Week 4 College Football Ratings and Predictions
What happens if I rate teams based only on games from the current season?
If you've read many of my previous articles about rating college football teams, you might be really tired of me talking about how to weight the impact of last season's games in my ratings. I'm not interested in giving hot takes on sports or sports betting, but I am interested in the science of objectively rating teams and players, and in predicting the future. This is one of the biggest factors in the accuracy of early season team ratings and game predictions.
I worked for over a decade in meteorology, though I'm not currently active in that field. The essence of being a meteorologist is forecasting the weather, and meteorologists are judged on how accurate our forecasts are. Much of my time in the field was spent trying to improve short-term forecasts of high-impact weather and developing better techniques to make these forecasts. This sort of work often involves running multiple forecasting systems at the same time and testing which one produces better forecasts. Just like I predict the probability of which team will win a game, you'll often hear meteorologists give forecasts like a 60% chance of rain.
In reality, either it rains or it doesn't, but you're probably more likely to anticipate rain if the meteorologist says there's an 80% chance than if there's a 30% chance. If our forecasts are accurate, it should rain a lot more often on days where we say the chance is 80% than when we give a 30% probability of rain. In meteorology, we use something called a Brier Score to evaluate how well our forecasts are performing, and I plan to apply that same approach a bit later in the season to my game predictions.
So far during the season, I've given two sets of predictions, one that weights 2025 games a smaller amount, and an alternative set of ratings that give more weight to 2025 games. Running these two systems in parallel allows me to compare their accuracy in predicting the outcome of future games. However, because the teams in FBS are connected at this point, it’s also possible to rate all the FBS teams just on this season's games. Quite a few lower division teams aren't yet connected, but it's sufficient to give a rating for the FBS.
In the original ratings, each prior season game is weighted at 60% of the weight given to 2025 games. For a team that played 13 games last season and three games this season, it means that 2025 is responsible for roughly 27.78% of the team's rating while last season accounts for the remaining 72.22%. These numbers are, of course, approximate and may vary from team to team. I contrast, the alternative ratings give just 12% weight to each game from last season, meaning that 2025 games now decide 65.79% of that team's rating while the remaining 34.21% comes from last season's games. For this week, I'm adding another set of ratings that are 100% based on games from 2025.
The Ratings
I'll post another article with the full alternative ratings, but here are the original ratings in their entirety. Full game predictions based on these ratings will be posted at the end of the article.
Overall Ratings
Home advantage: 2.66 points
Mean score: 26.34 points
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
1 77.72 Ohio State 36.75 41.06
2 72.68 Notre Dame 36.85 35.75
3 72.43 Oregon 39.51 32.87
4 71.70 Alabama 37.70 33.94
5 71.67 Indiana 38.97 32.57
6 71.02 Ole Miss 38.09 32.87
7 70.39 Tennessee 38.80 31.45
8 70.31 Texas 31.93 38.19
9 68.83 Penn State 33.68 35.02
10 67.22 Georgia 33.71 33.44
11 65.24 USC 36.05 29.13
12 63.78 Miami 37.67 26.12
13 63.39 BYU 30.63 32.76
14 62.64 Louisville 34.77 27.69
15 61.82 LSU 28.82 32.91
16 61.81 South Carolina 28.25 33.42
17 61.41 Texas A&M 32.41 28.96
18 61.22 Missouri 30.54 30.80
19 60.59 Michigan 26.07 34.44
20 60.27 Arizona State 30.12 30.06
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
21 60.21 Iowa State 28.51 31.80
22 59.96 Vanderbilt 29.70 30.34
23 59.89 Oklahoma 26.43 33.26
24 59.36 Florida 27.25 32.15
25 59.02 Illinois 27.15 31.53
26 59.02 Utah 26.91 32.11
27 58.95 Auburn 26.51 32.40
28 58.58 Nebraska 26.59 31.93
29 58.40 Arkansas 30.48 27.92
30 57.79 SMU 30.83 26.85
31 57.53 TCU 30.56 26.97
32 57.21 Baylor 33.97 23.21
33 57.17 Clemson 29.20 27.88
34 57.15 Iowa 25.87 31.32
35 56.45 Tulane 29.02 27.40
36 56.27 Minnesota 24.29 31.98
37 56.25 Colorado 27.92 28.38
38 55.93 Kansas 29.27 26.75
39 55.48 Washington 26.18 29.18
40 55.26 Georgia Tech 27.47 27.78
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
41 54.52 UCF 29.11 25.17
42 53.96 Kansas State 27.64 26.21
43 52.92 Texas Tech 34.31 18.44
44 52.37 Army 22.74 29.62
45 52.28 Cincinnati 25.29 26.92
46 52.22 Wisconsin 22.33 29.90
47 51.97 Kentucky 22.36 29.60
48 51.81 Boise State 27.84 23.89
49 51.56 Memphis 26.76 24.51
50 51.49 Virginia Tech 24.70 26.71
51 51.22 Pittsburgh 28.73 22.55
52 51.18 Rutgers 30.11 21.05
53 50.78 UNLV 28.33 22.45
54 50.38 Syracuse 30.12 19.98
55 50.29 Boston College 26.89 23.24
56 50.08 Houston 18.24 31.74
57 49.39 Mississippi State 27.33 22.12
58 49.14 Old Dominion 25.72 23.33
59 48.52 California 20.13 28.45
60 48.44 Navy 25.20 22.95
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
61 48.01 Maryland 24.22 23.72
62 47.88 Florida State 21.20 26.63
63 47.77 Texas State 27.98 19.48
64 47.61 Arizona 22.44 25.05
65 47.07 West Virginia 24.77 22.41
66 46.77 North Texas 29.13 17.64
67 46.68 James Madison 21.73 24.95
68 46.65 Duke 23.96 22.64
69 46.18 Virginia 23.35 22.82
70 45.72 Ohio 19.02 26.59
71 45.64 South Florida 23.28 22.38
72 45.54 Toledo 23.52 21.97
73 44.76 East Carolina 22.42 22.23
74 44.73 North Carolina 23.79 20.82
75 44.45 NC State 24.66 19.96
76 43.60 UCLA 17.75 25.84
77 43.57 Michigan State 19.05 24.61
78 43.54 Northwestern 15.80 27.57
79 43.51 Marshall 21.24 22.20
80 42.95 Jacksonville State 25.26 17.58
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
81 42.91 UTSA 26.23 16.51
82 42.69 UConn 23.05 19.39
83 42.09 South Alabama 24.01 18.01
84 41.21 Fresno State 21.07 20.09
85 40.88 Oklahoma State 23.16 17.78
86 40.79 Western Kentucky 20.86 19.79
87 40.19 Miami (OH) 15.40 24.79
88 39.99 Washington State 22.60 17.09
89 39.89 Stanford 18.92 20.98
90 39.55 Bowling Green 16.73 22.82
91 39.14 Northern Illinois 12.89 26.25
92 38.21 Louisiana 18.72 19.36
93 37.81 New Mexico 25.74 11.89
94 37.80 Louisiana Tech 13.73 24.20
95 37.25 Georgia Southern 21.05 16.30
96 36.55 Wake Forest 17.32 19.27
97 36.33 San José State 18.29 17.96
98 36.02 Purdue 17.55 18.42
99 35.97 Utah State 25.28 10.50
100 35.87 Sam Houston 16.30 19.27
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
101 35.73 Florida International 16.33 19.42
102 34.35 Rice 14.55 19.79
103 34.28 Troy 16.62 17.70
104 34.21 Buffalo 18.03 16.24
105 34.16 Liberty 15.26 18.89
106 33.12 Wyoming 10.72 22.48
107 33.00 Arkansas State 19.05 13.79
108 32.88 Colorado State 16.30 16.53
109 32.43 Air Force 12.86 19.50
110 32.18 Hawai'i 12.28 19.83
111 31.95 Oregon State 16.22 15.79
112 31.94 Florida Atlantic 18.32 13.19
113 31.65 Western Michigan 17.32 14.36
114 31.60 App State 16.26 15.33
115 31.53 Nevada 13.10 18.44
116 31.41 Temple 15.87 15.46
117 30.15 San Diego State 12.70 17.46
118 29.86 UTEP 13.68 16.27
119 29.61 UAB 20.92 8.62
120 29.59 Missouri State 18.29 11.34
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
121 28.71 UL Monroe 13.18 15.49
122 28.38 Charlotte 13.49 14.88
123 28.24 Coastal Carolina 14.12 14.26
124 28.11 Georgia State 15.37 12.68
125 27.94 Delaware 16.15 11.82
126 27.48 Central Michigan 14.74 12.73
127 26.44 Eastern Michigan 15.75 10.69
128 23.64 Southern Miss 12.09 11.56
129 23.39 Akron 10.73 12.57
130 23.03 Kennesaw State 8.10 14.97
131 22.93 Ball State 15.90 6.96
132 22.62 Tulsa 13.91 8.64
133 21.78 Middle Tennessee 10.53 11.50
134 20.93 New Mexico State 9.90 11.03
135 18.86 Massachusetts 12.36 6.50
136 10.02 Kent State 7.15 2.65 The game predictions at the end of this article rank South Carolina-Missouri as the most compelling game of the weekend with Michigan-Nebraska second on the list. Although Missouri has been impressive this season, South Carolina's win over Virginia Tech doesn't seem all that impressive now, and then they lost 31-7 to Vanderbilt two weeks later. Last season, South Carolina had an impressive rating despite a 3-3 start, then justified their rating by winning six straight games to close the regular season. If playoff bids were decided on the 12 best teams rather than those most deserving based on their prior resume, there was a case that South Carolina belonged on the playoff bubble. The original ratings give a lot of weight to 2025 games, and that's inflating South Carolina's rating right now. By comparison, the alternative ratings favor Missouri by 11.76 points, and ESPN's FPI supports Missouri being favored by 10 or 11 points. The alternative ratings are probably a better measure of South Carolina’s quality right now. They looked somewhat vulnerable in their first two games, then got trounced by Vanderbilt.
Both my original and alternative ratings put Michigan fairly close to their position in the polls. Bill Connelly's SP+ has Michigan at #18, so there's some consensus about them. FPI is more generous to the Wolverines, currently putting them at #10, but this seems like a bit of an outlier. On the other hand, there's less consensus about where to rate Nebraska. The Cornhuskers are unranked in both polls, my original ratings have them at #28, SP+ has them at #21, FPI puts them at #17, and my alternative ratings rank Nebraska at #15. Michigan-Nebraska appears to be a more even matchup at this point, though there is some spread in both teams’ ratings. If I rate teams only on games played in 2025, Nebraska ranks even higher, though I’m skeptical of how accurately this actually reflects their quality.
Indiana-Illinois is another very good matchup that wouldn’t have seemed as compelling just a few weeks ago. Indiana didn't fare well in a lot of preseason ratings based on the expectation being that they didn't have the returning players to repeat last season's success. However, the Hoosiers have been fairly impressive against weaker competition so far, and they've surged up the ratings. FPI has them at #16, Jeff Sagarin's pure points ratings rank them at #15, and SP+ puts the Hoosiers at #13. By comparison, Illinois is highly rated in the polls, but is generally rated below Indiana in the computer ratings. Indiana-Illinois is a very compelling matchup this weekend.
The other big matchup I'm following this weekend as a test of the ratings is Texas Tech-Utah. My original ratings have Utah at #26 while the alternative ratings lift them all the way to #12. Sagarin's predictor puts them at #28, FPI at #18, and SP+ ranks Utah at #15. There's some spread in the ratings, but they've played a strong enough schedule to be confident that the Utes are pretty good.
Texas Tech is an unknown, playing one of the weakest schedules in the FBS. The FPI strength of schedule puts Texas Tech last in all of the FBS, meaning that they haven't been tested. SP+ puts the Red Raiders at #12, but there's also a lot of offseason adjustments based on returning production and the expected quality of incoming players. Some video game simulations of the season projected Texas Tech as having a good chance of winning the Big 12. FPI has them at #26, and Sagarin's pure points rating puts Texas Tech at #30. My original ratings have the Red Raiders at #43, and they're actually #48 in the alternative ratings. They've won easily against lesser competition, but they just haven't been tested at all. This game is intriguing to me because it’s the first time Texas Tech will play against a reasonably comparable opponent, and it's quite a tough matchup playing at Utah. There was no shortage of preseason hype about Texas Tech, but we'll have a much better idea if that hype is justified after this weekend.
2025-Only Ratings
These ratings are based solely on 2025 games. The algorithm is exactly the same as my other ratings, just without any 2024 games to influence the ratings.
Overall Ratings
Home advantage: 2.07 points
Mean score: 26.53 points
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
1 87.61 Florida State 42.53 45.17
2 75.24 Alabama 40.28 35.18
3 70.87 Oregon 43.22 27.39
4 69.22 Illinois 32.97 36.31
5 68.70 Indiana 35.21 33.72
6 65.38 BYU 37.37 28.30
7 62.36 Nebraska 36.99 25.24
8 61.19 USC 45.29 16.00
9 60.98 Georgia 27.02 34.04
10 59.34 Tennessee 47.05 12.36
11 58.02 Oklahoma 17.31 40.73
12 55.89 Penn State 36.85 18.81
13 55.34 Ole Miss 36.09 19.48
14 54.31 Cincinnati 23.79 30.41
15 53.49 Miami 22.50 30.99
16 52.87 North Texas 42.53 10.32
17 52.79 LSU 16.92 35.97
18 52.22 Utah 27.72 24.53
19 51.38 Toledo 28.54 22.85
20 51.17 Missouri 37.34 13.97
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
21 50.83 Michigan 30.72 20.06
22 50.07 Old Dominion 25.60 24.40
23 48.77 Notre Dame 31.24 17.70
24 48.44 Texas A&M 28.76 19.74
25 48.25 Wisconsin 21.15 26.98
26 48.17 Ohio State 20.85 27.29
27 47.85 Tulane 21.30 26.55
28 47.20 Arkansas 24.56 22.57
29 46.51 Georgia Tech 23.95 22.67
30 46.47 Auburn 14.77 31.85
31 46.23 East Carolina 20.11 26.19
32 46.05 Vanderbilt 23.89 22.13
33 45.09 Louisiana Tech 22.31 22.68
34 44.75 Kentucky 17.30 27.27
35 44.72 NC State 26.09 18.74
36 43.92 Kansas 18.85 25.26
37 43.87 Houston 18.49 25.30
38 43.63 Arizona 14.68 28.96
39 43.41 Northwestern 12.55 31.06
40 42.76 Florida 19.14 23.63
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
41 42.57 Washington 19.54 22.93
42 42.13 Mississippi State 21.65 20.18
43 41.68 Texas Tech 26.21 15.43
44 40.84 Virginia 28.58 12.25
45 40.65 Duke 27.82 12.81
46 40.33 TCU 29.69 10.80
47 40.26 Purdue 7.38 32.76
48 39.98 Clemson 15.82 24.36
49 39.20 Arizona State 10.54 28.68
50 38.03 Michigan State 23.16 14.99
51 37.92 Louisville 28.97 9.21
52 37.75 Maryland 9.51 28.23
53 37.69 Texas 10.71 26.96
54 37.43 Rutgers 33.71 3.45
55 37.02 Army 16.38 20.79
56 36.94 Colorado 17.93 19.01
57 36.65 Memphis 15.66 20.91
58 35.29 South Florida 15.77 19.62
59 34.91 Syracuse 11.27 23.73
60 34.67 Bowling Green 11.18 23.48
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
61 34.48 Iowa State 9.92 24.69
62 34.35 Kansas State 17.81 16.46
63 34.21 UCF 9.01 25.19
64 33.80 Utah State 18.16 15.61
65 33.20 Stanford 6.32 26.91
66 32.64 Western Michigan 4.87 27.85
67 32.25 South Alabama 22.75 9.60
68 31.75 Navy 16.99 14.86
69 31.58 New Mexico 11.59 19.98
70 31.18 Fresno State 17.77 13.57
71 30.50 California 9.08 21.62
72 29.95 Ohio 9.83 20.28
73 29.69 Western Kentucky 18.56 11.19
74 29.02 Boston College 23.67 5.36
75 28.89 Wake Forest 3.51 25.45
76 28.69 South Carolina 4.04 24.55
77 28.36 Iowa 11.77 16.52
78 28.27 James Madison 2.51 25.57
79 28.14 Texas State 21.09 7.07
80 27.75 Pittsburgh 19.74 8.01
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
81 27.30 Baylor 25.50 1.83
82 26.80 West Virginia 7.29 19.58
83 26.67 SMU 14.81 11.87
84 26.63 UConn 26.03 0.32
85 26.44 Florida International 1.19 25.10
86 25.09 Air Force 19.41 5.60
87 24.04 Kennesaw State 13.30 10.63
88 24.00 UTSA 18.17 5.98
89 23.91 Minnesota 12.01 11.78
90 23.58 Jacksonville State 15.20 8.29
91 23.49 Nevada 2.68 20.64
92 23.44 Temple 17.26 6.22
93 23.14 Southern Miss 14.85 8.29
94 22.57 Marshall 12.74 9.96
95 21.83 Virginia Tech 16.24 5.78
96 21.40 Hawai'i 11.50 9.94
97 21.32 Troy 11.26 10.05
98 20.87 Delaware 6.20 14.57
99 20.84 UTEP 11.34 9.61
100 20.77 Middle Tennessee 9.77 10.97
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
101 20.68 Northern Illinois 9.87 10.94
102 20.16 Liberty 7.70 12.54
103 19.45 Tulsa 9.33 9.96
104 19.29 UNLV 11.82 7.47
105 19.10 Wyoming -0.12 19.08
106 19.01 Georgia Southern 11.45 7.46
107 18.99 Miami (OH) -4.57 23.58
108 17.71 Washington State 0.19 17.59
109 17.38 New Mexico State 4.26 13.29
110 17.18 Arkansas State 14.13 3.20
111 16.49 Boise State 10.23 6.27
112 16.10 Rice 8.25 7.85
113 16.07 Florida Atlantic 22.29 -6.15
114 15.35 North Carolina 1.29 14.07
115 14.37 Oregon State 9.10 5.27
116 14.16 UAB 17.09 -2.91
117 14.08 Colorado State 14.09 0.23
118 13.12 Ball State 11.43 1.61
119 12.47 Louisiana -3.74 16.26
120 12.22 UCLA 5.21 7.06
Rank Rating Team Offense Defense
121 12.17 Missouri State 1.59 10.53
122 10.94 App State 1.84 9.06
123 10.71 San Diego State 7.18 3.62
124 9.14 Oklahoma State 3.16 5.94
125 7.66 Sam Houston 5.53 2.14
126 7.63 Georgia State 3.92 3.71
127 7.55 Buffalo -0.31 7.87
128 6.09 Eastern Michigan 10.13 -3.97
129 4.90 Akron -3.88 8.78
130 2.26 Coastal Carolina -10.43 12.80
131 2.18 Kent State 6.77 -4.63
132 -1.05 Central Michigan -2.47 1.55
133 -1.28 San José State -4.44 3.28
134 -5.67 Charlotte -4.00 -1.83
135 -7.48 Massachusetts -2.81 -4.46
136 -14.38 UL Monroe -14.58 0.09 There's a much larger spread in the ratings from top to bottom, and the actual numbers aren't directly comparable to the original and alternative ratings. This is because the average rating for the teams across all divisions is always zero, and a lot of lower division teams just couldn't be rated because they're not yet connected to the FBS teams. That tends to skew the ratings. Instead of focusing on the raw numbers, I'm more interested in how the teams moved up and down in these ratings. Here's a comparison of the three ratings:
Overall Ratings
Rank Rating Team Alternative Only 2025
1 77.72 Ohio State 74.37 (2) 48.17 (26)
2 72.68 Notre Dame 67.36 (7) 48.77 (23)
3 72.43 Oregon 75.91 (1) 70.87 (3)
4 71.70 Alabama 70.39 (4) 75.24 (2)
5 71.67 Indiana 71.49 (3) 68.70 (5)
6 71.02 Ole Miss 67.23 (8) 55.34 (13)
7 70.39 Tennessee 68.79 (5) 59.34 (10)
8 70.31 Texas 63.87 (13) 37.69 (53)
9 68.83 Penn State 64.38 (11) 55.89 (12)
10 67.22 Georgia 65.93 (9) 60.98 (9)
11 65.24 USC 68.07 (6) 61.19 (8)
12 63.78 Miami 63.39 (14) 53.49 (15)
13 63.39 BYU 64.68 (10) 65.38 (6)
14 62.64 Louisville 56.90 (26) 37.92 (51)
15 61.82 LSU 59.97 (23) 52.79 (17)
16 61.81 South Carolina 52.60 (36) 28.69 (76)
17 61.41 Texas A&M 61.28 (20) 48.44 (24)
18 61.22 Missouri 61.61 (19) 51.17 (20)
19 60.59 Michigan 61.64 (18) 50.83 (21)
20 60.27 Arizona State 54.70 (31) 39.20 (49)
Rank Rating Team Alternative Only 2025
21 60.21 Iowa State 54.63 (32) 34.48 (61)
22 59.96 Vanderbilt 61.12 (21) 46.05 (32)
23 59.89 Oklahoma 62.30 (16) 58.02 (11)
24 59.36 Florida 55.63 (29) 42.76 (40)
25 59.02 Illinois 61.90 (17) 69.22 (4)
26 59.02 Utah 64.12 (12) 52.22 (18)
27 58.95 Auburn 57.74 (25) 46.47 (30)
28 58.58 Nebraska 63.09 (15) 62.36 (7)
29 58.40 Arkansas 59.58 (24) 47.20 (28)
30 57.79 SMU 47.84 (57) 26.67 (83)
31 57.53 TCU 56.89 (27) 40.33 (46)
32 57.21 Baylor 48.35 (54) 27.30 (81)
33 57.17 Clemson 51.05 (45) 39.98 (48)
34 57.15 Iowa 47.98 (56) 28.36 (77)
35 56.45 Tulane 52.58 (37) 47.85 (27)
36 56.27 Minnesota 48.71 (53) 23.91 (89)
37 56.25 Colorado 49.19 (50) 36.94 (56)
38 55.93 Kansas 52.25 (38) 43.92 (36)
39 55.48 Washington 56.62 (28) 42.57 (41)
40 55.26 Georgia Tech 54.89 (30) 46.51 (29)
Rank Rating Team Alternative Only 2025
41 54.52 UCF 51.83 (40) 34.21 (63)
42 53.96 Kansas State 47.03 (61) 34.35 (62)
43 52.92 Texas Tech 50.36 (48) 41.68 (43)
44 52.37 Army 48.33 (55) 37.02 (55)
45 52.28 Cincinnati 54.22 (33) 54.31 (14)
46 52.22 Wisconsin 50.35 (49) 48.25 (25)
47 51.97 Kentucky 51.10 (43) 44.75 (34)
48 51.81 Boise State 43.71 (71) 16.49 (111)
49 51.56 Memphis 50.54 (47) 36.65 (57)
50 51.49 Virginia Tech 42.48 (75) 21.83 (95)
51 51.22 Pittsburgh 48.72 (52) 27.75 (80)
52 51.18 Rutgers 50.60 (46) 37.43 (54)
53 50.78 UNLV 42.09 (79) 19.29 (104)
54 50.38 Syracuse 47.40 (59) 34.91 (59)
55 50.29 Boston College 44.27 (69) 29.02 (74)
56 50.08 Houston 52.16 (39) 43.87 (37)
57 49.39 Mississippi State 51.07 (44) 42.13 (42)
58 49.14 Old Dominion 53.57 (34) 50.07 (22)
59 48.52 California 45.72 (63) 30.50 (71)
60 48.44 Navy 44.31 (68) 31.75 (68)
Rank Rating Team Alternative Only 2025
61 48.01 Maryland 47.42 (58) 37.75 (52)
62 47.88 Florida State 61.08 (22) 87.61 (1)
63 47.77 Texas State 44.44 (67) 28.14 (79)
64 47.61 Arizona 51.68 (41) 43.63 (38)
65 47.07 West Virginia 43.22 (73) 26.80 (82)
66 46.77 North Texas 53.12 (35) 52.87 (16)
67 46.68 James Madison 44.63 (66) 28.27 (78)
68 46.65 Duke 43.11 (74) 40.65 (45)
69 46.18 Virginia 44.65 (65) 40.84 (44)
70 45.72 Ohio 46.29 (62) 29.95 (72)
71 45.64 South Florida 49.06 (51) 35.29 (58)
72 45.54 Toledo 51.38 (42) 51.38 (19)
73 44.76 East Carolina 47.15 (60) 46.23 (31)
74 44.73 North Carolina 38.57 (87) 15.35 (114)
75 44.45 NC State 45.32 (64) 44.72 (35)
76 43.60 UCLA 33.88 (97) 12.22 (120)
77 43.57 Michigan State 42.26 (77) 38.03 (50)
78 43.54 Northwestern 43.59 (72) 43.41 (39)
79 43.51 Marshall 36.31 (90) 22.57 (94)
80 42.95 Jacksonville State 39.37 (86) 23.58 (90)
Rank Rating Team Alternative Only 2025
81 42.91 UTSA 42.04 (80) 24.00 (88)
82 42.69 UConn 39.79 (83) 26.63 (84)
83 42.09 South Alabama 38.47 (88) 32.25 (67)
84 41.21 Fresno State 39.74 (84) 31.18 (70)
85 40.88 Oklahoma State 31.31 (104) 9.14 (124)
86 40.79 Western Kentucky 42.26 (76) 29.69 (73)
87 40.19 Miami (OH) 35.11 (92) 18.99 (107)
88 39.99 Washington State 31.82 (102) 17.71 (108)
89 39.89 Stanford 39.53 (85) 33.20 (65)
90 39.55 Bowling Green 38.01 (89) 34.67 (60)
91 39.14 Northern Illinois 34.34 (94) 20.68 (101)
92 38.21 Louisiana 30.42 (109) 12.47 (119)
93 37.81 New Mexico 41.72 (81) 31.58 (69)
94 37.80 Louisiana Tech 43.77 (70) 45.09 (33)
95 37.25 Georgia Southern 31.84 (101) 19.01 (106)
96 36.55 Wake Forest 33.21 (98) 28.89 (75)
97 36.33 San José State 30.41 (110) -1.28 (133)
98 36.02 Purdue 42.14 (78) 40.26 (47)
99 35.97 Utah State 39.96 (82) 33.80 (64)
100 35.87 Sam Houston 28.27 (115) 7.66 (125)
Rank Rating Team Alternative Only 2025
101 35.73 Florida International 35.59 (91) 26.44 (85)
102 34.35 Rice 29.32 (112) 16.10 (112)
103 34.28 Troy 32.32 (100) 21.32 (97)
104 34.21 Buffalo 30.28 (111) 7.55 (127)
105 34.16 Liberty 30.96 (106) 20.16 (102)
106 33.12 Wyoming 34.62 (93) 19.10 (105)
107 33.00 Arkansas State 31.09 (105) 17.18 (110)
108 32.88 Colorado State 29.11 (113) 14.08 (117)
109 32.43 Air Force 31.58 (103) 25.09 (86)
110 32.18 Hawai'i 30.81 (107) 21.40 (96)
111 31.95 Oregon State 26.92 (119) 14.37 (115)
112 31.94 Florida Atlantic 30.45 (108) 16.07 (113)
113 31.65 Western Michigan 32.97 (99) 32.64 (66)
114 31.60 App State 26.03 (122) 10.94 (122)
115 31.53 Nevada 26.14 (121) 23.49 (91)
116 31.41 Temple 34.14 (96) 23.44 (92)
117 30.15 San Diego State 28.46 (114) 10.71 (123)
118 29.86 UTEP 34.22 (95) 20.84 (99)
119 29.61 UAB 24.70 (124) 14.16 (116)
120 29.59 Missouri State 26.99 (118) 12.17 (121)
Rank Rating Team Alternative Only 2025
121 28.71 UL Monroe 18.38 (132) -14.38 (136)
122 28.38 Charlotte 19.71 (131) -5.67 (134)
123 28.24 Coastal Carolina 17.89 (133) 2.26 (130)
124 28.11 Georgia State 21.11 (128) 7.63 (126)
125 27.94 Delaware 27.38 (117) 20.87 (98)
126 27.48 Central Michigan 23.43 (125) -1.05 (132)
127 26.44 Eastern Michigan 20.81 (130) 6.09 (128)
128 23.64 Southern Miss 28.24 (116) 23.14 (93)
129 23.39 Akron 17.79 (134) 4.90 (129)
130 23.03 Kennesaw State 25.36 (123) 24.04 (87)
131 22.93 Ball State 20.93 (129) 13.12 (118)
132 22.62 Tulsa 26.84 (120) 19.45 (103)
133 21.78 Middle Tennessee 21.70 (127) 20.77 (100)
134 20.93 New Mexico State 22.11 (126) 17.38 (109)
135 18.86 Massachusetts 10.47 (135) -7.48 (135)
136 10.02 Kent State 10.35 (136) 2.18 (131) You might have noticed there are some teams I didn't mention at all in my previous discussion, three in particular: Florida State, Boise State, and South Florida. After getting defeated easily by Miami, we have a much better idea of the strength of South Florida. The Bulls appear to be an average to slightly above-average FBS team, and there's actually pretty good consensus in the ratings. The 2025-only ratings have the Bulls at #58, between the original ratings where they're #71 and the alternative ratings at #51. This seems to be roughly where other computer ratings put the Bulls, and it seems reasonable.
My original ratings are on the high end of rankings for Boise State, putting them at #48. Although they never rated the Broncos in the top tier of FBS teams last season, they were a good team, and my ratings reflected that. This is still influencing the original ratings heavily despite despite the loss to South Florida. The alternative ratings drop them to #71. They're #61 in SP+ and FPI, and Sagarin's predictor puts the Broncos at #56. But they've played just two games, a loss to South Florida, and a win over Eastern Washington that was well below the margin of victory predicted by my ratings. If we use just the two games from 2025, the Broncos plummet all the way to #111. Although I don't believe Boise State is as strong as they've been in previous seasons, #111 seems far too low. Although all the FBS teams are connected at this point, it doesn't mean enough games have been played to accurately rank them just on this season.
And then there's the new #1 at the top of these ratings: the Florida State Seminoles. I criticized the polls for overreacting, and both of the major polls now have them in the top 10. Florida State won convincingly against a good Alabama team, then they were very impressive against East Texas A&M from the FCS. Florida State is #21 in FPI, #33 in SP+, #32 in Sagarin's pure points ratings, #62 in my original ratings, and #22 in my alternative ratings. Treating my original ratings as an outlier here, the computers put the Seminoles somewhere in the vicinity of #25. Florida State won 14 points over Alabama in the opening weekend of the season, and my 2025-only ratings would pick Florida State by roughly two touchdowns if they played again in Tallahassee. That doesn’t seem unreasonable based on the game that was already played between the two teams. But the 2025-only ratings also put Alabama at #2, meaning that Florida State would be favored by even larger margins over every other team in the country. But this all based on two games played by Florida State, which really isn’t enough to show how highly they should be ranked.
There are a lot of other surprising rankings using only 2025 games. For example, Nebraska is #7, as I mentioned earlier. These ratings aren't that impressed with Ohio State, putting the Buckeyes at #26. Texas lost by a touchdown to the Buckeyes in the opening game and is ranked all the way down at #53. According to these ratings, the best team in the state of Texas is North Texas, putting the Mean Green at #16, a rating that seems too high. Although a lot of teams in the 2025-only ratings seem reasonable or at least somewhat close to other computer ratings, there just haven't been enough games yet this season to know where to rank some teams that have had unexpectedly strong or weak performances early in the season. The 2025-only ratings are very interesting at this point, but it's also just too early in the season to know yet if these trends will hold up. In the case of Ohio State and Texas, I find it hard to believe they belong at #26 and #53, respectively.
Game Predictions
As always, 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: South Carolina (-2.08, 43.70%) at Missouri (2.08, 56.30%)
Estimated score: 22.46 - 24.79, Total: 47.25
Quality: 97.80%, Team quality: 97.05%, Competitiveness: 99.31%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.39%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.18%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 30.30%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.96%
#2: Michigan (-0.65, 48.02%) at Nebraska (0.65, 51.98%)
Estimated score: 19.14 - 19.83, Total: 38.97
Quality: 97.72%, Team quality: 96.64%, Competitiveness: 99.93%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.24%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.60%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 22.86%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 48.94%
#3: Arizona State (0.40, 51.20%) at Baylor (-0.40, 48.80%)
Estimated score: 31.92 - 31.58, Total: 63.50
Quality: 97.60%, Team quality: 96.44%, Competitiveness: 99.97%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.23%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.63%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 47.26%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 24.15%
#4: SMU (-2.41, 42.72%) at TCU (2.41, 57.28%)
Estimated score: 28.87 - 31.38, Total: 60.25
Quality: 97.12%, Team quality: 96.16%, Competitiveness: 99.07%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.44%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 40.03%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 43.72%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 27.02%
#5: Auburn (-3.60, 39.18%) at Oklahoma (3.60, 60.82%)
Estimated score: 18.26 - 21.70, Total: 39.96
Quality: 97.03%, Team quality: 96.58%, Competitiveness: 97.93%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.73%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 39.27%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 23.69%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 47.86%
#6: Iowa (3.30, 59.94%) at Rutgers (-3.30, 40.06%)
Estimated score: 29.83 - 26.46, Total: 56.29
Quality: 96.19%, Team quality: 95.17%, Competitiveness: 98.25%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.65%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 39.49%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 39.47%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 30.75%
#7: Arkansas (4.18, 62.52%) at Memphis (-4.18, 37.48%)
Estimated score: 30.98 - 26.51, Total: 57.49
Quality: 96.00%, Team quality: 95.40%, Competitiveness: 97.21%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.91%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.81%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 40.74%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.60%
#8: Florida (-7.08, 29.47%) at Miami (7.08, 70.53%)
Estimated score: 26.14 - 33.19, Total: 59.32
Quality: 95.36%, Team quality: 96.99%, Competitiveness: 92.18%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.26%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.60%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 42.71%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 27.88%
#9: Maryland (-6.87, 30.01%) at Wisconsin (6.87, 69.99%)
Estimated score: 19.33 - 26.28, Total: 45.61
Quality: 93.34%, Team quality: 93.70%, Competitiveness: 92.61%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.14%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.87%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 28.75%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.71%
#10: NC State (-4.87, 35.53%) at Duke (4.87, 64.47%)
Estimated score: 27.03 - 31.67, Total: 58.70
Quality: 93.29%, Team quality: 91.85%, Competitiveness: 96.24%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.16%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.18%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 42.04%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.46%
#11: Texas Tech (-8.77, 25.19%) at Utah (8.77, 74.81%)
Estimated score: 27.21 - 36.15, Total: 63.35
Quality: 93.05%, Team quality: 95.57%, Competitiveness: 88.21%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.43%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 33.17%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 47.10%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 24.28%
#12: North Texas (-8.26, 26.45%) at Army (8.26, 73.55%)
Estimated score: 24.52 - 32.78, Total: 57.29
Quality: 92.10%, Team quality: 93.44%, Competitiveness: 89.48%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.05%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 33.94%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 40.53%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.78%
#13: Syracuse (-9.45, 23.56%) at Clemson (9.45, 76.44%)
Estimated score: 27.25 - 36.89, Total: 64.14
Quality: 91.97%, Team quality: 94.88%, Competitiveness: 86.41%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.99%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.10%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 47.96%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 23.60%
#14: UNLV (7.92, 72.70%) at Miami (OH) (-7.92, 27.30%)
Estimated score: 28.54 - 20.62, Total: 49.17
Quality: 91.24%, Team quality: 91.71%, Competitiveness: 90.29%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.81%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 34.44%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 32.17%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 37.94%
#15: Troy (-2.59, 42.17%) at Buffalo (2.59, 57.83%)
Estimated score: 25.39 - 28.00, Total: 53.39
Quality: 89.65%, Team quality: 85.34%, Competitiveness: 98.92%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.48%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 39.93%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 36.44%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.60%
#16: Stanford (-8.95, 24.75%) at Virginia (8.95, 75.25%)
Estimated score: 21.11 - 30.04, Total: 51.15
Quality: 89.54%, Team quality: 90.46%, Competitiveness: 87.74%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.58%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.89%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 34.15%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.88%
#17: West Virginia (-11.53, 18.98%) at Kansas (11.53, 81.02%)
Estimated score: 23.02 - 34.53, Total: 57.55
Quality: 89.22%, Team quality: 94.01%, Competitiveness: 80.36%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.03%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.61%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 40.81%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.53%
#18: Fresno State (6.36, 68.61%) at Hawai'i (-6.36, 31.39%)
Estimated score: 26.25 - 19.86, Total: 46.12
Quality: 89.08%, Team quality: 86.88%, Competitiveness: 93.65%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.85%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 36.52%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 29.22%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.16%
#19: UTSA (7.37, 71.28%) at Colorado State (-7.37, 28.72%)
Estimated score: 34.71 - 27.46, Total: 62.17
Quality: 88.90%, Team quality: 87.60%, Competitiveness: 91.55%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.44%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.22%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 45.80%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 25.31%
#20: Rice (3.30, 59.94%) at Charlotte (-3.30, 40.06%)
Estimated score: 24.68 - 21.37, Total: 46.06
Quality: 87.94%, Team quality: 83.20%, Competitiveness: 98.25%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.65%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 39.49%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 29.16%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.23%
#21: James Madison (9.85, 77.36%) at Liberty (-9.85, 22.64%)
Estimated score: 27.85 - 17.98, Total: 45.83
Quality: 87.74%, Team quality: 88.98%, Competitiveness: 85.32%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.34%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.46%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 28.95%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.48%
#22: North Carolina (-12.46, 17.11%) at UCF (12.46, 82.89%)
Estimated score: 23.63 - 35.96, Total: 59.59
Quality: 87.63%, Team quality: 93.25%, Competitiveness: 77.40%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.12%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.97%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 43.00%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 27.63%
#23: Washington (12.83, 83.59%) at Washington State (-12.83, 16.41%)
Estimated score: 34.10 - 21.09, Total: 55.19
Quality: 86.67%, Team quality: 92.45%, Competitiveness: 76.19%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.58%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.31%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 38.31%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.81%
#24: UL Monroe (-3.82, 38.54%) at UTEP (3.82, 61.46%)
Estimated score: 21.91 - 25.86, Total: 47.77
Quality: 86.59%, Team quality: 81.54%, Competitiveness: 97.67%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.79%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 39.10%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 30.80%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.40%
#25: Illinois (-15.31, 12.16%) at Indiana (15.31, 87.84%)
Estimated score: 19.58 - 35.11, Total: 54.69
Quality: 86.29%, Team quality: 97.46%, Competitiveness: 67.64%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.16%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.88%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 37.79%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.31%
#26: Idaho (-8.55, 25.73%) at San José State (8.55, 74.27%)
Estimated score: 19.37 - 27.86, Total: 47.23
Quality: 85.89%, Team quality: 84.49%, Competitiveness: 88.76%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.26%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 33.51%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 30.29%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.97%
#27: Toledo (11.23, 80.40%) at Western Michigan (-11.23, 19.60%)
Estimated score: 34.17 - 23.01, Total: 57.18
Quality: 85.58%, Team quality: 87.80%, Competitiveness: 81.29%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.70%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.13%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 40.42%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.89%
#28: Northern Illinois (-12.91, 16.24%) at Mississippi State (12.91, 83.76%)
Estimated score: 15.78 - 28.75, Total: 44.53
Quality: 85.55%, Team quality: 90.83%, Competitiveness: 75.90%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.69%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.16%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 27.74%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 42.88%
#29: Louisiana (9.10, 75.61%) at Eastern Michigan (-9.10, 24.39%)
Estimated score: 33.04 - 24.06, Total: 57.10
Quality: 84.87%, Team quality: 83.66%, Competitiveness: 87.35%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.70%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.65%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 40.33%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.96%
#30: Arkansas State (7.31, 71.13%) at Kennesaw State (-7.31, 28.87%)
Estimated score: 29.09 - 21.98, Total: 51.08
Quality: 83.95%, Team quality: 80.33%, Competitiveness: 91.68%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.41%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.29%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 34.07%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.95%
#31: Nevada (-11.93, 18.16%) at Western Kentucky (11.93, 81.84%)
Estimated score: 18.32 - 30.09, Total: 48.40
Quality: 83.75%, Team quality: 86.18%, Competitiveness: 79.10%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.48%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.91%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 31.42%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.74%
#32: BYU (15.97, 88.83%) at East Carolina (-15.97, 11.17%)
Estimated score: 33.41 - 17.33, Total: 50.73
Quality: 83.60%, Team quality: 94.63%, Competitiveness: 65.25%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 14.27%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.71%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 33.73%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.31%
#33: Delaware (-10.46, 21.26%) at Florida International (10.46, 78.74%)
Estimated score: 21.74 - 32.18, Total: 53.92
Quality: 83.32%, Team quality: 83.20%, Competitiveness: 83.57%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.92%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.44%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 36.99%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.07%
#34: UT Martin (-7.72, 27.81%) at Missouri State (7.72, 72.19%)
Estimated score: 25.71 - 33.42, Total: 59.12
Quality: 83.08%, Team quality: 79.49%, Competitiveness: 90.76%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.67%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 34.73%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 42.50%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.06%
#35: Tulane (-17.23, 9.45%) at Ole Miss (17.23, 90.55%)
Estimated score: 21.16 - 38.35, Total: 59.52
Quality: 82.99%, Team quality: 97.07%, Competitiveness: 60.67%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 16.54%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 18.53%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 42.92%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 27.70%
#36: California (15.70, 88.44%) at San Diego State (-15.70, 11.56%)
Estimated score: 27.68 - 11.91, Total: 39.59
Quality: 79.96%, Team quality: 87.86%, Competitiveness: 66.21%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.81%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.18%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 23.38%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 48.26%
#37: Boise State (16.72, 89.87%) at Air Force (-16.72, 10.13%)
Estimated score: 33.34 - 16.64, Total: 49.99
Quality: 79.35%, Team quality: 89.38%, Competitiveness: 62.55%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.58%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.41%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 32.98%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 37.08%
#38: Coastal Carolina (-16.51, 10.41%) at South Alabama (16.51, 89.59%)
Estimated score: 21.12 - 37.43, Total: 58.54
Quality: 77.08%, Team quality: 85.05%, Competitiveness: 63.30%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.21%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.77%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 41.88%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.60%
#39: Southern Miss (-16.83, 9.98%) at Louisiana Tech (16.83, 90.02%)
Estimated score: 12.89 - 29.83, Total: 42.73
Quality: 74.57%, Team quality: 81.68%, Competitiveness: 62.15%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.78%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.23%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 26.10%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 44.82%
#40: Marshall (19.06, 92.69%) at Middle Tennessee (-19.06, 7.31%)
Estimated score: 34.75 - 16.01, Total: 50.76
Quality: 71.85%, Team quality: 82.89%, Competitiveness: 53.99%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 20.22%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 15.55%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 33.75%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.28%
#41: Duquesne (-14.86, 12.86%) at Akron (14.86, 87.14%)
Estimated score: 19.90 - 34.54, Total: 54.45
Quality: 69.30%, Team quality: 69.34%, Competitiveness: 69.21%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.45%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 22.67%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 37.53%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.55%
#42: Tulsa (-20.92, 5.53%) at Oklahoma State (20.92, 94.47%)
Estimated score: 21.14 - 42.18, Total: 63.32
Quality: 68.20%, Team quality: 81.93%, Competitiveness: 47.26%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 24.45%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 12.76%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 47.06%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 24.31%
#43: Michigan State (-24.33, 3.18%) at USC (24.33, 96.82%)
Estimated score: 14.93 - 39.11, Total: 54.04
Quality: 68.08%, Team quality: 94.04%, Competitiveness: 35.68%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 33.29%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 8.47%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 37.11%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.95%
#44: McNeese (-20.61, 5.81%) at Utah State (20.61, 94.19%)
Estimated score: 22.56 - 42.84, Total: 65.41
Quality: 66.52%, Team quality: 78.00%, Competitiveness: 48.38%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 23.71%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 13.21%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 49.35%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 22.54%
#45: Ball State (-22.43, 4.37%) at UConn (22.43, 95.63%)
Estimated score: 21.52 - 43.76, Total: 65.28
Quality: 65.89%, Team quality: 82.51%, Competitiveness: 42.02%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 28.19%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 10.74%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 49.21%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 22.65%
#46: Bowling Green (-25.76, 2.48%) at Louisville (25.76, 97.52%)
Estimated score: 14.05 - 39.62, Total: 53.67
Quality: 64.49%, Team quality: 92.63%, Competitiveness: 31.26%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 37.32%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 7.01%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 36.72%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.32%
#47: Wyoming (-25.80, 2.46%) at Colorado (25.80, 97.54%)
Estimated score: 7.35 - 33.11, Total: 40.46
Quality: 63.01%, Team quality: 89.64%, Competitiveness: 31.13%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 37.44%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 6.97%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 24.12%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 47.30%
#48: South Carolina State (-24.84, 2.92%) at South Florida (24.84, 97.08%)
Estimated score: 16.94 - 41.72, Total: 58.66
Quality: 61.90%, Team quality: 83.42%, Competitiveness: 34.09%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 34.69%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 7.93%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 42.00%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.49%
#49: Temple (-26.51, 2.17%) at Georgia Tech (26.51, 97.83%)
Estimated score: 13.10 - 39.69, Total: 52.79
Quality: 61.19%, Team quality: 88.80%, Competitiveness: 29.05%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 39.50%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 6.32%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 35.81%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.21%
#50: Maine (-25.12, 2.77%) at Georgia Southern (25.12, 97.23%)
Estimated score: 14.78 - 40.01, Total: 54.79
Quality: 57.83%, Team quality: 76.33%, Competitiveness: 33.19%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 35.50%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 7.64%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 37.89%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.21%
#51: Gardner-Webb (-31.17, 0.87%) at Ohio (31.17, 99.13%)
Estimated score: 9.51 - 40.56, Total: 50.07
Quality: 47.99%, Team quality: 79.77%, Competitiveness: 17.37%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 53.56%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 3.09%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 33.06%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.99%
#52: Nicholls (-33.04, 0.59%) at Texas State (33.04, 99.41%)
Estimated score: 10.62 - 43.28, Total: 53.90
Quality: 44.57%, Team quality: 80.25%, Competitiveness: 13.75%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 59.15%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 2.24%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 36.96%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.10%
#53: Georgia State (-34.51, 0.43%) at Vanderbilt (34.51, 99.57%)
Estimated score: 10.04 - 44.69, Total: 54.73
Quality: 44.32%, Team quality: 87.81%, Competitiveness: 11.29%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 63.46%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 1.72%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 37.82%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.27%
#54: Wagner (-30.60, 0.98%) at Central Michigan (30.60, 99.02%)
Estimated score: 7.48 - 38.20, Total: 45.67
Quality: 41.64%, Team quality: 62.32%, Competitiveness: 18.59%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 51.84%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 3.39%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 28.80%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.64%
#55: Sam Houston (-37.11, 0.23%) at Texas (37.11, 99.77%)
Estimated score: 3.11 - 40.33, Total: 43.44
Quality: 40.33%, Team quality: 91.86%, Competitiveness: 7.78%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 70.61%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 1.05%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 26.75%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 44.05%
#56: Purdue (-39.33, 0.14%) at Notre Dame (39.33, 99.86%)
Estimated score: 6.80 - 46.09, Total: 52.89
Quality: 36.00%, Team quality: 92.03%, Competitiveness: 5.51%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 76.15%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.67%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 35.92%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.10%
#57: Wofford (-38.92, 0.15%) at Virginia Tech (38.92, 99.85%)
Estimated score: 0.00 - 38.49, Total: 38.49
Quality: 33.36%, Team quality: 79.42%, Competitiveness: 5.88%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 75.16%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.73%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 22.46%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 49.46%
#58: Kent State (-40.52, 0.10%) at Florida State (40.52, 99.90%)
Estimated score: 5.53 - 46.22, Total: 51.75
Quality: 29.49%, Team quality: 75.22%, Competitiveness: 4.53%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 78.87%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.52%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 34.75%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.26%
#59: Oregon State (-43.14, 0.05%) at Oregon (43.14, 99.95%)
Estimated score: 8.36 - 51.39, Total: 59.75
Quality: 28.63%, Team quality: 90.38%, Competitiveness: 2.87%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 84.19%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.29%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 43.18%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 27.48%
#60: SE Louisiana (-42.48, 0.06%) at LSU (42.48, 99.94%)
Estimated score: 0.71 - 43.03, Total: 43.74
Quality: 28.54%, Team quality: 84.74%, Competitiveness: 3.24%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 82.93%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.33%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 27.01%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.73%
#61: UAB (-43.45, 0.05%) at Tennessee (43.45, 99.95%)
Estimated score: 14.47 - 57.86, Total: 72.33
Quality: 27.86%, Team quality: 89.24%, Competitiveness: 2.72%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 84.74%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.27%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 56.91%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 17.25%
#62: Murray State (-42.49, 0.06%) at Jacksonville State (42.49, 99.94%)
Estimated score: 14.12 - 56.47, Total: 70.59
Quality: 24.88%, Team quality: 69.06%, Competitiveness: 3.23%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 82.94%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.33%
High scoring probability (total >= 66.0 pts): 55.02%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 18.50%I’m a bit skeptical of some of these predictions because they probably don’t capture how a few teams have improved or fallen significantly in 2025, and they’re skewed a bit too much from last season’s games.
I’ll be posting the alternative ratings a bit later, and NFL ratings will also go out this afternoon. Thanks for reading!
This article uses data obtained from collegefootballdata.com.