The Linked Letters After Dark: Week 14 Playoff Rankings
Updated computer ratings, and ranking all the teams that can still reach the college football playoff
At least for one week, The Linked Letters After Dark is back to being a late night column. It’s a few minutes before 4 AM as I write this, a bit later than I’d hoped for when I decided to post this tonight, but still properly late at night. I’ve already posted updated ratings for this week on another page, but I’ll include them in this column. More importantly, I want to discuss the teams I believe have a plausible chance of reaching the college football playoff.
I disagree with some of the selection committee’s decisions, especially placing one loss BYU behind multiple SEC teams with two losses. Instead of repeating the same complaints, my plan is to analyze the teams that I believe can plausibly reach the playoff. After the new computer ratings, I’ll split the playoff contenders into six tiers. The first five tiers are the teams that I actually think are plausible playoff contenders. The sixth tier includes teams that can make the playoff, but they need the committee’s help to reconsider their ranking instead of just reaching the playoff with a combination of winning and lots of help from other teams losing.
Let’s get to this week’s ratings, which are final ratings instead of the preliminary ratings in other editions of The Linked Letters After Dark.
Predictive Ratings
These are forward looking ratings, meaning that they’re intended to evaluate how good a team is and predict its future success, but they don’t evaluate the quality of a team’s achievements earlier in the season. These ratings are based purely on points.
The offense and defense columns refer to each team’s point scoring tendencies instead of the efficiency ratings that some other rating systems use. The overall rating is approximately the sum of a team’s offense and defense ratings. To predict the score of a game for the home team, take the home team’s offense rating, add half of the home advantage, subtract the visiting team’s defense rating, and add the mean score. Predicting the score is similar for the visiting team. Take the visiting team’s offense rating, subtract half of the home advantage, subtract the home team’s defense rating, and add the mean score. Predicting the margin of victory for a game is done by taking the home team’s rating, adding the home advantage, and subtracting the away team’s rating. For neutral site games, the home advantage is set to zero.
The last column here is SOR, which means strength of record. Unlike all the other columns, this is a backward looking rating and evaluates the quality of a team’s wins and losses in comparison to a hypothetical team with a rating 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS mean. Such a hypothetical team would typically be ranked somewhere between #10 and #15. Strength of record is just each team’s actual winning percentage minus the expected winning percentage for that hypothetical team against the same schedule. This is negative for most teams because their record is being compared against the expected record for a pretty good team.
Predictive Ratings
Home advantage: 1.84 points
Mean score: 26.84 points
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
1 90.30 +1.97 Indiana 46.91 43.18 .189
2 86.40 +0.11 Ohio State 39.27 47.41 .174
3 84.74 +0.88 Oregon 43.64 41.09 .176
4 82.16 -0.04 Notre Dame 43.31 38.85 -.000
5 81.46 +2.14 Texas Tech 41.12 40.44 .051
6 78.21 -0.55 Utah 42.51 35.66 -.024
7 +4 76.06 +2.83 Miami 34.02 42.04 .004
8 -1 75.61 -0.85 Alabama 37.80 37.78 .068
9 -1 74.17 -0.29 USC 40.38 33.85 -.005
10 +3 73.28 +0.37 BYU 36.12 37.22 .111
11 +1 73.25 +0.05 Washington 38.30 34.87 -.123
12 +3 73.01 +1.15 Vanderbilt 41.91 31.11 .015
13 -3 72.40 -0.84 Georgia 32.57 39.74 .097
14 -5 72.31 -1.14 Texas A&M 38.73 33.59 .117
15 +3 72.22 +1.53 Iowa 30.67 41.62 -.068
16 -2 71.87 -0.41 Oklahoma 29.30 42.44 .056
17 -1 71.38 +0.34 Ole Miss 40.05 31.28 .063
18 -1 70.91 +0.19 Penn State 36.24 34.62 -.220
19 69.73 -0.69 Michigan 33.38 36.22 -.021
20 +4 68.31 +1.27 South Florida 39.34 29.10 -.137
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
21 68.02 +0.20 Texas 31.79 36.23 .005
22 67.81 +0.41 Missouri 32.34 35.34 -.128
23 -3 67.47 -1.80 Tennessee 41.56 25.84 -.146
24 +4 66.81 +1.51 Arizona 32.07 34.72 -.144
25 66.42 +0.72 North Texas 42.74 23.67 -.048
26 -3 65.75 -1.42 Florida State 34.05 31.68 -.425
27 -1 65.57 -0.00 Illinois 32.73 32.98 -.076
28 -1 65.01 -0.38 Auburn 29.01 36.02 -.346
29 +1 64.72 +0.38 LSU 26.09 38.73 -.176
30 -1 63.55 -1.17 Pittsburgh 34.85 28.65 -.175
31 62.88 -0.50 Iowa State 29.41 33.49 -.197
32 +15 62.67 +4.33 Louisville 31.66 31.04 -.208
33 +2 62.65 +0.97 Virginia 31.83 30.82 -.101
34 +4 62.49 +2.31 James Madison 30.24 32.43 -.055
35 +4 61.98 +1.87 Florida 27.13 34.81 -.382
36 -3 61.61 -0.60 SMU 30.42 31.26 -.239
37 +4 61.12 +1.70 TCU 32.05 29.06 -.218
38 -6 60.99 -1.54 Nebraska 31.24 29.61 -.253
39 +3 60.14 +0.85 Kansas State 32.15 27.77 -.318
40 -6 59.77 -1.92 South Carolina 25.69 34.08 -.417
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
41 -5 59.48 -1.03 Cincinnati 31.49 28.14 -.255
42 +3 59.43 +0.96 Georgia Tech 31.28 28.04 -.163
43 +10 59.19 +2.24 Clemson 27.87 31.21 -.325
44 -4 58.93 -0.96 Arizona State 24.80 34.13 -.150
45 +4 58.18 +0.83 Houston 28.51 29.58 -.143
46 +10 58.11 +1.95 East Carolina 28.49 29.54 -.270
47 +1 58.09 -0.00 Toledo 26.78 31.30 -.313
48 +4 57.87 +0.91 NC State 31.30 26.46 -.222
49 -5 57.81 -0.95 Mississippi State 32.20 25.69 -.377
50 -7 57.72 -1.23 Arkansas 34.69 22.89 -.576
51 -5 57.60 -0.78 Wisconsin 20.52 37.25 -.279
52 -1 57.30 +0.18 Northwestern 23.75 33.73 -.270
53 -16 57.14 -3.11 Kentucky 26.39 30.76 -.358
54 +7 56.56 +2.15 Duke 34.11 22.35 -.347
55 56.54 +0.35 Boise State 28.16 28.38 -.220
56 +3 56.49 +1.46 Kansas 29.90 26.59 -.376
57 -7 56.08 -1.21 Memphis 28.43 27.74 -.289
58 -1 55.71 -0.42 Old Dominion 26.54 29.17 -.152
59 -5 55.28 -1.09 Wake Forest 23.14 32.25 -.255
60 -2 55.26 -0.35 San Diego State 21.84 33.29 -.229
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
61 +1 54.93 +0.75 Rutgers 31.98 23.05 -.308
62 -2 54.87 -0.10 Tulane 25.57 29.37 -.096
63 +2 54.71 +1.00 Michigan State 28.02 26.79 -.422
64 54.70 +0.89 Washington State 21.44 33.34 -.355
65 +3 54.52 +1.40 Minnesota 25.52 29.07 -.201
66 53.34 -0.28 Baylor 32.58 20.72 -.427
67 -4 53.20 -0.67 UTSA 30.57 22.59 -.389
68 -1 52.85 -0.58 Maryland 25.06 27.74 -.477
69 +2 52.76 +1.17 UNLV 33.16 19.52 -.148
70 52.64 +0.54 New Mexico 24.79 27.82 -.192
71 +2 51.62 +0.85 UCF 22.47 29.20 -.432
72 51.54 +0.65 UCLA 24.15 27.35 -.411
73 +1 51.37 +0.62 Utah State 28.37 23.00 -.398
74 -5 51.33 -1.39 Purdue 23.97 27.50 -.480
75 +1 51.00 +2.25 Navy 25.84 25.09 -.048
76 +4 49.85 +1.69 Army 18.74 31.09 -.392
77 +2 49.25 +1.02 UConn 28.11 21.15 -.242
78 -1 49.09 +0.61 Virginia Tech 24.65 24.41 -.580
79 +2 48.86 +0.88 Colorado 23.67 25.12 -.573
80 -5 48.44 -1.10 West Virginia 24.24 24.20 -.462
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
81 +1 48.18 +0.90 Stanford 21.12 27.06 -.447
82 -4 48.02 -0.36 Western Michigan 18.69 29.41 -.276
83 +3 47.51 +1.44 Hawai’i 23.11 24.38 -.293
84 -1 47.34 +0.45 Louisiana Tech 21.77 25.46 -.385
85 +6 46.89 +2.65 California 22.97 23.91 -.355
86 +3 46.86 +1.71 Fresno State 21.00 25.81 -.308
87 -3 46.39 -0.43 Western Kentucky 23.47 22.92 -.298
88 46.37 +0.91 Texas State 29.77 16.57 -.470
89 -4 46.26 -0.41 Ohio 23.86 22.37 -.250
90 -3 46.07 +0.29 Miami (OH) 21.31 24.85 -.389
91 -1 45.31 +0.45 Kennesaw State 23.75 21.45 -.164
92 +4 45.15 +2.70 Boston College 24.95 19.97 -.703
93 -1 44.08 -0.05 Temple 24.84 19.27 -.497
94 +3 43.74 +2.01 Air Force 24.80 18.89 -.642
95 43.65 +0.61 North Carolina 17.81 25.76 -.609
96 -3 42.68 -1.04 Syracuse 20.80 21.85 -.550
97 -3 42.59 -0.84 Marshall 24.90 17.68 -.525
98 +1 40.84 -0.23 Wyoming 12.29 28.49 -.603
99 +10 40.83 +2.69 Florida International 20.36 20.44 -.374
100 -2 40.68 -0.61 Southern Miss 21.58 19.10 -.407
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
101 +5 40.50 +1.22 Jacksonville State 21.20 19.31 -.327
102 +3 40.49 +1.05 Troy 18.28 22.41 -.307
103 -3 40.23 -0.77 Missouri State 20.35 19.74 -.356
104 39.80 +0.25 Liberty 19.78 20.09 -.644
105 -3 39.75 -0.30 Central Michigan 17.53 22.14 -.354
106 -5 39.43 -0.78 Tulsa 19.02 20.40 -.639
107 39.16 -0.09 Oregon State 17.57 21.50 -.678
108 +7 38.17 +1.99 Oklahoma State 16.05 22.04 -.707
109 -6 38.15 -1.44 Florida Atlantic 24.71 13.43 -.609
110 -2 37.73 -0.60 Nevada 14.60 23.07 -.689
111 -1 37.08 -1.02 Louisiana 19.91 17.17 -.451
112 +1 36.96 +0.04 Arkansas State 16.60 20.37 -.478
113 +3 36.83 +1.29 Georgia Southern 22.32 14.38 -.429
114 -3 36.79 -1.30 Colorado State 17.30 19.44 -.759
115 +6 36.02 +1.18 Bowling Green 12.99 22.93 -.628
116 +3 35.92 +0.95 UAB 21.50 14.51 -.585
117 +9 35.89 +2.45 Delaware 22.19 13.89 -.486
118 -6 35.74 -1.23 San José State 20.02 15.89 -.702
119 -5 35.49 -1.01 South Alabama 18.90 16.65 -.612
120 34.92 -0.03 App State 17.83 17.09 -.549
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
121 +3 34.90 +0.85 Buffalo 15.29 19.55 -.574
122 -5 34.71 -0.83 Rice 14.45 20.20 -.514
123 -5 33.58 -1.69 New Mexico State 13.69 19.90 -.629
124 -1 33.33 -1.29 Northern Illinois 11.61 21.72 -.718
125 +2 32.86 +0.24 Eastern Michigan 18.95 13.78 -.652
126 -4 32.33 -2.31 UTEP 16.65 15.69 -.797
127 +1 32.13 +0.15 Akron 15.37 16.74 -.557
128 -3 31.64 -2.13 Coastal Carolina 17.79 13.83 -.444
129 31.38 +1.14 Middle Tennessee 15.45 15.83 -.736
130 +1 29.57 +0.95 Kent State 18.04 11.63 -.445
131 -1 29.49 -0.67 Ball State 12.32 17.33 -.623
132 +1 28.46 +1.36 Georgia State 14.68 13.55 -.811
133 -1 28.25 +0.38 Charlotte 11.69 16.49 -.803
134 +1 25.33 +0.73 UL Monroe 10.36 14.96 -.684
135 -1 24.30 -1.68 Sam Houston 12.91 11.38 -.794
136 12.65 -0.68 Massachusetts 5.67 6.98 -.926Schedule Strength
There are two different measures of schedule strength in this table. The first two columns measure the difficulty a team’s past and future schedules would pose for a team that would be 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS mean. The columns are the team’s expected losing percentage against that schedule, meaning that higher numbers indicate a stronger schedule. This should be somewhat similar to the schedule strength from ESPN’s FPI ratings.
The last two columns are also the past and future schedules, but they’re just the average of the opponents’ predictive ratings with an adjustment for the site of the game. Schedule strength is a factor in deciding which teams belong in the college football playoff, and these two columns aren’t always representative of the schedule strength for a team near the top of the ratings. These ratings should be closer to the schedule strength in Jeff Sagarin’s ratings, which are the rating a team would need to be expected to win exactly 50% of games against that team’s schedule.
Past and Future Schedule Strength
Home advantage: 1.84 points
Mean score: 26.84 points
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
1 Indiana .189 (35) .832 (2) 56.31 (36) 86.40 (2)
2 Ohio State .174 (42) .899 (1) 55.42 (44) 90.30 (1)
3 Oregon .260 (8) --- 61.19 (5) ---
4 Notre Dame .166 (45) --- 57.74 (27) ---
5 Texas Tech .135 (58) .465 (5) 48.60 (76) 73.28 (5)
6 Utah .143 (55) --- 55.48 (42) ---
7 Miami .171 (43) --- 55.60 (39) ---
8 Alabama .235 (17) .437 (6) 58.27 (22) 72.40 (6)
9 USC .245 (14) --- 60.30 (9) ---
10 BYU .195 (32) .715 (3) 56.48 (34) 81.46 (3)
11 Washington .210 (24) --- 58.35 (20) ---
12 Vanderbilt .182 (39) --- 55.71 (38) ---
13 Georgia .180 (40) .540 (4) 57.09 (29) 75.61 (4)
14 Texas A&M .201 (30) --- 57.80 (25) ---
15 Iowa .266 (7) --- 57.03 (30) ---
16 Oklahoma .223 (21) --- 59.42 (12) ---
17 Ole Miss .146 (53) --- 54.53 (48) ---
18 Penn State .280 (5) --- 60.28 (11) ---
19 Michigan .229 (19) --- 60.92 (6) ---
20 South Florida .113 (65) --- 48.55 (77) ---
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
21 Texas .255 (11) --- 58.43 (18) ---
22 Missouri .206 (28) --- 54.46 (49) ---
23 Tennessee .187 (36) --- 55.20 (47) ---
24 Arizona .106 (69) --- 52.98 (56) ---
25 North Texas .036 (112) .079 (11) 43.79 (95) 56.71 (11)
26 Florida State .158 (49) --- 54.01 (52) ---
27 Illinois .257 (10) --- 59.37 (14) ---
28 Auburn .237 (16) --- 58.31 (21) ---
29 LSU .240 (15) --- 60.64 (7) ---
30 Pittsburgh .158 (48) --- 53.45 (54) ---
31 Iowa State .136 (57) --- 55.26 (46) ---
32 Louisville .126 (61) --- 53.23 (55) ---
33 Virginia .065 (87) .077 (12) 49.43 (69) 56.56 (12)
34 James Madison .028 (118) .002 (20) 41.08 (109) 38.65 (20)
35 Florida .284 (4) --- 62.94 (4) ---
36 SMU .094 (72) --- 50.30 (65) ---
37 TCU .116 (62) --- 55.49 (41) ---
38 Nebraska .164 (46) --- 54.20 (51) ---
39 Kansas State .182 (38) --- 57.90 (24) ---
40 South Carolina .249 (12) --- 59.38 (13) ---
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
41 Cincinnati .161 (47) --- 52.39 (58) ---
42 Georgia Tech .087 (74) --- 51.28 (62) ---
43 Clemson .092 (73) --- 51.34 (61) ---
44 Arizona State .184 (37) --- 57.78 (26) ---
45 Houston .107 (67) --- 51.84 (60) ---
46 East Carolina .063 (89) --- 45.03 (88) ---
47 Toledo .020 (128) --- 38.24 (131) ---
48 NC State .194 (33) --- 56.86 (32) ---
49 Mississippi State .207 (27) --- 56.16 (37) ---
50 Arkansas .258 (9) --- 58.99 (15) ---
51 Wisconsin .388 (1) --- 66.58 (2) ---
52 Northwestern .230 (18) --- 56.43 (35) ---
53 Kentucky .225 (20) --- 60.29 (10) ---
54 Duke .069 (85) .174 (9) 51.86 (59) 62.65 (9)
55 Boise State .113 (64) .030 (14) 48.99 (70) 50.91 (14)
56 Kansas .207 (26) --- 55.48 (43) ---
57 Memphis .045 (104) --- 43.95 (94) ---
58 Old Dominion .098 (71) --- 41.88 (105) ---
59 Wake Forest .078 (79) --- 50.08 (67) ---
60 San Diego State .021 (127) --- 42.74 (101) ---
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
61 Rutgers .276 (6) --- 58.51 (17) ---
62 Tulane .071 (82) .216 (7) 48.99 (71) 64.58 (7)
63 Michigan State .245 (13) --- 60.42 (8) ---
64 Washington State .145 (54) --- 53.61 (53) ---
65 Minnesota .216 (23) --- 54.31 (50) ---
66 Baylor .156 (50) --- 55.27 (45) ---
67 UTSA .111 (66) --- 48.85 (75) ---
68 Maryland .190 (34) --- 55.57 (40) ---
69 UNLV .019 (129) .100 (10) 44.03 (93) 58.39 (10)
70 New Mexico .058 (95) --- 47.16 (81) ---
71 UCF .151 (52) --- 50.59 (63) ---
72 UCLA .339 (3) --- 67.04 (1) ---
73 Utah State .102 (70) --- 47.44 (80) ---
74 Purdue .353 (2) --- 64.34 (3) ---
75 Navy .134 (59) .025 (15) 45.95 (86) 49.85 (15)
76 Army .062 (91) .031 (13) 48.90 (74) 51.00 (13)
77 UConn .008 (135) --- 37.96 (133) ---
78 Virginia Tech .170 (44) --- 57.98 (23) ---
79 Colorado .177 (41) --- 58.37 (19) ---
80 West Virginia .205 (29) --- 56.87 (31) ---
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
81 Stanford .219 (22) --- 58.67 (16) ---
82 Western Michigan .057 (99) .012 (17) 43.08 (98) 46.07 (17)
83 Hawai’i .041 (107) --- 42.63 (103) ---
84 Louisiana Tech .031 (116) --- 41.06 (110) ---
85 California .061 (92) --- 48.93 (73) ---
86 Fresno State .025 (123) --- 40.79 (113) ---
87 Western Kentucky .036 (113) --- 39.40 (124) ---
88 Texas State .030 (117) --- 40.56 (115) ---
89 Ohio .083 (77) --- 40.47 (116) ---
90 Miami (OH) .028 (120) .017 (16) 41.69 (107) 48.02 (16)
91 Kennesaw State .086 (75) .005 (19) 41.83 (106) 42.35 (19)
92 Boston College .131 (60) --- 52.66 (57) ---
93 Temple .086 (76) --- 45.95 (85) ---
94 Air Force .025 (124) --- 44.39 (91) ---
95 North Carolina .057 (98) --- 48.97 (72) ---
96 Syracuse .200 (31) --- 56.70 (33) ---
97 Marshall .058 (96) --- 41.98 (104) ---
98 Wyoming .064 (88) --- 44.98 (89) ---
99 Florida International .043 (106) --- 39.25 (127) ---
100 Southern Miss .009 (134) --- 38.01 (132) ---
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
101 Jacksonville State .007 (136) .007 (18) 36.78 (134) 43.47 (18)
102 Troy .026 (122) .211 (8) 39.74 (123) 64.33 (8)
103 Missouri State .060 (94) --- 42.97 (99) ---
104 Liberty .022 (125) --- 40.88 (111) ---
105 Central Michigan .063 (90) --- 38.71 (130) ---
106 Tulsa .028 (119) --- 44.68 (90) ---
107 Oregon State .155 (51) --- 50.11 (66) ---
108 Oklahoma State .209 (25) --- 57.60 (28) ---
109 Florida Atlantic .058 (97) --- 45.17 (87) ---
110 Nevada .061 (93) --- 48.08 (79) ---
111 Louisiana .049 (102) --- 40.32 (117) ---
112 Arkansas State .022 (126) --- 39.91 (121) ---
113 Georgia Southern .071 (83) --- 42.94 (100) ---
114 Colorado State .075 (80) --- 49.61 (68) ---
115 Bowling Green .038 (109) --- 39.31 (125) ---
116 UAB .081 (78) --- 48.14 (78) ---
117 Delaware .014 (132) --- 39.28 (126) ---
118 San José State .048 (103) --- 46.93 (82) ---
119 South Alabama .055 (101) --- 39.96 (119) ---
120 App State .034 (114) --- 39.77 (122) ---
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
121 Buffalo .010 (133) --- 34.40 (136) ---
122 Rice .070 (84) --- 46.52 (83) ---
123 New Mexico State .038 (110) --- 39.95 (120) ---
124 Northern Illinois .032 (115) --- 40.74 (114) ---
125 Eastern Michigan .014 (130) --- 39.19 (128) ---
126 UTEP .037 (111) --- 39.18 (129) ---
127 Akron .027 (121) --- 36.77 (135) ---
128 Coastal Carolina .056 (100) --- 43.34 (97) ---
129 Middle Tennessee .014 (131) --- 40.23 (118) ---
130 Kent State .139 (56) --- 42.71 (102) ---
131 Ball State .044 (105) --- 43.49 (96) ---
132 Georgia State .106 (68) --- 46.24 (84) ---
133 Charlotte .113 (63) --- 50.57 (64) ---
134 UL Monroe .066 (86) --- 40.86 (112) ---
135 Sam Houston .040 (108) --- 44.05 (92) ---
136 Massachusetts .074 (81) --- 41.41 (108) --- Conference Ratings
To rate the overall quality of conferences, I calculate the expected outcome if each team in a conference were to play every FBS team at a neutral site. The Win% column is the average probability of winning for all of the possible games and for all the teams in the conference. It’s similar to the average rating of all the teams in the conference, but it should be less skewed by outliers.
However, the idea of the “best” conference is subjective, and another way to judge the quality of a conference is to consider how many of its teams are among the best in the FBS. What if instead of playing every team in the FBS, each conference opponent just plays a hypothetical opponent with a rating that’s 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS mean? In this case, the quality of a conference is determined by how its teams would be expected to perform against a hypothetical opponent ranked somewhere around #10 to #15 in the FBS. This is what I’ve done with the HighWin% column. It’s analogous to how I calculate strength of record, and each conference’s rating is impacted more when the conference has more highly rated teams.
Conference Ratings
Rank Win% Conference HighWin% Rating Offense Defense OffDef
1 .757 SEC .287 (3) 66.50 32.95 33.52 -0.57 (7)
2 .716 Big Ten .306 (2) 65.73 31.98 33.77 -1.79 (9)
3 .690 FBS Independents .378 (1) 65.70 35.71 30.00 5.72 (1)
4 .632 Big 12 .190 (4) 59.84 29.95 29.88 0.07 (5)
5 .575 ACC .119 (5) 56.25 28.05 28.16 -0.11 (6)
6 .436 American Athletic .066 (6) 48.46 25.42 23.03 2.39 (2)
7 .403 Pac-12 .030 (7) 46.93 19.50 27.42 -7.92 (11)
8 .394 Mountain West .025 (8) 46.48 22.45 24.00 -1.54 (8)
9 .279 Sun Belt .019 (9) 39.64 20.69 18.95 1.74 (3)
10 .249 Conference USA .004 (11) 38.16 19.30 18.84 0.46 (4)
11 .245 Mid-American .011 (10) 36.86 16.80 20.06 -3.26 (10)Playoff Ratings
Here are the four components of the playoff ratings:
The cumulative distribution function of the team’s strength of record for a hypothetical team 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS average. (SOR; 55%)
The cumulative distribution function of the team’s predictive rating (Fwd; 30%)
The team’s winning percentage (Win%; 10%)
The cumulative distribution function of the team’s strength of schedule for a hypothetical team 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS average. (SOS; 5%)
Unlike my predictive ratings, these are based heavily on strength of record, meaning that they give more weight to a team’s past accomplishments than what they’re expected to do in the future.
Playoff Ratings
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
1 .9792 -.0021 Indiana .985 .779 1.000 .995
2 +1 .9754 +.0078 Oregon .983 .944 .917 .986
3 -1 .9736 +.0055 Ohio State .983 .726 1.000 .990
4 +1 .9408 -.0012 BYU .968 .798 .917 .923
5 -1 .9398 -.0202 Texas A&M .970 .817 .917 .913
6 +1 .9357 -.0017 Alabama .953 .904 .833 .943
7 -1 .9332 -.0081 Georgia .963 .749 .917 .914
8 .9326 +.0001 Texas Tech .946 .556 .917 .976
9 .9211 -.0041 Oklahoma .948 .878 .833 .908
10 +1 .9167 -.0016 Notre Dame .918 .693 .833 .979
11 -1 .9159 -.0040 Ole Miss .951 .609 .917 .903
12 +4 .9096 +.0194 Miami .921 .712 .833 .947
13 .9073 +.0110 Vanderbilt .928 .754 .833 .920
14 -2 .9039 -.0011 USC .915 .922 .750 .931
15 .8978 +.0059 Utah .903 .592 .833 .961
16 +1 .8858 +.0110 Texas .921 .937 .750 .857
17 -3 .8819 -.0142 Michigan .905 .892 .750 .882
18 .8654 +.0192 Iowa .868 .952 .667 .912
19 +2 .8356 +.0078 North Texas .885 .156 .917 .831
20 -1 .8331 -.0081 Washington .813 .845 .667 .923
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
21 +1 .8320 +.0068 Illinois .861 .941 .667 .816
22 +1 .8091 +.0085 Missouri .808 .832 .667 .854
23 +1 .8087 +.0220 James Madison .879 .137 .917 .756
24 +3 .7950 +.0226 South Florida .798 .454 .750 .862
25 -5 .7927 -.0467 Tennessee .787 .772 .667 .849
26 +3 .7837 +.0181 Virginia .837 .253 .833 .759
27 +3 .7817 +.0271 Arizona .789 .422 .750 .838
28 -2 .7566 -.0261 LSU .750 .914 .583 .801
29 +5 .7469 +.0325 Penn State .690 .966 .500 .897
30 -2 .7461 -.0255 Pittsburgh .751 .660 .667 .778
31 -6 .7375 -.0465 Arizona State .783 .761 .667 .674
32 +3 .7353 +.0268 Navy .885 .551 .818 .464
33 -1 .7308 +.0037 Tulane .842 .273 .833 .569
34 +5 .7281 +.0272 Houston .791 .428 .750 .655
35 +3 .7212 +.0188 Iowa State .722 .564 .667 .764
36 -5 .7198 -.0164 Georgia Tech .767 .341 .750 .686
37 +10 .7093 +.0604 Louisville .707 .514 .667 .759
38 +2 .7012 +.0118 Old Dominion .781 .388 .750 .592
39 +6 .6888 +.0332 TCU .693 .467 .667 .726
40 +6 .6743 +.0211 UNLV .785 .113 .833 .512
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
41 +8 .6699 +.0279 NC State .686 .798 .583 .647
42 -9 .6699 -.0474 SMU .661 .370 .667 .737
43 +8 .6634 +.0347 Minnesota .717 .860 .583 .560
44 -8 .6614 -.0445 Nebraska .640 .682 .583 .722
45 +7 .6528 +.0263 Boise State .690 .457 .667 .613
46 -9 .6483 -.0559 Cincinnati .637 .673 .583 .687
47 +6 .6403 +.0216 New Mexico .729 .228 .750 .509
48 -7 .6266 -.0567 San Diego State .676 .118 .750 .579
49 -6 .6221 -.0434 Northwestern .614 .893 .500 .633
50 +7 .6123 +.0382 East Carolina .613 .244 .667 .653
51 +4 .6082 +.0160 Kennesaw State .766 .336 .750 .317
52 -10 .6060 -.0639 Wake Forest .637 .302 .667 .580
53 -9 .6054 -.0601 Wisconsin .600 .999 .333 .640
54 -4 .5991 -.0311 Auburn .491 .908 .417 .806
55 +8 .5943 +.0442 Kansas State .538 .755 .500 .703
56 -8 .5776 -.0656 Memphis .585 .182 .667 .601
57 +11 .5700 +.0680 Clemson .527 .361 .583 .680
58 +6 .5683 +.0243 Toledo .545 .117 .667 .653
59 +1 .5662 +.0109 UConn .657 .091 .750 .418
60 -4 .5658 -.0241 Rutgers .554 .962 .417 .571
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
61 +9 .5433 +.0552 Florida .433 .970 .333 .745
62 +3 .5394 +.0186 Ohio .644 .322 .667 .340
63 -9 .5340 -.0716 Kentucky .472 .883 .417 .629
64 +3 .5257 +.0231 Western Michigan .604 .223 .667 .385
65 +9 .5252 +.0592 Duke .490 .268 .583 .614
66 -4 .5211 -.0321 Florida State .365 .659 .417 .820
67 -9 .5201 -.0449 Mississippi State .442 .835 .417 .646
68 +5 .5123 +.0433 Washington State .478 .604 .500 .565
69 .5103 +.0140 Kansas .442 .836 .417 .612
70 +5 .5049 +.0429 Hawai’i .578 .171 .667 .372
71 -12 .4954 -.0665 South Carolina .377 .929 .333 .694
72 -11 .4911 -.0632 Western Kentucky .570 .156 .667 .344
73 +5 .4842 +.0438 Fresno State .554 .129 .667 .355
74 -8 .4615 -.0592 UTSA .422 .446 .500 .524
75 +6 .4528 +.0462 Michigan State .371 .922 .333 .565
76 +6 .4415 +.0374 Troy .555 .131 .667 .211
77 +11 .4391 +.0754 California .476 .238 .583 .356
78 -6 .4372 -.0440 Utah State .408 .406 .500 .475
79 -8 .4318 -.0494 Baylor .362 .652 .417 .528
80 .4310 -.0020 UCLA .387 .994 .250 .479
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
81 +8 .4259 +.0625 Army .417 .242 .545 .434
82 +3 .4221 +.0404 Jacksonville State .523 .089 .667 .211
83 .4122 +.0120 UCF .354 .628 .417 .481
84 +3 .4113 +.0397 Louisiana Tech .428 .145 .583 .368
85 +6 .3978 +.0365 Miami (OH) .422 .135 .583 .336
86 -10 .3929 -.0639 Missouri State .475 .234 .583 .206
87 -10 .3926 -.0590 Central Michigan .479 .243 .583 .197
88 -9 .3859 -.0478 Maryland .289 .783 .333 .515
89 +5 .3781 +.0498 Florida International .447 .177 .583 .217
90 +3 .3759 +.0221 Stanford .331 .869 .333 .389
91 +1 .3652 +.0068 Purdue .285 .996 .167 .473
92 -2 .3646 +.0024 West Virginia .311 .831 .333 .396
93 -7 .3494 -.0310 Arkansas .168 .942 .167 .643
94 -10 .3436 -.0553 Southern Miss .393 .094 .583 .214
95 +5 .3239 +.0435 Texas State .298 .140 .500 .343
96 +6 .3050 +.0456 Georgia Southern .359 .273 .500 .146
97 -1 .2885 -.0102 Temple .261 .336 .417 .288
98 +5 .2843 +.0362 Louisiana .326 .196 .500 .150
99 .2778 -.0086 Colorado .171 .735 .250 .407
100 +1 .2743 -.0008 Virginia Tech .164 .707 .250 .413
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
101 +3 .2733 +.0357 Kent State .336 .574 .417 .061
102 -7 .2703 -.0428 Coastal Carolina .337 .220 .500 .080
103 +3 .2590 +.0358 Arkansas State .288 .122 .500 .148
104 -7 .2533 -.0407 Marshall .225 .227 .417 .254
105 -7 .2507 -.0364 Syracuse .196 .816 .250 .256
106 +4 .2464 +.0470 Delaware .276 .102 .500 .132
107 -2 .2216 -.0074 Rice .240 .269 .417 .116
108 +1 .2027 -.0058 North Carolina .136 .224 .333 .278
109 -2 .1933 -.0272 App State .197 .153 .417 .118
110 -2 .1888 -.0236 Wyoming .142 .246 .333 .218
111 +9 .1837 +.0416 Air Force .109 .128 .333 .280
112 +3 .1775 -.0004 Akron .189 .132 .417 .085
113 +8 .1760 +.0343 UAB .159 .315 .333 .132
114 +10 .1756 +.0416 Boston College .069 .536 .167 .313
115 -4 .1756 -.0206 Buffalo .170 .095 .417 .118
116 -4 .1702 -.0235 Florida Atlantic .137 .227 .333 .168
117 -3 .1585 -.0212 Tulsa .111 .135 .333 .190
118 -2 .1577 -.0136 Liberty .107 .122 .333 .197
119 -6 .1556 -.0250 South Alabama .134 .215 .333 .126
120 -2 .1509 -.0077 Oregon State .084 .647 .167 .186
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
121 +7 .1476 +.0357 Bowling Green .120 .163 .333 .134
122 +3 .1377 +.0084 Oklahoma State .067 .842 .083 .168
123 -6 .1375 -.0291 New Mexico State .119 .162 .333 .101
124 -5 .1288 -.0223 Ball State .124 .180 .333 .060
125 -3 .1274 -.0143 Nevada .077 .236 .250 .161
126 -3 .1221 -.0170 Eastern Michigan .101 .104 .333 .093
127 -1 .1120 -.0165 San José State .070 .193 .250 .130
128 -1 .0989 -.0142 Colorado State .044 .289 .167 .146
129 .0957 -.0162 Northern Illinois .061 .146 .250 .098
130 .0917 -.0136 UL Monroe .080 .254 .250 .033
131 +2 .0824 +.0228 Middle Tennessee .053 .103 .250 .077
132 -1 .0679 -.0132 UTEP .031 .159 .167 .087
133 -1 .0626 -.0010 Charlotte .029 .457 .083 .051
134 +1 .0601 +.0022 Georgia State .027 .422 .083 .052
135 -1 .0512 -.0070 Sam Houston .032 .168 .167 .028
136 .0199 -.0009 Massachusetts .008 .285 .000 .003Playoff Contenders
Rivalry week didn’t produce playoff chaos in the Big Ten, Big 12, or really even the SEC. Yes, Texas A&M fell in the playoff rankings after losing to Texas, but the game almost certainly won’t change who makes the playoff. The ACC is a mess, but it’s really been a mess ever since Miami picked up a second loss and left the conference without a clear favorite. Based on the selection committee’s rankings and the conference championship schedule, I’m going to separate the contenders for playoff spots into six tiers. The first five tiers are the teams that I believe can plausibly reach the playoff with a combination of winning their way in and getting help from other teams losing.
The sixth tier includes teams that could move into a playoff spot if the committee reconsiders past decisions, but they’re also teams that can’t get into the playoff just move up with help from other teams ahead of them losing. Computer ratings like the system I use certainly can shift even when a team hasn’t played. When a team’s rating changes due to winning or losing a game, it changes the expected margins of victory or defeat in all of their other games, and that means their opponents may also have their ratings adjusted. For the most part, people ranking teams subjectively aren’t going to take this into account.
For example, Florida State looked like a potentially dominant team for the first few weeks of the season, especially with a quality win over Alabama to open the season. Even though Florida State started picking up losses as the season went on, voters in the polls probably weren’t going to adjust Alabama’s ranking downward to account for that being a worse loss than it appeared after the third weekend of the season. Although it’s really not be practical for people to make these adjustments to subjective rankings in a consistent manner, computers certainly can adjust their ratings accordingly. Right now, it seems implausible for Texas to reach the playoff. If Georgia and Ohio State win in blowouts, that might make two of Texas’ losses not appear as bad, and that might justify moving Texas up in the rankings. But it’s much easier for computers to do this in a reasonable and consistent manner. It’s not that Texas can’t reach the playoff, but they can’t do so without the committee attempting this sort of adjustment.
Tier 1: Locks
Ohio State, Indiana, Georgia, Ole Miss, Oregon, and Texas A&M
Even if Georgia picks up a second loss, they’re unlikely to fall from #3 to being completely out of the playoff. The other teams with one loss on this list aren’t playing this weekend, so they should be safe. It’s unfathomable that a loss that could knock either Ohio State or Indiana out of the playoff. Therefore, all six teams in this tier should be locks.
Tier 2: Likely safe
Texas Tech and Oklahoma
Texas Tech is ranked #4 and is heading into a rematch against BYU. If BYU won the Big 12 championship in a dominant fashion, would that lower Texas Tech’s ranking enough to knock them out of the playoff? BYU would be in as the Big 12 champion, and there are two other conference champions currently outside of the top 12 that would also get automatic bids. If BYU is ranked ahead of Texas Tech in this scenario, then Texas Tech can’t be ranked lower than #10 and still reach the playoff. If Texas Tech is still ranked ahead of BYU in this scenario, then Texas Tech can’t fall farther than #9. That means it would likely take falling six or seven spots in the rankings for Texas Tech to be left out of the playoff. The committee probably wouldn’t drop Texas Tech that far for close loss, but a blowout could possibly put Texas Tech out of the playoff if the committee is harsh enough.
Oklahoma is #8, but they’re not absolutely safe. If BYU won a close game against Texas Tech, would the committee drop Texas Tech four or more spots? That doesn’t seem like a certainty. If BYU and Alabama win their conference championship games, four teams currently ranked behind Oklahoma would have automatic bids. This could make Oklahoma the last team in the playoff. They should still be safe, but the one exception is if the committee decides to reconsider whether a team like Notre Dame or Miami should be ranked ahead of Oklahoma.
Tier 3: In danger
Notre Dame and Alabama
Notre Dame’s danger is if Alabama and BYU win their conference championship games, then Alabama stays ahead of Notre Dame and also that three teams currently ranked below Notre Dame would have automatic bids. If Texas Tech and Georgia remain ahead of Notre Dame in this scenario, which seems likely, that would leave Notre Dame as probably the first team out.
Alabama is currently in at #9, but if they lose to Georgia, it’s hard to envision the selection committee taking them as a three loss team when there are other candidates with just two losses. It’s almost certain that they’d drop behind Notre Dame. If BYU wins the Big 12, Alabama would probably be at #10 and out of the playoff. If BYU loses, Alabama probably stays ahead of them. But there’s also the likely scenario that if Alabama loses, Miami or even Texas could move ahead of them. I suppose it’s possible that Georgia wins in overtime over Alabama and the committee decides to leave them at #9. But that’s not an especially likely scenario since Miami is a very good team with two losses, and the committee will also have to consider whether Texas is more deserving. I don’t think the SEC championship is quite a must win game for Alabama, but it’s close.
Tier 4: Must win
BYU, Virginia, Tulane, and North Texas
These are four teams that must win, but all four likely control their own destiny.
For BYU, I suppose it’s plausible that an overtime loss to Texas Tech wouldn’t completely eliminate them. In that scenario, if Alabama lost decisively to Georgia and the committee decided not to drop BYU behind any other teams like Miami and Texas, they could be in. Again, this is a very unlikely scenario, and the committee certainly hasn’t done BYU any favors so far. This means that it’s almost certain that BYU must win to reach the playoff.
As for Virginia, if they win the ACC championship, they will almost certainly be the #4 ranked conference champion, and that should put them in the playoff. If they lose, there’s no chance of an at-large bid.
It seems likely that the American champion will be the highest rated Group of 5 team. Tulane is currently in the lead, ahead of North Texas and James Madison. If Tulane wins against North Texas, it’s a strong enough win that it should keep them ahead of James Madison. But if North Texas wins, they would be 12-1 with another quality win added to their profile, and they’re already one spot ahead of James Madison. That means North Texas should also stay ahead of James Madison. It seems hard to envision the eventual American champion being left out of the playoff. Although this is a must win for both teams in the American championship, they also both appear to control their own destiny.
Tier 5: Needs help
Miami, James Madison, UNLV, Duke, Boise State, and Kennesaw State
Right now, Miami is #12. If Texas Tech and Georgia both win decisively, that would probably drop both Alabama and BYU behind Miami, raising them to #10. In this scenario, that’s also the last at-large spot. It means that unless the committee reconsiders their ordering of the teams and elevates a team like Texas, Vanderbilt, or Utah ahead of them, Miami should be in.
If Duke wins the ACC and James Madison wins the Sun Belt, it seems very likely that both the American champion and James Madison would be ranked ahead of Duke. In this scenario, it would be very hard to justify ranking a five loss ACC champion ahead of James Madison, and that would almost certainly result in two Group of 5 teams reaching the playoff. If James Madison lost, then UNLV could reach the playoff should they win the Mountain West.
If James Madison and UNLV both lose, a five loss Duke team seems likely to have a good chance over the other teams that would be in contention. Boise State would have four losses, and it would probably be harder to justify placing them ahead of Duke. The same goes for Kennesaw State, even if they win Conference USA and have just three losses. Still, this depends on how the committee would evaluate Boise State and Kennesaw State with respect to Duke.
James Madison and UNLV definitely seem plausible candidates to be a second Group of 5 playoff team. Boise State and Kennesaw State seem more like long shots from the Group of 5, but they can’t be ruled out. Based on my current playoff rankings, I’d argue that Duke is probably the least deserving of any of these teams. That said, is the selection committee willing to give a playoff bid to a four loss Boise State team or a three loss Kennesaw State team over the ACC champion? Of this, I am far less certain.
Tier 6: Fringe candidates
Texas, Vanderbilt, and Utah
The difference between these three teams and Miami is that there isn’t a plausible scenario where any of these teams could just back their way into the playoff with teams ahead of them losing and falling in the rankings. In the most favorable scenario for Miami, Texas Tech and Georgia win their championship games in blowouts, moving Alabama and BYU out of the way so that Miami can move into the final playoff spot. The other teams in the fifth tier are competing for the final two automatic bids given to conference champions, so they don’t meaningfully affect the three teams in this final tier.
The only way Texas, Vanderbilt, or Utah could make the playoff is if the selection committee reconsiders their profiles for the final rankings and decides to move any of them ahead of Miami. Although I mentioned a scenario where the selection committee would compare the profiles of Texas and Alabama, that’s also a scenario where both have three losses and are competing to be the first team on the wrong side of the playoff bubble. Farther down the list, Vanderbilt and Utah are in the same situation, needing the committee to reconsider their profiles in the final rankings, but also needing to leap over even more teams. Although ESPN’s Bubble Watch currently includes Texas as having a chance to reach the playoff, this seems implausible to me since there’s no scenario where they can just back their way in to the playoff by having enough teams lose in front of them and fall in the rankings. Overall, I concur with the Bubble Watch analysis that Texas can’t possibly get enough help from the teams ahead of them. Farther down in the rankings, it gets even more challenging for Vanderbilt or Utah, both of whom have two losses but would need to be reassessed as having a stronger profile than Texas. All of this seems quite unlikely, which is why I labeled these teams as fringe playoff contenders.
Upcoming Game Predictions
Upcoming 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.
#1: Indiana (3.91, 62.28%) vs. Ohio State (-3.91, 37.72%)
Estimated score: 26.34 - 22.92, Total: 49.26
Quality: 98.58%, Team quality: 99.14%, Competitiveness: 97.48%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.16%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.68%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 32.08%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 39.95%
#2: Georgia (-3.22, 39.83%) vs. Alabama (3.22, 60.17%)
Estimated score: 21.63 - 24.90, Total: 46.53
Quality: 97.90%, Team quality: 97.71%, Competitiveness: 98.29%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.98%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 41.26%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 29.69%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 42.59%
#3: BYU (-8.17, 25.62%) vs. Texas Tech (8.17, 74.38%)
Estimated score: 22.51 - 30.74, Total: 53.25
Quality: 95.08%, Team quality: 98.11%, Competitiveness: 89.30%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.13%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.05%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 35.71%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 36.17%
#4: Duke (-6.09, 31.29%) vs. Virginia (6.09, 68.71%)
Estimated score: 30.12 - 36.32, Total: 66.44
Quality: 94.36%, Team quality: 94.57%, Competitiveness: 93.96%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.96%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.20%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 48.46%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 24.78%
#5: UNLV (-5.63, 32.60%) at Boise State (5.63, 67.40%)
Estimated score: 30.70 - 36.41, Total: 67.10
Quality: 93.56%, Team quality: 92.94%, Competitiveness: 94.82%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.76%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.80%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 49.11%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 24.26%
#6: Miami (OH) (-1.95, 43.80%) vs. Western Michigan (1.95, 56.20%)
Estimated score: 18.74 - 20.67, Total: 39.41
Quality: 92.88%, Team quality: 89.80%, Competitiveness: 99.37%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.75%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.05%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 23.88%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 49.60%
#7: North Texas (9.71, 78.17%) at Tulane (-9.71, 21.83%)
Estimated score: 39.29 - 29.66, Total: 68.94
Quality: 91.46%, Team quality: 94.77%, Competitiveness: 85.17%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.27%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.37%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 50.94%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 22.85%
#8: Kennesaw State (2.96, 59.39%) at Jacksonville State (-2.96, 40.61%)
Estimated score: 30.36 - 27.51, Total: 57.86
Quality: 91.14%, Team quality: 87.65%, Competitiveness: 98.54%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.93%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 41.45%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 40.06%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 31.97%
#9: Troy (-23.84, 2.81%) at James Madison (23.84, 97.19%)
Estimated score: 11.76 - 35.59, Total: 47.35
Quality: 66.12%, Team quality: 90.57%, Competitiveness: 35.24%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 31.07%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 8.19%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 30.40%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 41.79%That’s it for this edition of The Linked Letters After Dark. My plan after this is to finally focus on some baseball content as well as adding a new non-sports section to this site. I’m working on that content now, and I’ll also be posting new NFL ratings tonight. I won’t be sending out another article tonight, but they’ll be updated in the Sports Data section. Thanks for reading!
The ratings in this article are based on data obtained from collegefootballdata.com.