The Poll.ai

2025 season · through week 10

Nobody voted on this.

Ranked by how hard each record was to get against the schedule that produced it. No preseason poll, no reputation, no conference name.

Switch below and watch which teams move.

Full MeritALTERNATE LENS. The same games, ranked on different beliefs.
  1. 1Indiana9-09-0Gap +31.71 in 79key 1.90Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 15 of 136 in 90% of them.
  2. 2Ohio State8-08-0Gap +34.81 in 30key 1.47Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 28 of 136 in 90% of them.
  3. 3Texas Tech8-18-1Gap +5.21 in 7key 0.86Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 24 of 136 in 90% of them.
  4. 4Oregonpoll has it 117-17-1Gap +4.41 in 5key 0.69Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 38 of 136 in 90% of them.
  5. 5Utahpoll has it 177-27-2Gap -1.61 in 3key 0.47Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 34 of 136 in 90% of them.
  6. 6BYU8-08-0Gap +41.21 in 39key 1.59Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 56 of 136 in 90% of them.
  7. 7Alabama7-17-1Gap +11.21 in 13key 1.13Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 53 of 136 in 90% of them.
  8. 8Texas A&Mpoll has it 28-08-0Gap +40.71 in 51key 1.70Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 58 of 136 in 90% of them.
  9. 9Notre Damepoll has it 216-26-2Gap +2.31 in 3key 0.44Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 54 of 136 in 90% of them.
  10. 10USCpoll has it 266-26-2Gap +0.71 in 2key 0.39Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 52 of 136 in 90% of them.
  11. 11Miamipoll has it 236-26-2Gap +1.21 in 3key 0.41Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 53 of 136 in 90% of them.
  12. 12Georgiapoll has it 77-17-1Gap +12.61 in 7key 0.87Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 73 of 136 in 90% of them.
  13. 13North Texas8-18-1Gap +8.31 in 3key 0.49Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 67 of 136 in 90% of them.
  14. 14South Floridapoll has it 196-26-2Gap +6.01 in 3key 0.44Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.
  15. 15Washingtonpoll has it 226-26-2Gap +4.31 in 3key 0.41Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 65 of 136 in 90% of them.
  16. 16Texas7-27-2Gap +8.11 in 4key 0.65Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 64 of 136 in 90% of them.
  17. 17Ole Misspoll has it 88-18-1Gap +15.11 in 7key 0.83Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 10 and 84 of 136 in 90% of them.
  18. 18Vanderbiltpoll has it 247-27-2Gap +1.21 in 2key 0.40Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 43 of 136 in 90% of them.
  19. 19Oklahoma7-27-2Gap +4.71 in 3key 0.47Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 63 of 136 in 90% of them.
  20. 20James Madisonpoll has it 147-17-1Gap +8.41 in 3key 0.47Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 58 of 136 in 90% of them.
  21. 21Pittsburghpoll has it 317-27-2Gap +3.41 in 2key 0.27Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 75 of 136 in 90% of them.
  22. 22Virginiapoll has it 98-18-1Gap +12.51 in 5key 0.71Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 73 of 136 in 90% of them.
  23. 23Missouripoll has it 346-26-2Gap +3.91 in 2key 0.23Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 79 of 136 in 90% of them.
  24. 24Memphis8-18-1Gap +6.51 in 2key 0.39Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 61 of 136 in 90% of them.
  25. 25Louisvillepoll has it 107-17-1Gap +12.01 in 5key 0.71Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 69 of 136 in 90% of them.

The right-hand number is how hard that season was to pull off against that exact schedule. One in 79 put Indiana on top. One in 5 was enough for 25th. Below about 1 in 5 it stops separating teams, which is what the smaller key underneath is for. The bar under each name is where the model kept landing that team out of 136, every bar on one scale. A typical bar this week spans 76.5 places.

2025 week 10 · 1a905d18 · code c5ee855 · Full Merit · method d21aaa06 · 136 teams ranked

The tinted rows are the teams this lens moves at least five places, and each one carries both ranks.

Every column

The board above is the thirty-second version. Below it is everything the run published: the résumé, the power rating, the gap, the rank interval, and where the finished season puts each team.

Every figure the cards carry, for the 25 on the board, with nothing to click.
#teamrecordhow unlikely1 in this manyexpectedwins this schedule asked forbeat that bypowerrating (rank)gapplaces from the pollrangein 90% of replayshindsight
1Indiana9-01 in 796.0+3.028.3 (1)+31.71 to 150.0
2Ohio State8-01 in 305.5+2.525.2 (2)+34.81 to 280.0
3Texas Tech8-11 in 76.3+1.724.4 (3)+5.21 to 24-1.0
4Oregon7-11 in 55.5+1.522.6 (5)+4.41 to 38+1.0
5Utah7-21 in 35.9+1.122.8 (4)-1.61 to 340.0
6BYU8-01 in 395.3+2.718.8 (11)+41.22 to 56-1.0
7Alabama7-11 in 134.7+2.319.9 (6)+11.22 to 53+1.0
8Texas A&M8-01 in 515.1+2.919.3 (8)+40.72 to 580.0
9Notre Dame6-21 in 35.0+1.018.6 (12)+2.33 to 540.0
10USC6-21 in 25.2+0.819.4 (7)+0.73 to 520.0
11Miami6-21 in 35.1+0.919.1 (9)+1.23 to 530.0
12Georgia7-11 in 75.1+1.915.6 (19)+12.65 to 730.0
13North Texas8-11 in 36.9+1.114.8 (25)+8.35 to 67-1.0
14South Florida6-21 in 35.1+0.915.3 (22)+6.04 to 68-2.0
15Washington6-21 in 35.1+0.916.0 (14)+4.35 to 65-3.0
16Texas7-21 in 45.6+1.415.9 (16)+8.15 to 64-4.0
17Ole Miss8-11 in 76.2+1.812.8 (33)+15.110 to 84+4.0
18Vanderbilt7-21 in 26.2+0.819.1 (10)+1.23 to 43+1.0
19Oklahoma7-21 in 35.9+1.116.3 (13)+4.75 to 63+4.0
20James Madison7-11 in 36.0+1.015.2 (23)+8.44 to 58-3.0
21Pittsburgh7-21 in 26.6+0.414.0 (27)+3.46 to 75-7.0
22Virginia8-11 in 56.4+1.613.9 (28)+12.58 to 73-3.0
23Missouri6-21 in 25.7+0.313.1 (30)+3.98 to 79+1.0
24Memphis8-11 in 27.1+0.914.9 (24)+6.54 to 61-5.0
25Louisville7-11 in 55.5+1.515.6 (20)+12.05 to 69+4.0
Show the full table: top 25 of 136, every columnALTERNATE LENS. The same games, ranked on different beliefs.
#teamunderline: 90% rank interval · league median width 76.5how unlikely1 in this many
1IndianaBig Ten9-0·Power 28.27 (1)·Gap +31.73Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 15 of 136 in 90% of them.1.9001 in 79
2Ohio StateBig Ten8-0·Power 25.17 (2)·Gap +34.83Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 28 of 136 in 90% of them.1.4741 in 30
3Texas TechBig 128-1·Power 24.41 (3)·Gap +5.17·▼1Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 24 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8621 in 7
4OregonBig Ten7-1·Power 22.64 (5)·Gap +4.44·▲1Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 38 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6941 in 5
5UtahBig 127-2·Power 22.76 (4)·Gap -1.63Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 34 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4711 in 3
6BYUBig 128-0·Power 18.81 (11)·Gap +41.19·▼1Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 56 of 136 in 90% of them.1.5881 in 39
7AlabamaSEC7-1·Power 19.87 (6)·Gap +11.17·▲1Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 53 of 136 in 90% of them.1.1251 in 13
8Texas A&MSEC8-0·Power 19.25 (8)·Gap +40.75Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 58 of 136 in 90% of them.1.7041 in 51
9Notre DameFBS Independents6-2·Power 18.58 (12)·Gap +2.30Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 54 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4431 in 3
10USCBig Ten6-2·Power 19.36 (7)·Gap +0.74Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 52 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3891 in 2
11MiamiACC6-2·Power 19.11 (9)·Gap +1.18Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 53 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4081 in 3
12GeorgiaSEC7-1·Power 15.62 (19)·Gap +12.61Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 73 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8681 in 7
13North TexasAmerican Athletic8-1·Power 14.76 (25)·Gap +8.29·▼1Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 67 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4891 in 3
14South FloridaAmerican Athletic6-2·Power 15.33 (22)·Gap +5.98·▼2Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4421 in 3
15WashingtonBig Ten6-2·Power 16.05 (14)·Gap +4.31·▼3Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 65 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4071 in 3
16TexasSEC7-2·Power 15.88 (16)·Gap +8.11·▼4Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 64 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6491 in 4
17Ole MissSEC8-1·Power 12.76 (33)·Gap +15.11·▲4Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 10 and 84 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8291 in 7
18VanderbiltSEC7-2·Power 19.08 (10)·Gap +1.21·▲1Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 43 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3971 in 2
19OklahomaSEC7-2·Power 16.34 (13)·Gap +4.68·▲4Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 63 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4731 in 3
20James MadisonSun Belt7-1·Power 15.21 (23)·Gap +8.39·▼3Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 58 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4711 in 3
21PittsburghACC7-2·Power 14.04 (27)·Gap +3.38·▼7Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 75 of 136 in 90% of them.0.2651 in 2
22VirginiaACC8-1·Power 13.92 (28)·Gap +12.53·▼3Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 73 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7131 in 5
23MissouriSEC6-2·Power 13.07 (30)·Gap +3.92·▲1Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 79 of 136 in 90% of them.0.2291 in 2
24MemphisAmerican Athletic8-1·Power 14.91 (24)·Gap +6.46·▼5Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 61 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3911 in 2
25LouisvilleACC7-1·Power 15.59 (20)·Gap +11.97·▲4Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 69 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7121 in 5

What this board believes football results are for

Full Merit, in its own words

Best team wins. We measure as fairly as we can, and nothing else counts. This recipe takes the scoreboard at face value: the compression is switched off entirely, so a 70 point win is a 70 point win and not a 40 point win with the top trimmed off, and the win premium goes to 12 points, the top of the grid campaign 2 pre-registered. The table is then ordered by the margin aware resume, which asks how good these results say you are rather than how hard it was to produce them. Garbage time is still filtered and a kneel down is still worth nothing, because running the clock out is a clock decision and not merit, and charging a defense for allowing it would be measuring the scoreboard operator. Everything that happened while both teams were still playing is on the table, at full value, with no thumb anywhere.

what it costs

  • It pays to run up the score, and this recipe does not pretend otherwise. That is the entire objection to margin and this end of the axis does not answer it. If you believe a coach will keep the starters in against a beaten opponent when the poll rewards it, this is the recipe that rewards it.
  • It is a worse resume and a better predictor, measured. The headline ordering here is candidate B of the headline ordering study, which lost retrodictive violations to both alternatives in 16 of 16 season by surface cells and won forward ordering accuracy 0.6822 against 0.6626. Report 02 already ships a predictor: the Power column, on every row, every week.
  • It puts teams with losses above teams without them, hard. In 2023 candidate B ranked an 8-4 Kansas State twelfth and a 7-5 Texas A&M twenty-third, above an 11-1 James Madison and a 13-0 Liberty, because beating people badly and losing narrowly is what it rewards. demo/2023-recipes.md measures this exact combination of constants rather than quoting the study's.
  • The data does like these constants, and that cuts both ways. C uncapped with a 12 point win premium is campaign 2's lead 1: it beat the incumbent on margin MAE on the tune seasons (13.0039 against 13.0102) and again on 2024 (12.8536 against 12.9096), cleared its own pre-registered rule, and was blocked by an interaction with the accumulation window rather than by its own result. The objective it won on is margin MAE, which has no opinion about desert whatsoever.
  • Kendall's tau against the house poll on the 2023 final board is far below the 0.985 the project treats as the line between a convention and a dial. This is a dial. It is meant to be one.

what it changed

  • margin.beta_w12
  • margin.cuncapped
  • publication.headline_orderingL4_resume_margin

configs/recipes/full-merit.toml

The House PollMargin in the engine, schedule odds in the headline. The published poll.the published pollJust WinWin the game. Running the score up buys you nothing here.alternate lens

same evidence, different valuesEvery board on this page was fitted on the same 1,175 games, and the digest of that exact frame is 38ccfa886779 under all three. Switching lens changes the constants above and nothing else. Method digest for this one: d21aaa06428f.

Where next

  • Tune it yourself Move one setting and watch the board move.
  • The revision What this week looked like once the season ended.
  • Connectivity How much of the field was comparable, and what held it together.
  • Methodology Every constant, every baseline, and the lines that say FAIL.
run 1a905d18 · published 2026-08-15 17:13:26 UTC · code c5ee855 · config bf0fa1a3…
q_ref 14.76 (North Texas) · β_w 12 · C uncapped · h 4.331 · σ 15.300 · λ₁ 175 · λ₂ 0.5 · k 75.65 · w₁ 0.4628 · w₂ 0.1820
reproduce: uv run cfbpoll rank --season 2025 --through-week 10 --out out/
Close

rank 1

Indiana

9-0 · Big Ten. The model never reads conference names.

1 in 79how hard that record waskey 1.90
6.0wins this schedule asked for
+3.0how far past it they came

where the model can honestly pin this team, out of 136

Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 15 of 136 in 90% of them.

1 to 15 · 14 places wide

power28.3, ranked 1
gap+31.7
resume60.0, ranked 2
hindsight1 · 0.0 against this rank

This team’s wins-based resume hit the bound the model puts on how much one result can be worth, so the figure above understates it.