Week 11 College Football Computer Ratings and Predictions
Updated college football computer ratings and week 11 predictions, including updated college football playoff ratings
This week, The Linked Letters After Dark will take a break, then I’ll have special Tuesday night editions in some future weeks to address the initial release of the college football playoff rankings. This will be a brief article to get it out in time for the kickoff of tonight’s games.
At this point, the computer ratings are based entirely on games played in 2025, so instead of a discussion about weighting, let’s get right to the ratings.
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: 2.07 points
Mean score: 26.86 points
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
1 91.67 +1.62 Indiana 47.56 44.01 .186
2 86.89 -0.55 Ohio State 37.86 48.98 .182
3 83.43 +0.32 Oregon 43.56 39.79 .046
4 +1 80.99 +0.28 Utah 42.20 38.85 -.066
5 -1 78.30 -4.16 Notre Dame 39.33 39.07 -.031
6 +2 77.54 +0.65 Texas Tech 39.48 37.97 .024
7 76.96 -0.67 Alabama 37.65 39.31 .127
8 +1 75.48 -0.92 Texas A&M 41.96 33.38 .209
9 +1 74.68 -1.66 USC 41.12 33.56 -.036
10 -4 74.12 -4.56 Miami 33.40 40.84 -.028
11 +1 73.74 -0.05 BYU 37.71 36.05 .168
12 +1 72.71 -0.95 Washington 39.37 33.29 -.045
13 -2 71.80 -2.08 Georgia 33.39 38.55 .089
14 +1 71.76 +0.48 Florida State 39.17 32.88 -.321
15 +2 70.50 -0.72 Vanderbilt 39.08 31.41 -.032
16 70.47 -0.80 Ole Miss 39.89 30.58 .048
17 +2 70.45 -0.09 Texas 32.79 37.71 .022
18 70.19 -0.54 Oklahoma 28.94 41.37 -.045
19 +1 70.01 -0.09 Iowa 29.61 40.41 -.075
20 -6 69.66 -2.64 Michigan 31.28 38.40 -.021
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
21 67.97 -2.09 Tennessee 44.24 23.74 -.145
22 +3 67.82 -0.09 Illinois 35.18 32.59 -.007
23 +1 67.81 -0.30 LSU 29.56 38.29 -.156
24 -1 67.19 -1.37 Missouri 34.33 32.98 -.090
25 -3 66.66 -2.51 South Florida 37.34 29.31 -.087
26 66.46 -0.82 Florida 28.63 37.81 -.298
27 66.15 -0.43 Pittsburgh 36.49 29.66 -.136
28 +4 65.14 -0.29 Nebraska 34.20 30.82 -.209
29 +1 64.97 -0.74 Penn State 35.82 29.09 -.358
30 +3 64.53 -0.64 Louisville 33.91 30.73 .014
31 -3 64.32 -2.03 North Texas 41.88 22.38 -.077
32 +6 64.17 +2.88 Arizona 31.63 32.63 -.269
33 +3 63.18 +0.32 Virginia 35.36 27.86 -.025
34 +3 62.74 +0.10 Mississippi State 33.42 29.14 -.253
35 -4 62.45 -3.02 Cincinnati 32.87 29.65 -.082
36 -2 62.33 -2.63 Auburn 23.68 38.55 -.348
37 -2 62.08 -1.87 Iowa State 30.95 31.29 -.298
38 -9 61.98 -3.95 Georgia Tech 32.74 29.24 -.067
39 +7 61.15 +1.87 East Carolina 28.09 32.96 -.299
40 +3 60.52 +0.38 TCU 33.94 26.57 -.194
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
41 +8 59.95 +1.36 Arizona State 24.52 35.38 -.116
42 -3 59.35 -1.92 Kansas State 31.90 27.43 -.417
43 +4 59.21 +0.01 San Diego State 26.55 32.54 -.116
44 +15 58.99 +3.01 James Madison 25.96 33.08 -.087
45 -5 58.89 -2.33 Arkansas 35.58 23.34 -.529
46 -4 58.63 -1.55 Memphis 28.65 29.83 -.079
47 +8 58.39 +1.25 SMU 28.32 30.15 -.244
48 -3 58.16 -1.25 Duke 34.49 23.86 -.301
49 -1 57.63 -1.22 South Carolina 22.60 35.19 -.406
50 +7 57.39 +1.09 NC State 32.52 24.83 -.272
51 -7 57.15 -2.40 Houston 29.02 28.14 -.123
52 +2 56.43 -0.84 Clemson 27.98 28.39 -.551
53 -2 56.07 -2.16 Maryland 26.45 29.63 -.305
54 +2 55.67 -0.76 Northwestern 19.56 36.11 -.202
55 -2 55.51 -1.83 Kansas 30.33 25.24 -.300
56 +7 55.40 +1.03 Kentucky 25.86 29.63 -.411
57 -16 54.54 -5.74 Boise State 27.40 27.16 -.216
58 +15 54.21 +2.58 Baylor 33.35 20.86 -.354
59 +2 53.93 -0.80 Toledo 27.12 26.79 -.481
60 -2 53.81 -2.18 Wake Forest 20.51 33.42 -.279
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
61 -11 53.66 -4.82 UCF 21.79 31.97 -.441
62 +3 53.60 +0.05 Old Dominion 27.14 26.49 -.209
63 +1 53.40 -0.24 Michigan State 28.48 24.88 -.423
64 -12 53.34 -4.04 Tulane 26.18 27.17 -.161
65 +3 52.93 -0.09 Minnesota 23.42 29.40 -.157
66 +3 52.72 +0.25 Purdue 24.52 28.11 -.559
67 -1 52.67 -0.87 Wisconsin 20.39 32.21 -.366
68 -1 52.52 -0.88 Rutgers 30.19 22.47 -.330
69 +5 52.44 +1.51 Louisiana Tech 23.13 29.42 -.325
70 -8 52.30 -2.37 Washington State 18.52 33.88 -.396
71 -1 51.59 -0.49 UCLA 23.84 27.74 -.376
72 -12 51.22 -4.48 Colorado 24.57 26.65 -.461
73 +5 51.18 +2.00 UTSA 27.90 23.35 -.385
74 -2 50.91 -0.77 New Mexico 26.16 24.80 -.271
75 -4 49.78 -2.10 Army 18.25 31.64 -.430
76 +11 49.11 +1.97 West Virginia 24.12 24.94 -.470
77 48.77 -0.55 Kennesaw State 25.04 23.68 -.120
78 +2 47.74 -0.74 Ohio 25.37 22.37 -.255
79 -4 47.59 -2.08 Western Michigan 16.79 30.80 -.376
80 -1 47.56 -0.99 Virginia Tech 25.60 22.03 -.563
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
81 +5 47.54 +0.33 Stanford 19.92 27.65 -.439
82 +2 47.54 +0.26 Utah State 26.85 20.64 -.361
83 47.43 -0.26 UConn 27.93 19.70 -.331
84 +5 46.56 -0.30 Southern Miss 24.66 22.05 -.227
85 46.53 -0.72 Navy 22.17 24.40 -.091
86 -10 45.73 -3.73 Syracuse 20.85 24.91 -.556
87 -6 45.52 -2.92 Temple 27.37 18.05 -.374
88 45.47 -1.63 UNLV 31.11 14.40 -.234
89 +3 45.19 +0.35 California 20.82 24.44 -.400
90 +1 45.13 -1.21 Wyoming 14.75 30.21 -.461
91 +13 44.79 +4.22 Fresno State 19.91 24.89 -.306
92 +1 44.45 -0.27 Miami (OH) 19.77 24.56 -.361
93 +1 44.29 +0.40 Hawai’i 22.01 22.28 -.301
94 -12 44.06 -3.95 Marshall 29.71 14.35 -.434
95 +2 43.62 +0.56 San José State 24.61 19.11 -.560
96 -6 43.56 -2.81 Texas State 29.49 14.16 -.590
97 -1 43.47 -0.28 Western Kentucky 21.99 21.61 -.209
98 +2 43.17 +2.04 Boston College 23.78 19.46 -.747
99 43.11 +1.80 North Carolina 16.48 26.55 -.579
100 +3 42.38 +1.68 Oregon State 20.59 21.72 -.597
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
101 +9 41.47 +2.96 Liberty 19.00 22.46 -.482
102 -7 41.45 -2.36 Troy 20.18 21.29 -.314
103 -5 40.85 -0.64 Air Force 27.87 12.99 -.737
104 +1 40.38 -0.03 Colorado State 18.57 21.80 -.660
105 +1 39.37 -0.18 Central Michigan 19.04 20.46 -.360
106 -5 39.07 -1.75 Jacksonville State 20.06 19.27 -.365
107 38.81 -0.70 Tulsa 18.74 19.94 -.707
108 +3 38.72 +1.00 Arkansas State 15.10 23.62 -.416
109 38.36 -0.97 Missouri State 17.71 20.74 -.292
110 +6 37.60 +0.89 Georgia Southern 24.91 12.68 -.532
111 +1 37.59 -0.01 App State 18.76 18.82 -.481
112 -10 37.23 -3.55 Bowling Green 13.23 23.98 -.608
113 +4 36.45 +0.93 UTEP 15.35 21.14 -.686
114 +7 36.40 +1.16 Louisiana 17.32 19.03 -.612
115 +11 36.32 +3.67 Coastal Carolina 15.74 20.51 -.325
116 +7 36.22 +2.38 Buffalo 14.05 22.24 -.437
117 -4 35.39 -1.96 Florida Atlantic 24.04 11.40 -.562
118 -10 35.03 -4.41 Delaware 20.88 14.05 -.493
119 -5 35.01 -1.84 South Alabama 18.67 16.36 -.723
120 -2 34.58 -0.88 Northern Illinois 8.81 25.89 -.699
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
121 -6 34.45 -2.36 UAB 22.52 12.26 -.565
122 -3 34.35 -1.01 Nevada 11.12 23.38 -.820
123 -3 33.46 -1.81 Florida International 13.46 19.95 -.586
124 -2 33.40 -1.77 New Mexico State 13.65 19.76 -.612
125 +2 33.10 +1.22 Oklahoma State 15.76 17.36 -.661
126 -2 32.94 -0.63 Rice 14.35 18.62 -.535
127 +1 31.37 -0.47 Akron 13.66 17.75 -.627
128 -3 31.13 -1.60 Middle Tennessee 12.33 18.69 -.864
129 30.70 -1.00 Ball State 15.08 15.69 -.587
130 +1 29.88 -0.04 Eastern Michigan 18.74 11.09 -.765
131 -1 29.69 -0.29 Kent State 18.54 11.35 -.416
132 26.90 +0.38 Georgia State 15.43 11.46 -.745
133 26.11 -0.36 Charlotte 12.22 13.85 -.810
134 +1 24.95 +0.59 UL Monroe 12.54 12.48 -.579
135 -1 22.75 -1.93 Sam Houston 13.87 8.97 -.935
136 18.55 -0.60 Massachusetts 7.10 11.46 -.901Schedule 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: 2.07 points
Mean score: 26.86 points
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
1 Indiana .186 (33) .117 (54) 55.54 (33) 57.47 (45)
2 Ohio State .182 (34) .128 (52) 53.76 (39) 56.62 (49)
3 Oregon .171 (42) .357 (11) 55.30 (35) 67.58 (13)
4 Utah .156 (48) .075 (66) 55.73 (30) 57.05 (46)
5 Notre Dame .219 (17) .085 (64) 60.86 (5) 51.49 (69)
6 Texas Tech .135 (56) .158 (49) 45.72 (86) 58.15 (40)
7 Alabama .252 (6) .188 (42) 60.56 (8) 52.50 (65)
8 Texas A&M .209 (22) .211 (38) 61.39 (4) 49.87 (75)
9 USC .214 (21) .298 (22) 57.87 (18) 64.14 (22)
10 Miami .222 (14) .098 (59) 57.28 (23) 54.21 (59)
11 BYU .168 (43) .252 (29) 53.87 (38) 63.54 (27)
12 Washington .205 (26) .211 (36) 57.36 (21) 60.10 (39)
13 Georgia .214 (19) .171 (47) 59.61 (12) 54.80 (55)
14 Florida State .179 (36) .132 (51) 52.36 (46) 58.00 (42)
15 Vanderbilt .190 (31) .176 (46) 53.37 (41) 61.21 (33)
16 Ole Miss .159 (47) .141 (50) 56.45 (26) 48.66 (79)
17 Texas .244 (9) .346 (12) 57.22 (24) 68.03 (12)
18 Oklahoma .177 (37) .374 (8) 55.59 (32) 69.96 (6)
19 Iowa .175 (39) .406 (5) 49.60 (61) 69.16 (9)
20 Michigan .201 (27) .322 (18) 58.86 (16) 66.21 (18)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
21 Tennessee .189 (32) .211 (37) 55.33 (34) 56.10 (51)
22 Illinois .327 (3) .046 (80) 60.74 (6) 54.12 (61)
23 LSU .219 (15) .293 (25) 60.67 (7) 62.38 (29)
24 Missouri .160 (45) .294 (24) 48.68 (68) 66.83 (15)
25 South Florida .163 (44) .009 (108) 50.23 (56) 41.28 (107)
26 Florida .327 (2) .281 (26) 62.77 (2) 66.40 (17)
27 Pittsburgh .086 (78) .399 (6) 48.33 (69) 70.78 (4)
28 Nebraska .124 (60) .206 (40) 50.76 (54) 62.88 (28)
29 Penn State .267 (4) .297 (23) 55.08 (36) 65.68 (20)
30 Louisville .139 (54) .054 (74) 51.46 (51) 52.82 (63)
31 North Texas .034 (114) .002 (127) 43.82 (96) 38.33 (120)
32 Arizona .106 (65) .109 (57) 49.79 (59) 58.03 (41)
33 Virginia .086 (77) .053 (77) 48.93 (65) 52.49 (66)
34 Mississippi State .192 (30) .337 (14) 53.43 (40) 69.13 (10)
35 Cincinnati .140 (52) .246 (30) 47.92 (72) 65.45 (21)
36 Auburn .208 (24) .324 (16) 57.42 (20) 60.70 (34)
37 Iowa State .146 (49) .069 (69) 56.13 (27) 50.40 (73)
38 Georgia Tech .044 (106) .209 (39) 48.90 (66) 60.37 (38)
39 East Carolina .076 (81) .027 (87) 45.95 (82) 42.82 (100)
40 TCU .056 (97) .225 (33) 51.39 (53) 63.85 (25)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
41 Arizona State .217 (18) .069 (70) 58.91 (15) 54.14 (60)
42 Kansas State .138 (55) .264 (28) 57.95 (17) 55.79 (52)
43 San Diego State .009 (133) .021 (92) 40.19 (120) 48.34 (80)
44 James Madison .038 (111) .008 (110) 40.69 (115) 42.57 (102)
45 Arkansas .249 (8) .343 (13) 57.29 (22) 69.17 (8)
46 Memphis .032 (115) .071 (68) 40.15 (121) 52.98 (62)
47 SMU .089 (75) .061 (73) 49.38 (64) 51.65 (68)
48 Duke .074 (83) .048 (78) 51.61 (49) 51.88 (67)
49 South Carolina .261 (5) .220 (35) 60.47 (9) 55.39 (53)
50 NC State .173 (41) .308 (20) 55.66 (31) 62.31 (30)
51 Houston .099 (67) .074 (67) 49.50 (62) 56.82 (48)
52 Clemson .074 (82) .182 (45) 51.96 (48) 52.58 (64)
53 Maryland .195 (29) .185 (44) 52.47 (45) 61.37 (32)
54 Northwestern .173 (40) .334 (15) 50.47 (55) 67.31 (14)
55 Kansas .144 (50) .370 (10) 49.63 (60) 69.77 (7)
56 Kentucky .214 (20) .229 (32) 60.04 (11) 60.68 (35)
57 Boise State .117 (62) .053 (76) 46.43 (79) 49.73 (76)
58 Baylor .090 (72) .321 (19) 50.21 (57) 66.75 (16)
59 Toledo .019 (122) .003 (120) 37.86 (131) 37.28 (125)
60 Wake Forest .096 (69) .088 (62) 51.40 (52) 49.87 (74)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
61 UCF .059 (95) .322 (17) 45.03 (89) 60.38 (37)
62 Old Dominion .124 (59) .001 (131) 45.24 (87) 34.63 (132)
63 Michigan State .244 (10) .223 (34) 59.01 (14) 63.68 (26)
64 Tulane .089 (74) .036 (83) 52.53 (44) 41.41 (106)
65 Minnesota .176 (38) .305 (21) 49.94 (58) 63.92 (23)
66 Purdue .219 (16) .747 (1) 57.50 (19) 83.07 (1)
67 Wisconsin .384 (1) .407 (4) 64.31 (1) 71.29 (3)
68 Rutgers .225 (13) .370 (9) 54.68 (37) 68.62 (11)
69 Louisiana Tech .050 (102) .013 (102) 41.90 (107) 42.82 (101)
70 Washington State .159 (46) .054 (75) 55.92 (28) 50.58 (72)
71 UCLA .249 (7) .510 (2) 62.39 (3) 74.85 (2)
72 Colorado .206 (25) .085 (65) 59.40 (13) 56.83 (47)
73 UTSA .115 (63) .110 (56) 47.35 (74) 50.92 (70)
74 New Mexico .062 (93) .027 (88) 46.59 (78) 46.13 (84)
75 Army .070 (85) .014 (100) 49.44 (63) 44.99 (88)
76 West Virginia .197 (28) .239 (31) 55.78 (29) 62.21 (31)
77 Kennesaw State .130 (58) .002 (125) 44.08 (92) 39.11 (116)
78 Ohio .120 (61) .006 (113) 43.40 (98) 36.70 (126)
79 Western Michigan .069 (86) .003 (122) 44.50 (90) 38.09 (121)
80 Virginia Tech .103 (66) .382 (7) 53.15 (42) 70.37 (5)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
81 Stanford .227 (12) .194 (41) 60.05 (10) 54.84 (54)
82 Utah State .139 (53) .014 (99) 47.28 (75) 44.79 (91)
83 UConn .003 (136) .022 (90) 34.33 (135) 44.11 (94)
84 Southern Miss .023 (119) .002 (128) 38.50 (127) 39.69 (112)
85 Navy .034 (113) .265 (27) 36.05 (132) 63.86 (24)
86 Syracuse .110 (64) .424 (3) 52.82 (43) 65.89 (19)
87 Temple .070 (84) .105 (58) 42.02 (105) 56.50 (50)
88 UNLV .016 (125) .004 (118) 43.16 (100) 41.64 (105)
89 California .045 (105) .116 (55) 46.07 (80) 57.51 (44)
90 Wyoming .094 (70) .007 (111) 45.96 (81) 41.83 (104)
91 Fresno State .028 (118) .007 (112) 40.39 (119) 44.74 (93)
92 Miami (OH) .014 (126) .013 (103) 39.14 (125) 42.15 (103)
93 Hawai’i .032 (116) .031 (85) 40.47 (117) 49.25 (77)
94 Marshall .066 (87) .019 (93) 42.07 (104) 40.27 (111)
95 San José State .065 (90) .036 (82) 47.48 (73) 44.80 (90)
96 Texas State .035 (112) .004 (117) 43.17 (99) 35.73 (129)
97 Western Kentucky .013 (127) .121 (53) 35.57 (133) 46.69 (82)
98 Boston College .142 (51) .065 (71) 51.60 (50) 54.68 (56)
99 North Carolina .046 (104) .061 (72) 45.81 (85) 54.23 (58)
100 Oregon State .180 (35) .017 (97) 52.05 (47) 38.64 (119)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
101 Liberty .018 (124) .015 (98) 39.70 (122) 43.26 (96)
102 Troy .019 (121) .025 (89) 38.78 (126) 43.04 (98)
103 Air Force .013 (128) .012 (104) 42.02 (106) 46.62 (83)
104 Colorado State .090 (73) .028 (86) 48.89 (67) 47.94 (81)
105 Central Michigan .084 (79) .010 (105) 39.55 (123) 39.26 (115)
106 Jacksonville State .010 (132) .004 (119) 35.10 (134) 40.54 (109)
107 Tulsa .043 (107) .008 (109) 45.93 (83) 40.50 (110)
108 Arkansas State .028 (117) .003 (124) 41.41 (111) 39.49 (113)
109 Missouri State .083 (80) .013 (101) 42.22 (103) 44.78 (92)
110 Georgia Southern .093 (71) .010 (106) 44.19 (91) 42.89 (99)
111 App State .019 (123) .035 (84) 38.44 (128) 43.81 (95)
112 Bowling Green .058 (96) .000 (136) 44.02 (93) 27.29 (136)
113 UTEP .064 (91) .001 (132) 40.68 (116) 36.47 (128)
114 Louisiana .055 (100) .002 (129) 41.59 (109) 35.05 (130)
115 Coastal Carolina .050 (103) .047 (79) 42.49 (101) 45.28 (87)
116 Buffalo .007 (135) .005 (115) 31.06 (136) 43.16 (97)
117 Florida Atlantic .063 (92) .042 (81) 41.62 (108) 49.15 (78)
118 Delaware .007 (134) .021 (91) 38.17 (129) 40.85 (108)
119 South Alabama .055 (99) .005 (116) 40.39 (118) 39.05 (117)
120 Northern Illinois .051 (101) .018 (95) 43.71 (97) 37.44 (124)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
121 UAB .060 (94) .093 (61) 45.11 (88) 50.68 (71)
122 Nevada .055 (98) .010 (107) 48.13 (70) 45.44 (86)
123 Florida International .039 (108) .001 (133) 40.79 (114) 33.09 (134)
124 New Mexico State .013 (129) .094 (60) 37.90 (130) 46.08 (85)
125 Oklahoma State .228 (11) .085 (63) 56.71 (25) 57.67 (43)
126 Rice .021 (120) .161 (48) 40.97 (113) 54.45 (57)
127 Akron .039 (109) .001 (135) 41.10 (112) 27.80 (135)
128 Middle Tennessee .011 (131) .002 (126) 41.47 (110) 33.27 (133)
129 Ball State .038 (110) .018 (94) 44.00 (94) 39.49 (114)
130 Eastern Michigan .012 (130) .003 (123) 39.44 (124) 37.82 (122)
131 Kent State .209 (23) .001 (134) 48.06 (71) 35.04 (131)
132 Georgia State .130 (57) .017 (96) 46.90 (77) 44.89 (89)
133 Charlotte .065 (89) .186 (43) 45.84 (84) 60.40 (36)
134 UL Monroe .088 (76) .003 (121) 42.31 (102) 39.01 (118)
135 Sam Houston .065 (88) .002 (130) 46.92 (76) 36.53 (127)
136 Massachusetts .099 (68) .005 (114) 43.83 (95) 37.73 (123)Conference Ratings
To rate the overall quality of conferences, I calculate the expected outcome if each team in a conference were to play every FBS team at a neutral site. The Win% column is the average probability of winning for all of the possible games and for all the teams in the conference. It’s similar to the average rating of all the teams in the conference, but it should be less skewed by outliers.
However, the idea of the “best” conference is subjective, and another way to judge the quality of a conference is to consider how many of its teams are among the best in the FBS. What if instead of playing every team in the FBS, each conference opponent just plays a hypothetical opponent with a rating that’s 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS mean? In this case, the quality of a conference is determined by how its teams would be expected to perform against a hypothetical opponent ranked somewhere around #10 to #15 in the FBS. This is what I’ve done with the HighWin% column. It’s analogous to how I calculate strength of record, and each conference’s rating is impacted more when the conference has more highly rated teams.
Conference Ratings
Rank Win% Conference HighWin% Rating Offense Defense OffDef
1 .771 SEC .298 (2) 67.02 33.23 33.81 -0.58 (7)
2 .712 Big Ten .297 (3) 65.25 31.80 33.42 -1.62 (8)
3 .662 FBS Independents .325 (1) 62.86 33.63 29.39 4.25 (1)
4 .637 Big 12 .185 (4) 59.67 30.26 29.44 0.82 (4)
5 .580 ACC .126 (5) 56.37 28.37 28.05 0.32 (5)
6 .423 American Athletic .058 (6) 47.49 24.98 22.51 2.47 (2)
7 .410 Pac-12 .018 (8) 47.34 19.55 27.80 -8.25 (11)
8 .384 Mountain West .019 (7) 45.92 23.08 22.85 0.23 (6)
9 .286 Sun Belt .012 (9) 40.12 21.11 19.03 2.09 (3)
10 .249 Conference USA .005 (11) 37.98 18.04 19.98 -1.94 (9)
11 .241 Mid-American .006 (10) 37.02 16.72 20.34 -3.62 (10)Playoff Ratings
Here are the four components of the playoff ratings:
The cumulative distribution function of the team’s strength of record for a hypothetical team 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS average. (SOR; 55%)
The cumulative distribution function of the team’s predictive rating (Fwd; 30%)
The team’s winning percentage (Win%; 10%)
The cumulative distribution function of the team’s strength of schedule for a hypothetical team 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS average. (SOS; 5%)
Unlike my predictive ratings, these are based heavily on strength of record, meaning that they give more weight to a team’s past accomplishments than what they’re expected to do in the future.
Playoff Ratings
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
1 .9790 +.0019 Indiana .982 .801 1.000 .997
2 .9760 +.0040 Ohio State .981 .785 1.000 .991
3 .9688 -.0006 Texas A&M .986 .871 1.000 .944
4 .9539 +.0022 Alabama .968 .951 .875 .955
5 +1 .9536 +.0106 BYU .978 .734 1.000 .930
6 +1 .9349 +.0084 Oregon .937 .744 .875 .984
7 +1 .9302 +.0048 Georgia .956 .883 .875 .910
8 +3 .9146 +.0162 Texas Tech .925 .587 .889 .958
9 .9075 +.0017 Ole Miss .938 .694 .889 .894
10 +5 .9011 +.0281 Texas .924 .940 .778 .894
11 -1 .8970 -.0086 Notre Dame .888 .893 .750 .963
12 -7 .8896 -.0568 Miami .890 .899 .750 .933
13 +3 .8870 +.0205 USC .885 .882 .750 .938
14 -1 .8781 +.0016 Michigan .896 .848 .778 .884
15 +5 .8775 +.0316 Utah .860 .684 .778 .975
16 -2 .8763 +.0006 Washington .877 .858 .750 .920
17 -5 .8749 -.0217 Vanderbilt .887 .813 .778 .895
18 +1 .8719 +.0132 Illinois .906 .995 .667 .857
19 +5 .8661 +.0358 Oklahoma .878 .769 .778 .891
20 -3 .8633 -.0004 Louisville .919 .604 .875 .801
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
21 +2 .8480 +.0112 Iowa .852 .761 .750 .888
22 +5 .8298 +.0195 Virginia .893 .351 .889 .774
23 -2 .8245 -.0199 South Florida .840 .714 .750 .839
24 +1 .8244 -.0003 Missouri .837 .699 .750 .847
25 +3 .8028 +.0002 North Texas .849 .154 .889 .797
26 .8002 -.0105 Cincinnati .844 .609 .778 .759
27 -9 .7949 -.0686 Georgia Tech .859 .184 .889 .749
28 -6 .7925 -.0463 Tennessee .777 .809 .667 .860
29 +1 .7842 +.0122 LSU .763 .894 .625 .857
30 +5 .7771 +.0301 Pittsburgh .787 .349 .778 .830
31 +8 .7670 +.0657 Arizona State .809 .889 .667 .702
32 +1 .7637 -.0003 Memphis .848 .149 .889 .670
33 +4 .7616 +.0432 James Madison .840 .166 .875 .679
34 +2 .7428 +.0219 San Diego State .810 .091 .875 .685
35 -6 .7294 -.0627 Houston .802 .411 .778 .633
36 -2 .7176 -.0319 Nebraska .692 .532 .667 .812
37 +5 .6935 +.0214 TCU .714 .225 .750 .716
38 +8 .6804 +.0336 Minnesota .762 .765 .667 .521
39 +9 .6718 +.0615 Mississippi State .629 .819 .556 .765
40 -8 .6691 -.0959 Tulane .757 .363 .750 .532
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
41 +4 .6683 +.0172 Kennesaw State .805 .560 .750 .408
42 +2 .6650 +.0096 Northwestern .703 .752 .625 .595
43 -5 .6602 -.0491 Navy .836 .154 .875 .350
44 +8 .6544 +.0670 Arizona .603 .442 .625 .794
45 +5 .6484 +.0489 Florida State .522 .775 .500 .909
46 -5 .6450 -.0438 Florida .559 .995 .375 .835
47 +17 .6369 +.1095 SMU .641 .363 .667 .665
48 -17 .6365 -.1285 Boise State .683 .499 .667 .564
49 +2 .6360 +.0416 Old Dominion .693 .533 .667 .539
50 -10 .6199 -.0693 Iowa State .558 .639 .556 .751
51 +2 .6148 +.0625 NC State .600 .752 .556 .639
52 +7 .6036 +.0693 East Carolina .558 .308 .625 .730
53 +7 .5831 +.0498 Penn State .463 .967 .375 .809
54 +8 .5792 +.0491 Duke .553 .296 .625 .659
55 -12 .5780 -.0827 Auburn .479 .866 .444 .756
56 +2 .5737 +.0389 Maryland .547 .829 .500 .605
57 -2 .5690 +.0240 Kansas .554 .628 .556 .590
58 -9 .5689 -.0331 Wake Forest .588 .395 .625 .545
59 -2 .5532 +.0111 Southern Miss .667 .123 .750 .351
60 +3 .5494 +.0210 New Mexico .601 .250 .667 .466
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
61 +6 .5466 +.0317 Western Kentucky .693 .100 .778 .276
62 -6 .5459 +.0037 Ohio .625 .510 .625 .381
63 -16 .5389 -.0985 UNLV .657 .107 .750 .324
64 -10 .5216 -.0239 Rutgers .507 .907 .444 .510
65 +14 .5080 +.0693 Louisiana Tech .515 .203 .625 .507
66 +15 .4987 +.0767 Baylor .469 .371 .556 .555
67 +2 .4879 -.0104 South Carolina .387 .961 .333 .645
68 +5 .4846 +.0103 Kansas State .370 .602 .444 .688
69 +3 .4768 +.0018 Wisconsin .450 .999 .250 .514
70 +6 .4692 +.0142 UCLA .435 .947 .375 .484
71 -6 .4670 -.0582 Hawai’i .553 .148 .667 .295
72 +19 .4666 +.0910 Kentucky .380 .882 .375 .587
73 +15 .4660 +.0817 Fresno State .546 .135 .667 .307
74 +9 .4610 +.0448 UConn .506 .080 .667 .373
75 -14 .4514 -.0791 Washington State .402 .696 .444 .504
76 +14 .4468 +.0710 UTSA .419 .486 .500 .473
77 +3 .4448 +.0112 Utah State .458 .605 .500 .376
78 +6 .4440 +.0380 Missouri State .568 .338 .625 .173
79 -9 .4390 -.0573 Michigan State .361 .939 .333 .533
80 -14 .4353 -.0892 Troy .533 .115 .667 .232
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
81 +8 .4215 +.0379 Western Michigan .435 .275 .556 .377
82 +4 .4095 +.0054 Miami (OH) .458 .103 .625 .299
83 -15 .4082 -.1049 UCF .335 .238 .500 .540
84 -13 .4075 -.0839 Temple .437 .282 .556 .325
85 +13 .3976 +.0768 Coastal Carolina .515 .202 .625 .140
86 -9 .3922 -.0580 Arkansas .217 .946 .222 .677
87 +7 .3879 +.0417 Army .351 .282 .500 .435
88 -13 .3872 -.0701 Colorado .306 .862 .333 .474
89 -15 .3826 -.0766 Central Michigan .459 .342 .556 .191
90 -8 .3781 -.0411 California .397 .186 .556 .317
91 -6 .3770 -.0275 Stanford .337 .911 .333 .376
92 +1 .3732 +.0015 Toledo .279 .114 .500 .548
93 +2 .3713 +.0391 Jacksonville State .452 .094 .625 .186
94 +8 .3618 +.0828 West Virginia .294 .835 .333 .417
95 -8 .3425 -.0447 Clemson .192 .297 .375 .615
96 -18 .3397 -.1051 Marshall .345 .263 .500 .290
97 -5 .3266 -.0460 Wyoming .306 .389 .444 .315
98 -1 .3226 +.0011 Purdue .184 .893 .222 .515
99 +4 .3203 +.0532 Arkansas State .371 .136 .556 .179
100 +1 .3038 +.0160 Kent State .371 .868 .375 .062
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
101 +7 .2885 +.0607 Buffalo .340 .088 .556 .138
102 +11 .2773 +.0780 Liberty .276 .110 .500 .232
103 -3 .2665 -.0282 Virginia Tech .179 .431 .333 .377
104 -8 .2583 -.0704 Syracuse .187 .465 .333 .330
105 -1 .2564 -.0023 App State .278 .113 .500 .160
106 -7 .2353 -.0837 Delaware .263 .088 .500 .121
107 +9 .2348 +.0579 San José State .182 .259 .375 .280
108 +2 .2222 +.0115 Georgia Southern .214 .382 .375 .160
109 +8 .2170 +.0561 Oregon State .146 .781 .222 .252
110 +9 .2169 +.0618 North Carolina .163 .189 .375 .268
111 -6 .2128 -.0417 Texas State .153 .156 .375 .278
112 -5 .1948 -.0375 Rice .211 .118 .444 .095
113 -1 .1869 -.0127 Florida Atlantic .180 .250 .375 .126
114 -8 .1815 -.0568 UAB .178 .242 .375 .113
115 -6 .1661 -.0510 Bowling Green .136 .235 .333 .154
116 -5 .1625 -.0442 Florida International .157 .169 .375 .101
117 +10 .1596 +.0465 Louisiana .133 .221 .333 .141
118 +2 .1593 +.0043 Colorado State .096 .369 .250 .211
119 -1 .1529 -.0041 Ball State .156 .166 .375 .071
120 -6 .1508 -.0323 UL Monroe .164 .360 .333 .032
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
121 +7 .1499 +.0374 Boston College .049 .620 .111 .270
122 -7 .1454 -.0368 New Mexico State .132 .099 .375 .100
123 -1 .1381 -.0021 Oklahoma State .095 .913 .111 .096
124 .1312 +.0010 Akron .120 .169 .333 .078
125 +1 .1256 -.0000 Tulsa .068 .182 .250 .181
126 -5 .1251 -.0164 Air Force .053 .100 .250 .220
127 -4 .1240 -.0107 UTEP .079 .258 .250 .142
128 +1 .1092 -.0006 Northern Illinois .072 .207 .250 .115
129 -4 .1024 -.0266 South Alabama .060 .223 .222 .121
130 .0806 +.0034 Georgia State .050 .561 .125 .042
131 .0714 -.0032 Nevada .026 .223 .125 .112
132 .0694 +.0009 Eastern Michigan .042 .099 .222 .064
133 +1 .0524 -.0041 Charlotte .028 .261 .125 .038
134 -1 .0491 -.0082 Middle Tennessee .017 .095 .125 .075
135 .0300 -.0005 Massachusetts .011 .408 .000 .011
136 .0242 -.0022 Sam Houston .008 .262 .000 .022Playoff Cost/Benefit Opportunity
There are many ways to calculate schedule strength, and a difficult schedule for one team might be an easy schedule for another. The difficulty of the schedule depends on who is playing it. In this case, the FutureDiff column is the difficulty of the schedule for the team playing it. It is the team’s expected losing percentage against that schedule.
Strength of record is the biggest factor in the playoff ratings. It’s based on a team’s actual winning percentage compared to the expected winning percentage for a hypothetical FBS team with a predictive rating 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS mean. There are two characteristics of a team that is likely to improve their strength of record:
They are expected to improve their winning percentage over the remainder of the season (DiffChg; negative values are more favorable)
The expected winning percentage for a team 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS mean is lower over the remainder of the season (SOSChg; positive values are more favorable)
The Opportunity column is calculated by subtracting DiffChg from SOSChg, and it attempts to measure how likely a team is to improve their strength of record (positive is better). Because strength of record is the biggest component of the playoff ratings, the Opportunity column is a forward looking predictor of how a team might move up or down in the playoff ratings. I describe this as comparing the costs, the chance of losing additional games, to the benefits, the increased schedule strength.
Future Schedule Cost/Benefit Opportunity
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
1 Indiana .007 (136) -.0342 -.0694 -.0352 (76)
2 Ohio State .027 (133) -.0130 -.0532 -.0402 (81)
3 Texas A&M .187 (120) .0009 .0019 .0010 (50)
4 Alabama .137 (124) -.0573 -.0640 -.0067 (60)
5 BYU .260 (107) .0854 .0837 -.0017 (56)
6 Oregon .147 (123) .0455 .1858 .1403 (10)
7 Georgia .217 (114) -.0442 -.0435 .0007 (51)
8 Texas Tech .113 (127) .0077 .0225 .0147 (38)
9 Ole Miss .207 (117) -.0131 -.0180 -.0049 (59)
10 Texas .446 (80) .1387 .1022 -.0366 (77)
11 Notre Dame .053 (131) -.0990 -.1336 -.0346 (75)
12 Miami .098 (129) -.1240 -.1238 .0002 (52)
13 USC .290 (103) .0847 .0842 -.0005 (53)
14 Michigan .395 (90) .1137 .1203 .0066 (44)
15 Utah .022 (134) -.0604 -.0810 -.0206 (69)
16 Washington .230 (112) .0049 .0068 .0019 (49)
17 Vanderbilt .251 (109) .0024 -.0143 -.0167 (67)
18 Illinois .125 (125) -.2961 -.2805 .0156 (37)
19 Oklahoma .487 (72) .2338 .1972 -.0366 (78)
20 Louisville .193 (119) -.0875 -.0844 .0031 (46)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
21 Iowa .502 (65) .2790 .2303 -.0487 (82)
22 Virginia .213 (116) -.0169 -.0332 -.0163 (66)
23 South Florida .035 (132) -.2483 -.1548 .0935 (15)
24 Missouri .489 (70) .2250 .1339 -.0911 (100)
25 North Texas .019 (135) -.0964 -.0321 .0643 (23)
26 Cincinnati .591 (50) .2910 .1064 -.1847 (123)
27 Georgia Tech .482 (73) .2752 .1653 -.1099 (104)
28 Tennessee .345 (97) .0475 .0225 -.0249 (72)
29 LSU .416 (85) .0631 .0740 .0109 (40)
30 Pittsburgh .641 (44) .4659 .3136 -.1523 (118)
31 Arizona State .333 (98) -.1576 -.1480 .0096 (41)
32 Memphis .345 (96) .1933 .0384 -.1548 (119)
33 James Madison .109 (128) -.0511 -.0299 .0212 (34)
34 San Diego State .199 (118) .1031 .0123 -.0909 (99)
35 Houston .489 (71) .1616 -.0255 -.1871 (126)
36 Nebraska .441 (82) .1643 .0823 -.0820 (96)
37 TCU .584 (52) .3115 .1693 -.1421 (115)
38 Minnesota .670 (39) .1802 .1283 -.0519 (83)
39 Mississippi State .704 (31) .2851 .1452 -.1399 (114)
40 Tulane .275 (106) -.1978 -.0534 .1443 (9)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
41 Kennesaw State .217 (115) -.1242 -.1274 -.0032 (57)
42 Northwestern .784 (23) .3111 .1614 -.1497 (117)
43 Navy .856 (10) .5553 .2307 -.3246 (136)
44 Arizona .320 (99) .0610 .0035 -.0575 (86)
45 Florida State .172 (121) -.0455 -.0466 -.0011 (54)
46 Florida .502 (66) -.0252 -.0458 -.0206 (68)
47 SMU .314 (101) -.0240 -.0281 -.0041 (58)
48 Boise State .380 (92) .0684 -.0638 -.1323 (111)
49 Old Dominion .081 (130) -.2093 -.1230 .0863 (18)
50 Iowa State .254 (108) -.1459 -.0775 .0684 (21)
51 NC State .626 (47) .0971 .1356 .0385 (27)
52 East Carolina .157 (122) -.0775 -.0489 .0286 (29)
53 Penn State .455 (77) .0845 .0296 -.0549 (84)
54 Duke .316 (100) -.0586 -.0255 .0331 (28)
55 Auburn .557 (56) .1103 .1165 .0062 (45)
56 Maryland .643 (42) .2009 -.0093 -.2102 (129)
57 Kansas .853 (11) .4106 .2259 -.1848 (124)
58 Wake Forest .430 (84) -.0260 -.0079 .0181 (36)
59 Southern Miss .284 (104) -.0391 -.0208 .0183 (35)
60 New Mexico .365 (94) -.0212 -.0351 -.0139 (63)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
61 Western Kentucky .507 (63) .1858 .1080 -.0779 (95)
62 Ohio .277 (105) -.0555 -.1133 -.0578 (87)
63 UNLV .379 (93) -.0797 -.0122 .0675 (22)
64 Rutgers .786 (21) .1825 .1449 -.0375 (80)
65 Louisiana Tech .239 (110) -.0210 -.0363 -.0153 (65)
66 Baylor .785 (22) .2679 .2307 -.0372 (79)
67 South Carolina .457 (76) -.1762 -.0403 .1359 (11)
68 Kansas State .398 (89) -.0560 .1254 .1814 (5)
69 Wisconsin .844 (12) .1457 .0228 -.1228 (108)
70 UCLA .940 (5) .2526 .2608 .0082 (42)
71 Hawai’i .642 (43) .2021 -.0010 -.2031 (128)
72 Kentucky .653 (40) -.0073 .0154 .0227 (32)
73 Fresno State .498 (68) .0120 -.0207 -.0328 (74)
74 UConn .400 (88) .2058 .0196 -.1861 (125)
75 Washington State .454 (78) -.1337 -.1056 .0281 (30)
76 UTSA .522 (62) .1147 -.0046 -.1193 (106)
77 Utah State .435 (83) -.0391 -.1246 -.0855 (98)
78 Missouri State .684 (33) .1423 -.0701 -.2124 (130)
79 Michigan State .773 (27) .2037 -.0210 -.2247 (131)
80 Troy .564 (54) .1361 .0059 -.1301 (110)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
81 Western Michigan .236 (111) -.2106 -.0657 .1449 (8)
82 Miami (OH) .450 (79) .0585 -.0014 -.0599 (90)
83 UCF .633 (45) .2381 .2627 .0246 (31)
84 Temple .783 (25) .3044 .0346 -.2698 (133)
85 Coastal Carolina .678 (35) .0621 -.0026 -.0647 (91)
86 Arkansas .799 (20) .2179 .0945 -.1233 (109)
87 Army .360 (95) -.1612 -.0566 .1046 (14)
88 Colorado .672 (37) -.0169 -.1211 -.1042 (103)
89 Central Michigan .482 (74) -.0183 -.0740 -.0557 (85)
90 California .812 (17) .2213 .0718 -.1495 (116)
91 Stanford .589 (51) -.1578 -.0332 .1246 (13)
92 Toledo .116 (126) -.1060 -.0158 .0902 (17)
93 Jacksonville State .545 (58) .1149 -.0062 -.1211 (107)
94 West Virginia .783 (24) .0653 .0420 -.0233 (71)
95 Clemson .570 (53) .1862 .1084 -.0778 (94)
96 Marshall .389 (91) -.0184 -.0467 -.0283 (73)
97 Wyoming .413 (86) -.0736 -.0874 -.0138 (62)
98 Purdue .988 (2) .3760 .5279 .1519 (7)
99 Arkansas State .525 (61) -.0374 -.0251 .0123 (39)
100 Kent State .672 (38) -.0268 -.2079 -.1811 (122)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
101 Buffalo .718 (30) .2850 -.0022 -.2872 (135)
102 Liberty .544 (59) .0949 -.0022 -.0972 (101)
103 Virginia Tech .966 (4) .2941 .2790 -.0151 (64)
104 Syracuse .780 (26) .0862 .3134 .2272 (3)
105 App State .630 (46) .1142 .0165 -.0977 (102)
106 Delaware .623 (48) .0243 .0140 -.0102 (61)
107 San José State .504 (64) -.0701 -.0283 .0419 (26)
108 Georgia Southern .650 (41) .0509 -.0829 -.1337 (112)
109 Oregon State .442 (81) -.2096 -.1636 .0460 (25)
110 North Carolina .804 (18) .1887 .0153 -.1734 (120)
111 Texas State .306 (102) -.2023 -.0307 .1716 (6)
112 Rice .824 (13) .1331 .1401 .0071 (43)
113 Florida Atlantic .819 (14) .1698 -.0204 -.1902 (127)
114 UAB .802 (19) .0910 .0327 -.0583 (88)
115 Bowling Green .221 (113) -.4023 -.0583 .3440 (1)
116 Florida International .496 (69) -.1728 -.0387 .1341 (12)
117 Louisiana .479 (75) -.1168 -.0528 .0640 (24)
118 Colorado State .704 (32) .0217 -.0615 -.0832 (97)
119 Ball State .673 (36) -.0940 -.0198 .0742 (20)
120 UL Monroe .860 (9) .0343 -.0848 -.1191 (105)
Rank Team FutureDiff DiffChg SOSChg Opportunity
121 Boston College .813 (16) .1004 -.0769 -.1773 (121)
122 New Mexico State .723 (29) .1037 .0816 -.0221 (70)
123 Oklahoma State .980 (3) .1363 -.1428 -.2791 (134)
124 Akron .410 (87) -.2979 -.0388 .2591 (2)
125 Tulsa .541 (60) -.1142 -.0350 .0791 (19)
126 Air Force .682 (34) .0694 -.0009 -.0703 (93)
127 UTEP .501 (67) -.0653 -.0633 .0020 (48)
128 Northern Illinois .546 (57) -.1256 -.0329 .0927 (16)
129 South Alabama .617 (49) .0082 -.0504 -.0586 (89)
130 Georgia State .911 (7) .1146 -.1125 -.2272 (132)
131 Nevada .816 (15) .0235 -.0455 -.0690 (92)
132 Eastern Michigan .725 (28) -.0123 -.0095 .0028 (47)
133 Charlotte .991 (1) .1223 .1210 -.0013 (55)
134 Middle Tennessee .557 (55) -.2141 -.0083 .2057 (4)
135 Massachusetts .922 (6) .0430 -.0932 -.1362 (113)
136 Sam Houston .860 (8) -.0853 -.0636 .0217 (33) Upcoming Game Predictions
Upcoming games are ranked based on the projected quality. This factors in the overall strength of the two teams and the potential for a competitive game. Game quality ratings are not directly comparable between college football and the NFL. NFL games are typically decided by smaller margins than college games, the teams are more balanced in their quality, and there’s just not as much scoring in the NFL. Thresholds for close games and blowouts are also different between college and the NFL for the same reasons.
Beside each team, there are two numbers in parentheses. One is the predicted margin of victory (positive) or defeat (negative), the other is the probability of winning. These margins are sometimes larger than what’s indicated by the predicted score. That’s because there’s nothing in the math that prevents a prediction of negative points with a sufficiently lopsided matchup. This is, of course, impossible, so the score is set to zero in those instances. There’s no cap on how many points a team can be projected to score, though.
#1: BYU (-5.87, 31.06%) at Texas Tech (5.87, 68.94%)
Estimated score: 25.56 - 31.32, Total: 56.88
Quality: 96.59%, Team quality: 97.81%, Competitiveness: 94.20%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.25%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 39.83%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 38.26%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 32.97%
#2: Iowa State (-0.51, 48.29%) at TCU (0.51, 51.71%)
Estimated score: 30.21 - 30.54, Total: 60.75
Quality: 96.58%, Team quality: 94.93%, Competitiveness: 99.96%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.17%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 44.37%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 41.94%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 29.59%
#3: Texas A&M (6.22, 69.97%) at Missouri (-6.22, 30.03%)
Estimated score: 34.80 - 28.84, Total: 63.64
Quality: 95.91%, Team quality: 97.13%, Competitiveness: 93.51%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.39%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 39.31%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 44.74%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 27.19%
#4: Houston (1.43, 54.79%) at UCF (-1.43, 45.21%)
Estimated score: 22.88 - 21.55, Total: 44.42
Quality: 95.21%, Team quality: 93.06%, Competitiveness: 99.65%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.22%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 44.12%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 27.23%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 44.68%
#5: Maryland (1.49, 54.98%) at Rutgers (-1.49, 45.02%)
Estimated score: 29.80 - 28.46, Total: 58.26
Quality: 94.92%, Team quality: 92.66%, Competitiveness: 99.62%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.23%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 44.10%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 39.56%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 31.75%
#6: Georgia (6.99, 72.16%) at Mississippi State (-6.99, 27.84%)
Estimated score: 30.07 - 22.77, Total: 52.84
Quality: 94.82%, Team quality: 96.32%, Competitiveness: 91.87%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.74%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.08%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 34.52%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 36.65%
#7: Colorado (0.04, 50.12%) at West Virginia (-0.04, 49.88%)
Estimated score: 25.46 - 25.37, Total: 50.82
Quality: 93.91%, Team quality: 91.00%, Competitiveness: 100.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.16%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 44.40%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 32.71%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 38.54%
#8: Tulane (-7.36, 26.80%) at Memphis (7.36, 73.20%)
Estimated score: 22.18 - 29.37, Total: 51.55
Quality: 92.44%, Team quality: 93.17%, Competitiveness: 91.01%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.92%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.45%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 33.36%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 37.85%
#9: Stanford (2.36, 57.87%) at North Carolina (-2.36, 42.13%)
Estimated score: 19.20 - 16.72, Total: 35.92
Quality: 92.02%, Team quality: 88.70%, Competitiveness: 99.05%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.33%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 43.63%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 20.74%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 53.03%
#10: Florida (8.99, 77.52%) at Kentucky (-8.99, 22.48%)
Estimated score: 24.83 - 15.94, Total: 40.77
Quality: 91.99%, Team quality: 94.69%, Competitiveness: 86.80%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.91%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 34.43%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 24.33%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 48.26%
#11: Auburn (-10.23, 19.47%) at Vanderbilt (10.23, 80.53%)
Estimated score: 18.09 - 28.43, Total: 46.52
Quality: 91.54%, Team quality: 96.06%, Competitiveness: 83.14%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.85%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.93%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 28.97%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 42.65%
#12: Oregon (11.34, 83.00%) at Iowa (-11.34, 17.00%)
Estimated score: 28.98 - 17.71, Total: 46.69
Quality: 91.35%, Team quality: 97.87%, Competitiveness: 79.58%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.85%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.60%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 29.12%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 42.48%
#13: LSU (-11.22, 17.27%) at Alabama (11.22, 82.73%)
Estimated score: 16.07 - 27.26, Total: 43.33
Quality: 91.10%, Team quality: 97.21%, Competitiveness: 80.01%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.73%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.87%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 26.35%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 45.75%
#14: Miami (OH) (-5.36, 32.61%) at Ohio (5.36, 67.39%)
Estimated score: 23.22 - 28.70, Total: 51.92
Quality: 91.03%, Team quality: 89.03%, Competitiveness: 95.16%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.06%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.57%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 33.69%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 37.51%
#15: UNLV (3.02, 60.03%) at Colorado State (-3.02, 39.97%)
Estimated score: 35.13 - 32.05, Total: 67.19
Quality: 90.95%, Team quality: 87.41%, Competitiveness: 98.44%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.44%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 43.15%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 48.22%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 24.36%
#16: Temple (-6.32, 29.75%) at Army (6.32, 70.25%)
Estimated score: 21.55 - 28.10, Total: 49.65
Quality: 90.93%, Team quality: 89.76%, Competitiveness: 93.31%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.43%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 39.16%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 31.67%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 39.65%
#17: Duke (8.66, 76.70%) at UConn (-8.66, 23.30%)
Estimated score: 40.61 - 31.96, Total: 72.57
Quality: 90.49%, Team quality: 91.93%, Competitiveness: 87.69%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.69%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.05%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 53.51%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 20.40%
#18: Air Force (-4.84, 34.19%) at San José State (4.84, 65.81%)
Estimated score: 34.59 - 39.52, Total: 74.10
Quality: 89.91%, Team quality: 86.99%, Competitiveness: 96.03%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.88%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 41.24%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 55.01%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 19.35%
#19: Kansas (-10.72, 18.35%) at Arizona (10.72, 81.65%)
Estimated score: 23.53 - 34.28, Total: 57.81
Quality: 89.87%, Team quality: 94.32%, Competitiveness: 81.60%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.28%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.91%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 39.13%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 32.15%
#20: Southern Miss (5.77, 68.63%) at Arkansas State (-5.77, 31.37%)
Estimated score: 26.86 - 20.94, Total: 47.80
Quality: 89.53%, Team quality: 87.19%, Competitiveness: 94.40%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.21%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 39.98%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 30.06%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 41.42%
#21: Jacksonville State (0.55, 51.85%) at UTEP (-0.55, 48.15%)
Estimated score: 24.74 - 23.97, Total: 48.71
Quality: 89.26%, Team quality: 84.36%, Competitiveness: 99.95%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.17%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 44.36%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 30.85%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 40.54%
#22: Georgia Southern (-2.06, 43.11%) at App State (2.06, 56.89%)
Estimated score: 31.91 - 33.96, Total: 65.87
Quality: 88.98%, Team quality: 84.24%, Competitiveness: 99.27%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.29%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 43.81%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 46.93%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 25.39%
#23: Tulsa (1.36, 54.54%) at Florida Atlantic (-1.36, 45.46%)
Estimated score: 33.16 - 31.99, Total: 65.15
Quality: 88.88%, Team quality: 83.92%, Competitiveness: 99.69%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.22%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 44.15%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 46.22%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 25.96%
#24: Texas State (5.10, 66.59%) at Louisiana (-5.10, 33.41%)
Estimated score: 36.27 - 31.05, Total: 67.32
Quality: 88.86%, Team quality: 85.66%, Competitiveness: 95.62%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.97%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.92%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 48.35%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 24.26%
#25: Missouri State (-5.17, 33.17%) at Liberty (5.17, 66.83%)
Estimated score: 21.08 - 26.15, Total: 47.23
Quality: 88.79%, Team quality: 85.62%, Competitiveness: 95.48%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.99%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.82%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 29.57%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 41.97%
#26: Wake Forest (-11.43, 16.81%) at Virginia (11.43, 83.19%)
Estimated score: 18.47 - 29.83, Total: 48.31
Quality: 88.73%, Team quality: 93.87%, Competitiveness: 79.29%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.94%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.41%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 30.50%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 40.93%
#27: Nebraska (11.48, 83.29%) at UCLA (-11.48, 16.71%)
Estimated score: 32.28 - 20.92, Total: 53.20
Quality: 88.65%, Team quality: 93.82%, Competitiveness: 79.13%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.99%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.31%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 34.85%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 36.32%
#28: UAB (-0.56, 48.13%) at Rice (0.56, 51.87%)
Estimated score: 29.72 - 29.98, Total: 59.70
Quality: 87.31%, Team quality: 81.61%, Competitiveness: 99.95%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.17%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 44.36%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 40.93%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 30.50%
#29: Florida State (13.26, 86.76%) at Clemson (-13.26, 13.24%)
Estimated score: 36.60 - 22.99, Total: 59.59
Quality: 87.24%, Team quality: 95.40%, Competitiveness: 72.95%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.96%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.51%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 40.83%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 30.59%
#30: Florida International (0.26, 50.87%) at Middle Tennessee (-0.26, 49.13%)
Estimated score: 20.59 - 20.27, Total: 40.85
Quality: 86.60%, Team quality: 80.59%, Competitiveness: 99.99%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.16%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 44.40%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 24.39%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 48.18%
#31: Bowling Green (5.29, 67.17%) at Eastern Michigan (-5.29, 32.83%)
Estimated score: 27.97 - 22.65, Total: 50.62
Quality: 85.81%, Team quality: 81.43%, Competitiveness: 95.29%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.03%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.67%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 32.53%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 38.73%
#32: San Diego State (12.85, 86.02%) at Hawai’i (-12.85, 13.98%)
Estimated score: 30.09 - 17.36, Total: 47.45
Quality: 85.29%, Team quality: 91.32%, Competitiveness: 74.41%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.47%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.38%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 29.76%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 41.75%
#33: James Madison (12.86, 86.04%) at Marshall (-12.86, 13.96%)
Estimated score: 37.43 - 24.51, Total: 61.94
Quality: 85.22%, Team quality: 91.22%, Competitiveness: 74.36%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.49%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.36%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 43.09%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 28.59%
#34: Kent State (-3.08, 39.77%) at Ball State (3.08, 60.23%)
Estimated score: 28.67 - 31.63, Total: 60.30
Quality: 84.98%, Team quality: 78.99%, Competitiveness: 98.38%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 1.45%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 43.09%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 41.51%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 29.98%
#35: SMU (13.16, 86.58%) at Boston College (-13.16, 13.42%)
Estimated score: 34.69 - 21.53, Total: 56.21
Quality: 84.61%, Team quality: 90.89%, Competitiveness: 73.32%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.84%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.73%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 37.63%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 33.57%
#36: Kennesaw State (13.30, 86.84%) at New Mexico State (-13.30, 13.16%)
Estimated score: 31.10 - 17.86, Total: 48.96
Quality: 81.30%, Team quality: 85.93%, Competitiveness: 72.79%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.02%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.42%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 31.07%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 40.30%
#37: Georgia State (-11.49, 16.69%) at Coastal Carolina (11.49, 83.31%)
Estimated score: 20.75 - 32.17, Total: 52.91
Quality: 79.50%, Team quality: 79.70%, Competitiveness: 79.11%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.99%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.29%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 34.59%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 36.58%
#38: UTSA (-17.55, 6.99%) at South Florida (17.55, 93.01%)
Estimated score: 24.42 - 41.88, Total: 66.30
Quality: 79.21%, Team quality: 93.69%, Competitiveness: 56.62%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 14.75%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 16.80%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 47.34%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 25.05%
#39: Louisiana Tech (15.34, 90.15%) at Delaware (-15.34, 9.85%)
Estimated score: 34.90 - 19.35, Total: 54.25
Quality: 79.19%, Team quality: 87.29%, Competitiveness: 65.18%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.88%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.14%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 35.81%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 35.35%
#40: Washington (17.97, 93.47%) at Wisconsin (-17.97, 6.53%)
Estimated score: 32.99 - 14.99, Total: 47.98
Quality: 79.05%, Team quality: 94.80%, Competitiveness: 54.97%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.59%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 16.01%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 30.22%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 41.24%
#41: Nevada (-15.25, 9.98%) at Utah State (15.25, 90.02%)
Estimated score: 16.30 - 31.36, Total: 47.66
Quality: 78.36%, Team quality: 85.70%, Competitiveness: 65.52%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.74%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.32%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 29.94%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 41.55%
#42: Northwestern (-21.07, 3.81%) at USC (21.07, 96.19%)
Estimated score: 11.82 - 32.89, Total: 44.71
Quality: 73.15%, Team quality: 95.29%, Competitiveness: 43.10%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 22.64%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 10.91%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 27.47%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 44.41%
#43: Massachusetts (-14.89, 10.52%) at Akron (14.89, 89.48%)
Estimated score: 15.18 - 30.09, Total: 45.27
Quality: 71.61%, Team quality: 74.08%, Competitiveness: 66.91%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.19%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 22.07%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 27.93%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 43.86%
#44: California (-21.41, 3.59%) at Louisville (21.41, 96.41%)
Estimated score: 15.92 - 37.36, Total: 53.28
Quality: 70.75%, Team quality: 91.97%, Competitiveness: 41.87%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 23.49%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 10.43%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 34.92%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 36.25%
#45: Northern Illinois (-21.42, 3.58%) at Toledo (21.42, 96.42%)
Estimated score: 7.84 - 29.13, Total: 36.97
Quality: 68.17%, Team quality: 87.02%, Competitiveness: 41.83%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 23.52%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 10.42%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 21.49%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 52.00%
#46: Indiana (24.64, 98.09%) at Penn State (-24.64, 1.91%)
Estimated score: 44.29 - 19.71, Total: 64.00
Quality: 66.39%, Team quality: 97.66%, Competitiveness: 30.68%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 32.60%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 6.50%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 45.10%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 26.89%
#47: Sam Houston (-21.70, 3.40%) at Oregon State (21.70, 96.60%)
Estimated score: 17.97 - 39.51, Total: 57.48
Quality: 63.62%, Team quality: 79.42%, Competitiveness: 40.82%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 24.24%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 10.03%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 38.83%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 32.43%
#48: Syracuse (-30.45, 0.52%) at Miami (30.45, 99.48%)
Estimated score: 5.84 - 36.38, Total: 42.22
Quality: 50.84%, Team quality: 92.96%, Competitiveness: 15.21%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 51.52%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 2.34%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 25.46%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 46.83%
#49: Ohio State (32.10, 99.65%) at Purdue (-32.10, 0.35%)
Estimated score: 35.57 - 3.43, Total: 39.00
Quality: 47.93%, Team quality: 95.63%, Competitiveness: 12.04%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 57.00%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 1.69%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 22.99%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 50.00%
#50: Navy (-33.84, 0.22%) at Notre Dame (33.84, 99.78%)
Estimated score: 8.92 - 42.83, Total: 51.74
Quality: 43.21%, Team quality: 93.43%, Competitiveness: 9.25%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 62.65%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 1.17%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 33.53%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 37.67%
#51: Charlotte (-37.11, 0.09%) at East Carolina (37.11, 99.91%)
Estimated score: 5.08 - 42.13, Total: 47.21
Quality: 33.66%, Team quality: 84.41%, Competitiveness: 5.35%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 72.51%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.56%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 29.56%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 41.98%
#52: The Citadel (-53.69, 0.00%) at Ole Miss (53.69, 100.00%)
Estimated score: 0.21 - 53.98, Total: 54.19
Quality: 9.26%, Team quality: 81.48%, Competitiveness: 0.12%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 97.68%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.00%
High scoring probability (total >= 69.0 pts): 35.75%
Low scoring probability (total <= 39.0 pts): 35.41%Thanks for reading!
The ratings in this article are based on data from collegefootballdata.com.