Predicting the College Football Playoff After Week 4
Updated alternative ratings, game predictions for week 5, and a system for predicting which teams belong in the college football playoff
.jpg){kind=link}
In this article, I’ll post updated alternative ratings for this week, but the bigger purpose of this article is to take a careful look at schedule strength and trying to objectively predict which teams should be in the college football playoff. I believe the alternative ratings are probably somewhat better at predicting the outcome of future games, so I’m also going to use them as the basis for my initial playoff ratings. The real question here is not predicting who will be in the playoff at the end of the season but who would make the playoff if the season ended today.
New Alternative Ratings
I’ll begin with a new set of alternative ratings, updated through the end of week 4. The alternative ratings are influenced much more by games played during the 2025 season than my original approach to rating teams. Right now, a game played in 2024 has 8% of the weight for a 2025 game. That doesn’t sound like a whole lot, but a typical team played around 13 games in 2024 counting bowl games, but most teams in 2025 have played just three or four games. The effect of games played in 2024 adds up and still matters somewhat. If a team played 13 games in 2024 and four in 2025, the games this season are responsible for about 79.37% of a team’s rating, and 2024 determines the remaining 20.63%. These are approximate numbers, of course, but they show that these ratings are now mainly determined by 2025 games. Going forward, I’ll refer to these as predictive ratings because they should be a good predictor of a team’s future success.
Predictive Ratings
Home advantage: 2.41 points
Mean score: 26.40 points
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
1 80.39 +2.68 Ohio State 37.29 43.12
2 +3 77.12 +5.46 Indiana 42.13 34.87
3 74.92 +2.50 Oregon 41.07 33.92
4 +2 74.46 +3.44 Ole Miss 39.90 34.58
5 -1 74.06 +2.36 Alabama 38.76 35.28
6 -4 73.34 +0.65 Notre Dame 38.65 34.73
7 +1 72.89 +2.57 Texas 33.39 39.58
8 -1 71.81 +1.42 Tennessee 40.64 30.94
9 69.61 +0.79 Penn State 34.13 35.54
10 69.24 +2.02 Georgia 34.68 34.50
11 67.86 +2.62 USC 38.43 29.37
12 67.58 +3.80 Miami 37.34 30.14
13 66.74 +3.35 BYU 32.04 34.54
14 +4 64.58 +3.35 Missouri 33.14 31.56
15 +4 64.10 +3.50 Michigan 28.96 35.14
16 +6 63.91 +3.95 Vanderbilt 33.22 30.69
17 63.86 +2.45 Texas A&M 34.06 29.66
18 -3 63.84 +2.02 LSU 30.67 33.13
19 -5 63.72 +1.08 Louisville 35.67 27.88
20 +3 62.94 +3.05 Oklahoma 27.25 35.63
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
21 +7 61.99 +3.42 Nebraska 29.79 32.20
22 -2 61.82 +1.54 Arizona State 30.15 31.71
23 -7 61.74 -0.07 South Carolina 27.33 34.43
24 -3 61.71 +1.50 Iowa State 29.08 32.73
25 +2 60.94 +1.99 Auburn 27.43 33.31
26 +13 60.91 +5.43 Washington 30.95 29.96
27 +4 60.75 +3.22 TCU 32.53 28.20
28 +1 60.64 +2.24 Arkansas 32.41 28.37
29 -5 60.42 +1.06 Florida 25.84 34.72
30 -4 59.39 +0.37 Utah 26.86 32.51
31 +7 58.99 +3.05 Kansas 30.07 28.89
32 +2 58.94 +1.79 Iowa 26.96 31.98
33 -8 58.38 -0.64 Illinois 27.47 30.90
34 +9 58.00 +5.09 Texas Tech 35.83 22.10
35 -5 57.45 -0.33 SMU 30.35 26.87
36 -4 57.30 +0.09 Baylor 33.61 23.63
37 +3 57.25 +2.00 Georgia Tech 28.62 28.61
38 +3 57.09 +2.57 UCF 29.33 27.80
39 -2 56.77 +0.52 Colorado 29.12 27.76
40 -5 56.50 +0.05 Tulane 28.43 28.06
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
41 -5 56.26 -0.01 Minnesota 24.44 31.63
42 -9 55.69 -1.48 Clemson 27.17 28.62
43 +2 54.73 +2.46 Cincinnati 26.66 28.13
44 +3 54.47 +2.50 Kentucky 23.77 30.70
45 +4 54.24 +2.68 Memphis 27.84 26.54
46 +16 54.06 +6.18 Florida State 26.49 27.52
47 -5 53.92 -0.04 Kansas State 27.50 26.26
48 +9 53.76 +4.36 Mississippi State 29.42 24.36
49 +5 53.60 +3.22 Syracuse 31.30 22.26
50 +6 53.53 +3.45 Houston 20.41 33.08
51 +7 53.36 +4.22 Old Dominion 27.58 25.70
52 -4 53.00 +1.19 Boise State 29.80 23.24
53 -9 52.95 +0.58 Army 24.23 28.79
54 -2 52.61 +1.43 Rutgers 30.96 21.45
55 +6 52.57 +4.56 Maryland 25.60 26.93
56 -10 52.05 -0.17 Wisconsin 21.39 30.74
57 +14 52.01 +6.37 South Florida 27.29 24.66
58 +8 52.00 +5.23 North Texas 33.30 18.87
59 -8 51.73 +0.51 Pittsburgh 29.08 22.65
60 -7 51.61 +0.83 UNLV 30.26 21.27
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
61 -11 51.50 +0.01 Virginia Tech 25.29 26.16
62 +2 51.49 +3.89 Arizona 24.19 27.29
63 -8 51.15 +0.86 Boston College 27.65 23.60
64 +5 50.76 +4.58 Virginia 27.19 23.58
65 -5 50.73 +2.29 Navy 26.45 24.30
66 +1 49.98 +3.30 James Madison 22.71 27.24
67 -4 49.50 +1.73 Texas State 28.18 21.19
68 48.25 +1.60 Duke 26.21 21.92
69 +4 47.57 +2.82 East Carolina 22.78 24.72
70 +2 47.34 +1.79 Toledo 23.05 24.30
71 +6 47.08 +3.51 Michigan State 22.38 24.74
72 -7 46.32 -0.75 West Virginia 23.58 22.77
73 +2 46.14 +1.70 NC State 26.07 20.03
74 -4 46.13 +0.41 Ohio 21.19 24.82
75 -16 46.11 -2.41 California 18.81 27.46
76 +2 45.41 +1.87 Northwestern 15.95 29.47
77 -3 45.03 +0.30 North Carolina 22.45 22.56
78 +3 44.89 +1.98 UTSA 26.27 18.63
79 44.00 +0.49 Marshall 22.23 21.67
80 +4 43.80 +2.60 Fresno State 22.28 21.51
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
81 -5 43.77 +0.18 UCLA 17.49 26.28
82 43.66 +0.96 UConn 24.07 19.56
83 -3 43.36 +0.41 Jacksonville State 24.05 19.45
84 +2 43.04 +2.25 Western Kentucky 22.75 20.36
85 +8 42.22 +4.41 New Mexico 26.93 15.18
86 +4 41.91 +2.37 Bowling Green 17.68 24.18
87 41.61 +1.42 Miami (OH) 17.32 24.06
88 +11 41.49 +5.53 Utah State 26.77 14.80
89 +9 41.27 +5.25 Purdue 20.62 20.70
90 +4 40.68 +2.88 Louisiana Tech 15.17 25.47
91 -3 40.50 +0.51 Washington State 23.44 16.92
92 -3 40.14 +0.25 Stanford 19.45 20.70
93 -10 39.56 -2.53 South Alabama 22.86 16.65
94 -3 38.81 -0.33 Northern Illinois 13.36 25.43
95 38.33 +1.08 Georgia Southern 22.19 16.19
96 38.22 +1.67 Wake Forest 16.86 21.28
97 -12 38.17 -2.72 Oklahoma State 19.71 18.41
98 +19 38.12 +7.97 San Diego State 15.74 22.48
99 -2 37.93 +1.60 San José State 19.09 18.92
100 -8 37.46 -0.75 Louisiana 18.29 19.13
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
101 +5 37.21 +4.10 Wyoming 13.10 24.12
102 36.21 +1.86 Rice 15.28 20.95
103 36.21 +1.92 Troy 17.01 19.32
104 +4 36.18 +3.29 Colorado State 16.18 20.00
105 +11 35.82 +4.41 Temple 19.70 16.11
106 +3 35.67 +3.23 Air Force 17.49 18.22
107 +4 34.94 +3.00 Oregon State 17.08 17.87
108 +5 34.93 +3.27 Western Michigan 16.26 18.72
109 -4 34.90 +0.74 Liberty 15.49 19.39
110 34.85 +2.67 Hawai’i 13.45 21.40
111 -10 34.65 -1.08 Florida International 15.78 18.78
112 -8 34.54 +0.33 Buffalo 17.05 17.55
113 -13 34.52 -1.34 Sam Houston 16.81 17.66
114 -2 34.09 +2.15 Florida Atlantic 19.89 14.30
115 +10 34.01 +6.07 Delaware 18.31 15.60
116 +4 33.36 +3.77 Missouri State 19.13 14.29
117 -10 32.74 -0.27 Arkansas State 18.55 14.29
118 -3 32.61 +1.09 Nevada 12.80 19.86
119 32.61 +3.00 UAB 23.24 9.42
120 -6 32.17 +0.58 App State 15.98 16.19
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
121 -3 31.97 +2.11 UTEP 14.79 17.19
122 +1 31.49 +3.24 Coastal Carolina 14.84 16.66
123 -2 29.77 +1.06 UL Monroe 14.37 15.52
124 +2 29.51 +2.03 Central Michigan 16.30 13.08
125 -3 29.17 +0.79 Charlotte 13.30 15.74
126 +6 28.96 +6.34 Tulsa 14.67 14.16
127 28.50 +2.06 Eastern Michigan 17.72 10.53
128 -4 28.05 -0.06 Georgia State 16.96 11.10
129 27.89 +4.49 Akron 12.57 15.27
130 -2 27.74 +4.10 Southern Miss 14.56 13.01
131 -1 26.72 +3.69 Kennesaw State 10.11 16.64
132 -1 26.42 +3.49 Ball State 16.44 10.04
133 23.85 +2.06 Middle Tennessee 12.17 11.69
134 22.99 +2.07 New Mexico State 10.05 12.96
135 19.51 +0.65 Massachusetts 11.70 7.61
136 11.29 +1.27 Kent State 9.25 2.00 Forward and Backward Looking Ratings
I’ve talked a bit about strength of schedule in some of my NFL articles, and I’ve vaguely talked about it being different with college teams. I’m going to talk about that in more detail with this article along with the related concept of strength of record. To date, all of my ratings have been forward looking, in that I’m making predictions about future performance. But selecting teams for the college football playoff is influenced heavily on looking backward at what a team has accomplished during the season. It’s not about selecting the best teams, which a forward looking rating system would be really useful for, but instead picking the teams that have accomplished the most. That’s where a backward looking rating system is important for evaluating the quality of a team’s wins and losses.
These might sound really similar, meaning that we might expect a team that’s won a lot of games in the past to continue doing so. If so, the forward and backward looking rating systems should produce very similar results. In many cases, that’s true, and many of the same teams will be ranked highly by both approaches. But it’s not always true. Some teams might be a lot better than their record indicates, and a forward looking rating system can predict this. There are also teams with impressive records that might not be able to sustain their success.
Last year, a video was posted on YouTube about the importance of luck in the NFL. Although I’m talking about college football, the same principles apply, and luck can have a pretty big impact on a team’s rating. The video makes the argument that luck doesn’t necessarily even out, even over the course of a 17 game NFL season. If anything, the effect should be even larger in college football, where the season is a few games shorter. When a team has lost a lot of close games and has a poor record in one score games, we might suggest that the team is better than what their record shows. Or if a team wins a disproportionate amount of one score games, that team probably isn’t a good candidate to sustain their success.
Luck might influence the margin of a game by a field goal or a touchdown, but it’s less likely that luck is going to influence the score by three or four touchdowns. If a team wins by larger margins, the team’s record is much less likely to be inflated by luck and far more likely to be the result of the team’s quality. Another way to think of it is that winning by a larger margin insulates a team from the effects of luck, where it’s much harder for a team to lose because of bad luck if they’re up by three touchdowns instead of just by a field goal. I believe that managing the clock and executing late drives is a real skill, so a team’s record in close games isn’t just about luck. But luck definitely has a significant effect on the outcomes of close games, and there are a lot of plays where such an outcome can be influenced heavily by luck. Forward looking ratings are mostly based on margin of victory and don’t reward a team nearly as much for winning a lot of close games. Backward looking ratings are driven more by a team’s wins and losses, where it’s much more important if a team wins the game, and the quality of the opponent.
Strength of Schedule
The top team in this week’s alternative ratings is Indiana, with a rating of 83.75. For simplicity, let’s consider three potential opponents, assume that all the games are played at a neutral site, and do a bit of math. UMass is the lowest-ranked team in the FBS, with a rating of 14.52. Ball State’s rating is about two touchdowns higher at 28.60. Bowling Green’s rating is about two touchdowns above Ball State at 42.68. If Indiana is going to play a neutral site non-conference game, does it really matter which of these three opponents they choose?
Using these ratings, Indiana should have about a 99.273% chance of winning against Bowling Green, a 99.926% chance against Ball State, and a 99.994% chance against UMass. For Indiana, playing any of these opponents will almost certainly result in a win.
Let’s do the same thing, but replace Indiana with Oregon State. The Beavers currently have a rating of 34.20. Against Bowling Green, the Beavers would have about a 29.939% chance of winning. Playing Bowling Green instead raises that to a 63.603% chance of victory. Against UMass, that goes up to 88.697%. For the sake of consistency with my predictions for Indiana, I’ve also gone out to three decimal places here, though that wildly overstates the accuracy of these predictions. The real point is that choosing between these three opponents has virtually no impact on Indiana’s chances of winning, but it has a huge impact on Oregon State’s chances.
Jeff Sagarin’s ratings include FBS and FCS, and they currently indicate that Florida State has played the 238th toughest schedule out of 265 teams ranked. ESPN’s FPI only ranks FBS teams, and they rank Florida State’s schedule at #43 out of 136. That’s a huge difference, so which one is correct? Florida State’s lowest rated opponent in my ratings is East Texas A&M, which is currently at 5.26. Kent State’s rating is 16.72. Then there’s Alabama, who has a rating of 75.26. Florida State’s rating is 69.04 in these ratings, so there’s such a big difference between their rating and those of East Texas A&M and Kent State that Florida State is pretty much guaranteed to win these games. Even if Florida State played a slightly tougher opponent like Ball State twice, with their rating of 28.60, those would still almost certainly be two wins for the Seminoles.
Sagarin’s strength of schedule appears to be based heavily on averaging the ratings of a team’s opponents. If Florida State played Ball State twice instead of East Texas A&M and Kent State, it would certainly boost their strength of schedule when using this approach. But it wouldn’t have a meaningful impact on Florida State’s chances of actually winning their first three games. The particularly low ratings of these two opponents lower Florida State’s strength of schedule, offsetting their game against Alabama. On the other hand, FPI’s strength of schedule is based on the how an average top 25 team would perform against each team’s schedule. It doesn’t really matter just how low the ratings are for Kent State and East Texas A&M because there’s very little chance of Florida State losing either game. On the other hand, Alabama would be a very difficult opponent, even for an average top 25 team.
If I average the predictive ratings of Florida State’s first three opponents, the result is 32.41. UAB has a similar rating at 32.58. If Florida State (69.04) played UAB, they’d have a 98.57% chance of winning. If they played three times, and they’re treated as independent events, Florida State would have a 95.77% chance of winning all three games.
In an alternate scenario, assuming a neutral site, Florida State would have a 34.96% chance of beating Alabama, a 99.88% chance against Kent State, and a 99.98% chance of winning against East Texas A&M. But because of the Alabama game, Florida State would only have a 34.92% chance of winning all three games.
Is it easier for Florida State to play UAB three times or to play their actual schedule? The two schedules look almost identical if the ratings are simply averaged together, but there’s a huge difference in Florida State’s chances of winning all three games. The FPI schedule strength makes this distinction, which is why it ranks Florida State’s schedule as being much more difficult than Sagarin’s ratings do.
The actual difficulty of a schedule depends on the quality of the team playing the schedule. If a matchup between a team and its opponent is lopsided enough, making that matchup even more lopsided doesn’t really have a meaningful impact on the difficulty of the schedule. I’ll actually be calculating four different measures of schedule strength that help to capture these nuances. These are based on a the expected losing percentage (1 minus the expected winning percentage) for four hypothetical teams:
A team that that has the exact same rating as the actual team playing the schedule. Basically, how difficult was the schedule for the team that really played the schedule? (TeamSOS)
A team with a rating 1.5 standard deviations below the FBS average, which is generally among the lowest 10-15 rated teams in the FBS. How difficult was the schedule for a bad FBS team? (LowSOS)
A team with the FBS average rating. How difficult was the schedule for an average FBS team? (MidSOS)
A team rated 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS average, which is often somewhere around #10 in the FBS. This is fairly close to the FPI strength of schedule. (HighSOS)
The rank column is based on a team’s predictive rating, not any of the schedule strength columns.
Schedule Ratings
Rank Team TeamSOS LowSOS MidSOS HighSOS
1 Ohio State .079 (126) .634 (100) .443 (44) .197 (28)
2 Indiana .022 (134) .608 (110) .338 (86) .069 (93)
3 Oregon .008 (135) .790 (29) .280 (108) .025 (122)
4 Ole Miss .071 (127) .850 (15) .561 (17) .141 (47)
5 Alabama .045 (130) .811 (23) .450 (43) .090 (84)
6 Notre Dame .200 (107) .931 (4) .679 (1) .286 (3)
7 Texas .193 (111) .732 (52) .346 (84) .216 (18)
8 Tennessee .112 (123) .738 (49) .428 (52) .147 (45)
9 Penn State .002 (136) .505 (129) .080 (134) .002 (134)
10 Georgia .222 (104) .799 (24) .458 (39) .229 (15)
11 USC .024 (133) .781 (35) .269 (110) .021 (127)
12 Miami .233 (99) .745 (47) .568 (14) .218 (17)
13 BYU .042 (132) .624 (104) .264 (113) .033 (117)
14 Missouri .161 (119) .719 (58) .429 (51) .111 (73)
15 Michigan .272 (92) .827 (18) .531 (20) .201 (26)
16 Vanderbilt .185 (113) .620 (106) .401 (67) .129 (54)
17 Texas A&M .300 (85) .891 (13) .527 (24) .248 (9)
18 LSU .176 (114) .779 (36) .452 (40) .113 (69)
19 Louisville .052 (128) .678 (79) .258 (114) .026 (119)
20 Oklahoma .218 (105) .793 (27) .475 (33) .138 (48)
Rank Team TeamSOS LowSOS MidSOS HighSOS
21 Nebraska .198 (108) .631 (101) .397 (70) .116 (65)
22 Arizona State .233 (100) .879 (14) .530 (22) .125 (59)
23 South Carolina .343 (75) .814 (21) .596 (9) .215 (19)
24 Iowa State .170 (116) .838 (16) .431 (47) .085 (86)
25 Auburn .284 (89) .789 (30) .490 (29) .169 (35)
26 Washington .043 (131) .718 (61) .202 (128) .013 (130)
27 TCU .171 (115) .829 (17) .426 (54) .074 (90)
28 Arkansas .322 (79) .685 (75) .464 (37) .231 (14)
29 Florida .409 (64) .757 (43) .602 (6) .264 (7)
30 Utah .158 (121) .744 (48) .362 (78) .059 (99)
31 Kansas .238 (98) .687 (73) .404 (65) .128 (55)
32 Iowa .259 (93) .571 (123) .399 (69) .133 (51)
33 Illinois .314 (82) .672 (83) .425 (55) .222 (16)
34 Texas Tech .160 (120) .433 (133) .244 (120) .079 (88)
35 SMU .286 (88) .687 (72) .437 (45) .128 (56)
36 Baylor .418 (63) .773 (39) .598 (7) .186 (31)
37 Georgia Tech .246 (96) .719 (59) .401 (68) .095 (82)
38 UCF .087 (125) .574 (121) .217 (125) .017 (128)
39 Colorado .251 (95) .823 (19) .424 (56) .086 (85)
40 Tulane .363 (72) .912 (8) .527 (23) .208 (23)
Rank Team TeamSOS LowSOS MidSOS HighSOS
41 Minnesota .108 (124) .526 (126) .213 (126) .025 (120)
42 Clemson .426 (60) .907 (11) .597 (8) .166 (36)
43 Cincinnati .278 (90) .603 (112) .372 (76) .110 (74)
44 Kentucky .387 (68) .788 (31) .476 (32) .214 (20)
45 Memphis .197 (109) .678 (80) .287 (105) .060 (96)
46 Florida State .301 (84) .376 (136) .321 (91) .197 (29)
47 Kansas State .424 (61) .906 (12) .563 (16) .137 (49)
48 Mississippi State .201 (106) .583 (119) .273 (109) .066 (95)
49 Syracuse .430 (58) .731 (53) .511 (27) .210 (22)
50 Houston .231 (102) .766 (42) .334 (87) .055 (103)
51 Old Dominion .498 (50) .748 (45) .559 (18) .310 (2)
52 Boise State .231 (101) .713 (63) .317 (93) .054 (104)
53 Army .389 (67) .918 (7) .518 (26) .095 (83)
54 Rutgers .258 (94) .679 (77) .343 (85) .059 (98)
55 Maryland .186 (112) .656 (91) .254 (115) .041 (111)
56 Wisconsin .398 (65) .773 (38) .458 (38) .206 (24)
57 South Florida .540 (39) .813 (22) .602 (5) .243 (11)
58 North Texas .224 (103) .692 (70) .293 (103) .047 (106)
59 Pittsburgh .150 (122) .498 (130) .196 (129) .025 (121)
60 UNLV .161 (118) .718 (60) .227 (124) .016 (129)
Rank Team TeamSOS LowSOS MidSOS HighSOS
61 Virginia Tech .508 (46) .785 (32) .570 (13) .177 (34)
62 Arizona .197 (110) .626 (103) .249 (117) .036 (113)
63 Boston College .239 (97) .613 (109) .297 (100) .036 (114)
64 Virginia .167 (117) .623 (105) .210 (127) .021 (126)
65 Navy .048 (129) .407 (135) .069 (135) .002 (135)
66 James Madison .357 (74) .679 (78) .381 (73) .147 (46)
67 Texas State .337 (76) .656 (92) .358 (80) .109 (76)
68 Duke .472 (53) .790 (28) .478 (31) .113 (70)
69 East Carolina .395 (66) .670 (84) .389 (71) .114 (68)
70 Toledo .325 (78) .661 (87) .315 (94) .057 (100)
71 Michigan State .419 (62) .727 (56) .406 (63) .157 (40)
72 West Virginia .505 (47) .728 (54) .474 (34) .112 (71)
73 NC State .502 (48) .909 (10) .451 (41) .057 (102)
74 Ohio .548 (37) .777 (37) .522 (25) .262 (8)
75 California .329 (77) .646 (93) .295 (102) .043 (110)
76 Northwestern .606 (23) .691 (71) .585 (10) .285 (4)
77 North Carolina .474 (52) .736 (51) .430 (49) .121 (62)
78 UTSA .479 (51) .797 (25) .422 (57) .126 (57)
79 Marshall .320 (80) .590 (117) .285 (107) .148 (44)
80 Fresno State .363 (71) .657 (90) .292 (104) .066 (94)
Rank Team TeamSOS LowSOS MidSOS HighSOS
81 UCLA .665 (14) .927 (5) .564 (15) .119 (63)
82 UConn .299 (86) .554 (125) .241 (121) .047 (107)
83 Jacksonville State .380 (69) .629 (102) .307 (96) .069 (92)
84 Western Kentucky .274 (91) .592 (115) .195 (130) .022 (124)
85 New Mexico .560 (35) .783 (33) .469 (35) .164 (37)
86 Bowling Green .527 (42) .713 (62) .450 (42) .159 (39)
87 Miami (OH) .792 (7) .967 (1) .640 (2) .129 (53)
88 Utah State .363 (73) .601 (113) .287 (106) .110 (75)
89 Purdue .568 (31) .747 (46) .505 (28) .279 (5)
90 Louisiana Tech .314 (81) .525 (127) .252 (116) .109 (78)
91 Washington State .586 (28) .821 (20) .437 (46) .097 (81)
92 Stanford .742 (9) .920 (6) .582 (12) .183 (32)
93 South Alabama .511 (45) .644 (95) .407 (62) .124 (60)
94 Northern Illinois .631 (19) .772 (41) .485 (30) .114 (67)
95 Georgia Southern .580 (29) .727 (55) .427 (53) .156 (41)
96 Wake Forest .293 (87) .514 (128) .144 (132) .012 (131)
97 Oklahoma State .428 (59) .589 (118) .354 (81) .247 (10)
98 San Diego State .445 (56) .641 (96) .246 (118) .021 (125)
99 San José State .500 (49) .694 (69) .380 (75) .231 (13)
100 Louisiana .435 (57) .614 (108) .295 (101) .116 (66)
Rank Team TeamSOS LowSOS MidSOS HighSOS
101 Wyoming .563 (33) .698 (68) .413 (61) .111 (72)
102 Rice .460 (54) .607 (111) .246 (119) .030 (118)
103 Troy .607 (22) .737 (50) .402 (66) .085 (87)
104 Colorado State .562 (34) .657 (89) .406 (64) .126 (58)
105 Temple .522 (43) .592 (116) .414 (60) .134 (50)
106 Air Force .537 (40) .639 (98) .320 (92) .043 (109)
107 Oregon State .848 (3) .932 (3) .624 (4) .268 (6)
108 Western Michigan .864 (1) .948 (2) .583 (11) .122 (61)
109 Liberty .606 (24) .722 (57) .331 (88) .037 (112)
110 Hawai’i .532 (41) .676 (82) .267 (111) .036 (115)
111 Florida International .459 (55) .573 (122) .298 (99) .152 (42)
112 Buffalo .376 (70) .460 (132) .235 (123) .060 (97)
113 Sam Houston .816 (5) .909 (9) .557 (19) .213 (21)
114 Florida Atlantic .514 (44) .599 (114) .303 (98) .057 (101)
115 Delaware .567 (32) .658 (88) .330 (89) .070 (91)
116 Missouri State .733 (10) .797 (26) .531 (21) .191 (30)
117 Arkansas State .628 (20) .703 (65) .431 (48) .133 (52)
118 Nevada .587 (27) .676 (81) .367 (77) .162 (38)
119 UAB .577 (30) .640 (97) .419 (59) .198 (27)
120 App State .312 (83) .429 (134) .062 (136) .001 (136)
Rank Team TeamSOS LowSOS MidSOS HighSOS
121 UTEP .590 (26) .669 (85) .361 (79) .182 (33)
122 Coastal Carolina .649 (17) .698 (67) .350 (82) .049 (105)
123 UL Monroe .546 (38) .569 (124) .380 (74) .242 (12)
124 Central Michigan .689 (11) .704 (64) .469 (36) .151 (43)
125 Charlotte .599 (25) .644 (94) .164 (131) .009 (133)
126 Tulsa .664 (15) .698 (66) .237 (122) .023 (123)
127 Eastern Michigan .673 (13) .686 (74) .383 (72) .078 (89)
128 Georgia State .748 (8) .750 (44) .627 (3) .318 (1)
129 Akron .612 (21) .620 (107) .306 (97) .098 (80)
130 Southern Miss .659 (16) .666 (86) .266 (112) .034 (116)
131 Kennesaw State .644 (18) .635 (99) .347 (83) .203 (25)
132 Ball State .795 (6) .782 (34) .430 (50) .109 (77)
133 Middle Tennessee .833 (4) .772 (40) .314 (95) .046 (108)
134 New Mexico State .558 (36) .478 (131) .140 (133) .011 (132)
135 Massachusetts .683 (12) .582 (120) .327 (90) .101 (79)
136 Kent State .858 (2) .682 (76) .420 (58) .117 (64) Strength of Record
Strength of record is closely related to strength of schedule in that it takes the team’s actual winning percentage, then subtracts the expected winning percentage for the team or some other hypothetical team. A team that’s outperformed it’s expected winning percentage, meaning that this number is positive, has a strong record. On the other hand, if this is negative, it means that a team has underperformed its expected winning percentage. For these ratings, I’ll again use the four hypothetical teams from the strength of schedule ratings:
A team that that has the exact same rating as the actual team playing the schedule. (TeamSOR)
A team with a rating 1.5 standard deviations below the FBS average, which is generally among the lowest 10-15 rated teams in the FBS. (LowSOR)
A team with the FBS average rating. (MidSOR)
A team rated 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS average, which is often somewhere around #10 in the FBS. This is fairly close to the FPI strength of record, though my approach has a few small differences. (HighSOR)
The rank column is based on a team’s predictive rating, not any of the strength of record columns.
Strength of Record Ratings
Rank Team TeamSOR LowSOR MidSOR HighSOR
1 Ohio State .079 (50) .634 (22) .443 (7) .197 (4)
2 Indiana .022 (70) .608 (27) .338 (14) .069 (15)
3 Oregon .008 (73) .790 (7) .280 (20) .025 (24)
4 Ole Miss .071 (52) .850 (2) .561 (2) .141 (6)
5 Alabama -.288 (128) .478 (38) .116 (45) -.243 (64)
6 Notre Dame -.467 (136) .265 (74) .013 (63) -.381 (89)
7 Texas -.057 (90) .482 (36) .096 (49) -.034 (34)
8 Tennessee -.138 (104) .488 (35) .178 (37) -.103 (41)
9 Penn State .002 (76) .505 (33) .080 (53) .002 (29)
10 Georgia .222 (13) .799 (5) .458 (5) .229 (2)
11 USC .024 (67) .781 (8) .269 (24) .021 (25)
12 Miami .233 (8) .745 (11) .568 (1) .218 (3)
13 BYU .042 (63) .624 (25) .264 (25) .033 (22)
14 Missouri .161 (32) .719 (12) .429 (9) .111 (10)
15 Michigan .022 (71) .577 (29) .281 (19) -.049 (37)
16 Vanderbilt .185 (22) .620 (26) .401 (11) .129 (8)
17 Texas A&M .300 (3) .891 (1) .527 (3) .248 (1)
18 LSU .176 (24) .779 (9) .452 (6) .113 (9)
19 Louisville .052 (58) .678 (17) .258 (27) .026 (23)
20 Oklahoma .218 (14) .793 (6) .475 (4) .138 (7)
Rank Team TeamSOR LowSOR MidSOR HighSOR
21 Nebraska -.052 (88) .381 (52) .147 (42) -.134 (47)
22 Arizona State -.017 (80) .629 (23) .280 (21) -.125 (45)
23 South Carolina -.157 (110) .314 (63) .096 (50) -.285 (67)
24 Iowa State .170 (26) .838 (3) .431 (8) .085 (12)
25 Auburn .034 (64) .539 (32) .240 (31) -.081 (38)
26 Washington .043 (62) .718 (15) .202 (35) .013 (28)
27 TCU .171 (25) .829 (4) .426 (10) .074 (14)
28 Arkansas -.178 (115) .185 (90) -.036 (71) -.269 (65)
29 Florida -.341 (134) .007 (114) -.148 (93) -.486 (108)
30 Utah -.092 (95) .494 (34) .112 (46) -.191 (55)
31 Kansas -.012 (79) .437 (43) .154 (40) -.122 (44)
32 Iowa .009 (72) .321 (62) .149 (41) -.117 (42)
33 Illinois .064 (55) .422 (46) .175 (38) -.028 (33)
34 Texas Tech .160 (33) .433 (44) .244 (30) .079 (13)
35 SMU -.214 (121) .187 (89) -.063 (76) -.372 (86)
36 Baylor -.082 (93) .273 (72) .098 (48) -.314 (75)
37 Georgia Tech .246 (6) .719 (13) .401 (12) .095 (11)
38 UCF .087 (44) .574 (30) .217 (34) .017 (26)
39 Colorado -.249 (126) .323 (60) -.076 (80) -.414 (96)
40 Tulane .113 (39) .662 (19) .277 (22) -.042 (36)
Rank Team TeamSOR LowSOR MidSOR HighSOR
41 Minnesota -.226 (122) .193 (88) -.120 (89) -.309 (71)
42 Clemson -.324 (131) .157 (97) -.153 (96) -.584 (115)
43 Cincinnati -.055 (89) .270 (73) .039 (59) -.223 (60)
44 Kentucky .054 (57) .455 (41) .143 (43) -.119 (43)
45 Memphis .197 (18) .678 (18) .287 (18) .060 (17)
46 Florida State .301 (2) .376 (54) .321 (16) .197 (5)
47 Kansas State -.326 (132) .156 (98) -.187 (103) -.613 (118)
48 Mississippi State .201 (17) .583 (28) .273 (23) .066 (16)
49 Syracuse .180 (23) .481 (37) .261 (26) -.040 (35)
50 Houston .231 (9) .766 (10) .334 (15) .055 (18)
51 Old Dominion .165 (28) .415 (47) .225 (33) -.023 (32)
52 Boise State -.103 (97) .380 (53) -.016 (67) -.279 (66)
53 Army -.277 (127) .251 (75) -.149 (94) -.572 (113)
54 Rutgers .008 (74) .429 (45) .093 (51) -.191 (54)
55 Maryland .186 (21) .656 (21) .254 (28) .041 (20)
56 Wisconsin -.102 (96) .273 (71) -.042 (73) -.294 (68)
57 South Florida .290 (4) .563 (31) .352 (13) -.007 (31)
58 North Texas .224 (11) .692 (16) .293 (17) .047 (19)
59 Pittsburgh -.184 (117) .165 (95) -.138 (92) -.309 (72)
60 UNLV .161 (31) .718 (14) .227 (32) .016 (27)
Rank Team TeamSOR LowSOR MidSOR HighSOR
61 Virginia Tech -.242 (125) .035 (109) -.180 (100) -.573 (114)
62 Arizona .197 (19) .626 (24) .249 (29) .036 (21)
63 Boston College -.428 (135) -.053 (122) -.370 (125) -.630 (123)
64 Virginia -.083 (94) .373 (55) -.040 (72) -.229 (62)
65 Navy .048 (60) .407 (49) .069 (55) .002 (30)
66 James Madison .023 (68) .345 (58) .048 (56) -.187 (53)
67 Texas State .087 (45) .406 (50) .108 (47) -.141 (49)
68 Duke -.028 (84) .290 (67) -.022 (68) -.387 (92)
69 East Carolina -.105 (99) .170 (93) -.111 (88) -.386 (91)
70 Toledo -.175 (114) .161 (96) -.185 (102) -.443 (103)
71 Michigan State .169 (27) .477 (39) .156 (39) -.093 (40)
72 West Virginia .005 (75) .228 (80) -.026 (69) -.388 (93)
73 NC State .252 (5) .659 (20) .201 (36) -.193 (56)
74 Ohio .048 (59) .277 (68) .022 (62) -.238 (63)
75 California .079 (49) .396 (51) .045 (58) -.207 (57)
76 Northwestern -.060 (91) .024 (112) -.081 (83) -.382 (90)
77 North Carolina -.026 (83) .236 (79) -.070 (78) -.379 (88)
78 UTSA -.021 (82) .297 (65) -.078 (81) -.374 (87)
79 Marshall -.180 (116) .090 (106) -.215 (108) -.352 (83)
80 Fresno State .163 (30) .457 (40) .092 (52) -.134 (46)
Rank Team TeamSOR LowSOR MidSOR HighSOR
81 UCLA -.335 (133) -.073 (127) -.436 (130) -.881 (135)
82 UConn -.201 (119) .054 (108) -.259 (110) -.453 (105)
83 Jacksonville State -.120 (100) .129 (102) -.193 (105) -.431 (99)
84 Western Kentucky .024 (66) .342 (59) -.055 (75) -.228 (61)
85 New Mexico .227 (10) .449 (42) .136 (44) -.170 (51)
86 Bowling Green .027 (65) .213 (82) -.050 (74) -.341 (79)
87 Miami (OH) -.208 (120) -.033 (119) -.360 (122) -.871 (134)
88 Utah State .113 (40) .351 (57) .037 (60) -.140 (48)
89 Purdue .068 (53) .247 (76) .005 (64) -.221 (59)
90 Louisiana Tech .064 (54) .275 (70) .002 (65) -.141 (50)
91 Washington State .086 (46) .321 (61) -.063 (77) -.403 (95)
92 Stanford -.008 (78) .170 (92) -.168 (99) -.567 (111)
93 South Alabama -.239 (124) -.106 (133) -.343 (120) -.626 (121)
94 Northern Illinois -.036 (85) .105 (103) -.182 (101) -.553 (110)
95 Georgia Southern .080 (48) .227 (81) -.073 (79) -.344 (80)
96 Wake Forest -.040 (86) .181 (91) -.189 (104) -.322 (76)
97 Oklahoma State -.239 (123) -.078 (129) -.313 (116) -.419 (98)
98 San Diego State .112 (41) .308 (64) -.087 (85) -.312 (74)
99 San José State -.167 (113) .027 (111) -.287 (115) -.435 (101)
100 Louisiana -.315 (129) -.136 (135) -.455 (134) -.634 (125)
Rank Team TeamSOR LowSOR MidSOR HighSOR
101 Wyoming .063 (56) .198 (86) -.087 (86) -.389 (94)
102 Rice .210 (16) .357 (56) -.004 (66) -.220 (58)
103 Troy .107 (43) .237 (77) -.098 (87) -.415 (97)
104 Colorado State -.105 (98) -.010 (116) -.261 (111) -.541 (109)
105 Temple .022 (69) .092 (105) -.086 (84) -.366 (85)
106 Air Force -.130 (103) -.028 (118) -.346 (121) -.624 (120)
107 Oregon State -.152 (109) -.068 (126) -.376 (126) -.732 (131)
108 Western Michigan .114 (38) .198 (87) -.167 (98) -.628 (122)
109 Liberty -.144 (106) -.028 (117) -.419 (129) -.713 (130)
110 Hawai’i .132 (37) .276 (69) -.133 (91) -.364 (84)
111 Florida International -.041 (87) .073 (107) -.202 (107) -.348 (81)
112 Buffalo -.124 (102) -.040 (120) -.265 (113) -.440 (102)
113 Sam Houston -.184 (118) -.091 (131) -.443 (132) -.787 (133)
114 Florida Atlantic -.152 (108) -.067 (124) -.363 (123) -.610 (117)
115 Delaware .317 (1) .408 (48) .080 (54) -.180 (52)
116 Missouri State .233 (7) .297 (66) .031 (61) -.309 (73)
117 Arkansas State -.122 (101) -.047 (121) -.319 (117) -.617 (119)
118 Nevada -.163 (112) -.074 (128) -.383 (127) -.588 (116)
119 UAB .077 (51) .140 (100) -.081 (82) -.302 (70)
120 App State -.021 (81) .096 (104) -.272 (114) -.332 (78)
Rank Team TeamSOR LowSOR MidSOR HighSOR
121 UTEP -.160 (111) -.081 (130) -.389 (128) -.568 (112)
122 Coastal Carolina .149 (35) .198 (85) -.150 (95) -.451 (104)
123 UL Monroe .213 (15) .236 (78) .047 (57) -.091 (39)
124 Central Michigan .189 (20) .204 (83) -.031 (70) -.349 (82)
125 Charlotte -.151 (107) -.106 (132) -.586 (135) -.741 (132)
126 Tulsa .164 (29) .198 (84) -.263 (112) -.477 (107)
127 Eastern Michigan -.077 (92) -.064 (123) -.367 (124) -.672 (128)
128 Georgia State -.002 (77) .000 (115) -.123 (90) -.432 (100)
129 Akron -.138 (105) -.130 (134) -.444 (133) -.652 (127)
130 Southern Miss .159 (34) .166 (94) -.234 (109) -.466 (106)
131 Kennesaw State .144 (36) .135 (101) -.153 (97) -.297 (69)
132 Ball State .045 (61) .032 (110) -.320 (118) -.641 (126)
133 Middle Tennessee .083 (47) .022 (113) -.436 (131) -.704 (129)
134 New Mexico State .224 (12) .144 (99) -.193 (106) -.323 (77)
135 Massachusetts -.317 (130) -.418 (136) -.673 (136) -.899 (136)
136 Kent State .108 (42) -.068 (125) -.330 (119) -.633 (124)
There are some teams that are highly rated based on margin of victory, but they don’t rank as well in the strength of record. Right now, the biggest difference at the top of the ratings is that strength of record penalizes teams for their losses. There aren’t weekly playoff rankings just yet, but the AP Poll might be a reasonable proxy for what the initial rankings will look like. It’s unlikely that a good team like Oregon will be left out of the initial playoff rankings, and their ranking here seems too low. This might penalize a team like Oregon a bit too much for their weak schedule if the goal is an approximation of the playoff ratings, but this is the backward looking rating system I talked about.
For the actual playoff ratings, the column I’ll want to use is the HighSOR column because my goal is to compare a team’s record to what would be expected for a playoff team that would be on the bubble. Again, the HighSOR column uses a hypothetical team that’s 1.5 standard deviations above the mean, which tends to be somewhere around #10, plus or minus a couple of spots.
Playoff Rankings
The strength of record ratings are useful as a backward looking rating system that’s derived from the predictive ratings and a team’s wins and losses, but it doesn’t really look quite like what I anticipate the initial playoff ratings will be. It probably should be the biggest component of a playoff rating, though.
My predictive ratings are based on margin of victory, and teams often are rewarded a bit for winning their games convincingly. It makes sense that these ratings would be a component of my playoff ratings.
Strength of record evaluates a team’s record based on its schedule, but losses generally cause a team to fall in the ratings even if they’re against very good opponents. Perhaps winning percentage should also be a component of the ratings to explicitly penalize teams a bit for losing games.
There’s also some emphasis this year on rewarding teams for playing tough schedules. I don’t know yet how the committee will apply this, but it might be the deciding factor when the selection committee has a difficult choice to make. Therefore, it might make sense to directly include strength of schedule in the ratings, but not weight it too much.
With those considerations, here are the four components of these ratings:
The z-score of the team’s strength of record for a hypothetical team 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS average. (SOR; 55%)
The z-score of the team’s predictive rating (Fwd; 30%)
The team’s winning percentage (Win%; 10%)
The z-score of the team’s strength of schedule for a hypothetical team 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS average. (SOS; 5%)
Playoff Ratings
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
1 +1 .9668 +.0120 Ohio State .959 .839 1.000 .991
2 -1 .9606 +.0056 Georgia .969 .921 1.000 .939
3 +1 .9529 +.0159 Miami .966 .896 1.000 .923
4 -1 .9459 +.0068 Texas A&M .973 .951 1.000 .877
5 .9380 +.0170 Ole Miss .938 .608 1.000 .973
6 +6 .9031 +.0407 Oklahoma .936 .591 1.000 .862
7 .9029 -.0139 Vanderbilt .932 .546 1.000 .877
8 +5 .9012 +.0405 Indiana .897 .255 1.000 .983
9 +6 .8964 +.0461 Missouri .923 .456 1.000 .887
10 -4 .8944 -.0228 LSU .924 .467 1.000 .876
11 -3 .8735 +.0037 Oregon .865 .109 1.000 .975
12 +2 .8710 +.0204 Florida State .959 .839 1.000 .672
13 -2 .8682 +.0023 Iowa State .908 .328 1.000 .842
14 +6 .8599 +.0292 BYU .871 .130 1.000 .914
15 +2 .8569 +.0185 USC .862 .101 1.000 .926
16 +8 .8566 +.0371 TCU .901 .278 1.000 .824
17 +4 .8558 +.0252 Texas .812 .894 .750 .965
18 -2 .8510 +.0066 Penn State .846 .064 1.000 .943
19 -9 .8466 -.0219 Georgia Tech .914 .376 1.000 .751
20 -2 .8441 +.0074 Louisville .866 .113 1.000 .875
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
21 +9 .8421 +.0757 Texas Tech .904 .297 1.000 .768
22 +5 .8223 +.0365 Washington .855 .083 1.000 .827
23 +26 .8198 +.1460 Michigan .796 .854 .750 .880
24 +9 .8042 +.0458 Memphis .891 .220 1.000 .676
25 +1 .8034 +.0171 Mississippi State .895 .241 1.000 .664
26 -4 .8028 -.0228 Illinois .817 .907 .750 .776
27 +1 .8005 +.0159 UCF .858 .091 1.000 .747
28 +8 .7985 +.0444 Tennessee .734 .637 .750 .959
29 .7954 +.0175 Houston .887 .200 1.000 .658
30 -5 .7805 -.0337 Tulane .803 .873 .750 .733
31 +8 .7796 +.0512 Maryland .877 .153 1.000 .632
32 +9 .7787 +.0597 North Texas .882 .175 1.000 .616
33 -24 .7785 -.0903 Auburn .761 .737 .750 .828
34 +3 .7682 +.0211 Arizona .874 .140 1.000 .602
35 +9 .7677 +.0594 South Florida .838 .945 .750 .616
36 +4 .7645 +.0373 Old Dominion .822 .993 .667 .653
37 +11 .7593 +.0813 Syracuse .805 .877 .750 .660
38 -4 .7578 +.0017 UNLV .858 .091 1.000 .605
39 +15 .7432 +.1356 Arizona State .707 .526 .750 .844
40 -2 .7421 +.0123 Navy .845 .064 1.000 .580
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
41 -22 .7350 -.0964 Nebraska .695 .478 .750 .847
42 +10 .7343 +.0796 Iowa .717 .568 .750 .788
43 +8 .7298 +.0683 Kansas .711 .542 .750 .789
44 +3 .7089 +.0304 Kentucky .715 .889 .667 .682
45 +8 .6736 +.0237 Alabama .542 .351 .667 .971
46 -23 .6649 -.1556 Utah .618 .217 .750 .798
47 -2 .6620 -.0406 Michigan State .746 .683 .750 .475
48 +7 .6379 +.0368 Texas State .686 .444 .750 .545
49 -14 .6198 -.1344 Arkansas .503 .925 .500 .822
50 -18 .6156 -.1467 Rutgers .618 .218 .750 .633
51 -1 .6113 -.0609 South Carolina .480 .891 .500 .842
52 +5 .6102 +.0240 Cincinnati .571 .451 .667 .689
53 +9 .6091 +.0851 James Madison .624 .636 .667 .559
54 +7 .5888 +.0473 Fresno State .695 .243 .800 .381
55 +14 .5713 +.0717 Utah State .687 .450 .750 .319
56 +17 .5638 +.0953 Virginia .563 .101 .750 .581
57 +8 .5635 +.0484 Louisiana Tech .685 .442 .750 .298
58 +29 .5607 +.1558 Notre Dame .341 .984 .333 .968
59 +4 .5599 +.0370 New Mexico .647 .714 .667 .338
60 -17 .5572 -.1555 NC State .614 .207 .750 .448
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
61 -15 .5557 -.1451 Baylor .436 .803 .500 .752
62 +6 .5532 +.0525 UL Monroe .748 .943 .667 .093
63 -32 .5436 -.2201 California .594 .159 .750 .447
64 +24 .5381 +.1393 Boise State .488 .198 .667 .643
65 -6 .5349 -.0299 Minnesota .445 .110 .667 .727
66 -24 .5349 -.1833 Wisconsin .466 .867 .500 .617
67 +5 .5345 +.0624 Ohio .549 .967 .500 .447
68 +3 .5084 +.0233 Purdue .573 .980 .500 .313
69 -5 .4990 -.0213 Pittsburgh .444 .109 .667 .608
70 +11 .4988 +.0713 Western Kentucky .564 .104 .750 .360
71 -15 .4982 -.0948 SMU .354 .541 .500 .755
72 +11 .4821 +.0650 Delaware .632 .258 .750 .155
73 +16 .4568 +.0725 Rice .576 .123 .750 .196
74 +17 .4520 +.0850 Colorado .297 .331 .500 .740
75 +5 .4355 +.0080 Florida .212 .969 .250 .818
76 +18 .4089 +.0681 Duke .333 .464 .500 .509
77 +18 .4086 +.0715 Marshall .382 .644 .500 .387
78 -3 .4038 -.0530 East Carolina .334 .468 .500 .489
79 -3 .4019 -.0480 Bowling Green .397 .692 .500 .330
80 +6 .3974 -.0097 Northwestern .340 .983 .333 .427
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
81 +21 .3935 +.0918 UTSA .352 .534 .500 .412
82 -16 .3915 -.1147 West Virginia .332 .461 .500 .453
83 -13 .3890 -.1037 North Carolina .344 .505 .500 .416
84 +34 .3846 +.1656 San Diego State .439 .101 .667 .237
85 +7 .3814 +.0152 UAB .454 .843 .500 .132
86 +18 .3782 +.0875 Missouri State .444 .820 .500 .144
87 +3 .3764 -.0022 Wake Forest .425 .081 .667 .239
88 +17 .3723 +.0839 Georgia Southern .392 .677 .500 .242
89 +22 .3654 +.1087 Kennesaw State .462 .859 .500 .061
90 -23 .3484 -.1535 Toledo .261 .207 .500 .482
91 -31 .3459 -.2158 Florida International .387 .660 .500 .166
92 -13 .3423 -.0902 Clemson .122 .724 .250 .713
93 -8 .3340 -.0780 Temple .362 .571 .500 .189
94 -1 .3332 -.0079 App State .411 .063 .667 .125
95 -13 .3292 -.0955 Washington State .312 .386 .500 .294
96 +16 .3256 +.0724 Jacksonville State .276 .257 .500 .369
97 +18 .3221 +.0909 Central Michigan .386 .656 .500 .090
98 -14 .3200 -.0949 Wyoming .331 .456 .500 .217
99 -22 .3185 -.1240 Hawai’i .365 .139 .600 .170
100 -26 .3167 -.1509 Army .131 .372 .333 .642
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
101 +9 .3159 +.0545 Virginia Tech .131 .770 .250 .602
102 -3 .3141 +.0015 New Mexico State .424 .079 .667 .035
103 -45 .3120 -.2708 Oklahoma State .291 .950 .333 .238
104 -7 .3106 -.0197 Kansas State .101 .587 .250 .668
105 +11 .3089 +.0788 UConn .249 .173 .500 .377
106 +14 .2981 +.1272 San José State .270 .925 .333 .233
107 +12 .2883 +.0709 Troy .296 .327 .500 .196
108 -2 .2677 -.0175 Boston College .091 .140 .333 .592
109 -31 .2558 -.1852 Buffalo .265 .219 .500 .164
110 -3 .2482 -.0368 Georgia State .275 .995 .250 .074
111 +15 .2323 +.1008 Coastal Carolina .252 .181 .500 .115
112 -9 .2243 -.0746 Stanford .135 .791 .250 .285
113 -12 .2135 -.0910 Northern Illinois .147 .468 .333 .253
114 -18 .2066 -.1243 Southern Miss .234 .134 .500 .071
115 -17 .2054 -.1217 Colorado State .158 .532 .333 .196
116 +14 .2022 +.0968 Tulsa .222 .105 .500 .083
117 -17 .1837 -.1213 South Alabama .093 .522 .250 .271
118 -10 .1749 -.0948 UTEP .134 .787 .250 .122
119 -10 .1653 -.0980 Nevada .119 .705 .250 .132
120 -7 .1641 -.0869 Louisiana .088 .478 .250 .222
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
121 +10 .1526 +.0627 Western Michigan .092 .511 .250 .171
122 -5 .1490 -.0752 Air Force .095 .160 .333 .186
123 -9 .1478 -.0909 Arkansas State .099 .566 .250 .134
124 +1 .1476 -.0022 Florida Atlantic .104 .207 .333 .156
125 -4 .1454 -.0225 UCLA .012 .497 .000 .380
126 -2 .1311 -.0225 Miami (OH) .013 .549 .000 .322
127 +6 .1239 +.0500 Oregon State .043 .972 .000 .172
128 -6 .1109 -.0554 Ball State .084 .442 .250 .058
129 -6 .1108 -.0446 Liberty .050 .141 .250 .171
130 +5 .1093 +.0599 Akron .078 .391 .250 .072
131 +1 .1086 +.0207 Sam Houston .027 .886 .000 .164
132 +2 .1007 +.0484 Eastern Michigan .068 .296 .250 .078
133 -4 .0991 -.0192 Kent State .089 .483 .250 .004
134 -6 .0767 -.0422 Charlotte .040 .077 .250 .086
135 -8 .0747 -.0521 Middle Tennessee .053 .169 .250 .040
136 .0313 -.0060 Massachusetts .010 .404 .000 .019Right now, this leaves teams like Alabama, Tennessee, and Texas well outside of playoff spots, but it’s early in the season and a lot more highly-ranked teams will pick up another loss, or perhaps two or three losses. If these teams keep winning, they have plenty of time to climb back into a playoff spot.
I might tweak this algorithm a bit as the season goes on, but I believe it’s a good first guess at how to rank playoff teams. Some of these ideas are based on Bill Connelly’s system that ranks which teams should be in the playoffs. Overall, I’m mostly satisfied with the early results of this approach, even if it doesn’t quite match what the selection committee’s initial ratings will look like.
Game Predictions
Finally, here are the predictions for upcoming games using the alternative ratings. 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.
Although these ratings are referred to as alternative ratings, they’re actually likely to be a better predictor of a team’s future success at this point of the season than the original ratings. Therefore, these game predictions should be more accurate than those based on the original ratings.
#1: Alabama (2.41, 57.03%) at Georgia (-2.41, 42.97%)
Estimated score: 29.46 - 27.01, Total: 56.47
Quality: 98.59%, Team quality: 98.34%, Competitiveness: 99.09%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.00%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.73%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.94%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.10%
#2: Oregon (2.89, 58.42%) at Penn State (-2.89, 41.58%)
Estimated score: 30.73 - 27.82, Total: 58.55
Quality: 98.51%, Team quality: 98.41%, Competitiveness: 98.70%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.11%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.49%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.08%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.17%
#3: TCU (-3.48, 39.90%) at Arizona State (3.48, 60.10%)
Estimated score: 26.01 - 29.56, Total: 55.57
Quality: 97.08%, Team quality: 96.56%, Competitiveness: 98.12%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.27%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.13%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.02%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.95%
#4: UCF (0.76, 52.22%) at Kansas State (-0.76, 47.78%)
Estimated score: 28.26 - 27.31, Total: 55.57
Quality: 96.65%, Team quality: 95.06%, Competitiveness: 99.91%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.78%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 39.24%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.02%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.95%
#5: Auburn (-5.34, 34.75%) at Texas A&M (5.34, 65.25%)
Estimated score: 22.96 - 28.36, Total: 51.32
Quality: 96.39%, Team quality: 96.78%, Competitiveness: 95.63%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.97%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 36.62%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 33.78%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.11%
#6: Florida State (0.88, 52.57%) at Virginia (-0.88, 47.43%)
Estimated score: 28.11 - 27.27, Total: 55.38
Quality: 95.95%, Team quality: 94.04%, Competitiveness: 99.88%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.79%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 39.22%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 37.82%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.14%
#7: USC (7.06, 69.81%) at Illinois (-7.06, 30.19%)
Estimated score: 32.74 - 25.71, Total: 58.45
Quality: 95.39%, Team quality: 96.90%, Competitiveness: 92.44%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.92%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 34.74%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 40.98%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.26%
#8: Army (2.96, 58.60%) at East Carolina (-2.96, 41.40%)
Estimated score: 24.70 - 21.60, Total: 46.31
Quality: 95.00%, Team quality: 93.23%, Competitiveness: 98.64%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.12%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.45%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.04%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.23%
#9: BYU (7.56, 71.07%) at Colorado (-7.56, 28.93%)
Estimated score: 29.48 - 22.18, Total: 51.67
Quality: 94.83%, Team quality: 96.59%, Competitiveness: 91.39%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.25%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 34.12%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.12%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.77%
#10: Cincinnati (-6.67, 31.22%) at Kansas (6.67, 68.78%)
Estimated score: 22.97 - 29.55, Total: 52.52
Quality: 94.66%, Team quality: 95.37%, Competitiveness: 93.25%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.68%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.21%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.95%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.92%
#11: Virginia Tech (2.94, 58.55%) at NC State (-2.94, 41.45%)
Estimated score: 30.46 - 27.52, Total: 57.98
Quality: 94.61%, Team quality: 92.65%, Competitiveness: 98.66%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.12%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.46%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 40.49%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.69%
#12: Rutgers (-6.06, 32.81%) at Minnesota (6.06, 67.19%)
Estimated score: 24.53 - 30.60, Total: 55.13
Quality: 94.56%, Team quality: 94.65%, Competitiveness: 94.39%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.34%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.89%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 37.57%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.38%
#13: Notre Dame (10.28, 77.48%) at Arkansas (-10.28, 22.52%)
Estimated score: 35.47 - 25.29, Total: 60.77
Quality: 93.02%, Team quality: 97.55%, Competitiveness: 84.59%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.52%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.27%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 43.39%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 27.17%
#14: UCLA (-4.06, 38.29%) at Northwestern (4.06, 61.71%)
Estimated score: 13.22 - 17.28, Total: 30.51
Quality: 92.91%, Team quality: 90.71%, Competitiveness: 97.45%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.45%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.73%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 16.50%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 57.92%
#15: Duke (-7.77, 28.41%) at Syracuse (7.77, 71.59%)
Estimated score: 29.14 - 36.99, Total: 66.14
Quality: 92.54%, Team quality: 93.36%, Competitiveness: 90.92%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.40%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 33.85%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 49.08%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 22.64%
#16: Louisville (9.58, 75.92%) at Pittsburgh (-9.58, 24.08%)
Estimated score: 38.22 - 28.81, Total: 67.03
Quality: 92.41%, Team quality: 95.53%, Competitiveness: 86.49%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.86%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.33%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 50.03%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 21.92%
#17: Kentucky (-9.69, 23.83%) at South Carolina (9.69, 76.17%)
Estimated score: 14.54 - 24.25, Total: 38.78
Quality: 92.37%, Team quality: 95.63%, Competitiveness: 86.19%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.96%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.16%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 22.57%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 49.16%
#18: California (-7.45, 29.21%) at Boston College (7.45, 70.79%)
Estimated score: 20.40 - 27.80, Total: 48.20
Quality: 92.18%, Team quality: 92.45%, Competitiveness: 91.63%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.18%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 34.26%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 30.79%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.27%
#19: Marshall (4.13, 61.91%) at Louisiana (-4.13, 38.09%)
Estimated score: 28.29 - 24.23, Total: 52.52
Quality: 91.47%, Team quality: 88.66%, Competitiveness: 97.37%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.48%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.67%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.96%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.91%
#20: Bowling Green (-6.63, 31.31%) at Ohio (6.63, 68.69%)
Estimated score: 18.06 - 24.62, Total: 42.68
Quality: 91.33%, Team quality: 90.35%, Competitiveness: 93.32%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.66%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.25%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 25.82%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 45.03%
#21: Washington State (1.91, 55.57%) at Colorado State (-1.91, 44.43%)
Estimated score: 28.63 - 26.87, Total: 55.50
Quality: 91.15%, Team quality: 87.27%, Competitiveness: 99.43%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.91%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.94%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 37.95%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.02%
#22: San Diego State (-3.10, 40.98%) at Northern Illinois (3.10, 59.02%)
Estimated score: 15.51 - 18.49, Total: 34.00
Quality: 90.91%, Team quality: 87.33%, Competitiveness: 98.50%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.16%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.37%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 18.92%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 54.26%
#23: San José State (-4.62, 36.71%) at Stanford (4.62, 63.29%)
Estimated score: 23.59 - 28.14, Total: 51.72
Quality: 90.57%, Team quality: 87.65%, Competitiveness: 96.70%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.66%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.27%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.17%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.71%
#24: Utah (10.66, 78.32%) at West Virginia (-10.66, 21.68%)
Estimated score: 29.29 - 18.68, Total: 47.97
Quality: 90.33%, Team quality: 93.95%, Competitiveness: 83.51%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.91%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.68%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 30.58%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.51%
#25: LSU (-13.04, 16.91%) at Ole Miss (13.04, 83.09%)
Estimated score: 21.28 - 34.39, Total: 55.67
Quality: 90.02%, Team quality: 97.82%, Competitiveness: 76.23%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.71%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.82%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.12%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.86%
#26: UConn (6.70, 68.88%) at Buffalo (-6.70, 31.12%)
Estimated score: 31.71 - 25.10, Total: 56.81
Quality: 89.43%, Team quality: 87.61%, Competitiveness: 93.18%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.70%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.17%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 39.28%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 30.78%
#27: Hawai’i (-3.23, 40.61%) at Air Force (3.23, 59.39%)
Estimated score: 20.43 - 23.70, Total: 44.13
Quality: 89.41%, Team quality: 85.24%, Competitiveness: 98.37%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.19%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.29%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 27.08%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.50%
#28: Arizona (-12.63, 17.68%) at Iowa State (12.63, 82.32%)
Estimated score: 16.66 - 29.40, Total: 46.06
Quality: 88.83%, Team quality: 95.08%, Competitiveness: 77.54%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.18%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.50%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.81%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.48%
#29: Western Kentucky (7.27, 70.33%) at Missouri State (-7.27, 29.67%)
Estimated score: 33.65 - 26.38, Total: 60.04
Quality: 88.66%, Team quality: 87.03%, Competitiveness: 92.02%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.06%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 34.49%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 42.63%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 27.82%
#30: Louisiana Tech (6.29, 67.81%) at UTEP (-6.29, 32.19%)
Estimated score: 23.18 - 16.93, Total: 40.11
Quality: 88.48%, Team quality: 85.87%, Competitiveness: 93.96%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.46%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.63%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 23.65%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 47.76%
#31: Arkansas State (0.55, 51.62%) at UL Monroe (-0.55, 48.38%)
Estimated score: 28.22 - 27.69, Total: 55.91
Quality: 87.85%, Team quality: 82.36%, Competitiveness: 99.95%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.77%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 39.26%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.36%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.63%
#32: Indiana (15.77, 87.67%) at Iowa (-15.77, 12.33%)
Estimated score: 35.35 - 19.71, Total: 55.06
Quality: 86.06%, Team quality: 97.55%, Competitiveness: 66.98%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 14.83%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.25%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 37.50%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.44%
#33: Eastern Michigan (-3.43, 40.07%) at Central Michigan (3.43, 59.93%)
Estimated score: 29.84 - 33.38, Total: 63.22
Quality: 86.03%, Team quality: 80.53%, Competitiveness: 98.18%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.25%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.17%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 45.98%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 25.04%
#34: Tennessee (15.64, 87.47%) at Mississippi State (-15.64, 12.53%)
Estimated score: 41.49 - 26.09, Total: 67.58
Quality: 85.65%, Team quality: 96.54%, Competitiveness: 67.43%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 14.61%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.47%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 50.61%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 21.49%
#35: Ohio State (17.07, 89.51%) at Washington (-17.07, 10.49%)
Estimated score: 32.52 - 15.44, Total: 47.96
Quality: 84.25%, Team quality: 97.91%, Competitiveness: 62.39%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 17.14%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.12%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 30.57%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.52%
#36: Georgia Southern (-14.06, 15.08%) at James Madison (14.06, 84.92%)
Estimated score: 20.14 - 34.12, Total: 54.27
Quality: 83.87%, Team quality: 89.99%, Competitiveness: 72.84%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.14%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 24.11%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 36.70%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.21%
#37: South Alabama (-14.85, 13.76%) at North Texas (14.85, 86.24%)
Estimated score: 29.19 - 44.26, Total: 73.44
Quality: 83.28%, Team quality: 90.74%, Competitiveness: 70.16%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.34%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 22.78%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 56.83%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 17.21%
#38: Middle Tennessee (-5.29, 34.89%) at Kennesaw State (5.29, 65.11%)
Estimated score: 20.73 - 26.04, Total: 46.77
Quality: 82.99%, Team quality: 77.29%, Competitiveness: 95.71%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.95%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 36.67%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.46%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 40.75%
#39: Jacksonville State (13.21, 83.41%) at Southern Miss (-13.21, 16.59%)
Estimated score: 36.24 - 22.73, Total: 58.97
Quality: 81.70%, Team quality: 84.90%, Competitiveness: 75.67%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.94%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.53%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.51%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.79%
#40: Georgia Tech (16.62, 88.90%) at Wake Forest (-16.62, 11.10%)
Estimated score: 32.54 - 15.86, Total: 48.40
Quality: 81.22%, Team quality: 91.51%, Competitiveness: 63.98%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 16.32%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.85%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 30.98%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.07%
#41: Baylor (16.72, 89.04%) at Oklahoma State (-16.72, 10.96%)
Estimated score: 40.41 - 23.69, Total: 64.10
Quality: 81.06%, Team quality: 91.50%, Competitiveness: 63.61%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 16.50%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.68%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 46.92%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 24.30%
#42: Houston (16.17, 88.26%) at Oregon State (-16.17, 11.74%)
Estimated score: 27.73 - 11.61, Total: 39.34
Quality: 80.89%, Team quality: 89.85%, Competitiveness: 65.56%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.53%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.58%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 23.02%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 48.57%
#43: Rice (-16.93, 10.68%) at Navy (16.93, 89.32%)
Estimated score: 16.17 - 33.11, Total: 49.28
Quality: 79.49%, Team quality: 89.38%, Competitiveness: 62.87%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 16.88%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.34%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 31.82%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.16%
#44: Rhode Island (-13.27, 16.48%) at Western Michigan (13.27, 83.52%)
Estimated score: 13.40 - 26.68, Total: 40.08
Quality: 78.68%, Team quality: 80.34%, Competitiveness: 75.46%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.03%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.43%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 23.62%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 47.79%
#45: Memphis (17.73, 90.36%) at Florida Atlantic (-17.73, 9.64%)
Estimated score: 38.74 - 20.97, Total: 59.71
Quality: 78.45%, Team quality: 89.67%, Competitiveness: 60.05%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 18.39%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 18.07%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 42.28%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.12%
#46: Liberty (-20.87, 6.26%) at Old Dominion (20.87, 93.74%)
Estimated score: 14.99 - 35.80, Total: 50.79
Quality: 73.06%, Team quality: 89.32%, Competitiveness: 48.89%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 25.13%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 13.38%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 33.26%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.64%
#47: Akron (-21.86, 5.41%) at Toledo (21.86, 94.59%)
Estimated score: 13.47 - 35.39, Total: 48.86
Quality: 69.16%, Team quality: 85.31%, Competitiveness: 45.45%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 27.51%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 12.04%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 31.41%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.60%
#48: App State (-23.25, 4.38%) at Boise State (23.25, 95.62%)
Estimated score: 17.94 - 41.22, Total: 59.16
Quality: 68.20%, Team quality: 88.17%, Competitiveness: 40.80%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 30.99%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 10.32%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.72%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.61%
#49: New Mexico State (-21.64, 5.59%) at New Mexico (21.64, 94.41%)
Estimated score: 20.07 - 41.58, Total: 61.65
Quality: 67.60%, Team quality: 81.77%, Competitiveness: 46.21%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 26.97%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 12.34%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 44.32%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 26.40%
#50: Utah State (-24.83, 3.41%) at Vanderbilt (24.83, 96.59%)
Estimated score: 21.27 - 46.03, Total: 67.30
Quality: 67.50%, Team quality: 92.80%, Competitiveness: 35.71%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 35.21%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 8.54%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 50.32%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 21.71%
#51: Tulane (25.13, 96.76%) at Tulsa (-25.13, 3.24%)
Estimated score: 39.47 - 14.22, Total: 53.69
Quality: 64.58%, Team quality: 88.00%, Competitiveness: 34.79%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 36.02%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 8.23%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 36.12%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.77%
#52: Lindenwood (-28.25, 1.90%) at Miami (OH) (28.25, 98.10%)
Estimated score: 9.45 - 37.48, Total: 46.93
Quality: 53.73%, Team quality: 77.45%, Competitiveness: 25.86%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 44.89%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 5.44%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.61%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 40.58%
#53: Massachusetts (-47.48, 0.02%) at Missouri (47.48, 99.98%)
Estimated score: 5.34 - 53.14, Total: 58.48
Quality: 22.23%, Team quality: 83.01%, Competitiveness: 1.59%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 90.05%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.14%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.01%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.23%I’ve got a couple more articles to post today, and I’m going to keep their content fairly brief because I want to get them posted in a timely manner. Much of my effort has been testing and improving playoff ratings and the software I’m using to calculate them, so I haven’t had as much time over the past couple of days to write longer articles.
Thanks for reading!
This article is based on data from collegefootballdata.com.