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.

  1. 1Indiana9-09-0Gap +35.11 in 83key 1.92Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 32 of 136 in 90% of them.
  2. 2Texas A&M8-08-0Gap +43.31 in 53key 1.73Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 62 of 136 in 90% of them.
  3. 3BYU8-08-0Gap +44.21 in 38key 1.58Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 69 of 136 in 90% of them.
  4. 4Ohio State8-08-0Gap +37.71 in 29key 1.46Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 45 of 136 in 90% of them.
  5. 5Alabama7-17-1Gap +12.11 in 14key 1.14Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 78 of 136 in 90% of them.
  6. 6Texas Tech8-18-1Gap +4.71 in 8key 0.90Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 39 of 136 in 90% of them.
  7. 7Georgia7-17-1Gap +13.81 in 8key 0.89Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 87 of 136 in 90% of them.
  8. 8Ole Miss8-18-1Gap +16.51 in 7key 0.83Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 9 and 106 of 136 in 90% of them.
  9. 9Virginia8-18-1Gap +13.61 in 6key 0.76Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 90 of 136 in 90% of them.
  10. 10Louisville7-17-1Gap +12.01 in 5key 0.73Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 81 of 136 in 90% of them.
  11. 11Oregon7-17-1Gap +5.11 in 5key 0.69Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 49 of 136 in 90% of them.
  12. 12Texas7-27-2Gap +8.61 in 5key 0.67Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 75 of 136 in 90% of them.
  13. 13Georgia Tech8-18-1Gap +12.61 in 4key 0.63Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 94 of 136 in 90% of them.
  14. 14James Madison7-17-1Gap +8.91 in 4key 0.57Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 79 of 136 in 90% of them.
  15. 15North Texas8-18-1Gap +9.51 in 4key 0.56Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 76 of 136 in 90% of them.
  16. 16Michigan7-27-2Gap +6.11 in 3key 0.50Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 82 of 136 in 90% of them.
  17. 17Utah7-27-2Gap -1.01 in 3key 0.49Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 52 of 136 in 90% of them.
  18. 18Oklahoma7-27-2Gap +5.31 in 3key 0.49Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 80 of 136 in 90% of them.
  19. 19South Florida6-26-2Gap +6.61 in 3key 0.47Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 87 of 136 in 90% of them.
  20. 20Memphis8-18-1Gap +6.91 in 3key 0.46Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 78 of 136 in 90% of them.
  21. 21Notre Dame6-26-2Gap +3.01 in 3key 0.46Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 60 of 136 in 90% of them.
  22. 22Washington6-26-2Gap +5.11 in 3key 0.42Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 86 of 136 in 90% of them.
  23. 23Miami6-26-2Gap +1.11 in 3key 0.42Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 63 of 136 in 90% of them.
  24. 24Vanderbilt7-27-2Gap +0.51 in 2key 0.40Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 60 of 136 in 90% of them.
  25. 25Illinois6-36-3Gap +7.81 in 2key 0.39Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 93 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 83 put Indiana on top. One in 2 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 91 places.

2025 week 10 · be07b61f · code e215160 · The House Poll · method 061a6d4e · 136 teams ranked

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 835.9+3.124.9 (1)+35.11 to 320.0
2Texas A&M8-01 in 535.1+2.916.7 (10)+43.32 to 620.0
3BYU8-01 in 385.3+2.715.8 (12)+44.23 to 69-1.0
4Ohio State8-01 in 295.5+2.522.3 (3)+37.71 to 45+1.0
5Alabama7-11 in 144.7+2.317.1 (9)+12.12 to 780.0
6Texas Tech8-11 in 86.2+1.823.2 (2)+4.71 to 39-3.0
7Georgia7-11 in 85.1+1.912.7 (25)+13.84 to 870.0
8Ole Miss8-11 in 76.2+1.89.3 (37)+16.59 to 106+2.0
9Virginia8-11 in 66.3+1.711.5 (29)+13.66 to 90-2.0
10Louisville7-11 in 55.5+1.513.8 (19)+12.05 to 810.0
11Oregon7-11 in 55.5+1.520.0 (5)+5.12 to 49+3.0
12Texas7-21 in 55.5+1.513.6 (21)+8.64 to 750.0
13Georgia Tech8-11 in 46.6+1.410.6 (32)+12.68 to 94-2.0
14James Madison7-11 in 45.8+1.214.1 (16)+8.93 to 79-7.0
15North Texas8-11 in 46.7+1.312.5 (26)+9.54 to 76+2.0
16Michigan7-21 in 35.9+1.113.6 (22)+6.13 to 82-2.0
17Utah7-21 in 35.9+1.120.4 (4)-1.01 to 52-7.0
18Oklahoma7-21 in 35.9+1.114.0 (18)+5.33 to 80+4.0
19South Florida6-21 in 35.0+1.013.2 (24)+6.63 to 870.0
20Memphis8-11 in 36.9+1.113.6 (20)+6.93 to 78-7.0
21Notre Dame6-21 in 35.0+1.016.2 (11)+3.03 to 60+5.0
22Washington6-21 in 35.1+0.913.5 (23)+5.14 to 860.0
23Miami6-21 in 35.1+0.917.3 (7)+1.12 to 63+6.0
24Vanderbilt7-21 in 26.2+0.817.7 (6)+0.52 to 60+1.0
25Illinois6-31 in 25.2+0.89.6 (35)+7.88 to 93+5.0
Show the full table: top 25 of 136, every columnthe published poll
#teamunderline: 90% rank interval · league median width 91how unlikely1 in this many
1IndianaBig Ten9-0·Power 24.88 (1)·Gap +35.12Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 32 of 136 in 90% of them.1.9201 in 83
2Texas A&MSEC8-0·Power 16.72 (10)·Gap +43.28Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 62 of 136 in 90% of them.1.7271 in 53
3BYUBig 128-0·Power 15.83 (12)·Gap +44.17·▼1Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 69 of 136 in 90% of them.1.5841 in 38
4Ohio StateBig Ten8-0·Power 22.31 (3)·Gap +37.69·▲1Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 45 of 136 in 90% of them.1.4591 in 29
5AlabamaSEC7-1·Power 17.11 (9)·Gap +12.09Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 78 of 136 in 90% of them.1.1361 in 14
6Texas TechBig 128-1·Power 23.16 (2)·Gap +4.74·▼3Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 39 of 136 in 90% of them.0.9041 in 8
7GeorgiaSEC7-1·Power 12.71 (25)·Gap +13.80Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 87 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8931 in 8
8Ole MissSEC8-1·Power 9.27 (37)·Gap +16.55·▲2Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 9 and 106 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8311 in 7
9VirginiaACC8-1·Power 11.49 (29)·Gap +13.56·▼2Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 90 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7651 in 6
10LouisvilleACC7-1·Power 13.81 (19)·Gap +11.96Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 81 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7261 in 5
11OregonBig Ten7-1·Power 19.95 (5)·Gap +5.05·▲3Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 49 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6951 in 5
12TexasSEC7-2·Power 13.56 (21)·Gap +8.57Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 75 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6681 in 5
13Georgia TechACC8-1·Power 10.58 (32)·Gap +12.65·▼2Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 94 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6261 in 4
14James MadisonSun Belt7-1·Power 14.12 (16)·Gap +8.92·▼7Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 79 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5681 in 4
15North TexasAmerican Athletic8-1·Power 12.46 (26)·Gap +9.54·▲2Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 76 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5561 in 4
16MichiganBig Ten7-2·Power 13.55 (22)·Gap +6.14·▼2Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 82 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5011 in 3
17UtahBig 127-2·Power 20.39 (4)·Gap -0.96·▼7Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 52 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4951 in 3
18OklahomaSEC7-2·Power 13.97 (18)·Gap +5.26·▲4Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 80 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4891 in 3
19South FloridaAmerican Athletic6-2·Power 13.16 (24)·Gap +6.60Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 87 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4751 in 3
20MemphisAmerican Athletic8-1·Power 13.63 (20)·Gap +6.91·▼7Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 78 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4631 in 3
21Notre DameFBS Independents6-2·Power 16.16 (11)·Gap +3.02·▲5Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 60 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4631 in 3
22WashingtonBig Ten6-2·Power 13.46 (23)·Gap +5.12Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 86 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4251 in 3
23MiamiACC6-2·Power 17.33 (7)·Gap +1.13·▲6Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 63 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4211 in 3
24VanderbiltSEC7-2·Power 17.67 (6)·Gap +0.53·▲1Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 60 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3971 in 2
25IllinoisBig Ten6-3·Power 9.60 (35)·Gap +7.81·▲5Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 93 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3891 in 2

What this board believes football results are for

The House Poll, in its own words

This is the poll this project publishes and this recipe changes nothing about it. Margin counts, and it counts less and less as it grows: the response is C*tanh(m/C) with C at 32 points plus a 7 point win premium, so the gap between a 3 point win and a 24 point win is large and the gap between a 45 point win and a 70 point win is almost nothing. There is no cliff anywhere for a coach to aim at, which is what tanh buys over a hard cap. Then the headline does not read margin at all. Teams are ordered by schedule odds, the probability that a team of published reference quality would have gone at least this well against this exact schedule, and the harder it was to do what you did the higher you go. Margin is in the engine because it carries real information about how good a team is. It is out of the headline because the headline is about what a team earned, and those are two different questions that deserve two different columns.

what it costs

  • An unbeaten team can finish behind a one loss team, and that will need explaining every single year. It is the direct consequence of the promise. The explanation is on the page: the tail probability, the reference team it was measured against by name, and the Power column beside it.
  • One published constant the wins based resume did not need. q_ref is the Power rating of the 25th ranked team that week, the least flattering defensible reading of ESPN's average Top-25 team. The study measured the ordering across a 16 point swing in it: Kendall's tau never fell below 0.985 and at most one team entered or left the top 25.
  • It loses forward ordering accuracy to Full Merit by about two points. Accepted, and for a stated reason: forward accuracy is a prediction metric and the headline poll is not the instrument this project ships for prediction. L3 Power is, and it beats all three orderings on that axis.
  • It is a compromise and it will satisfy neither end of the argument completely. Someone who believes margin is the only honest measurement will find the compression arbitrary, and someone who believes point differential should never pay will find 32 points of it far too generous. Both are reading the position correctly.

what it changed

Nothing at all. This is the poll this project publishes and this recipe changes none of it.

configs/recipes/house.toml

Full MeritMargin counts for exactly what it is worth. Nothing is protected.alternate lensJust 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: 061a6d4eda23.

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 be07b61f · published 2026-08-19 23:14:07 UTC · code e215160 · config 1ef7cf23…
q_ref 12.71 (Georgia) · β_w 7 · C 32 · h 4.347 · σ 15.443 · λ₁ 175 · λ₂ 0.5 · k 75.65 · w₁ 0.6012 · w₂ 0.0890
reproduce: uv run cfbpoll rank --season 2025 --through-week 10 --out out/
Close

rank 25

Illinois

6-3 · Big Ten. The model never reads conference names.

1 in 2how hard that record waskey 0.39
5.2wins this schedule asked for
+0.8how far past it they came

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

Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 93 of 136 in 90% of them.

8 to 93 · 85 places wide

power9.6, ranked 35
gap+7.8
resume17.4, ranked 28
hindsight20 · +5.0 against this rank