The Linked Letters After Dark: Week 8 Edition
How has the college football playoff race changed after Miami's and Texas Tech's surprising losses, Georgia's win over Ole Miss, and several other important games?
I’m getting this posted Sunday morning because I had important matters to attend to Saturday evening. I try to get this posted as early as possible, but I generally don’t actually run the updated ratings until 2 AM or perhaps a bit later, when hopefully the data set is mostly complete. Anyway, week 8 of college football is complete, with a few surprises taking place including Miami losing to Louisville and Texas Tech’s loss at Arizona State. I’m going to post the preliminary ratings and discuss how a few of the surprising results this week have shifted the ratings. As usual, there are a few games with final scores that aren’t yet in my data set at the time the ratings were calculated. All the scores from the FBS and FCS are included, but there are eight games from Division II and 19 games from Division III not in the data set. I’ll post the final ratings for this week in a couple of days when the data set is complete.
In one week, the ratings will be based entirely on games from 2025. However, for now, games from 2024 do still have a small impact on the ratings. I’ve given games from 2024 1% of the weight of games played in 2025. For a team that played 13 games in 2024 and seven games in 2025, games played this season account for an estimated 98.18% of the team’s rating while last season determines the remaining 1.82%. The impact of last season can be a bit larger at lower divisions for teams that haven’t played as many games this season. Even though these estimates can vary a bit, the ratings are determined almost entirely by games played in 2025.
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: 2.12 points
Mean score: 26.49 points
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
1 +1 88.06 -0.01 Ohio State 38.07 50.09 .217
2 -1 88.06 -1.64 Indiana 43.68 44.52 .237
3 +2 85.82 +4.39 Oregon 46.49 39.35 .064
4 -1 83.93 -0.39 Notre Dame 44.46 39.55 .026
5 +1 79.46 +0.97 Alabama 37.31 42.14 .157
6 -2 79.32 -4.38 Miami 34.32 44.98 .165
7 +2 77.77 +1.41 USC 44.89 32.87 -.032
8 76.96 -0.25 Utah 39.57 37.36 -.099
9 -2 76.43 -1.12 Texas Tech 40.18 36.09 .022
10 74.31 -1.21 Texas A&M 39.86 34.28 .249
11 +2 74.08 +0.58 Georgia 34.65 39.61 .108
12 +5 72.87 +2.54 Michigan 32.94 39.97 -.014
13 +3 72.65 +1.57 BYU 36.71 35.92 .167
14 -2 71.97 -2.24 Washington 38.41 33.63 -.056
15 +10 71.49 +2.14 Oklahoma 29.41 42.10 .040
16 -5 71.42 -3.99 Florida State 39.19 32.25 -.323
17 -3 71.29 -0.95 Texas 30.72 40.61 -.035
18 +6 71.01 +1.27 Vanderbilt 41.97 29.15 .042
19 -1 70.67 +0.44 South Florida 39.15 31.49 .071
20 +1 70.59 +0.51 Illinois 37.38 33.28 .066
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
21 -6 70.54 -0.79 LSU 29.83 40.84 -.066
22 70.53 +0.47 Ole Miss 40.23 30.45 .050
23 -3 70.11 -0.03 Tennessee 44.25 26.01 -.061
24 +3 69.38 +1.41 Missouri 38.20 31.23 .020
25 +5 68.18 +2.41 Louisville 37.51 30.67 .060
26 -3 67.22 -2.61 Florida 30.14 37.49 -.219
27 +8 66.87 +3.52 Penn State 36.69 30.16 -.391
28 -9 66.75 -3.45 Nebraska 36.26 30.49 -.128
29 +3 66.46 +2.20 Pittsburgh 34.39 32.08 -.155
30 +8 66.31 +4.31 North Texas 44.69 21.52 -.049
31 -5 66.28 -1.91 Iowa 27.52 38.76 -.072
32 -4 66.25 -1.15 Virginia 39.26 27.03 .005
33 -4 65.76 -0.23 Cincinnati 35.17 30.75 -.014
34 -3 65.50 +0.57 Georgia Tech 33.45 31.89 .113
35 -2 64.44 +0.41 Iowa State 31.17 33.27 -.131
36 -2 64.41 +0.85 Auburn 25.70 38.92 -.311
37 +3 62.73 +1.72 Mississippi State 31.37 31.30 -.227
38 +5 61.64 +1.33 Arkansas 35.79 25.83 -.412
39 +2 61.10 +0.41 Kansas 31.67 29.46 -.220
40 +4 60.79 +0.59 TCU 35.32 25.53 -.180
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
41 +8 60.73 +1.73 Boise State 31.41 29.46 -.097
42 -5 60.71 -1.43 Duke 34.54 26.36 -.283
43 +7 60.63 +2.17 Arizona 28.91 31.79 -.282
44 +14 59.51 +3.01 Arizona State 24.42 35.19 -.054
45 +1 59.32 -0.44 East Carolina 27.95 31.39 -.310
46 +2 59.06 -0.09 NC State 29.58 29.48 -.206
47 58.65 -0.91 South Carolina 22.75 35.91 -.328
48 +3 58.40 +0.38 Colorado 27.20 31.44 -.388
49 +6 58.34 +1.62 Kansas State 30.81 27.60 -.431
50 +2 58.34 +0.56 Toledo 29.49 28.70 -.382
51 +13 58.33 +4.29 Minnesota 26.11 32.19 -.102
52 -13 58.28 -3.16 Memphis 28.48 29.89 -.106
53 +3 58.28 +1.65 Houston 27.56 30.71 -.027
54 +7 58.25 +3.64 UCF 25.95 32.33 -.324
55 +8 58.18 +3.76 SMU 29.06 28.97 -.201
56 -11 58.10 -1.68 Maryland 26.42 31.59 -.308
57 -15 57.87 -2.47 Clemson 26.10 31.69 -.441
58 +17 57.27 +6.98 James Madison 24.24 33.06 -.065
59 -23 57.15 -5.50 Old Dominion 31.84 25.70 -.265
60 -7 57.02 -0.63 San Diego State 27.05 30.04 -.138
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
61 -4 56.94 +0.41 Tulane 27.22 29.81 -.010
62 -3 56.77 +0.54 Wake Forest 24.19 32.44 -.247
63 -1 56.37 +1.91 Kentucky 26.45 30.18 -.413
64 +3 56.31 +3.82 Northwestern 19.39 36.96 -.091
65 -5 54.46 -0.57 Purdue 25.16 29.30 -.438
66 +3 53.65 +1.87 Louisiana Tech 21.94 31.87 -.239
67 -13 53.51 -3.36 Rutgers 32.40 21.25 -.334
68 +2 53.14 +1.94 UCLA 24.04 29.07 -.392
69 +4 52.70 +1.89 Baylor 34.21 18.50 -.300
70 +2 52.59 +1.60 Michigan State 28.62 23.97 -.298
71 +7 51.76 +1.97 Western Michigan 17.72 34.22 -.296
72 +8 51.70 +2.23 UConn 29.75 21.91 -.258
73 +6 51.51 +1.82 Army 20.27 31.15 -.444
74 -6 51.38 -0.74 Syracuse 25.32 26.26 -.399
75 -9 51.29 -1.33 New Mexico 27.34 23.87 -.301
76 +5 51.17 +2.01 Washington State 19.20 32.17 -.340
77 -6 50.76 -0.40 Wisconsin 21.50 29.41 -.391
78 +8 50.06 +2.46 Temple 29.36 20.51 -.318
79 -5 50.02 -0.45 Ohio 26.92 23.01 -.285
80 -15 49.80 -4.03 UTSA 26.72 23.17 -.426
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
81 -5 49.62 -0.46 Virginia Tech 25.71 23.84 -.538
82 +2 49.29 +1.36 Utah State 29.02 20.41 -.276
83 -6 48.27 -1.67 UNLV 31.88 16.41 -.083
84 +15 48.09 +5.47 Stanford 18.85 29.31 -.366
85 +2 47.90 +0.86 Navy 25.05 22.96 .023
86 -4 47.40 -1.30 Marshall 29.71 17.68 -.329
87 +7 46.96 +2.44 Southern Miss 24.76 22.30 -.232
88 +4 46.65 +1.31 Kennesaw State 22.04 24.75 -.156
89 -1 46.48 +0.15 Texas State 29.90 16.46 -.515
90 -7 45.96 -2.54 West Virginia 22.52 23.45 -.469
91 +9 45.55 +3.19 Hawai’i 21.58 23.99 -.198
92 -3 45.43 -0.81 California 19.12 26.47 -.212
93 +4 44.38 +1.06 Fresno State 23.14 21.13 -.233
94 +1 43.82 -0.59 Troy 22.16 21.61 -.230
95 -5 43.72 -2.31 Western Kentucky 22.42 21.29 -.249
96 43.71 -0.18 Wyoming 15.57 28.21 -.460
97 -4 43.69 -1.25 Miami (OH) 18.40 25.03 -.389
98 -13 43.56 -4.05 Bowling Green 16.97 26.78 -.437
99 -8 43.04 -2.64 Colorado State 19.97 23.07 -.600
100 +2 42.86 +1.75 San José State 22.43 20.28 -.612
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
101 +4 42.57 +3.35 Jacksonville State 22.60 20.12 -.385
102 -1 42.35 +1.18 Air Force 29.10 13.19 -.654
103 -5 42.15 -0.51 Delaware 22.11 19.99 -.445
104 +2 41.49 +2.77 Oregon State 20.72 20.78 -.669
105 -2 40.11 -0.65 Boston College 24.64 15.57 -.753
106 -2 39.90 +0.20 Liberty 15.45 24.45 -.517
107 +11 39.26 +4.67 Central Michigan 19.32 20.00 -.298
108 +5 39.07 +2.75 Georgia Southern 24.89 14.11 -.446
109 -1 38.52 +0.69 North Carolina 16.58 22.02 -.581
110 +4 37.87 +1.81 Tulsa 17.24 20.67 -.633
111 -2 37.71 +0.75 Missouri State 16.91 20.67 -.363
112 -5 37.67 -0.84 Buffalo 15.26 22.51 -.388
113 +14 37.60 +6.47 Florida International 13.60 24.00 -.414
114 -3 37.06 +0.37 South Alabama 19.48 17.47 -.743
115 +5 36.82 +2.75 UTEP 16.60 20.43 -.625
116 -4 36.75 +0.34 Florida Atlantic 25.05 11.70 -.461
117 -7 36.27 -0.65 App State 19.14 17.05 -.383
118 -1 36.25 +1.18 Louisiana 17.41 19.01 -.620
119 36.24 +2.12 Arkansas State 15.51 20.89 -.495
120 -4 36.21 +0.62 New Mexico State 15.41 20.80 -.457
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
121 +4 35.94 +4.45 UAB 24.05 11.95 -.472
122 34.90 +2.05 Nevada 11.89 23.22 -.764
123 -8 34.48 -1.46 Northern Illinois 9.49 24.88 -.762
124 -3 34.46 +0.52 Coastal Carolina 13.50 20.95 -.332
125 -2 33.80 +2.09 Ball State 17.93 15.93 -.474
126 +4 31.96 +2.27 Oklahoma State 16.35 15.63 -.652
127 -3 31.80 +0.24 Akron 13.24 18.66 -.673
128 -2 31.34 +0.08 Rice 12.05 19.16 -.528
129 30.44 +0.63 Middle Tennessee 12.38 18.03 -.795
130 +1 29.33 +0.16 Eastern Michigan 19.32 10.01 -.711
131 -3 29.21 -0.70 Kent State 18.40 10.87 -.475
132 +1 26.64 -1.07 Sam Houston 14.66 11.80 -.907
133 +1 26.57 +1.01 Georgia State 14.45 12.19 -.694
134 -2 26.25 -1.96 Charlotte 11.30 15.08 -.769
135 25.41 +0.13 UL Monroe 13.26 12.29 -.449
136 20.73 +1.93 Massachusetts 7.74 12.89 -.875
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 out the impact of last season’s games next week, and this comparison will no longer be needed.
Predictive Ratings
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
1 88.06 Ohio State 87.20 (2)
2 88.06 Indiana 88.58 (1)
3 85.82 Oregon 85.39 (3)
4 83.93 Notre Dame 83.15 (4)
5 79.46 Alabama 79.01 (6)
6 79.32 Miami 79.21 (5)
7 77.77 USC 76.82 (9)
8 76.96 Utah 77.38 (7)
9 76.43 Texas Tech 76.89 (8)
10 74.31 Texas A&M 73.74 (11)
11 74.08 Georgia 73.94 (10)
12 72.87 Michigan 71.86 (13)
13 72.65 BYU 72.34 (12)
14 71.97 Washington 71.69 (15)
15 71.49 Oklahoma 71.69 (14)
16 71.42 Florida State 71.28 (16)
17 71.29 Texas 70.60 (18)
18 71.01 Vanderbilt 70.93 (17)
19 70.67 South Florida 69.97 (21)
20 70.59 Illinois 69.35 (23)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
21 70.54 LSU 70.51 (19)
22 70.53 Ole Miss 70.41 (20)
23 70.11 Tennessee 69.14 (24)
24 69.38 Missouri 69.39 (22)
25 68.18 Louisville 68.29 (25)
26 67.22 Florida 66.81 (26)
27 66.87 Penn State 65.91 (32)
28 66.75 Nebraska 65.94 (30)
29 66.46 Pittsburgh 65.92 (31)
30 66.31 North Texas 66.76 (28)
31 66.28 Iowa 66.39 (29)
32 66.25 Virginia 66.77 (27)
33 65.76 Cincinnati 65.60 (33)
34 65.50 Georgia Tech 64.60 (34)
35 64.44 Iowa State 63.87 (36)
36 64.41 Auburn 64.10 (35)
37 62.73 Mississippi State 62.11 (37)
38 61.64 Arkansas 61.32 (38)
39 61.10 Kansas 61.31 (39)
40 60.79 TCU 60.31 (42)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
41 60.73 Boise State 60.12 (43)
42 60.71 Duke 60.50 (40)
43 60.63 Arizona 60.39 (41)
44 59.51 Arizona State 59.17 (45)
45 59.32 East Carolina 59.39 (44)
46 59.06 NC State 58.68 (47)
47 58.65 South Carolina 58.02 (48)
48 58.40 Colorado 57.70 (51)
49 58.34 Kansas State 57.84 (50)
50 58.34 Toledo 58.71 (46)
51 58.33 Minnesota 56.72 (59)
52 58.28 Memphis 57.69 (52)
53 58.28 Houston 57.88 (49)
54 58.25 UCF 57.65 (53)
55 58.18 SMU 57.14 (57)
56 58.10 Maryland 57.27 (55)
57 57.87 Clemson 56.71 (60)
58 57.27 James Madison 57.27 (56)
59 57.15 Old Dominion 56.37 (63)
60 57.02 San Diego State 57.50 (54)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
61 56.94 Tulane 56.72 (58)
62 56.77 Wake Forest 56.57 (61)
63 56.37 Kentucky 56.20 (64)
64 56.31 Northwestern 56.43 (62)
65 54.46 Purdue 53.59 (66)
66 53.65 Louisiana Tech 53.68 (65)
67 53.51 Rutgers 53.17 (67)
68 53.14 UCLA 52.88 (68)
69 52.70 Baylor 52.39 (70)
70 52.59 Michigan State 52.56 (69)
71 51.76 Western Michigan 52.26 (71)
72 51.70 UConn 51.02 (74)
73 51.51 Army 51.18 (73)
74 51.38 Syracuse 50.37 (76)
75 51.29 New Mexico 50.44 (75)
76 51.17 Washington State 51.71 (72)
77 50.76 Wisconsin 49.77 (77)
78 50.06 Temple 49.39 (78)
79 50.02 Ohio 49.28 (79)
80 49.80 UTSA 48.92 (81)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
81 49.62 Virginia Tech 48.40 (82)
82 49.29 Utah State 49.09 (80)
83 48.27 UNLV 47.11 (86)
84 48.09 Stanford 47.49 (84)
85 47.90 Navy 46.97 (88)
86 47.40 Marshall 47.34 (85)
87 46.96 Southern Miss 47.01 (87)
88 46.65 Kennesaw State 47.71 (83)
89 46.48 Texas State 45.63 (90)
90 45.96 West Virginia 45.75 (89)
91 45.55 Hawai’i 44.96 (91)
92 45.43 California 44.62 (92)
93 44.38 Fresno State 43.18 (95)
94 43.82 Troy 43.22 (94)
95 43.72 Western Kentucky 42.66 (98)
96 43.71 Wyoming 43.10 (96)
97 43.69 Miami (OH) 42.37 (100)
98 43.56 Bowling Green 43.46 (93)
99 43.04 Colorado State 43.08 (97)
100 42.86 San José State 42.48 (99)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
101 42.57 Jacksonville State 41.63 (101)
102 42.35 Air Force 41.63 (102)
103 42.15 Delaware 41.03 (103)
104 41.49 Oregon State 40.99 (104)
105 40.11 Boston College 39.16 (107)
106 39.90 Liberty 39.65 (105)
107 39.26 Central Michigan 39.34 (106)
108 39.07 Georgia Southern 38.34 (108)
109 38.52 North Carolina 37.67 (111)
110 37.87 Tulsa 38.06 (109)
111 37.71 Missouri State 37.71 (110)
112 37.67 Buffalo 36.78 (113)
113 37.60 Florida International 36.63 (114)
114 37.06 South Alabama 36.80 (112)
115 36.82 UTEP 36.44 (115)
116 36.75 Florida Atlantic 35.90 (118)
117 36.27 App State 35.61 (120)
118 36.25 Louisiana 35.66 (119)
119 36.24 Arkansas State 36.09 (116)
120 36.21 New Mexico State 36.07 (117)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
121 35.94 UAB 35.30 (121)
122 34.90 Nevada 34.69 (122)
123 34.48 Northern Illinois 33.51 (124)
124 34.46 Coastal Carolina 33.63 (123)
125 33.80 Ball State 33.41 (125)
126 31.96 Oklahoma State 31.33 (126)
127 31.80 Akron 30.86 (127)
128 31.34 Rice 30.20 (129)
129 30.44 Middle Tennessee 30.26 (128)
130 29.33 Eastern Michigan 28.65 (131)
131 29.21 Kent State 29.49 (130)
132 26.64 Sam Houston 25.14 (134)
133 26.57 Georgia State 26.38 (132)
134 26.25 Charlotte 25.46 (133)
135 25.41 UL Monroe 25.01 (135)
136 20.73 Massachusetts 20.32 (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: 2.12 points
Mean score: 26.49 points
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
1 Ohio State .217 (30) .206 (52) 53.35 (41) 59.75 (45)
2 Indiana .237 (22) .158 (63) 55.75 (28) 57.09 (56)
3 Oregon .207 (34) .297 (24) 55.52 (31) 64.60 (22)
4 Notre Dame .311 (5) .107 (74) 65.85 (1) 51.22 (73)
5 Alabama .300 (7) .235 (44) 61.44 (7) 55.27 (65)
6 Miami .331 (3) .140 (69) 61.91 (3) 55.47 (63)
7 USC .254 (12) .308 (22) 58.44 (16) 65.24 (20)
8 Utah .187 (42) .166 (61) 55.54 (30) 58.84 (46)
9 Texas Tech .165 (53) .150 (64) 45.45 (95) 53.01 (69)
10 Texas A&M .249 (16) .283 (30) 61.81 (4) 55.77 (61)
11 Georgia .251 (15) .240 (42) 60.48 (9) 58.17 (52)
12 Michigan .271 (10) .247 (40) 61.02 (8) 61.90 (35)
13 BYU .167 (52) .295 (26) 51.46 (48) 65.56 (19)
14 Washington .230 (25) .263 (37) 57.60 (21) 62.53 (31)
15 Oklahoma .183 (46) .408 (4) 53.05 (42) 71.58 (4)
16 Florida State .248 (17) .177 (58) 54.24 (36) 58.53 (48)
17 Texas .251 (14) .342 (14) 55.64 (29) 68.33 (10)
18 Vanderbilt .185 (43) .300 (23) 50.37 (55) 65.89 (16)
19 South Florida .214 (31) .064 (88) 51.24 (50) 45.08 (94)
20 Illinois .352 (2) .172 (60) 61.81 (5) 57.71 (54)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
21 LSU .220 (29) .342 (15) 59.43 (12) 65.70 (17)
22 Ole Miss .192 (40) .222 (49) 55.85 (25) 55.62 (62)
23 Tennessee .225 (27) .244 (41) 55.77 (26) 60.04 (43)
24 Missouri .163 (56) .349 (11) 47.31 (77) 68.66 (8)
25 Louisville .227 (26) .089 (77) 55.49 (33) 50.56 (75)
26 Florida .352 (1) .346 (12) 62.84 (2) 68.50 (9)
27 Penn State .180 (47) .405 (5) 51.47 (47) 70.22 (6)
28 Nebraska .158 (57) .263 (35) 49.50 (61) 63.65 (28)
29 Pittsburgh .131 (70) .341 (16) 48.09 (70) 66.76 (15)
30 North Texas .094 (100) .024 (124) 47.45 (76) 38.72 (125)
31 Iowa .214 (32) .366 (7) 49.74 (59) 67.83 (12)
32 Virginia .148 (60) .091 (75) 50.30 (56) 50.64 (74)
33 Cincinnati .129 (73) .283 (29) 45.52 (94) 64.32 (24)
34 Georgia Tech .113 (85) .200 (53) 50.59 (53) 58.22 (51)
35 Iowa State .155 (58) .184 (56) 53.63 (37) 56.78 (58)
36 Auburn .261 (11) .268 (33) 58.67 (13) 60.39 (42)
37 Mississippi State .201 (38) .349 (10) 49.83 (58) 68.96 (7)
38 Arkansas .302 (6) .318 (19) 57.66 (20) 67.24 (14)
39 Kansas .208 (33) .226 (47) 52.04 (46) 58.04 (53)
40 TCU .105 (89) .234 (45) 51.16 (51) 61.84 (37)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
41 Boise State .188 (41) .061 (90) 50.51 (54) 46.15 (88)
42 Duke .145 (63) .131 (72) 53.62 (38) 54.65 (68)
43 Arizona .146 (61) .189 (55) 49.55 (60) 59.92 (44)
44 Arizona State .232 (23) .159 (62) 57.95 (19) 57.12 (55)
45 East Carolina .118 (81) .062 (89) 46.61 (84) 44.65 (95)
46 NC State .222 (28) .315 (21) 55.77 (27) 63.82 (27)
47 South Carolina .244 (19) .325 (18) 58.35 (17) 62.90 (30)
48 Colorado .183 (45) .224 (48) 57.31 (22) 60.70 (41)
49 Kansas State .141 (65) .284 (28) 56.34 (24) 61.40 (40)
50 Toledo .047 (123) .034 (115) 37.06 (131) 40.91 (112)
51 Minnesota .184 (44) .272 (32) 48.05 (71) 62.35 (32)
52 Memphis .037 (132) .139 (70) 38.24 (127) 52.81 (70)
53 Houston .116 (82) .137 (71) 47.90 (72) 55.86 (60)
54 UCF .105 (90) .259 (38) 44.61 (97) 58.83 (47)
55 SMU .085 (108) .212 (51) 46.24 (88) 58.39 (50)
56 Maryland .121 (80) .352 (8) 47.15 (80) 67.52 (13)
57 Clemson .130 (72) .215 (50) 52.28 (45) 55.01 (66)
58 James Madison .077 (111) .040 (110) 41.00 (117) 43.58 (102)
59 Old Dominion .163 (55) .012 (135) 49.33 (62) 33.80 (134)
60 San Diego State .029 (134) .066 (87) 38.86 (124) 48.08 (83)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
61 Tulane .133 (68) .072 (85) 53.03 (43) 44.65 (96)
62 Wake Forest .086 (106) .194 (54) 47.60 (74) 56.21 (59)
63 Kentucky .253 (13) .289 (27) 59.66 (11) 64.20 (25)
64 Northwestern .194 (39) .394 (6) 50.03 (57) 70.54 (5)
65 Purdue .276 (8) .499 (2) 59.66 (10) 74.47 (3)
66 Louisiana Tech .094 (98) .031 (118) 46.06 (90) 40.22 (115)
67 Rutgers .237 (21) .351 (9) 53.43 (40) 68.04 (11)
68 UCLA .180 (48) .569 (1) 58.32 (18) 78.95 (1)
69 Baylor .128 (74) .256 (39) 48.28 (68) 63.55 (29)
70 Michigan State .274 (9) .263 (36) 58.51 (15) 64.49 (23)
71 Western Michigan .133 (69) .025 (123) 47.30 (78) 39.78 (119)
72 UConn .028 (135) .042 (107) 36.93 (132) 40.99 (111)
73 Army .128 (76) .047 (104) 51.28 (49) 45.60 (90)
74 Syracuse .172 (51) .344 (13) 54.50 (35) 61.90 (36)
75 New Mexico .128 (75) .057 (95) 49.02 (63) 47.57 (85)
76 Washington State .231 (24) .084 (81) 58.54 (14) 50.02 (78)
77 Wisconsin .323 (4) .493 (3) 61.79 (6) 75.38 (2)
78 Temple .110 (88) .140 (68) 41.22 (116) 54.81 (67)
79 Ohio .143 (64) .030 (119) 45.73 (91) 37.06 (130)
80 UTSA .146 (62) .150 (66) 48.52 (67) 52.51 (71)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
81 Virginia Tech .177 (50) .328 (17) 55.39 (34) 65.69 (18)
82 Utah State .152 (59) .075 (83) 46.74 (82) 48.34 (82)
83 UNLV .060 (115) .038 (113) 44.37 (99) 44.39 (99)
84 Stanford .206 (36) .318 (20) 57.02 (23) 62.31 (33)
85 Navy .023 (136) .280 (31) 33.04 (135) 61.59 (39)
86 Marshall .100 (94) .032 (117) 43.48 (102) 39.15 (123)
87 Southern Miss .054 (120) .019 (131) 42.18 (114) 37.38 (129)
88 Kennesaw State .177 (49) .020 (130) 46.64 (83) 39.18 (122)
89 Texas State .056 (116) .040 (109) 40.89 (118) 40.17 (117)
90 West Virginia .245 (18) .228 (46) 55.50 (32) 62.26 (34)
91 Hawai’i .052 (122) .060 (91) 40.40 (121) 47.96 (84)
92 California .074 (113) .179 (57) 43.41 (104) 58.49 (49)
93 Fresno State .053 (121) .089 (76) 38.07 (128) 50.30 (77)
94 Troy .056 (117) .049 (100) 40.41 (119) 40.21 (116)
95 Western Kentucky .037 (133) .120 (73) 36.05 (134) 47.11 (86)
96 Wyoming .111 (86) .058 (94) 46.09 (89) 45.40 (91)
97 Miami (OH) .040 (129) .060 (92) 38.68 (125) 45.89 (89)
98 Bowling Green .134 (67) .006 (136) 49.01 (65) 30.17 (136)
99 Colorado State .114 (83) .085 (80) 49.02 (64) 49.69 (79)
100 San José State .102 (92) .051 (98) 48.22 (69) 44.42 (97)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
101 Jacksonville State .043 (125) .021 (129) 37.93 (129) 39.47 (120)
102 Air Force .061 (114) .059 (93) 43.27 (106) 48.50 (81)
103 Delaware .055 (118) .047 (103) 42.07 (115) 40.35 (113)
104 Oregon State .206 (35) .044 (105) 52.86 (44) 41.71 (108)
105 Boston College .104 (91) .295 (25) 46.43 (85) 65.01 (21)
106 Liberty .055 (119) .041 (108) 42.33 (111) 43.13 (103)
107 Central Michigan .131 (71) .049 (102) 42.79 (110) 39.12 (124)
108 Georgia Southern .125 (77) .043 (106) 44.86 (96) 42.73 (104)
109 North Carolina .086 (107) .150 (65) 44.53 (98) 57.04 (57)
110 Tulsa .081 (109) .039 (112) 46.77 (81) 42.72 (105)
111 Missouri State .137 (66) .033 (116) 46.25 (87) 41.81 (107)
112 Buffalo .040 (128) .029 (121) 32.09 (136) 41.24 (110)
113 Florida International .086 (105) .017 (132) 43.29 (105) 36.97 (132)
114 South Alabama .114 (84) .022 (127) 43.60 (101) 36.76 (133)
115 UTEP .089 (103) .028 (122) 40.28 (122) 41.48 (109)
116 Florida Atlantic .111 (87) .088 (78) 42.29 (112) 50.32 (76)
117 App State .045 (124) .079 (82) 36.70 (133) 47.00 (87)
118 Louisiana .094 (99) .022 (126) 42.28 (113) 38.22 (127)
119 Arkansas State .076 (112) .023 (125) 43.22 (107) 40.05 (118)
120 New Mexico State .043 (127) .088 (79) 37.86 (130) 44.24 (100)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
121 UAB .100 (93) .143 (67) 45.55 (93) 52.00 (72)
122 Nevada .093 (101) .068 (86) 47.66 (73) 48.55 (80)
123 Northern Illinois .095 (97) .052 (97) 46.26 (86) 38.34 (126)
124 Coastal Carolina .096 (96) .073 (84) 43.45 (103) 45.37 (92)
125 Ball State .098 (95) .049 (101) 47.25 (79) 39.44 (121)
126 Oklahoma State .206 (37) .265 (34) 53.53 (39) 64.14 (26)
127 Akron .077 (110) .016 (133) 42.99 (109) 32.79 (135)
128 Rice .043 (126) .176 (59) 38.48 (126) 55.31 (64)
129 Middle Tennessee .038 (131) .021 (128) 43.15 (108) 38.15 (128)
130 Eastern Michigan .039 (130) .038 (114) 38.95 (123) 43.72 (101)
131 Kent State .239 (20) .014 (134) 51.01 (52) 37.00 (131)
132 Sam Houston .093 (102) .040 (111) 47.56 (75) 42.34 (106)
133 Georgia State .164 (54) .054 (96) 48.98 (66) 44.40 (98)
134 Charlotte .088 (104) .236 (43) 43.88 (100) 61.71 (38)
135 UL Monroe .123 (79) .051 (99) 40.41 (120) 45.20 (93)
136 Massachusetts .125 (78) .029 (120) 45.72 (92) 40.25 (114)
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 .739 SEC .343 (2) 68.33 33.66 34.75 -1.09 (7)
2 .693 FBS Independents .386 (1) 67.81 37.10 30.73 6.37 (1)
3 .689 Big Ten .324 (3) 66.24 32.55 33.71 -1.16 (8)
4 .612 Big 12 .219 (4) 60.13 30.48 29.69 0.80 (5)
5 .573 ACC .190 (5) 57.82 28.93 28.90 0.03 (6)
6 .430 American Athletic .103 (6) 48.50 25.61 22.89 2.72 (2)
7 .396 Mountain West .060 (7) 46.95 24.20 22.77 1.42 (4)
8 .385 Pac-12 .050 (8) 46.33 19.96 26.47 -6.51 (11)
9 .306 Sun Belt .038 (9) 40.74 21.45 19.34 2.11 (3)
10 .282 Conference USA .026 (11) 39.51 18.01 21.52 -3.51 (10)
11 .280 Mid-American .033 (10) 38.74 17.71 21.04 -3.33 (9)
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 +1 .9804 -.0059 Indiana .981 .871 1.000 .990
2 +1 .9751 -.0059 Ohio State .977 .809 1.000 .990
3 +1 .9624 -.0040 Texas A&M .983 .901 1.000 .922
4 +1 .9515 +.0104 Alabama .961 .974 .857 .961
5 -4 .9510 -.0395 Miami .964 .990 .833 .960
6 +5 .9311 +.0326 BYU .964 .590 1.000 .904
7 .9254 +.0179 Oregon .919 .771 .857 .986
8 +2 .9248 +.0224 Georgia .942 .904 .857 .919
9 +7 .9062 +.0406 Notre Dame .894 .981 .714 .981
10 -1 .8972 -.0063 South Florida .923 .799 .857 .879
11 +1 .8908 +.0044 Illinois .920 .995 .714 .878
12 -6 .8872 -.0516 Texas Tech .891 .582 .857 .941
13 -5 .8852 -.0185 Ole Miss .910 .713 .857 .877
14 +5 .8833 +.0323 Oklahoma .904 .669 .857 .890
15 +5 .8829 +.0347 Vanderbilt .905 .680 .857 .884
16 +13 .8824 +.0986 Louisville .917 .843 .833 .842
17 .8742 +.0112 Georgia Tech .944 .326 1.000 .795
18 -3 .8677 -.0018 USC .846 .912 .714 .951
19 +8 .8646 +.0502 Michigan .862 .942 .714 .907
20 +6 .8620 +.0430 Missouri .890 .572 .857 .861
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
21 +3 .8469 +.0189 Texas .844 .905 .714 .887
22 -1 .8363 -.0048 Virginia .878 .497 .857 .809
23 -10 .8350 -.0507 Washington .822 .850 .714 .896
24 -1 .8245 -.0123 Tennessee .818 .837 .714 .872
25 -11 .8223 -.0549 LSU .812 .819 .714 .877
26 -1 .8199 -.0054 Cincinnati .862 .400 .857 .800
27 -9 .8158 -.0361 Utah .775 .689 .714 .945
28 +2 .7974 +.0227 Iowa .806 .799 .714 .809
29 +3 .7971 +.0463 North Texas .830 .242 .857 .810
30 +12 .7665 +.0967 Arizona State .825 .857 .714 .662
31 .7618 +.0106 Tulane .866 .418 .857 .597
32 +2 .7599 +.0338 Houston .851 .337 .857 .631
33 -11 .7509 -.0883 Nebraska .740 .547 .714 .818
34 +2 .7409 +.0258 Boise State .777 .694 .714 .692
35 -2 .7348 +.0048 Iowa State .736 .532 .714 .774
36 +13 .7233 +.0834 James Madison .813 .180 .857 .606
37 +4 .7228 +.0382 Pittsburgh .704 .410 .714 .813
38 +9 .7197 +.0756 Minnesota .772 .676 .714 .633
39 +12 .7126 +.0793 Northwestern .784 .720 .714 .580
40 -12 .7009 -.1105 Memphis .767 .076 .857 .632
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
41 -2 .7005 +.0075 Navy .892 .053 1.000 .358
42 +6 .6765 +.0338 Florida .611 .995 .429 .826
43 .6659 -.0036 San Diego State .727 .062 .833 .599
44 +10 .6612 +.0601 TCU .668 .289 .714 .693
45 -5 .6450 -.0441 Mississippi State .598 .750 .571 .738
46 +4 .6409 +.0067 Kansas .609 .777 .571 .701
47 -2 .6404 -.0099 NC State .630 .827 .571 .651
48 -13 .6387 -.0829 UNLV .794 .128 .857 .367
49 +11 .6216 +.0945 SMU .638 .207 .714 .629
50 -13 .6015 -.1129 Florida State .449 .900 .429 .889
51 +5 .5826 +.0061 Kennesaw State .701 .641 .667 .327
52 .5786 -.0485 Auburn .468 .925 .429 .773
53 .5703 -.0535 Arizona .513 .487 .571 .690
54 -10 .5698 -.0838 Duke .511 .482 .571 .691
55 +3 .5673 +.0076 Wake Forest .568 .212 .667 .592
56 -18 .5634 -.1350 Old Dominion .540 .575 .571 .602
57 +2 .5507 +.0126 Louisiana Tech .580 .242 .667 .509
58 +10 .5295 +.0503 East Carolina .469 .348 .571 .658
59 +13 .5236 +.0597 Hawai’i .642 .107 .750 .300
60 -14 .5233 -.1244 Maryland .473 .361 .571 .627
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
61 -4 .5222 -.0505 South Carolina .441 .888 .429 .641
62 +13 .5145 +.0589 UConn .551 .060 .714 .457
63 .5119 +.0115 Penn State .346 .658 .429 .820
64 +3 .5111 +.0291 California .622 .169 .714 .298
65 +19 .5071 +.0822 UCF .448 .288 .571 .631
66 +3 .5031 +.0242 Michigan State .489 .946 .429 .481
67 +13 .5028 +.0639 Southern Miss .592 .113 .714 .334
68 +13 .4885 +.0510 Utah State .523 .519 .571 .393
69 -8 .4883 -.0377 Baylor .484 .396 .571 .484
70 +4 .4857 +.0287 Western Michigan .491 .418 .571 .459
71 +2 .4840 +.0213 Ohio .508 .473 .571 .412
72 -2 .4837 +.0066 Fresno State .590 .110 .714 .274
73 -2 .4827 +.0148 Troy .595 .117 .714 .261
74 +8 .4767 +.0470 New Mexico .484 .395 .571 .446
75 -13 .4756 -.0270 Rutgers .432 .872 .429 .506
76 -12 .4648 -.0284 Arkansas .315 .975 .286 .713
77 -22 .4638 -.1265 Western Kentucky .565 .076 .714 .259
78 .4593 +.0123 Colorado .350 .672 .429 .634
79 -13 .4509 -.0363 Washington State .423 .856 .429 .443
80 +6 .4494 +.0556 Toledo .359 .096 .571 .633
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
81 +10 .4475 +.0687 Temple .456 .311 .571 .413
82 -6 .4260 -.0289 Kentucky .314 .910 .333 .582
83 +7 .4157 +.0295 Marshall .440 .265 .571 .345
84 +3 .4150 +.0245 Kansas State .290 .459 .429 .633
85 +13 .4138 +.0935 UCLA .345 .655 .429 .496
86 -21 .4010 -.0876 Clemson .276 .405 .429 .621
87 +19 .4007 +.1431 Stanford .383 .767 .429 .363
88 +12 .3976 +.0850 Central Michigan .488 .409 .571 .172
89 .3974 +.0091 Wisconsin .345 .987 .286 .432
90 -13 .3916 -.0629 Syracuse .333 .617 .429 .448
91 -12 .3891 -.0519 Purdue .280 .949 .286 .531
92 -9 .3521 -.0739 UTSA .297 .484 .429 .407
93 -1 .3479 -.0289 Army .272 .393 .429 .452
94 +5 .3392 +.0261 Coastal Carolina .434 .251 .571 .102
95 +7 .3305 +.0321 Miami (OH) .349 .081 .571 .258
96 +1 .3290 +.0074 Missouri State .387 .440 .500 .146
97 +12 .3268 +.0804 Jacksonville State .354 .089 .571 .235
98 -4 .2981 -.0628 West Virginia .240 .891 .286 .310
99 +11 .2975 +.0558 Buffalo .350 .083 .571 .146
100 -12 .2957 -.0945 App State .357 .092 .571 .125
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
101 -16 .2954 -.1133 Bowling Green .281 .426 .429 .256
102 +12 .2764 +.1024 Florida International .313 .212 .500 .145
103 -8 .2745 -.0801 Wyoming .251 .315 .429 .259
104 -11 .2723 -.0960 Delaware .271 .114 .500 .226
105 -2 .2718 -.0161 Virginia Tech .165 .641 .286 .402
106 +7 .2606 +.0755 Georgia Southern .269 .382 .429 .168
107 -6 .2485 -.0582 Texas State .187 .117 .429 .323
108 -1 .2362 -.0210 Florida Atlantic .251 .314 .429 .132
109 -13 .2319 -.0910 New Mexico State .255 .087 .500 .124
110 +10 .2228 +.0777 UAB .237 .265 .429 .121
111 -7 .2167 -.0699 UL Monroe .266 .370 .429 .030
112 -7 .2163 -.0652 Kent State .233 .877 .286 .052
113 +4 .2129 +.0566 Ball State .235 .256 .429 .094
114 +2 .2057 +.0409 Liberty .186 .114 .429 .183
115 +6 .2043 +.0605 Arkansas State .209 .176 .429 .125
116 -8 .1795 -.0744 Colorado State .111 .330 .286 .244
117 -5 .1706 -.0258 San José State .102 .275 .286 .240
118 -3 .1638 -.0060 Rice .174 .088 .429 .069
119 -8 .1609 -.0448 North Carolina .126 .210 .333 .159
120 +4 .1520 +.0396 Oregon State .068 .769 .125 .213
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
121 +5 .1458 +.0383 Air Force .076 .130 .286 .230
122 -4 .1313 -.0217 Louisiana .097 .242 .286 .125
123 -4 .1312 -.0142 Tulsa .088 .192 .286 .149
124 +6 .1310 +.0420 UTEP .093 .223 .286 .133
125 .1175 +.0067 Oklahoma State .077 .767 .143 .075
126 -3 .1032 -.0167 Boston College .034 .284 .143 .187
127 -5 .0922 -.0303 Akron .066 .180 .250 .073
128 -1 .0920 -.0130 South Alabama .037 .328 .143 .137
129 -1 .0844 -.0203 Georgia State .056 .575 .143 .036
130 +2 .0754 -.0016 Nevada .031 .239 .143 .107
131 -2 .0746 -.0201 Northern Illinois .031 .247 .143 .102
132 -1 .0715 -.0147 Eastern Michigan .048 .080 .250 .053
133 +1 .0518 -.0025 Middle Tennessee .023 .078 .167 .061
134 -1 .0517 -.0150 Charlotte .030 .220 .143 .034
135 +1 .0289 -.0077 Massachusetts .010 .379 .000 .014
136 -1 .0269 -.0109 Sam Houston .008 .238 .000 .036
“Major Playoff Implications”
I’m already late posting this, and in order to get this article posted before it gets too late in the morning, I’m going to just do a quick discussion of a few games that significantly affected the playoff race this weekend.
Louisville gets an upset win at Miami
I didn’t feature this game in my list of games that I expected to potentially shake up the playoff race. Despite Louisville having been ranked #30 in the predictive ratings coming into this week, Miami looked dominant and seemed very likely to win. Miami has fallen two spots in the predictive ratings to #6 as a result of this loss, and they’ve dropped to #5 in the playoff ratings. Still, Miami is in a good position to reach the playoff, especially if they win out. I’ve discussed Georgia Tech and even Virginia as possible contenders for a second bid from the ACC. Right now, Georgia Tech also looks like a playoff team, even though they’re outside the top 12 in the playoff ratings. Virginia is a bit farther down the playoff ratings at #22. But this win means that Louisville at least belongs in the discussion as well if the ACC is a two bid conference. This win jumped Louisville 13 spots in the playoff ratings, and they’re at #16 right now. Louisville’s future schedule is ranked #77, and their toughest game remaining on the schedule is at SMU, who is #55 in the predictive ratings. All of the games are very winnable, and if Louisville finishes the regular season at 11-1, they should get serious playoff consideration.
BYU narrowly wins against Utah
This is a high quality win for BYU that keeps them undefeated while boosting their strength of record. As a result, they’ve climbed five spots in the playoff ratings to #6 and are the highest ranked team from the Big 12. If the Big 12 was just a one bid conference, that bid would go to BYU right now. However, they have a few challenging games remaining on their schedule, especially a visit to Texas Tech on November 8 that may well determine the Big 12 regular season championship. For Utah, this loss drops them to #27 in the playoff ratings, though they could still reach the playoff with two losses if there’s more chaos than currently expected at the top of the Big 12.
Texas Tech falls at Arizona State
This was another game that I didn’t feature as being a likely candidate to shift the playoff ratings, but the biggest effect is that BYU is now the favorite to win the Big 12. BYU is now solidly in a playoff spot right now at #6 in the playoff ratings, and this loss drops Texas Tech to the bubble at #12. Texas Tech has a future schedule strength ranked #64, with BYU as easily the most difficult opponent remaining. After that, the highest rated opponent is Kansas State, who is currently at #49 in the predictive ratings. If they win out in the regular season, Texas Tech should move back up in the playoff ratings. However, a second loss against BYU would make their playoff chances much more remote. As for Arizona State, they’re currently #30 in the playoff ratings, but having the #62 ranked future schedule limits their opportunities to improve their strength of record. They could still reach the playoff by winning the Big 12, but that will some chaos at the top of the conference. BYU and Cincinnati are undefeated in conference games, and Houston and Texas Tech have a 3-1 record. Arizona State’s 3-1 conference record gives them a chance, but they probably need to win their remaining regular season games and the conference championship to reach the playoff.
Georgia comes back against Ole Miss
Georgia scored 17 points in the fourth quarter in a comeback win against Ole Miss. Texas A&M and Alabama look like safe playoff teams right now, but it was much less clear which other teams might get playoff spots from the SEC. Last week, Georgia and Ole Miss looked like the third and fourth SEC teams in the playoff, but both were uncomfortably close to the bubble. For Georgia, this bumps them up two spots in the playoff ratings to #8 and makes their position much safer. Ole Miss is also 6-1 but on the playoff bubble at #13 in the playoff ratings. They also have the #49 remaining schedule, which isn’t particularly strong, especially compared to other SEC contenders. Their biggest remaining challenge is next weekend when they play at Oklahoma, and a win in that game will boost Ole Miss’ strength of record. If they win out in the regular season, it’s almost impossible to envision an 11-1 SEC team that lost by a touchdown at Georgia being left out of the playoff. Right now, Ole Miss is on the bubble but should be much safer with a win next weekend.
Vanderbilt wins at home against LSU
Before this weekend, LSU appeared to be fifth in line in the SEC to make the playoff. Vanderbilt’s position appeared to be a bit weaker entering this game, which was effectively a toss-up. LSU still has good opportunities remaining to improve their strength of record, but this loss drops then behind at least Oklahoma, Vanderbilt, and Missouri. If LSU wins out in the regular season, they still can make the playoff, but they’re definitely out for now. As for Vanderbilt, this win puts them fifth or sixth in line among SEC teams, probably ahead of Missouri but right on the bubble with Oklahoma. Their home game against Missouri is another good chance to improve their strength of record and move closer to the right side of the playoff bubble. Vanderbilt probably wouldn’t be a playoff team if the selections were made today, but they certainly survived a game they really needed to win.
Michigan wins easily against Washington
After the three clear favorites to reach the playoff from the Big Ten, the picture gets much murkier for the conference to get additional bids. Illinois, Michigan, Washington, USC, and Iowa all have two losses but have fairly strong strength of record ratings. Farther down the list are Nebraska, Minnesota, and Northwestern, who also have two losses but appear to be in weaker positions to reach the playoff. Washington and USC had opportunities to separate themselves from other Big Ten teams this past weekend. Washington had been rated near the playoff bubble on the basis of a good strength of record, but that took a hit by losing to Michigan. A third loss would have likely eliminated Michigan from playoff contention, but this puts them back into a large group of teams with two losses hoping that the Big Ten gets a fourth playoff spot. Michigan gets a boost to their own strength of record, especially since Washington still has a strong predictive rating despite losing, but they’re still on the wrong side of the bubble.
Notre Dame gets a home win over USC
Notre Dame opened the season with two straight losses and appeared to be struggling, but they’ve since rebounded with five wins. Their losses were by close margins to Miami and Texas A&M, both of which are likely playoff teams, so they shouldn’t hurt Notre Dame too much as long as they don’t pick up additional losses. Their schedule isn’t especially strong after this past weekend, ranked #74 among FBS teams. The game at Pittsburgh is likely the toughest game remaining and the best opportunity to give their strength of record a major boost. However, USC has been highly rated by the predictive ratings, and this big win puts Notre Dame back in strong contention for the playoff bid with an improvement to their strength of record. They probably need to win out to feel reasonably safe, but their playoff hopes are alive and well right now. As for USC, the story is similar to Washington in that they were in a strong position to separate themselves from the large group of teams in the Big Ten with two losses. They continue to have a strong predictive rating, but this loss puts them a few spots on the wrong end of the playoff bubble. USC does have the #22 rated future schedule, and the game at Oregon later in the season is a particularly good opportunity to improve their strength of record if they’re still in contention at that point.
Memphis upset by UAB
Although South Florida had a better predictive rating, Memphis was undefeated and expected to have a good chance at winning the American. That would have given them a good chance of reaching the playoff. With UNLV losing to Boise State, the chances of the Group of 5 bid going to a conference other than the American seems less likely. My ratings strongly favored Memphis in this game, which appeared to be an easy win unlike future games against South Florida, Tulane, Navy, and even East Carolina. Memphis still very much has a chance to win the conference and reach the playoff, but they’ll need to start with a win against South Florida next weekend and probably win out. South Florida, Tulane, and Navy are all competitive games for Memphis. They needed a bit of margin of error for their remaining schedule, and that meant taking care of business against a UAB team that was ranked #125 in the FBS entering the weekend. This loss shouldn’t matter if they win out, but it does jumble the top of the American, leaving Navy as the only undefeated team left in the Group of 5.
Playoff Predictions
These predictions are based on what teams have achieved to date and are not intended to reflect my opinions on how teams will perform in the future.
Likely Playoff Teams: Indiana, Ohio State, Oregon, Texas A&M, Alabama, Georgia, Miami, Georgia Tech, BYU
Probably In: South Florida, Ole Miss, Texas Tech
Just A Bit Outside: Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Vanderbilt
Farther Back In Line: Missouri, Illinois, Louisville, Michigan, Washington, Texas, Tennessee, LSU, Cincinnati, Utah, Virginia, Iowa, North Texas, Memphis, Tulane, Navy, Boise State
Weekly 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: Texas A&M (1.65, 53.95%) at LSU (-1.65, 46.05%)
Estimated score: 24.46 - 23.11, Total: 47.57
Quality: 98.07%, Team quality: 97.29%, Competitiveness: 99.66%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.08%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.36%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 32.04%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 40.92%
#2: Ole Miss (-3.08, 42.67%) at Oklahoma (3.08, 57.33%)
Estimated score: 23.57 - 26.52, Total: 50.08
Quality: 97.63%, Team quality: 97.04%, Competitiveness: 98.81%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.41%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.98%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.23%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.59%
#3: Illinois (-3.50, 41.67%) at Washington (3.50, 58.33%)
Estimated score: 29.18 - 32.68, Total: 61.86
Quality: 97.54%, Team quality: 97.08%, Competitiveness: 98.46%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.54%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.82%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 45.09%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.34%
#4: Missouri (-3.75, 41.10%) at Vanderbilt (3.75, 58.90%)
Estimated score: 34.48 - 38.30, Total: 72.78
Quality: 97.33%, Team quality: 96.89%, Competitiveness: 98.24%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.63%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.72%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 55.52%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 20.19%
#5: Auburn (0.65, 51.55%) at Arkansas (-0.65, 48.45%)
Estimated score: 25.30 - 24.43, Total: 49.73
Quality: 96.83%, Team quality: 95.31%, Competitiveness: 99.95%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.97%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.50%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 33.92%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.91%
#6: BYU (6.09, 64.24%) at Iowa State (-6.09, 35.76%)
Estimated score: 28.88 - 22.81, Total: 51.68
Quality: 96.16%, Team quality: 96.53%, Competitiveness: 95.42%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.76%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.46%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.65%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 37.13%
#7: Texas (6.44, 65.03%) at Mississippi State (-6.44, 34.97%)
Estimated score: 24.85 - 18.31, Total: 43.17
Quality: 95.76%, Team quality: 96.20%, Competitiveness: 94.89%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.97%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.22%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.36%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 45.06%
#8: SMU (-0.71, 48.29%) at Wake Forest (0.71, 51.71%)
Estimated score: 22.05 - 22.78, Total: 44.83
Quality: 95.72%, Team quality: 93.68%, Competitiveness: 99.94%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.97%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.49%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.73%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.49%
#9: Houston (-3.36, 42.02%) at Arizona State (3.36, 57.98%)
Estimated score: 17.80 - 21.27, Total: 39.07
Quality: 95.58%, Team quality: 94.11%, Competitiveness: 98.59%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.49%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.88%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 25.13%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 48.98%
#10: Kansas State (-4.89, 38.47%) at Kansas (4.89, 61.53%)
Estimated score: 26.79 - 31.63, Total: 58.42
Quality: 95.23%, Team quality: 94.34%, Competitiveness: 97.02%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.11%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.18%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.84%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.20%
#11: Rutgers (-3.07, 42.70%) at Purdue (3.07, 57.30%)
Estimated score: 28.54 - 31.46, Total: 60.00
Quality: 94.51%, Team quality: 92.42%, Competitiveness: 98.82%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.40%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.98%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 43.33%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.87%
#12: Toledo (5.04, 61.88%) at Washington State (-5.04, 38.12%)
Estimated score: 22.75 - 18.05, Total: 40.81
Quality: 94.04%, Team quality: 92.68%, Competitiveness: 96.84%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.19%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.09%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 26.47%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 47.32%
#13: Utah State (-4.12, 40.23%) at New Mexico (4.12, 59.77%)
Estimated score: 30.59 - 34.48, Total: 65.07
Quality: 93.17%, Team quality: 90.90%, Competitiveness: 97.88%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.77%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.56%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 48.15%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 25.79%
#14: NC State (-9.52, 28.44%) at Pittsburgh (9.52, 71.56%)
Estimated score: 22.94 - 32.46, Total: 55.39
Quality: 93.07%, Team quality: 95.10%, Competitiveness: 89.14%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.40%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.72%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 39.03%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.81%
#15: South Florida (10.27, 73.05%) at Memphis (-10.27, 26.95%)
Estimated score: 34.69 - 24.55, Total: 59.24
Quality: 92.76%, Team quality: 95.52%, Competitiveness: 87.48%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.14%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.01%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 42.61%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 30.51%
#16: Minnesota (-10.07, 27.34%) at Iowa (10.07, 72.66%)
Estimated score: 12.78 - 22.89, Total: 35.67
Quality: 92.56%, Team quality: 94.96%, Competitiveness: 87.93%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.93%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.20%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 22.60%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 52.23%
#17: Western Michigan (5.95, 63.93%) at Miami (OH) (-5.95, 36.07%)
Estimated score: 18.12 - 11.73, Total: 29.85
Quality: 91.63%, Team quality: 89.70%, Competitiveness: 95.62%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.67%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.55%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 18.63%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 57.75%
#18: California (-6.31, 35.26%) at Virginia Tech (6.31, 64.74%)
Estimated score: 20.72 - 26.80, Total: 47.52
Quality: 91.38%, Team quality: 89.59%, Competitiveness: 95.08%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.89%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.31%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 32.00%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 40.96%
#19: Tennessee (11.62, 75.63%) at Kentucky (-11.62, 24.37%)
Estimated score: 39.50 - 28.00, Total: 67.49
Quality: 91.37%, Team quality: 95.16%, Competitiveness: 84.25%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 14.60%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.65%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 50.47%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 23.95%
#20: Colorado State (-2.79, 43.36%) at Wyoming (2.79, 56.64%)
Estimated score: 17.20 - 20.06, Total: 37.26
Quality: 91.21%, Team quality: 87.54%, Competitiveness: 99.02%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.32%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.08%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 23.76%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 50.71%
#21: Northwestern (-12.57, 22.64%) at Nebraska (12.57, 77.36%)
Estimated score: 14.34 - 26.86, Total: 41.20
Quality: 90.16%, Team quality: 94.65%, Competitiveness: 81.80%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.75%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 24.64%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 26.78%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 46.94%
#22: San Diego State (10.52, 73.55%) at Fresno State (-10.52, 26.45%)
Estimated score: 31.35 - 20.66, Total: 52.01
Quality: 89.53%, Team quality: 90.88%, Competitiveness: 86.89%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.40%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.76%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.94%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.84%
#23: Kennesaw State (6.92, 66.09%) at Florida International (-6.92, 33.91%)
Estimated score: 23.48 - 16.41, Total: 39.89
Quality: 89.13%, Team quality: 86.74%, Competitiveness: 94.11%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.29%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.88%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 25.76%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 48.19%
#24: Georgia Southern (0.70, 51.68%) at Arkansas State (-0.70, 48.32%)
Estimated score: 29.44 - 28.96, Total: 58.40
Quality: 89.12%, Team quality: 84.16%, Competitiveness: 99.94%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.97%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.49%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.82%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.22%
#25: Missouri State (-0.62, 48.51%) at New Mexico State (0.62, 51.49%)
Estimated score: 21.54 - 22.30, Total: 43.84
Quality: 88.81%, Team quality: 83.71%, Competitiveness: 99.95%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.96%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.50%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.91%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 44.43%
#26: TCU (12.71, 77.61%) at West Virginia (-12.71, 22.39%)
Estimated score: 37.30 - 24.55, Total: 61.85
Quality: 88.26%, Team quality: 91.88%, Competitiveness: 81.43%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.92%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 24.49%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 45.08%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.34%
#27: Temple (10.07, 72.66%) at Tulsa (-10.07, 27.34%)
Estimated score: 34.13 - 24.29, Total: 58.42
Quality: 87.73%, Team quality: 87.63%, Competitiveness: 87.93%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.93%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.21%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.84%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.20%
#28: Western Kentucky (-12.05, 23.57%) at Louisiana Tech (12.05, 76.43%)
Estimated score: 15.98 - 28.21, Total: 44.19
Quality: 87.59%, Team quality: 89.90%, Competitiveness: 83.14%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.12%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.20%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.20%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 44.09%
#29: Ball State (-2.81, 43.31%) at Northern Illinois (2.81, 56.69%)
Estimated score: 18.48 - 21.12, Total: 39.60
Quality: 87.16%, Team quality: 81.78%, Competitiveness: 99.01%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.33%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.07%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 25.54%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 48.46%
#30: Baylor (-15.19, 18.26%) at Cincinnati (15.19, 81.74%)
Estimated score: 28.90 - 44.23, Total: 73.13
Quality: 86.90%, Team quality: 93.84%, Competitiveness: 74.51%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 19.38%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.72%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 55.85%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 19.95%
#31: Louisiana (-9.68, 28.11%) at Troy (9.68, 71.89%)
Estimated score: 21.23 - 30.70, Total: 51.93
Quality: 86.51%, Team quality: 85.39%, Competitiveness: 88.78%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.56%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.57%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.88%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.90%
#32: Syracuse (-16.25, 16.67%) at Georgia Tech (16.25, 83.33%)
Estimated score: 18.87 - 34.75, Total: 53.61
Quality: 85.48%, Team quality: 93.52%, Competitiveness: 71.40%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 21.03%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.51%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 37.40%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.39%
#33: Akron (-8.00, 31.60%) at Buffalo (8.00, 68.40%)
Estimated score: 16.16 - 24.15, Total: 40.31
Quality: 85.29%, Team quality: 82.03%, Competitiveness: 92.22%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.08%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.05%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 26.08%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 47.79%
#34: Florida Atlantic (-13.28, 21.39%) at Navy (13.28, 78.61%)
Estimated score: 27.52 - 40.90, Total: 68.42
Quality: 84.26%, Team quality: 86.53%, Competitiveness: 79.89%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 16.67%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 23.86%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 51.36%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 23.26%
#35: Alabama (18.69, 86.65%) at South Carolina (-18.69, 13.35%)
Estimated score: 26.83 - 8.16, Total: 34.98
Quality: 83.99%, Team quality: 96.24%, Competitiveness: 63.95%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 25.25%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 17.71%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 22.11%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 52.89%
#36: Michigan (18.16, 85.98%) at Michigan State (-18.16, 14.02%)
Estimated score: 34.41 - 16.20, Total: 50.62
Quality: 83.79%, Team quality: 94.72%, Competitiveness: 65.57%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 24.30%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 18.31%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.71%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.10%
#37: South Alabama (8.36, 69.18%) at Georgia State (-8.36, 30.82%)
Estimated score: 32.73 - 24.53, Total: 57.26
Quality: 83.60%, Team quality: 79.91%, Competitiveness: 91.51%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.38%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.75%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 40.75%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.20%
#38: Bowling Green (12.23, 76.75%) at Kent State (-12.23, 23.25%)
Estimated score: 31.53 - 19.17, Total: 50.70
Quality: 82.84%, Team quality: 82.92%, Competitiveness: 82.70%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.33%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.01%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.78%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.02%
#39: Middle Tennessee (-13.84, 20.44%) at Delaware (13.84, 79.56%)
Estimated score: 17.83 - 31.63, Total: 49.46
Quality: 81.25%, Team quality: 82.74%, Competitiveness: 78.36%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 17.42%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 23.25%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 33.69%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.16%
#40: Colorado (-20.68, 11.02%) at Utah (20.68, 88.98%)
Estimated score: 15.27 - 35.68, Total: 50.96
Quality: 80.96%, Team quality: 95.84%, Competitiveness: 57.78%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 29.07%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 15.50%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.01%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 37.79%
#41: UConn (18.24, 86.08%) at Rice (-18.24, 13.92%)
Estimated score: 36.02 - 17.69, Total: 53.72
Quality: 78.27%, Team quality: 85.66%, Competitiveness: 65.34%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 24.43%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 18.22%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 37.49%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.30%
#42: Ohio (18.57, 86.50%) at Eastern Michigan (-18.57, 13.50%)
Estimated score: 42.34 - 23.87, Total: 66.20
Quality: 77.16%, Team quality: 84.51%, Competitiveness: 64.33%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 25.03%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 17.85%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 49.24%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 24.92%
#43: App State (-23.00, 8.71%) at Old Dominion (23.00, 91.29%)
Estimated score: 18.87 - 42.35, Total: 61.23
Quality: 73.23%, Team quality: 88.04%, Competitiveness: 50.65%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 33.90%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 13.06%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 44.49%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.86%
#44: Boise State (23.70, 91.91%) at Nevada (-23.70, 8.09%)
Estimated score: 33.63 - 9.99, Total: 43.61
Quality: 72.46%, Team quality: 88.53%, Competitiveness: 48.53%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 35.43%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 12.36%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.72%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 44.64%
#45: Virginia (25.60, 93.41%) at North Carolina (-25.60, 6.59%)
Estimated score: 42.67 - 17.11, Total: 59.78
Quality: 70.58%, Team quality: 90.46%, Competitiveness: 42.96%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 39.70%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 10.57%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 43.12%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 30.06%
#46: Massachusetts (-20.65, 11.05%) at Central Michigan (20.65, 88.95%)
Estimated score: 13.18 - 33.99, Total: 47.17
Quality: 70.30%, Team quality: 77.47%, Competitiveness: 57.88%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 29.01%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 15.53%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 31.70%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.29%
#47: UL Monroe (-23.67, 8.12%) at Southern Miss (23.67, 91.88%)
Estimated score: 16.40 - 40.03, Total: 56.42
Quality: 68.70%, Team quality: 81.64%, Competitiveness: 48.64%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 35.36%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 12.39%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 39.98%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.91%
#48: Boston College (-30.19, 3.88%) at Louisville (30.19, 96.12%)
Estimated score: 19.40 - 49.49, Total: 68.89
Quality: 63.24%, Team quality: 90.69%, Competitiveness: 30.75%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 50.50%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 6.94%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 51.81%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 22.92%
#49: Stanford (-33.34, 2.63%) at Miami (33.34, 97.37%)
Estimated score: 0.00 - 32.57, Total: 32.57
Quality: 59.26%, Team quality: 93.80%, Competitiveness: 23.66%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 57.98%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 5.03%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 20.42%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 55.19%
#50: UCLA (-37.04, 1.63%) at Indiana (37.04, 98.37%)
Estimated score: 4.95 - 42.16, Total: 47.11
Quality: 53.49%, Team quality: 95.33%, Competitiveness: 16.84%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 66.37%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 3.34%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 31.65%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.34%
#51: Wisconsin (-37.18, 1.60%) at Oregon (37.18, 98.40%)
Estimated score: 7.59 - 44.64, Total: 52.22
Quality: 53.03%, Team quality: 94.73%, Competitiveness: 16.62%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 66.67%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 3.29%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 36.14%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.64%
#52: North Texas (37.94, 98.56%) at Charlotte (-37.94, 1.44%)
Estimated score: 55.04 - 17.33, Total: 72.38
Quality: 48.39%, Team quality: 85.70%, Competitiveness: 15.43%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 68.30%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 3.01%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 55.14%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 20.46%
#53: Oklahoma State (-46.59, 0.42%) at Texas Tech (46.59, 99.58%)
Estimated score: 5.69 - 52.11, Total: 57.80
Quality: 36.05%, Team quality: 88.24%, Competitiveness: 6.02%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 83.84%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 1.01%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.26%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.73%
Final ratings and predictions for week 9 will likely be posted on Monday. Thanks for reading!
The ratings in this article are based on data from collegefootballdata.com.