Week 9 College Football Computer Ratings and Game Predictions
Final computer ratings for week 9, predictions for this weekend's games, and a look at how I'll be estimating how some of the biggest games might affect playoff scenarios
The new week of college football begins this evening. If I tried to write a detailed article discussing the matchups and ratings, there’s little chance it would get posted before the first game this evening. My plan is to write another article later this week, but I want to use this article to explain my idea for evaluating teams’ playoff chances and the implications of the games this week. I’m including the usual predictive ratings, rating comparisons, schedule strength, conference ratings, playoff ratings, and game predictions. They’ll mostly have the same boilerplate text from my other articles, but I also want to share what I’m working on for later this week. South Florida has an important game at Memphis on Saturday, but how does that affect the playoff picture? And what playoff implications from about the outcome when Ole Miss visits Oklahoma? In this article, I’ll describe how I intend to answer questions like these.
Upcoming Plans
If you’ve been reading my articles since the start of football season, you’re probably familiar with my NFL season simulations. I want to do something similar for college football, but it won’t be exactly the same. My goal is to simulate the remainder of the regular season many times, predict the final regular season records prior to the conference championship games, and then predict how this could affect the playoff ratings that I’ve been calculating.
As a reminder, there are four components to the playoff ratings, and I’ll include them here instead of later in the article:
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%)
Three of the four components are backward looking ratings: the strength of record, winning percentage, and schedule strength. The fourth, the predictive rating, is forward looking and intended to represent the quality of a team right now. It’s also the most time-consuming of the four ratings to calculate. There are actually 15 different sets of predictive ratings generated each time I calculate team ratings, and the median if these is what I report in my articles. When I simulate the rest of the season, I intend to keep the predictive ratings the same instead of calculating them after each simulated week or at the end of the simulated season. Some of that is for the practical reason of not needing huge amounts of computing power, but it’s also because the predictive ratings really should represent the best estimate of each team’s quality during the remainder of the season. Therefore, the forward looking component of the playoff ratings will remain constant, and each simulation will use one of the 15 sets of predictive ratings.
Each future game in the regular season will be simulated using the predictive ratings. The outcome will be recorded and used to update each team’s winning percentage and strength of record. Each team’s full strength of schedule at the end of the season will also be calculated based on the predictive ratings. The backward looking components of the playoff ratings will be unique to each simulation. After the season is simulated, I’ll calculate the final playoff ratings and store them.
The most obvious thing to do with this data is to have a table with the average playoff ratings at the end of the simulated seasons and each team’s chances of being in a playoff spot at the end of the regular season. But I also want to examine the impact of individual games during the rest of the season. For example, what happens if LSU wins at home against Texas A&M? Or what is the impact of the outcome of the Ole Miss-Oklahoma game? Or how does the outcome of South Florida visiting Memphis affect the Group of 5’s automatic bid to the playoff? It’s possible to estimate that from the ensemble of simulations. For example, if I want to estimate the impact of a Memphis win, I’ll select the subset of simulated seasons where Memphis won, and then calculate the average of those simulations.
Although North Texas-Charlotte and Boise State-Nevada do have some playoff implications, the games that appear to have the biggest impact on the playoff are on Saturday. My goal is to have this ready before Saturday’s games if not a bit sooner, then post another article about it before kickoff on Saturday
With that said, let’s take a look at the current ratings.
Predictive Ratings
In one week, the ratings will be based entirely on games from 2025. However, for now, games from 2024 do still have a small impact on the ratings. I’ve given games from 2024 1% of the weight of games played in 2025. For a team that played 13 games in 2024 and seven games in 2025, games played this season account for an estimated 98.18% of the team’s rating while last season decides the remaining 1.82%. The impact of last season can be a bit larger at lower divisions for teams that haven’t played as many games this season. Even though these estimates can vary a bit, the ratings are determined almost entirely by games played in 2025.
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: 2.11 points
Mean score: 26.49 points
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
1 88.66 -1.04 Indiana 43.84 44.88 .237
2 88.59 +0.51 Ohio State 38.46 50.12 .216
3 +2 86.00 +4.56 Oregon 46.64 39.52 .062
4 -1 84.52 +0.20 Notre Dame 44.67 39.83 .023
5 -1 80.15 -3.54 Miami 34.80 45.30 .166
6 79.88 +1.39 Alabama 37.58 42.41 .160
7 +2 78.22 +1.85 USC 45.16 33.05 -.032
8 77.48 +0.27 Utah 39.82 37.60 -.100
9 -2 76.78 -0.77 Texas Tech 40.19 36.44 .021
10 +3 74.75 +1.26 Georgia 34.92 39.84 .107
11 -1 74.45 -1.08 Texas A&M 40.09 34.42 .249
12 +4 73.20 +2.11 BYU 37.12 36.10 .166
13 +4 73.17 +2.84 Michigan 32.93 40.23 -.015
14 -2 72.57 -1.64 Washington 38.73 33.90 -.058
15 +10 72.17 +2.82 Oklahoma 29.61 42.48 .039
16 -5 72.09 -3.31 Florida State 39.41 32.41 -.322
17 +7 71.86 +2.12 Vanderbilt 42.30 29.64 .043
18 -4 71.74 -0.50 Texas 30.82 40.98 -.034
19 -4 71.18 -0.15 LSU 30.34 40.99 -.064
20 -2 71.15 +0.92 South Florida 39.53 31.78 .072
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
21 71.12 +1.04 Illinois 37.57 33.57 .067
22 71.08 +1.02 Ole Miss 40.45 30.63 .050
23 -3 70.53 +0.39 Tennessee 44.30 26.23 -.061
24 +3 70.09 +2.12 Missouri 38.45 31.64 .019
25 +5 68.65 +2.88 Louisville 37.72 30.91 .061
26 -3 67.93 -1.91 Florida 30.27 37.80 -.220
27 +5 67.23 +2.97 Pittsburgh 34.60 32.64 -.154
28 -9 67.16 -3.05 Nebraska 36.67 30.69 -.130
29 +6 67.11 +3.76 Penn State 36.85 30.34 -.392
30 -4 66.95 -1.24 Iowa 27.95 38.94 -.073
31 +7 66.81 +4.81 North Texas 44.93 21.88 -.049
32 -4 66.52 -0.87 Virginia 39.23 27.29 .004
33 -4 66.10 +0.10 Cincinnati 35.32 30.98 -.016
34 -3 65.63 +0.70 Georgia Tech 33.59 32.13 .111
35 -1 64.91 +1.34 Auburn 25.83 39.15 -.310
36 -3 64.85 +0.81 Iowa State 31.45 33.50 -.131
37 +3 63.10 +2.09 Mississippi State 31.44 31.68 -.229
38 +5 62.05 +1.74 Arkansas 36.07 26.05 -.413
39 +5 61.37 +1.18 TCU 35.68 25.84 -.181
40 -3 61.35 -0.79 Duke 34.75 26.58 -.285
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
41 61.33 +0.63 Kansas 31.92 29.53 -.222
42 +8 61.29 +2.82 Arizona 29.09 32.25 -.283
43 +6 61.14 +2.14 Boise State 31.55 29.73 -.098
44 +14 59.99 +3.48 Arizona State 24.65 35.42 -.055
45 +1 59.67 -0.10 East Carolina 28.09 31.62 -.312
46 +1 59.47 -0.09 South Carolina 23.08 36.15 -.326
47 +5 59.05 +1.28 Toledo 29.79 29.22 -.382
48 59.01 -0.14 NC State 29.44 29.43 -.208
49 -10 58.91 -2.54 Memphis 28.77 30.14 -.106
50 +5 58.88 +2.16 Kansas State 30.99 27.87 -.431
51 +13 58.81 +4.77 Minnesota 26.27 32.42 -.102
52 -1 58.80 +0.79 Colorado 27.36 31.54 -.390
53 +10 58.71 +4.29 SMU 29.42 29.33 -.201
54 +2 58.67 +2.04 Houston 27.78 30.91 -.028
55 +6 58.57 +3.96 UCF 25.99 32.64 -.325
56 -11 58.30 -1.48 Maryland 26.40 31.95 -.308
57 -15 58.24 -2.09 Clemson 26.39 31.99 -.442
58 -22 57.92 -4.72 Old Dominion 31.95 26.01 -.267
59 -6 57.58 -0.08 San Diego State 27.25 30.33 -.138
60 -3 57.54 +1.01 Tulane 27.35 30.18 -.011
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
61 +14 57.38 +7.09 James Madison 24.16 33.19 -.066
62 -3 56.96 +0.74 Wake Forest 24.37 32.62 -.250
63 -1 56.94 +2.47 Kentucky 26.62 30.34 -.412
64 +3 56.71 +4.23 Northwestern 19.41 37.33 -.094
65 -5 55.03 +0.00 Purdue 25.46 29.55 -.439
66 +3 54.27 +2.48 Louisiana Tech 22.07 32.03 -.239
67 -13 54.01 -2.85 Rutgers 32.58 21.35 -.335
68 +5 53.44 +2.63 Baylor 34.54 18.84 -.301
69 +1 53.41 +2.21 UCLA 24.08 29.33 -.394
70 +2 52.93 +1.95 Michigan State 28.92 24.28 -.298
71 +7 52.41 +2.62 Western Michigan 18.03 34.42 -.296
72 -4 52.15 +0.03 Syracuse 25.59 26.58 -.400
73 +6 52.07 +2.38 Army 20.56 31.51 -.444
74 +6 52.00 +2.52 UConn 30.02 22.21 -.258
75 +6 51.89 +2.73 Washington State 19.48 32.37 -.341
76 -10 51.56 -1.06 New Mexico 27.40 24.28 -.303
77 -6 51.30 +0.15 Wisconsin 21.76 29.64 -.393
78 -4 50.31 -0.15 Ohio 27.22 23.30 -.285
79 +7 50.25 +2.65 Temple 29.57 20.80 -.319
80 -15 50.05 -3.78 UTSA 26.99 23.12 -.428
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
81 +3 50.03 +2.10 Utah State 29.32 20.59 -.276
82 -6 49.82 -0.26 Virginia Tech 25.83 24.04 -.539
83 +4 48.77 +1.73 Navy 25.41 23.30 .022
84 +15 48.73 +6.11 Stanford 19.10 29.61 -.366
85 -8 48.73 -1.21 UNLV 32.18 16.59 -.084
86 -4 47.55 -1.15 Marshall 29.85 17.76 -.329
87 +7 47.48 +2.96 Southern Miss 25.03 22.52 -.232
88 +4 47.15 +1.81 Kennesaw State 22.25 24.78 -.157
89 -1 46.66 +0.33 Texas State 29.97 16.68 -.517
90 -7 46.44 -2.06 West Virginia 22.78 23.61 -.470
91 +9 46.37 +4.01 Hawai’i 21.99 24.34 -.198
92 -3 45.96 -0.28 California 19.19 26.76 -.212
93 +4 45.09 +1.77 Fresno State 23.32 21.61 -.233
94 -9 44.37 -3.24 Bowling Green 17.19 27.16 -.439
95 +1 44.33 +0.44 Wyoming 15.87 28.41 -.461
96 -6 44.30 -1.73 Western Kentucky 22.53 21.82 -.249
97 -2 44.05 -0.36 Troy 22.27 21.77 -.231
98 -5 43.66 -1.28 Miami (OH) 18.43 25.20 -.389
99 -8 43.61 -2.07 Colorado State 20.38 23.41 -.600
100 +5 43.22 +4.00 Jacksonville State 22.74 20.33 -.386
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
101 +1 43.18 +2.08 San José State 22.65 20.51 -.613
102 -1 42.62 +1.45 Air Force 29.20 13.53 -.654
103 -5 42.41 -0.26 Delaware 22.35 20.12 -.446
104 +2 42.25 +3.53 Oregon State 21.18 21.06 -.671
105 -2 40.94 +0.17 Boston College 25.16 15.75 -.753
106 -2 40.18 +0.48 Liberty 15.56 24.56 -.517
107 +11 39.51 +4.93 Central Michigan 19.49 20.17 -.298
108 +5 39.49 +3.17 Georgia Southern 25.16 14.45 -.447
109 -1 39.26 +1.43 North Carolina 16.79 22.38 -.582
110 +4 38.49 +2.43 Tulsa 17.67 20.93 -.634
111 -4 38.19 -0.32 Buffalo 15.61 22.64 -.389
112 +15 37.91 +6.77 Florida International 13.74 24.20 -.416
113 -4 37.81 +0.85 Missouri State 17.16 20.79 -.364
114 -3 37.59 +0.90 South Alabama 19.89 17.57 -.744
115 +5 37.49 +3.43 UTEP 16.74 20.75 -.625
116 -4 37.45 +1.05 Florida Atlantic 25.34 12.17 -.462
117 36.84 +1.77 Louisiana 17.65 19.28 -.621
118 -2 36.60 +1.01 New Mexico State 15.65 20.99 -.458
119 36.57 +2.44 Arkansas State 15.68 20.91 -.496
120 -10 36.51 -0.41 App State 19.28 17.32 -.384
Rank Move Rating Change Team Offense Defense SOR
121 +4 36.47 +4.98 UAB 24.23 12.19 -.472
122 35.33 +2.48 Nevada 12.07 23.29 -.765
123 -2 35.05 +1.11 Coastal Carolina 13.79 21.25 -.333
124 -9 34.77 -1.17 Northern Illinois 9.69 25.12 -.764
125 -2 34.30 +2.59 Ball State 18.14 16.29 -.475
126 -2 32.58 +1.03 Akron 13.59 18.94 -.673
127 +3 32.50 +2.81 Oklahoma State 16.66 15.89 -.653
128 -2 31.74 +0.48 Rice 12.37 19.45 -.529
129 30.63 +0.82 Middle Tennessee 12.33 18.38 -.796
130 +1 29.92 +0.75 Eastern Michigan 19.59 10.21 -.712
131 -3 29.75 -0.17 Kent State 18.79 11.03 -.474
132 +2 26.90 +1.34 Georgia State 14.60 12.39 -.693
133 26.67 -1.05 Sam Houston 14.79 11.95 -.907
134 -2 26.59 -1.62 Charlotte 11.43 15.16 -.770
135 26.05 +0.77 UL Monroe 13.55 12.57 -.450
136 20.96 +2.16 Massachusetts 7.84 13.09 -.875Rating Comparison
At this point, there’s not a whole lot of difference for FBS teams if I include or ignore games from 2024. The differences are a bit larger at lower divisions, but I’ll completely phase this out in two more weeks.
Predictive Ratings
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
1 88.66 Indiana 88.93 (1)
2 88.59 Ohio State 87.35 (2)
3 86.00 Oregon 85.54 (3)
4 84.52 Notre Dame 83.39 (4)
5 80.15 Miami 79.72 (5)
6 79.88 Alabama 79.45 (6)
7 78.22 USC 77.35 (8)
8 77.48 Utah 77.81 (7)
9 76.78 Texas Tech 77.14 (9)
10 74.75 Georgia 74.16 (11)
11 74.45 Texas A&M 74.61 (10)
12 73.20 BYU 72.67 (12)
13 73.17 Michigan 72.64 (13)
14 72.57 Washington 72.26 (14)
15 72.17 Oklahoma 72.06 (15)
16 72.09 Florida State 71.84 (16)
17 71.86 Vanderbilt 71.41 (17)
18 71.74 Texas 71.16 (18)
19 71.18 LSU 70.81 (20)
20 71.15 South Florida 70.47 (21)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
21 71.12 Illinois 69.91 (22)
22 71.08 Ole Miss 70.90 (19)
23 70.53 Tennessee 69.33 (24)
24 70.09 Missouri 69.83 (23)
25 68.65 Louisville 68.73 (25)
26 67.93 Florida 67.20 (26)
27 67.23 Pittsburgh 66.69 (29)
28 67.16 Nebraska 66.48 (31)
29 67.11 Penn State 66.42 (32)
30 66.95 Iowa 66.62 (30)
31 66.81 North Texas 66.98 (28)
32 66.52 Virginia 67.06 (27)
33 66.10 Cincinnati 65.71 (33)
34 65.63 Georgia Tech 65.01 (34)
35 64.91 Auburn 64.69 (35)
36 64.85 Iowa State 64.27 (36)
37 63.10 Mississippi State 62.69 (37)
38 62.05 Arkansas 61.88 (38)
39 61.37 TCU 60.66 (43)
40 61.35 Duke 61.19 (40)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
41 61.33 Kansas 61.40 (39)
42 61.29 Arizona 60.94 (41)
43 61.14 Boise State 60.75 (42)
44 59.99 Arizona State 59.66 (45)
45 59.67 East Carolina 59.88 (44)
46 59.47 South Carolina 58.36 (50)
47 59.05 Toledo 58.94 (46)
48 59.01 NC State 58.86 (47)
49 58.91 Memphis 58.20 (51)
50 58.88 Kansas State 58.53 (48)
51 58.81 Minnesota 57.38 (59)
52 58.80 Colorado 58.13 (53)
53 58.71 SMU 57.54 (56)
54 58.67 Houston 58.46 (49)
55 58.57 UCF 58.19 (52)
56 58.30 Maryland 57.51 (57)
57 58.24 Clemson 57.31 (60)
58 57.92 Old Dominion 56.48 (63)
59 57.58 San Diego State 57.88 (54)
60 57.54 Tulane 57.68 (55)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
61 57.38 James Madison 57.49 (58)
62 56.96 Wake Forest 56.77 (62)
63 56.94 Kentucky 56.47 (64)
64 56.71 Northwestern 56.78 (61)
65 55.03 Purdue 54.33 (65)
66 54.27 Louisiana Tech 54.02 (66)
67 54.01 Rutgers 53.50 (68)
68 53.44 Baylor 52.85 (70)
69 53.41 UCLA 53.51 (67)
70 52.93 Michigan State 53.00 (69)
71 52.41 Western Michigan 52.61 (71)
72 52.15 Syracuse 50.79 (76)
73 52.07 Army 51.68 (73)
74 52.00 UConn 51.56 (74)
75 51.89 Washington State 52.11 (72)
76 51.56 New Mexico 50.84 (75)
77 51.30 Wisconsin 49.90 (77)
78 50.31 Ohio 49.54 (80)
79 50.25 Temple 49.81 (78)
80 50.05 UTSA 49.52 (81)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
81 50.03 Utah State 49.74 (79)
82 49.82 Virginia Tech 48.91 (82)
83 48.77 Navy 47.58 (87)
84 48.73 Stanford 48.16 (83)
85 48.73 UNLV 47.73 (86)
86 47.55 Marshall 48.13 (84)
87 47.48 Southern Miss 47.53 (88)
88 47.15 Kennesaw State 47.96 (85)
89 46.66 Texas State 46.04 (90)
90 46.44 West Virginia 46.32 (89)
91 46.37 Hawai’i 45.56 (91)
92 45.96 California 44.96 (92)
93 45.09 Fresno State 43.71 (95)
94 44.37 Bowling Green 43.79 (93)
95 44.33 Wyoming 43.71 (94)
96 44.30 Western Kentucky 43.35 (98)
97 44.05 Troy 43.57 (97)
98 43.66 Miami (OH) 42.69 (100)
99 43.61 Colorado State 43.63 (96)
100 43.22 Jacksonville State 42.22 (101)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
101 43.18 San José State 42.72 (99)
102 42.62 Air Force 42.05 (102)
103 42.41 Delaware 41.69 (103)
104 42.25 Oregon State 41.11 (104)
105 40.94 Boston College 39.80 (106)
106 40.18 Liberty 39.95 (105)
107 39.51 Central Michigan 39.61 (107)
108 39.49 Georgia Southern 38.58 (109)
109 39.26 North Carolina 37.97 (111)
110 38.49 Tulsa 38.65 (108)
111 38.19 Buffalo 37.25 (114)
112 37.91 Florida International 37.38 (112)
113 37.81 Missouri State 38.24 (110)
114 37.59 South Alabama 37.26 (113)
115 37.49 UTEP 36.80 (115)
116 37.45 Florida Atlantic 36.58 (117)
117 36.84 Louisiana 36.38 (119)
118 36.60 New Mexico State 36.71 (116)
119 36.57 Arkansas State 36.46 (118)
120 36.51 App State 36.24 (120)
Rank Rating Team Only 2025
121 36.47 UAB 35.92 (121)
122 35.33 Nevada 35.31 (122)
123 35.05 Coastal Carolina 33.77 (124)
124 34.77 Northern Illinois 33.64 (125)
125 34.30 Ball State 34.02 (123)
126 32.58 Akron 31.56 (126)
127 32.50 Oklahoma State 31.55 (127)
128 31.74 Rice 31.00 (128)
129 30.63 Middle Tennessee 30.73 (129)
130 29.92 Eastern Michigan 29.15 (131)
131 29.75 Kent State 30.20 (130)
132 26.90 Georgia State 27.00 (132)
133 26.67 Sam Houston 25.42 (134)
134 26.59 Charlotte 26.30 (133)
135 26.05 UL Monroe 25.38 (135)
136 20.96 Massachusetts 20.90 (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: 2.11 points
Mean score: 26.49 points
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
1 Indiana .237 (21) .155 (63) 56.14 (26) 57.45 (57)
2 Ohio State .216 (30) .203 (52) 53.88 (40) 60.12 (45)
3 Oregon .205 (35) .297 (24) 56.00 (31) 65.15 (22)
4 Notre Dame .309 (5) .109 (74) 66.24 (1) 51.99 (73)
5 Miami .333 (3) .139 (69) 62.50 (3) 55.94 (63)
6 Alabama .303 (6) .237 (43) 62.08 (7) 55.83 (64)
7 USC .253 (13) .306 (22) 58.85 (17) 65.62 (20)
8 Utah .186 (42) .164 (61) 55.99 (32) 59.29 (47)
9 Texas Tech .164 (54) .149 (64) 45.90 (94) 53.49 (69)
10 Georgia .249 (15) .238 (42) 60.88 (9) 58.58 (52)
11 Texas A&M .249 (17) .285 (28) 62.32 (5) 56.46 (60)
12 BYU .166 (52) .292 (26) 52.12 (47) 65.96 (19)
13 Michigan .271 (10) .245 (41) 61.48 (8) 62.31 (36)
14 Washington .228 (25) .261 (36) 58.02 (21) 62.95 (32)
15 Oklahoma .182 (45) .409 (4) 53.50 (43) 72.13 (4)
16 Florida State .249 (16) .174 (59) 54.81 (36) 58.81 (51)
17 Vanderbilt .186 (43) .299 (23) 50.92 (55) 66.42 (16)
18 Texas .252 (14) .342 (14) 56.14 (27) 68.82 (10)
19 LSU .221 (28) .340 (15) 60.03 (12) 66.15 (18)
20 South Florida .215 (31) .064 (88) 51.84 (50) 45.61 (94)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
21 Illinois .352 (1) .171 (60) 62.33 (4) 58.16 (54)
22 Ole Miss .193 (39) .224 (48) 56.41 (25) 56.29 (62)
23 Tennessee .225 (27) .247 (40) 56.13 (28) 60.67 (43)
24 Missouri .162 (55) .348 (11) 47.83 (77) 69.15 (8)
25 Louisville .228 (26) .087 (79) 56.06 (29) 51.06 (75)
26 Florida .352 (2) .347 (12) 63.39 (2) 69.08 (9)
27 Pittsburgh .131 (70) .340 (16) 48.71 (70) 67.19 (15)
28 Nebraska .155 (57) .261 (35) 49.87 (61) 64.06 (28)
29 Penn State .179 (47) .405 (5) 51.89 (48) 70.69 (6)
30 Iowa .213 (32) .363 (7) 50.17 (59) 68.20 (12)
31 North Texas .094 (98) .024 (124) 48.04 (75) 39.19 (125)
32 Virginia .147 (60) .090 (75) 50.78 (56) 51.09 (74)
33 Cincinnati .127 (75) .284 (29) 45.89 (95) 64.93 (23)
34 Georgia Tech .111 (85) .200 (53) 50.97 (53) 58.82 (50)
35 Auburn .261 (11) .268 (33) 59.24 (13) 60.94 (42)
36 Iowa State .154 (58) .183 (56) 54.11 (37) 57.25 (58)
37 Mississippi State .200 (38) .350 (9) 50.28 (58) 69.52 (7)
38 Arkansas .301 (7) .319 (20) 58.13 (20) 67.78 (14)
39 TCU .105 (89) .233 (45) 51.69 (51) 62.27 (37)
40 Duke .143 (62) .128 (72) 54.02 (38) 55.02 (68)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
41 Kansas .207 (33) .226 (47) 52.41 (46) 58.58 (53)
42 Arizona .145 (61) .186 (55) 49.99 (60) 60.35 (44)
43 Boise State .188 (41) .061 (89) 50.93 (54) 46.75 (88)
44 Arizona State .231 (23) .157 (62) 58.43 (19) 57.59 (55)
45 East Carolina .117 (81) .061 (90) 46.96 (85) 45.07 (95)
46 South Carolina .246 (18) .322 (18) 58.97 (16) 63.31 (30)
47 Toledo .047 (123) .034 (115) 37.67 (131) 41.25 (112)
48 NC State .221 (29) .317 (21) 56.03 (30) 64.45 (27)
49 Memphis .037 (133) .139 (70) 38.86 (127) 53.35 (70)
50 Kansas State .140 (65) .282 (30) 56.91 (24) 61.80 (40)
51 Minnesota .184 (44) .270 (32) 48.47 (71) 62.78 (33)
52 Colorado .182 (46) .223 (49) 57.73 (22) 61.24 (41)
53 SMU .085 (105) .213 (51) 46.77 (86) 58.96 (48)
54 Houston .115 (82) .136 (71) 48.40 (72) 56.38 (61)
55 UCF .104 (91) .258 (38) 45.12 (97) 59.34 (46)
56 Maryland .120 (80) .351 (8) 47.60 (80) 67.98 (13)
57 Clemson .129 (72) .217 (50) 52.83 (45) 55.54 (66)
58 Old Dominion .162 (56) .012 (135) 49.68 (62) 34.18 (134)
59 San Diego State .029 (134) .065 (87) 39.39 (123) 48.61 (83)
60 Tulane .132 (69) .071 (85) 53.55 (42) 45.07 (95)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
61 James Madison .077 (110) .039 (111) 41.38 (117) 43.95 (102)
62 Wake Forest .083 (108) .194 (54) 47.89 (76) 56.72 (59)
63 Kentucky .255 (12) .290 (27) 60.30 (10) 64.80 (25)
64 Northwestern .192 (40) .392 (6) 50.42 (57) 70.96 (5)
65 Purdue .275 (8) .499 (2) 60.11 (11) 74.98 (3)
66 Louisiana Tech .094 (97) .031 (117) 46.57 (90) 40.54 (117)
67 Rutgers .236 (22) .349 (10) 53.79 (41) 68.45 (11)
68 Baylor .128 (73) .254 (39) 48.85 (68) 64.00 (29)
69 UCLA .177 (48) .569 (1) 58.67 (18) 79.46 (1)
70 Michigan State .273 (9) .260 (37) 59.05 (15) 64.87 (24)
71 Western Michigan .132 (68) .024 (123) 47.76 (79) 40.06 (119)
72 Syracuse .172 (51) .344 (13) 54.96 (35) 62.52 (35)
73 Army .128 (74) .045 (104) 51.87 (49) 46.04 (90)
74 UConn .028 (135) .042 (107) 37.56 (132) 41.50 (111)
75 Washington State .231 (24) .083 (80) 59.06 (14) 50.62 (78)
76 New Mexico .126 (76) .057 (95) 49.38 (66) 48.09 (85)
77 Wisconsin .322 (4) .493 (3) 62.12 (6) 75.86 (2)
78 Ohio .143 (64) .030 (119) 46.26 (92) 37.45 (131)
79 Temple .109 (88) .139 (68) 41.67 (116) 55.34 (67)
80 UTSA .143 (63) .149 (65) 48.89 (67) 52.98 (71)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
81 Utah State .152 (59) .073 (83) 47.18 (82) 48.79 (82)
82 Virginia Tech .175 (50) .329 (17) 55.83 (34) 66.25 (17)
83 Navy .022 (136) .280 (31) 33.37 (135) 62.17 (39)
84 Stanford .205 (34) .320 (19) 57.59 (23) 63.00 (31)
85 UNLV .058 (115) .038 (113) 44.65 (99) 44.96 (98)
86 Marshall .100 (93) .030 (118) 43.92 (104) 39.49 (124)
87 Southern Miss .053 (120) .018 (131) 42.68 (113) 37.76 (129)
88 Kennesaw State .176 (49) .019 (130) 47.05 (83) 39.57 (123)
89 Texas State .055 (117) .039 (110) 41.19 (118) 40.64 (116)
90 West Virginia .244 (19) .226 (46) 55.98 (33) 62.70 (34)
91 Hawai’i .052 (122) .060 (91) 41.05 (119) 48.46 (84)
92 California .074 (113) .177 (57) 44.06 (101) 58.91 (49)
93 Fresno State .052 (121) .088 (76) 38.60 (128) 50.83 (77)
94 Bowling Green .133 (67) .006 (136) 49.44 (64) 30.70 (136)
95 Wyoming .110 (86) .058 (93) 46.59 (89) 46.02 (91)
96 Western Kentucky .037 (132) .121 (73) 36.39 (134) 47.60 (86)
97 Troy .055 (116) .050 (100) 40.83 (121) 40.72 (114)
98 Miami (OH) .039 (129) .059 (92) 39.16 (125) 46.43 (89)
99 Colorado State .115 (83) .083 (81) 49.67 (63) 50.10 (79)
100 Jacksonville State .042 (126) .020 (129) 38.24 (130) 39.92 (120)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
101 San José State .102 (92) .051 (98) 48.73 (69) 44.98 (97)
102 Air Force .061 (114) .058 (94) 43.86 (105) 48.91 (81)
103 Delaware .054 (119) .046 (103) 42.41 (115) 40.68 (115)
104 Oregon State .204 (37) .044 (105) 53.27 (44) 42.23 (108)
105 Boston College .104 (90) .294 (25) 46.99 (84) 65.51 (21)
106 Liberty .054 (118) .040 (108) 42.88 (111) 43.49 (103)
107 Central Michigan .131 (71) .049 (101) 43.24 (110) 39.65 (122)
108 Georgia Southern .124 (78) .042 (106) 45.32 (96) 43.14 (105)
109 North Carolina .085 (106) .147 (66) 44.94 (98) 57.45 (56)
110 Tulsa .080 (109) .038 (112) 47.28 (81) 43.28 (104)
111 Buffalo .040 (128) .028 (121) 32.51 (136) 41.66 (110)
112 Florida International .084 (107) .016 (132) 43.73 (106) 37.26 (132)
113 Missouri State .136 (66) .032 (116) 46.61 (88) 42.27 (107)
114 South Alabama .113 (84) .021 (127) 44.04 (102) 37.21 (133)
115 UTEP .089 (103) .027 (122) 40.71 (122) 41.86 (109)
116 Florida Atlantic .110 (87) .088 (77) 42.72 (112) 50.87 (76)
117 Louisiana .093 (100) .021 (126) 42.64 (114) 38.60 (127)
118 New Mexico State .042 (127) .087 (78) 38.25 (129) 44.65 (100)
119 Arkansas State .075 (112) .022 (125) 43.70 (107) 40.45 (118)
120 App State .045 (124) .078 (82) 37.15 (133) 47.36 (87)
Rank Team SOS Future OppRtg Future
121 UAB .100 (94) .142 (67) 46.14 (93) 52.46 (72)
122 Nevada .092 (102) .067 (86) 48.10 (74) 49.06 (80)
123 Coastal Carolina .095 (96) .072 (84) 43.95 (103) 45.73 (92)
124 Northern Illinois .093 (99) .052 (97) 46.63 (87) 38.87 (126)
125 Ball State .097 (95) .049 (102) 47.81 (78) 39.85 (121)
126 Akron .077 (111) .016 (133) 43.47 (108) 33.32 (135)
127 Oklahoma State .204 (36) .262 (34) 53.98 (39) 64.50 (26)
128 Rice .043 (125) .175 (58) 39.00 (126) 55.80 (65)
129 Middle Tennessee .037 (131) .020 (128) 43.46 (109) 38.52 (128)
130 Eastern Michigan .038 (130) .037 (114) 39.36 (124) 44.29 (101)
131 Kent State .240 (20) .014 (134) 51.54 (52) 37.53 (130)
132 Georgia State .164 (53) .053 (96) 49.42 (65) 44.85 (99)
133 Sam Houston .093 (101) .040 (109) 48.13 (73) 42.76 (106)
134 Charlotte .088 (104) .235 (44) 44.30 (100) 62.19 (38)
135 UL Monroe .122 (79) .051 (99) 40.87 (120) 45.72 (93)
136 Massachusetts .125 (77) .029 (120) 46.27 (91) 40.73 (113)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 .741 SEC .344 (2) 68.88 33.89 35.03 -1.14 (7)
2 .692 FBS Independents .386 (1) 68.26 37.35 31.02 6.32 (1)
3 .688 Big Ten .323 (3) 66.67 32.76 33.95 -1.19 (8)
4 .612 Big 12 .218 (4) 60.60 30.71 29.94 0.77 (5)
5 .573 ACC .189 (5) 58.32 29.14 29.16 -0.02 (6)
6 .430 American Athletic .102 (6) 49.00 25.87 23.16 2.71 (2)
7 .397 Mountain West .059 (7) 47.46 24.43 23.05 1.38 (4)
8 .389 Pac-12 .050 (8) 47.07 20.33 26.71 -6.38 (11)
9 .305 Sun Belt .037 (9) 41.14 21.63 19.55 2.08 (3)
10 .281 Conference USA .025 (11) 39.89 18.16 21.73 -3.57 (10)
11 .280 Mid-American .033 (10) 39.21 17.95 21.29 -3.34 (9) Playoff Ratings
These ratings are a combination of four forward and backward looking components, and they’re intended to estimate which teams are most likely to reach the college football playoff. 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 +1 .9805 -.0059 Indiana .981 .871 1.000 .991
2 +1 .9751 -.0059 Ohio State .977 .809 1.000 .990
3 +1 .9613 -.0050 Texas A&M .983 .901 1.000 .918
4 +1 .9520 +.0108 Alabama .962 .976 .857 .961
5 -4 .9519 -.0386 Miami .964 .991 .833 .962
6 +5 .9312 +.0327 BYU .964 .590 1.000 .905
7 +3 .9251 +.0227 Georgia .942 .903 .857 .921
8 -1 .9247 +.0173 Oregon .918 .768 .857 .985
9 +7 .9056 +.0399 Notre Dame .893 .980 .714 .981
10 -1 .8980 -.0056 South Florida .924 .805 .857 .879
11 +1 .8913 +.0048 Illinois .921 .996 .714 .879
12 -6 .8864 -.0524 Texas Tech .891 .579 .857 .939
13 -5 .8861 -.0176 Ole Miss .911 .718 .857 .878
14 +6 .8847 +.0365 Vanderbilt .906 .684 .857 .888
15 +4 .8837 +.0326 Oklahoma .904 .667 .857 .892
16 +13 .8828 +.0990 Louisville .918 .846 .833 .842
17 .8714 +.0085 Georgia Tech .944 .320 1.000 .788
18 -3 .8674 -.0022 USC .846 .911 .714 .950
19 +8 .8640 +.0496 Michigan .862 .942 .714 .904
20 +6 .8628 +.0439 Missouri .890 .572 .857 .864
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
21 +3 .8477 +.0197 Texas .845 .908 .714 .887
22 -1 .8348 -.0064 Virginia .878 .495 .857 .805
23 -10 .8347 -.0510 Washington .821 .847 .714 .897
24 -10 .8245 -.0527 LSU .814 .826 .714 .879
25 -2 .8243 -.0125 Tennessee .818 .837 .714 .870
26 -1 .8180 -.0073 Cincinnati .861 .394 .857 .797
27 -9 .8152 -.0368 Utah .775 .685 .714 .945
28 +2 .7980 +.0233 Iowa .805 .797 .714 .813
29 +3 .7973 +.0465 North Texas .830 .243 .857 .810
30 +12 .7661 +.0964 Arizona State .824 .855 .714 .662
31 .7628 +.0116 Tulane .866 .419 .857 .600
32 +2 .7591 +.0330 Houston .851 .337 .857 .629
33 -11 .7485 -.0907 Nebraska .737 .537 .714 .816
34 +2 .7404 +.0253 Boise State .777 .694 .714 .690
35 -2 .7342 +.0042 Iowa State .736 .532 .714 .772
36 +5 .7253 +.0407 Pittsburgh .705 .416 .714 .818
37 +12 .7207 +.0808 James Madison .813 .182 .857 .596
38 +9 .7197 +.0757 Minnesota .772 .676 .714 .633
39 +12 .7106 +.0773 Northwestern .782 .713 .714 .578
40 -1 .7034 +.0104 Navy .892 .053 1.000 .368
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
41 -13 .7019 -.1095 Memphis .767 .077 .857 .635
42 +6 .6776 +.0350 Florida .611 .995 .429 .830
43 .6669 -.0026 San Diego State .727 .064 .833 .601
44 +10 .6620 +.0610 TCU .668 .290 .714 .696
45 -5 .6435 -.0457 Mississippi State .597 .747 .571 .735
46 +4 .6386 +.0044 Kansas .608 .775 .571 .694
47 -12 .6379 -.0836 UNLV .792 .126 .857 .367
48 -3 .6352 -.0150 NC State .628 .823 .571 .638
49 +11 .6224 +.0953 SMU .639 .209 .714 .630
50 -13 .6035 -.1109 Florida State .451 .902 .429 .891
51 +5 .5828 +.0064 Kennesaw State .701 .641 .667 .328
52 .5798 -.0474 Auburn .470 .927 .429 .773
53 .5714 -.0524 Arizona .513 .487 .571 .694
54 -10 .5695 -.0842 Duke .509 .476 .571 .695
55 -17 .5644 -.1339 Old Dominion .538 .569 .571 .610
56 +2 .5625 +.0027 Wake Forest .564 .203 .667 .585
57 +2 .5526 +.0144 Louisiana Tech .581 .246 .667 .513
58 +10 .5277 +.0485 East Carolina .467 .345 .571 .654
59 -2 .5275 -.0452 South Carolina .446 .894 .429 .649
60 +12 .5268 +.0629 Hawai’i .643 .109 .750 .309
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
61 -15 .5211 -.1266 Maryland .473 .360 .571 .620
62 +13 .5136 +.0580 UConn .552 .062 .714 .452
63 +4 .5123 +.0303 California .623 .172 .714 .299
64 -1 .5098 +.0094 Penn State .345 .654 .429 .815
65 +19 .5051 +.0802 UCF .447 .285 .571 .627
66 +14 .5032 +.0644 Southern Miss .592 .113 .714 .336
67 +2 .5021 +.0232 Michigan State .489 .945 .429 .477
68 +13 .4910 +.0535 Utah State .523 .521 .571 .400
69 -8 .4908 -.0352 Baylor .485 .397 .571 .491
70 +4 .4876 +.0305 Western Michigan .492 .420 .571 .463
71 -1 .4852 +.0081 Fresno State .590 .110 .714 .279
72 +1 .4831 +.0205 Ohio .509 .475 .571 .408
73 -2 .4810 +.0130 Troy .594 .117 .714 .256
74 -12 .4755 -.0271 Rutgers .431 .871 .429 .506
75 +7 .4736 +.0439 New Mexico .482 .388 .571 .441
76 -21 .4650 -.1253 Western Kentucky .566 .077 .714 .262
77 -13 .4639 -.0293 Arkansas .315 .975 .286 .711
78 .4575 +.0106 Colorado .348 .666 .429 .632
79 -13 .4528 -.0344 Washington State .423 .855 .429 .449
80 +6 .4520 +.0582 Toledo .360 .098 .571 .639
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
81 +10 .4450 +.0662 Temple .456 .310 .571 .406
82 -6 .4286 -.0264 Kentucky .317 .914 .333 .584
83 +4 .4159 +.0254 Kansas State .290 .461 .429 .634
84 +6 .4145 +.0283 Marshall .441 .270 .571 .337
85 +13 .4102 +.0898 UCLA .342 .645 .429 .490
86 +20 .4024 +.1449 Stanford .384 .768 .429 .367
87 -22 .4000 -.0886 Clemson .275 .404 .429 .618
88 +1 .3974 +.0091 Wisconsin .344 .987 .286 .434
89 +11 .3972 +.0845 Central Michigan .489 .412 .571 .168
90 -13 .3943 -.0602 Syracuse .334 .618 .429 .456
91 -12 .3900 -.0511 Purdue .280 .948 .286 .533
92 .3494 -.0274 Army .274 .397 .429 .454
93 -10 .3488 -.0773 UTSA .294 .476 .429 .401
94 +5 .3394 +.0263 Coastal Carolina .434 .250 .571 .103
95 +14 .3276 +.0812 Jacksonville State .354 .088 .571 .238
96 +6 .3275 +.0291 Miami (OH) .349 .082 .571 .248
97 .3270 +.0055 Missouri State .387 .439 .500 .141
98 -4 .2980 -.0629 West Virginia .240 .890 .286 .310
99 +11 .2977 +.0560 Buffalo .350 .083 .571 .147
100 -15 .2972 -.1116 Bowling Green .280 .423 .429 .263
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
101 -13 .2950 -.0953 App State .357 .093 .571 .122
102 -7 .2754 -.0791 Wyoming .251 .315 .429 .262
103 +11 .2746 +.1006 Florida International .312 .208 .500 .142
104 -11 .2709 -.0975 Delaware .270 .114 .500 .222
105 -2 .2692 -.0187 Virginia Tech .164 .637 .286 .395
106 +7 .2599 +.0749 Georgia Southern .269 .379 .429 .168
107 -6 .2460 -.0608 Texas State .187 .116 .429 .316
108 -1 .2370 -.0202 Florida Atlantic .251 .312 .429 .136
109 -13 .2316 -.0913 New Mexico State .255 .087 .500 .124
110 +10 .2237 +.0786 UAB .238 .268 .429 .122
111 -6 .2177 -.0638 Kent State .235 .880 .286 .053
112 -8 .2168 -.0697 UL Monroe .266 .369 .429 .031
113 +4 .2130 +.0567 Ball State .234 .256 .429 .095
114 +2 .2051 +.0403 Liberty .186 .116 .429 .180
115 +6 .2034 +.0597 Arkansas State .209 .175 .429 .123
116 -8 .1808 -.0732 Colorado State .112 .335 .286 .247
117 -5 .1699 -.0265 San José State .102 .276 .286 .238
118 -3 .1638 -.0060 Rice .174 .089 .429 .069
119 -8 .1621 -.0436 North Carolina .126 .209 .333 .164
120 +4 .1532 +.0408 Oregon State .067 .763 .125 .219
Rank Move Rating Change Team SOR SOS Win% Fwd
121 +5 .1450 +.0375 Air Force .076 .132 .286 .226
122 +8 .1323 +.0433 UTEP .094 .225 .286 .136
123 -4 .1322 -.0132 Tulsa .088 .194 .286 .152
124 -6 .1318 -.0212 Louisiana .097 .242 .286 .127
125 .1175 +.0067 Oklahoma State .077 .764 .143 .076
126 -3 .1054 -.0145 Boston College .034 .285 .143 .194
127 -5 .0933 -.0292 Akron .066 .181 .250 .077
128 -1 .0924 -.0126 South Alabama .037 .328 .143 .138
129 -1 .0848 -.0200 Georgia State .056 .580 .143 .035
130 +2 .0751 -.0019 Nevada .031 .236 .143 .107
131 -2 .0735 -.0211 Northern Illinois .031 .242 .143 .100
132 -1 .0718 -.0145 Eastern Michigan .048 .080 .250 .054
133 .0516 -.0152 Charlotte .030 .220 .143 .033
134 .0511 -.0031 Middle Tennessee .023 .078 .167 .059
135 +1 .0292 -.0074 Massachusetts .011 .386 .000 .014
136 -1 .0263 -.0114 Sam Houston .008 .240 .000 .034Weekly 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: Texas A&M (1.16, 52.77%) at LSU (-1.16, 47.23%)
Estimated score: 24.54 - 23.47, Total: 48.00
Quality: 98.08%, Team quality: 97.22%, Competitiveness: 99.83%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.88%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.55%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 32.55%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 40.59%
#2: Ole Miss (-3.20, 42.35%) at Oklahoma (3.20, 57.65%)
Estimated score: 23.40 - 26.53, Total: 49.93
Quality: 97.57%, Team quality: 97.01%, Competitiveness: 98.71%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.31%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.04%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.22%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.81%
#3: Illinois (-3.57, 41.49%) at Washington (3.57, 58.51%)
Estimated score: 29.10 - 32.72, Total: 61.82
Quality: 97.49%, Team quality: 97.04%, Competitiveness: 98.39%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.43%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.89%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 45.09%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.53%
#4: Missouri (-3.88, 40.77%) at Vanderbilt (3.88, 59.23%)
Estimated score: 34.25 - 38.20, Total: 72.45
Quality: 97.29%, Team quality: 96.88%, Competitiveness: 98.11%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.54%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.77%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 55.16%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 20.60%
#5: Auburn (0.74, 51.79%) at Arkansas (-0.74, 48.21%)
Estimated score: 25.21 - 24.47, Total: 49.68
Quality: 96.78%, Team quality: 95.25%, Competitiveness: 99.93%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.84%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.59%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.00%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.04%
#6: BYU (6.24, 64.63%) at Iowa State (-6.24, 35.37%)
Estimated score: 29.06 - 22.89, Total: 51.96
Quality: 96.04%, Team quality: 96.48%, Competitiveness: 95.18%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.72%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.45%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 36.01%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.98%
#7: SMU (-0.37, 49.12%) at Wake Forest (0.37, 50.88%)
Estimated score: 22.24 - 22.60, Total: 44.84
Quality: 95.67%, Team quality: 93.59%, Competitiveness: 99.98%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.82%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.62%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.88%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 43.53%
#8: Texas (6.53, 65.27%) at Mississippi State (-6.53, 34.73%)
Estimated score: 24.57 - 18.01, Total: 42.58
Quality: 95.66%, Team quality: 96.13%, Competitiveness: 94.73%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.90%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.25%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.05%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 45.66%
#9: Houston (-3.43, 41.82%) at Arizona State (3.43, 58.18%)
Estimated score: 17.80 - 21.30, Total: 39.10
Quality: 95.51%, Team quality: 94.04%, Competitiveness: 98.52%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.38%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.95%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 25.32%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 48.96%
#10: Kansas State (-4.56, 39.19%) at Kansas (4.56, 60.81%)
Estimated score: 26.90 - 31.60, Total: 58.50
Quality: 95.30%, Team quality: 94.27%, Competitiveness: 97.40%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.83%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.44%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.98%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.28%
#11: Rutgers (-3.12, 42.54%) at Purdue (3.12, 57.46%)
Estimated score: 28.46 - 31.66, Total: 60.12
Quality: 94.48%, Team quality: 92.40%, Competitiveness: 98.77%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.29%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.06%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 43.49%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.92%
#12: Toledo (5.05, 61.94%) at Washington State (-5.05, 38.06%)
Estimated score: 22.85 - 17.81, Total: 40.66
Quality: 94.07%, Team quality: 92.72%, Competitiveness: 96.81%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.06%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.18%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 26.53%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 47.47%
#13: Utah State (-3.64, 41.32%) at New Mexico (3.64, 58.68%)
Estimated score: 30.48 - 34.36, Total: 64.84
Quality: 93.31%, Team quality: 90.89%, Competitiveness: 98.33%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.46%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 31.87%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 47.95%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 26.14%
#14: South Florida (10.13, 72.84%) at Memphis (-10.13, 27.16%)
Estimated score: 34.83 - 24.53, Total: 59.36
Quality: 92.84%, Team quality: 95.49%, Competitiveness: 87.76%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.87%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.22%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 42.78%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 30.55%
#15: Minnesota (-10.26, 26.90%) at Iowa (10.26, 73.10%)
Estimated score: 12.77 - 23.07, Total: 35.84
Quality: 92.37%, Team quality: 94.93%, Competitiveness: 87.46%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.00%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.09%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 22.90%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 52.05%
#16: NC State (-10.33, 26.75%) at Pittsburgh (10.33, 73.25%)
Estimated score: 22.24 - 32.72, Total: 54.96
Quality: 92.35%, Team quality: 94.99%, Competitiveness: 87.28%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.08%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.01%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 38.72%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 34.32%
#17: California (-5.98, 35.96%) at Virginia Tech (5.98, 64.04%)
Estimated score: 20.59 - 26.62, Total: 47.20
Quality: 91.49%, Team quality: 89.53%, Competitiveness: 95.56%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.56%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.62%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 31.87%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.33%
#18: Tennessee (11.48, 75.45%) at Kentucky (-11.48, 24.55%)
Estimated score: 39.40 - 27.94, Total: 67.34
Quality: 91.45%, Team quality: 95.12%, Competitiveness: 84.53%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 14.32%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.85%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 50.32%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 24.24%
#19: Colorado State (-2.83, 43.23%) at Wyoming (2.83, 56.77%)
Estimated score: 17.40 - 20.00, Total: 37.40
Quality: 91.24%, Team quality: 87.60%, Competitiveness: 98.99%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.20%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.16%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 24.05%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 50.57%
#20: Western Michigan (6.64, 65.51%) at Miami (OH) (-6.64, 34.49%)
Estimated score: 18.27 - 11.57, Total: 29.83
Quality: 91.21%, Team quality: 89.58%, Competitiveness: 94.56%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 9.97%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 30.17%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 18.81%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 57.71%
#21: Northwestern (-12.56, 22.58%) at Nebraska (12.56, 77.42%)
Estimated score: 14.15 - 26.89, Total: 41.04
Quality: 90.10%, Team quality: 94.58%, Competitiveness: 81.77%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.62%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 24.70%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 26.83%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 47.11%
#22: San Diego State (10.38, 73.34%) at Fresno State (-10.38, 26.66%)
Estimated score: 31.08 - 20.54, Total: 51.62
Quality: 89.66%, Team quality: 90.92%, Competitiveness: 87.18%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 13.12%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 26.97%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.71%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 37.28%
#23: Georgia Southern (0.81, 51.95%) at Arkansas State (-0.81, 48.05%)
Estimated score: 29.69 - 28.78, Total: 58.47
Quality: 89.10%, Team quality: 84.14%, Competitiveness: 99.92%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.84%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.59%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.95%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.30%
#24: Kennesaw State (7.13, 66.60%) at Florida International (-7.13, 33.40%)
Estimated score: 23.49 - 16.51, Total: 40.00
Quality: 88.99%, Team quality: 86.70%, Competitiveness: 93.74%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.31%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.81%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 26.01%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 48.10%
#25: Missouri State (-0.90, 47.84%) at New Mexico State (0.90, 52.16%)
Estimated score: 21.61 - 22.41, Total: 44.02
Quality: 88.72%, Team quality: 83.61%, Competitiveness: 99.90%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 7.85%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.58%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 29.21%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 44.30%
#26: TCU (12.83, 77.90%) at West Virginia (-12.83, 22.10%)
Estimated score: 37.50 - 24.49, Total: 61.99
Quality: 88.11%, Team quality: 91.86%, Competitiveness: 81.05%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.96%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 24.41%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 45.25%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 28.39%
#27: Temple (9.64, 71.88%) at Tulsa (-9.64, 28.12%)
Estimated score: 34.08 - 24.41, Total: 58.49
Quality: 88.01%, Team quality: 87.61%, Competitiveness: 88.83%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.39%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.67%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.97%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 31.28%
#28: Western Kentucky (-12.08, 23.44%) at Louisiana Tech (12.08, 76.56%)
Estimated score: 15.93 - 27.79, Total: 43.73
Quality: 87.56%, Team quality: 89.93%, Competitiveness: 83.02%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.03%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 25.22%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.97%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 44.58%
#29: Baylor (-14.77, 18.83%) at Cincinnati (14.77, 81.17%)
Estimated score: 28.99 - 44.03, Total: 73.02
Quality: 87.32%, Team quality: 93.83%, Competitiveness: 75.64%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 18.64%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 22.23%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 55.70%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 20.21%
#30: Ball State (-2.59, 43.81%) at Northern Illinois (2.59, 56.19%)
Estimated score: 18.45 - 20.95, Total: 39.40
Quality: 87.21%, Team quality: 81.79%, Competitiveness: 99.16%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 8.14%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 32.24%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 25.56%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 48.67%
#31: Louisiana (-9.33, 28.76%) at Troy (9.33, 71.24%)
Estimated score: 21.31 - 30.54, Total: 51.85
Quality: 86.75%, Team quality: 85.40%, Competitiveness: 89.52%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 12.09%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 27.97%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.91%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 37.08%
#32: Syracuse (-15.59, 17.55%) at Georgia Tech (15.59, 82.45%)
Estimated score: 18.89 - 34.56, Total: 53.46
Quality: 86.19%, Team quality: 93.50%, Competitiveness: 73.24%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 19.89%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 21.28%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 37.36%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.64%
#33: Akron (-7.73, 32.11%) at Buffalo (7.73, 67.89%)
Estimated score: 16.39 - 24.22, Total: 40.61
Quality: 85.58%, Team quality: 82.23%, Competitiveness: 92.69%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 10.74%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 29.35%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 26.49%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 47.52%
#34: Alabama (18.30, 86.24%) at South Carolina (-18.30, 13.76%)
Estimated score: 26.86 - 8.21, Total: 35.08
Quality: 84.46%, Team quality: 96.24%, Competitiveness: 65.05%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 24.44%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 18.16%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 22.36%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 52.77%
#35: Florida Atlantic (-13.43, 21.04%) at Navy (13.43, 78.96%)
Estimated score: 27.47 - 40.79, Total: 68.26
Quality: 84.20%, Team quality: 86.71%, Competitiveness: 79.40%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 16.76%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 23.74%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 51.20%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 23.56%
#36: Michigan (18.12, 86.02%) at Michigan State (-18.12, 13.98%)
Estimated score: 34.08 - 16.24, Total: 50.32
Quality: 83.74%, Team quality: 94.63%, Competitiveness: 65.58%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 24.13%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 18.36%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.56%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.46%
#37: South Alabama (8.58, 69.69%) at Georgia State (-8.58, 30.31%)
Estimated score: 32.94 - 24.58, Total: 57.52
Quality: 83.51%, Team quality: 79.97%, Competitiveness: 91.06%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 11.43%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 28.64%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.07%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.11%
#38: Bowling Green (12.51, 77.33%) at Kent State (-12.51, 22.67%)
Estimated score: 31.60 - 19.18, Total: 50.78
Quality: 82.69%, Team quality: 83.09%, Competitiveness: 81.90%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 15.55%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 24.76%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 34.97%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 38.05%
#39: Middle Tennessee (-13.89, 20.27%) at Delaware (13.89, 79.73%)
Estimated score: 17.65 - 31.52, Total: 49.16
Quality: 81.11%, Team quality: 82.63%, Competitiveness: 78.14%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 17.38%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 23.23%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 33.55%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 39.52%
#40: Colorado (-20.79, 10.81%) at Utah (20.79, 89.19%)
Estimated score: 15.20 - 35.83, Total: 51.03
Quality: 80.71%, Team quality: 95.78%, Competitiveness: 57.31%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 29.21%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 15.37%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 35.19%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 37.82%
#41: UConn (18.15, 86.05%) at Rice (-18.15, 13.95%)
Estimated score: 36.01 - 17.71, Total: 53.72
Quality: 78.31%, Team quality: 85.62%, Competitiveness: 65.50%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 24.18%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 18.33%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 37.59%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 35.41%
#42: Ohio (18.28, 86.22%) at Eastern Michigan (-18.28, 13.78%)
Estimated score: 42.45 - 23.84, Total: 66.30
Quality: 77.50%, Team quality: 84.56%, Competitiveness: 65.10%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 24.41%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 18.18%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 49.33%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 25.02%
#43: Boise State (23.69, 91.99%) at Nevada (-23.69, 8.01%)
Estimated score: 33.70 - 9.90, Total: 43.59
Quality: 72.38%, Team quality: 88.51%, Competitiveness: 48.41%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 35.35%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 12.34%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 28.86%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 44.70%
#44: App State (-23.53, 8.15%) at Old Dominion (23.53, 91.85%)
Estimated score: 18.71 - 42.17, Total: 60.88
Quality: 72.36%, Team quality: 88.01%, Competitiveness: 48.90%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 34.99%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 12.50%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 44.21%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 29.29%
#45: Virginia (25.14, 93.16%) at North Carolina (-25.14, 6.84%)
Estimated score: 42.29 - 17.05, Total: 59.34
Quality: 71.23%, Team quality: 90.50%, Competitiveness: 44.12%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 38.61%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 10.95%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 42.77%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 30.57%
#46: Massachusetts (-20.66, 10.95%) at Central Michigan (20.66, 89.05%)
Estimated score: 13.11 - 33.96, Total: 47.06
Quality: 70.20%, Team quality: 77.44%, Competitiveness: 57.70%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 28.95%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 15.51%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 31.75%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.46%
#47: UL Monroe (-23.55, 8.14%) at Southern Miss (23.55, 91.86%)
Estimated score: 16.47 - 40.01, Total: 56.47
Quality: 68.90%, Team quality: 81.82%, Competitiveness: 48.85%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 35.03%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 12.49%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 40.10%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 33.00%
#48: Boston College (-29.83, 3.99%) at Louisville (29.83, 96.01%)
Estimated score: 19.69 - 49.52, Total: 69.21
Quality: 63.77%, Team quality: 90.80%, Competitiveness: 31.46%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 49.63%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 7.15%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 52.09%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 22.87%
#49: Stanford (-33.53, 2.51%) at Miami (33.53, 97.49%)
Estimated score: 0.00 - 32.74, Total: 32.74
Quality: 58.81%, Team quality: 93.83%, Competitiveness: 23.10%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 58.45%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 4.88%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 20.73%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 54.99%
#50: Wisconsin (-36.81, 1.63%) at Oregon (36.81, 98.37%)
Estimated score: 7.67 - 44.55, Total: 52.22
Quality: 53.49%, Team quality: 94.70%, Competitiveness: 17.06%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 65.90%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 3.39%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 36.24%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 36.75%
#51: UCLA (-37.37, 1.52%) at Indiana (37.37, 98.48%)
Estimated score: 4.64 - 42.07, Total: 46.71
Quality: 52.72%, Team quality: 95.25%, Competitiveness: 16.15%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 67.13%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 3.17%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 31.45%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 41.79%
#52: North Texas (38.11, 98.63%) at Charlotte (-38.11, 1.37%)
Estimated score: 55.20 - 17.10, Total: 72.30
Quality: 47.96%, Team quality: 85.69%, Competitiveness: 15.02%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 68.71%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 2.91%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 55.02%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 20.71%
#53: Oklahoma State (-46.40, 0.42%) at Texas Tech (46.40, 99.58%)
Estimated score: 5.66 - 51.85, Total: 57.50
Quality: 36.12%, Team quality: 88.30%, Competitiveness: 6.05%
Blowout probability (margin >= 30.0 pts): 83.64%
Close game probability (margin <= 7.0 pts): 1.01%
High scoring probability (total >= 67.0 pts): 41.05%
Low scoring probability (total <= 38.0 pts): 32.12%I’ll write a more detailed preview of this week and post it before Saturday’s games. Like I said, if I tried to write that preview now, I’d never get this article posted before kickoff tonight. I would prefer to have it ready now but I’ve been using my time to tinker with the NBA ratings and making sure that system works correctly. But hopefully I’ll have a better college football preview later this week and be able to provide some better insight on which of the games this weekend have the greatest impact on the playoff scenarios. Thanks for reading!
The ratings in this article are based on data from collegefootballdata.com.