Week 7 College Football Ratings and Game Predictions
An update to the preliminary ratings from this week's edition of The Linked Letters After Dark.
I intend this article as a quick update to the preliminary college football ratings and predictions I posted this week in The Linked Letters After Dark. If you’d like more analysis on last week’s games, you can find it in that article. Although the ratings have changed a small amount, the analysis in that article is still accurate.
As I said in that article, I’m going to keep the impact of 2024 games around a bit longer before completely phasing them out from the ratings. Some of the teams in lower divisions haven’t played as many games as the FBS teams, and keeping the impact of 2024 games around might improve those ratings. It doesn’t make a large difference at the FBS level, but I noticed there were fewer big swings in the ratings at lower divisions when I kept the impact of 2024 games around at a low level. I’ll lower the weight of 2024 games to 2% and 1% after weeks 7 and 8, respectively, and then I’ll phase out 2024 altogether.
A lot of FBS teams have played five games this season, and a typical team might have played 13 games last season. Each game from 2024 is weighted at 3% of a 2025 game, so if a team played 13 games last season and five this season, the 2025 season is responsible for 92.76% of a team’s rating and last season is responsible for the remaining 7.24%. This oversimplifies impacts a bit, but the main point is that ratings are almost entirely determined by games played this season. There are no more original or alternative ratings, but my trends this week will be a comparison to last week’s alternative ratings.
Predictive Ratings
These are forward looking ratings, meaning that they’re intended to evaluate how good a team is and predict its future success, but they don’t evaluate the quality of a team’s achievements earlier in the season. These ratings are based purely on points.
The offense and defense columns refer to each team’s point scoring tendencies instead of the efficiency ratings that some other rating systems use. The overall rating is approximately the sum of a team’s offense and defense ratings. To predict the score of a game for the home team, take the home team’s offense rating, add half of the home advantage, subtract the visiting team’s defense rating, and add the mean score. Predicting the score is similar for the visiting team. Take the visiting team’s offense rating, subtract half of the home advantage, subtract the home team’s defense rating, and add the mean score. Predicting the margin of victory for a game is done by taking the home team’s rating, adding the home advantage, and subtracting the away team’s rating. For neutral site games, the home advantage is set to zero.
The last column here is SOR, which means strength of record. Unlike all the other columns, this is a backward looking rating and evaluates the quality of a team’s wins and losses in comparison to a hypothetical team with a rating 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS mean. Such a hypothetical team would typically be ranked somewhere between #10 and #15. Strength of record is just each team’s actual winning percentage minus the expected winning percentage for that hypothetical team against the same schedule. This is negative for most teams because their record is being compared against the expected record for a pretty good team.
Predictive Ratings
Home advantage: 2.39 points
Mean score: 26.44 points
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
1 +1 84.74 +2.12 Indiana 44.87 39.78 .175
2 -1 83.09 -0.86 Ohio State 34.44 48.45 .175
3 80.65 -0.81 Notre Dame 45.98 34.57 -.087
4 +1 80.41 +1.52 Miami 35.14 45.19 .352
5 -1 79.27 +0.30 Oregon 45.07 34.17 .099
6 78.95 +2.13 Alabama 39.24 39.74 .118
7 +5 74.63 +3.22 Florida State 41.78 32.85 -.087
8 +1 74.17 +1.91 USC 45.40 28.70 -.053
9 +2 73.95 +2.03 Ole Miss 40.42 33.59 .169
10 +10 72.02 +4.03 LSU 31.10 40.96 .046
11 +4 71.77 +1.45 Georgia 31.60 40.17 .048
12 +6 71.76 +2.85 Texas Tech 37.83 33.78 .136
13 +4 71.63 +2.14 Texas A&M 35.79 35.88 .253
14 -6 71.39 -1.29 Michigan 35.36 35.96 .038
15 -1 70.69 +0.06 Oklahoma 28.02 42.86 .148
16 -3 70.69 -0.13 Tennessee 47.05 23.80 -.044
17 -7 70.43 -1.74 Nebraska 37.90 32.67 -.040
18 +4 70.15 +2.50 Utah 35.54 34.63 -.084
19 -12 69.32 -4.94 BYU 35.77 33.59 .098
20 +1 69.29 +1.39 Vanderbilt 40.16 29.10 .012
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
21 -5 68.03 -1.55 Texas 30.79 37.21 -.154
22 -3 67.89 -0.53 Washington 38.62 29.13 -.010
23 +1 67.65 +2.31 Illinois 33.87 33.69 .124
24 +1 67.50 +3.33 Florida 29.98 37.72 -.239
25 +2 64.83 +1.23 Virginia 38.53 26.36 .002
26 +5 64.62 +2.18 Old Dominion 30.56 34.09 -.018
27 -1 64.37 +0.41 Missouri 36.22 28.30 .065
28 +1 63.64 +1.01 Auburn 27.25 36.30 -.169
29 -6 63.23 -4.19 Penn State 34.32 28.89 -.267
30 +2 63.09 +1.01 Cincinnati 34.27 28.92 -.014
31 +2 62.91 +1.19 North Texas 40.33 22.47 .049
32 -4 62.59 -0.18 South Florida 34.44 28.22 .050
33 -3 62.15 -0.48 Iowa State 29.97 32.25 -.037
34 61.42 +0.30 Louisville 35.13 26.26 -.085
35 +2 61.12 +1.12 Georgia Tech 31.97 28.97 .086
36 60.55 +0.05 Iowa 24.50 35.98 -.168
37 +2 60.17 +1.74 TCU 33.98 26.18 -.113
38 -3 60.16 -0.80 Mississippi State 30.20 30.25 -.145
39 +8 59.70 +3.64 Duke 35.49 24.22 -.201
40 +9 59.41 +3.87 Memphis 30.39 28.97 .037
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
41 -3 59.38 -0.18 East Carolina 25.43 33.99 -.270
42 +1 59.12 +1.64 Kansas 30.49 28.63 -.200
43 -2 58.47 +0.91 Toledo 28.68 29.86 -.343
44 +1 57.63 +0.67 Arkansas 32.18 25.49 -.308
45 -3 57.57 +0.05 South Carolina 20.75 36.68 -.222
46 -6 57.28 -0.93 Arizona State 23.66 33.66 -.077
47 +1 57.18 +1.39 Maryland 24.91 32.26 -.096
48 +5 56.79 +3.22 Louisiana Tech 22.94 33.97 -.077
49 +18 56.73 +6.45 Pittsburgh 29.78 26.95 -.339
50 +1 56.12 +1.49 NC State 29.20 27.03 -.192
51 -1 55.09 -0.23 Arizona 25.11 30.00 -.115
52 +10 55.00 +4.11 Clemson 24.86 30.16 -.437
53 -9 54.55 -2.43 Houston 24.27 30.28 -.085
54 -2 54.53 +0.86 Purdue 25.58 28.82 -.291
55 +3 54.42 +2.10 Michigan State 28.99 25.43 -.168
56 -10 54.18 -2.67 Colorado 25.88 28.22 -.492
57 +4 54.14 +3.20 Wisconsin 21.74 32.29 -.324
58 -1 54.08 +1.53 Tulane 25.82 28.21 -.030
59 -4 53.75 +1.09 Kentucky 27.07 26.67 -.325
60 +6 53.59 +3.27 Boise State 25.83 27.79 -.185
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
61 -5 52.83 +0.23 Kansas State 26.83 25.97 -.540
62 -8 52.33 -0.91 Rutgers 33.39 18.77 -.325
63 51.60 +0.77 UCF 23.08 28.35 -.330
64 +9 51.34 +3.09 SMU 25.55 25.79 -.315
65 -6 51.30 -0.43 New Mexico 25.99 25.31 -.270
66 -1 50.82 +0.44 Army 21.85 28.87 -.455
67 -7 49.98 -1.20 James Madison 17.81 32.24 -.132
68 49.70 +0.49 Baylor 32.56 17.13 -.230
69 +3 49.68 +1.21 Utah State 29.94 19.87 -.196
70 49.50 +0.97 Syracuse 24.17 25.27 -.336
71 +5 49.48 +1.72 San Diego State 21.05 28.44 -.178
72 -8 48.77 -1.90 Minnesota 23.31 25.57 -.215
73 +10 48.05 +3.49 UNLV 28.52 19.58 .031
74 +10 48.00 +3.69 Wake Forest 19.43 28.74 -.313
75 -4 47.50 -1.02 Virginia Tech 26.24 21.25 -.490
76 +10 47.41 +4.07 Northwestern 15.01 32.55 -.242
77 +11 47.22 +4.68 UConn 28.37 18.75 -.303
78 +4 46.76 +1.54 Temple 27.27 19.51 -.255
79 -10 46.66 -2.25 Ohio 22.65 23.92 -.335
80 +1 46.58 +0.54 Western Michigan 17.07 29.51 -.334
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
81 -6 46.23 -1.65 Navy 24.82 21.48 .010
82 -4 45.47 -1.40 UTSA 25.30 20.25 -.466
83 -9 45.30 -2.63 Texas State 27.02 18.13 -.339
84 -5 45.28 -1.28 Fresno State 22.21 23.13 -.112
85 44.69 +0.46 Western Kentucky 24.13 20.55 -.116
86 +9 44.37 +4.51 West Virginia 21.24 23.15 -.447
87 +3 44.13 +2.71 Southern Miss 25.83 18.34 -.315
88 -8 43.38 -3.17 California 17.95 25.48 -.262
89 +13 43.37 +6.26 UCLA 20.90 22.46 -.624
90 +6 42.62 +3.07 Miami (OH) 18.44 24.23 -.522
91 -4 42.18 -1.02 Stanford 17.78 24.65 -.418
92 -15 41.98 -4.97 Boston College 26.53 15.39 -.707
93 -4 41.53 -0.09 Bowling Green 16.26 25.28 -.456
94 -3 40.59 -0.42 Washington State 16.97 23.82 -.250
95 -3 39.86 -1.08 Delaware 19.79 19.87 -.346
96 +8 39.82 +2.72 San José State 20.15 19.54 -.483
97 -4 39.62 -1.13 Wyoming 13.72 25.84 -.477
98 -1 39.42 +0.21 Marshall 25.90 13.65 -.489
99 39.21 +1.42 Jacksonville State 20.11 19.16 -.554
100 +3 39.20 +2.10 Troy 18.01 21.15 -.322
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
101 -7 37.88 -2.14 Oregon State 19.52 18.34 -.763
102 +10 37.77 +3.65 Air Force 26.51 11.38 -.738
103 -5 37.34 -0.46 Hawai’i 16.81 20.53 -.286
104 +5 36.46 +1.34 Liberty 15.28 21.24 -.697
105 36.17 -0.59 South Alabama 20.90 15.32 -.698
106 +1 35.73 -0.09 UTEP 16.20 19.47 -.662
107 +10 35.44 +2.75 Kennesaw State 15.19 20.23 -.220
108 -7 35.37 -1.86 North Carolina 15.22 20.25 -.512
109 -9 35.22 -2.09 Northern Illinois 10.31 24.84 -.684
110 -4 34.93 -1.46 Colorado State 15.12 19.80 -.677
111 +2 34.75 +0.94 Georgia Southern 22.50 12.17 -.442
112 -1 34.16 -0.35 Buffalo 13.38 20.96 -.470
113 -3 33.96 -0.82 Tulsa 13.67 20.29 -.593
114 +6 33.93 +2.40 New Mexico State 13.99 20.02 -.330
115 +1 33.85 +0.83 Missouri State 14.71 19.04 -.452
116 +3 33.54 +1.19 Florida Atlantic 24.53 9.23 -.517
117 +7 33.23 +3.59 Ball State 15.23 18.00 -.470
118 -4 33.22 -0.34 UAB 22.07 11.15 -.467
119 +3 32.90 +2.39 Nevada 10.11 22.65 -.704
120 -5 32.13 -1.09 Rice 9.86 22.27 -.464
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
121 -3 31.87 -0.67 Coastal Carolina 12.23 19.61 -.415
122 +7 31.78 +4.68 App State 13.96 18.00 -.351
123 +2 31.35 +2.07 Arkansas State 15.80 15.53 -.588
124 -1 31.27 +0.80 Central Michigan 15.54 15.72 -.371
125 -4 30.53 -0.11 Louisiana 16.96 13.63 -.522
126 -18 29.26 -6.21 Florida International 11.29 18.05 -.510
127 29.19 +1.47 Akron 11.51 17.64 -.537
128 +4 27.87 +4.17 Georgia State 15.80 12.25 -.542
129 -3 27.49 -0.74 Oklahoma State 12.94 14.63 -.609
130 +1 26.65 +2.07 Middle Tennessee 11.61 15.14 -.748
131 -3 25.89 -1.80 UL Monroe 14.64 11.16 -.239
132 +1 24.16 +1.24 Eastern Michigan 16.74 7.53 -.788
133 -3 23.32 -2.93 Sam Houston 13.56 9.75 -.875
134 23.05 +3.22 Charlotte 11.16 11.86 -.730
135 +1 22.46 +3.47 Kent State 16.41 6.17 -.474
136 -1 20.17 +0.51 Massachusetts 7.83 12.38 -.854Ratings Comparison
This is just a comparison between my actual predictive ratings and what the ratings would be if I only used 2025 games in the ratings. There are a few differences, but they’re mostly fairly small this week. I also don’t see as many obvious outliers in this week’s ratings.
Overall Ratings
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
1 84.74 Indiana 87.49 (1)
2 83.09 Ohio State 81.21 (3)
3 80.65 Notre Dame 80.83 (4)
4 80.41 Miami 82.68 (2)
5 79.27 Oregon 76.53 (7)
6 78.95 Alabama 79.74 (5)
7 74.63 Florida State 77.69 (6)
8 74.17 USC 73.78 (9)
9 73.95 Ole Miss 73.33 (10)
10 72.02 LSU 73.22 (11)
11 71.77 Georgia 71.17 (17)
12 71.76 Texas Tech 74.69 (8)
13 71.63 Texas A&M 71.83 (14)
14 71.39 Michigan 72.28 (13)
15 70.69 Oklahoma 72.79 (12)
16 70.69 Tennessee 69.46 (20)
17 70.43 Nebraska 71.67 (15)
18 70.15 Utah 71.21 (16)
19 69.32 BYU 69.71 (19)
20 69.29 Vanderbilt 70.28 (18)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
21 68.03 Texas 65.85 (26)
22 67.89 Washington 68.60 (21)
23 67.65 Illinois 67.87 (22)
24 67.50 Florida 67.81 (23)
25 64.83 Virginia 67.21 (25)
26 64.62 Old Dominion 67.32 (24)
27 64.37 Missouri 63.70 (30)
28 63.64 Auburn 64.20 (29)
29 63.23 Penn State 59.84 (39)
30 63.09 Cincinnati 64.25 (28)
31 62.91 North Texas 64.43 (27)
32 62.59 South Florida 63.27 (31)
33 62.15 Iowa State 61.47 (33)
34 61.42 Louisville 61.22 (35)
35 61.12 Georgia Tech 60.65 (36)
36 60.55 Iowa 61.68 (32)
37 60.17 TCU 58.32 (44)
38 60.16 Mississippi State 60.44 (37)
39 59.70 Duke 59.99 (38)
40 59.41 Memphis 58.93 (42)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
41 59.38 East Carolina 61.45 (34)
42 59.12 Kansas 58.92 (43)
43 58.47 Toledo 59.58 (41)
44 57.63 Arkansas 57.13 (46)
45 57.57 South Carolina 56.18 (49)
46 57.28 Arizona State 55.39 (51)
47 57.18 Maryland 56.99 (47)
48 56.79 Louisiana Tech 59.81 (40)
49 56.73 Pittsburgh 56.73 (48)
50 56.12 NC State 57.89 (45)
51 55.09 Arizona 53.80 (54)
52 55.00 Clemson 52.89 (58)
53 54.55 Houston 54.55 (53)
54 54.53 Purdue 55.72 (50)
55 54.42 Michigan State 55.28 (52)
56 54.18 Colorado 53.04 (57)
57 54.14 Wisconsin 53.69 (55)
58 54.08 Tulane 52.63 (60)
59 53.75 Kentucky 53.16 (56)
60 53.59 Boise State 52.73 (59)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
61 52.83 Kansas State 51.57 (62)
62 52.33 Rutgers 50.84 (63)
63 51.60 UCF 49.01 (68)
64 51.34 SMU 47.95 (70)
65 51.30 New Mexico 52.43 (61)
66 50.82 Army 50.42 (64)
67 49.98 James Madison 49.37 (67)
68 49.70 Baylor 47.50 (71)
69 49.68 Utah State 50.29 (66)
70 49.50 Syracuse 47.22 (75)
71 49.48 San Diego State 50.34 (65)
72 48.77 Minnesota 44.87 (81)
73 48.05 UNLV 46.56 (76)
74 48.00 Wake Forest 48.70 (69)
75 47.50 Virginia Tech 47.31 (74)
76 47.41 Northwestern 45.96 (79)
77 47.22 UConn 45.72 (80)
78 46.76 Temple 47.44 (72)
79 46.66 Ohio 45.99 (78)
80 46.58 Western Michigan 47.37 (73)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
81 46.23 Navy 43.99 (84)
82 45.47 UTSA 44.53 (82)
83 45.30 Texas State 43.50 (86)
84 45.28 Fresno State 43.85 (85)
85 44.69 Western Kentucky 43.17 (87)
86 44.37 West Virginia 44.05 (83)
87 44.13 Southern Miss 46.33 (77)
88 43.38 California 41.59 (90)
89 43.37 UCLA 42.64 (88)
90 42.62 Miami (OH) 41.09 (93)
91 42.18 Stanford 42.02 (89)
92 41.98 Boston College 39.96 (94)
93 41.53 Bowling Green 41.18 (92)
94 40.59 Washington State 41.44 (91)
95 39.86 Delaware 38.74 (97)
96 39.82 San José State 39.43 (95)
97 39.62 Wyoming 39.21 (96)
98 39.42 Marshall 37.83 (100)
99 39.21 Jacksonville State 38.01 (99)
100 39.20 Troy 38.67 (98)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
101 37.88 Oregon State 36.84 (103)
102 37.77 Air Force 36.90 (102)
103 37.34 Hawai’i 36.08 (106)
104 36.46 Liberty 36.49 (104)
105 36.17 South Alabama 36.33 (105)
106 35.73 UTEP 36.08 (107)
107 35.44 Kennesaw State 37.18 (101)
108 35.37 North Carolina 32.21 (118)
109 35.22 Northern Illinois 33.60 (110)
110 34.93 Colorado State 35.22 (108)
111 34.75 Georgia Southern 33.09 (113)
112 34.16 Buffalo 32.40 (116)
113 33.96 Tulsa 33.24 (111)
114 33.93 New Mexico State 34.63 (109)
115 33.85 Missouri State 32.36 (117)
116 33.54 Florida Atlantic 31.77 (119)
117 33.23 Ball State 33.20 (112)
118 33.22 UAB 32.47 (115)
119 32.90 Nevada 31.41 (121)
120 32.13 Rice 30.14 (124)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
121 31.87 Coastal Carolina 32.97 (114)
122 31.78 App State 31.52 (120)
123 31.35 Arkansas State 30.84 (123)
124 31.27 Central Michigan 30.93 (122)
125 30.53 Louisiana 28.19 (127)
126 29.26 Florida International 27.02 (128)
127 29.19 Akron 28.35 (126)
128 27.87 Georgia State 28.56 (125)
129 27.49 Oklahoma State 24.10 (132)
130 26.65 Middle Tennessee 26.54 (129)
131 25.89 UL Monroe 24.45 (131)
132 24.16 Eastern Michigan 22.94 (133)
133 23.32 Sam Houston 20.41 (135)
134 23.05 Charlotte 20.78 (134)
135 22.46 Kent State 24.93 (130)
136 20.17 Massachusetts 20.11 (136) Schedule Strength
There are two different measures of schedule strength in this table. The first two columns measure the difficulty a team’s past and future schedules would pose for a team that would be 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS mean. The columns are the team’s expected losing percentage against that schedule, meaning that higher numbers indicate a stronger schedule. This should be somewhat similar to the schedule strength from ESPN’s FPI ratings.
The last two columns are also the past and future schedules, but they’re just the average of the opponents’ predictive ratings with an adjustment for the site of the game. Schedule strength is a factor in deciding which teams belong in the college football playoff, and these two columns aren’t always representative of the schedule strength for a team near the top of the ratings. These ratings should be closer to the schedule strength in Jeff Sagarin’s ratings, which are the rating a team would need to be expected to win exactly 50% of games against that team’s schedule.
Past and Future Schedule Strength
Home advantage: 2.39 points
Mean score: 26.44 points
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
1 Indiana .175 (40) .238 (41) 47.61 (44) 58.36 (41)
2 Ohio State .175 (39) .235 (42) 44.57 (67) 58.43 (40)
3 Notre Dame .313 (6) .146 (65) 63.08 (1) 52.08 (65)
4 Miami .352 (2) .123 (72) 58.46 (4) 51.77 (67)
5 Oregon .099 (92) .314 (23) 44.18 (72) 62.89 (22)
6 Alabama .318 (4) .303 (28) 58.67 (2) 58.66 (37)
7 Florida State .313 (5) .157 (63) 50.23 (29) 53.63 (59)
8 USC .147 (57) .370 (10) 48.56 (39) 64.38 (16)
9 Ole Miss .169 (43) .256 (36) 51.64 (22) 55.05 (53)
10 LSU .246 (16) .343 (17) 57.57 (6) 64.01 (18)
11 Georgia .248 (15) .289 (31) 55.70 (9) 59.29 (34)
12 Texas Tech .136 (64) .150 (64) 34.50 (128) 51.38 (68)
13 Texas A&M .253 (13) .288 (32) 58.49 (3) 56.64 (50)
14 Michigan .238 (18) .307 (26) 55.09 (11) 62.67 (24)
15 Oklahoma .148 (56) .419 (3) 44.91 (64) 69.37 (3)
16 Tennessee .156 (53) .312 (24) 47.51 (45) 61.34 (26)
17 Nebraska .160 (50) .203 (50) 45.12 (62) 56.72 (49)
18 Utah .116 (85) .202 (51) 46.38 (52) 57.59 (43)
19 BYU .098 (93) .284 (33) 41.99 (86) 62.34 (25)
20 Vanderbilt .179 (35) .328 (19) 46.43 (50) 64.62 (14)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
21 Texas .246 (17) .331 (18) 49.41 (33) 64.99 (12)
22 Washington .190 (27) .265 (34) 49.20 (35) 60.04 (28)
23 Illinois .291 (9) .260 (35) 54.92 (12) 59.54 (31)
24 Florida .361 (1) .398 (4) 58.25 (5) 68.08 (4)
25 Virginia .168 (44) .079 (81) 47.29 (46) 45.76 (78)
26 Old Dominion .182 (33) .030 (120) 44.26 (71) 35.90 (122)
27 Missouri .065 (116) .387 (8) 33.87 (129) 67.77 (6)
28 Auburn .231 (22) .294 (29) 52.76 (18) 60.01 (30)
29 Penn State .133 (68) .357 (13) 40.83 (96) 65.05 (11)
30 Cincinnati .186 (29) .199 (53) 43.56 (79) 54.45 (58)
31 North Texas .049 (125) .057 (98) 39.16 (104) 41.01 (96)
32 South Florida .250 (14) .105 (78) 48.90 (37) 45.04 (80)
33 Iowa State .129 (75) .186 (59) 48.12 (41) 54.59 (56)
34 Louisville .115 (87) .174 (62) 45.96 (54) 53.00 (61)
35 Georgia Tech .086 (100) .176 (60) 45.18 (61) 54.76 (54)
36 Iowa .232 (21) .320 (21) 43.83 (75) 63.15 (21)
37 TCU .087 (98) .197 (56) 45.18 (60) 56.91 (48)
38 Mississippi State .189 (28) .369 (11) 44.29 (69) 67.21 (7)
39 Duke .132 (70) .136 (68) 49.85 (32) 51.92 (66)
40 Memphis .037 (130) .111 (76) 35.67 (121) 47.94 (73)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
41 East Carolina .130 (73) .075 (85) 43.77 (77) 42.66 (91)
42 Kansas .134 (67) .249 (38) 44.27 (70) 56.58 (51)
43 Toledo .057 (120) .025 (122) 35.82 (119) 35.62 (123)
44 Arkansas .292 (8) .367 (12) 50.39 (28) 66.88 (8)
45 South Carolina .178 (36) .390 (7) 50.49 (27) 64.53 (15)
46 Arizona State .123 (80) .235 (43) 48.92 (36) 58.55 (38)
47 Maryland .104 (90) .324 (20) 41.08 (93) 63.48 (20)
48 Louisiana Tech .123 (79) .025 (123) 44.08 (74) 36.65 (118)
49 Pittsburgh .061 (119) .344 (16) 36.17 (116) 63.86 (19)
50 NC State .142 (62) .390 (6) 47.96 (43) 64.82 (13)
51 Arizona .085 (102) .212 (47) 37.89 (111) 58.52 (39)
52 Clemson .163 (48) .187 (58) 50.97 (25) 52.49 (62)
53 Houston .115 (86) .116 (73) 45.24 (59) 49.73 (71)
54 Purdue .309 (7) .373 (9) 57.51 (7) 65.43 (9)
55 Michigan State .232 (20) .289 (30) 52.80 (17) 61.32 (27)
56 Colorado .174 (41) .197 (55) 53.31 (16) 56.98 (47)
57 Wisconsin .276 (10) .444 (2) 54.88 (13) 69.94 (2)
58 Tulane .170 (42) .096 (79) 50.71 (26) 45.15 (79)
59 Kentucky .275 (11) .310 (25) 56.71 (8) 62.84 (23)
60 Boise State .215 (24) .061 (93) 46.65 (48) 44.18 (85)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
61 Kansas State .127 (77) .242 (40) 52.21 (20) 57.14 (45)
62 Rutgers .075 (109) .396 (5) 38.56 (107) 67.89 (5)
63 UCF .070 (112) .227 (44) 36.12 (117) 54.67 (55)
64 SMU .085 (103) .176 (61) 40.50 (97) 53.54 (60)
65 New Mexico .130 (72) .063 (91) 46.42 (51) 43.43 (88)
66 Army .145 (59) .056 (99) 52.25 (19) 41.05 (95)
67 James Madison .068 (115) .060 (95) 35.94 (118) 40.25 (99)
68 Baylor .104 (89) .225 (45) 42.46 (84) 59.11 (35)
69 Utah State .204 (25) .065 (89) 44.45 (68) 44.38 (83)
70 Syracuse .164 (47) .317 (22) 50.04 (31) 59.38 (33)
71 San Diego State .022 (135) .056 (100) 34.65 (127) 43.18 (89)
72 Minnesota .185 (31) .251 (37) 39.98 (102) 59.42 (32)
73 UNLV .031 (132) .054 (102) 38.02 (109) 42.16 (92)
74 Wake Forest .087 (99) .195 (57) 42.64 (83) 52.28 (64)
75 Virginia Tech .177 (37) .350 (15) 51.39 (23) 64.30 (17)
76 Northwestern .158 (51) .356 (14) 41.05 (95) 65.33 (10)
77 UConn .030 (133) .048 (108) 32.60 (134) 39.72 (103)
78 Temple .145 (60) .114 (75) 41.68 (89) 47.55 (76)
79 Ohio .165 (46) .025 (124) 46.48 (49) 33.82 (132)
80 Western Michigan .166 (45) .024 (126) 48.11 (42) 35.53 (124)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
81 Navy .010 (136) .245 (39) 27.20 (136) 57.35 (44)
82 UTSA .134 (66) .145 (66) 45.42 (57) 48.94 (72)
83 Texas State .061 (118) .031 (119) 35.82 (120) 37.56 (113)
84 Fresno State .055 (121) .063 (92) 33.85 (130) 44.52 (82)
85 Western Kentucky .051 (124) .132 (70) 33.39 (132) 42.98 (90)
86 West Virginia .219 (23) .205 (49) 50.21 (30) 58.26 (42)
87 Southern Miss .085 (101) .019 (134) 41.30 (91) 35.08 (126)
88 California .072 (111) .132 (71) 41.11 (92) 50.44 (70)
89 UCLA .176 (38) .453 (1) 55.55 (10) 70.61 (1)
90 Miami (OH) .078 (106) .047 (109) 41.82 (88) 38.58 (108)
91 Stanford .182 (32) .306 (27) 51.13 (24) 60.02 (29)
92 Boston College .093 (95) .211 (48) 40.28 (100) 57.01 (46)
93 Bowling Green .144 (61) .028 (121) 45.82 (55) 31.07 (136)
94 Washington State .150 (54) .200 (52) 49.38 (34) 54.59 (57)
95 Delaware .054 (122) .045 (112) 37.35 (114) 38.02 (111)
96 San José State .117 (83) .050 (107) 44.90 (65) 42.07 (93)
97 Wyoming .123 (81) .040 (114) 43.78 (76) 39.99 (102)
98 Marshall .111 (88) .060 (94) 37.81 (112) 40.54 (98)
99 Jacksonville State .046 (128) .017 (136) 35.49 (123) 33.56 (133)
100 Troy .078 (108) .074 (86) 40.16 (101) 38.87 (107)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
101 Oregon State .237 (19) .024 (127) 54.34 (14) 33.46 (134)
102 Air Force .062 (117) .060 (96) 39.12 (105) 44.88 (81)
103 Hawai’i .047 (127) .052 (104) 35.18 (124) 43.60 (87)
104 Liberty .103 (91) .042 (113) 42.69 (82) 37.50 (114)
105 South Alabama .136 (65) .023 (129) 43.17 (80) 34.18 (131)
106 UTEP .138 (63) .018 (135) 42.26 (85) 34.58 (128)
107 Kennesaw State .180 (34) .036 (116) 40.38 (98) 38.23 (110)
108 North Carolina .088 (97) .133 (69) 41.05 (94) 52.30 (63)
109 Northern Illinois .116 (84) .055 (101) 44.71 (66) 36.30 (119)
110 Colorado State .123 (82) .065 (88) 44.92 (63) 44.37 (84)
111 Georgia Southern .158 (52) .054 (103) 45.35 (58) 38.38 (109)
112 Buffalo .030 (134) .025 (125) 28.68 (135) 35.24 (125)
113 Tulsa .073 (110) .078 (82) 41.88 (87) 43.60 (86)
114 New Mexico State .070 (113) .092 (80) 35.56 (122) 40.84 (97)
115 Missouri State .148 (55) .033 (118) 44.11 (73) 36.66 (117)
116 Florida Atlantic .083 (104) .115 (74) 37.49 (113) 47.76 (74)
117 Ball State .130 (71) .058 (97) 46.96 (47) 37.30 (115)
118 UAB .133 (69) .110 (77) 43.58 (78) 47.73 (75)
119 Nevada .096 (94) .075 (84) 43.15 (81) 47.02 (77)
120 Rice .036 (131) .143 (67) 32.60 (133) 51.01 (69)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
121 Coastal Carolina .185 (30) .051 (106) 48.87 (38) 37.84 (112)
122 App State .049 (126) .076 (83) 35.12 (125) 39.64 (104)
123 Arkansas State .079 (105) .021 (131) 39.79 (103) 36.09 (120)
124 Central Michigan .129 (76) .051 (105) 37.95 (110) 37.23 (116)
125 Louisiana .078 (107) .039 (115) 33.58 (131) 39.20 (105)
126 Florida International .090 (96) .020 (132) 39.11 (106) 34.23 (130)
127 Akron .129 (74) .019 (133) 40.33 (99) 32.36 (135)
128 Georgia State .258 (12) .068 (87) 51.68 (21) 40.03 (101)
129 Oklahoma State .191 (26) .224 (46) 45.79 (56) 58.96 (36)
130 Middle Tennessee .052 (123) .023 (128) 41.42 (90) 34.53 (129)
131 UL Monroe .161 (49) .065 (90) 38.18 (108) 42.03 (94)
132 Eastern Michigan .045 (129) .034 (117) 35.07 (126) 40.18 (100)
133 Sam Houston .125 (78) .047 (110) 48.32 (40) 38.93 (106)
134 Charlotte .070 (114) .199 (54) 36.56 (115) 56.23 (52)
135 Kent State .326 (3) .046 (111) 53.43 (15) 35.92 (121)
136 Massachusetts .146 (58) .023 (130) 46.14 (53) 34.70 (127)Conference Ratings
To rate the overall quality of conferences, I calculate the expected outcome if each team in a conference were to play every FBS team at a neutral site. The Win% column is the average probability of winning for all of the possible games and for all the teams in the conference. It’s similar to the average rating of all the teams in the conference, but it should be less skewed by outliers.
However, the idea of the “best” conference is subjective, and another way to judge the quality of a conference is to consider how many of its teams are among the best in the FBS. What if instead of playing every team in the FBS, each conference opponent just plays a hypothetical opponent with a rating that’s 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS mean? In this case, the quality of a conference is determined by how its teams would be expected to perform against a hypothetical opponent ranked somewhere around #10 to #15 in the FBS. This is what I’ve done with the HighWin% column. It’s analogous to how I calculate strength of record, and each conference’s rating is impacted more when the conference has more highly rated teams.
Conference Ratings
Rank Win% Conference HighWin% Rating Offense Defense OffDef
1 .755 SEC .371 (1) 66.98 32.99 34.04 -1.06 (8)
2 .685 Big Ten .317 (3) 63.03 31.57 31.42 0.15 (6)
3 .677 FBS Independents .370 (2) 63.93 37.18 26.66 10.52 (1)
4 .601 Big 12 .204 (4) 56.43 28.34 28.09 0.25 (5)
5 .566 ACC .187 (5) 54.66 27.93 26.75 1.17 (4)
6 .439 American Athletic .103 (6) 45.97 24.07 21.91 2.15 (2)
7 .390 Mountain West .055 (7) 43.31 21.33 21.99 -0.66 (7)
8 .322 Pac-12 .027 (11) 39.24 18.24 21.08 -2.84 (9)
9 .313 Sun Belt .046 (8) 38.06 19.85 18.23 1.62 (3)
10 .287 Mid-American .036 (9) 35.82 16.16 19.70 -3.54 (11)
11 .286 Conference USA .031 (10) 36.26 16.57 19.71 -3.14 (10)Playoff Ratings
Here are the four components of the playoff ratings:
The cumulative distribution function of the team’s strength of record for a hypothetical team 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS average. (SOR; 55%)
The cumulative distribution function of the team’s predictive rating (Fwd; 30%)
The team’s winning percentage (Win%; 10%)
The cumulative distribution function of the team’s strength of schedule for a hypothetical team 1.5 standard deviations above the FBS average. (SOS; 5%)
Unlike my predictive ratings, these are based heavily on strength of record, meaning that they give more weight to a team’s past accomplishments than what they’re expected to do in the future.
Playoff Ratings
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
1 .9885 +.0071 Miami .992 .997 1.000 .976
2 +1 .9609 +.0020 Texas A&M .979 .926 1.000 .920
3 +1 .9572 +.0082 Indiana .959 .664 1.000 .988
4 -2 .9562 -.0172 Ohio State .959 .666 1.000 .985
5 +1 .9400 +.0144 Ole Miss .957 .633 1.000 .941
6 +4 .9352 +.0438 Alabama .936 .989 .800 .971
7 -2 .9214 -.0194 Oklahoma .949 .526 1.000 .911
8 +1 .9187 +.0207 Texas Tech .944 .463 1.000 .921
9 -1 .9148 -.0049 Oregon .926 .280 1.000 .972
10 +2 .9105 +.0238 Illinois .939 .975 .833 .874
11 +2 .8941 +.0185 Georgia .894 .916 .800 .921
12 +4 .8941 +.0359 LSU .893 .913 .800 .924
13 -6 .8912 -.0289 BYU .925 .276 1.000 .895
14 -3 .8882 +.0011 Michigan .887 .895 .800 .918
15 -1 .8626 -.0121 Vanderbilt .867 .681 .833 .895
16 +3 .8559 +.0094 South Florida .896 .920 .800 .791
17 .8530 +.0038 Missouri .906 .153 1.000 .823
18 +8 .8461 +.0303 Washington .848 .733 .800 .877
19 +1 .8454 +.0086 Georgia Tech .919 .228 1.000 .762
20 +2 .8369 +.0078 North Texas .895 .108 1.000 .797
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
21 +13 .8363 +.0605 Virginia .858 .631 .833 .831
22 +3 .8328 +.0143 Nebraska .820 .591 .800 .908
23 +4 .8318 +.0197 USC .806 .521 .800 .942
24 .8304 +.0018 Tennessee .816 .571 .800 .911
25 +3 .8251 +.0167 Old Dominion .840 .695 .800 .827
26 +9 .8249 +.0573 Notre Dame .768 .987 .600 .977
27 +5 .8207 +.0392 Cincinnati .845 .717 .800 .800
28 -10 .8155 -.0329 Florida State .768 .987 .600 .946
29 +2 .8096 +.0260 Memphis .887 .082 1.000 .726
30 +6 .7939 +.0291 Utah .772 .362 .800 .905
31 -16 .7917 -.0667 Iowa State .822 .429 .833 .783
32 -11 .7517 -.0795 Louisville .770 .355 .800 .768
33 +6 .7479 +.0260 Tulane .830 .642 .800 .598
34 -11 .7445 -.0841 Texas .682 .912 .600 .879
35 +3 .7318 -.0113 Arizona State .780 .397 .800 .677
36 +9 .7285 +.0429 Louisiana Tech .780 .398 .800 .665
37 +7 .7207 +.0331 UNLV .882 .069 1.000 .441
38 +10 .7192 +.0564 TCU .736 .230 .800 .742
39 -9 .7140 -.0709 Maryland .757 .303 .800 .675
40 +1 .7113 +.0131 Auburn .662 .878 .600 .810
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
41 -4 .7081 -.0518 Mississippi State .695 .727 .667 .742
42 -13 .7048 -.0963 Houston .771 .358 .800 .610
43 -3 .6964 -.0119 Navy .866 .040 1.000 .394
44 -1 .6939 -.0001 Iowa .663 .880 .600 .750
45 +2 .6817 +.0145 Arizona .734 .222 .800 .624
46 +26 .6590 +.1627 Florida .559 .998 .400 .871
47 -5 .6511 -.0435 Michigan State .664 .881 .600 .607
48 +16 .6469 +.0830 Duke .615 .443 .667 .732
49 +11 .6450 +.0732 Kansas .618 .452 .667 .719
50 +8 .6322 +.0546 NC State .629 .493 .667 .649
51 +2 .6290 +.0225 Boise State .640 .830 .600 .586
52 .6270 +.0198 James Madison .712 .161 .800 .491
53 -4 .6207 +.0003 South Carolina .585 .678 .600 .684
54 -21 .6072 -.1715 Penn State .516 .447 .600 .803
55 -1 .6063 +.0120 Fresno State .738 .122 .833 .370
56 +6 .5988 +.0318 Western Kentucky .733 .113 .833 .355
57 +6 .5872 +.0222 Utah State .623 .789 .600 .484
58 +8 .5834 +.0498 San Diego State .649 .056 .800 .478
59 -8 .5804 -.0281 East Carolina .511 .431 .600 .725
60 -1 .5607 -.0125 Minnesota .595 .711 .600 .460
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
61 +6 .5442 +.0137 Arkansas .454 .976 .400 .685
62 +13 .5423 +.0640 Baylor .573 .303 .667 .484
63 -13 .5356 -.0818 Purdue .479 .986 .400 .610
64 +15 .5217 +.0858 Northwestern .555 .581 .600 .424
65 -19 .5206 -.1584 New Mexico .511 .431 .600 .526
66 +5 .5043 -.0013 Wisconsin .430 .961 .400 .600
67 +13 .5016 +.0735 Temple .534 .509 .600 .408
68 +1 .5004 -.0224 Kentucky .428 .959 .400 .590
69 +4 .4989 +.0059 Toledo .402 .130 .600 .705
70 +19 .4902 +.1271 Pittsburgh .407 .141 .600 .664
71 +19 .4726 +.1099 SMU .443 .222 .600 .527
72 +2 .4702 -.0195 Rutgers .427 .184 .600 .553
73 +5 .4667 +.0267 Kennesaw State .588 .688 .600 .163
74 +2 .4637 -.0064 Washington State .543 .538 .600 .261
75 -20 .4611 -.1327 California .525 .174 .667 .324
76 -15 .4601 -.1106 UCF .421 .169 .600 .534
77 -9 .4509 -.0752 Syracuse .412 .612 .500 .479
78 +14 .4495 +.0888 UConn .461 .069 .667 .419
79 +15 .4486 +.1172 Wake Forest .446 .230 .600 .440
80 +11 .4302 +.0685 Western Michigan .415 .622 .500 .403
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
81 -24 .4298 -.1489 Ohio .414 .617 .500 .405
82 +2 .4172 +.0219 Southern Miss .443 .222 .600 .342
83 -18 .4135 -.1367 UL Monroe .559 .595 .600 .054
84 +15 .4058 +.1142 Clemson .271 .607 .400 .622
85 -29 .4022 -.1798 Texas State .407 .141 .600 .371
86 -4 .3988 -.0054 Hawai’i .487 .104 .667 .196
87 +16 .3769 +.1027 Troy .432 .195 .600 .232
88 -11 .3591 -.0925 Colorado .205 .660 .333 .601
89 -19 .3576 -.1589 Delaware .396 .120 .600 .245
90 +10 .3562 +.0654 Army .248 .512 .400 .514
91 +14 .3418 +.0867 New Mexico State .421 .169 .600 .140
92 -4 .3264 -.0371 Stanford .296 .699 .400 .296
93 +8 .3212 +.0348 West Virginia .257 .843 .333 .348
94 +15 .3123 +.1018 App State .388 .107 .600 .111
95 -9 .3104 -.0584 Kansas State .157 .417 .333 .566
96 -11 .3089 -.0788 Virginia Tech .207 .671 .333 .427
97 -16 .3046 -.1078 UTSA .235 .455 .400 .375
98 -15 .3010 -.1026 Central Michigan .360 .428 .500 .105
99 -1 .2852 -.0092 Bowling Green .246 .505 .400 .281
100 -4 .2738 -.0465 Coastal Carolina .299 .712 .400 .112
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
101 +3 .2595 +.0011 Georgia Southern .263 .577 .400 .152
102 -15 .2539 -.1116 Wyoming .222 .395 .400 .240
103 +13 .2504 +.0813 San José State .216 .368 .400 .245
104 +3 .2463 +.0088 Missouri State .251 .526 .400 .139
105 +1 .2428 -.0000 Marshall .209 .339 .400 .236
106 +15 .2373 +.0858 Miami (OH) .174 .196 .400 .306
107 -14 .2296 -.1085 UAB .233 .447 .400 .130
108 +16 .2272 +.0927 Ball State .230 .432 .400 .130
109 +8 .2230 +.0552 Buffalo .230 .068 .500 .144
110 -15 .2191 -.1031 Rice .237 .080 .500 .115
111 +1 .2034 +.0152 Kent State .225 .992 .200 .033
112 -10 .2019 -.0773 North Carolina .184 .236 .400 .162
113 +17 .2009 +.1059 UCLA .092 .668 .200 .324
114 -3 .1942 +.0053 Jacksonville State .144 .101 .400 .232
115 +12 .1894 +.0731 Florida Atlantic .179 .214 .400 .134
116 -19 .1792 -.1301 Florida International .186 .243 .400 .083
117 -4 .1742 -.0045 Louisiana .174 .195 .400 .096
118 -10 .1728 -.0403 Georgia State .155 .935 .200 .070
119 +7 .1670 +.0452 Akron .159 .430 .333 .082
120 -10 .1473 -.0491 Boston College .049 .253 .200 .291
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
121 -7 .1465 -.0238 Tulsa .113 .180 .333 .141
122 +9 .1392 +.0513 Arkansas State .117 .199 .333 .106
123 .1328 -.0081 UTEP .070 .476 .200 .168
124 -6 .1324 -.0349 Oklahoma State .101 .736 .200 .066
125 -5 .1236 -.0315 Oregon State .031 .892 .000 .206
126 -4 .1219 -.0288 South Alabama .053 .463 .167 .176
127 -8 .1206 -.0415 Colorado State .062 .394 .200 .155
128 -13 .1188 -.0504 Northern Illinois .059 .363 .200 .160
129 -1 .1187 +.0029 Liberty .054 .300 .200 .181
130 -1 .1095 +.0020 Air Force .038 .142 .200 .204
131 -6 .0992 -.0319 Nevada .051 .270 .200 .126
132 +1 .0629 +.0042 Middle Tennessee .035 .114 .200 .059
133 +2 .0619 +.0056 Charlotte .041 .169 .200 .036
134 -2 .0481 -.0112 Eastern Michigan .025 .099 .167 .042
135 +1 .0403 -.0109 Massachusetts .013 .517 .000 .023
136 -2 .0377 -.0206 Sam Houston .011 .408 .000 .038Week 7 Game Predictions
As usual, games are ranked based on the projected quality. This factors in the overall strength of the two teams and the potential for a competitive game. Game quality ratings are not directly comparable between college football and the NFL. NFL games are typically decided by smaller margins than college games, the teams are more balanced in their quality, and there’s just not as much scoring in the NFL. Thresholds for close games and blowouts are also different between college and the NFL for the same reasons.
Beside each team, there are two numbers in parentheses. One is the predicted margin of victory (positive) or defeat (negative), the other is the probability of winning. These margins are sometimes larger than what’s indicated by the predicted score. That’s because there’s nothing in the math that prevents a prediction of negative points with a sufficiently lopsided matchup. This is, of course, impossible, so the score is set to zero in those instances. There’s no cap on how many points a team can be projected to score, though.
#1: Indiana (3.08, 57.19%) at Oregon (-3.08, 42.81%)
Estimated score: 35.95 - 32.92, Total: 68.87
Quality: 98.93%, Team quality: 98.97%, Competitiveness: 98.84%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.98%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.43%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 51.86%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 21.99%
#2: Oklahoma (2.66, 56.23%) vs. Texas (-2.66, 43.77%)
Estimated score: 17.25 - 14.37, Total: 31.63
Quality: 98.04%, Team quality: 97.49%, Competitiveness: 99.13%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.86%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.55%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 18.80%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 56.34%
#3: Michigan (-5.16, 38.06%) at USC (5.16, 61.94%)
Estimated score: 31.90 - 37.08, Total: 68.98
Quality: 97.58%, Team quality: 97.99%, Competitiveness: 96.76%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.82%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.52%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 51.97%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 21.91%
#4: South Florida (-2.71, 43.66%) at North Texas (2.71, 56.34%)
Estimated score: 37.21 - 39.75, Total: 76.97
Quality: 97.14%, Team quality: 96.18%, Competitiveness: 99.10%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.87%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.54%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 59.85%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 16.47%
#5: Georgia (5.74, 63.23%) at Auburn (-5.74, 36.77%)
Estimated score: 20.54 - 14.72, Total: 35.26
Quality: 96.78%, Team quality: 97.17%, Competitiveness: 96.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.13%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.19%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 21.35%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 52.73%
#6: Florida (-6.52, 35.07%) at Texas A&M (6.52, 64.93%)
Estimated score: 19.34 - 25.71, Total: 45.05
Quality: 96.61%, Team quality: 97.49%, Competitiveness: 94.88%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.60%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.71%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.14%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 42.99%
#7: East Carolina (2.91, 56.80%) at Tulane (-2.91, 43.20%)
Estimated score: 22.47 - 19.47, Total: 41.93
Quality: 95.99%, Team quality: 94.54%, Competitiveness: 98.96%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.93%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.48%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 26.52%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 46.08%
#8: Iowa (4.03, 59.38%) at Wisconsin (-4.03, 40.62%)
Estimated score: 17.46 - 13.39, Total: 30.85
Quality: 95.80%, Team quality: 94.72%, Competitiveness: 98.01%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.31%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.06%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 18.28%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 57.10%
#9: Iowa State (5.59, 62.88%) at Colorado (-5.59, 37.12%)
Estimated score: 26.99 - 21.26, Total: 48.25
Quality: 95.36%, Team quality: 94.94%, Competitiveness: 96.22%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.04%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.28%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 31.95%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.87%
#10: TCU (4.95, 61.47%) at Kansas State (-4.95, 38.53%)
Estimated score: 33.26 - 28.29, Total: 61.55
Quality: 95.29%, Team quality: 94.44%, Competitiveness: 97.01%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.71%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.63%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 44.57%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 27.78%
#11: Purdue (3.37, 57.87%) at Minnesota (-3.37, 42.13%)
Estimated score: 25.26 - 22.13, Total: 47.39
Quality: 94.67%, Team quality: 92.76%, Competitiveness: 98.60%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.07%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.32%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 31.18%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 40.71%
#12: New Mexico (-4.68, 39.16%) at Boise State (4.68, 60.84%)
Estimated score: 23.44 - 28.15, Total: 51.59
Quality: 94.45%, Team quality: 93.04%, Competitiveness: 97.33%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.58%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.77%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.99%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.68%
#13: Navy (-2.92, 43.18%) at Temple (2.92, 56.82%)
Estimated score: 30.56 - 33.42, Total: 63.98
Quality: 93.26%, Team quality: 90.54%, Competitiveness: 98.95%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.93%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.48%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 46.99%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 25.78%
#14: Nebraska (10.86, 73.80%) at Maryland (-10.86, 26.20%)
Estimated score: 30.89 - 19.87, Total: 50.76
Quality: 92.85%, Team quality: 96.26%, Competitiveness: 86.39%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 14.32%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.14%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.22%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 37.47%
#15: Alabama (12.20, 76.27%) at Missouri (-12.20, 23.73%)
Estimated score: 36.19 - 24.11, Total: 60.30
Quality: 92.58%, Team quality: 97.70%, Competitiveness: 83.13%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.85%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 24.81%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 43.34%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.84%
#16: Ohio State (13.06, 77.78%) at Illinois (-13.06, 22.22%)
Estimated score: 26.00 - 13.05, Total: 39.05
Quality: 92.06%, Team quality: 98.19%, Competitiveness: 80.92%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 16.92%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 23.93%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 24.21%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 48.96%
#17: BYU (11.84, 75.63%) at Arizona (-11.84, 24.37%)
Estimated score: 31.02 - 19.15, Total: 50.17
Quality: 91.73%, Team quality: 95.84%, Competitiveness: 84.02%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.43%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.17%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 33.68%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.03%
#18: San José State (-2.19, 44.88%) at Wyoming (2.19, 55.12%)
Estimated score: 19.55 - 21.81, Total: 41.36
Quality: 90.89%, Team quality: 86.90%, Competitiveness: 99.41%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.75%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.68%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 26.06%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 46.64%
#19: Wake Forest (7.74, 67.54%) at Oregon State (-7.74, 32.46%)
Estimated score: 26.33 - 18.42, Total: 44.75
Quality: 89.99%, Team quality: 88.59%, Competitiveness: 92.86%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.45%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.84%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.88%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.30%
#20: Clemson (10.64, 73.39%) at Boston College (-10.64, 26.61%)
Estimated score: 34.71 - 24.01, Total: 58.72
Quality: 89.74%, Team quality: 91.20%, Competitiveness: 86.90%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 14.09%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.35%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.79%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 30.20%
#21: Liberty (-1.65, 46.12%) at UTEP (1.65, 53.88%)
Estimated score: 21.05 - 22.59, Total: 43.64
Quality: 89.35%, Team quality: 84.61%, Competitiveness: 99.66%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.65%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.79%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 27.94%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 44.38%
#22: Troy (-8.48, 30.91%) at Texas State (8.48, 69.09%)
Estimated score: 25.12 - 33.50, Total: 58.63
Quality: 89.27%, Team quality: 88.18%, Competitiveness: 91.47%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.05%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.26%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.70%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 30.28%
#23: Southern Miss (6.99, 65.95%) at Georgia Southern (-6.99, 34.05%)
Estimated score: 38.90 - 31.79, Total: 70.70
Quality: 89.05%, Team quality: 86.61%, Competitiveness: 94.13%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.91%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.39%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 53.69%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 20.66%
#24: Kansas (-15.03, 18.97%) at Texas Tech (15.03, 81.03%)
Estimated score: 21.96 - 36.84, Total: 58.79
Quality: 88.90%, Team quality: 96.47%, Competitiveness: 75.50%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 19.66%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.81%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.86%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 30.14%
#25: UCF (-13.88, 20.82%) at Cincinnati (13.88, 79.18%)
Estimated score: 19.41 - 33.55, Total: 52.96
Quality: 88.84%, Team quality: 94.39%, Competitiveness: 78.71%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 18.02%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 23.05%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 36.27%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.40%
#26: Fresno State (7.97, 68.03%) at Colorado State (-7.97, 31.97%)
Estimated score: 27.66 - 19.62, Total: 47.28
Quality: 88.75%, Team quality: 86.97%, Competitiveness: 92.44%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.63%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.66%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 31.08%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 40.81%
#27: Utah State (9.96, 72.06%) at Hawai’i (-9.96, 27.94%)
Estimated score: 34.66 - 24.57, Total: 59.23
Quality: 88.67%, Team quality: 88.79%, Competitiveness: 88.44%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.39%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.98%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 42.29%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.76%
#28: Stanford (-11.54, 24.93%) at SMU (11.54, 75.07%)
Estimated score: 17.24 - 28.54, Total: 45.77
Quality: 88.45%, Team quality: 90.35%, Competitiveness: 84.78%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.07%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.48%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.76%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 42.29%
#29: Arizona State (-15.25, 18.62%) at Utah (15.25, 81.38%)
Estimated score: 14.28 - 29.51, Total: 43.79
Quality: 88.41%, Team quality: 96.07%, Competitiveness: 74.87%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 19.99%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.56%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.06%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 44.24%
#30: Arkansas (-15.44, 18.32%) at Tennessee (15.44, 81.68%)
Estimated score: 33.62 - 49.19, Total: 82.81
Quality: 88.24%, Team quality: 96.16%, Competitiveness: 74.31%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 20.29%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.35%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 65.39%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 13.10%
#31: UAB (-2.70, 43.68%) at Florida Atlantic (2.70, 56.32%)
Estimated score: 38.08 - 41.01, Total: 79.09
Quality: 87.84%, Team quality: 82.70%, Competitiveness: 99.10%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.87%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.54%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 61.89%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 15.19%
#32: UCLA (-13.43, 21.57%) at Michigan State (13.43, 78.43%)
Estimated score: 20.72 - 34.16, Total: 54.89
Quality: 87.29%, Team quality: 91.22%, Competitiveness: 79.91%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 17.42%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 23.53%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.09%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.63%
#33: South Carolina (-16.84, 16.27%) at LSU (16.84, 83.73%)
Estimated score: 5.04 - 22.05, Total: 27.08
Quality: 86.65%, Team quality: 96.24%, Competitiveness: 70.23%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 22.50%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 19.80%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 15.89%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 60.77%
#34: Toledo (14.55, 80.27%) at Bowling Green (-14.55, 19.73%)
Estimated score: 28.64 - 14.04, Total: 42.68
Quality: 86.41%, Team quality: 91.63%, Competitiveness: 76.85%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 18.96%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 22.33%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 27.14%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 45.33%
#35: Air Force (-12.66, 22.90%) at UNLV (12.66, 77.10%)
Estimated score: 32.18 - 44.77, Total: 76.95
Quality: 86.13%, Team quality: 88.30%, Competitiveness: 81.94%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 16.42%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 24.34%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 59.83%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 16.48%
#36: App State (1.52, 53.56%) at Georgia State (-1.52, 46.44%)
Estimated score: 26.96 - 25.44, Total: 52.39
Quality: 86.12%, Team quality: 80.03%, Competitiveness: 99.72%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.63%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.81%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.73%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.93%
#37: Virginia Tech (-16.01, 17.47%) at Georgia Tech (16.01, 82.53%)
Estimated score: 22.52 - 38.35, Total: 60.88
Quality: 85.81%, Team quality: 93.24%, Competitiveness: 72.68%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 21.16%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.73%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 43.91%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.35%
#38: Missouri State (4.82, 61.16%) at Middle Tennessee (-4.82, 38.84%)
Estimated score: 24.82 - 20.20, Total: 45.02
Quality: 85.57%, Team quality: 80.29%, Competitiveness: 97.17%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.65%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.70%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.11%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.02%
#39: Miami (OH) (11.05, 74.16%) at Akron (-11.05, 25.84%)
Estimated score: 26.05 - 14.92, Total: 40.96
Quality: 84.72%, Team quality: 84.11%, Competitiveness: 85.95%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 14.53%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.96%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 25.73%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 47.05%
#40: Rutgers (-17.94, 14.77%) at Washington (17.94, 85.23%)
Estimated score: 29.51 - 47.49, Total: 76.99
Quality: 84.52%, Team quality: 94.99%, Competitiveness: 66.93%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 24.37%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 18.58%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 59.88%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 16.45%
#41: San Diego State (14.19, 79.69%) at Nevada (-14.19, 20.31%)
Estimated score: 23.65 - 9.31, Total: 32.95
Quality: 83.97%, Team quality: 87.21%, Competitiveness: 77.85%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 18.45%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 22.72%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 19.70%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 55.03%
#42: Northern Illinois (8.68, 69.49%) at Eastern Michigan (-8.68, 30.51%)
Estimated score: 28.02 - 19.53, Total: 47.56
Quality: 83.32%, Team quality: 79.68%, Competitiveness: 91.10%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.21%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.10%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 31.32%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 40.55%
#43: Northwestern (-18.21, 14.41%) at Penn State (18.21, 85.59%)
Estimated score: 11.37 - 29.40, Total: 40.78
Quality: 83.26%, Team quality: 93.45%, Competitiveness: 66.10%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 24.85%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 18.28%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 25.58%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 47.23%
#44: UL Monroe (-8.37, 31.14%) at Coastal Carolina (8.37, 68.86%)
Estimated score: 20.28 - 28.71, Total: 48.98
Quality: 83.06%, Team quality: 79.05%, Competitiveness: 91.69%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.95%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.35%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 32.60%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.17%
#45: Pittsburgh (-20.28, 11.90%) at Florida State (20.28, 88.10%)
Estimated score: 22.18 - 42.47, Total: 64.65
Quality: 82.13%, Team quality: 96.26%, Competitiveness: 59.78%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 28.70%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 16.03%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 47.66%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 25.24%
#46: Ball State (-15.73, 17.89%) at Western Michigan (15.73, 82.11%)
Estimated score: 10.97 - 26.70, Total: 37.67
Quality: 81.81%, Team quality: 86.32%, Competitiveness: 73.48%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 20.73%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.03%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 23.14%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 50.33%
#47: Rice (-15.72, 17.91%) at UTSA (15.72, 82.09%)
Estimated score: 14.86 - 30.67, Total: 45.53
Quality: 81.39%, Team quality: 85.63%, Competitiveness: 73.52%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 20.71%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.05%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.55%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 42.53%
#48: Massachusetts (-4.68, 39.14%) at Kent State (4.68, 60.86%)
Estimated score: 26.91 - 31.66, Total: 58.57
Quality: 80.03%, Team quality: 72.58%, Competitiveness: 97.32%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.59%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.76%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.65%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 30.33%
#49: Louisiana Tech (18.97, 86.54%) at Kennesaw State (-18.97, 13.46%)
Estimated score: 27.96 - 8.86, Total: 36.82
Quality: 79.94%, Team quality: 89.47%, Competitiveness: 63.81%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 26.21%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 17.46%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 22.50%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 51.18%
#50: Jacksonville State (15.90, 82.36%) vs. Sam Houston (-15.90, 17.64%)
Estimated score: 36.80 - 20.84, Total: 57.64
Quality: 77.81%, Team quality: 80.33%, Competitiveness: 73.00%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 20.99%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 20.85%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 40.74%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.15%
#51: Old Dominion (22.81, 90.71%) at Marshall (-22.81, 9.29%)
Estimated score: 42.16 - 19.45, Total: 61.61
Quality: 76.00%, Team quality: 91.79%, Competitiveness: 52.11%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 33.81%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 13.42%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 44.64%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 27.73%
#52: Louisiana (-21.84, 10.24%) at James Madison (21.84, 89.76%)
Estimated score: 9.96 - 31.82, Total: 41.78
Quality: 74.04%, Team quality: 85.88%, Competitiveness: 55.04%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 31.80%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 14.40%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 26.39%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 46.23%
#53: NC State (-26.92, 6.03%) at Notre Dame (26.92, 93.97%)
Estimated score: 19.88 - 46.58, Total: 66.47
Quality: 72.05%, Team quality: 96.44%, Competitiveness: 40.21%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 42.91%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 9.65%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 49.47%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 23.81%
#54: Houston (24.67, 92.32%) at Oklahoma State (-24.67, 7.68%)
Estimated score: 34.89 - 10.29, Total: 45.18
Quality: 70.10%, Team quality: 85.98%, Competitiveness: 46.60%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 37.83%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 11.63%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.25%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 42.87%
#55: Charlotte (-30.16, 4.18%) at Army (30.16, 95.82%)
Estimated score: 7.54 - 37.62, Total: 45.16
Quality: 60.01%, Team quality: 82.45%, Competitiveness: 31.79%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 50.44%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 7.20%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.23%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 42.89%
#56: Washington State (-35.74, 2.12%) at Ole Miss (35.74, 97.88%)
Estimated score: 8.63 - 44.24, Total: 52.87
Quality: 55.40%, Team quality: 92.34%, Competitiveness: 19.94%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 63.25%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 4.08%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 36.18%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.49%The predicted quality of the games is sometimes different from our subjective expectation for which games will be the best. Although I doubt that many people would disagree that Indiana-Oregon is a very compelling matchup, other games like Alabama-Missouri and Ohio State-Illinois might seem to be ranked a bit low. However, that’s because the predicted competitiveness of the game has a large impact, and those games aren’t predicted to be as close as some others during the weekend.
Thanks for reading!
The ratings in this article are based on data from collegefootballdata.com.