The Linked Letters After Dark: Week 9 Edition
A first glance at the computer ratings after week 9 of college football, and a new tool for estimating which teams are most likely to move up or down in the playoff ratings in the rest of the season
In this week’s edition of The Linked Letters After Dark, I’ll preview the ratings after week 9 of college football and give my predictions for who belongs in the playoff. For the first time this season, there’s nothing to be said about alternative ratings or how games are weighted. The ratings are based entirely on games played in 2025, and that’s the configuration of the system for the rest of the season. There are three Division II games and 20 Division III games without final scores in the data set. When those are available, probably tomorrow, I’ll post a final version of the ratings.
In addition to previewing the ratings, I want to try to estimate which teams have the best opportunity to improve their strength of record going forward. I’ll be introducing a new metric called cost/benefit opportunity, which estimates whether or not a team’s future schedule is conducive to improving their strength of record. That’s the biggest component in my playoff ratings, so I intend this to be a predictor of which teams have the best and worst chances to improve their chances of making the playoff over their remaining schedule. I’m late getting this posted and I don’t have my college football season simulator ready to go. Mostly, I want to try to find a better way to address the uncertainty in the predictive ratings, and how those could potentially change over the season. That said, I hope the additional analysis makes the delays worthwhile.
Predictive Ratings
For the first time in 2025, the predictive ratings are based entirely on games played this season. There is no longer any impact from games played last season.
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: 2.21 points
Mean score: 26.84 points
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
1 89.48 +0.82 Indiana 45.11 44.37 .187
2 86.73 -1.86 Ohio State 37.22 49.45 .174
3 +1 81.97 -2.54 Notre Dame 43.03 38.97 -.011
4 -1 81.90 -4.10 Oregon 42.89 39.01 .037
5 +3 80.02 +2.55 Utah 42.12 37.83 -.106
6 -1 78.45 -1.71 Miami 35.24 43.00 .105
7 -1 76.80 -3.08 Alabama 37.73 39.04 .127
8 -1 76.09 -2.12 USC 43.61 32.47 -.067
9 75.92 -0.86 Texas Tech 38.22 37.69 .003
10 +1 75.26 +0.81 Texas A&M 42.02 33.57 .221
11 +3 72.90 +0.33 Washington 39.29 33.77 -.040
12 -2 72.73 -2.02 Georgia 32.85 39.77 .071
13 -1 72.63 -0.56 BYU 37.39 35.18 .152
14 -1 71.38 -1.79 Michigan 31.97 39.45 -.027
15 +7 70.96 -0.12 Ole Miss 40.54 30.48 .047
16 70.69 -1.41 Florida State 38.55 32.14 -.363
17 70.47 -1.39 Vanderbilt 38.09 32.47 .030
18 -3 70.05 -2.12 Oklahoma 28.88 41.22 -.092
19 -1 69.87 -1.87 Texas 32.25 37.67 -.022
20 +10 69.70 +2.75 Iowa 29.59 40.08 -.080
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
21 +2 69.16 -1.37 Tennessee 44.97 24.32 -.078
22 -2 68.83 -2.32 South Florida 38.36 30.43 -.058
23 +1 68.22 -1.87 Missouri 34.61 33.51 -.088
24 -5 67.48 -3.69 LSU 29.92 37.59 -.161
25 -4 67.42 -3.70 Illinois 36.53 30.95 -.009
26 66.87 -1.06 Florida 28.40 38.34 -.245
27 +4 65.96 -0.85 North Texas 44.35 21.61 -.079
28 -1 65.57 -1.65 Pittsburgh 36.19 29.68 -.165
29 +5 65.39 -0.24 Georgia Tech 33.47 31.67 .045
30 -2 64.95 -2.21 Nebraska 36.10 28.62 -.156
31 +2 64.90 -1.20 Cincinnati 33.29 31.45 -.062
32 -3 64.81 -2.30 Penn State 35.56 29.10 -.405
33 -8 64.55 -4.10 Louisville 34.98 29.54 .020
34 +1 64.36 -0.55 Auburn 26.19 38.10 -.272
35 +1 63.44 -1.41 Iowa State 31.78 31.66 -.225
36 -4 62.59 -3.92 Virginia 35.45 27.15 -.039
37 62.31 -0.79 Mississippi State 33.08 29.11 -.308
38 +12 61.10 +2.22 Kansas State 31.76 28.97 -.423
39 -1 60.42 -1.62 Arkansas 35.39 25.07 -.467
40 +2 60.28 -1.00 Arizona 28.71 31.55 -.313
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
41 +8 59.61 +0.70 Memphis 28.75 30.83 -.081
42 +1 59.57 -1.56 Boise State 30.31 29.33 -.098
43 -4 59.47 -1.90 TCU 33.83 25.66 -.200
44 +1 59.22 -0.45 East Carolina 27.17 31.71 -.348
45 -5 59.20 -2.15 Duke 33.19 26.07 -.350
46 +8 58.62 -0.05 Houston 28.16 30.48 -.036
47 +12 58.53 +0.95 San Diego State 26.02 32.39 -.132
48 -2 57.77 -1.70 South Carolina 22.79 35.14 -.396
49 -5 57.73 -2.26 Arizona State 23.51 34.22 -.175
50 +5 57.48 -1.09 UCF 25.87 31.68 -.358
51 +5 57.41 -0.89 Maryland 26.12 31.44 -.340
52 -11 56.69 -4.63 Kansas 30.92 25.75 -.331
53 +7 56.69 -0.85 Tulane 26.71 30.05 -.049
54 -1 56.63 -2.08 SMU 27.40 29.28 -.332
55 +2 56.55 -1.69 Clemson 25.48 30.96 -.491
56 -8 56.13 -2.88 NC State 30.53 25.42 -.314
57 +7 55.83 -0.88 Northwestern 19.44 36.24 -.209
58 -6 55.62 -3.18 Colorado 26.12 29.32 -.415
59 +3 55.45 -1.51 Wake Forest 20.93 34.64 -.244
60 +1 55.22 -2.16 James Madison 23.07 32.08 -.103
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
61 -14 54.69 -4.37 Toledo 27.01 27.61 -.480
62 +13 54.05 +2.16 Washington State 20.42 33.49 -.321
63 53.36 -3.58 Kentucky 26.55 27.00 -.498
64 +6 53.16 +0.23 Michigan State 28.75 24.40 -.352
65 -7 52.81 -5.11 Old Dominion 28.64 24.18 -.245
66 +1 52.69 -1.32 Rutgers 31.20 21.50 -.304
67 +10 52.48 +1.17 Wisconsin 20.63 31.87 -.369
68 -17 52.47 -6.35 Minnesota 23.61 28.80 -.186
69 -4 51.86 -3.16 Purdue 23.51 28.34 -.544
70 +6 51.63 +0.07 New Mexico 26.39 25.24 -.292
71 -2 51.62 -1.79 UCLA 24.16 27.50 -.385
72 +1 51.47 -0.60 Army 20.32 31.19 -.485
73 -5 50.98 -2.46 Baylor 32.90 18.08 -.401
74 -8 50.60 -3.66 Louisiana Tech 20.58 29.93 -.374
75 -4 50.54 -1.87 Western Michigan 17.10 33.62 -.342
76 +12 49.03 +1.88 Kennesaw State 25.19 23.69 -.140
77 -5 48.66 -3.49 Syracuse 23.17 25.42 -.495
78 +2 48.63 -1.42 UTSA 25.08 23.56 -.439
79 48.14 -2.10 Temple 28.94 19.12 -.302
80 +2 47.86 -1.97 Virginia Tech 27.26 20.80 -.524
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
81 -3 47.59 -2.72 Ohio 25.29 22.26 -.256
82 -8 47.28 -4.73 UConn 28.52 18.79 -.371
83 +1 46.96 -1.78 Stanford 19.53 27.39 -.396
84 +1 46.82 -1.91 UNLV 31.65 15.15 -.117
85 -4 46.74 -3.29 Utah State 26.75 19.98 -.363
86 46.71 -0.83 Marshall 30.54 16.34 -.350
87 +3 46.54 +0.10 West Virginia 20.89 25.65 -.551
88 -5 46.36 -2.41 Navy 23.70 22.91 .004
89 -2 46.20 -1.28 Southern Miss 24.49 21.59 -.231
90 +5 45.64 +1.32 Wyoming 15.44 30.20 -.411
91 -2 45.59 -1.06 Texas State 30.00 15.67 -.549
92 44.24 -1.72 California 20.22 23.95 -.345
93 +4 43.45 -0.60 Troy 22.13 21.27 -.227
94 -3 43.22 -3.15 Hawai’i 20.30 22.79 -.228
95 +1 43.19 -1.11 Western Kentucky 22.65 20.62 -.236
96 +5 42.54 -0.64 San José State 22.59 19.87 -.645
97 +1 42.38 -1.28 Miami (OH) 18.29 23.99 -.413
98 +4 41.04 -1.58 Air Force 28.99 12.01 -.695
99 +10 40.53 +1.27 North Carolina 15.29 25.03 -.664
100 +5 40.30 -0.64 Boston College 23.75 16.53 -.792
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
101 -7 40.28 -4.08 Bowling Green 15.06 25.23 -.553
102 -2 40.27 -2.95 Jacksonville State 21.29 19.20 -.411
103 -10 40.20 -4.89 Fresno State 18.76 21.27 -.353
104 40.00 -2.26 Oregon State 20.74 19.44 -.684
105 -6 39.78 -3.83 Colorado State 18.59 21.25 -.662
106 +1 39.25 -0.26 Central Michigan 18.87 20.49 -.279
107 -4 39.10 -3.30 Delaware 20.54 18.56 -.415
108 +5 38.90 +1.09 Missouri State 17.28 21.63 -.329
109 +1 38.67 +0.18 Tulsa 18.78 19.95 -.708
110 -4 38.46 -1.73 Liberty 14.65 23.57 -.558
111 +8 37.15 +0.58 Arkansas State 15.00 21.96 -.465
112 +4 36.75 -0.70 Florida Atlantic 24.55 12.16 -.552
113 -5 36.68 -2.81 Georgia Southern 23.60 12.79 -.535
114 +6 36.66 +0.15 App State 18.32 18.49 -.474
115 -1 36.65 -0.94 South Alabama 19.38 17.20 -.675
116 +5 36.19 -0.28 UAB 23.94 12.09 -.499
117 -2 35.39 -2.11 UTEP 15.18 20.10 -.650
118 -1 35.14 -1.69 Louisiana 16.87 18.24 -.692
119 -7 34.78 -3.13 Florida International 13.95 20.65 -.528
120 +2 34.52 -0.82 Nevada 10.81 23.86 -.818
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
121 -3 34.51 -2.09 New Mexico State 14.91 19.83 -.560
122 +2 34.49 -0.28 Northern Illinois 8.81 25.93 -.702
123 -12 33.19 -5.00 Buffalo 12.70 20.28 -.493
124 +4 32.82 +1.08 Rice 14.02 18.78 -.486
125 -2 32.11 -2.94 Coastal Carolina 12.79 19.46 -.382
126 +3 31.73 +1.10 Middle Tennessee 13.38 18.35 -.845
127 31.44 -1.06 Oklahoma State 15.28 16.07 -.649
128 -2 31.42 -1.16 Akron 13.14 18.31 -.628
129 -4 31.19 -3.11 Ball State 15.39 15.81 -.581
130 +1 29.62 -0.12 Kent State 18.46 11.12 -.429
131 -1 29.38 -0.54 Eastern Michigan 17.97 11.30 -.768
132 26.09 -0.81 Georgia State 15.07 10.89 -.749
133 +1 25.97 -0.62 Charlotte 11.74 14.34 -.798
134 -1 24.28 -2.38 Sam Houston 13.23 10.98 -.936
135 24.06 -1.99 UL Monroe 13.21 10.97 -.531
136 19.21 -1.75 Massachusetts 7.51 11.82 -.899Schedule 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: 2.21 points
Mean score: 26.84 points
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
1 Indiana .187 (33) .108 (58) 54.42 (34) 57.74 (49)
2 Ohio State .174 (36) .142 (53) 52.48 (40) 58.03 (48)
3 Notre Dame .275 (5) .064 (69) 64.45 (1) 50.01 (73)
4 Oregon .162 (45) .359 (10) 54.05 (36) 67.79 (14)
5 Utah .144 (52) .095 (63) 55.19 (31) 58.42 (44)
6 Miami .247 (8) .090 (65) 57.90 (18) 55.41 (59)
7 Alabama .252 (7) .188 (44) 60.70 (7) 53.00 (65)
8 USC .219 (17) .279 (23) 57.02 (23) 64.36 (23)
9 Texas Tech .128 (57) .151 (51) 43.18 (100) 59.44 (39)
10 Texas A&M .221 (16) .210 (40) 61.80 (6) 49.81 (74)
11 Washington .210 (21) .195 (41) 57.94 (17) 59.47 (38)
12 Georgia .214 (20) .191 (42) 59.24 (13) 57.64 (51)
13 BYU .152 (48) .253 (27) 52.86 (38) 64.44 (22)
14 Michigan .223 (15) .246 (31) 60.06 (9) 62.41 (28)
15 Ole Miss .172 (38) .114 (54) 57.06 (22) 50.65 (72)
16 Florida State .208 (23) .109 (56) 53.11 (37) 57.01 (53)
17 Vanderbilt .155 (47) .247 (30) 50.68 (51) 64.19 (24)
18 Oklahoma .158 (46) .374 (8) 54.47 (33) 70.42 (4)
19 Texas .228 (13) .337 (13) 55.47 (29) 68.62 (9)
20 Iowa .170 (39) .398 (4) 49.69 (56) 69.03 (8)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
21 Tennessee .172 (37) .226 (36) 54.28 (35) 59.37 (40)
22 South Florida .192 (29) .007 (116) 52.28 (42) 41.00 (109)
23 Missouri .162 (44) .286 (22) 49.33 (58) 67.01 (16)
24 LSU .214 (19) .291 (21) 60.25 (8) 62.62 (27)
25 Illinois .366 (2) .041 (78) 62.37 (4) 53.50 (63)
26 Florida .327 (3) .303 (17) 62.26 (5) 67.38 (15)
27 North Texas .046 (103) .004 (123) 44.91 (88) 40.88 (110)
28 Pittsburgh .085 (77) .383 (6) 47.54 (71) 68.19 (10)
29 Georgia Tech .045 (104) .176 (47) 49.04 (59) 59.23 (41)
30 Nebraska .094 (68) .265 (26) 48.73 (61) 65.56 (20)
31 Cincinnati .063 (95) .333 (14) 44.54 (91) 68.10 (11)
32 Penn State .167 (41) .403 (3) 50.20 (54) 69.84 (5)
33 Louisville .163 (43) .038 (80) 51.38 (50) 51.29 (70)
34 Auburn .228 (12) .242 (32) 58.19 (16) 58.23 (47)
35 Iowa State .150 (50) .060 (70) 55.94 (26) 51.33 (69)
36 Virginia .086 (76) .047 (75) 48.06 (66) 51.69 (68)
37 Mississippi State .192 (30) .300 (19) 51.95 (45) 68.09 (12)
38 Kansas State .077 (85) .315 (16) 55.99 (25) 60.75 (33)
39 Arkansas .283 (4) .277 (24) 57.79 (19) 66.97 (17)
40 Arizona .116 (60) .103 (61) 49.02 (60) 57.62 (52)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
41 Memphis .044 (106) .047 (76) 41.81 (109) 48.77 (77)
42 Boise State .152 (49) .035 (82) 47.85 (70) 46.31 (84)
43 TCU .050 (99) .231 (33) 50.28 (53) 64.90 (21)
44 East Carolina .080 (80) .024 (87) 45.67 (85) 44.26 (91)
45 Duke .079 (82) .054 (72) 51.58 (46) 52.92 (66)
46 Houston .089 (71) .055 (71) 48.61 (62) 53.62 (62)
47 San Diego State .011 (132) .026 (85) 39.14 (117) 48.08 (80)
48 South Carolina .229 (10) .276 (25) 59.08 (14) 58.72 (43)
49 Arizona State .200 (25) .099 (62) 57.60 (20) 56.47 (57)
50 UCF .070 (91) .247 (29) 44.20 (95) 58.36 (45)
51 Maryland .089 (70) .323 (15) 46.75 (75) 66.83 (18)
52 Kansas .169 (40) .248 (28) 52.14 (43) 58.79 (42)
53 Tulane .094 (67) .038 (81) 52.83 (39) 44.26 (91)
54 SMU .043 (108) .181 (46) 46.92 (74) 56.88 (55)
55 Clemson .080 (81) .148 (52) 51.46 (48) 53.41 (64)
56 NC State .186 (34) .294 (20) 55.76 (27) 62.66 (26)
57 Northwestern .166 (42) .349 (11) 50.45 (52) 67.94 (13)
58 Colorado .210 (22) .081 (68) 59.99 (10) 56.41 (58)
59 Wake Forest .042 (110) .157 (50) 47.86 (69) 54.87 (60)
60 James Madison .040 (111) .012 (104) 38.69 (123) 43.47 (95)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
61 Toledo .020 (121) .003 (127) 38.44 (124) 36.83 (128)
62 Washington State .179 (35) .024 (89) 57.43 (21) 46.46 (83)
63 Kentucky .216 (18) .230 (34) 59.71 (11) 62.25 (29)
64 Michigan State .273 (6) .173 (48) 59.31 (12) 61.65 (32)
65 Old Dominion .130 (55) .001 (133) 46.27 (78) 32.57 (134)
66 Rutgers .196 (27) .359 (9) 52.02 (44) 69.09 (6)
67 Wisconsin .381 (1) .391 (5) 64.20 (2) 70.57 (3)
68 Minnesota .189 (32) .225 (37) 49.58 (57) 60.29 (36)
69 Purdue .206 (24) .664 (1) 56.60 (24) 80.12 (1)
70 New Mexico .083 (78) .022 (92) 47.28 (73) 46.54 (82)
71 UCLA .240 (9) .513 (2) 62.40 (3) 75.17 (2)
72 Army .086 (75) .010 (109) 51.50 (47) 44.57 (90)
73 Baylor .099 (64) .221 (38) 49.88 (55) 63.00 (25)
74 Louisiana Tech .054 (98) .014 (101) 44.51 (92) 39.40 (118)
75 Western Michigan .087 (74) .003 (128) 45.74 (83) 37.68 (127)
76 Kennesaw State .146 (51) .002 (131) 45.17 (87) 37.95 (124)
77 Syracuse .130 (56) .375 (7) 54.76 (32) 60.31 (35)
78 UTSA .132 (54) .104 (60) 47.45 (72) 51.99 (67)
79 Temple .073 (87) .113 (55) 40.23 (116) 58.33 (46)
80 Virginia Tech .101 (62) .341 (12) 52.41 (41) 69.07 (7)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
81 Ohio .119 (59) .009 (112) 43.32 (98) 36.33 (129)
82 UConn .004 (135) .019 (97) 34.90 (134) 42.19 (102)
83 Stanford .229 (11) .214 (39) 58.93 (15) 56.98 (54)
84 UNLV .026 (116) .007 (118) 43.12 (101) 42.73 (99)
85 Utah State .137 (53) .024 (88) 46.50 (76) 45.28 (87)
86 Marshall .078 (83) .008 (115) 42.65 (104) 37.79 (125)
87 West Virginia .199 (26) .186 (45) 55.19 (30) 61.97 (31)
88 Navy .004 (136) .302 (18) 32.43 (135) 66.45 (19)
89 Southern Miss .019 (122) .003 (126) 37.96 (129) 40.71 (113)
90 Wyoming .089 (72) .034 (83) 44.46 (93) 45.22 (88)
91 Texas State .022 (119) .011 (106) 40.69 (113) 39.01 (121)
92 California .030 (114) .109 (57) 43.69 (96) 57.68 (50)
93 Troy .023 (117) .017 (100) 38.80 (121) 40.56 (115)
94 Hawai’i .022 (118) .023 (91) 38.21 (126) 48.38 (79)
95 Western Kentucky .014 (128) .087 (66) 36.88 (131) 43.50 (94)
96 San José State .069 (92) .026 (86) 48.05 (67) 43.06 (96)
97 Miami (OH) .015 (125) .013 (102) 38.00 (128) 41.67 (106)
98 Air Force .019 (123) .013 (103) 42.02 (106) 46.98 (81)
99 North Carolina .050 (100) .053 (73) 45.84 (82) 53.72 (61)
100 Boston College .083 (79) .228 (35) 48.07 (65) 62.06 (30)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
101 Bowling Green .072 (90) .000 (136) 45.25 (86) 28.30 (136)
102 Jacksonville State .018 (124) .003 (125) 35.99 (133) 39.27 (119)
103 Fresno State .022 (120) .040 (79) 38.16 (127) 48.62 (78)
104 Oregon State .191 (31) .024 (90) 51.44 (49) 42.77 (98)
105 Colorado State .088 (73) .048 (74) 48.36 (63) 49.76 (75)
106 Central Michigan .096 (65) .017 (98) 38.92 (119) 42.01 (105)
107 Delaware .014 (129) .019 (95) 38.82 (120) 40.84 (111)
108 Missouri State .099 (63) .009 (113) 44.28 (94) 41.21 (107)
109 Tulsa .042 (109) .011 (105) 46.13 (80) 41.10 (108)
110 Liberty .014 (127) .010 (110) 40.63 (114) 42.04 (104)
111 Arkansas State .035 (113) .004 (124) 41.90 (107) 40.36 (116)
112 Florida Atlantic .073 (88) .043 (77) 42.87 (103) 49.36 (76)
113 Georgia Southern .090 (69) .010 (107) 43.12 (102) 42.07 (103)
114 App State .026 (115) .021 (94) 37.68 (130) 42.84 (97)
115 South Alabama .075 (86) .005 (121) 41.35 (111) 37.75 (126)
116 UAB .072 (89) .091 (64) 45.67 (84) 51.15 (71)
117 UTEP .065 (93) .007 (117) 38.36 (125) 40.81 (112)
118 Louisiana .058 (96) .002 (129) 41.81 (110) 35.86 (130)
119 Florida International .043 (107) .001 (134) 42.06 (105) 34.73 (133)
120 Nevada .057 (97) .010 (108) 48.13 (64) 45.43 (86)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
121 New Mexico State .012 (131) .083 (67) 36.86 (132) 46.14 (85)
122 Northern Illinois .048 (101) .021 (93) 43.64 (97) 38.52 (122)
123 Buffalo .007 (134) .005 (122) 30.03 (136) 42.38 (101)
124 Rice .014 (126) .160 (49) 39.03 (118) 56.54 (56)
125 Coastal Carolina .047 (102) .031 (84) 41.87 (108) 44.05 (93)
126 Middle Tennessee .012 (130) .002 (130) 43.27 (99) 34.97 (132)
127 Oklahoma State .226 (14) .105 (59) 55.72 (28) 59.68 (37)
128 Akron .039 (112) .001 (132) 40.92 (112) 28.97 (135)
129 Ball State .044 (105) .019 (96) 44.60 (89) 39.02 (120)
130 Kent State .196 (28) .001 (135) 47.90 (68) 35.19 (131)
131 Eastern Michigan .010 (133) .006 (119) 38.78 (122) 39.94 (117)
132 Georgia State .126 (58) .017 (99) 46.44 (77) 44.87 (89)
133 Charlotte .077 (84) .188 (43) 46.19 (79) 60.42 (34)
134 Sam Houston .064 (94) .008 (114) 46.01 (81) 40.57 (114)
135 UL Monroe .094 (66) .010 (111) 40.40 (115) 42.55 (100)
136 Massachusetts .101 (61) .006 (120) 44.54 (90) 38.45 (123)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 .770 SEC .295 (2) 67.26 33.39 33.90 -0.51 (7)
2 .710 Big Ten .291 (3) 65.16 31.96 33.19 -1.22 (8)
3 .672 FBS Independents .376 (1) 64.62 35.77 28.88 6.90 (1)
4 .634 Big 12 .175 (4) 59.55 30.05 29.45 0.59 (4)
5 .577 ACC .129 (5) 56.46 28.27 28.16 0.12 (6)
6 .435 American Athletic .063 (6) 48.24 25.46 22.77 2.69 (2)
7 .405 Pac-12 .023 (7) 47.03 20.58 26.46 -5.89 (11)
8 .382 Mountain West .022 (8) 45.85 23.05 22.78 0.27 (5)
9 .280 Sun Belt .009 (9) 39.61 20.94 18.65 2.28 (3)
10 .253 Conference USA .005 (11) 38.35 17.74 20.59 -2.85 (9)
11 .244 Mid-American .007 (10) 37.17 16.58 20.60 -4.01 (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 .9772 -.0033 Indiana .980 .804 1.000 .994
2 .9721 -.0030 Ohio State .977 .757 1.000 .990
3 .9688 +.0074 Texas A&M .985 .898 1.000 .940
4 .9508 -.0012 Alabama .965 .949 .875 .951
5 .9477 -.0042 Miami .957 .943 .857 .962
6 .9424 +.0112 BYU .972 .667 1.000 .916
7 +1 .9254 +.0006 Oregon .926 .706 .875 .977
8 -1 .9235 -.0016 Georgia .943 .880 .857 .917
9 .9062 +.0006 Notre Dame .896 .972 .714 .978
10 +3 .9062 +.0201 Ole Miss .931 .747 .875 .897
11 +1 .8970 +.0106 Texas Tech .906 .555 .875 .945
12 +2 .8959 +.0112 Vanderbilt .922 .678 .875 .891
13 +6 .8770 +.0130 Michigan .884 .902 .750 .902
14 +9 .8746 +.0399 Washington .874 .871 .750 .918
15 +6 .8736 +.0260 Texas .888 .911 .750 .883
16 +2 .8674 +.0000 USC .850 .891 .714 .946
17 .8653 -.0061 Georgia Tech .931 .193 1.000 .812
18 -2 .8644 -.0184 Louisville .916 .712 .857 .797
19 -8 .8600 -.0313 Illinois .897 .999 .625 .847
20 -10 .8485 -.0495 South Florida .858 .818 .750 .868
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
21 +6 .8435 +.0284 Utah .811 .629 .750 .970
22 +6 .8373 +.0393 Iowa .838 .742 .750 .881
23 +2 .8360 +.0117 Tennessee .839 .747 .750 .873
24 -9 .8294 -.0544 Oklahoma .826 .691 .750 .885
25 -5 .8246 -.0382 Missouri .830 .708 .750 .859
26 -4 .8133 -.0215 Virginia .874 .353 .875 .757
27 -1 .8114 -.0067 Cincinnati .855 .257 .875 .803
28 +1 .8052 +.0079 North Texas .839 .194 .875 .823
29 +3 .7879 +.0288 Houston .877 .367 .875 .666
30 -6 .7716 -.0528 LSU .747 .880 .625 .848
31 .7670 +.0042 Tulane .866 .391 .857 .617
32 +2 .7656 +.0252 Boise State .819 .663 .750 .689
33 +8 .7640 +.0621 Memphis .837 .188 .875 .690
34 -1 .7497 +.0012 Nebraska .753 .389 .750 .804
35 +1 .7455 +.0202 Pittsburgh .742 .351 .750 .816
36 +7 .7199 +.0530 San Diego State .782 .099 .857 .664
37 .7166 -.0042 James Madison .815 .177 .857 .579
38 +2 .7063 +.0029 Navy .906 .086 1.000 .345
39 -9 .6985 -.0677 Arizona State .729 .842 .625 .644
40 +2 .6909 +.0132 Florida .631 .995 .429 .838
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
41 -6 .6902 -.0441 Iowa State .659 .655 .625 .775
42 +2 .6739 +.0119 TCU .695 .209 .750 .687
43 +9 .6575 +.0777 Auburn .589 .911 .500 .793
44 -5 .6531 -.0575 Northwestern .683 .726 .625 .595
45 +6 .6526 +.0698 Kennesaw State .773 .638 .714 .413
46 -8 .6477 -.0720 Minnesota .715 .810 .625 .505
47 .6391 +.0012 UNLV .799 .135 .857 .356
48 -3 .6094 -.0341 Mississippi State .533 .818 .500 .751
49 +7 .6035 +.0410 Wake Forest .632 .181 .714 .585
50 .5997 -.0038 Florida State .446 .867 .429 .893
51 +4 .5919 +.0275 Old Dominion .630 .564 .625 .515
52 +1 .5826 +.0112 Arizona .525 .495 .571 .706
53 -5 .5585 -.0768 NC State .523 .798 .500 .603
54 -8 .5453 -.0934 Kansas .497 .737 .500 .617
55 +19 .5421 +.0666 Rutgers .540 .833 .500 .511
56 +10 .5411 +.0379 Southern Miss .651 .118 .750 .341
57 +15 .5380 +.0548 Ohio .613 .509 .625 .376
58 .5362 +.0085 East Carolina .470 .330 .571 .681
59 +20 .5346 +.0818 Washington State .512 .773 .500 .548
60 -6 .5345 -.0350 Duke .467 .323 .571 .680
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
61 .5320 +.0110 Maryland .483 .368 .571 .636
62 +13 .5318 +.0582 New Mexico .559 .343 .625 .483
63 +1 .5299 +.0202 Penn State .382 .728 .429 .802
64 -15 .5289 -.0935 SMU .495 .185 .625 .616
65 +8 .5250 +.0440 Troy .656 .127 .750 .276
66 -6 .5231 -.0036 Hawai’i .656 .126 .750 .271
67 +9 .5151 +.0501 Western Kentucky .643 .106 .750 .270
68 -3 .5122 +.0071 UCF .454 .286 .571 .638
69 -2 .4981 -.0040 Michigan State .463 .971 .375 .524
70 -11 .4941 -.0333 South Carolina .395 .913 .375 .645
71 +10 .4928 +.0478 Temple .542 .297 .625 .390
72 +11 .4782 +.0622 Kansas State .355 .314 .500 .725
73 -3 .4748 -.0127 Western Michigan .480 .357 .571 .454
74 +14 .4672 +.0699 Wisconsin .437 .999 .250 .506
75 +3 .4593 +.0018 Colorado .366 .870 .375 .590
76 +13 .4572 +.0600 Central Michigan .578 .399 .625 .189
77 +8 .4556 +.0454 UCLA .412 .932 .375 .483
78 -1 .4477 -.0162 Arkansas .293 .978 .250 .709
79 -22 .4406 -.1119 Louisiana Tech .429 .224 .571 .455
80 +4 .4357 +.0211 Marshall .466 .320 .571 .354
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
81 -13 .4315 -.0595 Utah State .446 .596 .500 .354
82 -13 .4235 -.0673 Baylor .388 .414 .500 .465
83 -20 .4195 -.0928 California .475 .148 .625 .294
84 -22 .4161 -.0975 UConn .434 .086 .625 .368
85 +1 .4081 +.0057 Stanford .395 .912 .375 .360
86 +11 .4078 +.0807 Missouri State .500 .416 .571 .183
87 .3868 -.0132 Clemson .261 .330 .429 .614
88 -17 .3848 -.1004 Fresno State .462 .124 .625 .207
89 -9 .3766 -.0754 Toledo .275 .120 .500 .565
90 +3 .3750 +.0261 UTSA .332 .576 .429 .403
91 +11 .3711 +.0957 Wyoming .372 .366 .500 .327
92 -10 .3698 -.0588 Kentucky .251 .885 .286 .529
93 -1 .3518 +.0024 Army .268 .356 .429 .478
94 +2 .3412 +.0137 Miami (OH) .369 .109 .571 .252
95 .3306 +.0030 Jacksonville State .373 .115 .571 .209
96 -6 .3269 -.0674 Syracuse .255 .562 .375 .404
97 -6 .3229 -.0671 Purdue .197 .859 .250 .489
98 -4 .3227 -.0167 Coastal Carolina .418 .199 .571 .087
99 +5 .3203 +.0494 Delaware .367 .106 .571 .187
100 +5 .2942 +.0251 Virginia Tech .220 .422 .375 .383
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
101 +10 .2879 +.0702 Kent State .345 .830 .375 .063
102 -4 .2758 -.0222 West Virginia .189 .839 .250 .349
103 +12 .2664 +.0630 Arkansas State .295 .161 .500 .154
104 -3 .2561 -.0389 App State .283 .135 .500 .146
105 +2 .2523 +.0063 Texas State .191 .126 .429 .326
106 +4 .2367 +.0130 UAB .250 .294 .429 .139
107 +11 .2306 +.0668 Rice .267 .107 .500 .094
108 -9 .2264 -.0713 Buffalo .259 .092 .500 .099
109 -9 .2179 -.0793 Bowling Green .187 .293 .375 .209
110 -4 .2137 -.0462 Georgia Southern .207 .371 .375 .146
111 -8 .2059 -.0687 Florida International .215 .186 .429 .119
112 +2 .2012 -.0039 Liberty .183 .106 .429 .175
113 -5 .2000 -.0370 Florida Atlantic .188 .296 .375 .147
114 -2 .1823 -.0345 UL Monroe .212 .392 .375 .028
115 -6 .1816 -.0500 New Mexico State .180 .101 .429 .115
116 +1 .1774 +.0075 San José State .106 .283 .286 .256
117 +3 .1582 +.0050 Oregon State .080 .815 .125 .204
118 -5 .1579 -.0551 Ball State .159 .190 .375 .077
119 -3 .1542 -.0265 Colorado State .093 .362 .250 .199
120 -1 .1538 -.0083 North Carolina .092 .209 .286 .214
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
121 .1420 -.0030 Air Force .073 .117 .286 .224
122 +3 .1383 +.0208 Oklahoma State .103 .908 .125 .080
123 -1 .1359 +.0037 UTEP .102 .263 .286 .127
124 +4 .1310 +.0386 South Alabama .085 .307 .250 .146
125 +2 .1307 +.0374 Akron .118 .171 .333 .080
126 -3 .1247 -.0076 Tulsa .067 .183 .250 .179
127 -3 .1152 -.0166 Louisiana .075 .237 .250 .124
128 -2 .1108 +.0055 Boston College .033 .342 .125 .209
129 +2 .1082 +.0346 Northern Illinois .070 .204 .250 .115
130 -1 .0778 -.0070 Georgia State .048 .545 .125 .038
131 -1 .0732 -.0019 Nevada .026 .233 .125 .115
132 .0680 -.0038 Eastern Michigan .041 .097 .222 .061
133 .0571 +.0055 Charlotte .032 .316 .125 .038
134 .0556 +.0044 Middle Tennessee .021 .103 .143 .083
135 .0316 +.0024 Massachusetts .012 .423 .000 .013
136 .0264 +.0001 Sam Houston .008 .263 .000 .029Future Playoff Predictions
I’m actually posting this well into the day on Sunday, but I wanted to do something a bit more interesting than mostly repeat the same analyses about the same teams. Instead, I want to estimate which teams have the most favorable schedules to either improve their strength of record or to weaken it.
Typically when I post strength of schedule for college football, I calculate the difficulty of that schedule for a hypothetical team with a predictive rating 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS mean. If a real team had that rating, it would typically put them somewhere between #10 and #15 in the predictive ratings, so they would be a pretty good team. The strength of schedule I typically show is the team’s expected losing percentage (1 - winning percentage) against that schedule. But that’s far from the only way to measure schedule strength. I have a new table below, and one of the columns is “FutureDiff” to show the future difficulty of the schedule. This column is a schedule strength, but it’s the expected losing percentage for a team (the actual team playing the schedule, not a hypothetical benchmark team) against its future schedule.
For the most part, teams with high playoff ratings have a low future difficulty of their schedules. This isn’t surprising because these tend to be good teams, and they’re typically going to be better than most of the teams they play. In the top 20, the team with the highest rank is Texas (#79 Future Difficulty; #19 Predictive). They’re ranked pretty high in the predictive ratings, but their remaining four games are a home game against Vanderbilt (#17 Predictive), at Georgia (#12 Predictive), and then home games against Arkansas (#39 Predictive) and Texas A&M (#10 Predictive). By comparison, South Florida (#135 Future Difficulty; #22 Predictive) has future games at home against UTSA (#78 Predictive), on the road against Navy (#88 Predictive) and UAB (#116 Predictive), and then at home against Rice (#124 Predictive). Texas’ future schedule difficulty is .470, so it’s reasonable to expect they be 2-2 in their remaining games. South Florida’s future schedule difficulty is .020, meaning that most likely they’ll be 4-0 the rest of the way.
A team is most likely to improve their strength of record if two conditions are satisfied:
The team is more likely to win their future games than their past games. This means their expected losing percentage is lower in the future than in the past. I flip this around in the cost portion of the analysis, which is whether a team is more likely to lose future games than past games. Negative numbers mean a team plays a schedule that’s less difficult for them in the future. Positive numbers mean the schedule is more difficult for that team in the future than in the past. (DiffChg)
Strength of record is calculated for a hypothetical team with a predictive rating 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS mean. This team would typically be ranked somewhere between #10 and #15. One way for a team’s strength of record to improve is if the team’s future schedule is more difficult for the hypothetical team than its past schedule would be. This is the benefit portion of the analysis, because strength of record increases if a team’s schedule is more difficult for the hypothetical team. Positive numbers indicate that the team’s future schedule is more difficult for the hypothetical team than the past schedule, and this is favorable for improving strength of record. Negative numbers indicate the opposite and are unfavorable for improving a team’s strength of record. (SOSChg)
There’s one more column after this, the “Opportunity” column, which is simply calculated by taking the SOSChg column and subtracting the DiffChg column. Positive numbers are generally favorable for improving a team’s strength of record and playoff rating while negative numbers are unfavorable. Larger numbers in this column suggest that a team has a better chance of improving their playoff strength of record.
Future Schedule Cost/Benefit Opportunity
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
1 Indiana .010 (136) -.0421 -.0798 -.0377 (63)
2 Ohio State .032 (132) -.0101 -.0322 -.0220 (55)
3 Texas A&M .195 (116) -.0128 -.0116 .0012 (45)
4 Alabama .144 (125) -.0587 -.0641 -.0054 (49)
5 Miami .053 (130) -.1227 -.1576 -.0349 (61)
6 BYU .292 (101) .1123 .1009 -.0114 (50)
7 Oregon .182 (118) .0794 .1976 .1182 (10)
8 Georgia .229 (110) -.0176 -.0225 -.0049 (48)
9 Notre Dame .024 (133) -.1198 -.2106 -.0908 (96)
10 Ole Miss .170 (120) -.0622 -.0578 .0044 (41)
11 Texas Tech .129 (126) .0122 .0228 .0106 (37)
12 Vanderbilt .344 (96) .1326 .0918 -.0408 (68)
13 Michigan .289 (102) .0074 .0229 .0154 (35)
14 Washington .215 (112) -.0173 -.0148 .0025 (43)
15 Texas .470 (79) .1740 .1097 -.0643 (81)
16 USC .250 (107) .0538 .0602 .0064 (40)
17 Georgia Tech .367 (90) .2157 .1304 -.0854 (92)
18 Louisville .154 (124) -.1421 -.1253 .0168 (34)
19 Illinois .121 (127) -.3592 -.3250 .0342 (30)
20 South Florida .020 (135) -.2635 -.1849 .0786 (14)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
21 Utah .040 (131) -.0451 -.0485 -.0034 (47)
22 Iowa .511 (70) .2825 .2275 -.0550 (76)
23 Tennessee .356 (92) .1013 .0549 -.0464 (71)
24 Oklahoma .507 (72) .2680 .2165 -.0514 (74)
25 Missouri .464 (82) .2060 .1243 -.0817 (91)
26 Virginia .208 (113) -.0399 -.0384 .0015 (44)
27 Cincinnati .570 (54) .3839 .2701 -.1138 (107)
28 North Texas .024 (134) -.0976 -.0413 .0564 (22)
29 Houston .356 (91) .0565 -.0334 -.0900 (94)
30 LSU .431 (86) .0700 .0770 .0070 (39)
31 Tulane .261 (105) -.1322 -.0565 .0757 (15)
32 Boise State .197 (115) -.0827 -.1163 -.0335 (59)
33 Memphis .252 (106) .0759 .0031 -.0729 (87)
34 Nebraska .526 (66) .2837 .1711 -.1126 (105)
35 Pittsburgh .589 (52) .4026 .2974 -.1052 (104)
36 San Diego State .220 (111) .1202 .0157 -.1045 (103)
37 James Madison .205 (114) .0082 -.0283 -.0364 (62)
38 Navy .899 (10) .6693 .2981 -.3713 (136)
39 Arizona State .473 (78) -.0294 -.1011 -.0718 (86)
40 Florida .525 (68) .0114 -.0234 -.0348 (60)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
41 Iowa State .230 (109) -.1536 -.0896 .0640 (20)
42 TCU .655 (39) .3760 .1809 -.1951 (127)
43 Auburn .427 (87) -.0101 .0144 .0245 (32)
44 Northwestern .786 (22) .3061 .1825 -.1236 (112)
45 Kennesaw State .182 (119) -.1853 -.1440 .0413 (27)
46 Minnesota .621 (45) .1289 .0353 -.0936 (98)
47 UNLV .371 (89) -.0408 -.0193 .0215 (33)
48 Mississippi State .684 (35) .2641 .1086 -.1554 (119)
49 Wake Forest .509 (71) .1737 .1158 -.0578 (79)
50 Florida State .167 (122) -.1075 -.0993 .0083 (38)
51 Old Dominion .076 (129) -.2497 -.1288 .1208 (8)
52 Arizona .420 (88) .0609 -.0127 -.0735 (88)
53 NC State .657 (37) .1047 .1082 .0035 (42)
54 Kansas .610 (46) .1205 .0791 -.0413 (69)
55 Rutgers .827 (17) .2800 .1631 -.1169 (108)
56 Southern Miss .321 (98) .0057 -.0158 -.0215 (54)
57 Ohio .272 (103) -.0591 -.1093 -.0502 (72)
58 East Carolina .189 (117) -.1013 -.0560 .0453 (24)
59 Washington State .292 (100) -.3051 -.1547 .1504 (7)
60 Duke .323 (97) -.0374 -.0254 .0120 (36)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
61 Maryland .692 (33) .3517 .2336 -.1180 (110)
62 New Mexico .355 (93) -.0302 -.0618 -.0316 (57)
63 Penn State .558 (59) .2748 .2361 -.0387 (65)
64 SMU .486 (74) .1779 .1384 -.0395 (66)
65 Troy .446 (83) .0501 -.0061 -.0562 (78)
66 Hawai’i .654 (40) .2329 .0007 -.2322 (131)
67 Western Kentucky .440 (84) .0721 .0727 .0007 (46)
68 UCF .543 (62) .2407 .1770 -.0636 (80)
69 Michigan State .731 (29) .1527 -.0999 -.2526 (132)
70 South Carolina .563 (56) -.0290 .0465 .0754 (16)
71 Temple .779 (25) .3998 .0399 -.3599 (135)
72 Kansas State .522 (69) .1751 .2379 .0628 (21)
73 Western Michigan .157 (123) -.2879 -.0839 .2039 (4)
74 Wisconsin .843 (15) .1424 .0095 -.1329 (116)
75 Colorado .526 (67) -.0849 -.1286 -.0437 (70)
76 Central Michigan .562 (58) .0894 -.0789 -.1683 (120)
77 UCLA .940 (5) .2397 .2728 .0331 (31)
78 Arkansas .699 (32) .1214 -.0067 -.1281 (114)
79 Louisiana Tech .246 (108) -.0768 -.0402 .0366 (28)
80 Marshall .262 (104) -.1056 -.0704 .0353 (29)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
81 Utah State .465 (81) -.0135 -.1129 -.0994 (100)
82 Baylor .787 (21) .1884 .1218 -.0666 (82)
83 California .839 (16) .2954 .0781 -.2174 (130)
84 UConn .350 (95) .1323 .0143 -.1180 (109)
85 Stanford .652 (41) -.0585 -.0147 .0438 (25)
86 Missouri State .562 (57) -.0197 -.0904 -.0708 (85)
87 Clemson .557 (60) .1918 .0673 -.1245 (113)
88 Fresno State .718 (31) .1899 .0182 -.1718 (122)
89 Toledo .093 (128) -.1345 -.0172 .1173 (11)
90 UTSA .598 (48) .1426 -.0288 -.1714 (121)
91 Wyoming .478 (77) .0441 -.0550 -.0991 (99)
92 Kentucky .732 (28) .0420 .0137 -.0283 (56)
93 Army .294 (99) -.2576 -.0766 .1810 (6)
94 Miami (OH) .486 (75) .0671 -.0018 -.0690 (84)
95 Jacksonville State .466 (80) .0371 -.0143 -.0514 (73)
96 Syracuse .592 (51) -.1028 .2456 .3484 (1)
97 Purdue .984 (3) .3934 .4589 .0654 (19)
98 Coastal Carolina .753 (26) .0853 -.0163 -.1016 (102)
99 Delaware .538 (64) .0389 .0055 -.0335 (58)
100 Virginia Tech .947 (4) .3070 .2400 -.0670 (83)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
101 Kent State .681 (36) -.0165 -.1947 -.1783 (123)
102 West Virginia .867 (13) .1100 -.0124 -.1224 (111)
103 Arkansas State .601 (47) .0074 -.0308 -.0382 (64)
104 App State .644 (44) .1399 -.0053 -.1451 (118)
105 Texas State .353 (94) -.0601 -.0116 .0485 (23)
106 UAB .794 (19) .1198 .0187 -.1012 (101)
107 Rice .878 (12) .2205 .1459 -.0746 (89)
108 Buffalo .780 (24) .2996 -.0028 -.3024 (134)
109 Bowling Green .168 (121) -.4142 -.0716 .3426 (2)
110 Georgia Southern .647 (43) .0525 -.0792 -.1317 (115)
111 Florida International .505 (73) -.1611 -.0418 .1193 (9)
112 Liberty .598 (49) .0366 -.0040 -.0407 (67)
113 Florida Atlantic .794 (20) .1528 -.0296 -.1824 (124)
114 UL Monroe .911 (8) .1098 -.0847 -.1945 (126)
115 New Mexico State .723 (30) .1616 .0716 -.0900 (95)
116 San José State .484 (76) -.1321 -.0436 .0885 (13)
117 Oregon State .589 (53) -.0741 -.1672 -.0931 (97)
118 Ball State .649 (42) -.1145 -.0254 .0891 (12)
119 Colorado State .745 (27) .0727 -.0400 -.1127 (106)
120 North Carolina .846 (14) .1951 .0030 -.1921 (125)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
121 Air Force .689 (34) .0826 -.0057 -.0883 (93)
122 Oklahoma State .990 (1) .1562 -.1208 -.2770 (133)
123 UTEP .656 (38) .1380 -.0577 -.1957 (128)
124 South Alabama .532 (65) -.0515 -.0701 -.0186 (53)
125 Akron .435 (85) -.2668 -.0371 .2297 (3)
126 Tulsa .556 (61) -.1055 -.0312 .0742 (18)
127 Louisiana .539 (63) -.0981 -.0553 .0428 (26)
128 Boston College .918 (7) .1992 .1449 -.0543 (75)
129 Northern Illinois .564 (55) -.1028 -.0275 .0753 (17)
130 Georgia State .910 (9) .1069 -.1094 -.2163 (129)
131 Nevada .814 (18) .0337 -.0467 -.0805 (90)
132 Eastern Michigan .784 (23) .0511 -.0042 -.0553 (77)
133 Charlotte .988 (2) .1270 .1111 -.0159 (52)
134 Middle Tennessee .596 (50) -.2040 -.0102 .1938 (5)
135 Massachusetts .924 (6) .0459 -.0952 -.1411 (117)
136 Sam Houston .886 (11) -.0409 -.0560 -.0151 (51) Let’s take a look at two teams and examine some of the details of why they have a good or bad opportunity to improve their playoff rating.
Oregon (#7 Playoff; #4 Predictive; #118 Future Difficulty; #10 Opportunity) is given a good chance of improving their playoff position in my opportunity cost/benefit ratings. Their future schedule difficulty is .182, which means they have expected future record of 3.272-0.728. That means they’re likely to be 3-1 or 4-0 in those games. Their future schedule strength is ranked #10 in the FBS at .359, meaning that the hypothetical highly ranked team would be expected to go 2.564-1.436 against those same teams. This is tougher than Oregon’s past schedule (#45 Past SOS), but their remaining games are at Iowa (#20 Predictive), at home against Minnesota (#68 Predictive) and USC (#8 Predictive), and then at Washington (#11 Predictive). It’s a tough schedule, but they’re all winnable games for Oregon, and the schedule is probably quite favorable for them to improve their strength of record and move up in the playoff ratings.
On the other end, Navy (#88 Playoff; #38 Predictive; #10 Future Difficulty; #136 Opportunity) is the last undefeated team from the Group of 5. Navy’s undefeated record has been against a weak schedule (#136 Past SOS), but they have a much more difficult set of opponents going forward (#18 Future SOS). Their 7-0 record puts them atop the American, but they have upcoming games at North Texas (#27 Predictive) and Notre Dame (#3 Predictive), at home against South Florida (#22 Predictive), on the road against Memphis (#41 Predictive), and then at home against Army (#72 Predictive). Navy’s future schedule difficulty is .899, suggesting an expected 0.505-4.495 record in their remaining games. In contrast, the future SOS is .302, meaning that the hypothetical highly ranked team would have an expected record of 3.490-1.510 in these same games. This schedule is particularly unfavorable for Navy, which has the #13 strength of record to date but will probably have that decline in their remaining five games.
Both Oregon and Navy play difficult schedules going forward, and Oregon’s is actually more difficult. But for Oregon, the benefits to their strength of record outweigh the costs of playing the tough schedule and possibly picking up a loss. For Navy, their strength of record so far was against a very easy schedule, but the costs of playing a much tougher schedule in their remaining five games are likely to do more harm than good for their strength of record. I would expect Oregon to rise in the playoff ratings, but Navy’s #38 playoff ranking is likely to go down in the coming weeks.
One playoff spot will go to the Group of 5, meaning that 11 playoff spots are available to Power 4 teams and Notre Dame. The top eight teams in the playoff ratings are Indiana, Ohio State, Texas A&M, Alabama, Miami, BYU, Oregon, and Georgia. All of these teams seem rather safe at this time. Georgia Tech would get a playoff bid right now, but they’re not ranked as highly because of their weaker past schedule strength and predictive rating. If Georgia Tech is currently safe, the four teams closest to the playoff bubble are Notre Dame, Ole Miss, Texas Tech, and Vanderbilt. Of these teams, the cost/benefit opportunity is positive for Texas Tech and Ole Miss, but it’s negative for Notre Dame and Vanderbilt. It’s also quite negative for Georgia Tech despite their undefeated record.
If there are no surprises among the top eight teams and Georgia Tech fares well in their remaining games, the two bubble teams with the best opportunity to reach the playoff are probably Ole Miss and Texas Tech. If Georgia Tech falls in the ratings, then Vanderbilt probably has a better opportunity than Notre Dame to get the final spot. But Michigan and Washington aren’t far behind and could be in contention for the final spot. The opportunity rating is also positive for USC, Louisville, and even Illinois, who could also get back into contention. Illinois seems like a bit more of a stretch because they already have three losses, but their cost/benefit opportunity rating is also particularly high.
Early Week 10 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: Vanderbilt (-1.61, 44.53%) at Texas (1.61, 55.47%)
Estimated score: 26.16 - 27.72, Total: 53.88
Quality: 97.74%, Team quality: 96.84%, Competitiveness: 99.56%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.40%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 44.64%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 36.48%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 35.79%
#2: Oklahoma (-1.32, 45.51%) at Tennessee (1.32, 54.49%)
Estimated score: 30.30 - 31.69, Total: 61.98
Quality: 97.72%, Team quality: 96.73%, Competitiveness: 99.71%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.38%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 44.77%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 44.14%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 28.69%
#3: Mississippi State (-0.32, 48.92%) at Arkansas (0.32, 51.08%)
Estimated score: 33.75 - 34.22, Total: 67.97
Quality: 96.49%, Team quality: 94.80%, Competitiveness: 99.98%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.33%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 45.01%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 49.97%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 23.92%
#4: Georgia (5.86, 69.19%) vs. Florida (-5.86, 30.81%)
Estimated score: 21.34 - 15.47, Total: 36.81
Quality: 95.90%, Team quality: 96.73%, Competitiveness: 94.27%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.36%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.18%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 22.27%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 52.13%
#5: Duke (0.45, 51.52%) at Clemson (-0.45, 48.48%)
Estimated score: 27.96 - 27.35, Total: 55.31
Quality: 95.77%, Team quality: 93.73%, Competitiveness: 99.97%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.33%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 45.00%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 37.81%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 34.49%
#6: Arizona (2.45, 58.31%) at Colorado (-2.45, 41.69%)
Estimated score: 25.13 - 22.51, Total: 47.64
Quality: 95.46%, Team quality: 93.75%, Competitiveness: 98.98%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.50%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 44.14%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 30.92%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 41.63%
#7: Michigan State (-1.51, 44.86%) at Minnesota (1.51, 55.14%)
Estimated score: 25.69 - 27.15, Total: 52.84
Quality: 94.40%, Team quality: 91.90%, Competitiveness: 99.61%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.39%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 44.69%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 35.53%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 36.74%
#8: UCF (4.30, 64.34%) at Baylor (-4.30, 35.66%)
Estimated score: 33.52 - 29.16, Total: 62.68
Quality: 93.89%, Team quality: 92.42%, Competitiveness: 96.90%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.87%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 42.35%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 44.82%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 28.11%
#9: Georgia Tech (7.05, 72.67%) at NC State (-7.05, 27.33%)
Estimated score: 33.79 - 26.80, Total: 60.59
Quality: 93.61%, Team quality: 94.54%, Competitiveness: 91.77%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.86%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.18%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 42.80%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 29.86%
#10: USC (8.94, 77.72%) at Nebraska (-8.94, 22.28%)
Estimated score: 40.73 - 31.58, Total: 72.31
Quality: 93.42%, Team quality: 96.81%, Competitiveness: 86.99%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.92%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 34.56%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 54.20%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 20.75%
#11: New Mexico (2.60, 58.82%) at UNLV (-2.60, 41.18%)
Estimated score: 36.98 - 34.36, Total: 71.34
Quality: 93.11%, Team quality: 90.37%, Competitiveness: 98.86%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.52%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 44.03%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 53.25%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 21.44%
#12: Arizona State (-7.92, 24.95%) at Iowa State (7.92, 75.05%)
Estimated score: 17.58 - 25.49, Total: 43.08
Quality: 92.85%, Team quality: 94.47%, Competitiveness: 89.70%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.30%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 36.58%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 27.09%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 46.03%
#13: Tulane (5.85, 69.15%) at UTSA (-5.85, 30.85%)
Estimated score: 28.88 - 22.98, Total: 51.86
Quality: 92.61%, Team quality: 91.78%, Competitiveness: 94.30%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.35%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.20%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 34.64%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 37.65%
#14: Hawai’i (-1.53, 44.81%) at San José State (1.53, 55.19%)
Estimated score: 26.16 - 27.74, Total: 53.90
Quality: 91.15%, Team quality: 87.19%, Competitiveness: 99.61%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.39%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 44.68%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 36.50%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 35.77%
#15: James Madison (7.42, 73.69%) at Texas State (-7.42, 26.31%)
Estimated score: 33.14 - 25.86, Total: 59.00
Quality: 90.83%, Team quality: 90.79%, Competitiveness: 90.92%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.04%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.52%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 41.28%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 31.23%
#16: East Carolina (8.87, 77.54%) at Temple (-8.87, 22.46%)
Estimated score: 33.78 - 25.17, Total: 58.95
Quality: 90.43%, Team quality: 92.09%, Competitiveness: 87.19%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.87%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 34.71%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 41.24%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 31.27%
#17: Delaware (-1.56, 44.68%) at Liberty (1.56, 55.32%)
Estimated score: 22.70 - 24.03, Total: 46.73
Quality: 89.45%, Team quality: 84.78%, Competitiveness: 99.59%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.40%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 44.67%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 30.14%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 42.49%
#18: Army (8.22, 75.87%) at Air Force (-8.22, 24.13%)
Estimated score: 34.05 - 25.75, Total: 59.79
Quality: 88.85%, Team quality: 88.81%, Competitiveness: 88.92%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.48%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.99%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 42.04%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 30.54%
#19: Texas Tech (12.62, 85.84%) at Kansas State (-12.62, 14.16%)
Estimated score: 34.99 - 22.02, Total: 57.01
Quality: 88.69%, Team quality: 96.32%, Competitiveness: 75.21%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.12%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.63%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 39.40%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 32.97%
#20: Louisiana (-3.72, 37.52%) at South Alabama (3.72, 62.48%)
Estimated score: 25.40 - 29.08, Total: 54.48
Quality: 87.54%, Team quality: 82.88%, Competitiveness: 97.67%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.73%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 43.01%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 37.04%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 35.24%
#21: Florida International (-6.33, 29.41%) at Missouri State (6.33, 70.59%)
Estimated score: 18.06 - 24.57, Total: 42.64
Quality: 86.61%, Team quality: 83.44%, Competitiveness: 93.33%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.54%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 39.42%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 26.74%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 46.45%
#22: Arkansas State (-8.51, 23.38%) at Troy (8.51, 76.62%)
Estimated score: 19.47 - 28.12, Total: 47.58
Quality: 86.40%, Team quality: 85.52%, Competitiveness: 88.17%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.65%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.43%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 30.87%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 41.68%
#23: Kentucky (-13.20, 13.09%) at Auburn (13.20, 86.91%)
Estimated score: 14.19 - 27.13, Total: 41.32
Quality: 86.29%, Team quality: 93.74%, Competitiveness: 73.10%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.79%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.34%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 25.69%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 47.74%
#24: Jacksonville State (6.33, 70.59%) at Middle Tennessee (-6.33, 29.41%)
Estimated score: 28.67 - 22.13, Total: 50.80
Quality: 86.23%, Team quality: 82.88%, Competitiveness: 93.33%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.55%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 39.42%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 33.69%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 38.63%
#25: North Carolina (-10.34, 18.91%) at Syracuse (10.34, 81.09%)
Estimated score: 15.61 - 26.08, Total: 41.69
Quality: 86.16%, Team quality: 87.86%, Competitiveness: 82.85%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.94%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.62%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 25.98%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 47.38%
#26: Washington State (11.85, 84.34%) at Oregon State (-11.85, 15.66%)
Estimated score: 26.71 - 15.19, Total: 41.91
Quality: 85.15%, Team quality: 89.03%, Competitiveness: 77.90%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.31%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.32%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 26.16%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 47.16%
#27: Buffalo (-9.30, 21.38%) at Bowling Green (9.30, 78.62%)
Estimated score: 13.20 - 22.72, Total: 35.93
Quality: 84.14%, Team quality: 83.24%, Competitiveness: 85.97%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.16%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 33.82%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 21.62%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 53.00%
#28: Louisville (14.49, 89.06%) at Virginia Tech (-14.49, 10.94%)
Estimated score: 39.92 - 25.66, Total: 65.58
Quality: 83.77%, Team quality: 92.78%, Competitiveness: 68.30%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.45%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 22.56%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 47.64%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 25.77%
#29: South Carolina (-15.40, 9.58%) at Ole Miss (15.40, 90.42%)
Estimated score: 18.04 - 33.35, Total: 51.38
Quality: 83.77%, Team quality: 95.24%, Competitiveness: 64.80%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.79%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.64%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 34.21%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 38.09%
#30: New Mexico State (-10.89, 17.67%) at Western Kentucky (10.89, 82.33%)
Estimated score: 20.03 - 30.77, Total: 50.80
Quality: 83.35%, Team quality: 84.51%, Competitiveness: 81.08%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.41%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.42%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 33.69%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 38.64%
#31: West Virginia (-14.29, 11.26%) at Houston (14.29, 88.74%)
Estimated score: 16.14 - 30.45, Total: 46.59
Quality: 83.25%, Team quality: 91.39%, Competitiveness: 69.07%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.17%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 22.99%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 30.02%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 42.63%
#32: Central Michigan (-13.51, 12.56%) at Western Michigan (13.51, 87.44%)
Estimated score: 10.99 - 24.56, Total: 35.54
Quality: 82.20%, Team quality: 87.84%, Competitiveness: 71.99%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.16%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 24.68%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 21.35%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 53.37%
#33: Wyoming (-15.09, 10.03%) at San Diego State (15.09, 89.97%)
Estimated score: 8.78 - 23.77, Total: 32.55
Quality: 81.84%, Team quality: 91.14%, Competitiveness: 66.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.32%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.29%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 19.28%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 56.27%
#34: Marshall (12.40, 85.43%) at Coastal Carolina (-12.40, 14.57%)
Estimated score: 36.81 - 24.40, Total: 61.21
Quality: 81.73%, Team quality: 84.77%, Competitiveness: 75.98%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.88%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.10%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 43.40%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 29.34%
#35: UAB (-13.29, 12.93%) at UConn (13.29, 87.07%)
Estimated score: 30.89 - 44.37, Total: 75.26
Quality: 81.40%, Team quality: 86.10%, Competitiveness: 72.77%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.90%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.14%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 57.05%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 18.74%
#36: Cincinnati (-17.34, 7.14%) at Utah (17.34, 92.86%)
Estimated score: 21.19 - 38.61, Total: 59.80
Quality: 81.30%, Team quality: 96.92%, Competitiveness: 57.21%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 14.08%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 16.81%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 42.05%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 30.54%
#37: Pittsburgh (16.41, 91.76%) at Stanford (-16.41, 8.24%)
Estimated score: 34.54 - 17.79, Total: 52.33
Quality: 80.56%, Team quality: 92.69%, Competitiveness: 60.86%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.42%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 18.60%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 35.06%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 37.22%
#38: Virginia (16.15, 91.43%) at California (-16.15, 8.57%)
Estimated score: 37.23 - 21.01, Total: 58.25
Quality: 80.39%, Team quality: 91.62%, Competitiveness: 61.89%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.98%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.13%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 40.57%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 31.88%
#39: Rutgers (-16.94, 7.60%) at Illinois (16.94, 92.40%)
Estimated score: 25.99 - 42.97, Total: 68.96
Quality: 80.35%, Team quality: 93.93%, Competitiveness: 58.79%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.35%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 17.58%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 50.93%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 23.17%
#40: Wake Forest (-17.44, 7.02%) at Florida State (17.44, 92.98%)
Estimated score: 14.52 - 31.85, Total: 46.37
Quality: 79.91%, Team quality: 94.79%, Competitiveness: 56.79%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 14.28%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 16.61%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 29.83%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 42.84%
#41: UTEP (-15.85, 8.97%) at Kennesaw State (15.85, 91.03%)
Estimated score: 17.23 - 33.03, Total: 50.26
Quality: 77.66%, Team quality: 86.18%, Competitiveness: 63.06%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.49%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.73%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 33.21%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 39.14%
#42: Miami (19.61, 95.07%) at SMU (-19.61, 4.93%)
Estimated score: 31.70 - 12.34, Total: 44.04
Quality: 76.24%, Team quality: 95.81%, Competitiveness: 48.29%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 18.79%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 12.83%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 27.89%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 45.09%
#43: Purdue (-21.73, 3.41%) at Michigan (21.73, 96.59%)
Estimated score: 9.79 - 31.57, Total: 41.36
Quality: 70.91%, Team quality: 94.11%, Competitiveness: 40.26%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 24.00%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 9.70%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 25.72%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 47.69%
#44: Navy (-21.81, 3.36%) at North Texas (21.81, 96.64%)
Estimated score: 27.82 - 49.38, Total: 77.21
Quality: 69.81%, Team quality: 92.26%, Competitiveness: 39.97%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 24.21%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 9.60%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 58.91%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 17.49%
#45: Fresno State (-21.58, 3.50%) at Boise State (21.58, 96.50%)
Estimated score: 15.16 - 36.98, Total: 52.14
Quality: 68.96%, Team quality: 89.66%, Competitiveness: 40.80%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 23.62%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 9.90%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 34.90%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 37.39%
#46: Penn State (-24.13, 2.19%) at Ohio State (24.13, 97.81%)
Estimated score: 11.85 - 36.06, Total: 47.91
Quality: 67.02%, Team quality: 97.19%, Competitiveness: 31.86%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 30.79%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 6.85%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 31.15%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 41.37%
#47: Memphis (24.59, 98.00%) at Rice (-24.59, 2.00%)
Estimated score: 35.70 - 11.13, Total: 46.83
Quality: 61.51%, Team quality: 87.53%, Competitiveness: 30.38%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 32.16%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 6.39%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 30.22%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 42.41%
#48: Old Dominion (26.55, 98.64%) at UL Monroe (-26.55, 1.36%)
Estimated score: 43.40 - 16.98, Total: 60.38
Quality: 55.06%, Team quality: 82.69%, Competitiveness: 24.41%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 38.39%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 4.67%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 42.60%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 30.04%
#49: Oklahoma State (-27.46, 1.13%) at Kansas (27.46, 98.87%)
Estimated score: 15.26 - 42.79, Total: 58.05
Quality: 54.50%, Team quality: 86.00%, Competitiveness: 21.89%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 41.41%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 4.01%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 40.38%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 32.05%
#50: Indiana (29.86, 99.32%) at Maryland (-29.86, 0.68%)
Estimated score: 39.41 - 9.69, Total: 49.10
Quality: 53.13%, Team quality: 96.46%, Competitiveness: 16.12%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 49.53%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 2.63%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 32.18%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 40.24%
#51: Sam Houston (-28.53, 0.91%) at Louisiana Tech (28.53, 99.09%)
Estimated score: 9.03 - 37.55, Total: 46.58
Quality: 50.42%, Team quality: 81.74%, Competitiveness: 19.19%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 44.99%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 3.34%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 30.00%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 42.65%
#52: Notre Dame (39.47, 99.93%) at Boston College (-39.47, 0.07%)
Estimated score: 52.24 - 12.73, Total: 64.97
Quality: 31.01%, Team quality: 92.18%, Competitiveness: 3.51%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 79.03%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.37%
High scoring probability (total >= 68.0 pts): 47.04%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 26.25%I’ll update the NHL and NBA ratings tomorrow, then I’ll post final ratings and week 10 predictions before Tuesday’s college football games. I plan to restore The Linked Letters After Dark to being a late night column where it belongs after a brief break. Thanks for reading!
The ratings in this article are based on data from collegefootballdata.com.