The Poll.ai

2025 season · through week 11

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. 1Indiana10-010-0Gap +32.71 in 235key 2.37Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 16 of 136 in 90% of them.
  2. 2Ohio State9-09-0Gap +34.01 in 60key 1.78Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 22 of 136 in 90% of them.
  3. 3Texas Tech9-19-1Gap +6.51 in 17key 1.23Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 22 of 136 in 90% of them.
  4. 4Oregon8-18-1Gap +7.51 in 14key 1.16Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 33 of 136 in 90% of them.
  5. 5Utahpoll has it 197-27-2Gap -1.51 in 4key 0.55Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 33 of 136 in 90% of them.
  6. 6Texas A&M9-09-0Gap +38.91 in 192key 2.28Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 47 of 136 in 90% of them.
  7. 7Notre Damepoll has it 137-27-2Gap +1.41 in 4key 0.62Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 41 of 136 in 90% of them.
  8. 8Alabama8-18-1Gap +11.81 in 25key 1.41Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 55 of 136 in 90% of them.
  9. 9BYUpoll has it 48-18-1Gap +14.91 in 26key 1.42Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 60 of 136 in 90% of them.
  10. 10Georgia8-18-1Gap +12.01 in 18key 1.27Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 56 of 136 in 90% of them.
  11. 11USCpoll has it 207-27-2Gap +1.41 in 4key 0.56Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 46 of 136 in 90% of them.
  12. 12Ole Miss9-19-1Gap +14.71 in 12key 1.08Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 71 of 136 in 90% of them.
  13. 13South Florida7-27-2Gap +4.81 in 4key 0.55Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 58 of 136 in 90% of them.
  14. 14Miamipoll has it 217-27-2Gap +1.51 in 3key 0.51Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 50 of 136 in 90% of them.
  15. 15North Texas8-18-1Gap +8.01 in 4key 0.56Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 67 of 136 in 90% of them.
  16. 16Oklahoma7-27-2Gap +4.61 in 4key 0.60Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 62 of 136 in 90% of them.
  17. 17Texaspoll has it 117-27-2Gap +8.01 in 5key 0.73Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 66 of 136 in 90% of them.
  18. 18Vanderbilt8-28-2Gap +3.51 in 4key 0.59Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 48 of 136 in 90% of them.
  19. 19James Madisonpoll has it 128-18-1Gap +8.81 in 4key 0.62Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 60 of 136 in 90% of them.
  20. 20Pittsburghpoll has it 297-27-2Gap +3.21 in 2key 0.28Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 82 of 136 in 90% of them.
  21. 21Michigan7-27-2Gap +5.91 in 4key 0.60Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 69 of 136 in 90% of them.
  22. 22Georgia Techpoll has it 108-18-1Gap +11.81 in 5key 0.71Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 78 of 136 in 90% of them.
  23. 23Washingtonpoll has it 346-36-3Gap +0.61 in 2key 0.25Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 78 of 136 in 90% of them.
  24. 24Tennesseepoll has it 336-36-3Gap -0.61 in 2key 0.25Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 70 of 136 in 90% of them.
  25. 25Iowapoll has it 416-36-3Gap -0.11 in 2key 0.20Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 73 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 235 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 75 places.

2025 week 11 · e4765861 · 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
1Indiana10-01 in 2356.3+3.727.3 (1)+32.71 to 160.0
2Ohio State9-01 in 605.9+3.126.0 (2)+34.01 to 220.0
3Texas Tech9-11 in 176.6+2.424.9 (3)+6.51 to 22-1.0
4Oregon8-11 in 145.7+2.322.8 (4)+7.51 to 33+1.0
5Utah7-21 in 45.7+1.322.7 (5)-1.51 to 33-1.0
6Texas A&M9-01 in 1925.4+3.621.1 (6)+38.92 to 47+1.0
7Notre Dame7-21 in 45.5+1.520.8 (7)+1.42 to 410.0
8Alabama8-11 in 255.2+2.820.0 (9)+11.82 to 550.0
9BYU8-11 in 265.3+2.717.9 (13)+14.94 to 600.0
10Georgia8-11 in 185.4+2.618.3 (12)+12.03 to 560.0
11USC7-21 in 45.7+1.320.1 (8)+1.42 to 46-1.0
12Ole Miss9-11 in 126.8+2.214.7 (22)+14.77 to 71+1.0
13South Florida7-21 in 45.8+1.216.8 (15)+4.83 to 580.0
14Miami7-21 in 35.8+1.219.2 (10)+1.53 to 500.0
15North Texas8-11 in 46.7+1.315.1 (20)+8.04 to 670.0
16Oklahoma7-21 in 45.6+1.417.0 (14)+4.65 to 620.0
17Texas7-21 in 55.4+1.615.9 (18)+8.05 to 66-1.0
18Vanderbilt8-21 in 46.6+1.418.4 (11)+3.53 to 48+1.0
19James Madison8-11 in 46.6+1.415.5 (19)+8.84 to 60-1.0
20Pittsburgh7-21 in 26.5+0.513.6 (26)+3.27 to 82-4.0
21Michigan7-21 in 45.6+1.416.1 (16)+5.96 to 690.0
22Georgia Tech8-11 in 56.4+1.613.4 (29)+11.88 to 78-4.0
23Washington6-31 in 25.7+0.314.8 (21)+0.67 to 780.0
24Tennessee6-31 in 25.7+0.316.1 (17)-0.65 to 70-1.0
25Iowa6-31 in 25.9+0.114.4 (23)-0.16 to 73+6.0
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 75how unlikely1 in this many
1IndianaBig Ten10-0·Power 27.26 (1)·Gap +32.74Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 16 of 136 in 90% of them.2.3711 in 235
2Ohio StateBig Ten9-0·Power 26.05 (2)·Gap +33.95Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 22 of 136 in 90% of them.1.7791 in 60
3Texas TechBig 129-1·Power 24.90 (3)·Gap +6.46·▼1Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 22 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2311 in 17
4OregonBig Ten8-1·Power 22.78 (4)·Gap +7.48·▲1Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 33 of 136 in 90% of them.1.1561 in 14
5UtahBig 127-2·Power 22.67 (5)·Gap -1.51·▼1Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 33 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5451 in 4
6Texas A&MSEC9-0·Power 21.07 (6)·Gap +38.93·▲1Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 47 of 136 in 90% of them.2.2841 in 192
7Notre DameFBS Independents7-2·Power 20.77 (7)·Gap +1.38Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 41 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6251 in 4
8AlabamaSEC8-1·Power 19.96 (9)·Gap +11.80Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 55 of 136 in 90% of them.1.4061 in 25
9BYUBig 128-1·Power 17.92 (13)·Gap +14.90Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 60 of 136 in 90% of them.1.4151 in 26
10GeorgiaSEC8-1·Power 18.32 (12)·Gap +11.98Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 56 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2651 in 18
11USCBig Ten7-2·Power 20.12 (8)·Gap +1.40·▼1Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 46 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5591 in 4
12Ole MissSEC9-1·Power 14.66 (22)·Gap +14.70·▲1Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 71 of 136 in 90% of them.1.0781 in 12
13South FloridaAmerican Athletic7-2·Power 16.84 (15)·Gap +4.83Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 58 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5531 in 4
14MiamiACC7-2·Power 19.21 (10)·Gap +1.52Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 50 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5091 in 3
15North TexasAmerican Athletic8-1·Power 15.13 (20)·Gap +8.04Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 67 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5611 in 4
16OklahomaSEC7-2·Power 17.02 (14)·Gap +4.65Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 62 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5971 in 4
17TexasSEC7-2·Power 15.93 (18)·Gap +8.04·▼1Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 66 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7251 in 5
18VanderbiltSEC8-2·Power 18.35 (11)·Gap +3.48·▲1Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 48 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5941 in 4
19James MadisonSun Belt8-1·Power 15.46 (19)·Gap +8.77·▼1Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 60 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6171 in 4
20PittsburghACC7-2·Power 13.56 (26)·Gap +3.19·▼4Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 82 of 136 in 90% of them.0.2811 in 2
21MichiganBig Ten7-2·Power 16.14 (16)·Gap +5.94Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 69 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5971 in 4
22Georgia TechACC8-1·Power 13.45 (29)·Gap +11.82·▼4Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 78 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7081 in 5
23WashingtonBig Ten6-3·Power 14.83 (21)·Gap +0.63Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 78 of 136 in 90% of them.0.2461 in 2
24TennesseeSEC6-3·Power 16.14 (17)·Gap -0.55·▼1Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 70 of 136 in 90% of them.0.2511 in 2
25IowaBig Ten6-3·Power 14.41 (23)·Gap -0.11·▲6Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 73 of 136 in 90% of them.0.1951 in 2

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 1,290 games, and the digest of that exact frame is 7b9bc06beb98 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 e4765861 · published 2026-08-15 17:13:51 UTC · code c5ee855 · config bf0fa1a3…
q_ref 13.79 (Old Dominion) · β_w 12 · C uncapped · h 4.375 · σ 15.300 · λ₁ 200 · λ₂ 0.5 · k 77.14 · w₁ 0.4289 · w₂ 0.2093
reproduce: uv run cfbpoll rank --season 2025 --through-week 11 --out out/
Close

rank 5

Utah

7-2 · Big 12. The model never reads conference names.

1 in 4how hard that record waskey 0.55
5.7wins this schedule asked for
+1.3how far past it they came

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

Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 33 of 136 in 90% of them.

1 to 33 · 32 places wide

power22.7, ranked 5
gap-1.5
resume21.2, ranked 20
hindsight6 · -1.0 against this rank