The Linked Letters After Dark: Week 6 Edition
Examining the major playoff implications for several games this weekend, and a first look at the week 7 ratings and predictions.
Welcome to the week 6 edition of The Linked Letters After Dark. Week 6 of college football is done, so it’s time to get a late night preview of the upcoming college football ratings. My data set for the ratings doesn’t have scores for four Division II games and 15 Division III games, so these ratings are preliminary.
I’ve decided to minimally keep the effects of 2024 games around for three more weeks because some of the teams in lower divisions haven’t played as many games, and keeping the impact of 2024 games around might improve those ratings. It doesn’t make a large difference at the FBS level, but I noticed there were fewer big swings in the ratings at lower divisions when I kept the impact of 2024 games around at a low level. I’ll lower the weight of 2024 games to 2% and 1% after weeks 7 and 8, respectively, and then I’ll phase out 2024 altogether.
A lot of FBS teams have played five games this season, and a typical team might have played 13 games last season. Each game from 2024 is weighted at 3% of a 2025 game, so if a team played 13 games last season and five this season, the 2025 season is responsible for 92.76% of a team’s rating and last season is responsible for the remaining 7.24%. This oversimplifies impacts a bit, but the main point is that ratings are almost entirely determined by games played this season. There are no more original or alternative ratings, but my trends this week will be a comparison to last week’s alternative ratings.
My format for this article is to give you the data first, discuss what I think it means, and then give early predictions for next week’s games. The biggest games this week were Miami-Florida State and Vanderbilt-Alabama, but there were some other interesting results this week, a major upset with playoff implications, and perhaps a couple of results that might look like upsets bit really shouldn’t have been surprises.
The Ratings
The best place to begin is with the predictive ratings after week 6’s games. 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: 2.42 points
Mean score: 26.43 points
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
1 +1 83.93 +1.31 Indiana 44.44 39.49 .176
2 -1 82.18 -1.77 Ohio State 33.98 48.20 .174
3 80.13 -1.34 Notre Dame 45.85 34.33 -.090
4 +1 79.32 +0.43 Miami 34.79 44.57 .350
5 -1 78.49 -0.48 Oregon 44.85 33.61 .099
6 78.42 +1.60 Alabama 38.88 39.55 .115
7 +5 73.65 +2.23 Florida State 41.24 32.42 -.088
8 +1 73.31 +1.05 USC 45.00 28.43 -.054
9 +2 73.14 +1.22 Ole Miss 39.85 33.30 .168
10 +5 71.34 +1.03 Georgia 31.39 39.99 .049
11 +7 71.28 +2.38 Texas Tech 37.82 33.50 .138
12 +8 71.11 +3.12 LSU 30.81 40.31 .044
13 -5 70.93 -1.76 Michigan 35.00 35.88 .042
14 +3 70.68 +1.19 Texas A&M 35.34 35.30 .253
15 -5 70.52 -1.65 Nebraska 38.17 32.25 -.038
16 -2 70.40 -0.23 Oklahoma 28.04 42.42 .149
17 -4 70.10 -0.73 Tennessee 46.93 23.23 -.043
18 +4 69.59 +1.94 Utah 35.34 34.23 -.083
19 -12 68.69 -5.58 BYU 35.43 33.33 .098
20 +1 68.36 +0.46 Vanderbilt 39.76 28.51 .012
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
21 -5 67.27 -2.31 Texas 30.39 36.88 -.155
22 +2 67.01 +1.67 Illinois 33.69 33.38 .124
23 -4 66.91 -1.51 Washington 38.79 28.21 -.011
24 +1 66.84 +2.67 Florida 29.31 37.43 -.243
25 +6 64.20 +1.76 Old Dominion 30.43 33.62 -.019
26 +1 64.19 +0.59 Virginia 38.07 26.13 .001
27 -1 63.36 -0.60 Missouri 35.54 27.73 .065
28 +1 63.14 +0.51 Auburn 26.83 36.17 -.168
29 +3 62.80 +0.72 Cincinnati 34.03 28.74 -.009
30 -7 62.49 -4.93 Penn State 33.86 28.55 -.268
31 +2 62.05 +0.32 North Texas 39.93 22.13 .049
32 -4 61.81 -0.96 South Florida 34.16 27.64 .048
33 -3 61.78 -0.85 Iowa State 29.85 31.90 -.036
34 60.91 -0.21 Louisville 34.90 26.01 -.083
35 +2 60.46 +0.47 Georgia Tech 32.03 28.36 .086
36 59.91 -0.60 Iowa 24.32 35.62 -.167
37 +2 59.57 +1.13 TCU 34.07 25.54 -.113
38 -3 59.45 -1.52 Mississippi State 29.52 30.00 -.146
39 +8 59.15 +3.08 Duke 35.30 23.98 -.201
40 +9 58.85 +3.31 Memphis 30.11 28.68 .038
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
41 -3 58.60 -0.96 East Carolina 25.17 33.67 -.270
42 +1 58.55 +1.08 Kansas 30.31 28.24 -.200
43 -2 58.16 +0.60 Toledo 28.62 29.54 -.343
44 +1 57.17 +0.21 Arkansas 32.06 25.07 -.307
45 -3 56.67 -0.85 South Carolina 20.44 36.07 -.225
46 +21 56.59 +6.31 Pittsburgh 29.94 26.66 -.338
47 +1 56.52 +0.72 Maryland 24.25 32.08 -.099
48 -8 56.42 -1.78 Arizona State 23.18 33.15 -.078
49 +4 55.92 +2.34 Louisiana Tech 22.24 33.73 -.078
50 +1 55.59 +0.96 NC State 28.79 26.70 -.192
51 -1 54.57 -0.75 Arizona 24.78 29.67 -.114
52 +10 54.32 +3.42 Clemson 24.47 29.85 -.438
53 -9 54.27 -2.71 Houston 24.30 29.90 -.084
54 -2 53.78 +0.11 Purdue 25.30 28.43 -.292
55 +3 53.72 +1.41 Michigan State 28.70 24.97 -.165
56 -10 53.61 -3.24 Colorado 25.47 28.12 -.491
57 53.50 +0.95 Tulane 25.61 28.00 -.029
58 +3 53.17 +2.23 Wisconsin 21.50 31.65 -.322
59 -4 53.02 +0.36 Kentucky 26.53 26.44 -.324
60 +6 52.87 +2.55 Boise State 25.36 27.55 -.184
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
61 -5 52.05 -0.56 Kansas State 26.63 25.29 -.539
62 -8 51.87 -1.37 Rutgers 33.40 18.51 -.325
63 50.75 -0.08 UCF 22.81 27.96 -.330
64 +9 50.68 +2.43 SMU 25.16 25.42 -.316
65 -6 50.25 -1.48 New Mexico 25.89 24.33 -.271
66 -1 50.13 -0.26 Army 21.53 28.39 -.457
67 -7 49.58 -1.60 James Madison 17.43 32.15 -.132
68 48.98 -0.24 Baylor 32.17 16.80 -.230
69 +7 48.91 +1.15 San Diego State 20.63 28.17 -.178
70 +2 48.88 +0.41 Utah State 29.46 19.51 -.198
71 -1 48.64 +0.11 Syracuse 23.83 24.68 -.335
72 -8 48.09 -2.58 Minnesota 22.88 25.15 -.215
73 +11 47.33 +3.02 Wake Forest 18.85 28.43 -.313
74 +9 47.14 +2.58 UNLV 28.31 18.71 .029
75 +11 46.94 +3.61 Northwestern 14.67 32.25 -.242
76 -5 46.81 -1.70 Virginia Tech 25.82 20.95 -.491
77 +11 46.62 +4.09 UConn 27.98 18.53 -.303
78 -9 46.35 -2.55 Ohio 22.81 23.56 -.334
79 +3 46.12 +0.89 Temple 26.71 19.34 -.254
80 +1 45.96 -0.07 Western Michigan 16.71 29.18 -.334
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
81 -6 45.91 -1.96 Navy 24.61 21.12 .011
82 -3 44.76 -1.79 Fresno State 21.90 22.90 -.112
83 -5 44.71 -2.16 UTSA 24.99 19.54 -.467
84 -10 44.47 -3.46 Texas State 26.61 17.84 -.340
85 44.12 -0.11 Western Kentucky 24.15 19.93 -.115
86 +9 44.02 +4.16 West Virginia 21.06 22.96 -.445
87 +3 43.61 +2.19 Southern Miss 25.64 17.92 -.316
88 -8 42.71 -3.84 California 17.84 24.88 -.261
89 +13 42.32 +5.21 UCLA 20.21 22.13 -.625
90 +6 42.18 +2.63 Miami (OH) 18.02 24.17 -.523
91 -4 41.50 -1.71 Stanford 17.50 24.08 -.417
92 -15 41.35 -5.60 Boston College 26.07 15.26 -.706
93 -4 40.83 -0.79 Bowling Green 15.84 24.96 -.453
94 -3 40.00 -1.01 Washington State 16.51 23.38 -.252
95 -3 39.49 -1.45 Delaware 19.79 19.71 -.346
96 +1 39.29 +0.09 Marshall 25.68 13.47 -.487
97 -4 38.97 -1.79 Wyoming 13.54 25.39 -.477
98 +6 38.84 +1.74 San José State 19.60 19.25 -.484
99 +4 38.51 +1.40 Troy 17.66 20.85 -.322
100 -1 38.44 +0.64 Jacksonville State 19.74 18.47 -.554
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
101 +11 37.40 +3.28 Air Force 26.20 11.20 -.738
102 -8 37.37 -2.64 Oregon State 19.14 18.16 -.762
103 -5 36.72 -1.08 Hawai’i 16.48 20.18 -.285
104 +1 35.90 -0.85 South Alabama 20.84 15.04 -.698
105 +4 35.71 +0.60 Liberty 15.05 20.83 -.696
106 -5 34.97 -2.26 North Carolina 14.78 20.11 -.512
107 34.88 -0.94 UTEP 16.14 18.74 -.663
108 +9 34.51 +1.82 Kennesaw State 14.85 19.51 -.220
109 -3 34.32 -2.06 Colorado State 14.66 19.63 -.679
110 -10 34.24 -3.08 Northern Illinois 10.12 24.01 -.684
111 +2 33.95 +0.15 Georgia Southern 22.41 11.65 -.442
112 -2 33.68 -1.09 Tulsa 13.63 19.83 -.593
113 -2 33.41 -1.10 Buffalo 12.88 20.57 -.470
114 +5 33.10 +0.75 Florida Atlantic 24.19 8.90 -.517
115 +1 33.09 +0.07 Missouri State 14.41 18.55 -.452
116 +4 32.84 +1.31 New Mexico State 13.52 19.25 -.331
117 -3 32.84 -0.72 UAB 21.76 10.83 -.466
118 +6 32.60 +2.96 Ball State 14.82 17.75 -.469
119 +3 31.81 +1.30 Nevada 9.56 22.27 -.704
120 +9 31.37 +4.28 App State 13.74 17.66 -.351
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
121 -6 31.21 -2.02 Rice 9.32 22.02 -.463
122 -4 31.16 -1.39 Coastal Carolina 11.98 19.18 -.414
123 30.89 +0.41 Central Michigan 15.18 15.70 -.369
124 +1 30.59 +1.31 Arkansas State 15.15 15.49 -.587
125 -4 29.46 -1.18 Louisiana 16.50 13.06 -.523
126 +1 29.00 +1.29 Akron 11.42 17.61 -.533
127 -19 28.83 -6.64 Florida International 11.02 17.68 -.510
128 +4 27.31 +3.60 Georgia State 15.48 11.84 -.543
129 -3 26.52 -1.72 Oklahoma State 12.56 14.03 -.609
130 +1 26.31 +1.73 Middle Tennessee 11.22 15.02 -.749
131 -3 25.21 -2.48 UL Monroe 14.22 10.91 -.238
132 +1 23.60 +0.68 Eastern Michigan 16.40 7.16 -.788
133 -3 22.75 -3.50 Sam Houston 13.16 9.51 -.876
134 22.27 +2.44 Charlotte 10.96 11.18 -.730
135 +1 21.91 +2.92 Kent State 16.18 5.72 -.473
136 -1 19.45 -0.21 Massachusetts 7.48 11.77 -.855Ratings Comparison
This is just a comparison between my actual predictive ratings and what the ratings would be if I only used 2025 games in the ratings. There are a few differences, but they’re mostly fairly small this week. I also don’t see as many obvious outliers in this week’s ratings.
Predictive Ratings
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
1 83.93 Indiana 86.76 (1)
2 82.18 Ohio State 80.28 (3)
3 80.13 Notre Dame 79.48 (4)
4 79.32 Miami 81.79 (2)
5 78.49 Oregon 75.81 (7)
6 78.42 Alabama 78.94 (5)
7 73.65 Florida State 76.79 (6)
8 73.31 USC 72.50 (9)
9 73.14 Ole Miss 72.45 (10)
10 71.34 Georgia 70.60 (16)
11 71.28 Texas Tech 74.54 (8)
12 71.11 LSU 71.60 (13)
13 70.93 Michigan 71.69 (12)
14 70.68 Texas A&M 70.92 (15)
15 70.52 Nebraska 71.45 (14)
16 70.40 Oklahoma 71.72 (11)
17 70.10 Tennessee 68.53 (19)
18 69.59 Utah 70.29 (17)
19 68.69 BYU 68.46 (20)
20 68.36 Vanderbilt 69.31 (18)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
21 67.27 Texas 65.03 (26)
22 67.01 Illinois 67.12 (22)
23 66.91 Washington 67.56 (21)
24 66.84 Florida 66.55 (23)
25 64.20 Old Dominion 66.51 (24)
26 64.19 Virginia 66.34 (25)
27 63.36 Missouri 62.08 (30)
28 63.14 Auburn 63.36 (28)
29 62.80 Cincinnati 63.33 (29)
30 62.49 Penn State 58.73 (40)
31 62.05 North Texas 63.47 (27)
32 61.81 South Florida 61.92 (31)
33 61.78 Iowa State 60.35 (34)
34 60.91 Louisville 60.35 (35)
35 60.46 Georgia Tech 59.91 (36)
36 59.91 Iowa 60.72 (32)
37 59.57 TCU 57.43 (44)
38 59.45 Mississippi State 58.91 (38)
39 59.15 Duke 59.39 (37)
40 58.85 Memphis 58.51 (41)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
41 58.60 East Carolina 60.70 (33)
42 58.55 Kansas 58.02 (43)
43 58.16 Toledo 58.89 (39)
44 57.17 Arkansas 56.32 (46)
45 56.67 South Carolina 55.14 (49)
46 56.59 Pittsburgh 55.95 (47)
47 56.52 Maryland 55.88 (48)
48 56.42 Arizona State 54.06 (52)
49 55.92 Louisiana Tech 58.06 (42)
50 55.59 NC State 56.53 (45)
51 54.57 Arizona 52.69 (55)
52 54.32 Clemson 51.73 (58)
53 54.27 Houston 53.79 (53)
54 53.78 Purdue 54.50 (50)
55 53.72 Michigan State 54.24 (51)
56 53.61 Colorado 51.88 (57)
57 53.50 Tulane 51.70 (59)
58 53.17 Wisconsin 52.75 (54)
59 53.02 Kentucky 51.96 (56)
60 52.87 Boise State 51.69 (60)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
61 52.05 Kansas State 50.52 (62)
62 51.87 Rutgers 50.22 (63)
63 50.75 UCF 48.15 (68)
64 50.68 SMU 47.12 (70)
65 50.25 New Mexico 50.93 (61)
66 50.13 Army 49.69 (64)
67 49.58 James Madison 48.66 (67)
68 48.98 Baylor 46.51 (73)
69 48.91 San Diego State 49.21 (66)
70 48.88 Utah State 49.34 (65)
71 48.64 Syracuse 45.89 (75)
72 48.09 Minnesota 44.08 (81)
73 47.33 Wake Forest 47.58 (69)
74 47.14 UNLV 44.97 (79)
75 46.94 Northwestern 45.04 (78)
76 46.81 Virginia Tech 46.14 (74)
77 46.62 UConn 44.65 (80)
78 46.35 Ohio 45.23 (77)
79 46.12 Temple 46.74 (71)
80 45.96 Western Michigan 46.56 (72)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
81 45.91 Navy 43.30 (82)
82 44.76 Fresno State 42.88 (85)
83 44.71 UTSA 43.13 (84)
84 44.47 Texas State 41.99 (87)
85 44.12 Western Kentucky 42.21 (86)
86 44.02 West Virginia 43.21 (83)
87 43.61 Southern Miss 45.45 (76)
88 42.71 California 40.43 (90)
89 42.32 UCLA 41.09 (88)
90 42.18 Miami (OH) 40.24 (92)
91 41.50 Stanford 40.67 (89)
92 41.35 Boston College 38.57 (95)
93 40.83 Bowling Green 39.97 (93)
94 40.00 Washington State 40.36 (91)
95 39.49 Delaware 38.25 (96)
96 39.29 Marshall 36.86 (99)
97 38.97 Wyoming 37.92 (97)
98 38.84 San José State 38.73 (94)
99 38.51 Troy 37.56 (98)
100 38.44 Jacksonville State 36.69 (100)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
101 37.40 Air Force 35.99 (102)
102 37.37 Oregon State 36.00 (101)
103 36.72 Hawai’i 34.99 (106)
104 35.90 South Alabama 35.33 (105)
105 35.71 Liberty 35.67 (103)
106 34.97 North Carolina 31.20 (117)
107 34.88 UTEP 34.45 (107)
108 34.51 Kennesaw State 35.61 (104)
109 34.32 Colorado State 34.03 (108)
110 34.24 Northern Illinois 32.60 (110)
111 33.95 Georgia Southern 32.21 (114)
112 33.68 Tulsa 32.34 (112)
113 33.41 Buffalo 31.58 (116)
114 33.10 Florida Atlantic 30.90 (118)
115 33.09 Missouri State 30.81 (119)
116 32.84 New Mexico State 33.00 (109)
117 32.84 UAB 31.91 (115)
118 32.60 Ball State 32.38 (111)
119 31.81 Nevada 30.29 (122)
120 31.37 App State 30.69 (120)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
121 31.21 Rice 29.15 (124)
122 31.16 Coastal Carolina 32.22 (113)
123 30.89 Central Michigan 30.42 (121)
124 30.59 Arkansas State 29.30 (123)
125 29.46 Louisiana 27.15 (127)
126 29.00 Akron 27.78 (125)
127 28.83 Florida International 26.43 (128)
128 27.31 Georgia State 27.31 (126)
129 26.52 Oklahoma State 23.18 (132)
130 26.31 Middle Tennessee 25.57 (129)
131 25.21 UL Monroe 23.40 (131)
132 23.60 Eastern Michigan 22.10 (133)
133 22.75 Sam Houston 19.35 (135)
134 22.27 Charlotte 19.60 (134)
135 21.91 Kent State 23.82 (130)
136 19.45 Massachusetts 18.68 (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: 2.42 points
Mean score: 26.43 points
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
1 Indiana .176 (36) .236 (42) 46.82 (45) 57.56 (42)
2 Ohio State .174 (41) .235 (43) 43.84 (67) 57.71 (40)
3 Notre Dame .310 (6) .147 (65) 62.28 (1) 51.50 (65)
4 Miami .350 (2) .124 (72) 57.81 (3) 51.19 (67)
5 Oregon .099 (92) .312 (24) 43.51 (71) 62.11 (23)
6 Alabama .315 (4) .302 (28) 57.86 (2) 57.98 (38)
7 Florida State .312 (5) .159 (63) 49.48 (30) 53.06 (59)
8 USC .146 (58) .374 (9) 47.83 (39) 63.83 (15)
9 Ole Miss .168 (44) .257 (36) 50.97 (21) 54.46 (53)
10 Georgia .249 (14) .288 (31) 55.27 (9) 58.59 (34)
11 Texas Tech .138 (63) .149 (64) 33.46 (128) 50.66 (68)
12 LSU .244 (17) .343 (16) 56.65 (7) 63.34 (18)
13 Michigan .242 (18) .305 (27) 54.56 (11) 61.91 (24)
14 Texas A&M .253 (13) .286 (33) 57.81 (4) 55.93 (51)
15 Nebraska .162 (48) .202 (51) 44.96 (57) 56.00 (49)
16 Oklahoma .149 (54) .417 (3) 44.66 (61) 68.58 (3)
17 Tennessee .157 (53) .313 (23) 47.00 (44) 60.66 (26)
18 Utah .117 (84) .202 (50) 45.61 (51) 56.95 (43)
19 BYU .098 (93) .287 (32) 41.40 (85) 61.82 (25)
20 Vanderbilt .178 (35) .326 (20) 45.70 (50) 63.86 (14)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
21 Texas .245 (16) .332 (18) 48.61 (34) 64.35 (12)
22 Illinois .290 (9) .258 (35) 54.28 (13) 58.79 (33)
23 Washington .189 (28) .265 (34) 48.44 (35) 59.31 (29)
24 Florida .357 (1) .396 (4) 57.36 (5) 67.34 (4)
25 Old Dominion .181 (33) .031 (120) 43.67 (69) 35.38 (121)
26 Virginia .168 (43) .079 (81) 46.61 (46) 45.16 (78)
27 Missouri .065 (116) .388 (8) 32.87 (130) 67.15 (5)
28 Auburn .232 (22) .293 (29) 52.19 (17) 59.30 (30)
29 Cincinnati .191 (26) .199 (53) 43.01 (79) 53.75 (58)
30 Penn State .132 (71) .359 (13) 39.92 (97) 64.50 (11)
31 North Texas .049 (125) .057 (98) 38.54 (106) 40.35 (96)
32 South Florida .248 (15) .105 (78) 47.99 (38) 44.44 (80)
33 Iowa State .130 (74) .186 (58) 47.64 (40) 53.89 (57)
34 Louisville .117 (83) .173 (62) 45.56 (52) 52.26 (61)
35 Georgia Tech .086 (100) .178 (60) 44.60 (62) 54.21 (54)
36 Iowa .233 (21) .321 (21) 43.45 (72) 62.48 (21)
37 TCU .087 (99) .199 (55) 44.76 (60) 56.43 (46)
38 Mississippi State .187 (29) .368 (11) 43.38 (73) 66.52 (7)
39 Duke .132 (70) .136 (68) 49.20 (32) 51.32 (66)
40 Memphis .038 (130) .110 (76) 35.23 (120) 47.31 (73)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
41 East Carolina .130 (75) .075 (84) 43.10 (77) 42.09 (91)
42 Kansas .133 (68) .251 (38) 43.74 (68) 55.96 (50)
43 Toledo .057 (120) .026 (122) 35.59 (117) 35.01 (123)
44 Arkansas .293 (8) .365 (12) 49.84 (28) 66.10 (8)
45 South Carolina .175 (40) .389 (7) 49.56 (29) 63.83 (16)
46 Pittsburgh .062 (117) .342 (17) 35.85 (115) 63.10 (19)
47 Maryland .101 (91) .326 (19) 40.30 (95) 62.90 (20)
48 Arizona State .122 (80) .238 (41) 48.01 (37) 58.10 (37)
49 Louisiana Tech .122 (81) .025 (123) 43.09 (78) 36.01 (117)
50 NC State .141 (62) .389 (6) 47.27 (43) 64.19 (13)
51 Arizona .086 (101) .214 (47) 37.16 (111) 57.96 (39)
52 Clemson .162 (50) .186 (59) 50.26 (25) 51.68 (63)
53 Houston .116 (86) .115 (74) 44.85 (59) 49.04 (71)
54 Purdue .308 (7) .372 (10) 56.72 (6) 64.75 (10)
55 Michigan State .235 (20) .289 (30) 52.11 (18) 60.60 (27)
56 Colorado .175 (38) .198 (56) 52.77 (15) 56.41 (47)
57 Tulane .171 (42) .096 (79) 50.25 (26) 44.48 (79)
58 Wisconsin .278 (10) .442 (2) 54.39 (12) 69.16 (2)
59 Kentucky .276 (11) .310 (25) 56.10 (8) 62.16 (22)
60 Boise State .216 (24) .060 (95) 46.05 (48) 43.38 (85)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
61 Kansas State .128 (77) .244 (40) 51.63 (19) 56.52 (45)
62 Rutgers .075 (109) .394 (5) 38.13 (107) 67.12 (6)
63 UCF .070 (112) .229 (44) 35.50 (118) 54.14 (55)
64 SMU .084 (102) .175 (61) 39.73 (98) 52.84 (60)
65 New Mexico .129 (76) .062 (91) 45.13 (55) 42.70 (88)
66 Army .143 (61) .056 (100) 51.50 (20) 40.51 (95)
67 James Madison .068 (115) .061 (94) 35.26 (119) 39.65 (99)
68 Baylor .103 (90) .228 (45) 41.78 (84) 58.59 (35)
69 San Diego State .022 (135) .055 (101) 33.95 (127) 42.38 (89)
70 Utah State .202 (25) .064 (90) 43.63 (70) 43.54 (84)
71 Syracuse .165 (47) .318 (22) 49.22 (31) 58.80 (32)
72 Minnesota .185 (31) .252 (37) 39.19 (102) 58.82 (31)
73 Wake Forest .087 (98) .194 (57) 42.01 (83) 51.70 (62)
74 UNLV .029 (134) .053 (103) 36.91 (114) 41.40 (93)
75 Northwestern .158 (51) .358 (14) 40.36 (94) 64.77 (9)
76 Virginia Tech .176 (37) .348 (15) 50.63 (23) 63.54 (17)
77 UConn .030 (132) .048 (109) 32.03 (133) 39.17 (103)
78 Ohio .166 (46) .025 (125) 45.92 (49) 33.14 (132)
79 Temple .146 (59) .114 (75) 41.13 (89) 46.94 (76)
80 Western Michigan .166 (45) .025 (126) 47.42 (42) 34.98 (124)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
81 Navy .011 (136) .245 (39) 26.72 (136) 56.72 (44)
82 Fresno State .055 (121) .062 (92) 33.16 (129) 43.80 (82)
83 UTSA .133 (69) .143 (66) 44.50 (63) 48.16 (72)
84 Texas State .060 (119) .032 (119) 35.03 (121) 37.02 (113)
85 Western Kentucky .052 (123) .131 (71) 32.68 (132) 42.24 (90)
86 West Virginia .222 (23) .206 (49) 49.87 (27) 57.65 (41)
87 Southern Miss .084 (103) .019 (134) 40.76 (91) 34.36 (126)
88 California .072 (111) .133 (70) 40.37 (92) 49.84 (70)
89 UCLA .175 (39) .453 (1) 54.80 (10) 69.93 (1)
90 Miami (OH) .077 (107) .049 (108) 41.24 (88) 38.10 (108)
91 Stanford .183 (32) .305 (26) 50.44 (24) 59.38 (28)
92 Boston College .094 (95) .211 (48) 39.58 (99) 56.36 (48)
93 Bowling Green .147 (57) .028 (121) 45.23 (53) 30.57 (136)
94 Washington State .148 (55) .201 (52) 48.62 (33) 54.02 (56)
95 Delaware .054 (122) .044 (112) 37.07 (112) 37.33 (111)
96 Marshall .113 (88) .061 (93) 37.30 (110) 39.94 (98)
97 Wyoming .123 (79) .040 (114) 43.21 (76) 39.31 (102)
98 San José State .116 (87) .050 (107) 44.16 (65) 41.41 (92)
99 Troy .078 (106) .075 (85) 39.50 (101) 38.18 (107)
100 Jacksonville State .046 (128) .017 (136) 34.57 (125) 32.98 (133)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
101 Air Force .062 (118) .059 (96) 38.58 (105) 44.10 (81)
102 Oregon State .238 (19) .024 (127) 53.82 (14) 32.81 (134)
103 Hawai’i .048 (127) .051 (105) 34.64 (123) 42.84 (87)
104 South Alabama .136 (65) .022 (130) 42.77 (80) 33.44 (131)
105 Liberty .104 (89) .042 (113) 42.29 (82) 36.73 (115)
106 North Carolina .088 (97) .133 (69) 40.36 (93) 51.65 (64)
107 UTEP .137 (64) .018 (135) 41.32 (87) 33.83 (129)
108 Kennesaw State .180 (34) .035 (116) 39.55 (100) 37.45 (110)
109 Colorado State .121 (82) .064 (89) 44.23 (64) 43.67 (83)
110 Northern Illinois .116 (85) .057 (99) 43.85 (66) 35.78 (119)
111 Georgia Southern .158 (52) .054 (102) 44.90 (58) 37.87 (109)
112 Tulsa .074 (110) .078 (82) 41.36 (86) 43.03 (86)
113 Buffalo .030 (133) .025 (124) 28.18 (135) 34.78 (125)
114 Florida Atlantic .083 (104) .115 (73) 36.91 (113) 47.22 (74)
115 Missouri State .148 (56) .032 (118) 43.35 (74) 35.92 (118)
116 New Mexico State .069 (114) .092 (80) 34.62 (124) 40.16 (97)
117 UAB .134 (67) .109 (77) 43.27 (75) 47.11 (75)
118 Ball State .131 (73) .059 (97) 46.47 (47) 36.78 (114)
119 Nevada .096 (94) .074 (86) 42.58 (81) 46.20 (77)
120 App State .049 (126) .077 (83) 34.69 (122) 39.09 (104)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
121 Rice .037 (131) .142 (67) 31.82 (134) 50.34 (69)
122 Coastal Carolina .186 (30) .050 (106) 48.28 (36) 37.28 (112)
123 Central Michigan .131 (72) .051 (104) 37.56 (109) 36.62 (116)
124 Arkansas State .080 (105) .022 (131) 39.05 (103) 35.47 (120)
125 Louisiana .077 (108) .039 (115) 32.86 (131) 38.61 (105)
126 Akron .134 (66) .019 (133) 40.12 (96) 31.73 (135)
127 Florida International .090 (96) .020 (132) 38.64 (104) 33.56 (130)
128 Georgia State .257 (12) .069 (87) 50.79 (22) 39.54 (101)
129 Oklahoma State .191 (27) .226 (46) 45.01 (56) 58.44 (36)
130 Middle Tennessee .051 (124) .023 (128) 40.80 (90) 33.88 (128)
131 UL Monroe .162 (49) .066 (88) 37.69 (108) 41.39 (94)
132 Eastern Michigan .045 (129) .035 (117) 34.30 (126) 39.56 (100)
133 Sam Houston .124 (78) .046 (111) 47.55 (41) 38.36 (106)
134 Charlotte .070 (113) .199 (54) 35.63 (116) 55.55 (52)
135 Kent State .327 (3) .047 (110) 52.64 (16) 35.37 (122)
136 Massachusetts .145 (60) .023 (129) 45.17 (54) 34.15 (127)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 .9879 +.0066 Miami .992 .997 1.000 .975
2 +1 .9601 +.0013 Texas A&M .979 .927 1.000 .917
3 +1 .9574 +.0084 Indiana .959 .668 1.000 .988
4 -2 .9554 -.0180 Ohio State .959 .658 1.000 .984
5 +1 .9392 +.0136 Ole Miss .956 .627 1.000 .939
6 +4 .9348 +.0434 Alabama .935 .989 .800 .971
7 -2 .9233 -.0176 Oklahoma .950 .534 1.000 .915
8 +1 .9202 +.0222 Texas Tech .945 .473 1.000 .923
9 -1 .9147 -.0050 Oregon .926 .280 1.000 .971
10 +2 .9103 +.0236 Illinois .938 .974 .833 .874
11 +2 .8955 +.0199 Georgia .895 .919 .800 .924
12 +4 .8925 +.0343 LSU .892 .910 .800 .922
13 -6 .8914 -.0288 BYU .925 .276 1.000 .895
14 -3 .8910 +.0039 Michigan .891 .905 .800 .920
15 -1 .8614 -.0133 Vanderbilt .867 .679 .833 .891
16 +3 .8545 +.0079 South Florida .895 .917 .800 .789
17 .8508 +.0016 Missouri .906 .151 1.000 .817
18 +2 .8454 +.0086 Georgia Tech .919 .228 1.000 .762
19 +7 .8441 +.0282 Washington .847 .728 .800 .873
20 +5 .8368 +.0184 Nebraska .822 .602 .800 .916
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
21 +13 .8360 +.0603 Virginia .858 .629 .833 .831
22 .8358 +.0067 North Texas .895 .108 1.000 .793
23 +4 .8312 +.0190 USC .805 .519 .800 .941
24 .8311 +.0024 Tennessee .816 .574 .800 .911
25 +3 .8261 +.0177 Old Dominion .840 .693 .800 .831
26 +6 .8261 +.0446 Cincinnati .849 .738 .800 .807
27 +8 .8232 +.0556 Notre Dame .765 .986 .600 .978
28 -10 .8139 -.0345 Florida State .767 .987 .600 .943
29 +2 .8104 +.0269 Memphis .887 .082 1.000 .728
30 +6 .7947 +.0300 Utah .772 .364 .800 .906
31 -16 .7943 -.0641 Iowa State .823 .435 .833 .788
32 -11 .7544 -.0769 Louisville .772 .365 .800 .771
33 +6 .7486 +.0267 Tulane .830 .643 .800 .600
34 -11 .7435 -.0852 Texas .681 .911 .600 .877
35 +3 .7298 -.0134 Arizona State .779 .393 .800 .672
36 +9 .7256 +.0399 Louisiana Tech .778 .390 .800 .660
37 +11 .7192 +.0564 TCU .736 .229 .800 .743
38 +6 .7179 +.0303 UNLV .881 .067 1.000 .434
39 +2 .7129 +.0146 Auburn .663 .880 .600 .813
40 -10 .7117 -.0732 Maryland .754 .291 .800 .675
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
41 -12 .7085 -.0925 Houston .772 .363 .800 .619
42 -5 .7064 -.0535 Mississippi State .693 .721 .667 .741
43 -3 .6990 -.0093 Navy .866 .040 1.000 .402
44 -1 .6950 +.0011 Iowa .665 .883 .600 .751
45 +2 .6835 +.0163 Arizona .735 .225 .800 .627
46 +26 .6559 +.1596 Florida .554 .998 .400 .872
47 -5 .6533 -.0414 Michigan State .668 .888 .600 .606
48 +16 .6475 +.0836 Duke .615 .442 .667 .734
49 +11 .6452 +.0734 Kansas .618 .451 .667 .721
50 +8 .6329 +.0552 NC State .629 .492 .667 .652
51 +1 .6295 +.0222 James Madison .713 .163 .800 .498
52 +1 .6290 +.0225 Boise State .640 .833 .600 .584
53 -4 .6156 -.0048 South Carolina .580 .663 .600 .678
54 .6074 +.0132 Fresno State .738 .123 .833 .373
55 -22 .6053 -.1734 Penn State .514 .441 .600 .801
56 +6 .6003 +.0333 Western Kentucky .735 .115 .833 .357
57 +9 .5838 +.0502 San Diego State .649 .055 .800 .480
58 +5 .5837 +.0187 Utah State .620 .781 .600 .479
59 -8 .5798 -.0287 East Carolina .512 .432 .600 .722
60 -1 .5600 -.0133 Minnesota .594 .709 .600 .459
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
61 +6 .5459 +.0154 Arkansas .455 .976 .400 .690
62 +13 .5411 +.0628 Baylor .572 .300 .667 .482
63 -13 .5343 -.0831 Purdue .478 .985 .400 .607
64 +15 .5223 +.0863 Northwestern .554 .578 .600 .429
65 -19 .5162 -.1629 New Mexico .510 .425 .600 .515
66 +5 .5035 -.0021 Wisconsin .433 .963 .400 .591
67 +13 .5031 +.0751 Temple .536 .517 .600 .407
68 +5 .5011 +.0082 Toledo .402 .130 .600 .713
69 .5002 -.0226 Kentucky .429 .960 .400 .588
70 +19 .4946 +.1315 Pittsburgh .408 .143 .600 .676
71 +19 .4721 +.1094 SMU .442 .220 .600 .527
72 +2 .4719 -.0178 Rutgers .428 .185 .600 .558
73 +5 .4649 +.0249 Kennesaw State .587 .686 .600 .159
74 +2 .4615 -.0085 Washington State .539 .527 .600 .262
75 -20 .4612 -.1326 California .525 .175 .667 .323
76 -15 .4582 -.1124 UCF .420 .168 .600 .529
77 +15 .4498 +.0890 UConn .461 .068 .667 .421
78 -10 .4496 -.0765 Syracuse .413 .614 .500 .473
79 +15 .4482 +.1169 Wake Forest .446 .229 .600 .439
80 -23 .4325 -.1462 Ohio .414 .617 .500 .414
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
81 +10 .4305 +.0688 Western Michigan .415 .622 .500 .404
82 +2 .4171 +.0217 Southern Miss .441 .218 .600 .345
83 -18 .4145 -.1358 UL Monroe .561 .600 .600 .053
84 +15 .4041 +.1125 Clemson .269 .599 .400 .621
85 -29 .3999 -.1820 Texas State .406 .138 .600 .366
86 -4 .3995 -.0047 Hawai’i .488 .105 .667 .197
87 +16 .3766 +.1024 Troy .432 .195 .600 .231
88 -11 .3607 -.0910 Colorado .206 .666 .333 .603
89 -19 .3596 -.1569 Delaware .397 .121 .600 .251
90 +10 .3539 +.0631 Army .246 .502 .400 .512
91 +14 .3382 +.0831 New Mexico State .418 .163 .600 .133
92 -4 .3263 -.0372 Stanford .296 .700 .400 .295
93 +8 .3253 +.0389 West Virginia .260 .850 .333 .355
94 +15 .3131 +.1027 App State .389 .107 .600 .114
95 -9 .3100 -.0588 Kansas State .158 .421 .333 .563
96 -11 .3078 -.0799 Virginia Tech .206 .668 .333 .425
97 -14 .3043 -.0993 Central Michigan .364 .440 .500 .108
98 -17 .3023 -.1101 UTSA .233 .448 .400 .372
99 -1 .2874 -.0070 Bowling Green .250 .520 .400 .280
100 -4 .2745 -.0457 Coastal Carolina .301 .717 .400 .111
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
101 +3 .2587 +.0003 Georgia Southern .263 .577 .400 .150
102 -15 .2540 -.1114 Wyoming .222 .397 .400 .240
103 +13 .2473 +.0781 San José State .214 .363 .400 .238
104 +2 .2469 +.0041 Marshall .210 .345 .400 .247
105 +2 .2454 +.0079 Missouri State .251 .524 .400 .137
106 +15 .2380 +.0865 Miami (OH) .173 .192 .400 .311
107 -14 .2315 -.1066 UAB .234 .452 .400 .133
108 +16 .2281 +.0936 Ball State .231 .438 .400 .130
109 +8 .2224 +.0546 Buffalo .230 .068 .500 .142
110 -15 .2186 -.1036 Rice .238 .081 .500 .112
111 +1 .2046 +.0163 Kent State .227 .993 .200 .034
112 -10 .2025 -.0767 North Carolina .184 .233 .400 .166
113 +17 .1974 +.1024 UCLA .091 .664 .200 .314
114 -3 .1931 +.0042 Jacksonville State .144 .100 .400 .229
115 +12 .1903 +.0740 Florida Atlantic .179 .215 .400 .137
116 -19 .1798 -.1295 Florida International .186 .242 .400 .085
117 -9 .1723 -.0409 Georgia State .154 .933 .200 .070
118 -5 .1718 -.0069 Louisiana .173 .191 .400 .091
119 +7 .1717 +.0499 Akron .163 .452 .333 .086
120 -6 .1484 -.0219 Tulsa .113 .182 .333 .146
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
121 -11 .1480 -.0484 Boston College .050 .260 .200 .292
122 +9 .1392 +.0513 Arkansas State .117 .202 .333 .104
123 -5 .1316 -.0358 Oklahoma State .101 .736 .200 .063
124 -1 .1310 -.0099 UTEP .069 .469 .200 .165
125 -5 .1246 -.0304 Oregon State .031 .895 .000 .209
126 -4 .1237 -.0270 South Alabama .053 .463 .167 .182
127 -8 .1200 -.0420 Colorado State .062 .388 .200 .156
128 .1187 +.0029 Liberty .054 .306 .200 .179
129 -14 .1171 -.0521 Northern Illinois .059 .363 .200 .154
130 -1 .1109 +.0035 Air Force .038 .142 .200 .209
131 -6 .0973 -.0338 Nevada .051 .270 .200 .119
132 +1 .0634 +.0047 Middle Tennessee .035 .113 .200 .062
133 +2 .0615 +.0051 Charlotte .041 .167 .200 .035
134 -2 .0481 -.0112 Eastern Michigan .025 .098 .167 .043
135 +1 .0397 -.0115 Massachusetts .013 .510 .000 .023
136 -2 .0375 -.0208 Sam Houston .011 .404 .000 .038Conference 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 .754 SEC .371 (2) 66.28 32.60 33.65 -1.05 (8)
2 .685 Big Ten .317 (3) 62.34 31.28 31.04 0.23 (6)
3 .678 FBS Independents .372 (1) 63.37 36.92 26.43 10.49 (1)
4 .602 Big 12 .205 (4) 55.84 28.11 27.71 0.40 (5)
5 .566 ACC .186 (5) 54.01 27.61 26.38 1.23 (4)
6 .439 American Athletic .102 (6) 45.34 23.76 21.52 2.24 (2)
7 .389 Mountain West .054 (7) 42.57 20.97 21.59 -0.62 (7)
8 .323 Pac-12 .027 (11) 38.69 17.83 20.77 -2.94 (9)
9 .313 Sun Belt .046 (8) 37.47 19.56 17.91 1.65 (3)
10 .288 Mid-American .037 (9) 35.28 15.88 19.36 -3.48 (11)
11 .285 Conference USA .031 (10) 35.57 16.27 19.25 -2.97 (10)Week 6 Analysis
Let’s take a look at some of the biggest results this week, how they’ve shifted the ratings, and if the results are actually surprising.
Miami-Florida State
Florida State already picked up one loss against Virginia, and the playoff bids are likely to be dominated by the Big Ten and SEC so the ACC probably won’t get more than a couple of teams in the playoff. As former NASCAR commentator Rick Allen was fond of saying, there were “major playoff implications” involved in this game. The final score looks respectable because Florida State scored 19 points in the final quarter after being down 28-3. The ratings last week favored the Hurricanes by 5.27, with a predicted score of 28.50-23.20. There’s a lot of luck involved to get the prediction that close, but that means this result shouldn’t give too much of a boost to the Miami or drop Florida State too much in the predictive ratings.
The bigger story is that Florida State’s winning percentage and strength of record take a significant hit with this result, dropping the Seminoles 10 spots to #28 in the playoff ratings. Miami remains on top of the playoff ratings, and it would be difficult to argue with this. While the Seminoles can recover, they can’t really afford more losses. There are two other ACC teams in front of Florida State, which are undefeated Georgia Tech (#35 Predictive) and one loss Virginia (#26 Predictive). Although the Yellow Jackets don’t have as high of a predictive rating, they’re probably in a better spot for making the playoff. Virginia’s predictive rating is better and they have a win over Florida State, but their loss and lower strength of record put the Cavaliers (#21 Playoff) slightly below the Yellow Jackets (#18 Playoff) in the playoff ratings. Between Georgia Tech (#60 Future SOS), Florida State (#63 Future SOS), Miami (#72 Future SOS), and Virginia (#81 Future SOS), the schedules aren’t all that tough going forward.
The ACC may well be a two bid conference, and Florida State can still make the playoff with two losses. But they can’t afford more losses, and they’ll need help for the three ACC teams ahead of them to pick up losses in their remaining games. Miami appears very likely to make the playoff. Virginia appears to have a slightly easier path to avoid picking up losses in the remainder of their conference schedule, and the Georgia Tech also has a very tough but winnable game against Georgia to end the regular season.
Vanderbilt-Alabama
My prediction for this game wasn’t as accurate, expecting this to be a higher scoring game, but Alabama was favored by 11.13 points. The end result was the Tide winning by 16, so that’s not a bad prediction at all. Neither team has an easy schedule going forward, but Alabama’s (#28 Future SOS) is slightly more favorable than Vanderbilt’s (#20 Future SOS). From the standpoint of the predictive ratings, this result doesn’t move each team too much, and it’s not that bad of a result for the Commodores.
For the playoff ratings, it drops the Commodores one spot to #15 while the Tide move up four spots to #6. Vanderbilt should win at home against Kentucky (#59 Predictive). But the games against LSU (#12 Predictive), Missouri (#27 Predictive), Texas (#21 Predictive), Auburn (#28 Predictive), and Tennessee (#17 Predictive) should all be very competitive for Vanderbilt (#20 Predictive). All of these are winnable, but they’re competitive enough that Vanderbilt probably picks up a couple of losses, and three losses is certainly possible outcome. That probably puts Vanderbilt at 9-3 or perhaps 8-4 at the end of the season. If they’re 9-3, they’ll be on the playoff bubble, but they might be just outside the playoff with several SEC teams ahead of them right now.
Alabama (#6 Predictive) has an easier path to avoid more losses, and my ratings say they should be favored to win at Missouri (#27 Predictive) next weekend. The toughest games appear to be against Tennessee (#17 Predictive), LSU (#12 Predictive), and Oklahoma (#16 Predictive). By the numbers, the Iron Bowl at Auburn (#28 Predictive) looks fairly similar to the Missouri game, and Alabama should be favored by a similar margin. Right now, Alabama will be favored in all of their remaining games, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they picked up a second loss. Still, a 10-2 Alabama team with their strength of schedule and record should be in a good spot to make the playoff.
Iowa State-Cincinnati
Although this looks like an upset according to the polls, my ratings favored Cincinnati by 1.66 points. The Bearcats won by a slightly more comfortable margin, but it shouldn’t be a surprise that they won. Cincinnati gets a slight boost in the predictive ratings, up three spots to #29. And Iowa State drops three spots to #33. Neither is surprising, and the prediction wasn’t that bad.
In terms of the playoff, Texas Tech (#11 Predictive; #8 Playoff) is the favorite at this point to make the playoff from the Big 12. Utah (#18 Predictive; #30 Playoff) and BYU (#19 Predictive; #13 Playoff) are also in the mix if the Big 12 were to get a second playoff team this season. By the numbers, BYU (#32 Future SOS) has a more difficult path to avoiding losses than Utah (#50 Future SOS), Cincinnati (#53 Future SOS), and Iowa State (#58 Future SOS). TCU (#37 Predictive; #37 Playoff; #55 Future SOS) is in the picture to finish second in the conference. Arizona State (#48 Predictive; #35 Playoff; #41 Future SOS) shouldn’t be ignored, either. But the Sun Devils are behind these other teams in the playoff ratings and have a more difficult task to reach the playoff with their relatively low predictive rating.
In addition to playing BYU and Arizona State, the Cyclones also have tough games at TCU (#37 Predictive), against Kansas (#42 Predictive), and at Colorado (#56 Predictive). Cincinnati plays at Utah and against BYU, but they also a home game against Arizona (#51 Predictive) and play at TCU (#37 Predictive). If the Big 12 is going to send a second team to the playoff in addition to Texas Tech, it seems most likely to be either BYU (#13 Playoff) or Utah (#30 Playoff). But there are also a lot of opportunities for the conference to beat up on itself over the next several weeks, and it won’t be easy for Iowa State and Cincinnati to avoid picking up more losses. If Iowa State had won this game, they would be very much in contention for a playoff spot. But it was a game that should have been competitive, was competitive, and it’s difficult to avoid picking up losses when a team has several games to play that are close to or a little better than 50-50 games.
Texas-Florida
This looks like a major upset if you just look at the records and the polls. There was Texas (#9 AP Poll, 3-1 entering the game) playing Florida (1-3 entering the game) ranked in the top 10, with the Gators having lost three straight games and appearing to fall well short of preseason expectations. So it’s an easy win for the Longhorns, right? But the Gators lost to South Florida, a quality team, and then very good LSU and Miami teams. The Miami result was a bit more lopsided, but the LSU margin was 10 points, and the loss to South Florida was by just two points. Heading into the game, Florida had played the second toughest schedule in the FBS. Last week’s predictive ratings had Florida at #25, and Texas was #16. Texas was favored by 3.21 points according to my ratings, meaning they weren’t exactly heavy favorites here. Sure, this could be considered an upset, but it’s not nearly as big of an upset as the polls would suggest.
Following this game, Florida’s predictive rating rises to #24 while Texas falls to #21. Adding Texas to Florida’s schedule to date gives the Gators the toughest schedule in the FBS. The problem is the Gators’ future schedule strength is #4. With three losses already and a very difficult schedule going forward, the Gators (#46 Playoff) are quite unlikely to win out. This is a quality win and not a major upset, but it’s hard to see the Gators making the playoff despite a pretty good predictive rating.
Texas (#34 Playoff) is in a slightly better position, but they’re not a dominant team like they were last season, and their future schedule strength is ranked #18. It’s an easier path to the playoff, but games against Oklahoma (#16 Predictive), at Mississippi State (#38 Predictive), home against Vanderbilt (#20 Predictive), at Georgia (#10 Predictive), and at home against Texas A&M (#14 Predictive) will probably result in another couple of losses. It seems somewhat unlikely for Texas to make the playoff even though their chances are a bit better than Florida’s.
Penn State-UCLA
Although there were high hopes for UCLA before the season started, their predictive rating was #102 coming into this game. Despite losing at Oregon last weekend and generally looking unimpressive this season, Penn State’s predictive rating was still #23 coming into the weekend. This game should not have been competitive, and my ratings predicted a Penn State win by 28.11 points. This is a bad loss, but it’s also a very strong sign that the Nittany Lions were overrated. Penn State drops to #30 in this week’s predictive ratings, but this might still be a bit high since they’re #40 if only 2025 games are allowed to influence the ratings.
Penn State’s future schedule includes games at Iowa (#36 Predictive), at Ohio State (#2 Predictive), at home against Indiana (#1 Predictive), at Michigan State (#55 Predictive), and at home against Nebraska (#15 Predictive). Although Penn State’s schedule strength (#71 SOS) has improved quite a bit from previously being the weakest in the FBS, they play a very tough schedule going forward (#13 Future SOS). Penn State dropped 22 spots in the playoff rating to #55, and it seems likely that they will pick up at least another couple losses. The Nittany Lions certainly could recover from losing at Oregon, but the combination of this bad loss and the difficult future schedule likely means that Penn State will miss the playoff.
For the Bruins, it’s been a very disappointing season, but this is a good win and raises their predictive rating to #89.
Week 7 Early Predictions
As usual, games are ranked based on the projected quality. This factors in the overall strength of the two teams and the potential for a competitive game. Game quality ratings are not directly comparable between college football and the NFL. NFL games are typically decided by smaller margins than college games, the teams are more balanced in their quality, and there’s just not as much scoring in the NFL. Thresholds for close games and blowouts are also different between college and the NFL for the same reasons.
Beside each team, there are two numbers in parentheses. One is the predicted margin of victory (positive) or defeat (negative), the other is the probability of winning. These margins are sometimes larger than what’s indicated by the predicted score. That’s because there’s nothing in the math that prevents a prediction of negative points with a sufficiently lopsided matchup. This is, of course, impossible, so the score is set to zero in those instances. There’s no cap on how many points a team can be projected to score, though.
#1: Indiana (3.02, 57.07%) at Oregon (-3.02, 42.93%)
Estimated score: 36.06 - 33.01, Total: 69.06
Quality: 98.96%, Team quality: 99.00%, Competitiveness: 98.88%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.91%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.50%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 52.09%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 21.54%
#2: Oklahoma (3.14, 57.34%) vs. Texas (-3.14, 42.66%)
Estimated score: 17.59 - 14.40, Total: 31.99
Quality: 97.98%, Team quality: 97.58%, Competitiveness: 98.79%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.95%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.46%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 18.74%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 56.05%
#3: Michigan (-4.80, 38.86%) at USC (4.80, 61.14%)
Estimated score: 31.80 - 36.76, Total: 68.56
Quality: 97.76%, Team quality: 98.05%, Competitiveness: 97.19%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.59%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.75%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 51.57%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 21.92%
#4: South Florida (-2.66, 43.76%) at North Texas (2.66, 56.24%)
Estimated score: 37.26 - 39.93, Total: 77.19
Quality: 97.17%, Team quality: 96.21%, Competitiveness: 99.13%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.81%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.60%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 60.20%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 16.02%
#5: Georgia (5.78, 63.34%) at Auburn (-5.78, 36.66%)
Estimated score: 20.45 - 14.48, Total: 34.93
Quality: 96.83%, Team quality: 97.27%, Competitiveness: 95.94%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.10%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.21%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 20.81%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 53.10%
#6: Florida (-6.26, 35.62%) at Texas A&M (6.26, 64.38%)
Estimated score: 19.23 - 25.55, Total: 44.79
Quality: 96.77%, Team quality: 97.53%, Competitiveness: 95.26%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.38%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.92%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.66%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.17%
#7: East Carolina (2.68, 56.29%) at Tulane (-2.68, 43.71%)
Estimated score: 22.39 - 19.57, Total: 41.96
Quality: 96.08%, Team quality: 94.60%, Competitiveness: 99.11%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.82%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.60%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 26.28%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 46.00%
#8: Iowa (4.32, 60.06%) at Wisconsin (-4.32, 39.94%)
Estimated score: 17.89 - 13.52, Total: 31.42
Quality: 95.71%, Team quality: 94.73%, Competitiveness: 97.71%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.38%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.98%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 18.35%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 56.63%
#9: Iowa State (5.75, 63.27%) at Colorado (-5.75, 36.73%)
Estimated score: 26.95 - 21.21, Total: 48.16
Quality: 95.36%, Team quality: 95.05%, Competitiveness: 95.98%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.09%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.23%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 31.64%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.84%
#10: TCU (5.10, 61.82%) at Kansas State (-5.10, 38.18%)
Estimated score: 34.01 - 28.73, Total: 62.74
Quality: 95.26%, Team quality: 94.49%, Competitiveness: 96.82%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.74%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.60%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 45.70%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 26.52%
#11: Purdue (3.28, 57.67%) at Minnesota (-3.28, 42.33%)
Estimated score: 25.37 - 22.09, Total: 47.46
Quality: 94.71%, Team quality: 92.78%, Competitiveness: 98.68%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.99%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.41%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 31.02%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 40.52%
#12: New Mexico (-5.04, 38.33%) at Boise State (5.04, 61.67%)
Estimated score: 23.57 - 28.66, Total: 52.23
Quality: 94.28%, Team quality: 92.99%, Competitiveness: 96.91%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.71%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.63%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.40%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.91%
#13: Navy (-2.62, 43.87%) at Temple (2.62, 56.13%)
Estimated score: 30.50 - 33.23, Total: 63.73
Quality: 93.40%, Team quality: 90.65%, Competitiveness: 99.16%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.80%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.62%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 46.69%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 25.71%
#14: Ohio State (12.76, 77.30%) at Illinois (-12.76, 22.70%)
Estimated score: 25.83 - 13.13, Total: 38.95
Quality: 92.37%, Team quality: 98.24%, Competitiveness: 81.67%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 16.49%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 24.26%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 23.85%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 49.03%
#15: Nebraska (11.59, 75.20%) at Maryland (-11.59, 24.80%)
Estimated score: 31.31 - 19.64, Total: 50.95
Quality: 92.29%, Team quality: 96.38%, Competitiveness: 84.62%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.08%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.45%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.20%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 37.13%
#16: Alabama (12.65, 77.11%) at Missouri (-12.65, 22.89%)
Estimated score: 36.38 - 23.63, Total: 60.00
Quality: 92.16%, Team quality: 97.73%, Competitiveness: 81.95%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 16.35%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 24.37%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 42.96%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.84%
#17: BYU (11.70, 75.40%) at Arizona (-11.70, 24.60%)
Estimated score: 30.99 - 19.09, Total: 50.07
Quality: 91.91%, Team quality: 95.93%, Competitiveness: 84.35%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.21%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.34%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 33.39%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 37.98%
#18: San José State (-2.55, 44.03%) at Wyoming (2.55, 55.97%)
Estimated score: 19.44 - 21.94, Total: 41.37
Quality: 90.73%, Team quality: 86.77%, Competitiveness: 99.20%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.78%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.64%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 25.79%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 46.59%
#19: Wake Forest (7.54, 67.15%) at Oregon State (-7.54, 32.85%)
Estimated score: 25.91 - 18.35, Total: 44.26
Quality: 90.13%, Team quality: 88.63%, Competitiveness: 93.19%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.25%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.03%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.21%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.69%
#20: Clemson (10.55, 73.24%) at Boston College (-10.55, 26.76%)
Estimated score: 34.44 - 23.86, Total: 58.30
Quality: 89.83%, Team quality: 91.23%, Competitiveness: 87.09%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.94%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.46%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.27%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 30.34%
#21: Troy (-8.38, 31.09%) at Texas State (8.38, 68.91%)
Estimated score: 25.05 - 33.40, Total: 58.45
Quality: 89.28%, Team quality: 88.11%, Competitiveness: 91.65%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.92%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.37%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.42%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 30.20%
#22: Liberty (-1.58, 46.28%) at UTEP (1.58, 53.72%)
Estimated score: 21.53 - 22.95, Total: 44.49
Quality: 89.25%, Team quality: 84.44%, Competitiveness: 99.69%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.59%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.85%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.40%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.47%
#23: Southern Miss (7.24, 66.51%) at Georgia Southern (-7.24, 33.49%)
Estimated score: 39.21 - 32.12, Total: 71.34
Quality: 88.88%, Team quality: 86.56%, Competitiveness: 93.71%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.04%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.25%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 54.38%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 19.90%
#24: Utah State (9.74, 71.66%) at Hawai’i (-9.74, 28.34%)
Estimated score: 34.50 - 24.61, Total: 59.11
Quality: 88.81%, Team quality: 88.77%, Competitiveness: 88.89%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.13%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.21%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 42.07%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.63%
#25: Kansas (-15.14, 18.75%) at Texas Tech (15.14, 81.25%)
Estimated score: 22.04 - 37.22, Total: 59.26
Quality: 88.80%, Team quality: 96.55%, Competitiveness: 75.12%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 19.79%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.68%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 42.22%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.49%
#26: Fresno State (8.03, 68.17%) at Colorado State (-8.03, 31.83%)
Estimated score: 27.50 - 19.40, Total: 46.90
Quality: 88.73%, Team quality: 86.99%, Competitiveness: 92.32%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.63%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.66%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 30.52%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.07%
#27: Arkansas (-15.34, 18.45%) at Tennessee (15.34, 81.55%)
Estimated score: 34.06 - 49.50, Total: 83.56
Quality: 88.40%, Team quality: 96.26%, Competitiveness: 74.56%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 20.08%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.47%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 66.27%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 12.40%
#28: Stanford (-11.60, 24.77%) at SMU (11.60, 75.23%)
Estimated score: 17.31 - 28.72, Total: 46.03
Quality: 88.39%, Team quality: 90.36%, Competitiveness: 84.58%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.10%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.43%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.75%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.93%
#29: UCF (-14.46, 19.82%) at Cincinnati (14.46, 80.18%)
Estimated score: 19.29 - 33.71, Total: 53.00
Quality: 88.25%, Team quality: 94.44%, Competitiveness: 77.05%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 18.79%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 22.43%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 36.13%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.18%
#30: Arizona State (-15.58, 18.07%) at Utah (15.58, 81.93%)
Estimated score: 14.17 - 29.83, Total: 44.01
Quality: 88.03%, Team quality: 96.10%, Competitiveness: 73.86%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 20.45%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.20%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 27.99%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.95%
#31: UAB (-2.68, 43.72%) at Florida Atlantic (2.68, 56.28%)
Estimated score: 38.09 - 41.00, Total: 79.09
Quality: 87.90%, Team quality: 82.78%, Competitiveness: 99.11%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.82%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.60%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 62.04%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 14.88%
#32: UCLA (-13.82, 20.88%) at Michigan State (13.82, 79.12%)
Estimated score: 20.47 - 34.21, Total: 54.68
Quality: 86.83%, Team quality: 91.12%, Competitiveness: 78.83%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 17.89%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 23.13%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 37.74%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.61%
#33: South Carolina (-16.86, 16.20%) at LSU (16.86, 83.80%)
Estimated score: 5.35 - 22.38, Total: 27.74
Quality: 86.59%, Team quality: 96.25%, Competitiveness: 70.10%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 22.50%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.78%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 15.97%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 60.27%
#34: Air Force (-12.15, 23.77%) at UNLV (12.15, 76.23%)
Estimated score: 32.71 - 44.76, Total: 77.47
Quality: 86.59%, Team quality: 88.33%, Competitiveness: 83.22%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.75%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 24.88%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 60.47%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 15.85%
#35: App State (1.65, 53.88%) at Georgia State (-1.65, 46.12%)
Estimated score: 27.13 - 25.46, Total: 52.59
Quality: 86.08%, Team quality: 80.00%, Competitiveness: 99.66%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.60%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.84%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.74%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.57%
#36: Toledo (14.91, 80.89%) at Bowling Green (-14.91, 19.11%)
Estimated score: 28.89 - 13.94, Total: 42.83
Quality: 86.06%, Team quality: 91.70%, Competitiveness: 75.79%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 19.44%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.94%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 27.00%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 45.13%
#37: Virginia Tech (-16.07, 17.34%) at Georgia Tech (16.07, 82.66%)
Estimated score: 22.68 - 38.71, Total: 61.40
Quality: 85.74%, Team quality: 93.27%, Competitiveness: 72.45%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 21.21%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.66%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 44.35%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 27.65%
#38: Missouri State (4.37, 60.16%) at Middle Tennessee (-4.37, 39.84%)
Estimated score: 24.62 - 20.31, Total: 44.93
Quality: 85.67%, Team quality: 80.24%, Competitiveness: 97.67%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.40%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.96%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.79%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.03%
#39: Rutgers (-17.46, 15.37%) at Washington (17.46, 84.63%)
Estimated score: 30.41 - 47.92, Total: 78.33
Quality: 85.15%, Team quality: 95.06%, Competitiveness: 68.32%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 23.50%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.12%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 61.30%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 15.33%
#40: Miami (OH) (10.77, 73.67%) at Akron (-10.77, 26.33%)
Estimated score: 25.63 - 14.89, Total: 40.52
Quality: 85.04%, Team quality: 84.28%, Competitiveness: 86.58%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 14.18%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.25%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 25.10%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 47.45%
#41: Northwestern (-17.97, 14.69%) at Penn State (17.97, 85.31%)
Estimated score: 11.34 - 29.25, Total: 40.60
Quality: 83.60%, Team quality: 93.53%, Competitiveness: 66.79%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 24.38%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 18.55%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 25.16%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 47.37%
#42: Northern Illinois (8.22, 68.58%) at Eastern Michigan (-8.22, 31.42%)
Estimated score: 28.18 - 20.02, Total: 48.21
Quality: 83.41%, Team quality: 79.44%, Competitiveness: 91.96%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.78%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.50%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 31.69%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.79%
#43: San Diego State (14.69, 80.54%) at Nevada (-14.69, 19.46%)
Estimated score: 23.59 - 9.03, Total: 32.62
Quality: 83.34%, Team quality: 87.03%, Competitiveness: 76.41%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 19.12%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 22.19%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 19.17%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 55.43%
#44: Pittsburgh (-19.47, 12.80%) at Florida State (19.47, 87.20%)
Estimated score: 22.75 - 42.22, Total: 64.97
Quality: 83.29%, Team quality: 96.39%, Competitiveness: 62.20%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 27.11%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 16.90%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 47.95%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 24.71%
#45: UL Monroe (-8.37, 31.12%) at Coastal Carolina (8.37, 68.88%)
Estimated score: 20.27 - 28.71, Total: 48.97
Quality: 82.90%, Team quality: 78.83%, Competitiveness: 91.68%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.90%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.39%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 32.38%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.04%
#46: Ball State (-15.78, 17.78%) at Western Michigan (15.78, 82.22%)
Estimated score: 10.86 - 26.60, Total: 37.46
Quality: 81.71%, Team quality: 86.28%, Competitiveness: 73.29%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 20.76%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.98%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 22.69%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 50.54%
#47: Rice (-15.92, 17.57%) at UTSA (15.92, 82.43%)
Estimated score: 15.00 - 30.62, Total: 45.62
Quality: 81.03%, Team quality: 85.43%, Competitiveness: 72.89%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 20.97%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.83%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.39%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 42.34%
#48: Louisiana Tech (18.99, 86.61%) at Kennesaw State (-18.99, 13.39%)
Estimated score: 27.95 - 8.76, Total: 36.71
Quality: 79.80%, Team quality: 89.33%, Competitiveness: 63.68%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 26.21%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 17.42%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 22.12%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 51.31%
#49: Massachusetts (-4.88, 38.67%) at Kent State (4.88, 61.33%)
Estimated score: 26.99 - 32.06, Total: 59.05
Quality: 79.75%, Team quality: 72.28%, Competitiveness: 97.09%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.63%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.71%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 42.01%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.68%
#50: Jacksonville State (15.69, 82.09%) vs. Sam Houston (-15.69, 17.91%)
Estimated score: 36.67 - 21.12, Total: 57.78
Quality: 77.91%, Team quality: 80.18%, Competitiveness: 73.55%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 20.62%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.08%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 40.76%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 30.80%
#51: Old Dominion (22.49, 90.44%) at Marshall (-22.49, 9.56%)
Estimated score: 42.19 - 19.70, Total: 61.89
Quality: 76.55%, Team quality: 92.00%, Competitiveness: 52.99%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 33.11%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 13.72%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 44.85%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 27.23%
#52: Louisiana (-22.53, 9.52%) at James Madison (22.53, 90.48%)
Estimated score: 9.58 - 32.01, Total: 41.58
Quality: 72.93%, Team quality: 85.67%, Competitiveness: 52.85%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 33.21%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 13.68%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 25.97%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 46.38%
#53: NC State (-26.95, 5.98%) at Notre Dame (26.95, 94.02%)
Estimated score: 19.69 - 46.79, Total: 66.47
Quality: 71.98%, Team quality: 96.51%, Competitiveness: 40.04%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 42.96%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 9.61%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 49.47%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 23.51%
#54: Houston (25.34, 92.88%) at Oklahoma State (-25.34, 7.12%)
Estimated score: 35.49 - 10.30, Total: 45.79
Quality: 68.99%, Team quality: 85.83%, Competitiveness: 44.57%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 39.30%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 11.00%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.53%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 42.17%
#55: Charlotte (-30.28, 4.10%) at Army (30.28, 95.90%)
Estimated score: 7.80 - 38.00, Total: 45.80
Quality: 59.67%, Team quality: 82.23%, Competitiveness: 31.42%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 50.71%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 7.10%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.54%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 42.17%
#56: Washington State (-35.55, 2.15%) at Ole Miss (35.55, 97.85%)
Estimated score: 8.44 - 44.11, Total: 52.56
Quality: 55.65%, Team quality: 92.36%, Competitiveness: 20.20%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 62.85%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 4.15%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.71%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.60%Despite this college football schedule this weekend not initially looking as impressive as last weekend’s games, there were still several interesting games, and the Penn State-UCLA result was a big surprise. I’ll post the final ratings in a couple of days, but my priority in the short term is to post the preseason NBA and NHL ratings, release the code for the rating system, and post some baseball content. There are no more alternative and overall ratings going forward, just the weekly ratings and predictions. I’ll also be posting NFL ratings after the Monday night game. But it’s almost morning, and it’s also time to get ready to watch the Formula 1 Singapore Grand Prix. Thanks for reading!
The ratings in this article are based on data from collegefootballdata.com.