Week 5 College Football Predictions with the Original Scheme
A comparison of three rating schemes and an early look at the playoff projections
A lot of my effort the past couple of days has gone into developing a system for predicting the college football playoff, so I haven’t had time to write more detailed articles about other topics. I’ve done plenty of writing, only it’s been Python code instead of articles. Because I still have one more article to post today, it means that this will be a brief article, that mostly consists of data and game predictions from the original rating system. I’ll also include a comparison of team ratings using the original ratings, alternative ratings, and if only games from 2025 influenced the ratings.
I almost exclusively use either stock photos or images from Wikipedia for the primary photos in my articles, and I selected a Penn State photo here because they’re an example of a team where there’s still a fairly big difference between ratings that heavily weight 2024 games and ratings that are influenced a lot more by games this season. In the case of Penn State, one of the big factors affecting their rating is a very weak schedule to date. Using the alternative ratings and measuring the schedule strength for an FBS team near the top of the ratings, Penn State’s schedule so far has been the weakest in the FBS. That will change this weekend when Oregon visits State College, which will be a very big test for the Nittany Lions. If Penn State wins, they should see a significant boost in the ratings that depend more heavily on 2025 games, bringing them more in line with the ratings you’ll see in this article. The original ratings have kept Penn State in the top 10 even amid the weak schedule. Along with Alabama-Georgia, the Oregon-Penn State game is a very intriguing game this weekend, and one that will almost certainly shake up the top of the ratings.
Updated Ratings
I’ve already posted my alternative ratings for the week, but these are the original ratings. At this point in the season, there’s starting to be some convergence in the rating schemes, and they’ll be completely identical in just two weeks. In these ratings, each game last season is given 40% of the weight of a game in 2025. If a team played 13 games last season and has played four games already in 2025, the current season accounts for roughly 41.67% of the ratings, and last season is the remaining 58.33%. These are, of course, approximate numbers and can vary somewaht due to other factors as well. Generally speaking, these ratings are split between the impact of the 2024 and 2025 seasons, but last season still gets slightly more weight. The impact of last season is being phased out, but not as rapidly as in the alternative ratings, which are already determined mostly by games played in 2025.
I’ve added columns for Move and Change, which indicate how many spots a team has moved from last week and the change in the team’s rating, respectively. To distinguish the different purposes of the ratings, these are forward looking ratings, which I’ll refer to as predictive ratings going forward. This is different from my strength of record ratings, which are backward looking, or my playoff ratings, which are a combination of four different factors.
Predictive Ratings
Home advantage: 2.41 points
Mean score: 26.40 points
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
1 80.39 +2.68 Ohio State 37.29 43.12
2 +3 77.12 +5.46 Indiana 42.13 34.87
3 74.92 +2.50 Oregon 41.07 33.92
4 +2 74.46 +3.44 Ole Miss 39.90 34.58
5 -1 74.06 +2.36 Alabama 38.76 35.28
6 -4 73.34 +0.65 Notre Dame 38.65 34.73
7 +1 72.89 +2.57 Texas 33.39 39.58
8 -1 71.81 +1.42 Tennessee 40.64 30.94
9 69.61 +0.79 Penn State 34.13 35.54
10 69.24 +2.02 Georgia 34.68 34.50
11 67.86 +2.62 USC 38.43 29.37
12 67.58 +3.80 Miami 37.34 30.14
13 66.74 +3.35 BYU 32.04 34.54
14 +4 64.58 +3.35 Missouri 33.14 31.56
15 +4 64.10 +3.50 Michigan 28.96 35.14
16 +6 63.91 +3.95 Vanderbilt 33.22 30.69
17 63.86 +2.45 Texas A&M 34.06 29.66
18 -3 63.84 +2.02 LSU 30.67 33.13
19 -5 63.72 +1.08 Louisville 35.67 27.88
20 +3 62.94 +3.05 Oklahoma 27.25 35.63
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
21 +7 61.99 +3.42 Nebraska 29.79 32.20
22 -2 61.82 +1.54 Arizona State 30.15 31.71
23 -7 61.74 -0.07 South Carolina 27.33 34.43
24 -3 61.71 +1.50 Iowa State 29.08 32.73
25 +2 60.94 +1.99 Auburn 27.43 33.31
26 +13 60.91 +5.43 Washington 30.95 29.96
27 +4 60.75 +3.22 TCU 32.53 28.20
28 +1 60.64 +2.24 Arkansas 32.41 28.37
29 -5 60.42 +1.06 Florida 25.84 34.72
30 -4 59.39 +0.37 Utah 26.86 32.51
31 +7 58.99 +3.05 Kansas 30.07 28.89
32 +2 58.94 +1.79 Iowa 26.96 31.98
33 -8 58.38 -0.64 Illinois 27.47 30.90
34 +9 58.00 +5.09 Texas Tech 35.83 22.10
35 -5 57.45 -0.33 SMU 30.35 26.87
36 -4 57.30 +0.09 Baylor 33.61 23.63
37 +3 57.25 +2.00 Georgia Tech 28.62 28.61
38 +3 57.09 +2.57 UCF 29.33 27.80
39 -2 56.77 +0.52 Colorado 29.12 27.76
40 -5 56.50 +0.05 Tulane 28.43 28.06
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
41 -5 56.26 -0.01 Minnesota 24.44 31.63
42 -9 55.69 -1.48 Clemson 27.17 28.62
43 +2 54.73 +2.46 Cincinnati 26.66 28.13
44 +3 54.47 +2.50 Kentucky 23.77 30.70
45 +4 54.24 +2.68 Memphis 27.84 26.54
46 +16 54.06 +6.18 Florida State 26.49 27.52
47 -5 53.92 -0.04 Kansas State 27.50 26.26
48 +9 53.76 +4.36 Mississippi State 29.42 24.36
49 +5 53.60 +3.22 Syracuse 31.30 22.26
50 +6 53.53 +3.45 Houston 20.41 33.08
51 +7 53.36 +4.22 Old Dominion 27.58 25.70
52 -4 53.00 +1.19 Boise State 29.80 23.24
53 -9 52.95 +0.58 Army 24.23 28.79
54 -2 52.61 +1.43 Rutgers 30.96 21.45
55 +6 52.57 +4.56 Maryland 25.60 26.93
56 -10 52.05 -0.17 Wisconsin 21.39 30.74
57 +14 52.01 +6.37 South Florida 27.29 24.66
58 +8 52.00 +5.23 North Texas 33.30 18.87
59 -8 51.73 +0.51 Pittsburgh 29.08 22.65
60 -7 51.61 +0.83 UNLV 30.26 21.27
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
61 -11 51.50 +0.01 Virginia Tech 25.29 26.16
62 +2 51.49 +3.89 Arizona 24.19 27.29
63 -8 51.15 +0.86 Boston College 27.65 23.60
64 +5 50.76 +4.58 Virginia 27.19 23.58
65 -5 50.73 +2.29 Navy 26.45 24.30
66 +1 49.98 +3.30 James Madison 22.71 27.24
67 -4 49.50 +1.73 Texas State 28.18 21.19
68 48.25 +1.60 Duke 26.21 21.92
69 +4 47.57 +2.82 East Carolina 22.78 24.72
70 +2 47.34 +1.79 Toledo 23.05 24.30
71 +6 47.08 +3.51 Michigan State 22.38 24.74
72 -7 46.32 -0.75 West Virginia 23.58 22.77
73 +2 46.14 +1.70 NC State 26.07 20.03
74 -4 46.13 +0.41 Ohio 21.19 24.82
75 -16 46.11 -2.41 California 18.81 27.46
76 +2 45.41 +1.87 Northwestern 15.95 29.47
77 -3 45.03 +0.30 North Carolina 22.45 22.56
78 +3 44.89 +1.98 UTSA 26.27 18.63
79 44.00 +0.49 Marshall 22.23 21.67
80 +4 43.80 +2.60 Fresno State 22.28 21.51
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
81 -5 43.77 +0.18 UCLA 17.49 26.28
82 43.66 +0.96 UConn 24.07 19.56
83 -3 43.36 +0.41 Jacksonville State 24.05 19.45
84 +2 43.04 +2.25 Western Kentucky 22.75 20.36
85 +8 42.22 +4.41 New Mexico 26.93 15.18
86 +4 41.91 +2.37 Bowling Green 17.68 24.18
87 41.61 +1.42 Miami (OH) 17.32 24.06
88 +11 41.49 +5.53 Utah State 26.77 14.80
89 +9 41.27 +5.25 Purdue 20.62 20.70
90 +4 40.68 +2.88 Louisiana Tech 15.17 25.47
91 -3 40.50 +0.51 Washington State 23.44 16.92
92 -3 40.14 +0.25 Stanford 19.45 20.70
93 -10 39.56 -2.53 South Alabama 22.86 16.65
94 -3 38.81 -0.33 Northern Illinois 13.36 25.43
95 38.33 +1.08 Georgia Southern 22.19 16.19
96 38.22 +1.67 Wake Forest 16.86 21.28
97 -12 38.17 -2.72 Oklahoma State 19.71 18.41
98 +19 38.12 +7.97 San Diego State 15.74 22.48
99 -2 37.93 +1.60 San José State 19.09 18.92
100 -8 37.46 -0.75 Louisiana 18.29 19.13
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
101 +5 37.21 +4.10 Wyoming 13.10 24.12
102 36.21 +1.86 Rice 15.28 20.95
103 36.21 +1.92 Troy 17.01 19.32
104 +4 36.18 +3.29 Colorado State 16.18 20.00
105 +11 35.82 +4.41 Temple 19.70 16.11
106 +3 35.67 +3.23 Air Force 17.49 18.22
107 +4 34.94 +3.00 Oregon State 17.08 17.87
108 +5 34.93 +3.27 Western Michigan 16.26 18.72
109 -4 34.90 +0.74 Liberty 15.49 19.39
110 34.85 +2.67 Hawai’i 13.45 21.40
111 -10 34.65 -1.08 Florida International 15.78 18.78
112 -8 34.54 +0.33 Buffalo 17.05 17.55
113 -13 34.52 -1.34 Sam Houston 16.81 17.66
114 -2 34.09 +2.15 Florida Atlantic 19.89 14.30
115 +10 34.01 +6.07 Delaware 18.31 15.60
116 +4 33.36 +3.77 Missouri State 19.13 14.29
117 -10 32.74 -0.27 Arkansas State 18.55 14.29
118 -3 32.61 +1.09 Nevada 12.80 19.86
119 32.61 +3.00 UAB 23.24 9.42
120 -6 32.17 +0.58 App State 15.98 16.19
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense
121 -3 31.97 +2.11 UTEP 14.79 17.19
122 +1 31.49 +3.24 Coastal Carolina 14.84 16.66
123 -2 29.77 +1.06 UL Monroe 14.37 15.52
124 +2 29.51 +2.03 Central Michigan 16.30 13.08
125 -3 29.17 +0.79 Charlotte 13.30 15.74
126 +6 28.96 +6.34 Tulsa 14.67 14.16
127 28.50 +2.06 Eastern Michigan 17.72 10.53
128 -4 28.05 -0.06 Georgia State 16.96 11.10
129 27.89 +4.49 Akron 12.57 15.27
130 -2 27.74 +4.10 Southern Miss 14.56 13.01
131 -1 26.72 +3.69 Kennesaw State 10.11 16.64
132 -1 26.42 +3.49 Ball State 16.44 10.04
133 23.85 +2.06 Middle Tennessee 12.17 11.69
134 22.99 +2.07 New Mexico State 10.05 12.96
135 19.51 +0.65 Massachusetts 11.70 7.61
136 11.29 +1.27 Kent State 9.25 2.00 Rating Comparison
I’ve again run three different sets of ratings this week: the original rating that’s still significantly impacted by 2024 games, the alternative rating that is mostly the result of 2025 games, and a third rating that includes only games from 2025. In a couple of weeks, these three approaches will converge and the ratings will only be affected by games this season. But for now, there’s still some difference, and notably some teams near the top of these ratings that haven’t fared as well when only using 2025 games. These include teams like Ohio State and Texas, where there’s a big difference even just between the alternative ratings and the ratings with just 2025 games. On the other hand, teams like Florida State and Old Dominion rise significantly if the ratings depend only on 2025.
Predictive Ratings
Rank Rating Team Alternative Only 2025
1 80.39 Ohio State 78.50 (2) 65.45 (21)
2 77.12 Indiana 83.75 (1) 92.20 (1)
3 74.92 Oregon 76.34 (3) 69.89 (11)
4 74.46 Ole Miss 74.01 (5) 70.37 (9)
5 74.06 Alabama 75.26 (4) 74.89 (5)
6 73.34 Notre Dame 72.68 (7) 72.70 (6)
7 72.89 Texas 68.98 (13) 56.13 (38)
8 71.81 Tennessee 72.16 (9) 68.92 (14)
9 69.61 Penn State 66.08 (20) 57.76 (33)
10 69.24 Georgia 69.72 (11) 67.25 (18)
11 67.86 USC 71.90 (10) 71.08 (8)
12 67.58 Miami 73.54 (6) 80.21 (4)
13 66.74 BYU 72.21 (8) 80.35 (3)
14 64.58 Missouri 64.39 (22) 58.52 (31)
15 64.10 Michigan 68.95 (14) 69.05 (13)
16 63.91 Vanderbilt 66.93 (18) 67.04 (19)
17 63.86 Texas A&M 66.38 (19) 65.19 (22)
18 63.84 LSU 65.60 (21) 68.63 (15)
19 63.72 Louisville 60.88 (30) 54.90 (39)
20 62.94 Oklahoma 67.58 (16) 67.82 (16)
Rank Rating Team Alternative Only 2025
21 61.99 Nebraska 68.06 (15) 70.02 (10)
22 61.82 Arizona State 58.66 (38) 50.82 (53)
23 61.74 South Carolina 55.90 (45) 49.47 (56)
24 61.71 Iowa State 59.09 (36) 52.33 (50)
25 60.94 Auburn 60.56 (32) 57.08 (35)
26 60.91 Washington 67.00 (17) 69.58 (12)
27 60.75 TCU 61.52 (28) 54.45 (41)
28 60.64 Arkansas 63.09 (24) 61.21 (28)
29 60.42 Florida 61.58 (27) 64.11 (23)
30 59.39 Utah 62.37 (26) 58.53 (30)
31 58.99 Kansas 57.81 (40) 53.82 (46)
32 58.94 Iowa 54.21 (50) 46.09 (60)
33 58.38 Illinois 60.83 (31) 62.43 (26)
34 58.00 Texas Tech 63.41 (23) 67.76 (17)
35 57.45 SMU 49.81 (62) 37.28 (91)
36 57.30 Baylor 50.64 (58) 39.66 (84)
37 57.25 Georgia Tech 59.94 (33) 57.52 (34)
38 57.09 UCF 55.15 (46) 45.39 (63)
39 56.77 Colorado 55.00 (48) 50.42 (54)
40 56.50 Tulane 51.19 (56) 45.08 (65)
Rank Rating Team Alternative Only 2025
41 56.26 Minnesota 49.07 (68) 39.74 (82)
42 55.69 Clemson 52.56 (53) 49.21 (57)
43 54.73 Cincinnati 59.75 (34) 62.74 (25)
44 54.47 Kentucky 56.24 (42) 54.16 (42)
45 54.24 Memphis 56.10 (44) 54.52 (40)
46 54.06 Florida State 69.04 (12) 82.68 (2)
47 53.92 Kansas State 50.99 (57) 49.94 (55)
48 53.76 Mississippi State 58.29 (39) 58.26 (32)
49 53.60 Syracuse 54.86 (49) 52.30 (51)
50 53.53 Houston 58.71 (37) 56.85 (37)
51 53.36 Old Dominion 62.97 (25) 72.22 (7)
52 53.00 Boise State 49.58 (64) 45.60 (62)
53 52.95 Army 52.33 (54) 52.54 (48)
54 52.61 Rutgers 51.35 (55) 42.33 (75)
55 52.57 Maryland 55.01 (47) 53.24 (47)
56 52.05 Wisconsin 49.61 (63) 43.29 (70)
57 52.01 South Florida 59.53 (35) 63.81 (24)
58 52.00 North Texas 60.93 (29) 66.07 (20)
59 51.73 Pittsburgh 49.57 (65) 40.38 (79)
60 51.61 UNLV 43.88 (83) 29.10 (112)
Rank Rating Team Alternative Only 2025
61 51.50 Virginia Tech 47.40 (73) 44.83 (66)
62 51.49 Arizona 57.62 (41) 56.89 (36)
63 51.15 Boston College 47.66 (72) 43.61 (69)
64 50.76 Virginia 56.16 (43) 61.97 (27)
65 50.73 Navy 50.07 (60) 46.17 (59)
66 49.98 James Madison 49.98 (61) 45.14 (64)
67 49.50 Texas State 48.76 (69) 43.23 (71)
68 48.25 Duke 47.09 (74) 46.40 (58)
69 47.57 East Carolina 53.43 (51) 60.03 (29)
70 47.34 Toledo 53.39 (52) 54.14 (43)
71 47.08 Michigan State 50.35 (59) 51.65 (52)
72 46.32 West Virginia 42.18 (86) 33.45 (99)
73 46.14 NC State 49.56 (66) 53.96 (45)
74 46.13 Ohio 45.81 (76) 37.83 (87)
75 46.11 California 42.19 (85) 36.91 (92)
76 45.41 Northwestern 44.32 (80) 40.17 (81)
77 45.03 North Carolina 40.50 (91) 29.82 (107)
78 44.89 UTSA 45.50 (77) 41.85 (77)
79 44.00 Marshall 39.91 (92) 33.68 (98)
80 43.80 Fresno State 45.09 (78) 42.08 (76)
Rank Rating Team Alternative Only 2025
81 43.77 UCLA 35.28 (104) 22.24 (127)
82 43.66 UConn 44.04 (82) 42.79 (73)
83 43.36 Jacksonville State 41.18 (88) 35.28 (96)
84 43.04 Western Kentucky 44.33 (79) 37.68 (88)
85 42.22 New Mexico 48.31 (70) 45.89 (61)
86 41.91 Bowling Green 42.68 (84) 41.17 (78)
87 41.61 Miami (OH) 36.17 (101) 22.90 (125)
88 41.49 Utah State 46.21 (75) 42.41 (74)
89 41.27 Purdue 49.45 (67) 52.43 (49)
90 40.68 Louisiana Tech 48.04 (71) 54.04 (44)
91 40.50 Washington State 37.42 (97) 36.42 (93)
92 40.14 Stanford 41.71 (87) 43.88 (68)
93 39.56 South Alabama 33.62 (112) 28.92 (113)
94 38.81 Northern Illinois 36.77 (99) 35.52 (94)
95 38.33 Georgia Southern 35.75 (102) 31.68 (104)
96 38.22 Wake Forest 38.34 (95) 40.17 (80)
97 38.17 Oklahoma State 29.02 (122) 16.30 (133)
98 38.12 San Diego State 44.26 (81) 44.64 (67)
99 37.93 San José State 34.61 (108) 25.96 (118)
100 37.46 Louisiana 30.33 (120) 19.42 (129)
Rank Rating Team Alternative Only 2025
101 37.21 Wyoming 39.32 (93) 35.00 (97)
102 36.21 Rice 32.11 (118) 23.74 (122)
103 36.21 Troy 37.10 (98) 35.40 (95)
104 36.18 Colorado State 37.88 (96) 37.60 (89)
105 35.82 Temple 40.72 (89) 37.58 (90)
106 35.67 Air Force 36.22 (100) 32.64 (102)
107 34.94 Oregon State 34.20 (110) 30.98 (105)
108 34.93 Western Michigan 40.51 (90) 43.09 (72)
109 34.90 Liberty 33.24 (113) 28.06 (116)
110 34.85 Hawai’i 35.51 (103) 33.20 (101)
111 34.65 Florida International 34.89 (106) 31.86 (103)
112 34.54 Buffalo 32.75 (115) 29.23 (111)
113 34.52 Sam Houston 26.99 (128) 14.48 (134)
114 34.09 Florida Atlantic 34.39 (109) 28.77 (114)
115 34.01 Delaware 39.30 (94) 39.70 (83)
116 33.36 Missouri State 32.00 (119) 24.68 (119)
117 32.74 Arkansas State 32.98 (114) 30.95 (106)
118 32.61 Nevada 30.30 (121) 23.56 (124)
119 32.61 UAB 32.58 (116) 29.69 (109)
120 32.17 App State 28.91 (123) 24.57 (120)
Rank Rating Team Alternative Only 2025
121 31.97 UTEP 33.91 (111) 26.96 (117)
122 31.49 Coastal Carolina 28.18 (126) 28.54 (115)
123 29.77 UL Monroe 24.25 (132) 18.27 (131)
124 29.51 Central Michigan 28.57 (125) 23.99 (121)
125 29.17 Charlotte 21.79 (134) 10.06 (135)
126 28.96 Tulsa 34.80 (107) 33.21 (100)
127 28.50 Eastern Michigan 25.01 (131) 18.73 (130)
128 28.05 Georgia State 25.07 (130) 21.03 (128)
129 27.89 Akron 27.66 (127) 22.64 (126)
130 27.74 Southern Miss 35.12 (105) 38.70 (86)
131 26.72 Kennesaw State 32.27 (117) 39.02 (85)
132 26.42 Ball State 28.60 (124) 29.75 (108)
133 23.85 Middle Tennessee 23.66 (133) 18.15 (132)
134 22.99 New Mexico State 26.96 (129) 29.45 (110)
135 19.51 Massachusetts 14.52 (136) 7.59 (136)
136 11.29 Kent State 16.72 (135) 23.67 (123) Playoff Ratings
In my article with this week’s alternative ratings, I went into a lot of detail about schedule strength and how that can be used to calculate strength of record. I’ll leave out the details here, but there are four factors that combine together to create the playoff ratings. The playoff ratings you see here are derived from the original ratings, so this is still weighted heavily on 2024 games. There will be big shifts in the next couple of weeks as 2024 quickly gets phased out. Schedule strength and strength of record are calculated for a team with a predictive rating that is 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS average.
Here are the four components of these ratings:
The z-score of the team’s strength of record for a hypothetical team 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS average. (SOR; 55%)
The z-score of the team’s predictive rating (Fwd; 30%)
The team’s winning percentage (Win%; 10%)
The z-score of the team’s strength of schedule for a hypothetical team 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS average. (SOS; 5%)
Playoff Ratings
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
1 +1 .9668 +.0120 Ohio State .959 .839 1.000 .991
2 -1 .9606 +.0056 Georgia .969 .921 1.000 .939
3 +1 .9529 +.0159 Miami .966 .896 1.000 .923
4 -1 .9459 +.0068 Texas A&M .973 .951 1.000 .877
5 .9380 +.0170 Ole Miss .938 .608 1.000 .973
6 +6 .9031 +.0407 Oklahoma .936 .591 1.000 .862
7 .9029 -.0139 Vanderbilt .932 .546 1.000 .877
8 +5 .9012 +.0405 Indiana .897 .255 1.000 .983
9 +6 .8964 +.0461 Missouri .923 .456 1.000 .887
10 -4 .8944 -.0228 LSU .924 .467 1.000 .876
11 -3 .8735 +.0037 Oregon .865 .109 1.000 .975
12 +2 .8710 +.0204 Florida State .959 .839 1.000 .672
13 -2 .8682 +.0023 Iowa State .908 .328 1.000 .842
14 +6 .8599 +.0292 BYU .871 .130 1.000 .914
15 +2 .8569 +.0185 USC .862 .101 1.000 .926
16 +8 .8566 +.0371 TCU .901 .278 1.000 .824
17 +4 .8558 +.0252 Texas .812 .894 .750 .965
18 -2 .8510 +.0066 Penn State .846 .064 1.000 .943
19 -9 .8466 -.0219 Georgia Tech .914 .376 1.000 .751
20 -2 .8441 +.0074 Louisville .866 .113 1.000 .875
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
21 +9 .8421 +.0757 Texas Tech .904 .297 1.000 .768
22 +5 .8223 +.0365 Washington .855 .083 1.000 .827
23 +26 .8198 +.1460 Michigan .796 .854 .750 .880
24 +9 .8042 +.0458 Memphis .891 .220 1.000 .676
25 +1 .8034 +.0171 Mississippi State .895 .241 1.000 .664
26 -4 .8028 -.0228 Illinois .817 .907 .750 .776
27 +1 .8005 +.0159 UCF .858 .091 1.000 .747
28 +8 .7985 +.0444 Tennessee .734 .637 .750 .959
29 .7954 +.0175 Houston .887 .200 1.000 .658
30 -5 .7805 -.0337 Tulane .803 .873 .750 .733
31 +8 .7796 +.0512 Maryland .877 .153 1.000 .632
32 +9 .7787 +.0597 North Texas .882 .175 1.000 .616
33 -24 .7785 -.0903 Auburn .761 .737 .750 .828
34 +3 .7682 +.0211 Arizona .874 .140 1.000 .602
35 +9 .7677 +.0594 South Florida .838 .945 .750 .616
36 +4 .7645 +.0373 Old Dominion .822 .993 .667 .653
37 +11 .7593 +.0813 Syracuse .805 .877 .750 .660
38 -4 .7578 +.0017 UNLV .858 .091 1.000 .605
39 +15 .7432 +.1356 Arizona State .707 .526 .750 .844
40 -2 .7421 +.0123 Navy .845 .064 1.000 .580
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
41 -22 .7350 -.0964 Nebraska .695 .478 .750 .847
42 +10 .7343 +.0796 Iowa .717 .568 .750 .788
43 +8 .7298 +.0683 Kansas .711 .542 .750 .789
44 +3 .7089 +.0304 Kentucky .715 .889 .667 .682
45 +8 .6736 +.0237 Alabama .542 .351 .667 .971
46 -23 .6649 -.1556 Utah .618 .217 .750 .798
47 -2 .6620 -.0406 Michigan State .746 .683 .750 .475
48 +7 .6379 +.0368 Texas State .686 .444 .750 .545
49 -14 .6198 -.1344 Arkansas .503 .925 .500 .822
50 -18 .6156 -.1467 Rutgers .618 .218 .750 .633
51 -1 .6113 -.0609 South Carolina .480 .891 .500 .842
52 +5 .6102 +.0240 Cincinnati .571 .451 .667 .689
53 +9 .6091 +.0851 James Madison .624 .636 .667 .559
54 +7 .5888 +.0473 Fresno State .695 .243 .800 .381
55 +14 .5713 +.0717 Utah State .687 .450 .750 .319
56 +17 .5638 +.0953 Virginia .563 .101 .750 .581
57 +8 .5635 +.0484 Louisiana Tech .685 .442 .750 .298
58 +29 .5607 +.1558 Notre Dame .341 .984 .333 .968
59 +4 .5599 +.0370 New Mexico .647 .714 .667 .338
60 -17 .5572 -.1555 NC State .614 .207 .750 .448
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
61 -15 .5557 -.1451 Baylor .436 .803 .500 .752
62 +6 .5532 +.0525 UL Monroe .748 .943 .667 .093
63 -32 .5436 -.2201 California .594 .159 .750 .447
64 +24 .5381 +.1393 Boise State .488 .198 .667 .643
65 -6 .5349 -.0299 Minnesota .445 .110 .667 .727
66 -24 .5349 -.1833 Wisconsin .466 .867 .500 .617
67 +5 .5345 +.0624 Ohio .549 .967 .500 .447
68 +3 .5084 +.0233 Purdue .573 .980 .500 .313
69 -5 .4990 -.0213 Pittsburgh .444 .109 .667 .608
70 +11 .4988 +.0713 Western Kentucky .564 .104 .750 .360
71 -15 .4982 -.0948 SMU .354 .541 .500 .755
72 +11 .4821 +.0650 Delaware .632 .258 .750 .155
73 +16 .4568 +.0725 Rice .576 .123 .750 .196
74 +17 .4520 +.0850 Colorado .297 .331 .500 .740
75 +5 .4355 +.0080 Florida .212 .969 .250 .818
76 +18 .4089 +.0681 Duke .333 .464 .500 .509
77 +18 .4086 +.0715 Marshall .382 .644 .500 .387
78 -3 .4038 -.0530 East Carolina .334 .468 .500 .489
79 -3 .4019 -.0480 Bowling Green .397 .692 .500 .330
80 +6 .3974 -.0097 Northwestern .340 .983 .333 .427
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
81 +21 .3935 +.0918 UTSA .352 .534 .500 .412
82 -16 .3915 -.1147 West Virginia .332 .461 .500 .453
83 -13 .3890 -.1037 North Carolina .344 .505 .500 .416
84 +34 .3846 +.1656 San Diego State .439 .101 .667 .237
85 +7 .3814 +.0152 UAB .454 .843 .500 .132
86 +18 .3782 +.0875 Missouri State .444 .820 .500 .144
87 +3 .3764 -.0022 Wake Forest .425 .081 .667 .239
88 +17 .3723 +.0839 Georgia Southern .392 .677 .500 .242
89 +22 .3654 +.1087 Kennesaw State .462 .859 .500 .061
90 -23 .3484 -.1535 Toledo .261 .207 .500 .482
91 -31 .3459 -.2158 Florida International .387 .660 .500 .166
92 -13 .3423 -.0902 Clemson .122 .724 .250 .713
93 -8 .3340 -.0780 Temple .362 .571 .500 .189
94 -1 .3332 -.0079 App State .411 .063 .667 .125
95 -13 .3292 -.0955 Washington State .312 .386 .500 .294
96 +16 .3256 +.0724 Jacksonville State .276 .257 .500 .369
97 +18 .3221 +.0909 Central Michigan .386 .656 .500 .090
98 -14 .3200 -.0949 Wyoming .331 .456 .500 .217
99 -22 .3185 -.1240 Hawai’i .365 .139 .600 .170
100 -26 .3167 -.1509 Army .131 .372 .333 .642
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
101 +9 .3159 +.0545 Virginia Tech .131 .770 .250 .602
102 -3 .3141 +.0015 New Mexico State .424 .079 .667 .035
103 -45 .3120 -.2708 Oklahoma State .291 .950 .333 .238
104 -7 .3106 -.0197 Kansas State .101 .587 .250 .668
105 +11 .3089 +.0788 UConn .249 .173 .500 .377
106 +14 .2981 +.1272 San José State .270 .925 .333 .233
107 +12 .2883 +.0709 Troy .296 .327 .500 .196
108 -2 .2677 -.0175 Boston College .091 .140 .333 .592
109 -31 .2558 -.1852 Buffalo .265 .219 .500 .164
110 -3 .2482 -.0368 Georgia State .275 .995 .250 .074
111 +15 .2323 +.1008 Coastal Carolina .252 .181 .500 .115
112 -9 .2243 -.0746 Stanford .135 .791 .250 .285
113 -12 .2135 -.0910 Northern Illinois .147 .468 .333 .253
114 -18 .2066 -.1243 Southern Miss .234 .134 .500 .071
115 -17 .2054 -.1217 Colorado State .158 .532 .333 .196
116 +14 .2022 +.0968 Tulsa .222 .105 .500 .083
117 -17 .1837 -.1213 South Alabama .093 .522 .250 .271
118 -10 .1749 -.0948 UTEP .134 .787 .250 .122
119 -10 .1653 -.0980 Nevada .119 .705 .250 .132
120 -7 .1641 -.0869 Louisiana .088 .478 .250 .222
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
121 +10 .1526 +.0627 Western Michigan .092 .511 .250 .171
122 -5 .1490 -.0752 Air Force .095 .160 .333 .186
123 -9 .1478 -.0909 Arkansas State .099 .566 .250 .134
124 +1 .1476 -.0022 Florida Atlantic .104 .207 .333 .156
125 -4 .1454 -.0225 UCLA .012 .497 .000 .380
126 -2 .1311 -.0225 Miami (OH) .013 .549 .000 .322
127 +6 .1239 +.0500 Oregon State .043 .972 .000 .172
128 -6 .1109 -.0554 Ball State .084 .442 .250 .058
129 -6 .1108 -.0446 Liberty .050 .141 .250 .171
130 +5 .1093 +.0599 Akron .078 .391 .250 .072
131 +1 .1086 +.0207 Sam Houston .027 .886 .000 .164
132 +2 .1007 +.0484 Eastern Michigan .068 .296 .250 .078
133 -4 .0991 -.0192 Kent State .089 .483 .250 .004
134 -6 .0767 -.0422 Charlotte .040 .077 .250 .086
135 -8 .0747 -.0521 Middle Tennessee .053 .169 .250 .040
136 .0313 -.0060 Massachusetts .010 .404 .000 .019This is actually an interesting comparison to my other article because I expected there to be a bigger difference in the playoff ratings. Although teams like Vanderbilt, Missouri, and Oregon move into the top 12 in these ratings, it’s not that big of a shift from their positions using the alternative ratings. Florida State falls a bit here, but they’re still #12, so it’s really not a massive shift. There are a few more significant swings farther down in the ratings like South Florida being ranked several spots lower here, but that’s still just 11 spots and seems to be one of the larger swings when switching to the original ratings. I’m surprised there aren’t significantly bigger differences, but the two sets of playoff ratings seem fairly similar overall.
Game Predictions
These are the predictions for upcoming games this weekend using the original ratings from this article. As usual, games are ranked based on the projected quality. This factors in the overall strength of the two teams and the potential for a competitive game. Game quality ratings are not directly comparable between college football and the NFL. NFL games are typically decided by smaller margins than college games, the teams are more balanced in their quality, and there’s just not as much scoring in the NFL. Thresholds for close games and blowouts are also different between college and the NFL for the same reasons.
Beside each team, there are two numbers in parentheses. One is the predicted margin of victory (positive) or defeat (negative), the other is the probability of winning. These margins are sometimes larger than what’s indicated by the predicted score. That’s because there’s nothing in the math that prevents a prediction of negative points with a sufficiently lopsided matchup. This is, of course, impossible, so the score is set to zero in those instances. There’s no cap on how many points a team can be projected to score, though.
If you’re looking for the most accurate projections, I suggest using the alternative ratings. But I’ll continue these for another week and compare the different approaches before everything finally converges together in two weeks.
#1: Alabama (2.41, 57.03%) at Georgia (-2.41, 42.97%)
Estimated score: 29.46 - 27.01, Total: 56.47
Quality: 98.59%, Team quality: 98.34%, Competitiveness: 99.09%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.00%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.73%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.94%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.10%
#2: Oregon (2.89, 58.42%) at Penn State (-2.89, 41.58%)
Estimated score: 30.73 - 27.82, Total: 58.55
Quality: 98.51%, Team quality: 98.41%, Competitiveness: 98.70%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.11%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.49%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.08%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.17%
#3: TCU (-3.48, 39.90%) at Arizona State (3.48, 60.10%)
Estimated score: 26.01 - 29.56, Total: 55.57
Quality: 97.08%, Team quality: 96.56%, Competitiveness: 98.12%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.27%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.13%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.02%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.95%
#4: UCF (0.76, 52.22%) at Kansas State (-0.76, 47.78%)
Estimated score: 28.26 - 27.31, Total: 55.57
Quality: 96.65%, Team quality: 95.06%, Competitiveness: 99.91%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.78%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 39.24%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.02%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.95%
#5: Auburn (-5.34, 34.75%) at Texas A&M (5.34, 65.25%)
Estimated score: 22.96 - 28.36, Total: 51.32
Quality: 96.39%, Team quality: 96.78%, Competitiveness: 95.63%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.97%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 36.62%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 33.78%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.11%
#6: Florida State (0.88, 52.57%) at Virginia (-0.88, 47.43%)
Estimated score: 28.11 - 27.27, Total: 55.38
Quality: 95.95%, Team quality: 94.04%, Competitiveness: 99.88%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.79%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 39.22%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 37.82%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.14%
#7: USC (7.06, 69.81%) at Illinois (-7.06, 30.19%)
Estimated score: 32.74 - 25.71, Total: 58.45
Quality: 95.39%, Team quality: 96.90%, Competitiveness: 92.44%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.92%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 34.74%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 40.98%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.26%
#8: Army (2.96, 58.60%) at East Carolina (-2.96, 41.40%)
Estimated score: 24.70 - 21.60, Total: 46.31
Quality: 95.00%, Team quality: 93.23%, Competitiveness: 98.64%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.12%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.45%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.04%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.23%
#9: BYU (7.56, 71.07%) at Colorado (-7.56, 28.93%)
Estimated score: 29.48 - 22.18, Total: 51.67
Quality: 94.83%, Team quality: 96.59%, Competitiveness: 91.39%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.25%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 34.12%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.12%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.77%
#10: Cincinnati (-6.67, 31.22%) at Kansas (6.67, 68.78%)
Estimated score: 22.97 - 29.55, Total: 52.52
Quality: 94.66%, Team quality: 95.37%, Competitiveness: 93.25%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.68%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.21%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.95%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.92%
#11: Virginia Tech (2.94, 58.55%) at NC State (-2.94, 41.45%)
Estimated score: 30.46 - 27.52, Total: 57.98
Quality: 94.61%, Team quality: 92.65%, Competitiveness: 98.66%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.12%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.46%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 40.49%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.69%
#12: Rutgers (-6.06, 32.81%) at Minnesota (6.06, 67.19%)
Estimated score: 24.53 - 30.60, Total: 55.13
Quality: 94.56%, Team quality: 94.65%, Competitiveness: 94.39%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.34%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.89%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 37.57%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.38%
#13: Notre Dame (10.28, 77.48%) at Arkansas (-10.28, 22.52%)
Estimated score: 35.47 - 25.29, Total: 60.77
Quality: 93.02%, Team quality: 97.55%, Competitiveness: 84.59%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.52%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.27%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 43.39%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 27.17%
#14: UCLA (-4.06, 38.29%) at Northwestern (4.06, 61.71%)
Estimated score: 13.22 - 17.28, Total: 30.51
Quality: 92.91%, Team quality: 90.71%, Competitiveness: 97.45%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.45%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.73%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 16.50%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 57.92%
#15: Duke (-7.77, 28.41%) at Syracuse (7.77, 71.59%)
Estimated score: 29.14 - 36.99, Total: 66.14
Quality: 92.54%, Team quality: 93.36%, Competitiveness: 90.92%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.40%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 33.85%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 49.08%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 22.64%
#16: Louisville (9.58, 75.92%) at Pittsburgh (-9.58, 24.08%)
Estimated score: 38.22 - 28.81, Total: 67.03
Quality: 92.41%, Team quality: 95.53%, Competitiveness: 86.49%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.86%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.33%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 50.03%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 21.92%
#17: Kentucky (-9.69, 23.83%) at South Carolina (9.69, 76.17%)
Estimated score: 14.54 - 24.25, Total: 38.78
Quality: 92.37%, Team quality: 95.63%, Competitiveness: 86.19%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 6.96%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.16%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 22.57%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 49.16%
#18: California (-7.45, 29.21%) at Boston College (7.45, 70.79%)
Estimated score: 20.40 - 27.80, Total: 48.20
Quality: 92.18%, Team quality: 92.45%, Competitiveness: 91.63%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.18%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 34.26%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 30.79%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.27%
#19: Marshall (4.13, 61.91%) at Louisiana (-4.13, 38.09%)
Estimated score: 28.29 - 24.23, Total: 52.52
Quality: 91.47%, Team quality: 88.66%, Competitiveness: 97.37%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.48%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.67%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.96%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.91%
#20: Bowling Green (-6.63, 31.31%) at Ohio (6.63, 68.69%)
Estimated score: 18.06 - 24.62, Total: 42.68
Quality: 91.33%, Team quality: 90.35%, Competitiveness: 93.32%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.66%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.25%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 25.82%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 45.03%
#21: Washington State (1.91, 55.57%) at Colorado State (-1.91, 44.43%)
Estimated score: 28.63 - 26.87, Total: 55.50
Quality: 91.15%, Team quality: 87.27%, Competitiveness: 99.43%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.91%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.94%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 37.95%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.02%
#22: San Diego State (-3.10, 40.98%) at Northern Illinois (3.10, 59.02%)
Estimated score: 15.51 - 18.49, Total: 34.00
Quality: 90.91%, Team quality: 87.33%, Competitiveness: 98.50%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.16%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.37%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 18.92%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 54.26%
#23: San José State (-4.62, 36.71%) at Stanford (4.62, 63.29%)
Estimated score: 23.59 - 28.14, Total: 51.72
Quality: 90.57%, Team quality: 87.65%, Competitiveness: 96.70%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.66%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 37.27%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.17%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.71%
#24: Utah (10.66, 78.32%) at West Virginia (-10.66, 21.68%)
Estimated score: 29.29 - 18.68, Total: 47.97
Quality: 90.33%, Team quality: 93.95%, Competitiveness: 83.51%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.91%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.68%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 30.58%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.51%
#25: LSU (-13.04, 16.91%) at Ole Miss (13.04, 83.09%)
Estimated score: 21.28 - 34.39, Total: 55.67
Quality: 90.02%, Team quality: 97.82%, Competitiveness: 76.23%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.71%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.82%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.12%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.86%
#26: UConn (6.70, 68.88%) at Buffalo (-6.70, 31.12%)
Estimated score: 31.71 - 25.10, Total: 56.81
Quality: 89.43%, Team quality: 87.61%, Competitiveness: 93.18%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.70%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.17%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 39.28%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 30.78%
#27: Hawai’i (-3.23, 40.61%) at Air Force (3.23, 59.39%)
Estimated score: 20.43 - 23.70, Total: 44.13
Quality: 89.41%, Team quality: 85.24%, Competitiveness: 98.37%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.19%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.29%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 27.08%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.50%
#28: Arizona (-12.63, 17.68%) at Iowa State (12.63, 82.32%)
Estimated score: 16.66 - 29.40, Total: 46.06
Quality: 88.83%, Team quality: 95.08%, Competitiveness: 77.54%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.18%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.50%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.81%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.48%
#29: Western Kentucky (7.27, 70.33%) at Missouri State (-7.27, 29.67%)
Estimated score: 33.65 - 26.38, Total: 60.04
Quality: 88.66%, Team quality: 87.03%, Competitiveness: 92.02%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 5.06%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 34.49%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 42.63%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 27.82%
#30: Louisiana Tech (6.29, 67.81%) at UTEP (-6.29, 32.19%)
Estimated score: 23.18 - 16.93, Total: 40.11
Quality: 88.48%, Team quality: 85.87%, Competitiveness: 93.96%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 4.46%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 35.63%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 23.65%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 47.76%
#31: Arkansas State (0.55, 51.62%) at UL Monroe (-0.55, 48.38%)
Estimated score: 28.22 - 27.69, Total: 55.91
Quality: 87.85%, Team quality: 82.36%, Competitiveness: 99.95%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 2.77%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 39.26%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.36%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.63%
#32: Indiana (15.77, 87.67%) at Iowa (-15.77, 12.33%)
Estimated score: 35.35 - 19.71, Total: 55.06
Quality: 86.06%, Team quality: 97.55%, Competitiveness: 66.98%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 14.83%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.25%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 37.50%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.44%
#33: Eastern Michigan (-3.43, 40.07%) at Central Michigan (3.43, 59.93%)
Estimated score: 29.84 - 33.38, Total: 63.22
Quality: 86.03%, Team quality: 80.53%, Competitiveness: 98.18%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.25%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 38.17%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 45.98%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 25.04%
#34: Tennessee (15.64, 87.47%) at Mississippi State (-15.64, 12.53%)
Estimated score: 41.49 - 26.09, Total: 67.58
Quality: 85.65%, Team quality: 96.54%, Competitiveness: 67.43%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 14.61%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.47%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 50.61%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 21.49%
#35: Ohio State (17.07, 89.51%) at Washington (-17.07, 10.49%)
Estimated score: 32.52 - 15.44, Total: 47.96
Quality: 84.25%, Team quality: 97.91%, Competitiveness: 62.39%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 17.14%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.12%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 30.57%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.52%
#36: Georgia Southern (-14.06, 15.08%) at James Madison (14.06, 84.92%)
Estimated score: 20.14 - 34.12, Total: 54.27
Quality: 83.87%, Team quality: 89.99%, Competitiveness: 72.84%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.14%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 24.11%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 36.70%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.21%
#37: South Alabama (-14.85, 13.76%) at North Texas (14.85, 86.24%)
Estimated score: 29.19 - 44.26, Total: 73.44
Quality: 83.28%, Team quality: 90.74%, Competitiveness: 70.16%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.34%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 22.78%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 56.83%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 17.21%
#38: Middle Tennessee (-5.29, 34.89%) at Kennesaw State (5.29, 65.11%)
Estimated score: 20.73 - 26.04, Total: 46.77
Quality: 82.99%, Team quality: 77.29%, Competitiveness: 95.71%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 3.95%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 36.67%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.46%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 40.75%
#39: Jacksonville State (13.21, 83.41%) at Southern Miss (-13.21, 16.59%)
Estimated score: 36.24 - 22.73, Total: 58.97
Quality: 81.70%, Team quality: 84.90%, Competitiveness: 75.67%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.94%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.53%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.51%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.79%
#40: Georgia Tech (16.62, 88.90%) at Wake Forest (-16.62, 11.10%)
Estimated score: 32.54 - 15.86, Total: 48.40
Quality: 81.22%, Team quality: 91.51%, Competitiveness: 63.98%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 16.32%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.85%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 30.98%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.07%
#41: Baylor (16.72, 89.04%) at Oklahoma State (-16.72, 10.96%)
Estimated score: 40.41 - 23.69, Total: 64.10
Quality: 81.06%, Team quality: 91.50%, Competitiveness: 63.61%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 16.50%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.68%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 46.92%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 24.30%
#42: Houston (16.17, 88.26%) at Oregon State (-16.17, 11.74%)
Estimated score: 27.73 - 11.61, Total: 39.34
Quality: 80.89%, Team quality: 89.85%, Competitiveness: 65.56%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.53%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.58%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 23.02%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 48.57%
#43: Rice (-16.93, 10.68%) at Navy (16.93, 89.32%)
Estimated score: 16.17 - 33.11, Total: 49.28
Quality: 79.49%, Team quality: 89.38%, Competitiveness: 62.87%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 16.88%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.34%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 31.82%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.16%
#44: Rhode Island (-13.27, 16.48%) at Western Michigan (13.27, 83.52%)
Estimated score: 13.40 - 26.68, Total: 40.08
Quality: 78.68%, Team quality: 80.34%, Competitiveness: 75.46%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.03%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.43%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 23.62%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 47.79%
#45: Memphis (17.73, 90.36%) at Florida Atlantic (-17.73, 9.64%)
Estimated score: 38.74 - 20.97, Total: 59.71
Quality: 78.45%, Team quality: 89.67%, Competitiveness: 60.05%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 18.39%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 18.07%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 42.28%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.12%
#46: Liberty (-20.87, 6.26%) at Old Dominion (20.87, 93.74%)
Estimated score: 14.99 - 35.80, Total: 50.79
Quality: 73.06%, Team quality: 89.32%, Competitiveness: 48.89%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 25.13%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 13.38%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 33.26%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.64%
#47: Akron (-21.86, 5.41%) at Toledo (21.86, 94.59%)
Estimated score: 13.47 - 35.39, Total: 48.86
Quality: 69.16%, Team quality: 85.31%, Competitiveness: 45.45%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 27.51%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 12.04%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 31.41%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.60%
#48: App State (-23.25, 4.38%) at Boise State (23.25, 95.62%)
Estimated score: 17.94 - 41.22, Total: 59.16
Quality: 68.20%, Team quality: 88.17%, Competitiveness: 40.80%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 30.99%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 10.32%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.72%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.61%
#49: New Mexico State (-21.64, 5.59%) at New Mexico (21.64, 94.41%)
Estimated score: 20.07 - 41.58, Total: 61.65
Quality: 67.60%, Team quality: 81.77%, Competitiveness: 46.21%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 26.97%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 12.34%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 44.32%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 26.40%
#50: Utah State (-24.83, 3.41%) at Vanderbilt (24.83, 96.59%)
Estimated score: 21.27 - 46.03, Total: 67.30
Quality: 67.50%, Team quality: 92.80%, Competitiveness: 35.71%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 35.21%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 8.54%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 50.32%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 21.71%
#51: Tulane (25.13, 96.76%) at Tulsa (-25.13, 3.24%)
Estimated score: 39.47 - 14.22, Total: 53.69
Quality: 64.58%, Team quality: 88.00%, Competitiveness: 34.79%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 36.02%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 8.23%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 36.12%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.77%
#52: Lindenwood (-28.25, 1.90%) at Miami (OH) (28.25, 98.10%)
Estimated score: 9.45 - 37.48, Total: 46.93
Quality: 53.73%, Team quality: 77.45%, Competitiveness: 25.86%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 44.89%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 5.44%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.61%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 40.58%
#53: Massachusetts (-47.48, 0.02%) at Missouri (47.48, 99.98%)
Estimated score: 5.34 - 53.14, Total: 58.48
Quality: 22.23%, Team quality: 83.01%, Competitiveness: 1.59%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 90.05%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 0.14%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.01%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.23%This is a fairly brief article because much of my effort was directed toward getting the playoff ratings set up and making some much-needed improvements to my code. As I said earlier, I’ve done plenty of writing in the past few days, but it’s mostly been Python code instead of articles. I also still have NFL ratings to get posted today, which will be a fairly brief article as well. Although I’d initially planned to not begin The Linked Letters After Dark until after week 6, I’ll post another article late Saturday night previewing the college football playoff and the updated ratings after Saturday’s games.
Thanks for reading!
This article is based on data from collegefootballdata.com.