Rate
Raw scoring margins enter a pure least-squares Massey system. FCS opponents remain in the network, while only FBS teams are ranked.
College football · 2026 · Through Week 6
A transparent Massey system for team strength, game probabilities, and projected regular-season records—built to change as the games do.
The distinction
Rank measures estimated team strength. Projected wins combine that strength with the difficulty and location of each opponent.
These are preseason estimates, not declarations. Team strength varies in each of 50,000 simulations, and the prior disappears after a team’s fourth game.
Through Week 6
Results included through October 11, 2026.
| Rank | Team | Actual | Rating | SOS | Game projection | Conference projection | 6+ wins | View team |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alabama | 5–1 | 53.7 | #1325.3 avg. | 11–1 | 8–1 | 100% | |
| 2 | Notre Dame | 6–0 | 49.8 | #5318.0 avg. | 12–0 | 0–0 | 100% | |
| 3▲ 4 | Georgia | 6–0 | 46.8 | #3021.5 avg. | 12–0 | 9–0 | 100% | |
| 4▲ 1 | Utah | 5–0 | 45.1 | #3720.3 avg. | 12–0 | 9–0 | 100% | |
| 5▼ 1 | Ohio State | 5–1 | 44.8 | #2023.4 avg. | 10–2 | 8–1 | 100% | |
| 6▼ 3 | Texas | 4–1 | 42.6 | #229.6 avg. | 9–3 | 6–3 | 99% | |
| 7▼ 1 | Nebraska | 5–1 | 40.6 | #3320.8 avg. | 10–2 | 7–2 | 100% | |
| 8 | LSU | 4–2 | 40.1 | #1025.4 avg. | 9–3 | 6–3 | 96% | |
| 9▲ 1 | Miami | 5–0 | 40.1 | #6314.5 avg. | 11–1 | 9–0 | 100% | |
| 10▼ 1 | UCLA | 5–0 | 39.6 | #4219.5 avg. | 12–0 | 9–0 | 100% | |
| 11▲ 3 | Missouri | 5–1 | 38.0 | #626.5 avg. | 10–2 | 7–2 | 100% | |
| 12▼ 1 | Mississippi State | 4–1 | 37.3 | #1225.3 avg. | 9–3 | 6–3 | 100% | |
| 13▲ 2 | Oregon | 3–2 | 36.1 | #2123.2 avg. | 9–3 | 7–2 | 93% | |
| 14▲ 8 | Indiana | 6–0 | 35.1 | #5716.0 avg. | 11–1 | 8–1 | 100% | |
| 15▲ 4 | South Carolina | 3–3 | 34.9 | #725.7 avg. | 7–5 | 4–5 | 81% | |
| 16▲ 7 | BYU | 5–0 | 34.5 | #2222.8 avg. | 9–3 | 7–2 | 100% | |
| 17▼ 1 | Kentucky | 5–1 | 34.4 | #328.7 avg. | 8–4 | 5–4 | 100% | |
| 18▲ 6 | Houston | 5–1 | 34.1 | #4618.8 avg. | 10–2 | 7–2 | 100% | |
| 19▼ 7 | Tennessee | 5–1 | 32.6 | #1824.1 avg. | 7–5 | 4–5 | 98% | |
| 20▲ 13 | Wake Forest | 5–1 | 31.8 | #6813.7 avg. | 11–1 | 8–1 | 100% | |
| 21▼ 8 | Pittsburgh | 5–1 | 31.7 | #6215.2 avg. | 9–3 | 6–3 | 100% | |
| 22▲ 3 | Texas Tech | 5–0 | 31.7 | #4818.5 avg. | 10–2 | 7–2 | 100% | |
| 23▲ 17 | Oklahoma | 3–2 | 31.3 | #130.4 avg. | 7–5 | 5–4 | 75% | |
| 24▼ 7 | Florida | 4–2 | 31.2 | #1125.3 avg. | 7–5 | 4–5 | 88% | |
| 25▼ 7 | Wisconsin | 4–1 | 31.1 | #4019.8 avg. | 9–3 | 7–2 | 99% | |
| 26▲ 13 | Ole Miss | 4–1 | 30.9 | #1524.8 avg. | 6–6 | 3–6 | 97% | |
| 27 | Iowa | 5–1 | 29.5 | #3820.2 avg. | 9–3 | 6–3 | 99% | |
| 28▲ 8 | Oklahoma State | 4–1 | 28.8 | #4918.5 avg. | 9–3 | 7–2 | 98% | |
| 29▼ 8 | UCF | 3–3 | 28.6 | #3520.6 avg. | 8–4 | 6–3 | 83% | |
| 30▼ 10 | Texas A&M | 3–3 | 28.5 | #825.6 avg. | 5–7 | 2–7 | 56% | |
| 31▼ 5 | Northwestern | 4–1 | 28.4 | #5218.3 avg. | 9–3 | 6–3 | 97% | |
| 32▲ 3 | New Mexico | 4–1 | 28.2 | #134-0.6 avg. | 11–1 | 8–0 | 100% | |
| 33▲ 5 | Arizona | 5–1 | 28.2 | #4319.3 avg. | 9–3 | 6–3 | 99% | |
| 34▲ 13 | Louisville | 3–3 | 28.0 | #5418.0 avg. | 7–5 | 6–3 | 79% | |
| 35▲ 21 | Oregon State | 4–2 | 27.4 | #769.9 avg. | 8–3 | 6–1 | 97% | |
| 36▼ 6 | Baylor | 4–1 | 27.1 | #3919.9 avg. | 7–5 | 5–4 | 91% | |
| 37▼ 8 | Iowa State | 3–3 | 26.6 | #2522.0 avg. | 6–6 | 4–5 | 68% | |
| 38▲ 5 | Kansas | 2–3 | 26.0 | #3221.2 avg. | 5–7 | 3–6 | 47% | |
| 39▼ 7 | Penn State | 3–3 | 25.7 | #6115.3 avg. | 8–4 | 5–4 | 85% | |
| 40▲ 2 | USC | 6–1 | 25.7 | #2422.4 avg. | 7–5 | 4–5 | 100% | |
| 41▼ 13 | Auburn | 3–2 | 25.5 | #925.4 avg. | 5–7 | 2–7 | 66% | |
| 42▲ 15 | Purdue | 3–3 | 25.1 | #1424.9 avg. | 5–7 | 4–5 | 65% | |
| 43▲ 1 | TCU | 2–3 | 25.1 | #2721.9 avg. | 5–7 | 3–6 | 43% | |
| 44▲ 10 | North Carolina | 3–2 | 24.7 | #2821.9 avg. | 7–5 | 4–4 | 83% | |
| 45▲ 1 | Boise State | 5–1 | 24.3 | #7211.1 avg. | 10–1 | 7–0 | 100% | |
| 46▼ 12 | James Madison | 6–0 | 23.7 | #1231.4 avg. | 12–0 | 8–0 | 100% | |
| 47▼ 16 | Duke | 4–1 | 23.4 | #6414.5 avg. | 8–4 | 5–4 | 96% | |
| 48▲ 5 | Michigan | 3–2 | 23.0 | #1923.6 avg. | 6–6 | 3–6 | 67% | |
| 49▼ 4 | Kansas State | 3–2 | 21.9 | #5915.3 avg. | 6–6 | 3–6 | 75% | |
| 50 | Illinois | 3–3 | 21.8 | #1624.8 avg. | 3–9 | 1–8 | 39% | |
| 51▼ 3 | Virginia | 4–2 | 21.2 | #6514.4 avg. | 8–4 | 6–3 | 90% | |
| 52▼ 15 | Florida State | 3–3 | 20.9 | #4519.3 avg. | 6–6 | 4–4 | 62% | |
| 53▼ 12 | Virginia Tech | 4–2 | 20.8 | #7410.5 avg. | 8–4 | 5–4 | 95% | |
| 54▼ 5 | Michigan State | 2–4 | 20.3 | #1724.4 avg. | 4–8 | 2–7 | 25% | |
| 55 | Syracuse | 2–3 | 19.9 | #5617.3 avg. | 5–7 | 3–6 | 47% | |
| 56▲ 6 | Clemson | 3–2 | 19.5 | #3620.3 avg. | 6–6 | 4–4 | 84% | |
| 57▲ 2 | Cincinnati | 4–1 | 18.5 | #4119.8 avg. | 5–7 | 2–7 | 81% | |
| 58▲ 8 | Liberty | 5–1 | 18.3 | #131-0.2 avg. | 11–1 | 8–0 | 100% | |
| 59▼ 7 | Minnesota | 4–2 | 17.9 | #3121.2 avg. | 4–8 | 2–7 | 63% | |
| 60▲ 11 | Memphis | 5–1 | 17.3 | #1034.2 avg. | 10–2 | 7–1 | 100% | |
| 61▼ 3 | West Virginia | 3–3 | 17.2 | #2921.8 avg. | 4–8 | 1–8 | 33% | |
| 62▼ 1 | Maryland | 2–4 | 17.1 | #2621.9 avg. | 4–8 | 2–7 | 25% | |
| 63▼ 12 | Vanderbilt | 3–3 | 16.9 | #428.0 avg. | 4–8 | 1–8 | 24% | |
| 64▲ 9 | North Texas | 4–2 | 16.4 | #985.0 avg. | 9–3 | 7–1 | 98% | |
| 65▼ 5 | NC State | 3–3 | 15.9 | #6713.7 avg. | 6–6 | 4–5 | 64% | |
| 66▼ 3 | Georgia State | 4–1 | 15.4 | #1211.7 avg. | 10–2 | 7–1 | 99% | |
| 67 | UTSA | 5–1 | 14.8 | #798.9 avg. | 10–2 | 7–1 | 100% | |
| 68▼ 3 | Washington | 3–3 | 14.8 | #3420.6 avg. | 3–9 | 0–9 | 21% | |
| 69▲ 1 | Fresno State | 4–2 | 14.7 | #808.7 avg. | 7–4 | 4–3 | 85% | |
| 70▼ 2 | SMU | 4–1 | 13.5 | #6613.7 avg. | 6–6 | 4–5 | 88% | |
| 71▼ 7 | Army | 3–2 | 13.1 | #915.5 avg. | 7–4 | 5–3 | 77% | |
| 72▲ 12 | California | 3–3 | 12.9 | #6015.3 avg. | 4–8 | 3–6 | 49% | |
| 73▲ 8 | Arkansas | 2–4 | 12.7 | #527.0 avg. | 2–10 | 0–9 | 3% | |
| 74▼ 5 | Texas State | 2–3 | 12.5 | #6912.8 avg. | 6–5 | 4–3 | 34% | |
| 75▲ 4 | UConn | 3–3 | 12.4 | #955.1 avg. | 6–6 | 0–0 | 80% | |
| 76▼ 1 | Arizona State | 3–2 | 12.2 | #5118.3 avg. | 4–8 | 2–7 | 39% | |
| 77▼ 3 | Louisiana Tech | 3–2 | 11.9 | #1103.5 avg. | 7–5 | 5–3 | 93% | |
| 78▼ 2 | South Florida | 4–2 | 11.9 | #1024.3 avg. | 8–4 | 4–4 | 97% | |
| 79▼ 1 | North Dakota State | 5–1 | 11.6 | #137-3.1 avg. | 10–2 | 7–2 | 100% | |
| 80▲ 11 | Georgia Southern | 2–4 | 11.6 | #828.2 avg. | 6–6 | 5–3 | 51% | |
| 81▲ 13 | Western Michigan | 4–2 | 11.2 | #1251.4 avg. | 9–3 | 7–1 | 98% | |
| 82▼ 5 | Tulsa | 3–3 | 10.8 | #875.8 avg. | 7–5 | 4–4 | 78% | |
| 83▼ 1 | Troy | 3–2 | 10.0 | #847.0 avg. | 6–6 | 4–4 | 81% | |
| 84▲ 14 | Georgia Tech | 2–3 | 9.7 | #5018.5 avg. | 3–9 | 2–6 | 11% | |
| 85▲ 7 | Florida Atlantic | 4–1 | 9.6 | #885.8 avg. | 7–5 | 4–4 | 92% | |
| 86▲ 15 | UNLV | 4–2 | 9.2 | #905.6 avg. | 8–4 | 6–2 | 96% | |
| 87 | Colorado | 2–3 | 9.2 | #2322.4 avg. | 2–10 | 0–9 | 10% | |
| 88▼ 5 | Utah State | 2–4 | 8.8 | #5815.5 avg. | 4–7 | 3–4 | 11% | |
| 89▲ 10 | Colorado State | 2–3 | 8.4 | #7510.2 avg. | 3–8 | 1–6 | 23% | |
| 90▲ 5 | South Alabama | 4–2 | 7.9 | #1113.4 avg. | 9–3 | 7–1 | 94% | |
| 91▲ 2 | Louisiana | 4–2 | 7.9 | #1291.1 avg. | 9–3 | 6–2 | 95% | |
| 92▼ 7 | Tulane | 2–3 | 7.6 | #779.6 avg. | 5–7 | 3–5 | 51% | |
| 93▼ 4 | Miami (OH) | 3–3 | 7.2 | #1064.0 avg. | 8–4 | 6–2 | 84% | |
| 94▲ 13 | Florida International | 3–2 | 7.2 | #1221.5 avg. | 6–6 | 4–4 | 87% | |
| 95▲ 2 | East Carolina | 3–2 | 7.1 | #895.6 avg. | 8–4 | 6–2 | 79% | |
| 96▼ 24 | Toledo | 4–2 | 6.7 | #136-2.0 avg. | 9–3 | 6–2 | 95% | |
| 97▲ 14 | Navy | 2–3 | 6.7 | #789.5 avg. | 4–7 | 3–5 | 20% | |
| 98▲ 11 | Air Force | 4–1 | 6.6 | #1201.8 avg. | 9–3 | 6–2 | 96% | |
| 99▼ 19 | Temple | 2–4 | 6.4 | #935.3 avg. | 5–7 | 4–4 | 42% | |
| 100 | Ohio | 4–2 | 5.9 | #132-0.3 avg. | 9–3 | 7–1 | 97% | |
| 101▲ 3 | Jacksonville State | 4–2 | 4.9 | #133-0.3 avg. | 9–3 | 7–1 | 95% | |
| 102▲ 1 | Arkansas State | 2–4 | 4.4 | #1054.0 avg. | 5–7 | 3–5 | 36% | |
| 103▼ 7 | Kennesaw State | 1–4 | 4.3 | #1152.7 avg. | 6–6 | 5–3 | 29% | |
| 104▼ 16 | App State | 3–2 | 4.1 | #1261.3 avg. | 5–7 | 2–6 | 72% | |
| 105▼ 3 | Delaware | 2–3 | 4.1 | #1162.5 avg. | 7–5 | 5–3 | 64% | |
| 106▼ 16 | Sam Houston | 1–4 | 3.6 | #1171.9 avg. | 6–6 | 5–3 | 37% | |
| 107▲ 1 | Washington State | 1–5 | 3.1 | #7111.2 avg. | 2–9 | 1–6 | 0% | |
| 108▼ 3 | Massachusetts | 4–2 | 3.1 | #138-4.3 avg. | 6–6 | 3–5 | 92% | |
| 109▲ 1 | Rutgers | 1–4 | 2.7 | #5517.6 avg. | 1–11 | 0–9 | 0% | |
| 110▲ 9 | Nevada | 2–3 | 2.3 | #994.8 avg. | 5–7 | 4–4 | 27% | |
| 111▼ 5 | Boston College | 2–3 | 1.3 | #4718.7 avg. | 2–10 | 0–8 | 3% | |
| 112▲ 5 | Bowling Green | 2–4 | 1.1 | #837.3 avg. | 5–7 | 5–3 | 36% | |
| 113▲ 1 | Coastal Carolina | 2–4 | 0.8 | #1014.4 avg. | 5–7 | 4–4 | 17% | |
| 114▼ 28 | San Diego State | 2–4 | 0.7 | #7012.4 avg. | 3–8 | 2–5 | 6% | |
| 115▼ 3 | Rice | 1–5 | 0.5 | #7310.9 avg. | 1–11 | 0–8 | 2% | |
| 116 | UAB | 3–3 | 0.1 | #925.3 avg. | 4–8 | 2–6 | 47% | |
| 117▼ 4 | San José State | 3–3 | -0.8 | #1073.9 avg. | 5–8 | 3–6 | 64% | |
| 118 | New Mexico State | 2–4 | -1.1 | #1241.4 avg. | 5–7 | 4–4 | 27% | |
| 119▲ 1 | Stanford | 2–4 | -1.2 | #4419.3 avg. | 3–9 | 1–8 | 7% | |
| 120▲ 9 | Buffalo | 3–3 | -1.4 | #1281.2 avg. | 8–4 | 6–2 | 69% | |
| 121▼ 6 | Eastern Michigan | 4–3 | -2.2 | #1300.8 avg. | 6–6 | 5–3 | 75% | |
| 122 | Old Dominion | 2–4 | -2.9 | #965.1 avg. | 4–8 | 3–5 | 18% | |
| 123▲ 2 | Central Michigan | 3–3 | -5.2 | #1271.2 avg. | 4–8 | 2–6 | 59% | |
| 124▲ 6 | Wyoming | 3–3 | -5.9 | #1123.3 avg. | 4–8 | 3–5 | 39% | |
| 125▼ 4 | Northern Illinois | 0–5 | -6.2 | #856.6 avg. | 2–10 | 2–6 | 2% | |
| 126▲ 2 | Hawai'i | 1–5 | -6.9 | #1181.9 avg. | 2–10 | 0–8 | 3% | |
| 127▲ 8 | Western Kentucky | 2–4 | -7.1 | #945.1 avg. | 2–10 | 1–7 | 11% | |
| 128▼ 4 | Southern Miss | 1–4 | -7.2 | #1093.7 avg. | 2–10 | 1–7 | 5% | |
| 129▼ 3 | Marshall | 3–3 | -7.7 | #1083.9 avg. | 3–9 | 0–8 | 35% | |
| 130▼ 3 | Kent State | 2–4 | -8.5 | #1004.7 avg. | 4–8 | 3–5 | 14% | |
| 131 | Middle Tennessee | 2–3 | -8.6 | #1191.9 avg. | 3–9 | 1–7 | 19% | |
| 132▲ 2 | Akron | 1–5 | -8.9 | #1133.2 avg. | 1–11 | 0–8 | 2% | |
| 133▼ 1 | Ball State | 1–5 | -10.6 | #1044.1 avg. | 3–9 | 2–6 | 3% | |
| 134▲ 3 | UTEP | 1–5 | -11.1 | #866.1 avg. | 3–9 | 2–6 | 2% | |
| 135▼ 12 | Missouri State | 1–4 | -11.2 | #1143.2 avg. | 1–11 | 0–8 | 2% | |
| 136 | UL Monroe | 0–5 | -13.2 | #975.0 avg. | 1–11 | 1–7 | 0% | |
| 137▼ 4 | Sacramento State | 1–5 | -14.6 | #135-1.9 avg. | 1–11 | 0–8 | 2% | |
| 138 | Charlotte | 0–6 | -15.7 | #818.4 avg. | 0–12 | 0–8 | 0% |
Predictions on the record
Each forecast is preserved before kickoff. Once scores arrive, the original choices remain unchanged and their accuracy is added to the record.
Forecast: Through Week 6 · using results through October 11. A tie at exactly 50% is assigned to the home team for the published pick.
Showing 62 of 62 games
| Date | Matchup | Predicted winner | Predicted margin | Win probability | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 13 | DelawareatMiddle Tennessee | Delaware | 12.6 points | 59.5% | Pending |
| Oct 13 | Florida InternationalatJacksonville State | Jacksonville State | 2.3 points | 55.1% | Pending |
| Oct 14 | Kennesaw StateatMissouri State | Kennesaw State | 15.6 points | 63.4% | Pending |
| Oct 14 | Western KentuckyatSam Houston | Sam Houston | 10.7 points | 72.0% | Pending |
| Oct 15 | East CarolinaatUAB | East Carolina | 6.9 points | 51.5% | Pending |
| Oct 15 | Georgia SouthernatOld Dominion | Georgia Southern | 14.5 points | 62.0% | Pending |
| Oct 15 | Colorado StateatTexas State | Texas State | 4.2 points | 63.9% | Pending |
| Oct 16 | MemphisatTulane | Memphis | 9.7 points | 55.3% | Pending |
| Oct 16 | WashingtonatPurdue | Purdue | 10.4 points | 71.6% | Pending |
| Oct 16 | App StateatCoastal Carolina | Coastal Carolina | 3.2 points | 53.8% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | NebraskaatOregon | Oregon | 4.5 points | 52.0% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | WisconsinatUCLA | UCLA | 8.5 points | 69.4% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | Mississippi StateatLSU | LSU | 2.9 points | 62.2% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | FloridaatTexas | Texas | 11.4 points | 72.8% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | CincinnatiatWest Virginia | West Virginia | 1.3 points | 56.5% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | KansasatKansas State | Kansas State | 4.1 points | 52.5% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | Charleston SouthernatClemson | Clemson | 34.8 points | 91.0% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | PittsburghatBoston College | Pittsburgh | 30.4 points | 80.1% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | VirginiaatSMU | Virginia | 7.8 points | 52.7% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | Ohio StateatIndiana | Ohio State | 9.8 points | 55.5% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | NorthwesternatMichigan State | Northwestern | 8.1 points | 53.1% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | Florida AtlanticatArmy | Army | 3.5 points | 63.1% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | Ball StateatBowling Green | Bowling Green | 11.7 points | 73.2% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | Georgia StateatJames Madison | James Madison | 8.3 points | 69.2% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | RutgersatMaryland | Maryland | 14.4 points | 76.0% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | The CitadelatTexas A&M | Texas A&M | 42.5 points | 94.0% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | CharlotteatTemple | Temple | 22.2 points | 83.2% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | MassachusettsatBuffalo | Buffalo | 4.5 points | 52.0% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | Western MichiganatCentral Michigan | Western Michigan | 16.5 points | 64.6% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | AuburnatGeorgia | Georgia | 21.3 points | 82.4% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | MissouriatOle Miss | Missouri | 7.1 points | 51.8% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | AlabamaatTennessee | Alabama | 21.1 points | 70.3% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | Arizona StateatTexas Tech | Texas Tech | 19.4 points | 80.9% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | Georgia TechatVirginia Tech | Virginia Tech | 11.1 points | 72.5% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | North CarolinaatDuke | Duke | 1.3 points | 56.5% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | Penn StateatMichigan | Michigan | 2.8 points | 54.4% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | Northern IllinoisatWyoming | Wyoming | 0.2 points | 58.7% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | UNLVatAir Force | Air Force | 2.7 points | 54.6% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | ToledoatEastern Michigan | Toledo | 8.9 points | 54.3% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | AkronatMiami (OH) | Miami (OH) | 16.2 points | 77.9% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | TulsaatRice | Tulsa | 10.3 points | 56.2% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | TroyatLouisiana | Louisiana | 2.2 points | 55.3% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | Washington StateatOregon State | Oregon State | 24.3 points | 84.8% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | ArkansasatVanderbilt | Vanderbilt | 4.2 points | 64.0% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | TCUatBaylor | Baylor | 2.0 points | 61.0% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | Florida StateatMiami | Miami | 19.2 points | 80.7% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | Kent StateatSouth Florida | South Florida | 20.3 points | 81.6% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | NevadaatNorth Dakota State | North Dakota State | 9.3 points | 70.4% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | Arkansas StateatSouthern Miss | Arkansas State | 11.6 points | 58.1% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | KentuckyatOklahoma | Oklahoma | 3.1 points | 54.0% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | Notre DameatBYU | Notre Dame | 15.3 points | 63.0% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | Oklahoma StateatHouston | Houston | 5.3 points | 65.4% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | ElonatStanford | Stanford | 6.5 points | 66.9% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | LouisvilleatSyracuse | Louisville | 8.2 points | 53.2% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | NavyatUTSA | UTSA | 8.1 points | 69.0% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | Louisiana TechatUL Monroe | Louisiana Tech | 25.1 points | 74.9% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | San José StateatUTEP | San José State | 10.3 points | 56.3% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | OhioatSacramento State | Ohio | 20.5 points | 69.7% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | UtahatColorado | Utah | 35.9 points | 84.7% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | Wake ForestatCalifornia | Wake Forest | 18.9 points | 67.7% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | Fresno StateatSan Diego State | Fresno State | 14.0 points | 61.4% | Pending |
| Oct 17 | New MexicoatHawai'i | New Mexico | 35.1 points | 84.1% | Pending |
Probability check
A well-calibrated model should win roughly seven of every ten games placed in the 70–79% band. This record accumulates through the season.
How it works
Raw scoring margins enter a pure least-squares Massey system. FCS opponents remain in the network, while only FBS teams are ranked.
A logistic probability curve was trained on chronological 2021–24 predictions and tested against the untouched 2025 season.
Each scheduled game is played 50,000 times while allowing for genuine uncertainty in every team’s preseason strength.
Strength of schedule is the average current Massey rating of every opponent on a team’s known regular-season schedule, including lower-division opponents. Rank No. 1 denotes the most difficult schedule. Because opponent ratings change as results accumulate, schedule strength is recalculated with every weekly update.
The exact weekly calculation
M = Rhome − Raway + SM is the predicted scoring margin from the home team’s perspective. S is the historically observed 2.236-point scoring advantage for a true home game and zero at a neutral site.
P(home) = 1 ÷ (1 + e−(0.056917929D + 0.336009714I))D is the unadjusted rating difference and I is 1 for a true home game or 0 at a neutral site. The 0.336010 home coefficient is equivalent to 5.903 rating points for win-probability purposes; it is not an expected scoring margin. The visitor’s probability is 1 − P(home).
Try it yourself
Use team ratings to calculate the margin automatically, or enter an already calculated margin directly.
At a neutral site, a margin of 0.0 produces a 50.0% probability for each team. At a true home site, the scoring model adds 2.236 points, while the independently fitted probability model gives home status a 0.336010 log-odds effect—equivalent to 5.903 rating points for probability purposes.
The projection label and calibration values above identify the inputs used for the currently displayed week. The scoring adjustment estimates points on the scoreboard; the separately fitted logistic home effect estimates the chance of winning.
Regular-season schedule through Week 14. Conference championships and postseason games are excluded because their participants are not yet known.