The Linked Letters After Dark: Week 7 Edition
A first look at how the ratings and playoff predictions have shifted after this weekend's college football games.
I don’t start writing these articles until all the FBS games have finished and I have the new preliminary ratings. This weekend, there was a night game at Mānoa, and that means the data and the new ratings weren’t ready until well into the early morning hours. At the time of writing, my ratings include all FBS and FCS games, but they’re missing six Division II games and nine Division III games. I’ll post my final ratings for this week on Monday (likely) or possibly Tuesday along with some more analysis and final predictions for week 8.
Games from 2024 still account for a small amount of each team’s rating, with each game from last season having 2% of the influence of a game played this season. For a team that played 13 games last season and six games so far in 2025, last season accounts for 4.15% of their rating and this season for the remaining 95.85%. This is, of course, an approximation, and it can vary depending on a few factors. Including last season’s games doesn’t change things a whole lot in the FBS at this point, especially at these weights, but it can still influence the ratings a small amount. The effects are a bit more pronounced in other divisions where some teams haven’t played at many games in 2025.
I’m going to keep my analysis a bit limited with the expectation that I’ll write more when the final ratings are out. But I’ll address a few things that stand out to me.
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: 2.45 points
Mean score: 26.44 points
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
1 90.78 +6.05 Indiana 45.89 44.85 .269
2 89.01 +5.92 Ohio State 38.23 50.82 .244
3 85.24 +4.58 Notre Dame 47.20 38.09 -.040
4 84.68 +4.27 Miami 36.65 48.12 .368
5 82.47 +3.19 Oregon 45.08 37.47 .041
6 79.42 +0.46 Alabama 38.56 40.84 .137
7 +5 78.80 +7.05 Texas Tech 40.76 38.11 .157
8 +10 78.36 +8.21 Utah 40.85 37.35 -.027
9 -1 77.48 +3.31 USC 45.52 31.82 -.006
10 -3 76.62 +1.99 Florida State 43.29 33.33 -.211
11 +2 76.36 +4.74 Texas A&M 38.28 38.10 .255
12 +10 75.47 +7.58 Washington 41.37 34.10 .030
13 -2 74.36 +2.59 Georgia 32.39 41.95 .063
14 +7 73.27 +5.24 Texas 32.98 40.17 -.066
15 +4 72.07 +2.75 BYU 38.17 33.84 .111
16 -6 72.02 -0.01 LSU 31.45 40.68 .029
17 +15 71.33 +8.74 South Florida 41.23 30.28 .089
18 -1 71.14 +0.71 Nebraska 40.71 30.39 -.018
19 -10 71.14 -2.81 Ole Miss 38.51 32.48 .131
20 -6 71.09 -0.30 Michigan 32.82 38.30 -.074
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
21 +2 70.78 +3.13 Illinois 36.76 34.10 .069
22 -6 70.74 +0.05 Tennessee 45.65 25.00 -.021
23 -3 70.72 +1.43 Vanderbilt 41.04 29.73 -.006
24 70.27 +2.78 Florida 31.41 38.85 -.260
25 -10 70.07 -0.63 Oklahoma 27.91 42.23 .004
26 +10 69.38 +8.82 Iowa 29.32 40.14 -.112
27 68.82 +4.45 Missouri 37.77 30.98 -.031
28 -3 68.39 +3.56 Virginia 41.07 27.31 .002
29 +1 67.15 +4.06 Cincinnati 34.36 32.67 -.011
30 +4 66.72 +5.31 Louisville 37.49 29.22 -.065
31 +4 65.81 +4.70 Georgia Tech 35.03 30.89 .098
32 +17 65.56 +8.83 Pittsburgh 33.91 31.65 -.183
33 65.06 +2.91 Iowa State 31.59 33.42 -.130
34 -6 64.79 +1.15 Auburn 27.51 37.28 -.255
35 -6 64.46 +1.22 Penn State 35.23 29.13 -.372
36 -10 63.65 -0.97 Old Dominion 31.63 31.93 -.162
37 +2 63.03 +3.32 Duke 37.32 25.86 -.203
38 +2 62.35 +2.94 Memphis 31.50 30.82 .038
39 -8 62.29 -0.63 North Texas 42.42 20.10 -.074
40 -2 62.11 +1.95 Mississippi State 31.84 30.29 -.162
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
41 +1 61.56 +2.44 Kansas 32.67 28.87 -.223
42 +10 61.28 +6.28 Clemson 26.50 34.66 -.367
43 +1 61.24 +3.61 Arkansas 33.35 27.83 -.374
44 -7 61.18 +1.00 TCU 35.15 25.84 -.239
45 +2 60.87 +3.69 Maryland 27.80 33.08 -.190
46 -5 60.70 +1.32 East Carolina 26.96 33.74 -.371
47 -2 60.41 +2.84 South Carolina 23.02 37.34 -.283
48 +12 60.37 +6.78 Boise State 29.36 30.89 -.118
49 +1 59.94 +3.82 NC State 29.26 30.73 -.197
50 +1 59.52 +4.43 Arizona 27.23 32.31 -.205
51 +5 59.08 +4.90 Colorado 27.14 31.90 -.399
52 -9 58.62 +0.15 Toledo 29.57 29.00 -.444
53 +18 58.49 +9.01 San Diego State 27.62 30.75 -.137
54 -1 58.01 +3.46 Houston 26.60 31.36 -.055
55 +7 57.94 +5.61 Rutgers 34.69 23.15 -.327
56 +2 57.46 +3.38 Tulane 27.59 29.96 -.024
57 -11 57.41 +0.13 Arizona State 23.33 34.09 -.145
58 +3 57.29 +4.46 Kansas State 30.39 27.02 -.447
59 +15 56.92 +8.92 Wake Forest 24.54 32.44 -.250
60 -6 56.03 +1.51 Purdue 26.45 29.65 -.387
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
61 +3 55.96 +4.62 SMU 27.72 28.25 -.268
62 -3 55.54 +1.79 Kentucky 28.03 27.51 -.368
63 +9 55.22 +6.45 Minnesota 27.08 28.04 -.153
64 -1 55.17 +3.56 UCF 23.51 31.62 -.386
65 +17 54.43 +8.97 UTSA 31.10 23.33 -.379
66 +10 53.52 +6.12 Northwestern 18.64 34.86 -.151
67 -2 53.37 +2.07 New Mexico 28.60 24.75 -.366
68 -20 53.07 -3.72 Louisiana Tech 21.53 31.45 -.239
69 +1 52.92 +3.42 Syracuse 26.43 26.64 -.340
70 +19 52.40 +9.03 UCLA 24.09 28.24 -.491
71 -14 52.26 -1.88 Wisconsin 21.91 30.28 -.414
72 -4 51.99 +2.29 Baylor 33.54 18.46 -.240
73 -18 51.82 -2.59 Michigan State 27.71 23.97 -.308
74 +5 51.78 +5.12 Ohio 25.76 25.84 -.320
75 -8 51.33 +1.35 James Madison 17.91 33.32 -.103
76 -3 50.94 +2.89 UNLV 31.72 19.12 .032
77 +3 50.73 +4.16 Western Michigan 18.49 32.20 -.313
78 -3 50.70 +3.20 Virginia Tech 26.87 23.79 -.531
79 -13 50.64 -0.18 Army 19.92 30.60 -.399
80 -3 50.58 +3.37 UConn 30.41 20.15 -.303
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
81 +13 50.17 +9.58 Washington State 19.57 30.63 -.288
82 +4 49.86 +5.49 West Virginia 23.37 26.46 -.420
83 +15 49.61 +10.19 Marshall 31.68 17.95 -.379
84 -15 48.86 -0.82 Utah State 29.96 19.05 -.327
85 -7 48.71 +1.95 Temple 28.01 20.83 -.378
86 +7 48.62 +7.08 Bowling Green 20.40 28.12 -.349
87 -6 48.15 +1.92 Navy 25.20 22.97 .019
88 -5 47.64 +2.34 Texas State 30.25 17.31 -.444
89 -4 47.29 +2.61 Western Kentucky 25.15 22.06 -.125
90 -2 46.88 +3.50 California 19.18 27.78 -.251
91 +19 46.74 +11.81 Colorado State 21.64 25.08 -.522
92 +15 46.57 +11.13 Kennesaw State 21.48 25.00 -.155
93 -3 45.81 +3.18 Miami (OH) 19.30 26.46 -.441
94 -7 45.37 +1.25 Southern Miss 26.00 19.37 -.281
95 +5 45.27 +6.07 Troy 23.18 21.88 -.252
96 +1 44.48 +4.86 Wyoming 17.67 26.95 -.374
97 -13 44.12 -1.17 Fresno State 22.58 21.36 -.233
98 -7 43.55 +1.36 Stanford 17.66 25.78 -.493
99 -4 43.53 +3.67 Delaware 21.74 21.73 -.343
100 +3 43.52 +6.18 Hawai’i 20.36 23.12 -.240
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
101 -5 42.06 +2.24 San José State 21.62 20.43 -.559
102 41.97 +4.20 Air Force 29.92 12.18 -.769
103 -11 41.84 -0.14 Boston College 26.40 15.45 -.729
104 40.46 +4.01 Liberty 15.64 24.80 -.594
105 -6 40.05 +0.84 Jacksonville State 20.60 19.42 -.464
106 -5 39.81 +1.93 Oregon State 21.00 18.69 -.773
107 +5 39.05 +4.89 Buffalo 14.88 24.26 -.463
108 38.96 +3.58 North Carolina 17.70 21.34 -.512
109 +13 37.92 +6.14 App State 17.68 20.20 -.287
110 +5 37.91 +4.06 Missouri State 16.81 21.01 -.368
111 -6 37.56 +1.39 South Alabama 21.43 16.24 -.717
112 +1 37.30 +3.34 Tulsa 15.49 21.76 -.597
113 +3 37.24 +3.70 Florida Atlantic 26.28 10.99 -.432
114 -3 36.99 +2.24 Georgia Southern 24.23 12.73 -.541
115 -6 36.85 +1.63 Northern Illinois 8.80 27.89 -.732
116 -2 36.25 +2.31 New Mexico State 14.37 21.78 -.353
117 +8 36.02 +5.49 Louisiana 19.43 16.56 -.579
118 +6 35.29 +4.02 Central Michigan 18.74 16.76 -.369
119 -13 35.10 -0.63 UTEP 15.07 20.03 -.727
120 +3 34.90 +3.55 Arkansas State 17.21 17.83 -.586
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
121 34.88 +3.01 Coastal Carolina 11.56 23.15 -.366
122 -3 33.60 +0.70 Nevada 11.41 22.08 -.747
123 -6 32.74 -0.50 Ball State 14.98 17.77 -.555
124 +3 32.47 +3.28 Akron 11.18 21.25 -.617
125 +1 32.40 +3.14 Florida International 12.48 19.92 -.520
126 -6 32.31 +0.18 Rice 11.96 20.38 -.524
127 -9 32.31 -0.91 UAB 22.85 9.46 -.573
128 +7 31.13 +8.67 Kent State 20.39 10.75 -.401
129 +1 30.90 +4.25 Middle Tennessee 12.66 18.20 -.793
130 -1 30.74 +3.25 Oklahoma State 15.51 15.08 -.656
131 +1 29.76 +5.60 Eastern Michigan 17.95 11.88 -.678
132 +2 28.85 +5.81 Charlotte 12.34 16.46 -.741
133 28.52 +5.20 Sam Houston 15.91 12.69 -.886
134 -6 26.81 -1.06 Georgia State 15.51 11.26 -.653
135 -4 26.14 +0.25 UL Monroe 13.86 12.36 -.371
136 19.65 -0.52 Massachusetts 6.49 13.16 -.855One of my observations is that the ratings have crept up about 10 points throughout the FBS over the course of the season. FBS teams have gained and lost spots, but most of the teams have seen their ratings increase. I’m not convinced this is some weird numerical glitch in the rating process. These ratings include well over 600 teams across multiple divisions, and all of the FBS teams are above the overall mean, which is set to zero.
There have been rapid changes in college sports over the past few seasons with respect to paying players and transferring between schools, and these probably lead to the accumulation of more skill at the top tiers of college football. There’s more incentive for the best players at lower divisions to transfer to FBS teams, and it’s easier for them to do so. That would result in an influx of skilled players to the FBS, and good FBS players can easily transfer to other teams if they’re going to get more playing time at another school. My theory is that these ratings might reflect a growing spread in the distribution of skilled players across college football, where FBS teams gain at the expense of lower divisions. I don’t know if this is true, but it would explain why the ratings of FBS teams are increasing throughout the season as the 2024 ratings get phased out and the effects of recent changes to the sport become more apparent.
Rating Comparison
At this point, there’s not a whole lot of difference for FBS teams if I include or ignore games from 2024. The differences are a bit larger at lower divisions, but I’ll completely phase this out in two more weeks and just include 2025 games in the ratings. That will better reflect the strength of the teams right now instead of relying on preseason expectations from last season’s ratings.
Predictive Ratings
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
1 90.78 Indiana 92.24 (1)
2 89.01 Ohio State 88.26 (2)
3 85.24 Notre Dame 85.21 (4)
4 84.68 Miami 86.49 (3)
5 82.47 Oregon 81.54 (5)
6 79.42 Alabama 79.13 (8)
7 78.80 Texas Tech 80.87 (6)
8 78.36 Utah 79.59 (7)
9 77.48 USC 76.56 (11)
10 76.62 Florida State 78.13 (9)
11 76.36 Texas A&M 76.57 (10)
12 75.47 Washington 76.14 (12)
13 74.36 Georgia 73.92 (13)
14 73.27 Texas 72.25 (14)
15 72.07 BYU 71.04 (18)
16 72.02 LSU 72.10 (15)
17 71.33 South Florida 71.62 (16)
18 71.14 Nebraska 70.99 (19)
19 71.14 Ole Miss 70.74 (20)
20 71.09 Michigan 70.41 (22)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
21 70.78 Illinois 70.37 (24)
22 70.74 Tennessee 69.25 (27)
23 70.72 Vanderbilt 71.26 (17)
24 70.27 Florida 70.40 (23)
25 70.07 Oklahoma 70.51 (21)
26 69.38 Iowa 69.53 (25)
27 68.82 Missouri 68.37 (28)
28 68.39 Virginia 69.53 (26)
29 67.15 Cincinnati 66.89 (29)
30 66.72 Louisville 66.81 (30)
31 65.81 Georgia Tech 65.65 (32)
32 65.56 Pittsburgh 65.99 (31)
33 65.06 Iowa State 63.93 (34)
34 64.79 Auburn 64.51 (33)
35 64.46 Penn State 62.63 (38)
36 63.65 Old Dominion 63.50 (35)
37 63.03 Duke 62.90 (37)
38 62.35 Memphis 61.83 (40)
39 62.29 North Texas 63.25 (36)
40 62.11 Mississippi State 61.59 (41)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
41 61.56 Kansas 61.94 (39)
42 61.28 Clemson 59.59 (49)
43 61.24 Arkansas 60.95 (43)
44 61.18 TCU 59.87 (46)
45 60.87 Maryland 60.51 (45)
46 60.70 East Carolina 61.16 (42)
47 60.41 South Carolina 59.79 (47)
48 60.37 Boise State 59.61 (48)
49 59.94 NC State 60.65 (44)
50 59.52 Arizona 58.86 (52)
51 59.08 Colorado 57.88 (53)
52 58.62 Toledo 59.26 (50)
53 58.49 San Diego State 58.97 (51)
54 58.01 Houston 57.45 (54)
55 57.94 Rutgers 57.36 (55)
56 57.46 Tulane 57.19 (56)
57 57.41 Arizona State 56.19 (59)
58 57.29 Kansas State 56.75 (58)
59 56.92 Wake Forest 56.94 (57)
60 56.03 Purdue 55.83 (60)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
61 55.96 SMU 54.46 (62)
62 55.54 Kentucky 54.92 (61)
63 55.22 Minnesota 54.29 (63)
64 55.17 UCF 53.99 (65)
65 54.43 UTSA 54.13 (64)
66 53.52 Northwestern 52.54 (67)
67 53.37 New Mexico 52.52 (68)
68 53.07 Louisiana Tech 53.02 (66)
69 52.92 Syracuse 51.19 (71)
70 52.40 UCLA 51.55 (69)
71 52.26 Wisconsin 50.84 (74)
72 51.99 Baylor 50.54 (75)
73 51.82 Michigan State 51.25 (70)
74 51.78 Ohio 51.03 (72)
75 51.33 James Madison 50.51 (76)
76 50.94 UNLV 49.53 (82)
77 50.73 Western Michigan 50.99 (73)
78 50.70 Virginia Tech 50.10 (79)
79 50.64 Army 49.75 (81)
80 50.58 UConn 49.24 (83)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
81 50.17 Washington State 50.30 (77)
82 49.86 West Virginia 49.99 (80)
83 49.61 Marshall 50.18 (78)
84 48.86 Utah State 48.50 (86)
85 48.71 Temple 48.47 (87)
86 48.62 Bowling Green 48.63 (84)
87 48.15 Navy 46.56 (89)
88 47.64 Texas State 46.19 (90)
89 47.29 Western Kentucky 46.06 (91)
90 46.88 California 45.83 (92)
91 46.74 Colorado State 47.19 (88)
92 46.57 Kennesaw State 48.62 (85)
93 45.81 Miami (OH) 44.40 (95)
94 45.37 Southern Miss 45.66 (93)
95 45.27 Troy 44.87 (94)
96 44.48 Wyoming 44.26 (96)
97 44.12 Fresno State 42.76 (97)
98 43.55 Stanford 42.65 (99)
99 43.53 Delaware 42.35 (100)
100 43.52 Hawai’i 42.68 (98)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
101 42.06 San José State 41.48 (101)
102 41.97 Air Force 41.32 (102)
103 41.84 Boston College 39.39 (104)
104 40.46 Liberty 39.78 (103)
105 40.05 Jacksonville State 38.44 (106)
106 39.81 Oregon State 39.08 (105)
107 39.05 Buffalo 38.18 (107)
108 38.96 North Carolina 36.90 (111)
109 37.92 App State 37.77 (108)
110 37.91 Missouri State 37.41 (110)
111 37.56 South Alabama 37.41 (109)
112 37.30 Tulsa 36.72 (112)
113 37.24 Florida Atlantic 35.85 (113)
114 36.99 Georgia Southern 35.53 (115)
115 36.85 Northern Illinois 35.38 (116)
116 36.25 New Mexico State 35.80 (114)
117 36.02 Louisiana 34.70 (119)
118 35.29 Central Michigan 34.84 (117)
119 35.10 UTEP 34.75 (118)
120 34.90 Arkansas State 34.67 (120)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
121 34.88 Coastal Carolina 34.39 (121)
122 33.60 Nevada 32.98 (122)
123 32.74 Ball State 32.05 (124)
124 32.47 Akron 31.42 (125)
125 32.40 Florida International 30.62 (129)
126 32.31 Rice 31.28 (126)
127 32.31 UAB 31.17 (127)
128 31.13 Kent State 32.25 (123)
129 30.90 Middle Tennessee 31.09 (128)
130 30.74 Oklahoma State 28.95 (131)
131 29.76 Eastern Michigan 29.02 (130)
132 28.85 Charlotte 27.68 (132)
133 28.52 Sam Houston 26.46 (134)
134 26.81 Georgia State 26.68 (133)
135 26.14 UL Monroe 25.36 (135)
136 19.65 Massachusetts 19.35 (136) Schedule 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: 2.45 points
Mean score: 26.44 points
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
1 Indiana .269 (9) .138 (70) 57.90 (15) 56.31 (62)
2 Ohio State .244 (18) .174 (59) 54.22 (32) 59.03 (51)
3 Notre Dame .293 (5) .158 (64) 65.62 (2) 54.92 (68)
4 Miami .368 (2) .142 (67) 63.04 (3) 56.13 (64)
5 Oregon .208 (27) .284 (29) 54.72 (31) 64.62 (26)
6 Alabama .304 (4) .243 (39) 61.49 (6) 58.38 (53)
7 Texas Tech .157 (52) .139 (69) 43.02 (110) 53.76 (72)
8 Utah .139 (63) .209 (51) 53.28 (38) 61.52 (39)
9 USC .161 (50) .381 (6) 53.29 (37) 69.02 (9)
10 Florida State .289 (7) .172 (60) 56.25 (23) 57.93 (55)
11 Texas A&M .255 (14) .279 (30) 62.65 (4) 58.23 (54)
12 Washington .196 (29) .271 (33) 56.51 (21) 64.17 (28)
13 Georgia .229 (21) .259 (36) 59.59 (8) 61.09 (41)
14 Texas .267 (10) .298 (26) 55.43 (27) 66.72 (17)
15 BYU .111 (88) .328 (17) 48.08 (67) 67.62 (15)
16 LSU .196 (30) .346 (11) 58.18 (14) 67.52 (16)
17 South Florida .256 (13) .068 (86) 55.29 (29) 44.47 (99)
18 Nebraska .149 (57) .224 (43) 49.02 (62) 62.08 (35)
19 Ole Miss .131 (71) .267 (35) 52.24 (42) 60.05 (46)
20 Michigan .259 (12) .273 (31) 59.93 (7) 64.05 (29)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
21 Illinois .355 (3) .192 (56) 62.54 (5) 59.52 (50)
22 Tennessee .146 (58) .300 (25) 50.80 (50) 63.71 (30)
23 Vanderbilt .161 (49) .301 (24) 47.97 (68) 66.71 (18)
24 Florida .406 (1) .324 (20) 65.72 (1) 68.01 (13)
25 Oklahoma .171 (47) .366 (8) 51.62 (45) 70.42 (6)
26 Iowa .222 (23) .322 (21) 49.21 (60) 66.28 (19)
27 Missouri .135 (64) .325 (19) 43.90 (103) 68.37 (11)
28 Virginia .168 (48) .089 (78) 50.43 (54) 51.11 (75)
29 Cincinnati .156 (53) .227 (42) 48.99 (63) 58.98 (52)
30 Louisville .135 (65) .179 (58) 51.59 (46) 56.35 (61)
31 Georgia Tech .098 (95) .204 (53) 50.25 (55) 60.02 (48)
32 Pittsburgh .150 (56) .312 (22) 47.30 (74) 65.36 (23)
33 Iowa State .156 (54) .166 (61) 53.95 (34) 56.10 (65)
34 Auburn .245 (17) .255 (38) 57.18 (18) 61.10 (40)
35 Penn State .128 (75) .425 (4) 46.05 (86) 72.50 (4)
36 Old Dominion .171 (46) .025 (124) 49.16 (61) 37.41 (132)
37 Duke .130 (72) .153 (65) 52.97 (39) 56.99 (58)
38 Memphis .038 (129) .117 (74) 38.65 (125) 50.38 (76)
39 North Texas .093 (101) .030 (118) 46.83 (80) 40.80 (111)
40 Mississippi State .172 (45) .350 (9) 46.84 (79) 69.85 (7)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
41 Kansas .205 (28) .217 (47) 52.65 (41) 57.70 (57)
42 Clemson .133 (68) .209 (50) 52.80 (40) 56.35 (60)
43 Arkansas .292 (6) .335 (15) 56.14 (24) 68.74 (10)
44 TCU .095 (97) .202 (54) 50.76 (51) 60.69 (44)
45 Maryland .144 (61) .309 (23) 47.93 (69) 66.21 (20)
46 East Carolina .129 (73) .065 (91) 48.66 (65) 44.81 (97)
47 South Carolina .217 (24) .326 (18) 56.77 (20) 64.71 (25)
48 Boise State .216 (25) .062 (95) 52.07 (43) 47.12 (88)
49 NC State .232 (20) .344 (12) 57.07 (19) 65.84 (21)
50 Arizona .128 (76) .180 (57) 46.28 (85) 60.02 (47)
51 Colorado .173 (44) .215 (48) 57.54 (16) 60.98 (42)
52 Toledo .056 (119) .027 (122) 40.05 (121) 38.67 (127)
53 San Diego State .029 (135) .062 (94) 40.32 (120) 47.99 (83)
54 Houston .112 (87) .120 (73) 46.31 (84) 55.85 (66)
55 Rutgers .173 (43) .384 (5) 49.95 (57) 70.60 (5)
56 Tulane .142 (62) .084 (80) 53.87 (35) 47.04 (89)
57 Arizona State .188 (32) .211 (49) 55.71 (25) 60.91 (43)
58 Kansas State .124 (79) .292 (28) 55.46 (26) 62.20 (34)
59 Wake Forest .083 (106) .218 (46) 47.83 (71) 57.75 (56)
60 Purdue .280 (8) .445 (3) 59.51 (9) 72.97 (3)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
61 SMU .065 (114) .224 (44) 43.47 (107) 60.54 (45)
62 Kentucky .232 (19) .293 (27) 58.37 (12) 65.29 (24)
63 Minnesota .180 (37) .269 (34) 47.29 (75) 63.02 (33)
64 UCF .114 (86) .221 (45) 44.41 (100) 56.91 (59)
65 UTSA .121 (82) .164 (63) 47.09 (77) 55.21 (67)
66 Northwestern .183 (34) .335 (16) 48.53 (66) 67.77 (14)
67 New Mexico .134 (67) .053 (103) 51.47 (48) 45.95 (90)
68 Louisiana Tech .094 (98) .032 (113) 45.52 (92) 41.31 (106)
69 Syracuse .160 (51) .340 (14) 53.63 (36) 63.68 (31)
70 UCLA .175 (40) .519 (2) 58.75 (11) 77.46 (1)
71 Wisconsin .253 (15) .520 (1) 58.76 (10) 77.29 (2)
72 Baylor .093 (100) .240 (41) 45.00 (95) 63.23 (32)
73 Michigan State .192 (31) .343 (13) 54.10 (33) 69.04 (8)
74 Ohio .180 (36) .026 (123) 51.32 (49) 36.98 (133)
75 James Madison .064 (116) .066 (90) 37.64 (129) 47.31 (87)
76 UNLV .032 (133) .068 (87) 42.08 (114) 47.74 (85)
77 Western Michigan .116 (84) .028 (121) 46.03 (89) 40.39 (116)
78 Virginia Tech .184 (33) .366 (7) 56.42 (22) 68.17 (12)
79 Army .101 (94) .070 (85) 48.81 (64) 48.41 (82)
80 UConn .030 (134) .043 (109) 35.88 (134) 41.45 (105)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
81 Washington State .212 (26) .114 (75) 58.18 (13) 51.84 (74)
82 West Virginia .247 (16) .206 (52) 55.31 (28) 61.61 (38)
83 Marshall .121 (81) .023 (127) 45.71 (91) 39.26 (121)
84 Utah State .173 (41) .067 (88) 46.73 (81) 47.41 (86)
85 Temple .122 (80) .100 (77) 44.42 (99) 50.36 (78)
86 Bowling Green .151 (55) .007 (136) 51.90 (44) 31.23 (136)
87 Navy .019 (136) .273 (32) 32.40 (136) 61.92 (37)
88 Texas State .056 (120) .035 (112) 40.58 (119) 41.01 (109)
89 Western Kentucky .041 (127) .101 (76) 35.89 (133) 44.12 (101)
90 California .082 (107) .138 (71) 44.92 (98) 54.04 (71)
91 Colorado State .144 (60) .076 (82) 51.54 (47) 49.11 (80)
92 Kennesaw State .179 (38) .016 (135) 46.97 (78) 37.85 (131)
93 Miami (OH) .059 (117) .049 (105) 42.79 (111) 42.96 (103)
94 Southern Miss .052 (121) .019 (134) 42.06 (115) 37.92 (130)
95 Troy .081 (109) .056 (99) 44.94 (97) 38.81 (126)
96 Wyoming .126 (78) .055 (100) 47.13 (76) 45.56 (92)
97 Fresno State .052 (122) .085 (79) 37.89 (127) 50.36 (77)
98 Stanford .173 (42) .349 (10) 54.79 (30) 65.51 (22)
99 Delaware .057 (118) .041 (111) 40.69 (118) 40.72 (113)
100 Hawai’i .045 (126) .064 (92) 39.28 (124) 49.03 (81)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
101 San José State .108 (90) .054 (101) 47.48 (73) 45.09 (95)
102 Air Force .064 (115) .053 (102) 43.88 (104) 47.98 (84)
103 Boston College .104 (92) .241 (40) 45.84 (90) 62.06 (36)
104 Liberty .072 (111) .032 (114) 44.03 (101) 40.80 (110)
105 Jacksonville State .036 (132) .020 (132) 36.47 (132) 39.30 (120)
106 Oregon State .227 (22) .031 (116) 57.52 (17) 38.08 (128)
107 Buffalo .037 (130) .029 (120) 33.47 (135) 38.93 (124)
108 North Carolina .088 (104) .141 (68) 44.97 (96) 56.30 (63)
109 App State .047 (125) .072 (84) 37.51 (130) 44.41 (100)
110 Missouri State .132 (69) .029 (119) 46.04 (88) 40.64 (115)
111 South Alabama .116 (83) .019 (133) 45.05 (94) 36.15 (134)
112 Tulsa .070 (112) .063 (93) 45.13 (93) 44.90 (96)
113 Florida Atlantic .068 (113) .145 (66) 37.49 (131) 54.25 (70)
114 Georgia Southern .126 (77) .050 (104) 46.48 (82) 41.30 (108)
115 Northern Illinois .102 (93) .057 (98) 46.04 (87) 40.77 (112)
116 New Mexico State .047 (124) .081 (81) 37.69 (128) 44.49 (98)
117 Louisiana .088 (103) .024 (125) 40.75 (117) 39.48 (119)
118 Central Michigan .131 (70) .049 (106) 42.15 (113) 41.30 (107)
119 UTEP .106 (91) .023 (126) 41.98 (116) 39.21 (122)
120 Arkansas State .081 (108) .022 (129) 43.52 (106) 39.86 (118)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
121 Coastal Carolina .134 (66) .058 (96) 46.34 (83) 43.85 (102)
122 Nevada .087 (105) .073 (83) 47.55 (72) 50.01 (79)
123 Ball State .111 (89) .044 (108) 50.66 (53) 39.11 (123)
124 Akron .098 (96) .021 (131) 43.37 (108) 34.73 (135)
125 Florida International .080 (110) .021 (130) 42.49 (112) 38.81 (125)
126 Rice .047 (123) .164 (62) 39.53 (122) 54.30 (69)
127 UAB .094 (99) .128 (72) 43.98 (102) 52.69 (73)
128 Kent State .265 (11) .044 (107) 50.73 (52) 41.58 (104)
129 Middle Tennessee .040 (128) .023 (128) 43.72 (105) 38.01 (129)
130 Oklahoma State .178 (39) .255 (37) 49.89 (58) 64.17 (27)
131 Eastern Michigan .036 (131) .042 (110) 38.50 (126) 45.44 (94)
132 Charlotte .093 (102) .195 (55) 43.16 (109) 59.66 (49)
133 Sam Houston .114 (85) .031 (115) 50.19 (56) 40.36 (117)
134 Georgia State .181 (35) .067 (89) 49.73 (59) 45.48 (93)
135 UL Monroe .129 (74) .058 (97) 39.41 (123) 45.92 (91)
136 Massachusetts .145 (59) .030 (117) 47.91 (70) 40.68 (114)I’ve generated ratings like these for a couple of seasons, and in those seasons, a lot more of the teams with the toughest schedule strengths were in the SEC. There seems to be more parity between conferences this year, and it actually seems like Big Ten teams are playing more of the toughest schedules.
One of the games this weekend that probably helped to shift the ratings was Ole Miss winning by three points at home against Washington State. It’s a win, but the margin of victory was far closer than what my ratings would have predicted. Ole Miss dropped several spots in the predictive as a result. As a consequence, all the SEC teams that play Ole Miss now have their schedules appear a bit weaker.
There aren’t really any bad SEC teams, with Kentucky being the conference’s lowest rated team at #62. But there’s also just a single SEC team in the top 10, meaning that there’s just a lot of parity in the conference. The Big Ten’s weakest teams are a bit below Kentucky, but they also have more teams at the top of the ratings. The SEC just doesn’t look as dominant this year, and schedule strength is one place where that shows up.
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 .737 SEC .337 (2) 68.83 33.73 35.08 -1.35 (8)
2 .689 Big Ten .320 (3) 66.78 33.30 33.47 -0.17 (7)
3 .681 FBS Independents .382 (1) 67.91 38.81 29.12 9.69 (1)
4 .605 Big 12 .211 (4) 60.20 30.26 29.90 0.36 (6)
5 .578 ACC .199 (5) 58.81 29.82 29.01 0.81 (5)
6 .431 American Athletic .100 (6) 48.86 25.92 22.98 2.94 (2)
7 .400 Mountain West .060 (7) 47.38 24.37 22.98 1.39 (4)
8 .360 Pac-12 .041 (8) 44.99 20.28 24.66 -4.38 (10)
9 .307 Sun Belt .039 (9) 41.01 21.54 19.43 2.11 (3)
10 .289 Mid-American .034 (10) 39.42 17.46 21.95 -4.49 (11)
11 .278 Conference USA .024 (11) 39.34 17.79 21.51 -3.72 (9) The conference ratings continue with the story that the SEC just isn’t as dominant this season, and the gap has narrowed between the SEC and Big Ten. The SEC still has an edge, but the gap between the SEC and Big Ten has shrunk during the course of this season, and it’s also smaller than in previous seasons.
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 .9905 +.0020 Miami .994 .998 1.000 .979
2 +1 .9864 +.0293 Indiana .984 .948 1.000 .993
3 +1 .9812 +.0249 Ohio State .980 .904 1.000 .990
4 -2 .9660 +.0051 Texas A&M .982 .926 1.000 .932
5 +1 .9409 +.0057 Alabama .949 .981 .833 .955
6 +2 .9399 +.0211 Texas Tech .957 .567 1.000 .951
7 +2 .9079 -.0068 Oregon .897 .797 .833 .971
8 -3 .9043 -.0357 Ole Miss .946 .428 1.000 .875
9 +7 .9024 +.0464 South Florida .926 .927 .833 .877
10 +1 .9018 +.0077 Georgia .911 .866 .833 .913
11 +2 .8985 +.0073 BYU .938 .333 1.000 .887
12 +6 .8871 +.0410 Washington .889 .752 .833 .924
13 -3 .8854 -.0250 Illinois .915 .997 .714 .870
14 -2 .8755 -.0186 LSU .889 .750 .833 .886
15 +8 .8686 +.0368 USC .861 .586 .833 .941
16 +10 .8660 +.0411 Notre Dame .830 .974 .667 .981
17 +2 .8622 +.0168 Georgia Tech .931 .273 1.000 .787
18 +12 .8541 +.0602 Utah .841 .473 .833 .948
19 -12 .8509 -.0705 Oklahoma .869 .634 .833 .859
20 -5 .8469 -.0158 Vanderbilt .861 .586 .833 .869
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
21 .8415 +.0052 Virginia .867 .623 .833 .833
22 .8395 +.0068 Nebraska .850 .523 .833 .875
23 +1 .8356 +.0052 Tennessee .848 .507 .833 .869
24 +3 .8261 +.0054 Cincinnati .857 .560 .833 .812
25 +9 .8257 +.0811 Texas .802 .946 .667 .901
26 -9 .8189 -.0341 Missouri .838 .453 .833 .840
27 -13 .8123 -.0760 Michigan .794 .934 .667 .874
28 +1 .8111 +.0016 Memphis .895 .082 1.000 .716
29 +3 .7856 +.0339 Louisville .803 .449 .800 .804
30 +14 .7761 +.0823 Iowa .750 .844 .667 .849
31 +2 .7516 +.0036 Tulane .844 .489 .833 .598
32 -12 .7471 -.0899 North Texas .794 .251 .833 .714
33 +9 .7314 +.0266 Houston .814 .334 .833 .612
34 -3 .7312 -.0604 Iowa State .727 .559 .714 .773
35 +2 .7219 +.0012 UNLV .891 .071 1.000 .428
36 +15 .7174 +.0883 Boise State .743 .824 .667 .670
37 -9 .7167 -.0988 Florida State .614 .971 .500 .934
38 -13 .6977 -.1274 Old Dominion .684 .635 .667 .744
39 +4 .6944 -.0020 Navy .881 .051 1.000 .357
40 +1 .6884 -.0197 Mississippi State .685 .639 .667 .710
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
41 +29 .6881 +.1979 Pittsburgh .655 .529 .667 .783
42 -7 .6705 -.0613 Arizona State .707 .717 .667 .596
43 +15 .6685 +.0852 San Diego State .718 .066 .833 .624
44 +4 .6513 +.0044 Duke .626 .425 .667 .730
45 -6 .6509 -.0630 Maryland .646 .495 .667 .682
46 +4 .6478 +.0156 NC State .635 .873 .571 .659
47 +13 .6456 +.0849 Minnesota .697 .679 .667 .540
48 +4 .6402 +.0132 James Madison .760 .145 .833 .438
49 -3 .6390 -.0199 Florida .540 1.000 .333 .862
50 +14 .6350 +.1133 Northwestern .700 .692 .667 .495
51 -2 .6336 -.0114 Kansas .596 .787 .571 .698
52 -12 .6267 -.0846 Auburn .548 .905 .500 .767
53 -8 .6247 -.0570 Arizona .623 .415 .667 .649
54 -16 .6014 -.1178 TCU .573 .258 .667 .689
55 +1 .5920 -.0067 Western Kentucky .733 .089 .833 .336
56 +17 .5781 +.1115 Kennesaw State .695 .673 .667 .319
57 -4 .5699 -.0508 South Carolina .504 .827 .500 .671
58 +21 .5576 +.1091 Wake Forest .555 .210 .667 .584
59 -23 .5394 -.1891 Louisiana Tech .573 .256 .667 .483
60 +11 .5320 +.0594 SMU .528 .149 .667 .559
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
61 +1 .5299 -.0124 Baylor .571 .252 .667 .455
62 +10 .5063 +.0361 Rutgers .438 .647 .500 .610
63 -9 .5029 -.1043 Penn State .371 .416 .500 .761
64 -3 .4910 -.0532 Arkansas .367 .974 .333 .690
65 +19 .4874 +.0817 Clemson .378 .442 .500 .691
66 +8 .4868 +.0231 Washington State .498 .812 .500 .408
67 +8 .4800 +.0190 California .554 .209 .667 .327
68 -9 .4786 -.1017 East Carolina .372 .420 .500 .677
69 -22 .4782 -.1729 Michigan State .466 .732 .500 .451
70 -15 .4758 -.1305 Fresno State .581 .114 .714 .264
71 +16 .4674 +.0905 Troy .552 .203 .667 .289
72 +9 .4657 +.0359 Ohio .449 .681 .500 .450
73 +13 .4654 +.0665 Hawai’i .570 .097 .714 .251
74 +4 .4561 +.0066 UConn .474 .067 .667 .419
75 -7 .4552 -.0452 Kentucky .376 .874 .400 .548
76 +4 .4541 +.0239 Western Michigan .459 .353 .571 .423
77 .4531 +.0022 Syracuse .418 .583 .500 .480
78 +10 .4494 +.0902 Colorado .332 .645 .429 .638
79 -16 .4417 -.0939 Purdue .349 .962 .333 .561
80 +2 .4394 +.0222 Southern Miss .508 .114 .667 .292
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
81 -24 .4359 -.1513 Utah State .438 .648 .500 .375
82 -17 .4277 -.0930 New Mexico .378 .443 .500 .491
83 +14 .4227 +.1181 UTSA .360 .379 .500 .519
84 -8 .4211 -.0390 UCF .350 .344 .500 .538
85 +14 .4094 +.1242 Bowling Green .404 .532 .500 .369
86 -17 .3931 -.1058 Toledo .271 .123 .500 .627
87 +7 .3913 +.0791 App State .500 .101 .667 .149
88 -22 .3894 -.1150 Wisconsin .311 .922 .333 .462
89 +6 .3877 +.0773 Kansas State .267 .397 .429 .594
90 +15 .3856 +.1429 Marshall .361 .382 .500 .394
91 -24 .3789 -.1226 Temple .361 .382 .500 .371
92 -2 .3731 +.0169 Army .332 .287 .500 .420
93 -4 .3687 +.0111 Delaware .413 .125 .600 .251
94 -1 .3656 +.0444 West Virginia .303 .910 .333 .400
95 +7 .3539 +.1000 Wyoming .367 .405 .500 .272
96 +17 .3237 +.1227 UCLA .214 .657 .333 .466
97 +7 .3230 +.0768 Missouri State .376 .434 .500 .149
98 -7 .3218 -.0200 New Mexico State .398 .101 .600 .125
99 +1 .3127 +.0389 Coastal Carolina .379 .444 .500 .108
100 -2 .3110 +.0100 Central Michigan .374 .429 .500 .113
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
101 -16 .3084 -.0938 Texas State .270 .122 .500 .345
102 +4 .2981 +.0608 Miami (OH) .275 .131 .500 .302
103 -20 .2857 -.1278 UL Monroe .372 .419 .500 .035
104 -8 .2847 -.0242 Virginia Tech .172 .696 .286 .422
105 +6 .2818 +.0783 Kent State .329 .943 .333 .069
106 -14 .2578 -.0685 Stanford .212 .648 .333 .252
107 +8 .2571 +.0677 Florida Atlantic .286 .158 .500 .139
108 +19 .2547 +.1341 Colorado State .181 .499 .333 .323
109 +5 .2448 +.0507 Jacksonville State .247 .079 .500 .184
110 -1 .2403 +.0173 Buffalo .247 .080 .500 .167
111 +1 .2063 +.0044 North Carolina .191 .229 .400 .166
112 -9 .1960 -.0544 San José State .146 .316 .333 .222
113 -12 .1838 -.0757 Georgia Southern .163 .405 .333 .136
114 +2 .1752 -.0040 Florida International .184 .201 .400 .080
115 -5 .1703 -.0488 Rice .179 .102 .429 .080
116 +13 .1637 +.0451 Liberty .117 .172 .333 .192
117 -9 .1572 -.0700 Ball State .149 .333 .333 .084
118 -1 .1525 -.0217 Louisiana .129 .230 .333 .122
119 +2 .1467 +.0002 Tulsa .115 .164 .333 .140
120 +2 .1439 +.0047 Arkansas State .124 .204 .333 .108
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
121 -14 .1436 -.0860 UAB .134 .254 .333 .079
122 -3 .1218 -.0452 Akron .101 .270 .286 .081
123 -3 .1208 -.0264 Boston College .044 .300 .167 .217
124 +1 .1134 -.0101 Oregon State .030 .859 .000 .180
125 -1 .1118 -.0206 Oklahoma State .077 .668 .167 .065
126 +4 .1070 -.0024 Air Force .031 .147 .167 .220
127 -9 .1053 -.0675 Georgia State .078 .682 .167 .038
128 -2 .1038 -.0180 South Alabama .048 .354 .167 .144
129 -1 .0946 -.0243 Northern Illinois .043 .288 .167 .134
130 -7 .0894 -.0434 UTEP .044 .307 .167 .110
131 +3 .0855 +.0375 Eastern Michigan .065 .079 .286 .057
132 -1 .0765 -.0227 Nevada .038 .225 .167 .093
133 .0661 +.0042 Charlotte .040 .249 .167 .051
134 -2 .0548 -.0082 Middle Tennessee .025 .086 .167 .067
135 +1 .0375 -.0002 Sam Houston .010 .345 .000 .049
136 -1 .0366 -.0037 Massachusetts .014 .503 .000 .012Miami has the played the #2 schedule so far this season, but their remaining schedule is rated #67. There’s very little to move their rating this week, but if they keep winning, they should remain in one of the top three spots the rest of the way.
In the short term, I wouldn’t expect Indiana or Ohio State to jump over Miami. Both Indiana and Ohio State have future games against Penn State, games that looked like they had the potential to cause big shifts in the playoff ratings just a couple of weeks ago. That’s no longer the case with Penn State at 3-3 and falling in the predictive ratings. Ohio State’s final game of the season at Michigan could have a bigger impact, but there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot in the short term that could push either Indiana or Ohio State ahead of Miami.
Texas A&M has a better chance of moving ahead of Miami with future games at LSU and Missouri. They also have an overall stronger future schedule (#30) than Indiana (#70), Ohio State (#59), or Miami (#67). They also play at Texas to end the regular season, another game that could have a large impact on the playoff ratings.
There’s a good chance that the winner of the American, either Memphis or South Florida, will represent the Group of 5 in the playoff. Right now, South Florida is in the top 12 on the merits of their accomplishments to date. They seem fairly safe right now, though UNLV and Navy are also undefeated. At the top of the ratings, Miami, Indiana, Ohio State, Texas A&M, Alabama, Texas Tech, and Oregon all seem very safe.
After the eight teams that I consider safe right now (Miami, Indiana, Ohio State, Texas A&M, Alabama, Texas Tech, Oregon, and South Florida), there are four remaining playoff spots for at-large teams. I’d have previously considered Ole Miss safe, but their predictive rating dropped considerably this week. They’re in the mix, as are Georgia and LSU from the SEC. It’s hard to imagine the SEC won’t get at least three teams in the playoff, and Ole Miss seems to be the safest of the teams on the bubble right now. Georgia would also be in right now on the merits of what they’ve accomplished to date. BYU narrowly escaped in two overtimes against Arizona, but they’re very much in the mix.
USC has been rated highly by the predictive ratings this season, and their impressive win against Michigan puts them in contention to be the fourth Big Ten team in the playoff. Washington has a stronger strength of record and could easily be the fourth Big Ten team instead of USC. Illinois has an additional loss, but they also have played a tougher schedule and have a good strength of record.
Georgia Tech is ranked a bit lower, but they’re unbeaten and don’t play that tough of a schedule (#53 Future SOS) going forward. They have a realistic chance at a playoff spot. Notre Dame (#5 Past SOS; #64 Future SOS) picked up a couple of early losses against a tough schedule, but their schedule seems favorable for them to remain in contention. The predictive ratings still have Notre Dame highly ranked, so they can’t be ignored as a potential playoff team. Subjectively, this is my best guess for the playoff if it began right now, giving priority to unbeaten teams and those with good strength of record ratings:
Safest (8): Miami, Indiana, Ohio State, Texas A&M, Alabama, Texas Tech, Oregon, and South Florida
Likely in (2): Ole Miss, Georgia
Last two in (2): BYU, Georgia Tech
Last teams out (3): LSU, Washington, USC
Next teams out (13): Illinois, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Utah, Nebraska, Virginia, Missouri, Cincinnati, Memphis, UNLV, Navy
Week 8 Early Predictions
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.
#1: Washington (1.92, 54.54%) at Michigan (-1.92, 45.46%)
Estimated score: 28.29 - 26.39, Total: 54.68
Quality: 97.98%, Team quality: 97.21%, Competitiveness: 99.54%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.48%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.96%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.61%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.75%
#2: LSU (-1.15, 47.28%) at Vanderbilt (1.15, 52.72%)
Estimated score: 26.94 - 28.03, Total: 54.97
Quality: 97.85%, Team quality: 96.87%, Competitiveness: 99.83%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.36%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.10%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.87%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.50%
#3: Utah (3.84, 59.00%) at BYU (-3.84, 41.00%)
Estimated score: 32.23 - 28.49, Total: 60.72
Quality: 97.73%, Team quality: 97.50%, Competitiveness: 98.18%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.01%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.36%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 44.13%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.67%
#4: Missouri (1.58, 53.74%) at Auburn (-1.58, 46.26%)
Estimated score: 25.71 - 24.20, Total: 49.91
Quality: 97.17%, Team quality: 95.93%, Competitiveness: 99.69%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.42%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.03%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.40%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.98%
#5: Georgia Tech (0.34, 50.79%) at Duke (-0.34, 49.21%)
Estimated score: 34.39 - 34.09, Total: 68.48
Quality: 96.88%, Team quality: 95.37%, Competitiveness: 99.99%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.30%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.16%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 51.39%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 23.69%
#6: Ole Miss (-5.67, 36.83%) at Georgia (5.67, 63.17%)
Estimated score: 21.78 - 27.57, Total: 49.36
Quality: 96.74%, Team quality: 97.08%, Competitiveness: 96.06%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.87%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.43%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 33.92%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.48%
#7: Arizona (-0.94, 47.77%) at Houston (0.94, 52.23%)
Estimated score: 21.09 - 21.96, Total: 43.05
Quality: 95.75%, Team quality: 93.74%, Competitiveness: 99.89%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.34%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.12%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.67%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 45.28%
#8: Penn State (-7.37, 33.12%) at Iowa (7.37, 66.88%)
Estimated score: 20.30 - 27.87, Total: 48.17
Quality: 95.07%, Team quality: 95.89%, Competitiveness: 93.44%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.96%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.29%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 32.90%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 40.56%
#9: Oklahoma (7.21, 66.53%) at South Carolina (-7.21, 33.47%)
Estimated score: 15.79 - 8.46, Total: 24.24
Quality: 94.90%, Team quality: 95.49%, Competitiveness: 93.72%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.84%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.41%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 15.75%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 62.68%
#10: Purdue (0.06, 50.13%) at Northwestern (-0.06, 49.87%)
Estimated score: 16.80 - 16.67, Total: 33.47
Quality: 94.84%, Team quality: 92.36%, Competitiveness: 100.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.30%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.17%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 21.53%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 54.24%
#11: USC (-10.21, 27.29%) at Notre Dame (10.21, 72.71%)
Estimated score: 32.65 - 43.05, Total: 75.71
Quality: 94.61%, Team quality: 98.23%, Competitiveness: 87.76%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.43%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.87%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 58.11%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 18.77%
#12: Maryland (6.02, 63.93%) at UCLA (-6.02, 36.07%)
Estimated score: 24.78 - 18.69, Total: 43.46
Quality: 93.83%, Team quality: 92.96%, Competitiveness: 95.58%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.07%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.22%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.01%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 44.89%
#13: SMU (-7.78, 32.25%) at Clemson (7.78, 67.75%)
Estimated score: 18.28 - 25.92, Total: 44.20
Quality: 93.30%, Team quality: 93.59%, Competitiveness: 92.72%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.26%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.97%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.60%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 44.21%
#14: Tennessee (-11.13, 25.53%) at Alabama (11.13, 74.47%)
Estimated score: 30.03 - 41.23, Total: 71.26
Quality: 93.29%, Team quality: 97.37%, Competitiveness: 85.63%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 14.40%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.99%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 53.99%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 21.72%
#15: Mississippi State (-10.61, 26.51%) at Florida (10.61, 73.49%)
Estimated score: 18.21 - 28.79, Total: 46.99
Quality: 92.61%, Team quality: 95.64%, Competitiveness: 86.85%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.84%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.49%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 31.91%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.63%
#16: Texas State (-4.42, 39.66%) at Marshall (4.42, 60.34%)
Estimated score: 37.52 - 42.03, Total: 79.55
Quality: 92.28%, Team quality: 89.74%, Competitiveness: 97.59%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.25%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.10%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 61.60%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 16.44%
#17: West Virginia (-7.76, 32.29%) at UCF (7.76, 67.71%)
Estimated score: 16.97 - 24.71, Total: 41.68
Quality: 91.82%, Team quality: 91.35%, Competitiveness: 92.76%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.25%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.99%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 27.59%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 46.55%
#18: Pittsburgh (10.19, 72.66%) at Syracuse (-10.19, 27.34%)
Estimated score: 32.49 - 22.45, Total: 54.94
Quality: 91.71%, Team quality: 93.72%, Competitiveness: 87.82%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.40%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.90%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.84%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.53%
#19: Old Dominion (9.87, 72.04%) at James Madison (-9.87, 27.96%)
Estimated score: 23.53 - 13.66, Total: 37.18
Quality: 91.58%, Team quality: 93.15%, Competitiveness: 88.52%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.09%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.19%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 24.17%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 50.77%
#20: UTSA (-10.30, 27.11%) at North Texas (10.30, 72.89%)
Estimated score: 36.22 - 46.76, Total: 82.98
Quality: 91.43%, Team quality: 93.43%, Competitiveness: 87.56%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.52%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.79%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 64.64%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 14.52%
#21: Army (-9.27, 29.16%) at Tulane (9.27, 70.84%)
Estimated score: 15.17 - 24.67, Total: 39.84
Quality: 91.21%, Team quality: 91.91%, Competitiveness: 89.81%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.52%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.73%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 26.16%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 48.28%
#22: Wyoming (0.06, 50.14%) at Air Force (-0.06, 49.86%)
Estimated score: 30.71 - 30.65, Total: 61.36
Quality: 91.16%, Team quality: 87.04%, Competitiveness: 100.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.30%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.17%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 44.73%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.15%
#23: Texas A&M (12.67, 77.28%) at Arkansas (-12.67, 22.72%)
Estimated score: 35.67 - 22.93, Total: 58.59
Quality: 91.11%, Team quality: 96.17%, Competitiveness: 81.77%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 16.21%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 24.41%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 42.17%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.42%
#24: UConn (6.29, 64.55%) at Boston College (-6.29, 35.45%)
Estimated score: 40.18 - 33.92, Total: 74.10
Quality: 90.68%, Team quality: 88.52%, Competitiveness: 95.17%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.24%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.04%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 56.63%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 19.81%
#25: Hawai’i (-5.67, 36.83%) at Colorado State (5.67, 63.17%)
Estimated score: 20.50 - 26.19, Total: 46.69
Quality: 90.60%, Team quality: 87.98%, Competitiveness: 96.06%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.87%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.43%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 31.66%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.90%
#26: Delaware (1.02, 52.42%) at Jacksonville State (-1.02, 47.58%)
Estimated score: 27.53 - 26.55, Total: 54.08
Quality: 90.55%, Team quality: 86.23%, Competitiveness: 99.87%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.35%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.11%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.07%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.27%
#27: Baylor (-11.64, 24.57%) at TCU (11.64, 75.43%)
Estimated score: 32.92 - 44.36, Total: 77.28
Quality: 89.88%, Team quality: 92.76%, Competitiveness: 84.38%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 14.97%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.47%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 59.55%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 17.79%
#28: UNLV (-11.88, 24.13%) at Boise State (11.88, 75.87%)
Estimated score: 26.05 - 37.91, Total: 63.96
Quality: 89.44%, Team quality: 92.41%, Competitiveness: 83.78%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.26%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.23%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 47.15%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 27.09%
#29: Nebraska (13.47, 78.67%) at Minnesota (-13.47, 21.33%)
Estimated score: 37.89 - 24.37, Total: 62.26
Quality: 89.43%, Team quality: 94.76%, Competitiveness: 79.64%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 17.25%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 23.55%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 45.56%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.43%
#30: San José State (-9.25, 29.20%) at Utah State (9.25, 70.80%)
Estimated score: 27.79 - 37.20, Total: 64.98
Quality: 88.63%, Team quality: 88.02%, Competitiveness: 89.85%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.50%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.75%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 48.11%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 26.30%
#31: Southern Miss (6.90, 65.87%) at Louisiana (-6.90, 34.13%)
Estimated score: 34.66 - 27.74, Total: 62.40
Quality: 88.29%, Team quality: 85.47%, Competitiveness: 94.23%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.63%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.63%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 45.69%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.32%
#32: Texas (15.27, 81.59%) at Kentucky (-15.27, 18.41%)
Estimated score: 30.68 - 15.53, Total: 46.22
Quality: 87.65%, Team quality: 95.02%, Competitiveness: 74.59%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 19.82%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.57%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 31.26%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 42.34%
#33: New Mexico State (-6.67, 34.64%) at Liberty (6.67, 65.36%)
Estimated score: 14.80 - 21.53, Total: 36.32
Quality: 87.42%, Team quality: 84.04%, Competitiveness: 94.60%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.47%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.79%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 23.54%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 51.57%
#34: Arkansas State (-5.11, 38.09%) at South Alabama (5.11, 61.91%)
Estimated score: 26.18 - 31.28, Total: 57.46
Quality: 87.16%, Team quality: 82.71%, Competitiveness: 96.79%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.57%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.75%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.13%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.37%
#35: Coastal Carolina (-5.49, 37.23%) at App State (5.49, 62.77%)
Estimated score: 16.57 - 22.20, Total: 38.77
Quality: 87.09%, Team quality: 82.81%, Competitiveness: 96.30%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.77%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.53%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 25.35%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 49.27%
#36: North Carolina (-10.38, 26.97%) at California (10.38, 73.03%)
Estimated score: 15.14 - 25.51, Total: 40.65
Quality: 86.86%, Team quality: 86.60%, Competitiveness: 87.39%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.60%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.72%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 26.78%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 47.52%
#37: Akron (-2.72, 43.59%) at Ball State (2.72, 56.41%)
Estimated score: 18.63 - 21.40, Total: 40.03
Quality: 86.08%, Team quality: 80.24%, Competitiveness: 99.08%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.66%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.76%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 26.30%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 48.10%
#38: UTEP (6.58, 65.18%) vs. Sam Houston (-6.58, 34.82%)
Estimated score: 28.82 - 22.32, Total: 51.15
Quality: 84.32%, Team quality: 79.55%, Competitiveness: 94.73%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.42%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.85%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.47%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 37.87%
#39: Texas Tech (18.94, 86.69%) at Arizona State (-18.94, 13.31%)
Estimated score: 31.89 - 12.89, Total: 44.78
Quality: 83.55%, Team quality: 95.76%, Competitiveness: 63.60%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 25.99%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 17.46%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 30.07%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.67%
#40: Louisville (-20.40, 11.59%) at Miami (20.40, 88.41%)
Estimated score: 14.59 - 35.10, Total: 49.69
Quality: 82.34%, Team quality: 97.18%, Competitiveness: 59.11%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 28.77%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 15.86%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.21%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.17%
#41: Central Michigan (-15.78, 17.64%) at Bowling Green (15.78, 82.36%)
Estimated score: 15.83 - 31.31, Total: 47.14
Quality: 81.28%, Team quality: 85.70%, Competitiveness: 73.12%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 20.60%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.00%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 32.04%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.49%
#42: Northern Illinois (-17.38, 15.35%) at Ohio (17.38, 84.65%)
Estimated score: 8.18 - 25.54, Total: 33.72
Quality: 80.22%, Team quality: 86.90%, Competitiveness: 68.37%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 23.21%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.21%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 21.70%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 54.01%
#43: Georgia State (-12.63, 22.79%) at Georgia Southern (12.63, 77.21%)
Estimated score: 28.00 - 40.63, Total: 68.64
Quality: 80.14%, Team quality: 79.29%, Competitiveness: 81.87%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 16.17%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 24.45%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 51.54%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 23.57%
#44: Washington State (-20.67, 11.30%) at Virginia (20.67, 88.70%)
Estimated score: 17.48 - 38.10, Total: 55.58
Quality: 79.69%, Team quality: 93.18%, Competitiveness: 58.30%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 29.28%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 15.58%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 39.42%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.97%
#45: Oregon (22.08, 90.17%) at Rutgers (-22.08, 9.83%)
Estimated score: 47.15 - 24.89, Total: 72.03
Quality: 79.27%, Team quality: 96.06%, Competitiveness: 53.97%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 32.15%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 14.09%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 54.71%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 21.19%
#46: Florida International (-17.34, 15.39%) at Western Kentucky (17.34, 84.61%)
Estimated score: 15.64 - 32.90, Total: 48.54
Quality: 78.66%, Team quality: 84.30%, Competitiveness: 68.48%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 23.15%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.25%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 33.22%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 40.22%
#47: Temple (17.41, 84.69%) at Charlotte (-17.41, 15.31%)
Estimated score: 36.77 - 19.17, Total: 55.95
Quality: 78.16%, Team quality: 83.63%, Competitiveness: 68.28%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 23.26%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.17%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 39.75%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.66%
#48: Lafayette (-15.59, 17.93%) at Oregon State (15.59, 82.07%)
Estimated score: 24.55 - 40.06, Total: 64.61
Quality: 77.86%, Team quality: 80.03%, Competitiveness: 73.68%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 20.30%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.22%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 47.76%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 26.59%
#49: Troy (16.68, 83.69%) at UL Monroe (-16.68, 16.31%)
Estimated score: 36.04 - 19.65, Total: 55.69
Quality: 77.74%, Team quality: 81.67%, Competitiveness: 70.44%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 22.05%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.98%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 39.52%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.88%
#50: Eastern Michigan (-18.50, 13.87%) at Miami (OH) (18.50, 86.13%)
Estimated score: 16.71 - 35.10, Total: 51.81
Quality: 76.42%, Team quality: 82.89%, Competitiveness: 64.96%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 25.18%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 17.95%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 36.05%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 37.28%
#51: Buffalo (16.96, 84.07%) at Massachusetts (-16.96, 15.93%)
Estimated score: 26.94 - 9.89, Total: 36.83
Quality: 74.45%, Team quality: 76.98%, Competitiveness: 69.63%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 22.50%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.68%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 23.91%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 51.10%
#52: Nevada (-22.22, 9.70%) at New Mexico (22.22, 90.30%)
Estimated score: 11.88 - 34.20, Total: 46.07
Quality: 73.42%, Team quality: 85.98%, Competitiveness: 53.55%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 32.44%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 13.95%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 31.14%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 42.48%
#53: Tulsa (-25.85, 6.63%) at East Carolina (25.85, 93.37%)
Estimated score: 6.97 - 32.87, Total: 39.85
Quality: 69.46%, Team quality: 88.48%, Competitiveness: 42.81%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 40.40%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 10.48%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 26.17%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 48.27%
#54: Memphis (27.59, 94.53%) at UAB (-27.59, 5.47%)
Estimated score: 47.25 - 19.70, Total: 66.95
Quality: 66.23%, Team quality: 87.44%, Competitiveness: 38.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 44.40%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 9.01%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 49.95%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 24.81%
#55: Florida State (30.63, 96.15%) at Stanford (-30.63, 3.85%)
Estimated score: 42.73 - 12.00, Total: 54.73
Quality: 63.79%, Team quality: 92.58%, Competitiveness: 30.28%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 51.53%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 6.80%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.65%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.71%
#56: Kent State (-29.94, 4.18%) at Toledo (29.94, 95.82%)
Estimated score: 16.61 - 46.49, Total: 63.10
Quality: 61.72%, Team quality: 85.80%, Competitiveness: 31.94%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 49.92%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 7.26%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 46.34%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 27.76%
#57: Ohio State (34.30, 97.54%) at Wisconsin (-34.30, 2.46%)
Estimated score: 33.17 - 0.00, Total: 33.17
Quality: 58.73%, Team quality: 95.32%, Competitiveness: 22.29%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 60.10%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 4.68%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 21.33%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 54.52%
#58: Cincinnati (33.96, 97.43%) at Oklahoma State (-33.96, 2.57%)
Estimated score: 44.49 - 10.50, Total: 54.99
Quality: 55.98%, Team quality: 87.40%, Competitiveness: 22.96%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 59.32%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 4.85%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.89%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.48%
#59: Florida Atlantic (-36.54, 1.85%) at South Florida (36.54, 98.15%)
Estimated score: 21.21 - 57.90, Total: 79.12
Quality: 52.65%, Team quality: 89.57%, Competitiveness: 18.19%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 65.10%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 3.66%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 61.21%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 16.69%
#60: Michigan State (-41.41, 0.96%) at Indiana (41.41, 99.04%)
Estimated score: 8.08 - 49.60, Total: 57.68
Quality: 46.55%, Team quality: 94.83%, Competitiveness: 11.22%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 75.01%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 2.07%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.33%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.19%I’m posting this much later than I hoped for, but I didn’t get started until close to the morning hours. I say this every week, but I hope to get this posted earlier next weekend. Final ratings for this week will be posted Monday (likely) or Tuesday as well as predictions for week 8.
Thanks for reading!
The ratings in this article are based on data from collegefootballdata.com.