21 (14)
17 62.59 Arizona State 59.72 (27) 56.30 (27) 48.76 (29)
18 62.42 LSU 65.56 (17) 63.42 (17) 56.80 (16)
19 62.36 Florida 65.13 (19) 62.59 (18) 55.78 (19)
20 61.48 SMU 56.89 (33) 52.08 (46) 42.89 (50)
Rank Rating Team 10% Weight 5% Weight 2% Weight
21 61.15 Texas A&M 62.28 (22) 59.70 (22) 51.96 (24)
22 61.02 Clemson 60.06 (25) 56.33 (26) 48.16 (33)
23 60.49 Colorado 57.84 (29) 54.08 (35) 45.13 (42)
24 59.35 Minnesota 55.39 (42) 51.19 (49) 42.33 (55)
25 59.10 Missouri 63.56 (20) 62.18 (19) 56.27 (18)
26 59.04 Baylor 57.57 (30) 53.21 (41) 45.05 (43)
27 58.57 TCU 66.27 (16) 65.53 (13) 60.17 (12)
28 58.53 Iowa 54.09 (45) 50.00 (54) 41.23 (59)
29 58.19 Michigan 56.27 (35) 52.41 (44) 44.47 (44)
30 58.12 Tulane 59.96 (26) 57.46 (24) 49.89 (25)
31 57.99 Auburn 65.27 (18) 65.02 (16) 59.16 (13)
32 57.90 Oklahoma 58.64 (28) 56.08 (29) 48.94 (27)
33 57.84 Kansas 56.06 (38) 54.29 (33) 48.25 (32)
34 57.55 Virginia Tech 57.16 (32) 53.50 (38) 45.76 (41)
35 57.39 Kansas State 55.30 (43) 52.70 (43) 48.81 (28)
36 57.26 Utah 66.88 (14) 66.64 (11) 60.98 (10)
37 56.13 Illinois 56.23 (36) 53.62 (37) 46.15 (38)
38 55.84 Vanderbilt 53.29 (52) 49.89 (55) 41.45 (57)
39 55.71 Arkansas 56.53 (34) 54.13 (34) 47.19 (36)
40 55.44 UCF 55.70 (41) 52.79 (42) 44.30 (45)
Rank Rating Team 10% Weight 5% Weight 2% Weight
41 55.28 Georgia Tech 60.81 (24) 59.48 (23) 53.50 (20)
42 54.52 Nebraska 55.82 (39) 53.65 (36) 46.04 (39)
43 53.84 Boise State 43.70 (79) 37.79 (90) 27.57 (99)
44 53.58 Boston College 57.16 (31) 55.32 (30) 48.57 (30)
45 52.81 UNLV 46.85 (72) 42.74 (74) 34.65 (77)
46 52.79 Texas Tech 53.34 (50) 50.41 (51) 42.62 (51)
47 52.71 Syracuse 53.27 (53) 50.14 (53) 41.94 (56)
48 52.61 Wisconsin 53.34 (51) 50.64 (50) 42.43 (53)
49 52.51 Washington 50.98 (58) 47.75 (60) 39.99 (64)
50 52.49 Cincinnati 53.45 (49) 51.19 (48) 43.22 (49)
51 52.30 Pittsburgh 56.08 (37) 54.46 (31) 48.96 (26)
52 52.23 Kentucky 51.79 (57) 48.33 (58) 40.13 (63)
53 51.84 Army 49.09 (65) 44.89 (70) 35.87 (73)
54 50.85 Navy 49.45 (61) 45.84 (67) 38.15 (68)
55 50.40 Memphis 53.63 (47) 51.24 (47) 43.99 (47)
56 50.37 Rutgers 49.42 (62) 46.11 (66) 38.23 (66)
57 50.08 California 53.05 (55) 50.37 (52) 43.97 (48)
58 48.76 West Virginia 51.83 (56) 49.83 (56) 44.13 (46)
59 48.46 Duke 48.33 (69) 45.27 (69) 37.74 (71)
60 48.20 Maryland 53.48 (48) 52.30 (45) 46.45 (37)
Rank Rating Team 10% Weight 5% Weight 2% Weight
61 48.17 Texas State 49.91 (60) 46.85 (63) 40.21 (62)
62 47.89 Marshall 43.10 (80) 38.89 (85) 30.32 (91)
63 47.75 UCLA 41.33 (86) 36.65 (94) 27.57 (100)
64 47.55 James Madison 49.00 (66) 46.68 (64) 40.24 (61)
65 47.51 Virginia 54.75 (44) 53.23 (40) 48.53 (31)
66 47.11 Mississippi State 45.94 (74) 42.41 (76) 34.81 (75)
67 46.61 Houston 50.76 (59) 49.40 (57) 42.50 (52)
68 46.33 Oklahoma State 47.90 (70) 44.72 (71) 38.21 (67)
69 45.54 North Carolina 40.28 (91) 35.78 (98) 26.57 (101)
70 45.29 Washington State 42.55 (83) 38.43 (87) 30.24 (92)
71 45.21 Ohio 46.85 (73) 44.59 (72) 37.75 (70)
72 45.18 UConn 49.20 (63) 47.50 (61) 41.29 (58)
73 45.14 Old Dominion 48.98 (67) 47.27 (62) 40.46 (60)
74 43.92 NC State 44.56 (77) 41.51 (78) 34.55 (79)
75 43.79 Arizona 53.18 (54) 53.45 (39) 47.99 (35)
76 43.77 South Florida 54.09 (46) 54.30 (32) 48.03 (34)
77 43.72 Michigan State 45.18 (76) 42.53 (75) 34.58 (78)
78 43.23 Jacksonville State 47.36 (71) 45.72 (68) 38.77 (65)
79 42.98 Florida State 55.74 (40) 56.68 (25) 52.17 (23)
80 42.95 Miami (OH) 41.14 (87) 37.52 (91) 29.29 (97)
Rank Rating Team 10% Weight 5% Weight 2% Weight
81 42.62 South Alabama 38.16 (97) 34.38 (102) 26.16 (104)
82 42.46 Northwestern 42.79 (81) 39.61 (81) 32.54 (83)
83 42.39 Louisiana 41.04 (88) 38.01 (89) 29.93 (93)
84 42.06 Toledo 44.29 (78) 41.74 (77) 34.77 (76)
85 41.38 Fresno State 42.76 (82) 39.41 (82) 31.42 (86)
86 41.18 North Texas 49.17 (64) 48.07 (59) 42.38 (54)
87 41.18 UTSA 45.38 (75) 43.30 (73) 36.63 (72)
88 40.88 Georgia Southern 30.28 (120) 23.01 (125) 10.90 (130)
89 40.83 Northern Illinois 37.05 (101) 33.47 (104) 25.07 (108)
90 40.33 Bowling Green 39.36 (95) 36.08 (97) 29.69 (96)
91 40.10 East Carolina 41.71 (85) 38.29 (88) 30.85 (88)
92 39.93 Western Kentucky 48.60 (68) 46.55 (65) 38.01 (69)
93 39.47 Stanford 35.48 (106) 31.06 (113) 21.42 (115)
94 38.41 Wake Forest 34.24 (113) 30.07 (116) 21.02 (117)
95 38.16 Sam Houston 35.22 (107) 31.15 (112) 21.75 (114)
96 37.88 Rice 41.97 (84) 39.90 (80) 33.53 (81)
97 37.64 San José State 34.83 (110) 30.87 (115) 22.15 (113)
98 37.49 App State 40.63 (90) 38.97 (84) 32.53 (84)
99 36.24 Nevada 34.98 (108) 31.70 (109) 23.62 (112)
100 35.98 Buffalo 39.44 (94) 37.40 (92) 30.80 (89)
Rank Rating Team 10% Weight 5% Weight 2% Weight
101 35.59 Colorado State 36.15 (103) 33.36 (106) 25.88 (106)
102 35.40 Oregon State 34.58 (111) 31.49 (110) 23.62 (111)
103 34.90 Troy 37.36 (100) 36.23 (96) 33.00 (82)
104 34.75 Air Force 40.08 (92) 38.45 (86) 32.33 (85)
105 34.68 New Mexico 38.94 (96) 36.55 (95) 29.70 (94)
106 34.53 Coastal Carolina 28.55 (123) 22.99 (126) 14.10 (126)
107 34.26 Liberty 35.88 (105) 33.39 (105) 26.02 (105)
108 34.02 Florida International 33.67 (115) 30.88 (114) 23.80 (110)
109 33.92 Utah State 35.89 (104) 33.52 (103) 26.41 (102)
110 33.73 UL Monroe 33.61 (116) 31.27 (111) 24.74 (109)
111 33.54 Wyoming 36.90 (102) 34.63 (101) 27.64 (98)
112 33.49 Louisiana Tech 38.15 (98) 35.64 (99) 29.70 (95)
113 33.03 Western Michigan 31.76 (117) 28.65 (117) 21.17 (116)
114 32.99 Arkansas State 34.96 (109) 32.68 (107) 26.35 (103)
115 32.61 Purdue 37.94 (99) 37.33 (93) 30.67 (90)
116 32.44 Georgia State 28.42 (124) 24.36 (123) 15.61 (124)
117 31.47 San Diego State 40.85 (89) 40.60 (79) 35.84 (74)
118 31.06 Hawai'i 30.36 (119) 26.93 (119) 19.58 (119)
119 30.92 Central Michigan 34.05 (114) 32.53 (108) 25.51 (107)
120 30.59 Charlotte 25.90 (128) 21.53 (128) 11.92 (128)
Rank Rating Team 10% Weight 5% Weight 2% Weight
121 30.57 Eastern Michigan 29.50 (121) 25.48 (121) 18.28 (121)
122 30.57 UAB 28.75 (122) 25.16 (122) 17.66 (122)
123 30.19 Florida Atlantic 30.44 (118) 27.16 (118) 19.49 (120)
124 28.87 Temple 39.69 (93) 39.16 (83) 33.94 (80)
125 27.62 Akron 26.36 (127) 22.86 (127) 15.15 (125)
126 27.16 Delaware 23.03 (129) 19.27 (130) 11.53 (129)
127 26.98 Missouri State 20.15 (132) 16.28 (132) 7.85 (132)
128 23.75 Ball State 18.37 (133) 13.87 (133) 4.58 (133)
129 23.49 UTEP 26.49 (126) 23.83 (124) 17.04 (123)
130 23.15 Massachusetts 16.63 (134) 11.58 (134) 2.15 (136)
131 21.58 Kennesaw State 27.70 (125) 26.59 (120) 20.62 (118)
132 20.57 New Mexico State 21.13 (131) 17.96 (131) 9.66 (131)
133 19.62 Tulsa 34.28 (112) 34.93 (100) 31.06 (87)
134 19.50 Southern Miss 22.66 (130) 20.81 (129) 14.03 (127)
135 18.77 Middle Tennessee 14.97 (135) 10.48 (135) 2.42 (135)
136 9.26 Kent State 11.89 (136) 10.23 (136) 3.29 (134) Now I've really let the computer overreact to week 1 by really decreasing the weight for 2024 games, and the results are in the table above. There are some huge shifts once the weight goes all the way down to 2%. Because my ratings are quite conservative early in the season, weighting week 1 much more heavily will lead to bigger moves up or down and could be a preview of what to expect as the season goes on. It’s difficult to know at this point what’s just an unusual week 1 result and what’s a sign of things to come this season, but here are some teams I’m watching that might continue to move up or down in the next couple of weeks.
Which teams am I watching who might be underrated in the ratings? My list includes Oregon, Miami, USC, BYU, Missouri, TCU, Auburn, Utah, Georgia Tech, Virginia, Arizona, South Florida, Florida State, North Texas, Western Kentucky, Purdue, San Diego State, Temple, and Tulsa. I've said plenty about Alabama and Florida State, but South Florida was dominant against Boise State in another very surprising result. This list is somewhat subjective, of course, and I've tried to focus my attention on the top teams while giving some attention to teams farther down in the ratings.
What about teams that might drop more in future ratings? The teams that stand out to me are Indiana, Alabama, Louisville, Arizona State, SMU, Clemson, Minnesota, Baylor, Iowa, Vanderbilt, Boise State, UNLV, Army, North Carolina, South Alabama, and Georgia Southern.
One notable team I didn't mention in all of this is Texas Tech. ESPN's preseason simulation using EA Sports' College Football 26 had Texas Tech winning the Big 12 11 out of 25 times, even winning the national championship over Nebraska in one simulation. They're #29 in Jeff Sagarin's pure points ratings, #34 in FPI, and #24 in SP+. My ratings have them down at #46. They won by 60 points over Arkansas-Pine Bluff. The problem is that Arkansas-Pine Bluff is ranked #125 out of 129 FCS teams, with an overall rating of -8.61, an offense rating of -1.49, and a defense rating of -7.13. The Red Raiders play Kent State this weekend, which is a stronger opponent, but they're still ranked last among FBS teams. I doubt we'll learn much about Texas Tech until week 3 when they play Oregon State, though that's still not a particularly strong matchup. Here's the current prediction for that game:
#35: Oregon State (-19.93, 5.60%) at Texas Tech (19.93, 94.40%)
Estimated score: 24.13 - 44.30, Total: 68.43
Quality: 73.38%, Team quality: 89.59%, Competitiveness: 49.22%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 21.09%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 13.54%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 52.64%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 20.38%The first big test for Texas Tech actually comes in week 4 when they play Utah, which will hopefully provide a lot more information about how good they really are. Here's a prediction for that game, too:
#10: Texas Tech (-7.01, 28.82%) at Utah (7.01, 71.18%)
Estimated score: 26.40 - 33.09, Total: 59.49
Quality: 93.99%, Team quality: 94.96%, Competitiveness: 92.08%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.49%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 36.79%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 42.97%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 27.93%The real point here is you should only read so much into these alternate ratings where the computer can react a lot more to week 1 games. We need another week or two, or maybe three in the case of Texas Tech, to really know where teams stand.
Week 2 Predictions
Okay, I've rambled on long enough about idiosyncrasies of the ratings, let's get to the predictions. These are based on the standard, conservative rating system. If you prefer predictions that are more aggressive about moving teams based on their week 1 results, I'll post those before Thursday's games.
As always, 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. The upper limit with the current ratings would be if Miami played the lowest rated Division III team, Maine Maritime, where Miami would be projected to score 128.64 points. That's a lot of points, but it's certainly not without precedent in college football history.
Alright, here are the predictions:
#1: Michigan (-2.25, 42.89%) at Oklahoma (2.25, 57.11%)
Estimated score: 17.48 - 19.95, Total: 37.43
Quality: 96.98%, Team quality: 95.91%, Competitiveness: 99.16%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.85%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 41.73%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 21.84%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 50.62%
#2: Kansas (-3.80, 38.08%) at Missouri (3.80, 61.92%)
Estimated score: 22.76 - 26.40, Total: 49.17
Quality: 96.54%, Team quality: 96.00%, Competitiveness: 97.61%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.18%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.62%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 32.34%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.06%
#3: Baylor (-4.97, 34.58%) at SMU (4.97, 65.42%)
Estimated score: 30.63 - 35.66, Total: 66.30
Quality: 96.27%, Team quality: 96.43%, Competitiveness: 95.95%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.56%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 39.44%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 50.32%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 22.06%
#4: Vanderbilt (-4.24, 36.75%) at Virginia Tech (4.24, 63.25%)
Estimated score: 21.61 - 25.84, Total: 47.45
Quality: 96.02%, Team quality: 95.52%, Competitiveness: 97.04%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.31%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.21%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 30.68%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.85%
#5: Iowa (-6.94, 29.01%) at Iowa State (6.94, 70.99%)
Estimated score: 21.30 - 27.90, Total: 49.20
Quality: 95.06%, Team quality: 96.50%, Competitiveness: 92.23%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.45%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 36.89%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 32.38%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.02%
#6: Illinois (5.13, 65.88%) at Duke (-5.13, 34.12%)
Estimated score: 26.68 - 21.62, Total: 48.30
Quality: 94.63%, Team quality: 94.11%, Competitiveness: 95.69%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.62%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 39.27%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 31.50%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.97%
#7: West Virginia (1.02, 53.24%) at Ohio (-1.02, 46.76%)
Estimated score: 27.22 - 26.23, Total: 53.44
Quality: 94.58%, Team quality: 92.06%, Competitiveness: 99.83%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.71%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.21%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 36.63%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.71%
#8: Virginia (1.05, 53.35%) at NC State (-1.05, 46.65%)
Estimated score: 26.84 - 25.68, Total: 52.52
Quality: 94.18%, Team quality: 91.49%, Competitiveness: 99.82%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.71%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.20%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 35.69%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.64%
#9: Army (-8.09, 25.95%) at Kansas State (8.09, 74.05%)
Estimated score: 20.04 - 28.11, Total: 48.15
Quality: 93.02%, Team quality: 94.80%, Competitiveness: 89.56%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.14%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.10%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 31.35%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.12%
#10: Texas State (4.45, 63.87%) at UTSA (-4.45, 36.13%)
Estimated score: 37.02 - 32.30, Total: 69.32
Quality: 92.83%, Team quality: 90.94%, Competitiveness: 96.75%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.38%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.00%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 53.60%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 19.70%
#11: UCLA (-7.60, 27.21%) at UNLV (7.60, 72.79%)
Estimated score: 21.93 - 29.60, Total: 51.53
Quality: 92.43%, Team quality: 93.29%, Competitiveness: 90.73%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.84%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.88%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 34.69%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.63%
#12: Boston College (7.32, 72.03%) at Michigan State (-7.32, 27.97%)
Estimated score: 25.81 - 18.64, Total: 44.45
Quality: 92.22%, Team quality: 92.65%, Competitiveness: 91.38%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.67%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 36.31%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 27.87%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.03%
#13: Western Kentucky (-4.67, 35.49%) at Toledo (4.67, 64.51%)
Estimated score: 23.22 - 27.83, Total: 51.06
Quality: 91.40%, Team quality: 88.99%, Competitiveness: 96.43%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.45%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 39.78%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 34.21%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.12%
#14: Houston (6.20, 68.94%) at Rice (-6.20, 31.06%)
Estimated score: 18.15 - 11.81, Total: 29.96
Quality: 90.99%, Team quality: 89.63%, Competitiveness: 93.77%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.07%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.93%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 16.33%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 58.66%
#15: Fresno State (3.44, 60.81%) at Oregon State (-3.44, 39.19%)
Estimated score: 27.19 - 23.74, Total: 50.94
Quality: 90.87%, Team quality: 87.49%, Competitiveness: 98.05%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.09%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.93%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 34.09%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.24%
#16: UConn (-10.07, 21.10%) at Syracuse (10.07, 78.90%)
Estimated score: 26.71 - 36.70, Total: 63.41
Quality: 89.74%, Team quality: 92.65%, Competitiveness: 84.18%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.66%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.66%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 47.19%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 24.46%
#17: North Texas (5.62, 67.30%) at Western Michigan (-5.62, 32.70%)
Estimated score: 38.48 - 32.71, Total: 71.20
Quality: 89.27%, Team quality: 86.61%, Competitiveness: 94.85%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.81%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.68%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 55.62%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 18.31%
#18: Miami (OH) (-9.96, 21.35%) at Rutgers (9.96, 78.65%)
Estimated score: 19.62 - 29.70, Total: 49.32
Quality: 89.21%, Team quality: 91.66%, Competitiveness: 84.50%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.57%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.87%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 32.50%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 37.90%
#19: Sam Houston (4.56, 64.20%) at Hawai'i (-4.56, 35.80%)
Estimated score: 22.06 - 17.47, Total: 39.53
Quality: 88.68%, Team quality: 84.97%, Competitiveness: 96.58%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.41%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 39.89%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 23.56%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 48.34%
#20: Northern Illinois (-9.91, 21.46%) at Maryland (9.91, 78.54%)
Estimated score: 16.66 - 26.48, Total: 43.14
Quality: 88.59%, Team quality: 90.64%, Competitiveness: 84.64%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.53%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.95%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 26.69%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 44.44%
#21: Arizona State (12.95, 84.91%) at Mississippi State (-12.95, 15.09%)
Estimated score: 37.64 - 24.76, Total: 62.40
Quality: 87.58%, Team quality: 94.67%, Competitiveness: 74.96%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.72%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.18%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 46.10%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 25.33%
#22: Tulane (12.96, 84.94%) at South Alabama (-12.96, 15.06%)
Estimated score: 35.91 - 23.12, Total: 59.03
Quality: 86.57%, Team quality: 93.06%, Competitiveness: 74.90%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.74%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.15%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 42.48%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.35%
#23: Liberty (-11.50, 17.95%) at Jacksonville State (11.50, 82.05%)
Estimated score: 23.44 - 34.70, Total: 58.14
Quality: 84.73%, Team quality: 87.32%, Competitiveness: 79.77%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.05%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.98%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 41.53%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.18%
#24: UT Martin (3.69, 61.56%) at UTEP (-3.69, 38.44%)
Estimated score: 28.02 - 24.16, Total: 52.18
Quality: 84.59%, Team quality: 78.69%, Competitiveness: 97.76%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.15%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.72%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 35.34%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.98%
#25: North Carolina (12.41, 83.89%) at Charlotte (-12.41, 16.11%)
Estimated score: 36.81 - 24.35, Total: 61.16
Quality: 83.34%, Team quality: 86.82%, Competitiveness: 76.78%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.07%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.22%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 44.76%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 26.42%
#26: Bowling Green (-14.70, 12.05%) at Cincinnati (14.70, 87.95%)
Estimated score: 14.97 - 29.45, Total: 44.42
Quality: 83.02%, Team quality: 91.24%, Competitiveness: 68.75%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.13%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 22.79%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 27.85%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.07%
#27: Jackson State (1.39, 54.43%) at Southern Miss (-1.39, 45.57%)
Estimated score: 26.23 - 24.77, Total: 51.00
Quality: 81.72%, Team quality: 74.00%, Competitiveness: 99.68%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.74%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.10%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 34.15%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.18%
#28: Southern Illinois (-10.96, 19.10%) at Purdue (10.96, 80.90%)
Estimated score: 22.03 - 32.96, Total: 54.99
Quality: 80.37%, Team quality: 79.83%, Competitiveness: 81.48%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.50%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.00%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 38.23%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.18%
#29: Memphis (15.42, 89.06%) at Georgia State (-15.42, 10.94%)
Estimated score: 38.59 - 23.30, Total: 61.88
Quality: 80.35%, Team quality: 88.59%, Competitiveness: 66.11%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.26%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.41%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 45.54%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 25.79%
#30: Tulsa (-3.49, 39.04%) at New Mexico State (3.49, 60.96%)
Estimated score: 29.44 - 33.00, Total: 62.43
Quality: 80.24%, Team quality: 72.60%, Competitiveness: 97.99%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.10%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.89%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 46.13%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 25.30%
#31: Ole Miss (18.65, 93.16%) at Kentucky (-18.65, 6.84%)
Estimated score: 31.71 - 12.73, Total: 44.45
Quality: 79.52%, Team quality: 96.51%, Competitiveness: 53.99%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 18.27%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 15.60%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 27.87%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.04%
#32: San Diego State (-16.36, 9.60%) at Washington State (16.36, 90.40%)
Estimated score: 20.32 - 36.62, Total: 56.94
Quality: 77.77%, Team quality: 86.66%, Competitiveness: 62.62%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.84%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.65%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 40.26%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 30.31%
#33: James Madison (-19.17, 6.31%) at Louisville (19.17, 93.69%)
Estimated score: 19.91 - 39.02, Total: 58.92
Quality: 77.51%, Team quality: 94.59%, Competitiveness: 52.04%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 19.39%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 14.74%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 42.36%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.45%
#34: UC Davis (-18.90, 6.59%) at Washington (18.90, 93.41%)
Estimated score: 13.99 - 32.89, Total: 46.88
Quality: 75.37%, Team quality: 89.83%, Competitiveness: 53.07%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 18.80%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 15.19%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 30.14%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 40.46%
#35: Sacramento State (-15.77, 10.42%) at Nevada (15.77, 89.58%)
Estimated score: 20.84 - 36.50, Total: 57.34
Quality: 74.81%, Team quality: 80.38%, Competitiveness: 64.81%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.83%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.75%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 40.69%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.93%
#36: Idaho State (-15.80, 10.38%) at New Mexico (15.80, 89.62%)
Estimated score: 34.90 - 50.81, Total: 85.71
Quality: 73.94%, Team quality: 79.06%, Competitiveness: 64.69%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.88%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.68%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 70.42%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 9.71%
#37: Western Carolina (-17.25, 8.44%) at Wake Forest (17.25, 91.56%)
Estimated score: 25.34 - 42.61, Total: 67.95
Quality: 73.19%, Team quality: 81.35%, Competitiveness: 59.26%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.47%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 18.02%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 52.12%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 20.75%
#38: South Florida (-21.13, 4.60%) at Florida (21.13, 95.40%)
Estimated score: 17.23 - 38.55, Total: 55.77
Quality: 73.17%, Team quality: 93.47%, Competitiveness: 44.84%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 23.95%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 11.75%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 39.04%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.43%
#39: Arkansas State (-22.72, 3.50%) vs. Arkansas (22.72, 96.50%)
Estimated score: 17.94 - 40.73, Total: 58.67
Quality: 67.92%, Team quality: 89.39%, Competitiveness: 39.20%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 28.07%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 9.61%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 42.10%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.68%
#40: UAB (-22.81, 3.44%) at Navy (22.81, 96.56%)
Estimated score: 21.11 - 44.05, Total: 65.16
Quality: 66.68%, Team quality: 87.32%, Competitiveness: 38.88%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 28.32%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 9.49%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 49.09%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 22.99%
#41: Northern Iowa (-19.44, 6.05%) at Wyoming (19.44, 93.95%)
Estimated score: 11.49 - 30.91, Total: 42.40
Quality: 66.54%, Team quality: 75.97%, Competitiveness: 51.05%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 19.98%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 14.31%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 26.03%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 45.24%
#42: Central Michigan (-23.91, 2.83%) at Pittsburgh (23.91, 97.17%)
Estimated score: 17.65 - 41.56, Total: 59.21
Quality: 64.68%, Team quality: 87.70%, Competitiveness: 35.18%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 31.35%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 8.19%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 42.67%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.19%
#43: Missouri State (-23.45, 3.07%) at Marshall (23.45, 96.93%)
Estimated score: 21.44 - 45.02, Total: 66.46
Quality: 64.33%, Team quality: 85.15%, Competitiveness: 36.72%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 30.06%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 8.72%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 50.50%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 21.93%
#44: Oklahoma State (-26.02, 1.90%) at Oregon (26.02, 98.10%)
Estimated score: 18.79 - 44.84, Total: 63.63
Quality: 63.51%, Team quality: 94.70%, Competitiveness: 28.57%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 37.54%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 6.04%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 47.43%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 24.27%
#45: Georgia Southern (-25.63, 2.05%) at USC (25.63, 97.95%)
Estimated score: 16.96 - 42.64, Total: 59.60
Quality: 63.49%, Team quality: 92.76%, Competitiveness: 29.74%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 36.36%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 6.40%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 43.09%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 27.83%
#46: Stanford (-27.01, 1.56%) at BYU (27.01, 98.44%)
Estimated score: 13.11 - 40.20, Total: 53.31
Quality: 60.29%, Team quality: 92.30%, Competitiveness: 25.72%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 40.56%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 5.19%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 36.49%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.84%
#47: North Carolina Central (-24.92, 2.34%) at Old Dominion (24.92, 97.66%)
Estimated score: 13.61 - 38.48, Total: 52.09
Quality: 60.08%, Team quality: 82.44%, Competitiveness: 31.91%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 34.28%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 7.10%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 35.25%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.07%
#48: Long Island University (-21.90, 4.03%) at Eastern Michigan (21.90, 95.97%)
Estimated score: 18.61 - 40.36, Total: 58.97
Quality: 59.95%, Team quality: 71.57%, Competitiveness: 42.06%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 25.92%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 10.67%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 42.41%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.41%
#49: McNeese (-25.08, 2.27%) at Louisiana (25.08, 97.73%)
Estimated score: 11.27 - 36.66, Total: 47.92
Quality: 58.71%, Team quality: 80.22%, Competitiveness: 31.44%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 34.73%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 6.94%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 31.14%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.35%
#50: Weber State (-25.33, 2.17%) at Arizona (25.33, 97.83%)
Estimated score: 15.12 - 40.42, Total: 55.54
Quality: 58.67%, Team quality: 81.19%, Competitiveness: 30.65%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 35.48%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 6.69%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 38.79%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.66%
#51: Bryant (-21.01, 4.68%) at Massachusetts (21.01, 95.32%)
Estimated score: 19.02 - 39.89, Total: 58.91
Quality: 57.26%, Team quality: 64.42%, Competitiveness: 45.24%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 23.68%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 11.91%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 42.35%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.46%
#52: Florida A&M (-23.18, 3.22%) at Florida Atlantic (23.18, 96.78%)
Estimated score: 13.36 - 36.26, Total: 49.62
Quality: 57.09%, Team quality: 70.33%, Competitiveness: 37.62%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 29.32%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 9.04%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 32.79%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 37.59%
#53: Lindenwood (-25.12, 2.26%) at App State (25.12, 97.74%)
Estimated score: 15.93 - 41.07, Total: 57.00
Quality: 56.56%, Team quality: 76.03%, Competitiveness: 31.30%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 34.85%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 6.90%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 40.32%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 30.26%
#54: Troy (-28.67, 1.11%) at Clemson (28.67, 98.89%)
Estimated score: 14.24 - 42.94, Total: 57.19
Quality: 55.86%, Team quality: 90.41%, Competitiveness: 21.33%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 45.76%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 3.98%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 40.52%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 30.08%
#55: Utah State (-29.77, 0.88%) at Texas A&M (29.77, 99.12%)
Estimated score: 19.18 - 49.08, Total: 68.26
Quality: 53.31%, Team quality: 90.04%, Competitiveness: 18.68%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 49.26%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 3.30%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 52.46%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 20.51%
#56: Akron (-29.44, 0.94%) at Nebraska (29.44, 99.06%)
Estimated score: 5.00 - 34.40, Total: 39.40
Quality: 52.59%, Team quality: 86.50%, Competitiveness: 19.44%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 48.23%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 3.49%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 23.46%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 48.48%
#57: Louisiana Tech (-31.46, 0.60%) at LSU (31.46, 99.40%)
Estimated score: 4.71 - 36.29, Total: 41.00
Quality: 49.59%, Team quality: 89.99%, Competitiveness: 15.06%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 54.65%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 2.44%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 24.81%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 46.75%
#58: Eastern Washington (-30.83, 0.70%) at Boise State (30.83, 99.30%)
Estimated score: 21.27 - 51.86, Total: 73.14
Quality: 49.22%, Team quality: 85.38%, Competitiveness: 16.36%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 52.64%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 2.74%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 57.70%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 16.95%
#59: Howard (-26.77, 1.64%) at Temple (26.77, 98.36%)
Estimated score: 8.00 - 34.79, Total: 42.78
Quality: 48.82%, Team quality: 66.42%, Competitiveness: 26.38%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 39.84%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 5.39%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 26.37%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 44.82%
#60: Charleston Southern (-29.26, 0.98%) at Coastal Carolina (29.26, 99.02%)
Estimated score: 8.99 - 38.28, Total: 47.26
Quality: 46.19%, Team quality: 70.42%, Competitiveness: 19.88%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 47.64%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 3.60%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 30.51%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 40.05%
#61: Campbell (-32.42, 0.49%) at East Carolina (32.42, 99.51%)
Estimated score: 12.80 - 45.36, Total: 58.16
Quality: 41.54%, Team quality: 73.53%, Competitiveness: 13.26%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 57.64%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 2.05%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 41.55%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.16%
#62: Delaware (-35.87, 0.21%) at Colorado (35.87, 99.79%)
Estimated score: 11.49 - 47.32, Total: 58.82
Quality: 39.28%, Team quality: 86.96%, Competitiveness: 8.01%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 68.02%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 1.03%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 42.25%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.55%
#63: Western Illinois (-34.49, 0.30%) at Northwestern (34.49, 99.70%)
Estimated score: 16.57 - 51.27, Total: 67.84
Quality: 37.90%, Team quality: 74.25%, Competitiveness: 9.88%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 63.99%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 1.37%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 52.00%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 20.84%
#64: Ball State (-36.78, 0.17%) at Auburn (36.78, 99.83%)
Estimated score: 11.02 - 47.76, Total: 58.78
Quality: 36.88%, Team quality: 84.95%, Competitiveness: 6.95%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 70.56%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.85%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 42.21%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.59%
#65: Middle Tennessee (-36.37, 0.19%) at Wisconsin (36.37, 99.81%)
Estimated score: 4.59 - 40.96, Total: 45.55
Quality: 36.63%, Team quality: 81.42%, Competitiveness: 7.41%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 69.44%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.93%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 28.89%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.86%
#66: UL Monroe (-37.91, 0.12%) at Alabama (37.91, 99.88%)
Estimated score: 5.93 - 43.80, Total: 49.73
Quality: 36.19%, Team quality: 90.58%, Competitiveness: 5.78%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 73.60%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.67%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 32.89%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 37.48%
#67: Florida International (-37.97, 0.12%) at Penn State (37.97, 99.88%)
Estimated score: 5.17 - 43.17, Total: 48.34
Quality: 36.10%, Team quality: 90.71%, Competitiveness: 5.72%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 73.76%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.66%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 31.54%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.92%
#68: St. Francis (PA) (-34.58, 0.29%) at Buffalo (34.58, 99.71%)
Estimated score: 1.64 - 36.18, Total: 37.82
Quality: 35.56%, Team quality: 67.94%, Competitiveness: 9.75%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 64.26%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 1.35%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 22.16%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 50.19%
#69: San José State (-38.45, 0.11%) at Texas (38.45, 99.89%)
Estimated score: 5.78 - 44.13, Total: 49.91
Quality: 35.56%, Team quality: 92.29%, Competitiveness: 5.28%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 74.98%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.59%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 33.07%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 37.30%
#70: Northern Colorado (-34.72, 0.28%) at Colorado State (34.72, 99.72%)
Estimated score: 4.81 - 39.48, Total: 44.29
Quality: 35.14%, Team quality: 67.43%, Competitiveness: 9.54%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 64.68%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 1.31%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 27.73%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.20%
#71: East Texas A&M (-36.42, 0.18%) at Florida State (36.42, 99.82%)
Estimated score: 2.95 - 39.28, Total: 42.23
Quality: 34.07%, Team quality: 73.35%, Competitiveness: 7.35%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 69.58%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.92%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 25.89%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 45.41%
#72: Gardner-Webb (-39.95, 0.07%) at Georgia Tech (39.95, 99.93%)
Estimated score: 7.52 - 47.49, Total: 55.01
Quality: 29.94%, Team quality: 81.21%, Competitiveness: 4.07%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 78.63%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.42%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 38.24%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.17%
#73: South Carolina State (-44.20, 0.02%) at South Carolina (44.20, 99.98%)
Estimated score: 4.03 - 48.32, Total: 52.35
Quality: 23.84%, Team quality: 86.24%, Competitiveness: 1.82%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 87.12%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.15%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 35.51%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.81%
#74: East Tennessee State (-46.07, 0.01%) at Tennessee (46.07, 99.99%)
Estimated score: 2.86 - 48.59, Total: 51.45
Quality: 21.12%, Team quality: 87.30%, Competitiveness: 1.24%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 90.01%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.09%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 34.60%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.72%
#75: Cal Poly (-45.22, 0.02%) at Utah (45.22, 99.98%)
Estimated score: 0.00 - 44.40, Total: 44.40
Quality: 21.02%, Team quality: 79.31%, Competitiveness: 1.48%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 88.77%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.11%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 27.83%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.09%
#76: Kent State (-46.07, 0.01%) at Texas Tech (46.07, 99.99%)
Estimated score: 13.35 - 59.56, Total: 72.92
Quality: 19.10%, Team quality: 75.06%, Competitiveness: 1.24%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 90.01%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.09%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 57.47%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 17.10%
#77: Austin Peay (-51.39, 0.00%) at Georgia (51.39, 100.00%)
Estimated score: 0.00 - 49.62, Total: 49.62
Quality: 13.77%, Team quality: 84.12%, Competitiveness: 0.37%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 95.60%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.02%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 32.79%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 37.59%
#78: Kennesaw State (-51.55, 0.00%) at Indiana (51.55, 100.00%)
Estimated score: 0.00 - 50.77, Total: 50.77
Quality: 13.65%, Team quality: 84.70%, Competitiveness: 0.35%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 95.72%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.02%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 33.93%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.41%
#79: North Carolina A&T (-56.66, 0.00%) at UCF (56.66, 100.00%)
Estimated score: 0.35 - 57.34, Total: 57.69
Quality: 7.67%, Team quality: 69.15%, Competitiveness: 0.09%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 98.33%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.00%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 41.05%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.60%
#80: Texas Southern (-57.70, 0.00%) at California (57.70, 100.00%)
Estimated score: 0.00 - 50.62, Total: 50.62
Quality: 6.56%, Team quality: 63.08%, Competitiveness: 0.07%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 98.64%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.00%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 33.78%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.56%
#81: Bethune-Cookman (-70.38, 0.00%) at Miami (70.38, 100.00%)
Estimated score: 0.00 - 69.78, Total: 69.78
Quality: 1.78%, Team quality: 67.41%, Competitiveness: 0.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 99.94%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.00%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 54.10%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 19.35%
#82: Grambling (-75.22, 0.00%) at Ohio State (75.22, 100.00%)
Estimated score: 0.00 - 61.19, Total: 61.19
Quality: 1.04%, Team quality: 73.63%, Competitiveness: 0.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 99.98%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.00%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 44.79%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 26.40%
#83: Northwestern State (-74.08, 0.00%) at Minnesota (74.08, 100.00%)
Estimated score: 0.00 - 60.61, Total: 60.61
Quality: 1.02%, Team quality: 57.54%, Competitiveness: 0.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 99.98%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.00%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 44.17%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 26.92%I expect to post the code for my rating and prediction system on Github in the next week or so. Look for NFL ratings and an alternate set of college football predictions in the next day or so.
This article uses data from collegefootballdata.com.