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.

Just WinALTERNATE LENS. The same games, ranked on different beliefs.
  1. 1Indiana10-010-0Gap +37.91 in 194key 2.29Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 38 of 136 in 90% of them.
  2. 2Ohio State9-09-0Gap +38.31 in 48key 1.68Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 38 of 136 in 90% of them.
  3. 3Texas A&M9-09-0Gap +43.01 in 148key 2.17Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 61 of 136 in 90% of them.
  4. 4BYU8-18-1Gap +15.51 in 22key 1.33Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 77 of 136 in 90% of them.
  5. 5Alabama8-18-1Gap +12.61 in 21key 1.32Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.
  6. 6Texas Tech9-19-1Gap +6.01 in 16key 1.21Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 45 of 136 in 90% of them.
  7. 7Georgia8-18-1Gap +13.01 in 17key 1.22Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 67 of 136 in 90% of them.
  8. 8Oregon8-18-1Gap +8.41 in 12key 1.08Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 53 of 136 in 90% of them.
  9. 9Ole Miss9-19-1Gap +16.01 in 10key 1.02Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 84 of 136 in 90% of them.
  10. 10James Madison8-18-1Gap +9.21 in 6key 0.76Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.
  11. 11Georgia Tech8-18-1Gap +12.41 in 5key 0.72Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 94 of 136 in 90% of them.
  12. 12North Texas8-18-1Gap +9.51 in 4key 0.64Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 78 of 136 in 90% of them.
  13. 13Texas7-27-2Gap +8.51 in 5key 0.69Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 79 of 136 in 90% of them.
  14. 14Notre Dame7-27-2Gap +2.51 in 4key 0.61Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 52 of 136 in 90% of them.
  15. 15South Florida7-27-2Gap +5.61 in 4key 0.58Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 81 of 136 in 90% of them.
  16. 16Michigan7-27-2Gap +6.11 in 4key 0.55Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 81 of 136 in 90% of them.
  17. 17Oklahoma7-27-2Gap +5.41 in 4key 0.58Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 75 of 136 in 90% of them.
  18. 18Vanderbilt8-28-2Gap +2.91 in 4key 0.55Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 55 of 136 in 90% of them.
  19. 19Utah7-27-2Gap -0.21 in 4key 0.55Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 51 of 136 in 90% of them.
  20. 20USC7-27-2Gap +1.51 in 3key 0.51Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 57 of 136 in 90% of them.
  21. 21Miami7-27-2Gap +1.51 in 3key 0.50Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 59 of 136 in 90% of them.
  22. 22Houston8-28-2Gap +8.91 in 3key 0.49Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 11 and 96 of 136 in 90% of them.
  23. 23Tulane7-27-2Gap +12.01 in 3key 0.47Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 16 and 119 of 136 in 90% of them.
  24. 24Virginia8-28-2Gap +7.21 in 3key 0.45Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 94 of 136 in 90% of them.
  25. 25Illinois6-36-3Gap +7.81 in 3key 0.43Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 9 and 97 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 194 put Indiana on top. One in 3 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 88 places.

2025 week 11 · 7953b7d1 · code b61a958 · Just Win · method 8c8d5ec2 · 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
1Indiana10-01 in 1946.4+3.622.1 (1)+37.91 to 380.0
2Ohio State9-01 in 486.0+3.021.7 (3)+38.31 to 380.0
3Texas A&M9-01 in 1485.5+3.517.0 (6)+43.02 to 610.0
4BYU8-11 in 225.4+2.613.8 (13)+15.52 to 770.0
5Alabama8-11 in 215.3+2.715.7 (10)+12.62 to 68-1.0
6Texas Tech9-11 in 166.6+2.422.1 (2)+6.01 to 45-1.0
7Georgia8-11 in 175.4+2.614.0 (12)+13.03 to 67-1.0
8Oregon8-11 in 125.8+2.218.2 (5)+8.41 to 53+3.0
9Ole Miss9-11 in 106.8+2.29.7 (31)+16.07 to 840.0
10James Madison8-11 in 66.3+1.713.7 (14)+9.23 to 68-1.0
11Georgia Tech8-11 in 56.4+1.610.1 (28)+12.46 to 94-1.0
12North Texas8-11 in 46.5+1.511.7 (21)+9.53 to 78+2.0
13Texas7-21 in 55.5+1.512.0 (20)+8.53 to 790.0
14Notre Dame7-21 in 45.6+1.416.6 (7)+2.52 to 52-1.0
15South Florida7-21 in 45.7+1.313.4 (15)+5.63 to 81+1.0
16Michigan7-21 in 45.7+1.312.5 (19)+6.14 to 81-3.0
17Oklahoma7-21 in 45.6+1.413.1 (17)+5.44 to 75+1.0
18Vanderbilt8-21 in 46.7+1.315.4 (11)+2.93 to 550.0
19Utah7-21 in 45.7+1.318.4 (4)-0.22 to 51-4.0
20USC7-21 in 35.8+1.216.4 (8)+1.53 to 570.0
21Miami7-21 in 35.9+1.116.1 (9)+1.52 to 59+4.0
22Houston8-21 in 36.8+1.28.3 (37)+8.911 to 96-3.0
23Tulane7-21 in 35.9+1.15.0 (58)+12.016 to 119+1.0
24Virginia8-21 in 36.9+1.19.4 (33)+7.26 to 94-2.0
25Illinois6-31 in 35.1+0.98.3 (39)+7.89 to 97+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 88how unlikely1 in this many
1IndianaBig Ten10-0·Power 22.15 (1)·Gap +37.85Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 38 of 136 in 90% of them.2.2871 in 194
2Ohio StateBig Ten9-0·Power 21.74 (3)·Gap +38.26Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 38 of 136 in 90% of them.1.6851 in 48
3Texas A&MSEC9-0·Power 17.04 (6)·Gap +42.96Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 61 of 136 in 90% of them.2.1711 in 148
4BYUBig 128-1·Power 13.82 (13)·Gap +15.54Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 77 of 136 in 90% of them.1.3341 in 22
5AlabamaSEC8-1·Power 15.65 (10)·Gap +12.58·▼1Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.1.3171 in 21
6Texas TechBig 129-1·Power 22.11 (2)·Gap +5.96·▼1Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 45 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2151 in 16
7GeorgiaSEC8-1·Power 14.05 (12)·Gap +12.98·▼1Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 67 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2211 in 17
8OregonBig Ten8-1·Power 18.20 (5)·Gap +8.37·▲3Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 53 of 136 in 90% of them.1.0771 in 12
9Ole MissSEC9-1·Power 9.67 (31)·Gap +16.04Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 84 of 136 in 90% of them.1.0161 in 10
10James MadisonSun Belt8-1·Power 13.74 (14)·Gap +9.24·▼1Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7581 in 6
11Georgia TechACC8-1·Power 10.10 (28)·Gap +12.41·▼1Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 94 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7211 in 5
12North TexasAmerican Athletic8-1·Power 11.73 (21)·Gap +9.45·▲2Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 78 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6361 in 4
13TexasSEC7-2·Power 11.99 (20)·Gap +8.49Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 79 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6871 in 5
14Notre DameFBS Independents7-2·Power 16.59 (7)·Gap +2.51·▼1Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 52 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6151 in 4
15South FloridaAmerican Athletic7-2·Power 13.41 (15)·Gap +5.65·▲1Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 81 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5831 in 4
16MichiganBig Ten7-2·Power 12.50 (19)·Gap +6.08·▼3Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 81 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5541 in 4
17OklahomaSEC7-2·Power 13.09 (17)·Gap +5.40·▲1Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 75 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5781 in 4
18VanderbiltSEC8-2·Power 15.39 (11)·Gap +2.86Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 55 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5501 in 4
19UtahBig 127-2·Power 18.37 (4)·Gap -0.16·▼4Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 51 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5451 in 4
20USCBig Ten7-2·Power 16.43 (8)·Gap +1.46Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 57 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5121 in 3
21MiamiACC7-2·Power 16.14 (9)·Gap +1.49·▲4Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 59 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4991 in 3
22HoustonBig 128-2·Power 8.28 (37)·Gap +8.94·▼3Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 11 and 96 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4891 in 3
23TulaneAmerican Athletic7-2·Power 5.04 (58)·Gap +11.96·▲1Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 16 and 119 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4701 in 3
24VirginiaACC8-2·Power 9.41 (33)·Gap +7.22·▼2Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 94 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4531 in 3
25IllinoisBig Ten6-3·Power 8.26 (39)·Gap +7.83·▲4Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 9 and 97 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4281 in 3

What this board believes football results are for

Just Win, in its own words

If point differential pays, teams will run up the score on an opponent who cannot stop them. Everybody has seen it happen and nobody enjoyed it. This recipe takes the incentive off the table the only way a poll actually can, by refusing to look: the compression scale drops to a single point against a 7 point win premium, so margin can move a game's contribution by at most 1 point in 8 and beating someone by 70 is worth almost exactly what beating them by 1 is worth. There is nothing left to chase in the fourth quarter. The table is then ordered by the wins based resume, which asks one question and only one, what quality of team would have been expected to produce this record against this schedule. That is Colley's principle arrived at from the other direction, and the cost of it is written down below in full, because this recipe throws away real information on purpose and a reader is owed the size of what it threw away.

what it costs

  • It throws away information that is genuinely there. A 70 point win and a 1 point win are not the same event and this recipe values them within about 15 percent of each other. That is the whole objection to Colley and it lands.
  • It cannot move an unbeaten team, at all, ever. Expected wins approaches n from below, so an undefeated team has no finite root and every one of them lands on exactly the published bracket of +60, which is not a function of the schedule. The retroactive re-ranking that is this project's most differentiated product therefore cannot move an unbeaten team by a single place, in any week, in any direction. If September turns out to have been harder than it looked, this recipe cannot say so.
  • No team with a loss can ever be ranked above an unbeaten team. Not rarely. Never, by construction, in every season measured. In 2021 that forced a 13-0 Cincinnati to number one ahead of Alabama, Georgia and Michigan, a position no independent judge reached.
  • THE TIE-BREAK DOES NOT WORK AT THIS COMPRESSION, and the consequence is visible on the first four lines of the board. Under the house constants the margin aware resume separates teams sitting on the saturation bound, which is the one job it is kept for. At C = 1 that variant compresses too, so every unbeaten team saturates on BOTH columns and the order among them falls through to the last key in the sort, which is the team name. In 2023 the top four under this recipe is Florida State, Liberty, Michigan, Washington, in alphabetical order. That is not a ranking of those four teams. It is the absence of one, and the recipe has no way to produce a ranking of them because it has thrown away the only information that would distinguish them.
  • Compressing to a single point is far outside anything the tuning campaigns searched. Campaign 1's grid opened at C = 18 and campaign 2 only widened it upward. This constant is a value judgement taken to its logical end, not a fitted number, and nothing in this repository claims it predicts well.

what it changed

  • margin.beta_w7
  • margin.c1
  • publication.headline_orderingL4_resume

configs/recipes/just-win.toml

Full MeritMargin counts for exactly what it is worth. Nothing is protected.alternate lensThe House PollMargin in the engine, schedule odds in the headline. The published poll.the published poll

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: 8c8d5ec2c448.

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 7953b7d1 · published 2026-08-15 17:19:29 UTC · code b61a958 · config dfc23153…
q_ref 10.87 (Florida State) · β_w 7 · C 1 · h 4.391 · σ 15.383 · λ₁ 200 · λ₂ 4.0 · k 77.14 · w₁ 0.6147 · w₂ 0.3276
reproduce: uv run cfbpoll rank --season 2025 --through-week 11 --out out/
Close

rank 21

Miami

7-2 · ACC. The model never reads conference names.

1 in 3how hard that record waskey 0.50
5.9wins this schedule asked for
+1.1how far past it they came

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

Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 59 of 136 in 90% of them.

2 to 59 · 57 places wide

power16.1, ranked 9
gap+1.5
resume17.6, ranked 21
hindsight17 · +4.0 against this rank