The Linked Letters After Dark: Week 5 Edition
Is Alabama back? What happens to Florida State after losing to Virginia? And how did Oregon's win over Penn State shake up the ratings?
Week 5 of college football is complete, though the data set I’ve used to calculate the ratings isn’t quite complete right now. It doesn’t yet have the results of seven Division II games and 12 Division III games, though all the FBS and FCS games are in the data. Although those aren’t FBS games, because those teams are still connected to the FBS teams, those games can still shake up the ratings a bit. Therefore, these are preliminary ratings, but they should still be a good approximation of the final ratings that I’ll release in a day or two.
For one more week, I still need to talk about how the ratings weight games differently from 2024 and 2025. After next week’s games, everything will be based entirely on 2025 games, so it’ll be in the past. My preliminary ratings are based on the alternative ratings, which decreased the weight of 2024 games more rapidly than my original approach. A 2024 game is weighted at 4% of an equivalent game played in 2025. To put that in perspective, if a team has played five games this season and 13 games last season, it means this season is responsible for approximately 90.58% of a team’s rating, and 2024 accounts for the remaining 9.42%. Even though these percentages can vary a bit depending on the actual number of games played and a few other factors, it means that the ratings are already almost entirely determined by games played this season.
I’m going to try to get this article posted a couple of hours earlier starting next week. In some respects, it’s more of an early morning edition of The Linked Letters, but it’s still dark here in the central United States, so I think it counts. I try not to be a pundit and instead stick to making my analysis about the data, meaning that I don’t write much until the games are over and I have time to run my code. But I’m going to aim for something more like 3 AM central time next weekend instead of around 6 AM. I’m still figuring out what this column is going to entail aside from generally being an initial assessment of next week’s ratings and predictions, but I’ll get that sorted out as the season goes on.
Predictive Ratings
First up are the new predictive ratings. These are points ratings, meaning that they only look at the margin of victory or defeat, and they don’t take into account things like winning percentage. Therefore, while fans generally view Oregon’s win over Penn State as an important win, it doesn’t actually shift the ratings that much. Last week’s alternative ratings picked Oregon as an 8.15 point favorite at Penn State, but Oregon only won by six points. Alabama was favored by 3.44 points over Georgia and actually won by a field goal. In both cases, the prediction and result were quite close, so there’s not a whole lot to shift the points ratings. It usually takes an unexpected outcome for the ratings to shift significantly.
From the standpoint of a team’s quality wins, Ole Miss winning against LSU looks like a big win. However, LSU was #21 in the predictive ratings, and Ole Miss was actually favored by 10.51 points. From a strength of record standpoint, it’s definitely a very good win. But for the points ratings, winning by five points is just not that impressive of a result for LSU.
Missouri is another SEC team that’s slipped a bit in the ratings during the past couple of weeks. A 36 point win over UMass looks like solid win that was never in doubt. But Missouri was favored by 51.96 points, so it’s not a great outcome for the points ratings. For that matter, neither was the win over South Carolina. But this week’s result did boost the rating for the Minutemen, moving them ahead of Kent State at the bottom of the FBS ratings. From their perspective, it was unexpectedly close in a good way.
Ohio State and Indiana have switched places at the top of the ratings. Ohio State was favored by 9.40 at Washington, but they actually won by 18 points. Although the Huskies haven’t received a lot of respect from the polls, some computer ratings systems including mine had them in the top 25. They were #17 in my alternative ratings last week. This is a strong result for Ohio State. Then there’s Indiana, which was extremely impressive against Illinois. My computer ratings projected Indiana to win by 27.43 points over Iowa. My ratings were a bit harsher than others toward Iowa, and this really was a close game with the Hoosiers only winning by 5. This result bumps Iowa up to #36, but it did Indiana no favors in the ratings.
Losing to Virginia didn’t knock Florida State down any spots, but it continued the trend from a week ago of the Cavaliers jumping up the ratings. I noted a week ago that Virginia rose 22 spots, though Florida State was still expected to win by 10.77 points. The loss didn’t drop the Seminoles, but it’s another boost for Virginia because it’s an unexpected result.
I suspect there’s probably one more week of big moves in the ratings when I completely remove the effect of 2024 games. After that, I expect the ratings to settle down a bit. They will only being influenced by games this season, and we’re getting to the point where we have enough games to have a pretty good idea of the strength of teams.
Predictive Ratings
Home advantage: 2.27 points
Mean score: 26.40 points
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
1 +1 83.21 +4.71 Ohio State 32.96 50.34 .231
2 -1 82.18 -1.57 Indiana 43.97 38.20 .171
3 +4 80.88 +8.20 Notre Dame 49.52 31.56 -.144
4 +2 78.55 +5.01 Miami 35.57 42.92 .295
5 -2 78.23 +1.89 Oregon 44.91 33.32 .114
6 -2 76.17 +0.91 Alabama 40.44 35.74 .029
7 +1 73.22 +1.01 BYU 36.17 37.13 .129
8 +2 72.11 +0.21 USC 45.71 26.64 -.060
9 +5 71.76 +2.81 Michigan 36.67 35.30 .036
10 +5 71.30 +3.24 Nebraska 37.02 34.28 -.071
11 -6 70.97 -3.03 Ole Miss 38.21 32.96 .154
12 70.10 +1.06 Florida State 38.64 31.59 -.024
13 -4 70.05 -2.12 Tennessee 45.41 24.83 -.042
14 +2 69.90 +2.31 Oklahoma 27.66 42.21 .192
15 -4 69.77 +0.05 Georgia 30.40 39.54 .029
16 -3 69.24 +0.26 Texas 30.57 38.47 -.043
17 +2 68.89 +2.51 Texas A&M 34.40 34.43 .278
18 +5 68.23 +4.82 Texas Tech 37.68 30.55 .117
19 -1 68.00 +1.06 Vanderbilt 40.69 27.05 .084
20 -3 67.87 +0.88 Washington 41.12 26.68 -.056
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
21 67.64 +2.03 LSU 29.59 38.12 .012
22 +4 67.02 +4.65 Utah 34.29 32.58 -.101
23 -3 66.35 +0.26 Penn State 33.32 33.25 -.095
24 +7 65.28 +4.45 Illinois 30.95 34.31 .096
25 +2 63.51 +1.94 Florida 26.69 36.94 -.397
26 -4 63.14 -1.24 Missouri 34.23 28.80 .066
27 +16 62.79 +6.63 Virginia 39.14 23.43 -.073
28 -3 62.51 -0.46 Old Dominion 29.11 33.44 -.024
29 +6 62.45 +2.92 South Florida 31.50 31.06 .038
30 +6 61.92 +2.83 Iowa State 29.47 32.28 .097
31 +1 61.87 +1.32 Auburn 25.83 36.07 -.174
32 +2 60.79 +1.04 Cincinnati 31.89 29.06 -.062
33 -4 60.58 -0.35 North Texas 38.00 22.54 .050
34 -4 60.42 -0.45 Louisville 35.49 25.01 .063
35 +4 59.97 +1.68 Mississippi State 31.12 28.81 -.072
36 +14 59.92 +5.71 Iowa 24.46 35.34 -.164
37 -4 59.34 -0.61 Georgia Tech 31.23 28.19 .085
38 +13 58.68 +5.26 East Carolina 25.61 33.06 -.248
39 -11 57.86 -3.65 TCU 33.00 24.87 -.166
40 -2 57.23 -1.43 Arizona State 23.33 34.03 -.071
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
41 +11 57.06 +3.67 Toledo 27.75 29.33 -.342
42 +3 57.00 +1.10 South Carolina 21.04 35.75 -.216
43 -3 56.92 -0.89 Kansas 30.49 26.61 -.268
44 -7 56.22 -2.50 Houston 26.10 29.84 .053
45 -21 56.12 -6.97 Arkansas 31.82 24.52 -.318
46 +2 55.91 +0.91 Colorado 26.96 28.88 -.409
47 55.70 +0.69 Maryland 24.65 31.00 .041
48 -4 55.24 -0.86 Memphis 26.89 28.35 .041
49 +25 55.16 +8.07 Duke 31.85 23.39 -.263
50 -9 54.73 -2.89 Arizona 25.13 29.60 -.136
51 +15 53.71 +4.15 NC State 28.45 25.50 -.242
52 +15 53.51 +4.06 Purdue 21.81 31.68 -.191
53 +18 52.79 +4.76 Louisiana Tech 20.23 32.70 -.094
54 -12 52.51 -3.73 Kentucky 26.00 26.55 -.293
55 52.47 +1.12 Rutgers 33.95 18.54 -.315
56 +1 52.43 +1.44 Kansas State 26.11 26.38 -.461
57 -1 52.14 +0.95 Tulane 25.51 26.57 -.048
58 +1 51.84 +1.49 Michigan State 26.83 25.19 -.081
59 +2 50.94 +0.96 James Madison 20.86 30.08 -.166
60 +3 50.53 +0.93 Wisconsin 20.53 29.87 -.294
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
61 -8 50.50 -2.05 Clemson 21.76 28.75 -.572
62 -16 50.47 -4.67 UCF 23.26 27.29 -.201
63 +7 49.95 +1.64 New Mexico 26.13 24.06 -.099
64 +4 49.82 +0.75 Minnesota 22.64 27.30 -.199
65 49.79 +0.21 Pittsburgh 28.06 21.74 -.434
66 -12 49.59 -2.74 Army 23.40 26.04 -.569
67 -3 49.59 +0.00 Boise State 27.95 21.74 -.158
68 +5 48.60 +1.20 Virginia Tech 25.47 23.12 -.402
69 +7 48.36 +2.55 Ohio 25.33 23.00 -.198
70 +5 48.11 +1.90 Utah State 28.76 19.37 -.204
71 -13 48.06 -2.58 Baylor 32.10 16.01 -.298
72 -23 47.37 -7.49 Syracuse 24.69 22.69 -.246
73 -4 47.15 -1.61 Texas State 27.31 19.84 -.168
74 -14 47.06 -3.00 Navy 24.32 22.78 .010
75 -13 47.02 -2.78 SMU 23.89 22.97 -.416
76 +2 46.36 +1.27 Fresno State 22.93 23.53 -.136
77 -5 46.08 -1.58 Boston College 29.03 16.99 -.683
78 +3 45.92 +1.66 San Diego State 16.23 29.97 -.342
79 -2 45.85 +0.35 UTSA 29.15 16.75 -.355
80 +5 45.73 +3.54 California 18.61 26.93 -.141
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
81 +9 45.21 +4.70 Western Michigan 18.78 26.75 -.412
82 +13 44.51 +6.17 Wake Forest 17.56 26.79 -.418
83 +6 44.45 +3.73 Temple 27.23 17.35 -.328
84 -5 43.84 -0.49 Western Kentucky 24.44 19.23 -.147
85 -2 43.57 -0.30 UNLV 28.15 15.27 .018
86 -6 42.76 -1.56 Northwestern 12.11 30.64 -.307
87 42.67 +0.97 Stanford 17.87 24.70 -.392
88 -6 42.15 -1.89 UConn 24.76 17.39 -.365
89 -5 40.95 -1.73 Bowling Green 15.58 25.32 -.454
90 +15 40.53 +5.41 Southern Miss 24.30 16.19 -.320
91 +3 40.52 +1.22 Delaware 21.17 19.29 -.182
92 +1 40.29 +0.97 Wyoming 14.10 26.17 -.358
93 +4 40.09 +2.67 Washington State 18.26 21.86 -.249
94 -8 39.72 -2.46 West Virginia 17.26 22.45 -.447
95 +15 39.15 +4.95 Oregon State 19.71 19.38 -.714
96 +5 38.44 +2.26 Miami (OH) 14.73 23.68 -.666
97 -5 38.37 -1.54 Marshall 25.59 12.83 -.492
98 -10 37.40 -3.79 Jacksonville State 19.94 17.43 -.557
99 +4 37.34 +1.83 Hawai’i 16.78 20.50 -.281
100 -1 36.85 +0.08 Northern Illinois 11.27 25.54 -.486
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
101 -10 36.63 -3.87 North Carolina 16.03 20.60 -.422
102 +6 36.57 +1.96 San José State 18.30 18.37 -.606
103 -5 36.54 -0.56 Troy 17.23 19.18 -.426
104 36.23 +0.95 UCLA 14.48 21.77 -.861
105 +7 35.61 +1.99 South Alabama 21.20 14.62 -.651
106 -10 35.19 -2.69 Colorado State 10.35 25.04 -.614
107 +4 35.18 +1.27 UTEP 16.80 18.46 -.656
108 +5 34.68 +1.44 Liberty 13.69 20.97 -.696
109 -3 34.55 -0.33 Florida International 14.05 20.70 -.383
110 -3 34.04 -0.76 Tulsa 13.65 20.56 -.562
111 +4 33.94 +1.19 Buffalo 12.71 21.07 -.564
112 -12 33.56 -2.66 Air Force 24.38 9.18 -.698
113 -11 33.25 -2.49 Georgia Southern 20.82 12.45 -.437
114 +2 32.69 +0.11 UAB 24.30 8.50 -.345
115 +4 32.59 +0.59 Missouri State 13.76 18.82 -.459
116 +1 32.39 +0.13 Kennesaw State 13.79 18.81 -.229
117 -8 32.00 -2.39 Florida Atlantic 24.44 7.70 -.657
118 31.88 -0.23 Rice 10.87 21.01 -.347
119 +7 31.51 +3.33 Coastal Carolina 10.64 20.80 -.359
120 +9 30.11 +3.16 New Mexico State 12.88 17.25 -.423
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
121 +4 30.07 +1.51 Central Michigan 14.10 15.92 -.257
122 -1 30.02 -0.28 Nevada 9.45 20.58 -.622
123 -3 29.82 -0.51 Louisiana 16.56 13.26 -.522
124 29.53 +0.93 Ball State 16.50 13.15 -.608
125 -11 28.72 -4.27 Arkansas State 15.11 13.75 -.710
126 -4 27.68 -1.34 Oklahoma State 12.29 15.64 -.555
127 27.38 -0.28 Akron 10.61 16.61 -.635
128 +4 26.83 +2.58 UL Monroe 12.90 14.07 -.078
129 -6 26.48 -2.44 App State 10.73 15.82 -.456
130 -2 25.77 -1.22 Sam Houston 14.53 11.08 -.837
131 +2 24.21 +0.55 Middle Tennessee 10.59 13.72 -.757
132 -2 23.38 -1.69 Georgia State 16.11 7.14 -.464
133 -2 22.53 -2.48 Eastern Michigan 15.16 7.34 -.744
134 19.02 -2.76 Charlotte 6.99 12.03 -.741
135 +1 18.64 +4.12 Massachusetts 9.16 9.52 -.827
136 -1 18.44 +1.72 Kent State 15.03 3.66 -.500I’ve added a strength of record column (SOR), though it’s not actually a predictive rating. I wanted to include this somewhere, didn’t want to create another table, and some of the other tables already had a lot of columns and even more numbers than this one. The numbers in this column are mostly negative. That’s to be expected. It’s based on a team’s actual winning percentage against their schedule compared to what would be expected for a team 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS mean. That hypothetical team is typically ranked somewhere around #10 to #15 in the ratings, so I’m comparing a team’s actual record with what I’d expect for a really good team. It’s a component in my playoff ratings, but for that, I fit a normal distribution to the ratings and use the cumulative density function. This is the actual strength of record.
Schedule Strength
This table is new for this week’s update, and I’ll include it in the final ratings as well. There are two different measures of schedule strength. The first two columns measure the difficulty that a team’s past and future schedules would pose for a team with a rating 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS mean. The columns are the team’s expected losing percentage against that schedule, meaning that higher numbers indicate a stronger schedule.
The last two columns are also the past and future schedules, but they’re just the average of the opponents’ predictive ratings. As I discussed in a prior article, this isn’t always representative of the true difficulty of a schedule, and it’s going to be most representative of the actual difficulty of the schedule for a team that’s a near average FBS team.
Home advantage: 2.27 points
Mean score: 26.40 points
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
1 Ohio State .231 (16) .225 (44) 44.06 (50) 55.74 (45)
2 Indiana .171 (43) .245 (38) 45.64 (44) 56.38 (40)
3 Notre Dame .356 (1) .132 (70) 64.27 (1) 50.48 (66)
4 Miami .295 (5) .161 (64) 53.50 (11) 52.46 (61)
5 Oregon .114 (84) .318 (22) 43.79 (54) 61.81 (18)
6 Alabama .279 (12) .307 (24) 54.31 (8) 58.05 (30)
7 BYU .129 (76) .242 (39) 42.33 (72) 57.59 (34)
8 USC .140 (69) .386 (4) 46.84 (39) 62.69 (11)
9 Michigan .286 (7) .281 (31) 55.31 (5) 59.41 (26)
10 Nebraska .179 (37) .199 (55) 42.82 (64) 54.34 (52)
11 Ole Miss .154 (52) .253 (36) 49.00 (28) 54.00 (54)
12 Florida State .226 (18) .193 (58) 39.28 (86) 53.98 (55)
13 Tennessee .158 (49) .301 (25) 46.68 (40) 59.15 (27)
14 Oklahoma .192 (31) .362 (12) 49.75 (27) 61.30 (19)
15 Georgia .279 (11) .262 (34) 55.11 (6) 56.49 (39)
16 Texas .207 (23) .335 (17) 44.05 (51) 63.87 (10)
17 Texas A&M .278 (13) .271 (32) 58.05 (3) 55.27 (46)
18 Texas Tech .117 (81) .175 (60) 26.75 (135) 51.74 (63)
19 Vanderbilt .084 (100) .376 (9) 37.64 (98) 65.48 (8)
20 Washington .194 (29) .257 (35) 46.18 (41) 57.96 (31)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
21 LSU .212 (20) .339 (13) 53.29 (13) 62.52 (14)
22 Utah .099 (89) .224 (45) 43.26 (59) 57.47 (35)
23 Penn State .155 (50) .323 (20) 38.49 (92) 60.55 (21)
24 Illinois .296 (4) .253 (37) 52.49 (15) 57.68 (33)
25 Florida .353 (2) .383 (5) 54.35 (7) 66.15 (6)
26 Missouri .066 (111) .381 (6) 32.27 (127) 66.17 (5)
27 Virginia .127 (80) .109 (74) 42.57 (68) 47.63 (71)
28 Old Dominion .226 (19) .030 (119) 47.31 (36) 33.41 (129)
29 South Florida .288 (6) .087 (84) 53.35 (12) 40.54 (91)
30 Iowa State .097 (90) .227 (42) 43.54 (56) 55.98 (44)
31 Auburn .226 (17) .289 (29) 50.85 (21) 58.82 (28)
32 Cincinnati .188 (33) .214 (47) 39.19 (88) 54.56 (50)
33 North Texas .050 (123) .064 (93) 37.58 (100) 40.16 (95)
34 Louisville .063 (113) .184 (59) 40.27 (81) 53.41 (58)
35 Mississippi State .128 (78) .379 (7) 37.52 (101) 66.27 (4)
36 Iowa .236 (15) .336 (16) 44.28 (49) 62.56 (13)
37 Georgia Tech .085 (94) .163 (63) 43.61 (55) 52.93 (59)
38 East Carolina .152 (56) .069 (88) 43.35 (58) 40.72 (89)
39 TCU .084 (99) .211 (52) 42.42 (70) 56.03 (42)
40 Arizona State .129 (77) .238 (40) 48.79 (30) 57.35 (36)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
41 Toledo .058 (115) .025 (127) 34.92 (113) 33.81 (126)
42 South Carolina .184 (35) .363 (11) 49.89 (26) 61.90 (17)
43 Kansas .132 (75) .226 (43) 40.77 (79) 54.96 (47)
44 Houston .053 (118) .149 (66) 39.22 (87) 50.50 (65)
45 Arkansas .282 (10) .366 (10) 48.98 (29) 65.50 (7)
46 Colorado .191 (32) .205 (54) 52.56 (14) 56.17 (41)
47 Maryland .041 (128) .332 (19) 34.78 (115) 62.08 (15)
48 Memphis .041 (129) .104 (79) 34.25 (118) 45.24 (77)
49 Duke .137 (73) .115 (73) 48.25 (31) 49.13 (69)
50 Arizona .114 (83) .212 (50) 40.77 (78) 54.50 (51)
51 NC State .158 (48) .315 (23) 53.50 (10) 54.86 (48)
52 Purdue .309 (3) .377 (8) 54.00 (9) 64.42 (9)
53 Louisiana Tech .106 (86) .027 (123) 40.42 (80) 36.02 (115)
54 Kentucky .207 (22) .337 (15) 50.76 (23) 62.58 (12)
55 Rutgers .085 (95) .415 (3) 38.68 (91) 67.49 (3)
56 Kansas State .139 (70) .212 (51) 51.59 (17) 54.85 (49)
57 Tulane .152 (55) .091 (82) 48.16 (33) 43.22 (83)
58 Michigan State .169 (44) .338 (14) 47.25 (37) 61.94 (16)
59 James Madison .084 (98) .056 (98) 36.07 (108) 37.41 (108)
60 Wisconsin .206 (24) .467 (1) 47.50 (35) 69.78 (1)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
61 Clemson .178 (38) .158 (65) 51.59 (18) 49.01 (70)
62 UCF .049 (124) .227 (41) 29.57 (131) 53.86 (56)
63 New Mexico .151 (57) .048 (106) 43.00 (61) 40.31 (94)
64 Minnesota .051 (122) .321 (21) 29.37 (132) 61.13 (20)
65 Pittsburgh .066 (110) .299 (26) 32.49 (125) 59.84 (25)
66 Army .181 (36) .052 (101) 55.37 (4) 38.89 (100)
67 Boise State .092 (92) .144 (67) 34.89 (114) 47.50 (72)
68 Virginia Tech .198 (26) .295 (27) 51.54 (19) 59.88 (24)
69 Ohio .202 (25) .023 (130) 47.80 (34) 32.49 (132)
70 Utah State .196 (27) .060 (95) 42.89 (62) 42.24 (84)
71 Baylor .102 (88) .205 (53) 39.42 (84) 56.75 (38)
72 Syracuse .154 (53) .283 (30) 45.42 (46) 57.22 (37)
73 Texas State .082 (101) .030 (120) 35.86 (109) 35.92 (116)
74 Navy .010 (135) .213 (49) 24.43 (136) 52.63 (60)
75 SMU .084 (97) .163 (62) 35.69 (110) 51.98 (62)
76 Fresno State .064 (112) .048 (107) 34.02 (120) 40.49 (93)
77 Boston College .067 (109) .195 (56) 35.25 (111) 54.12 (53)
78 San Diego State .033 (133) .050 (102) 34.40 (116) 40.66 (90)
79 UTSA .145 (61) .137 (68) 44.48 (48) 47.35 (73)
80 California .059 (114) .135 (69) 36.14 (107) 50.15 (68)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
81 Western Michigan .188 (34) .023 (131) 51.14 (20) 32.38 (133)
82 Wake Forest .082 (102) .166 (61) 38.88 (89) 50.56 (64)
83 Temple .172 (41) .107 (76) 39.88 (82) 45.87 (76)
84 Western Kentucky .053 (117) .104 (78) 31.01 (129) 41.36 (88)
85 UNLV .018 (134) .049 (105) 33.02 (123) 40.50 (92)
86 Northwestern .193 (30) .333 (18) 43.03 (60) 60.19 (23)
87 Stanford .208 (21) .291 (28) 51.65 (16) 58.06 (29)
88 UConn .035 (132) .042 (111) 32.38 (126) 37.66 (106)
89 Bowling Green .146 (60) .028 (122) 45.13 (47) 29.40 (136)
90 Southern Miss .080 (103) .022 (133) 38.18 (95) 34.31 (125)
91 Delaware .068 (108) .038 (115) 37.01 (102) 37.01 (111)
92 Wyoming .142 (66) .039 (113) 42.45 (69) 38.57 (102)
93 Washington State .151 (58) .195 (57) 48.24 (32) 53.59 (57)
94 West Virginia .153 (54) .267 (33) 43.49 (57) 60.20 (22)
95 Oregon State .286 (8) .022 (132) 58.50 (2) 32.55 (131)
96 Miami (OH) .084 (96) .049 (104) 39.75 (83) 37.61 (107)
97 Marshall .108 (85) .063 (94) 36.51 (105) 38.99 (99)
98 Jacksonville State .043 (126) .020 (134) 33.39 (122) 33.78 (127)
99 Hawai’i .052 (120) .045 (109) 35.10 (112) 41.61 (85)
100 Northern Illinois .139 (71) .054 (99) 45.51 (45) 34.78 (122)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
101 North Carolina .078 (105) .120 (71) 36.51 (106) 50.31 (67)
102 San José State .144 (62) .053 (100) 43.97 (53) 41.44 (86)
103 Troy .074 (107) .066 (90) 39.38 (85) 36.82 (112)
104 UCLA .139 (72) .444 (2) 50.83 (22) 68.82 (2)
105 South Alabama .149 (59) .026 (124) 42.35 (71) 33.60 (128)
106 Colorado State .136 (74) .064 (92) 42.63 (66) 43.32 (82)
107 UTEP .144 (63) .019 (135) 41.99 (73) 33.35 (130)
108 Liberty .104 (87) .039 (114) 41.00 (77) 36.55 (114)
109 Florida International .117 (82) .025 (126) 37.63 (99) 34.41 (124)
110 Tulsa .038 (130) .098 (81) 36.71 (103) 44.87 (80)
111 Buffalo .036 (131) .024 (129) 27.94 (133) 32.02 (134)
112 Air Force .052 (121) .058 (96) 34.28 (117) 43.61 (81)
113 Georgia Southern .163 (47) .050 (103) 44.00 (52) 35.60 (117)
114 UAB .155 (51) .100 (80) 41.82 (74) 45.99 (75)
115 Missouri State .141 (67) .028 (121) 42.86 (63) 35.17 (119)
116 Kennesaw State .171 (42) .033 (117) 37.78 (97) 37.08 (110)
117 Florida Atlantic .093 (91) .107 (75) 38.00 (96) 45.14 (78)
118 Rice .053 (119) .119 (72) 31.39 (128) 46.31 (74)
119 Coastal Carolina .141 (68) .091 (83) 42.61 (67) 39.85 (96)
120 New Mexico State .077 (106) .083 (85) 38.20 (94) 37.34 (109)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
121 Central Michigan .143 (64) .045 (108) 36.70 (104) 34.84 (121)
122 Nevada .128 (79) .071 (86) 41.46 (76) 45.05 (79)
123 Louisiana .078 (104) .043 (110) 32.95 (124) 38.37 (103)
124 Ball State .142 (65) .058 (97) 47.24 (38) 36.78 (113)
125 Arkansas State .090 (93) .025 (128) 38.35 (93) 35.30 (118)
126 Oklahoma State .195 (28) .219 (46) 42.76 (65) 57.71 (32)
127 Akron .165 (45) .017 (136) 41.58 (75) 29.68 (135)
128 UL Monroe .172 (40) .065 (91) 33.77 (121) 41.37 (87)
129 App State .044 (125) .070 (87) 30.96 (130) 37.91 (104)
130 Sam Houston .163 (46) .041 (112) 50.20 (24) 37.87 (105)
131 Middle Tennessee .043 (127) .025 (125) 38.79 (90) 34.65 (123)
132 Georgia State .286 (9) .068 (89) 49.98 (25) 39.40 (97)
133 Eastern Michigan .056 (116) .034 (116) 34.12 (119) 38.72 (101)
134 Charlotte .009 (136) .214 (48) 27.87 (134) 56.01 (43)
135 Massachusetts .173 (39) .031 (118) 45.89 (43) 35.15 (120)
136 Kent State .250 (14) .105 (77) 45.96 (42) 39.36 (98) Playoff Ratings
As a reminder, here are the four components of the playoff ratings:
The cumulative distribution function of the team’s strength of record for a hypothetical team 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS average. (SOR; 55%)
The cumulative distribution function of the team’s predictive rating (Fwd; 30%)
The team’s winning percentage (Win%; 10%)
The cumulative distribution function of the team’s strength of schedule for a hypothetical team 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS average. (SOS; 5%)
Playoff Ratings
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
1 .9820 +.0145 Miami .983 .980 1.000 .975
2 +2 .9742 +.0305 Ohio State .970 .886 1.000 .988
3 .9591 +.0125 Texas A&M .980 .965 1.000 .906
4 +3 .9518 +.0172 Indiana .951 .659 1.000 .986
5 +3 .9398 +.0102 Oklahoma .958 .752 1.000 .917
6 .9263 -.0096 Ole Miss .944 .574 1.000 .927
7 +7 .9190 +.0483 Oregon .925 .363 1.000 .973
8 +2 .9188 +.0313 BYU .933 .441 1.000 .946
9 +6 .8985 +.0284 Texas Tech .927 .381 1.000 .899
10 +26 .8908 +.1150 Alabama .870 .967 .750 .964
11 +19 .8905 +.0735 Illinois .916 .981 .800 .860
12 +4 .8852 +.0189 Michigan .875 .974 .750 .934
13 -1 .8794 +.0008 Vanderbilt .908 .226 1.000 .896
14 -12 .8763 -.0748 Georgia .870 .967 .750 .916
15 -6 .8593 -.0371 LSU .855 .829 .800 .892
16 +6 .8591 +.0271 Iowa State .916 .282 1.000 .805
17 +7 .8498 +.0265 South Florida .876 .974 .750 .814
18 -5 .8490 -.0218 Missouri .896 .163 1.000 .826
19 -14 .8463 -.0947 Florida State .822 .871 .750 .919
20 -3 .8376 -.0104 Georgia Tech .909 .232 1.000 .754
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
21 +2 .8322 +.0050 Louisville .894 .152 1.000 .776
22 +6 .8300 +.0119 Texas .803 .810 .750 .910
23 +10 .8272 +.0331 Tennessee .804 .591 .800 .918
24 -5 .8263 -.0107 North Texas .885 .115 1.000 .779
25 -14 .8180 -.0619 USC .785 .500 .800 .937
26 -8 .8155 -.0276 Washington .789 .761 .750 .894
27 +2 .8152 -.0022 Old Dominion .822 .871 .750 .815
28 +4 .8140 +.0178 Nebraska .773 .697 .750 .930
29 -4 .7997 -.0230 Houston .887 .124 1.000 .685
30 +4 .7900 +.0020 Maryland .879 .095 1.000 .673
31 -4 .7863 -.0327 Memphis .878 .094 1.000 .662
32 +15 .7777 +.0971 Cincinnati .783 .738 .750 .783
33 -12 .7764 -.0565 Penn State .745 .580 .750 .875
34 +18 .7718 +.1612 Virginia .771 .433 .800 .820
35 +21 .7699 +.1680 Notre Dame .682 .998 .500 .982
36 +8 .7655 +.0702 Utah .738 .293 .800 .884
37 -11 .7564 -.0657 Mississippi State .772 .436 .800 .767
38 +4 .7392 +.0312 Arizona State .772 .438 .800 .709
39 +1 .7223 +.0070 Tulane .798 .562 .800 .585
40 -1 .7073 -.0262 Navy .854 .043 1.000 .452
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
41 +4 .6988 +.0062 Michigan State .761 .646 .750 .577
42 -5 .6973 -.0570 Auburn .641 .871 .600 .804
43 +5 .6950 +.0319 Iowa .655 .897 .600 .766
44 +7 .6865 +.0672 Louisiana Tech .745 .323 .800 .601
45 +1 .6846 -.0009 UNLV .860 .053 1.000 .363
46 -15 .6691 -.1357 Arizona .693 .363 .750 .649
47 +3 .6680 +.0484 New Mexico .740 .556 .750 .528
48 -28 .6617 -.1726 TCU .652 .227 .750 .723
49 +12 .6262 +.0692 South Carolina .581 .717 .600 .703
50 +9 .6244 +.0573 Purdue .617 .987 .500 .619
51 +9 .6111 +.0491 James Madison .652 .227 .750 .553
52 +10 .6083 +.0566 Boise State .663 .261 .750 .518
53 +16 .6034 +.1211 East Carolina .533 .560 .600 .740
54 +3 .5987 +.0096 Fresno State .692 .155 .800 .434
55 +11 .5902 +.0875 California .687 .142 .800 .417
56 +12 .5795 +.0855 Ohio .608 .794 .600 .486
57 -2 .5794 -.0226 Texas State .649 .220 .750 .454
58 -9 .5756 -.0448 NC State .543 .594 .600 .624
59 -24 .5749 -.2028 UCF .603 .114 .750 .541
60 -7 .5718 -.0388 Utah State .599 .771 .600 .479
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
61 +12 .5712 +.1095 Minnesota .606 .118 .750 .524
62 +2 .5701 +.0457 Western Kentucky .678 .124 .800 .369
63 -20 .5701 -.1312 Kansas .503 .455 .600 .701
64 +19 .5635 +.1734 Duke .511 .483 .600 .660
65 -2 .5503 +.0250 UL Monroe .764 .661 .750 .073
66 -12 .5292 -.0776 Arkansas .429 .969 .400 .683
67 -26 .5255 -.1889 Kentucky .467 .812 .500 .594
68 -30 .5216 -.2202 Syracuse .537 .571 .600 .460
69 -4 .5175 +.0106 Delaware .631 .170 .750 .290
70 -3 .5089 +.0067 Wisconsin .465 .807 .500 .543
71 +1 .4997 +.0356 Florida .319 .998 .250 .832
72 +6 .4952 +.0897 Toledo .394 .138 .600 .705
73 -15 .4880 -.0947 Rutgers .434 .232 .600 .593
74 +1 .4714 +.0294 Baylor .459 .307 .600 .478
75 +9 .4645 +.0745 Washington State .532 .555 .600 .281
76 -6 .4469 -.0251 Colorado .302 .749 .400 .678
77 +5 .4440 +.0491 Kennesaw State .563 .660 .600 .138
78 +12 .4362 +.0852 Northwestern .446 .759 .500 .343
79 +2 .4263 +.0290 Temple .414 .661 .500 .385
80 -4 .4096 -.0133 San Diego State .394 .077 .625 .422
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
81 -2 .4089 +.0067 UTSA .376 .524 .500 .420
82 +9 .4060 +.0596 Hawai’i .484 .122 .667 .223
83 +14 .4041 +.0763 Central Michigan .520 .514 .600 .107
84 +19 .3979 +.1073 Virginia Tech .311 .778 .400 .492
85 +21 .3920 +.1247 Southern Miss .426 .211 .600 .291
86 +18 .3734 +.0836 Kansas State .238 .495 .400 .592
87 +9 .3652 +.0298 Wyoming .371 .508 .500 .285
88 -17 .3640 -.1005 Pittsburgh .271 .164 .500 .523
89 +18 .3619 +.1030 Stanford .325 .817 .400 .341
90 +10 .3619 +.0463 UConn .362 .083 .600 .328
91 +21 .3616 +.1266 Western Michigan .298 .735 .400 .404
92 -15 .3575 -.0493 SMU .293 .227 .500 .451
93 -8 .3363 -.0514 Wake Forest .290 .219 .500 .386
94 -7 .3362 -.0248 UAB .390 .577 .500 .143
95 -21 .3182 -.1342 Rice .387 .123 .600 .131
96 +13 .3161 +.0643 Coastal Carolina .370 .502 .500 .126
97 +4 .3056 -.0028 Florida International .337 .378 .500 .172
98 .2934 -.0329 Clemson .129 .692 .250 .542
99 -19 .2919 -.1068 Bowling Green .246 .531 .400 .300
100 -7 .2900 -.0514 West Virginia .254 .567 .400 .272
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
101 -7 .2879 -.0525 Army .131 .704 .250 .518
102 -7 .2800 -.0588 North Carolina .285 .205 .500 .209
103 +2 .2759 -.0112 Troy .280 .190 .500 .208
104 -18 .2627 -.1058 Georgia Southern .266 .618 .400 .151
105 -13 .2485 -.0959 New Mexico State .284 .201 .500 .108
106 -18 .2418 -.1151 Marshall .203 .335 .400 .244
107 +8 .2415 +.0121 Northern Illinois .210 .493 .375 .213
108 -19 .2394 -.1147 Missouri State .240 .503 .400 .141
109 +4 .2161 -.0182 Georgia State .234 .973 .250 .046
110 -11 .2098 -.1120 App State .243 .101 .500 .070
111 .1946 -.0481 Boston College .061 .165 .250 .426
112 -10 .1903 -.1028 Jacksonville State .142 .100 .400 .224
113 +5 .1856 +.0205 Kent State .195 .928 .250 .022
114 +14 .1770 +.0585 Louisiana .173 .207 .400 .104
115 -1 .1710 -.0599 San José State .105 .521 .250 .208
116 .1693 -.0581 Tulsa .138 .089 .400 .164
117 .1676 -.0539 Buffalo .136 .084 .400 .162
118 -10 .1662 -.0857 Oklahoma State .143 .764 .250 .081
119 -9 .1585 -.0886 Colorado State .099 .480 .250 .183
120 +7 .1532 +.0282 Oregon State .048 .973 .000 .260
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
121 +11 .1483 +.0629 Miami (OH) .069 .230 .250 .245
122 +2 .1465 +.0138 South Alabama .077 .543 .200 .191
123 -4 .1416 -.0208 UTEP .074 .518 .200 .183
124 +2 .1374 +.0117 Ball State .103 .509 .250 .101
125 -2 .1301 -.0039 Nevada .094 .433 .250 .107
126 -1 .1222 -.0036 Akron .086 .629 .200 .078
127 -7 .1187 -.0385 Florida Atlantic .074 .266 .250 .133
128 +1 .1184 +.0128 Liberty .055 .314 .200 .174
129 -8 .1077 -.0487 Air Force .054 .120 .250 .156
130 +1 .0924 +.0029 UCLA .013 .491 .000 .202
131 -9 .0875 -.0608 Arkansas State .050 .252 .200 .092
132 -2 .0599 -.0335 Eastern Michigan .038 .132 .200 .041
133 .0593 -.0133 Middle Tennessee .034 .099 .200 .052
134 .0593 -.0061 Sam Houston .017 .618 .000 .064
135 .0558 -.0033 Charlotte .039 .041 .250 .024
136 .0504 +.0319 Massachusetts .018 .666 .000 .023Unlike my predictive ratings, these are based heavily on strength of record, meaning that they give more weight to a team’s past accomplishments than what the team is expected to do in the future. Although the outcome of the Alabama-Georgia game didn’t move the predictive ratings much, it had a large impact here. Alabama’s strength of record last week was .687. This week, it’s .870, and that’s because this is a very quality win for the Tide. It also gave their strength of schedule a boost, though that’s a smaller factor. Is Alabama back? The game had no meaningful effect on their predictive rating, but it certainly puts them right back in the playoff picture.
Florida State’s strength of record component dropped from .955 to .822 after losing to Virginia. The game had a negligible effect on Florida State’s predictive record, it increased their schedule strength component, and winning percentage just isn’t weighted enough for this to have an impact this large. But the loss has a large impact on strength of record, and that’s enough to move them down significantly.
Oregon jumped seven spots, and that’s mainly the effects of the strength of record component going from .863 to .925 and a strength of schedule increase as well. Illinois also made a big jump, some of which is due to their predictive rating component going from .803 to .860, but the bigger factor is their strength of record increasing from .827 to .916. The predictive ratings have USC highly ranked, so this looks like a very good win, and it’s enough to jump Illinois 19 spots.
Week 6 Early Predictions
These are the predictions for upcoming games this weekend using the preliminary ratings from this article. As usual, games are ranked based on the projected quality. This factors in the overall strength of the two teams and the potential for a competitive game. Game quality ratings are not directly comparable between college football and the NFL. NFL games are typically decided by smaller margins than college games, the teams are more balanced in their quality, and there’s just not as much scoring in the NFL. Thresholds for close games and blowouts are also different between college and the NFL for the same reasons.
Beside each team, there are two numbers in parentheses. One is the predicted margin of victory (positive) or defeat (negative), the other is the probability of winning. These margins are sometimes larger than what’s indicated by the predicted score. That’s because there’s nothing in the math that prevents a prediction of negative points with a sufficiently lopsided matchup. This is, of course, impossible, so the score is set to zero in those instances. There’s no cap on how many points a team can be projected to score, though.
I haven’t gone back to check for certain, but it’s very possible some of the competitiveness ratings could have looked a bit odd last week, and they weren’t quite right. This number shouldn’t be over 100%, but I noticed in a couple of places that it was. My code predicts the margin of victory and the distribution of possible outcomes by fitting the past prediction errors to the Student’s t-distribution. If the degrees of freedom in the best fit distribution is large enough, I just use a normal distribution. The competitiveness rating is implemented as a ratio in my code. One part of the ratio was with the normal distribution and the other was using the Student’s t-distribution. It wasn’t a big problem because the numbers didn’t change that much, and I’m not going to go back and edit my predictions from last week. It’s been fixed for this week, so the numbers should be correct here.
#1: Texas (3.46, 58.07%) at Florida (-3.46, 41.93%)
Estimated score: 18.89 - 15.76, Total: 34.65
Quality: 97.67%, Team quality: 97.24%, Competitiveness: 98.53%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.07%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.33%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 20.55%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 53.39%
#2: Virginia (0.10, 50.23%) at Louisville (-0.10, 49.77%)
Estimated score: 39.39 - 39.59, Total: 78.99
Quality: 97.49%, Team quality: 96.26%, Competitiveness: 100.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.49%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.97%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 61.97%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 14.88%
#3: Iowa State (-1.14, 47.33%) at Cincinnati (1.14, 52.67%)
Estimated score: 25.67 - 27.14, Total: 52.81
Quality: 97.40%, Team quality: 96.20%, Competitiveness: 99.84%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.55%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.90%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.92%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.33%
#4: Miami (6.18, 64.21%) at Florida State (-6.18, 35.79%)
Estimated score: 29.25 - 23.26, Total: 52.51
Quality: 97.37%, Team quality: 98.38%, Competitiveness: 95.37%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.36%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.95%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.64%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.62%
#5: Colorado (-4.22, 40.17%) at TCU (4.22, 59.83%)
Estimated score: 27.35 - 31.65, Total: 59.01
Quality: 95.91%, Team quality: 94.97%, Competitiveness: 97.82%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.36%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.01%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.95%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.67%
#6: Kansas (4.18, 59.72%) at UCF (-4.18, 40.28%)
Estimated score: 28.47 - 24.18, Total: 52.65
Quality: 95.23%, Team quality: 93.94%, Competitiveness: 97.86%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.34%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.03%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.77%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.49%
#7: Kansas State (2.10, 54.93%) at Baylor (-2.10, 45.07%)
Estimated score: 35.36 - 33.25, Total: 68.61
Quality: 94.88%, Team quality: 92.68%, Competitiveness: 99.45%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.70%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.73%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 51.63%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 21.83%
#8: Vanderbilt (-10.44, 26.97%) at Alabama (10.44, 73.03%)
Estimated score: 30.22 - 40.92, Total: 71.14
Quality: 94.33%, Team quality: 98.03%, Competitiveness: 87.33%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.85%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.55%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 54.19%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 19.99%
#9: Syracuse (-1.91, 45.51%) at SMU (1.91, 54.49%)
Estimated score: 26.98 - 28.73, Total: 55.72
Quality: 94.02%, Team quality: 91.37%, Competitiveness: 99.55%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.66%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.77%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.72%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.63%
#10: Texas Tech (9.75, 71.67%) at Houston (-9.75, 28.33%)
Estimated score: 33.11 - 23.09, Total: 56.19
Quality: 93.73%, Team quality: 96.25%, Competitiveness: 88.87%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.16%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.19%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 39.18%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.19%
#11: Washington (9.91, 71.99%) at Maryland (-9.91, 28.01%)
Estimated score: 35.39 - 25.51, Total: 60.90
Quality: 93.53%, Team quality: 96.14%, Competitiveness: 88.52%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.31%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.05%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 43.84%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.04%
#12: UTSA (-0.87, 47.96%) at Temple (0.87, 52.04%)
Estimated score: 37.06 - 38.01, Total: 75.07
Quality: 93.47%, Team quality: 90.41%, Competitiveness: 99.91%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.52%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.93%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 58.13%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 17.31%
#13: Illinois (9.50, 71.18%) at Purdue (-9.50, 28.82%)
Estimated score: 24.54 - 15.03, Total: 39.58
Quality: 93.45%, Team quality: 95.55%, Competitiveness: 89.40%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.92%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.41%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 24.29%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 48.40%
#14: Duke (7.17, 66.34%) at California (-7.17, 33.66%)
Estimated score: 30.19 - 22.76, Total: 52.95
Quality: 93.04%, Team quality: 92.65%, Competitiveness: 93.83%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.00%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.29%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 36.05%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.20%
#15: Boston College (-5.97, 36.26%) at Pittsburgh (5.97, 63.74%)
Estimated score: 32.56 - 38.61, Total: 71.17
Quality: 92.96%, Team quality: 91.62%, Competitiveness: 95.68%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.23%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.08%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 54.21%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 19.97%
#16: Mississippi State (-11.19, 25.55%) at Texas A&M (11.19, 74.45%)
Estimated score: 21.96 - 33.12, Total: 55.08
Quality: 92.85%, Team quality: 96.70%, Competitiveness: 85.60%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 14.65%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.84%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.10%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.22%
#17: Western Kentucky (1.06, 52.49%) at Delaware (-1.06, 47.51%)
Estimated score: 30.42 - 29.47, Total: 59.89
Quality: 92.39%, Team quality: 88.87%, Competitiveness: 99.86%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.54%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.91%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 42.83%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.90%
#18: Wake Forest (-6.36, 35.40%) at Virginia Tech (6.36, 64.60%)
Estimated score: 19.70 - 26.21, Total: 45.91
Quality: 92.34%, Team quality: 90.98%, Competitiveness: 95.11%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.47%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.84%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.61%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 42.03%
#19: UNLV (1.02, 52.40%) at Wyoming (-1.02, 47.60%)
Estimated score: 27.25 - 26.36, Total: 53.61
Quality: 92.30%, Team quality: 88.73%, Competitiveness: 99.87%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.54%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.92%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 36.68%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.59%
#20: Miami (OH) (-0.68, 48.41%) at Northern Illinois (0.68, 51.59%)
Estimated score: 14.46 - 15.12, Total: 29.57
Quality: 90.54%, Team quality: 86.18%, Competitiveness: 99.94%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.51%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.95%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 17.08%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 58.48%
#21: South Alabama (-3.19, 42.54%) at Troy (3.19, 57.46%)
Estimated score: 27.28 - 30.14, Total: 57.42
Quality: 89.44%, Team quality: 85.13%, Competitiveness: 98.75%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.98%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.42%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 40.39%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.08%
#22: New Mexico (11.12, 74.32%) at San José State (-11.12, 25.68%)
Estimated score: 33.03 - 21.78, Total: 54.81
Quality: 87.98%, Team quality: 89.11%, Competitiveness: 85.76%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 14.57%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.91%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 37.84%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.47%
#23: Clemson (11.61, 75.23%) at North Carolina (-11.61, 24.77%)
Estimated score: 26.43 - 14.81, Total: 41.24
Quality: 87.66%, Team quality: 89.24%, Competitiveness: 84.57%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.13%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.42%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 25.63%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 46.72%
#24: Florida Atlantic (-2.15, 44.96%) at Rice (2.15, 55.04%)
Estimated score: 28.70 - 30.69, Total: 59.39
Quality: 87.58%, Team quality: 82.20%, Competitiveness: 99.43%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.71%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.72%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 42.34%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.34%
#25: Florida International (-9.86, 28.10%) at UConn (9.86, 71.90%)
Estimated score: 21.93 - 31.59, Total: 53.52
Quality: 87.09%, Team quality: 86.33%, Competitiveness: 88.62%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.27%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.09%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 36.60%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.67%
#26: Central Michigan (0.43, 51.00%) at Akron (-0.43, 49.00%)
Estimated score: 22.75 - 22.22, Total: 44.97
Quality: 85.95%, Team quality: 79.69%, Competitiveness: 99.98%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.49%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.96%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.78%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 42.97%
#27: Colorado State (-13.00, 22.29%) at San Diego State (13.00, 77.71%)
Estimated score: 5.65 - 18.73, Total: 24.37
Quality: 85.26%, Team quality: 87.46%, Competitiveness: 81.04%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 16.82%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 24.00%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 13.94%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 63.54%
#28: Oregon State (10.40, 72.96%) at App State (-10.40, 27.04%)
Estimated score: 29.16 - 18.89, Total: 48.04
Quality: 84.11%, Team quality: 82.50%, Competitiveness: 87.42%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.81%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.59%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 31.50%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.93%
#29: Sam Houston (-6.61, 34.86%) at New Mexico State (6.61, 65.14%)
Estimated score: 22.55 - 29.33, Total: 51.87
Quality: 83.85%, Team quality: 78.89%, Competitiveness: 94.73%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.63%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.67%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.04%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.22%
#30: Army (14.63, 80.44%) at UAB (-14.63, 19.56%)
Estimated score: 40.16 - 25.79, Total: 65.95
Quality: 83.80%, Team quality: 87.67%, Competitiveness: 76.58%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 19.06%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 22.24%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 48.94%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 23.88%
#31: Kentucky (-19.53, 12.74%) at Georgia (19.53, 87.26%)
Estimated score: 11.73 - 31.38, Total: 43.11
Quality: 82.72%, Team quality: 95.52%, Competitiveness: 62.03%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 27.24%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 16.83%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 27.19%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 44.84%
#32: Air Force (-15.77, 17.80%) at Navy (15.77, 82.20%)
Estimated score: 26.86 - 42.68, Total: 69.54
Quality: 82.23%, Team quality: 87.08%, Competitiveness: 73.32%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 20.76%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.99%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 52.57%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 21.14%
#33: Texas State (16.17, 82.79%) at Arkansas State (-16.17, 17.21%)
Estimated score: 38.83 - 22.79, Total: 61.62
Quality: 80.84%, Team quality: 85.56%, Competitiveness: 72.16%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 21.39%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.55%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 44.56%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 27.42%
#34: Ohio (16.56, 83.36%) at Ball State (-16.56, 16.64%)
Estimated score: 37.45 - 21.02, Total: 58.47
Quality: 80.79%, Team quality: 86.17%, Competitiveness: 71.02%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 22.01%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.12%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.42%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 30.15%
#35: Michigan State (-21.73, 10.33%) at Nebraska (21.73, 89.67%)
Estimated score: 17.82 - 39.36, Total: 57.18
Quality: 79.61%, Team quality: 95.49%, Competitiveness: 55.33%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 31.54%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 14.51%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 40.15%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.30%
#36: Eastern Michigan (-13.68, 21.12%) at Buffalo (13.68, 78.88%)
Estimated score: 19.36 - 32.90, Total: 52.26
Quality: 78.83%, Team quality: 78.63%, Competitiveness: 79.21%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 17.72%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 23.27%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.40%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.86%
#37: Nevada (-18.61, 13.87%) at Fresno State (18.61, 86.13%)
Estimated score: 11.18 - 29.88, Total: 41.06
Quality: 77.95%, Team quality: 85.47%, Competitiveness: 64.85%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 25.54%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 17.84%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 25.49%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 46.90%
#38: UL Monroe (-18.20, 14.40%) at Northwestern (18.20, 85.60%)
Estimated score: 7.53 - 25.57, Total: 33.10
Quality: 77.07%, Team quality: 83.21%, Competitiveness: 66.11%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 24.80%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 18.30%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 19.45%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 54.96%
#39: Wisconsin (-23.50, 8.64%) at Michigan (23.50, 91.36%)
Estimated score: 10.49 - 34.33, Total: 44.82
Quality: 76.83%, Team quality: 95.25%, Competitiveness: 49.99%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 35.26%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 12.73%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.65%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.12%
#40: Tulsa (-23.46, 8.68%) at Memphis (23.46, 91.32%)
Estimated score: 10.57 - 33.86, Total: 44.43
Quality: 73.32%, Team quality: 88.69%, Competitiveness: 50.10%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 35.18%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 12.77%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.31%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.51%
#41: James Madison (25.30, 92.84%) at Georgia State (-25.30, 7.16%)
Estimated score: 38.98 - 13.56, Total: 52.54
Quality: 68.01%, Team quality: 83.89%, Competitiveness: 44.70%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 39.22%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 11.04%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.67%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.58%
#42: Penn State (27.85, 94.58%) at UCLA (-27.85, 5.42%)
Estimated score: 36.81 - 8.76, Total: 45.57
Quality: 67.97%, Team quality: 91.35%, Competitiveness: 37.62%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 45.05%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 8.88%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.30%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 42.38%
#43: Western Michigan (24.31, 92.05%) at Massachusetts (-24.31, 7.95%)
Estimated score: 34.52 - 9.95, Total: 44.47
Quality: 67.42%, Team quality: 80.24%, Competitiveness: 47.59%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 37.02%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 11.95%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.35%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.47%
#44: Oklahoma State (-29.31, 4.60%) at Arizona (29.31, 95.40%)
Estimated score: 7.96 - 37.02, Total: 44.98
Quality: 62.96%, Team quality: 85.87%, Competitiveness: 33.84%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 48.45%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 7.79%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.79%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 42.96%
#45: Boise State (-33.56, 2.77%) at Notre Dame (33.56, 97.23%)
Estimated score: 21.65 - 55.32, Total: 76.97
Quality: 60.33%, Team quality: 95.46%, Competitiveness: 24.10%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 58.34%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 5.13%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 60.00%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 16.10%
#46: Coastal Carolina (-33.26, 2.87%) at Old Dominion (33.26, 97.13%)
Estimated score: 2.46 - 35.85, Total: 38.31
Quality: 57.84%, Team quality: 88.52%, Competitiveness: 24.70%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 57.67%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 5.29%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 23.30%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 49.69%
#47: Minnesota (-35.65, 2.13%) at Ohio State (35.65, 97.87%)
Estimated score: 0.00 - 33.20, Total: 33.20
Quality: 56.79%, Team quality: 95.58%, Competitiveness: 20.04%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 63.07%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 4.11%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 19.52%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 54.86%
#48: West Virginia (-35.77, 2.10%) at BYU (35.77, 97.90%)
Estimated score: 5.40 - 41.26, Total: 46.66
Quality: 55.33%, Team quality: 92.41%, Competitiveness: 19.83%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 63.33%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 4.06%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 30.26%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.30%
#49: Charlotte (-45.69, 0.55%) at South Florida (45.69, 99.45%)
Estimated score: 1.19 - 47.00, Total: 48.19
Quality: 36.48%, Team quality: 82.13%, Competitiveness: 7.19%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 82.08%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 1.24%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 31.63%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.78%
#50: Campbell (-44.97, 0.61%) at NC State (44.97, 99.39%)
Estimated score: 10.17 - 55.25, Total: 65.41
Quality: 35.59%, Team quality: 76.02%, Competitiveness: 7.80%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 80.98%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 1.36%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 48.39%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 24.30%
#51: Kent State (-53.72, 0.17%) at Oklahoma (53.72, 99.83%)
Estimated score: 0.00 - 51.53, Total: 51.53
Quality: 26.41%, Team quality: 82.33%, Competitiveness: 2.72%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 91.56%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.42%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.71%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.55%I’ll post final predictions in a day or two when the data set for my ratings is complete. Right now, it’s time for me to get some more sleep. Thanks for reading!
Data for this ratings comes from collegefootballdata.com.