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.

  1. 1Indiana10-010-0Gap +35.81 in 198key 2.30Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 37 of 136 in 90% of them.
  2. 2Texas A&M9-09-0Gap +40.91 in 171key 2.23Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 50 of 136 in 90% of them.
  3. 3Ohio State9-09-0Gap +36.11 in 49key 1.69Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 37 of 136 in 90% of them.
  4. 4BYU8-18-1Gap +15.71 in 23key 1.36Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 75 of 136 in 90% of them.
  5. 5Alabama8-18-1Gap +12.61 in 22key 1.34Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 67 of 136 in 90% of them.
  6. 6Georgia8-18-1Gap +12.51 in 17key 1.22Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 66 of 136 in 90% of them.
  7. 7Texas Tech9-19-1Gap +5.91 in 16key 1.21Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 43 of 136 in 90% of them.
  8. 8Oregon8-18-1Gap +8.11 in 12key 1.09Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 52 of 136 in 90% of them.
  9. 9Ole Miss9-19-1Gap +15.81 in 11key 1.03Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 84 of 136 in 90% of them.
  10. 10Georgia Tech8-18-1Gap +12.31 in 5key 0.70Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 95 of 136 in 90% of them.
  11. 11Texas7-27-2Gap +8.41 in 5key 0.69Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 77 of 136 in 90% of them.
  12. 12James Madison8-18-1Gap +8.91 in 5key 0.69Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.
  13. 13Notre Dame7-27-2Gap +1.71 in 4key 0.62Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 50 of 136 in 90% of them.
  14. 14North Texas8-18-1Gap +8.91 in 4key 0.58Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 76 of 136 in 90% of them.
  15. 15Oklahoma7-27-2Gap +5.01 in 4key 0.57Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 74 of 136 in 90% of them.
  16. 16South Florida7-27-2Gap +5.11 in 4key 0.56Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 80 of 136 in 90% of them.
  17. 17Vanderbilt8-28-2Gap +3.01 in 4key 0.55Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 55 of 136 in 90% of them.
  18. 18Michigan7-27-2Gap +6.11 in 4key 0.55Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 80 of 136 in 90% of them.
  19. 19Utah7-27-2Gap -1.01 in 3key 0.53Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 51 of 136 in 90% of them.
  20. 20USC7-27-2Gap +1.21 in 3key 0.51Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 56 of 136 in 90% of them.
  21. 21Miami7-27-2Gap +1.31 in 3key 0.50Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 58 of 136 in 90% of them.
  22. 22Houston8-28-2Gap +8.91 in 3key 0.46Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 10 and 99 of 136 in 90% of them.
  23. 23Tulane7-27-2Gap +12.11 in 3key 0.45Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 15 and 118 of 136 in 90% of them.
  24. 24Illinois6-36-3Gap +7.41 in 3key 0.43Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 94 of 136 in 90% of them.
  25. 25Virginia8-28-2Gap +7.01 in 3key 0.42Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 94 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 198 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 · 025dc687 · 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
1Indiana10-01 in 1986.4+3.624.2 (1)+35.81 to 370.0
2Texas A&M9-01 in 1715.4+3.619.1 (6)+40.91 to 500.0
3Ohio State9-01 in 496.0+3.023.9 (3)+36.11 to 370.0
4BYU8-11 in 235.4+2.615.5 (13)+15.72 to 750.0
5Alabama8-11 in 225.3+2.717.5 (10)+12.62 to 670.0
6Georgia8-11 in 175.4+2.616.1 (12)+12.52 to 66-1.0
7Texas Tech9-11 in 166.6+2.423.9 (2)+5.91 to 43-1.0
8Oregon8-11 in 125.8+2.220.2 (5)+8.11 to 52+2.0
9Ole Miss9-11 in 116.8+2.211.8 (27)+15.87 to 840.0
10Georgia Tech8-11 in 56.4+1.611.5 (29)+12.37 to 95-6.0
11Texas7-21 in 55.4+1.613.8 (19)+8.43 to 770.0
12James Madison8-11 in 56.5+1.514.8 (16)+8.93 to 68-3.0
13Notre Dame7-21 in 45.6+1.419.1 (7)+1.71 to 50+3.0
14North Texas8-11 in 46.7+1.313.2 (21)+8.93 to 76+2.0
15Oklahoma7-21 in 45.6+1.415.0 (15)+5.03 to 74+2.0
16South Florida7-21 in 45.8+1.215.2 (14)+5.13 to 80+2.0
17Vanderbilt8-21 in 46.7+1.317.0 (11)+3.03 to 550.0
18Michigan7-21 in 45.7+1.314.0 (18)+6.14 to 80-1.0
19Utah7-21 in 35.8+1.220.7 (4)-1.01 to 51-4.0
20USC7-21 in 35.8+1.218.3 (8)+1.22 to 56-1.0
21Miami7-21 in 35.9+1.118.0 (9)+1.32 to 58+3.0
22Houston8-21 in 36.9+1.19.5 (40)+8.910 to 99-3.0
23Tulane7-21 in 36.0+1.06.2 (59)+12.115 to 118+1.0
24Illinois6-31 in 35.1+0.910.4 (36)+7.48 to 94+4.0
25Virginia8-21 in 37.0+1.010.8 (34)+7.06 to 94-2.0
Show the full table: top 25 of 136, every columnthe published poll
#teamunderline: 90% rank interval · league median width 88how unlikely1 in this many
1IndianaBig Ten10-0·Power 24.21 (1)·Gap +35.79Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 37 of 136 in 90% of them.2.2961 in 198
2Texas A&MSEC9-0·Power 19.14 (6)·Gap +40.86Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 50 of 136 in 90% of them.2.2321 in 171
3Ohio StateBig Ten9-0·Power 23.85 (3)·Gap +36.15Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 37 of 136 in 90% of them.1.6921 in 49
4BYUBig 128-1·Power 15.51 (13)·Gap +15.65Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 75 of 136 in 90% of them.1.3601 in 23
5AlabamaSEC8-1·Power 17.46 (10)·Gap +12.55Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 67 of 136 in 90% of them.1.3451 in 22
6GeorgiaSEC8-1·Power 16.15 (12)·Gap +12.50·▼1Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 66 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2241 in 17
7Texas TechBig 129-1·Power 23.87 (2)·Gap +5.85·▼1Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 43 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2081 in 16
8OregonBig Ten8-1·Power 20.17 (5)·Gap +8.09·▲2Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 52 of 136 in 90% of them.1.0861 in 12
9Ole MissSEC9-1·Power 11.76 (27)·Gap +15.76Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 84 of 136 in 90% of them.1.0331 in 11
10Georgia TechACC8-1·Power 11.51 (29)·Gap +12.33·▼6Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 95 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6981 in 5
11TexasSEC7-2·Power 13.81 (19)·Gap +8.40Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 77 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6941 in 5
12James MadisonSun Belt8-1·Power 14.82 (16)·Gap +8.94·▼3Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6871 in 5
13Notre DameFBS Independents7-2·Power 19.07 (7)·Gap +1.68·▲3Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 50 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6171 in 4
14North TexasAmerican Athletic8-1·Power 13.16 (21)·Gap +8.95·▲2Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 76 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5831 in 4
15OklahomaSEC7-2·Power 15.01 (15)·Gap +4.99·▲2Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 74 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5711 in 4
16South FloridaAmerican Athletic7-2·Power 15.21 (14)·Gap +5.14·▲2Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 80 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5561 in 4
17VanderbiltSEC8-2·Power 16.96 (11)·Gap +2.98Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 55 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5551 in 4
18MichiganBig Ten7-2·Power 14.03 (18)·Gap +6.12·▼1Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 80 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5501 in 4
19UtahBig 127-2·Power 20.67 (4)·Gap -1.05·▼4Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 51 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5301 in 3
20USCBig Ten7-2·Power 18.27 (8)·Gap +1.25·▼1Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 56 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5101 in 3
21MiamiACC7-2·Power 18.02 (9)·Gap +1.28·▲3Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 58 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5021 in 3
22HoustonBig 128-2·Power 9.55 (40)·Gap +8.91·▼3Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 10 and 99 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4641 in 3
23TulaneAmerican Athletic7-2·Power 6.25 (59)·Gap +12.08·▲1Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 15 and 118 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4521 in 3
24IllinoisBig Ten6-3·Power 10.35 (36)·Gap +7.44·▲4Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 94 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4321 in 3
25VirginiaACC8-2·Power 10.77 (34)·Gap +7.01·▼2Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 94 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4221 in 3

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 1,290 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: 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 025dc687 · published 2026-08-19 23:14:42 UTC · code e215160 · config 1ef7cf23…
q_ref 12.47 (Memphis) · β_w 7 · C 32 · h 4.382 · σ 15.328 · λ₁ 200 · λ₂ 0.5 · k 77.14 · w₁ 0.5520 · w₂ 0.1595
reproduce: uv run cfbpoll rank --season 2025 --through-week 11 --out out/
Close

rank 23

Tulane

7-2 · American Athletic. The model never reads conference names.

1 in 3how hard that record waskey 0.45
6.0wins this schedule asked for
+1.0how far past it they came

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

Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 15 and 118 of 136 in 90% of them.

15 to 118 · 103 places wide

power6.2, ranked 59
gap+12.1
resume18.3, ranked 23
hindsight22 · +1.0 against this rank