The Linked Letters After Dark: A First Look at the College Football Ratings After Week 4
Preliminary ratings after week 4's college football games and early predictions for week 5 games
I've decided to start The Linked Letters After Dark a couple of weeks early and take a first look at the updated college football ratings. I'm a programmer and a scientist, but I'm not particularly good at creating art. It took way too much time to create the logo for these articles in Inkscape, so I might as well get as much use out of it as possible. I was actually rather pleased with how the completely computer-generated brick wall and fake neon sign turned out, especially since I had no clue at all how to create either effect before I started.
Anyway, these are preliminary ratings since the source of data I'm using doesn't have the full results for several lower division games. This a preview of how the ratings have changed after week 4, pending those other games. I'll post the complete updated ratings later in the week along with final predictions for week 5's games. The data set has all FBS and FCS games, but it doesn't have final results for five Division II games and 15 Division III games. For now, everything here is preliminary and intended as a first look at how things have shifted.
These are based on the alternative ratings instead of the original version, with the difference being that the alternative ratings are influenced more heavily by games played during the 2025 season. 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 the ratings are now mainly determined by 2025 games.
Preliminary ratings
I have two columns showing how a team's rating has changed. Move shows if a team's rank has increased or decreased, and how many spots they’ve moved up or down. Change is how much a team's actual rating has increased or decreased in points, not the number of positions a team has risen or fallen. Change is based on points while the move column is about a team's rank.
Overall Ratings
Home advantage: 2.36 points
Mean score: 26.39 points
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
1 +2 81.71 +10.22 Indiana 44.71 36.90
2 77.08 +2.71 Ohio State 33.91 43.08
3 -2 74.38 -1.52 Oregon 43.64 30.70
4 73.68 +3.29 Alabama 39.80 34.07
5 +3 72.16 +4.93 Ole Miss 39.68 32.48
6 +8 71.46 +8.07 Miami 34.59 36.95
7 70.75 +3.39 Notre Dame 42.10 28.68
8 +2 70.46 +5.78 BYU 34.95 35.61
9 -3 70.26 +2.20 USC 42.78 27.52
10 -5 70.13 +1.34 Tennessee 43.87 26.27
11 -2 68.01 +2.08 Georgia 33.24 34.96
12 +10 67.74 +6.65 Florida State 35.87 31.75
13 +5 67.29 +5.64 Michigan 32.81 34.54
14 -1 67.23 +3.35 Texas 29.33 37.74
15 67.14 +4.05 Nebraska 34.93 32.21
16 66.39 +4.09 Oklahoma 26.82 39.57
17 +11 65.72 +9.10 Washington 39.03 26.71
18 +3 65.30 +4.19 Vanderbilt 36.14 29.30
19 +1 64.81 +3.54 Texas A&M 35.79 28.83
20 -9 64.29 -0.09 Penn State 33.45 31.00
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
21 +2 63.65 +3.68 LSU 29.11 34.41
22 -3 62.62 +1.01 Missouri 36.41 26.12
23 +25 61.77 +11.41 Texas Tech 35.87 25.96
24 61.36 +1.78 Arkansas 34.70 26.66
25 +9 61.07 +7.50 Old Dominion 30.55 30.56
26 -14 60.39 -3.73 Utah 29.10 31.26
27 60.03 +3.14 TCU 33.44 26.50
28 +1 59.75 +4.12 Florida 24.42 35.42
29 -3 59.58 +2.68 Louisville 35.76 23.67
30 +5 59.56 +6.44 North Texas 39.75 19.79
31 -6 59.44 +1.70 Auburn 26.46 32.82
32 -15 59.00 -2.90 Illinois 27.46 31.55
33 -3 58.63 +3.75 Georgia Tech 29.03 29.57
34 -1 58.29 +4.08 Cincinnati 29.07 29.21
35 +16 57.74 +8.67 South Florida 28.88 28.86
36 +3 57.53 +5.37 Houston 25.00 32.58
37 -5 57.48 +2.85 Iowa State 25.90 31.68
38 56.29 +4.03 Kansas 27.89 28.41
39 +5 56.23 +5.16 Mississippi State 29.27 26.75
40 -9 56.01 +1.31 Arizona State 23.53 32.48
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
41 55.91 +4.22 Arizona 24.36 31.51
42 +5 54.43 +3.89 Memphis 25.11 29.32
43 54.14 +3.04 Kentucky 24.19 30.20
44 +21 54.07 +9.42 Virginia 32.37 21.81
45 -9 54.05 +1.45 South Carolina 19.19 35.00
46 +12 53.41 +5.99 Maryland 24.23 29.13
47 +12 53.36 +5.96 Syracuse 30.21 23.19
48 +2 53.26 +4.06 Colorado 27.14 26.14
49 -9 53.15 +1.32 UCF 24.96 28.19
50 +6 52.44 +4.46 Iowa 23.39 29.07
51 +9 52.04 +4.89 East Carolina 22.83 29.20
52 -10 51.51 +0.12 Toledo 25.42 26.00
53 -8 50.90 -0.15 Clemson 22.09 28.74
54 +1 50.24 +1.91 Army 24.03 26.26
55 -18 49.44 -3.14 Tulane 23.68 25.71
56 -2 49.42 +1.07 Baylor 31.04 18.29
57 -11 49.39 -1.20 Rutgers 30.94 18.60
58 +3 49.33 +2.30 Kansas State 24.79 24.61
59 -2 48.52 +0.68 SMU 25.05 23.50
60 +6 48.52 +3.88 James Madison 19.16 29.21
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
61 +7 48.39 +4.08 Navy 26.31 22.22
62 +15 48.37 +6.11 Michigan State 25.30 22.97
63 -14 48.15 -2.19 Wisconsin 18.09 30.01
64 -12 48.07 -0.65 Pittsburgh 27.69 20.29
65 +6 48.07 +4.36 Boise State 27.35 20.74
66 -2 48.00 +2.68 NC State 27.52 20.46
67 +11 47.87 +5.73 Purdue 20.62 27.04
68 -15 47.72 -0.99 Minnesota 21.35 26.38
69 -2 46.85 +2.40 Texas State 27.16 19.62
70 +11 46.60 +4.88 New Mexico 24.87 21.61
71 -1 45.85 +2.08 Louisiana Tech 17.43 28.51
72 -3 45.77 +1.50 Boston College 28.27 17.60
73 +2 45.48 +3.00 Virginia Tech 25.31 20.12
74 45.17 +2.06 Duke 28.95 16.30
75 +7 44.48 +4.51 Utah State 25.21 19.22
76 -14 44.30 -1.99 Ohio 21.69 22.50
77 +3 44.20 +2.16 UTSA 26.01 18.03
78 +6 43.04 +3.30 Fresno State 21.95 21.05
79 -7 42.49 -1.10 Northwestern 11.27 31.21
80 +34 42.34 +13.88 San Diego State 17.10 25.09
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
81 -5 42.21 -0.05 Western Kentucky 24.19 18.21
82 +1 42.06 +2.27 UConn 25.67 16.35
83 -4 41.95 -0.15 UNLV 26.60 15.32
84 +5 40.97 +2.96 Bowling Green 14.62 26.21
85 -12 40.82 -2.40 West Virginia 17.88 22.95
86 -23 40.64 -5.08 California 16.49 24.19
87 -2 40.04 +0.51 Stanford 16.65 23.27
88 -2 39.73 +0.37 Jacksonville State 20.02 19.71
89 +7 39.54 +5.40 Temple 24.26 15.27
90 -3 38.88 +0.30 North Carolina 17.29 21.55
91 +8 38.77 +5.80 Western Michigan 12.99 25.67
92 -2 38.46 +2.15 Marshall 20.06 18.49
93 37.81 +3.20 Wyoming 12.75 25.08
94 +23 37.33 +9.96 Delaware 19.34 17.84
95 +3 36.48 +3.27 Wake Forest 11.06 25.34
96 +17 35.73 +6.62 Colorado State 13.72 22.07
97 +5 35.70 +3.88 Washington State 17.58 18.24
98 +2 35.26 +2.94 Troy 16.99 18.34
99 -5 35.02 +0.68 Northern Illinois 12.66 22.34
100 +3 34.57 +2.99 Air Force 22.07 12.56
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
101 -9 34.35 -0.76 Miami (OH) 14.55 19.75
102 -1 34.21 +2.36 Georgia Southern 22.37 11.77
103 +4 33.75 +2.93 Hawai'i 13.47 20.31
104 +16 33.45 +6.61 Tulsa 14.06 19.32
105 -14 33.38 -2.21 Florida International 13.97 19.28
106 -9 33.15 -0.74 UCLA 12.66 20.53
107 +9 33.06 +4.82 Southern Miss 19.61 13.16
108 33.01 +2.56 Florida Atlantic 22.05 11.10
109 +1 32.67 +2.26 San José State 15.06 17.55
110 +9 32.27 +5.35 Oregon State 15.53 16.85
111 -16 32.16 -2.06 UTEP 14.96 17.14
112 -24 31.82 -6.65 South Alabama 19.99 11.95
113 -8 31.80 +0.70 Arkansas State 17.36 14.38
114 -8 31.79 +0.84 Liberty 14.59 17.11
115 -4 31.61 +1.33 Buffalo 13.84 17.79
116 +8 30.99 +6.29 UAB 23.64 7.31
117 +6 30.79 +5.43 Kennesaw State 13.56 17.34
118 -6 30.63 +1.32 Rice 12.92 17.72
119 -1 30.50 +3.51 Missouri State 15.29 15.25
120 -11 28.96 -1.45 Louisiana 11.34 17.63
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
121 28.70 +2.56 Nevada 7.96 20.67
122 +7 27.10 +6.17 Ball State 14.38 12.68
123 -19 27.00 -4.31 Oklahoma State 11.32 15.57
124 -2 26.96 +0.93 App State 10.75 16.33
125 26.77 +3.34 Central Michigan 14.61 12.08
126 +7 26.49 +8.60 Coastal Carolina 9.18 17.26
127 +7 26.27 +8.48 Akron 10.01 16.11
128 -13 25.25 -3.02 Sam Houston 14.11 11.18
129 -3 25.20 +3.09 New Mexico State 9.08 15.97
130 23.54 +2.73 Eastern Michigan 18.17 5.22
131 -3 23.29 +2.18 Georgia State 16.08 7.09
132 23.02 +4.64 UL Monroe 12.11 10.89
133 -6 22.10 +0.39 Middle Tennessee 12.17 9.94
134 -3 20.36 +0.64 Charlotte 7.38 12.94
135 +1 15.47 +5.13 Kent State 12.87 2.60
136 -1 12.60 +2.14 Massachusetts 6.57 6.03 Overall, most of the teams have a slightly positive change in their rating. Keep in mind, however, that the overall rating system also includes lower division teams, and so those teams may have slightly fallen in the ratings. Also, because every FBS team has a positive rating, there could be an overall upward trend in the FBS team ratings if the range of the ratings increased. It’s the quirks of the math and the algorithm I use to generate these ratings. The interpretation of the change column is somewhat nuanced compared to how a team’s rank has changed, but it still has useful information. For example, Indiana only rose two spots because they had previously been ranked third, but their rating increased by more than 10 points, which is the third-largest change in the entire ratings. Indiana gained a huge amount in the ratings despite only rising two spots.
The Big Winners
Texas Tech
Texas Tech is the biggest winner here, having been a complete unknown coming into week 4. My projections had the Red Raiders being a significant underdog to Utah just because Texas Tech didn't have the schedule strength to increase their rating in the first three weeks. It's not that I didn't think Texas Tech wasn't a good team, just that Texas Tech's schedule before this weekend didn't really provide any opportunities to know how good they were. That really changed with a big win at Utah, and the ratings reflect that. Texas Tech is no longer an unknown. They’re a pretty good team.
Indiana
A lot of preseason predictions just weren't that impressed with the Hoosiers. My early ratings were based heavily on games from 2024, and it wasn't clear if Indiana had the skill this season to back up the lofty initial rating. Winning by 53 points over a good Illinois team makes a big difference and validates that rating. Although Indiana only moves up two spots, their actual rating has surged by more than only two other FBS teams.
Miami
Miami's rise in the ratings is partly because of a dominating win over Florida. However, it's not quite that simple because Florida actually rose in the ratings as well by 4.12 points and moved up a spot. There's more to the Hurricanes' rise than just a quality win over the Gators. The next team on my list is relevant here.
South Florida
The Bulls are a common opponent for both Miami and Florida. South Florida surged in the ratings on the basis of an impressive win against an FCS team, South Carolina State, who now has a 20.94 rating. I suspect the Bulls' surge is based on two quality wins in 2025, outperforming the prediction for their game against South Carolina State, and 2025 games continuing to be weighted more heavily. As South Florida rises in the ratings, Florida's home loss to the Bulls doesn't look like such a bad loss, and Miami's dominating win looks even more impressive now. The Bulls are also for real and look like one of the best Group of Five teams this year.
Washington
The reasons for the Huskies rising in the ratings are a bit more subtle than the teams I've discussed so far. Looking at Washington's prior opponents, Colorado State and UC Davis both rose in the ratings. Although UC Davis doesn't appear in the FBS ratings, their rating increased 7.92 points and they rose 10 spots in the FCS ratings. Washington's relatively low 2024 rating is becoming less of a factor as more games are played this season. I don't think there's a single obvious reason for the Huskies to rise, but pretty much everything affecting Washington's rating worked in their favor this week.
Virginia
As with Washington, there's not a single obvious reason for the Cavaliers to surge upward in the ratings. This appears to be a combination of outperforming their predicted result against Stanford by nearly three touchdowns and their first opponent, Coastal Carolina, rising in the ratings as well. The Chanticleers were expected to lose by about 23 points to South Alabama, so but they actually won by 18 points. The approximately six touchdown difference in that game helped Coastal Carolina jump, and it helped their opponents as well. Virginia's 48-7 win over Coastal Carolina looks quite a bit more impressive after this weekend. Virginia also played an FCS team, William & Mary, whose rating jumped 7.74 points, leading to a 23 position rise in the FCS ratings. All of that works together to move the Cavaliers up quite a bit.
San Diego State
The Aztecs are the biggest FBS winner this week, rising 34 spots with a 13.88 point increase in their rating. California was predicted to win by two touchdowns, so the 34-0 win by San Diego State is roughly a seven touchdown difference between the prediction and result. That's a big factor in the Aztecs surging upward.
Brown
Brown is a huge winner, jumping 26.89 points and 80 spots in the FCS ratings. This was the opening weekend for Ivy League teams, and a dominating 46-0 victory over Georgetown is a huge factor. Brown went 3-7 last season. I estimate that a team with 10 games last season and just one game this season will have their 2025 game account for 55.56% of the team's rating. In the case of the Bears, it means that 55.56% of the rating is that huge 46-0 win over the Hoyas. And that is enough to move Brown up 80 spots in the FCS ratings. In some respects, this is somewhat of a glitch in the ratings, and all the Ivy League teams moved up or down quite a bit in the FCS ratings. But Brown is this week's biggest winner in the ratings due to that glitch.
FCS Ratings
Because I referenced the FCS ratings several times in my discussion, here are the preliminary FCS ratings as well. Although the data set is missing some results from lower divisions, all of the FCS games from week 4 are in the data set and can impact the ratings.
Overall Ratings
Home advantage: 2.36 points
Mean score: 26.39 points
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
1 50.46 -0.29 North Dakota State 27.30 23.16
2 +1 46.90 +2.63 Tarleton State 25.49 21.40
3 -1 44.59 +0.27 South Dakota State 18.53 26.04
4 +2 40.97 +6.49 North Dakota 26.71 14.10
5 +3 40.86 +10.30 Montana 21.91 18.84
6 -2 38.04 -1.74 Montana State 17.51 20.34
7 -2 37.03 +0.63 Austin Peay 16.41 20.66
8 +31 36.59 +17.73 Yale 18.38 18.17
9 35.35 +5.12 Southern Illinois 21.54 13.84
10 -3 34.40 +1.67 Tennessee Tech 19.10 15.42
11 33.99 +4.19 West Georgia 17.60 16.38
12 +2 33.71 +7.41 Abilene Christian 20.07 13.72
13 +2 33.62 +7.40 Stephen F. Austin 9.60 23.90
14 +80 32.95 +26.89 Brown 16.34 16.72
15 -5 31.42 +1.32 Northern Arizona 22.35 9.14
16 30.30 +4.83 Sacramento State 17.46 12.83
17 +5 30.14 +6.29 Idaho State 19.24 11.00
18 -6 30.13 +3.20 Idaho 13.90 16.09
19 +10 29.38 +7.92 UC Davis 19.88 9.54
20 28.63 +4.69 South Dakota 15.45 13.14
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
21 +4 26.80 +4.46 Youngstown State 16.69 10.07
22 +31 26.77 +11.03 Dartmouth 13.61 13.13
23 +12 26.66 +6.49 Harvard 16.80 9.89
24 -7 26.04 +1.10 SE Louisiana 13.99 12.07
25 +1 26.04 +3.76 New Hampshire 10.21 15.72
26 -2 26.01 +2.97 East Tennessee State 15.40 10.61
27 +23 25.76 +9.41 Mercer 9.22 16.65
28 -10 25.27 +0.59 Illinois State 13.78 11.58
29 -16 24.94 -1.51 Southern Utah 19.31 5.57
30 -7 24.53 +1.03 Holy Cross 5.46 18.98
31 +7 24.21 +5.01 Rhode Island 5.64 18.58
32 -5 23.24 +1.06 Lehigh 9.13 14.11
33 -5 23.22 +1.67 Incarnate Word 10.18 12.93
34 -15 22.79 -1.17 Cal Poly 16.37 6.41
35 -4 22.46 +1.43 Towson 9.33 13.17
36 +9 22.24 +4.53 Lafayette 16.22 6.12
37 +5 22.21 +4.14 Lamar 3.06 19.00
38 -8 22.10 +1.06 Chattanooga 14.38 7.72
39 +5 21.55 +3.73 Monmouth 23.86 -2.19
40 -19 21.50 -2.37 Drake 11.46 10.04
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
41 -7 20.94 +0.33 South Carolina State 17.95 2.84
42 +5 20.61 +3.07 Eastern Washington 11.82 8.76
43 +14 20.54 +6.36 Utah Tech 5.28 15.28
44 -8 20.43 +0.94 Elon 4.95 15.58
45 -8 20.07 +0.62 Eastern Kentucky 4.79 15.36
46 +3 20.07 +3.52 Gardner-Webb 17.75 2.24
47 -4 19.88 +2.02 Richmond 6.84 13.14
48 +16 19.44 +6.88 North Carolina Central 11.47 7.92
49 -9 19.33 +0.55 Northern Iowa 6.14 13.29
50 -2 19.30 +2.73 Nicholls 4.53 14.74
51 +23 17.78 +7.74 William & Mary 10.46 7.42
52 +6 17.51 +3.48 Wofford -0.32 17.81
53 -20 17.28 -3.40 Southeast Missouri State 11.64 5.66
54 -13 17.25 -1.24 Villanova 5.53 11.90
55 -1 17.09 +1.50 Weber State 14.40 2.70
56 +13 16.90 +5.26 Northern Colorado 1.42 15.51
57 -25 16.65 -4.09 UT Rio Grande Valley 9.45 7.15
58 +15 16.42 +6.16 Mercyhurst 6.05 10.42
59 -3 16.26 +1.07 St. Thomas (MN) 5.11 11.18
60 -14 16.24 -1.39 Jackson State 4.09 12.13
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
61 16.13 +2.90 Houston Christian 9.78 6.25
62 -3 15.61 +2.08 Pennsylvania 8.16 7.42
63 -3 15.08 +1.58 Alabama State 7.16 7.79
64 +4 14.22 +1.98 Merrimack -1.15 15.48
65 +5 13.82 +2.30 Western Carolina 18.40 -4.53
66 +21 13.33 +6.28 Bethune-Cookman 7.72 5.61
67 +14 12.65 +4.31 Colgate 10.39 2.17
68 +22 12.11 +5.40 Presbyterian 5.96 6.10
69 -7 11.94 -1.21 San Diego 4.09 7.85
70 -5 11.94 -0.62 Lindenwood 7.10 4.87
71 -5 11.81 -0.69 North Alabama 8.41 3.43
72 +4 11.75 +2.17 Maine 2.51 9.18
73 -18 11.62 -3.83 UT Martin 3.86 7.61
74 +1 11.57 +1.96 Bryant 5.75 5.85
75 +27 11.55 +7.53 Delaware State 9.46 2.07
76 +15 11.46 +5.03 Stony Brook 6.62 4.73
77 +19 11.45 +6.18 Furman 5.59 5.86
78 -1 11.28 +1.75 Cornell 0.56 10.63
79 -27 11.20 -4.56 The Citadel -1.09 12.28
80 -8 10.91 +0.24 Indiana State 11.24 -0.38
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
81 +20 10.66 +6.53 Princeton 12.62 -1.96
82 10.64 +2.97 Alabama A&M 9.46 1.16
83 -20 10.47 -2.68 McNeese 6.33 4.22
84 -33 10.31 -5.50 Columbia -1.80 12.04
85 +1 9.77 +2.64 Portland State 3.87 5.88
86 -19 9.72 -2.54 Western Illinois 15.97 -6.22
87 -4 9.62 +2.29 Sacred Heart 0.05 9.59
88 -10 9.57 +0.04 Long Island University 4.14 5.54
89 -18 9.28 -2.23 Central Arkansas 7.89 1.25
90 +16 9.03 +6.57 Campbell 10.89 -1.85
91 -3 8.66 +1.62 Bucknell 8.50 0.14
92 -7 7.68 +0.51 Dayton -3.39 11.07
93 +10 7.46 +3.67 UAlbany -0.28 7.82
94 -10 7.10 -0.14 Charleston Southern -3.75 11.03
95 -16 6.93 -2.31 Georgetown 2.99 3.87
96 +3 6.88 +2.57 Central Connecticut 2.42 4.39
97 -17 6.48 -2.63 Morgan State 2.28 4.31
98 -3 6.37 +0.35 Eastern Illinois 3.21 3.01
99 +8 6.00 +3.61 Florida A&M -0.63 6.53
100 +9 5.87 +5.30 Stonehill -2.30 8.16
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
101 -8 5.84 -0.22 Butler 1.43 4.33
102 +10 5.43 +6.82 Howard -3.06 8.19
103 -11 4.90 -1.33 Samford 0.00 5.08
104 +4 4.56 +2.62 Murray State 4.53 -0.07
105 -7 4.26 -0.08 East Texas A&M 6.11 -1.73
106 -2 3.96 +0.70 Norfolk State 4.17 -0.18
107 -10 3.03 -1.68 Prairie View A&M 0.13 3.03
108 +3 2.95 +3.35 VMI 2.03 0.74
109 -9 2.73 -1.56 Tennessee State -3.42 6.22
110 2.36 +2.39 Marist -3.24 5.50
111 -22 1.38 -5.51 Duquesne 4.80 -3.42
112 +3 -0.46 +1.61 Texas Southern -2.10 1.83
113 +3 -1.36 +1.26 Robert Morris -1.39 0.07
114 -1 -2.41 -0.83 Wagner -3.95 1.55
115 +6 -2.53 +3.01 Morehead State 0.95 -3.74
116 +2 -2.60 +2.36 New Haven 0.46 -3.15
117 +3 -2.92 +2.40 Southern -3.32 0.47
118 +1 -3.97 +1.15 Fordham -0.64 -3.36
119 -2 -5.14 -1.15 Valparaiso -5.79 0.65
120 +4 -5.64 +3.50 Grambling -2.36 -3.20
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
121 -7 -6.44 -4.68 North Carolina A&T 3.07 -9.48
122 +1 -6.45 +2.00 Alcorn State -5.68 -0.78
123 -18 -6.90 -10.16 Hampton -3.86 -3.09
124 -2 -7.05 -1.15 St. Francis (PA) -10.94 3.80
125 +1 -10.31 +4.83 Northwestern State -3.81 -6.47
126 +1 -14.33 +1.99 Mississippi Valley State -3.19 -11.09
127 -2 -15.93 -1.70 Arkansas-Pine Bluff -10.06 -5.90
128 -20.13 -1.92 Davidson -0.54 -19.60
129 -27.75 -1.56 Stetson -12.00 -15.85 Preliminary Week 5 FBS Predictions
These are early predictions for week 5's FBS games based on the preliminary 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 are probably more accurate than those in the other article. These are based on preliminary ratings without data from 20 games in Divisions II and III, and those results do numerically have some impact on the ratings in higher divisions, so the predictions are subject to change.
#1: Alabama (3.31, 58.15%) at Georgia (-3.31, 41.85%)
Estimated score: 30.06 - 26.74, Total: 56.80
Quality: 98.51%, Team quality: 98.49%, Competitiveness: 98.56%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.38%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.93%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 39.20%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 30.69%
#2: TCU (1.66, 54.12%) at Arizona State (-1.66, 45.88%)
Estimated score: 26.17 - 24.60, Total: 50.77
Quality: 97.34%, Team quality: 96.21%, Competitiveness: 99.63%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.98%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 33.44%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 33.15%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.58%
#3: Cincinnati (-0.35, 49.13%) at Kansas (0.35, 50.87%)
Estimated score: 25.87 - 26.25, Total: 52.12
Quality: 97.33%, Team quality: 96.03%, Competitiveness: 99.98%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.85%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 33.61%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.48%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.22%
#4: Arizona (-3.93, 40.35%) at Iowa State (3.93, 59.65%)
Estimated score: 17.90 - 21.96, Total: 39.86
Quality: 96.55%, Team quality: 95.84%, Competitiveness: 97.97%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.60%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.66%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 23.30%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 48.01%
#5: Kentucky (-2.27, 44.40%) at South Carolina (2.27, 55.60%)
Estimated score: 14.40 - 16.56, Total: 30.97
Quality: 96.49%, Team quality: 95.11%, Competitiveness: 99.32%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.09%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 33.29%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 16.66%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 57.49%
#6: Notre Dame (7.04, 66.90%) at Arkansas (-7.04, 33.10%)
Estimated score: 40.66 - 33.59, Total: 74.25
Quality: 96.38%, Team quality: 97.78%, Competitiveness: 93.63%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.27%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.64%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 57.72%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 16.52%
#7: Oregon (7.74, 68.44%) at Penn State (-7.74, 31.56%)
Estimated score: 37.86 - 30.32, Total: 68.17
Quality: 96.24%, Team quality: 98.25%, Competitiveness: 92.35%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.78%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.06%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 51.26%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 20.89%
#8: UCF (1.46, 53.61%) at Kansas State (-1.46, 46.39%)
Estimated score: 25.56 - 24.18, Total: 49.74
Quality: 95.98%, Team quality: 94.16%, Competitiveness: 99.72%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.95%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 33.48%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 32.15%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 37.63%
#9: Ohio State (9.00, 71.17%) at Washington (-9.00, 28.83%)
Estimated score: 32.41 - 23.52, Total: 55.94
Quality: 95.49%, Team quality: 98.48%, Competitiveness: 89.78%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.83%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.89%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.32%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.50%
#10: Auburn (-7.73, 31.57%) at Texas A&M (7.73, 68.43%)
Estimated score: 22.85 - 30.55, Total: 53.40
Quality: 95.47%, Team quality: 97.05%, Competitiveness: 92.37%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.77%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.06%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.74%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.97%
#11: Rutgers (-0.68, 48.31%) at Minnesota (0.68, 51.69%)
Estimated score: 29.77 - 30.33, Total: 60.10
Quality: 95.36%, Team quality: 93.15%, Competitiveness: 99.94%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.87%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 33.59%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 42.65%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 27.64%
#12: Army (-4.16, 39.81%) at East Carolina (4.16, 60.19%)
Estimated score: 20.04 - 24.14, Total: 44.18
Quality: 95.29%, Team quality: 94.09%, Competitiveness: 97.73%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.68%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.55%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 27.00%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.41%
#13: USC (8.90, 70.96%) at Illinois (-8.90, 29.04%)
Estimated score: 36.44 - 27.51, Total: 63.96
Quality: 94.93%, Team quality: 97.50%, Competitiveness: 89.99%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.74%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.99%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 46.74%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 24.29%
#14: Virginia Tech (-4.87, 38.11%) at NC State (4.87, 61.89%)
Estimated score: 30.06 - 34.98, Total: 65.04
Quality: 93.82%, Team quality: 92.32%, Competitiveness: 96.90%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.00%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.15%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 47.90%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 23.39%
#15: LSU (-10.87, 25.03%) at Ole Miss (10.87, 74.97%)
Estimated score: 21.84 - 32.84, Total: 54.68
Quality: 93.61%, Team quality: 97.99%, Competitiveness: 85.43%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.68%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.97%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 37.04%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.71%
#16: Louisville (9.15, 71.48%) at Pittsburgh (-9.15, 28.52%)
Estimated score: 40.69 - 31.60, Total: 72.28
Quality: 93.02%, Team quality: 94.86%, Competitiveness: 89.46%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.96%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.75%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 55.64%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 17.86%
#17: Tennessee (11.54, 76.26%) at Mississippi State (-11.54, 23.74%)
Estimated score: 42.34 - 30.57, Total: 72.91
Quality: 92.46%, Team quality: 97.16%, Competitiveness: 83.73%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.44%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.23%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 56.30%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 17.43%
#18: Florida State (11.31, 75.83%) at Virginia (-11.31, 24.17%)
Estimated score: 39.27 - 28.20, Total: 67.47
Quality: 92.37%, Team quality: 96.69%, Competitiveness: 84.31%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.18%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.48%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 50.50%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 21.44%
#19: Bowling Green (-5.69, 36.19%) at Ohio (5.69, 63.81%)
Estimated score: 17.34 - 23.05, Total: 40.39
Quality: 92.11%, Team quality: 90.32%, Competitiveness: 95.80%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.42%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.64%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 23.74%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 47.44%
#20: California (-7.49, 32.09%) at Boston College (7.49, 67.91%)
Estimated score: 24.11 - 31.66, Total: 55.77
Quality: 91.29%, Team quality: 90.54%, Competitiveness: 92.81%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.59%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.27%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.15%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.67%
#21: San Diego State (4.96, 62.10%) at Northern Illinois (-4.96, 37.90%)
Estimated score: 19.97 - 15.14, Total: 35.11
Quality: 90.91%, Team quality: 88.11%, Competitiveness: 96.79%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.04%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.10%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 19.59%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 53.09%
#22: Duke (-10.54, 25.68%) at Syracuse (10.54, 74.32%)
Estimated score: 30.98 - 41.48, Total: 72.47
Quality: 90.79%, Team quality: 93.16%, Competitiveness: 86.24%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.33%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.32%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 55.83%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 17.73%
#23: Washington State (-2.39, 44.09%) at Colorado State (2.39, 55.91%)
Estimated score: 20.73 - 23.06, Total: 43.79
Quality: 90.40%, Team quality: 86.28%, Competitiveness: 99.24%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.12%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 33.26%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 26.65%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.83%
#24: Jacksonville State (4.31, 60.57%) at Southern Miss (-4.31, 39.43%)
Estimated score: 32.07 - 27.46, Total: 59.53
Quality: 90.17%, Team quality: 86.69%, Competitiveness: 97.56%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.75%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.46%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 42.05%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.16%
#25: Hawai'i (-3.18, 42.16%) at Air Force (3.18, 57.84%)
Estimated score: 26.13 - 29.33, Total: 55.47
Quality: 89.46%, Team quality: 85.19%, Competitiveness: 98.67%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.34%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.98%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 37.84%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.95%
#26: BYU (14.85, 82.06%) at Colorado (-14.85, 17.94%)
Estimated score: 34.02 - 19.10, Total: 53.12
Quality: 88.65%, Team quality: 96.75%, Competitiveness: 74.42%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 17.86%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 22.31%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.47%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.23%
#27: UConn (8.09, 69.22%) at Buffalo (-8.09, 30.78%)
Estimated score: 33.09 - 25.07, Total: 58.15
Quality: 88.40%, Team quality: 86.81%, Competitiveness: 91.67%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.05%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.74%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 40.61%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.42%
#28: Marshall (7.14, 67.13%) at Louisiana (-7.14, 32.87%)
Estimated score: 27.64 - 20.43, Total: 48.07
Quality: 87.54%, Team quality: 84.72%, Competitiveness: 93.45%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.34%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.56%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 30.56%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.34%
#29: Western Kentucky (9.35, 71.90%) at Missouri State (-9.35, 28.10%)
Estimated score: 34.16 - 24.65, Total: 58.81
Quality: 87.28%, Team quality: 86.42%, Competitiveness: 89.02%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.14%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.55%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.29%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.82%
#30: San José State (-9.72, 27.33%) at Stanford (9.72, 72.67%)
Estimated score: 17.00 - 26.67, Total: 43.67
Quality: 86.98%, Team quality: 86.40%, Competitiveness: 88.17%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.50%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.17%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 26.55%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.94%
#31: Louisiana Tech (11.33, 75.87%) at UTEP (-11.33, 24.13%)
Estimated score: 25.50 - 14.03, Total: 39.53
Quality: 86.72%, Team quality: 87.97%, Competitiveness: 84.26%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.20%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.46%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 23.04%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 48.36%
#32: UCLA (-11.69, 23.44%) at Northwestern (11.69, 76.56%)
Estimated score: 6.67 - 18.31, Total: 24.98
Quality: 85.89%, Team quality: 87.20%, Competitiveness: 83.32%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.62%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.05%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 12.96%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 63.67%
#33: Tulane (13.64, 80.06%) at Tulsa (-13.64, 19.94%)
Estimated score: 29.58 - 15.92, Total: 45.50
Quality: 85.30%, Team quality: 89.21%, Competitiveness: 77.98%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 16.11%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 23.78%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.19%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 42.02%
#34: Arkansas State (6.42, 65.49%) at UL Monroe (-6.42, 34.51%)
Estimated score: 31.68 - 25.30, Total: 56.98
Quality: 84.46%, Team quality: 79.78%, Competitiveness: 94.68%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.86%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.12%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 39.40%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 30.51%
#35: Utah (17.21, 85.57%) at West Virginia (-17.21, 14.43%)
Estimated score: 31.37 - 14.19, Total: 45.56
Quality: 83.58%, Team quality: 93.24%, Competitiveness: 67.16%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 21.70%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.42%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.24%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.96%
#36: Eastern Michigan (-5.59, 36.42%) at Central Michigan (5.59, 63.58%)
Estimated score: 31.31 - 36.97, Total: 68.28
Quality: 83.44%, Team quality: 77.82%, Competitiveness: 95.94%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.37%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.71%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 51.37%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 20.81%
#37: Georgia Southern (-16.67, 15.18%) at James Madison (16.67, 84.82%)
Estimated score: 18.37 - 34.97, Total: 53.34
Quality: 81.63%, Team quality: 88.88%, Competitiveness: 68.85%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 20.77%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.08%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.68%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.02%
#38: Middle Tennessee (-11.06, 24.66%) at Kennesaw State (11.06, 75.34%)
Estimated score: 20.04 - 31.19, Total: 51.23
Quality: 80.68%, Team quality: 78.62%, Competitiveness: 84.96%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.89%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.76%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 33.60%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.12%
#39: Georgia Tech (19.79, 88.84%) at Wake Forest (-19.79, 11.16%)
Estimated score: 28.90 - 9.06, Total: 37.97
Quality: 79.14%, Team quality: 91.72%, Competitiveness: 58.92%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 26.52%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 16.32%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 21.78%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 50.03%
#40: Memphis (19.06, 87.98%) at Florida Atlantic (-19.06, 12.02%)
Estimated score: 39.22 - 20.30, Total: 59.52
Quality: 79.12%, Team quality: 89.92%, Competitiveness: 61.25%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 25.10%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 17.18%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 42.04%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.17%
#41: Rhode Island (-16.92, 14.83%) at Western Michigan (16.92, 85.17%)
Estimated score: 5.19 - 21.98, Total: 27.17
Quality: 77.19%, Team quality: 82.20%, Competitiveness: 68.08%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 21.19%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.78%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 14.24%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 61.44%
#42: Rice (-20.12, 10.80%) at Navy (20.12, 89.20%)
Estimated score: 15.92 - 36.16, Total: 52.08
Quality: 76.18%, Team quality: 87.40%, Competitiveness: 57.88%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 27.17%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 15.94%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.43%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.27%
#43: Baylor (20.06, 89.14%) at Oklahoma State (-20.06, 10.86%)
Estimated score: 40.68 - 20.60, Total: 61.28
Quality: 75.78%, Team quality: 86.58%, Competitiveness: 58.05%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 27.06%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 16.00%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 43.90%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 26.59%
#44: Utah State (-23.18, 7.76%) at Vanderbilt (23.18, 92.24%)
Estimated score: 21.13 - 44.50, Total: 65.62
Quality: 75.37%, Team quality: 94.27%, Competitiveness: 48.17%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 33.71%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 12.54%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 48.53%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 22.91%
#45: Houston (22.90, 91.99%) at Oregon State (-22.90, 8.01%)
Estimated score: 33.36 - 10.53, Total: 43.89
Quality: 73.56%, Team quality: 90.08%, Competitiveness: 49.06%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 33.07%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 12.84%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 26.74%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.72%
#46: Indiana (26.92, 94.97%) at Iowa (-26.92, 5.03%)
Estimated score: 40.85 - 14.06, Total: 54.91
Quality: 70.46%, Team quality: 97.12%, Competitiveness: 37.09%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 42.46%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 8.99%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 37.28%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.48%
#47: App State (-23.47, 7.52%) at Boise State (23.47, 92.48%)
Estimated score: 15.23 - 38.59, Total: 53.82
Quality: 70.26%, Team quality: 85.64%, Competitiveness: 47.30%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 34.35%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 12.25%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 36.17%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.55%
#48: New Mexico State (-23.76, 7.28%) at New Mexico (23.76, 92.72%)
Estimated score: 12.69 - 36.48, Total: 49.16
Quality: 69.19%, Team quality: 84.49%, Competitiveness: 46.39%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 35.01%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 11.95%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 31.60%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.22%
#49: Akron (-27.59, 4.63%) at Toledo (27.59, 95.37%)
Estimated score: 9.23 - 36.88, Total: 46.11
Quality: 63.79%, Team quality: 85.87%, Competitiveness: 35.21%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 44.10%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 8.42%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.74%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.38%
#50: Lindenwood (-24.77, 6.48%) at Miami (OH) (24.77, 93.52%)
Estimated score: 12.57 - 37.25, Total: 49.82
Quality: 61.70%, Team quality: 73.63%, Competitiveness: 43.33%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 37.34%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 10.95%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 32.23%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 37.55%
#51: South Alabama (-30.09, 3.38%) at North Texas (30.09, 96.62%)
Estimated score: 25.42 - 55.37, Total: 80.79
Quality: 61.24%, Team quality: 89.44%, Competitiveness: 28.71%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 50.25%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 6.55%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 64.44%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 12.53%
#52: Liberty (-31.63, 2.77%) at Old Dominion (31.63, 97.23%)
Estimated score: 9.25 - 41.02, Total: 50.26
Quality: 58.59%, Team quality: 89.57%, Competitiveness: 25.06%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 54.07%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 5.55%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 32.66%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 37.10%
#53: Massachusetts (-52.37, 0.12%) at Missouri (52.37, 99.88%)
Estimated score: 5.66 - 57.95, Total: 63.62
Quality: 22.68%, Team quality: 78.78%, Competitiveness: 1.88%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 91.51%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.33%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 46.38%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 24.58%I'll post the final ratings and week 5 predictions in a couple of days, but I think it's time to post this article and get ready to watch the Formula 1 Azerbaijan Grand Prix, which starts in about 20 minutes. I’m hoping for fewer red flags than the chaos in qualifying yesterday. It’s not like Daytona or Talladega in NASCAR, but Baku is definitely prone to plenty of chaos in F1, and there’s already been plenty of it this weekend.
Thanks for reading!
This article is based on data from collegefootballdata.com.