The Poll.ai

2025 season · through week 12

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. 1Indiana11-011-0Gap +36.41 in 237key 2.38Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 39 of 136 in 90% of them.
  2. 2Ohio State10-010-0Gap +36.61 in 60key 1.78Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 34 of 136 in 90% of them.
  3. 3Texas A&M10-010-0Gap +40.91 in 275key 2.44Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 53 of 136 in 90% of them.
  4. 4BYU9-19-1Gap +16.71 in 37key 1.57Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 59 of 136 in 90% of them.
  5. 5Texas Tech10-110-1Gap +5.91 in 19key 1.28Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 28 of 136 in 90% of them.
  6. 6Georgia9-19-1Gap +13.61 in 28key 1.45Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 57 of 136 in 90% of them.
  7. 7Oregon9-19-1Gap +9.01 in 16key 1.20Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 46 of 136 in 90% of them.
  8. 8Ole Miss10-110-1Gap +17.71 in 17key 1.23Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 86 of 136 in 90% of them.
  9. 9James Madison9-19-1Gap +9.21 in 6key 0.79Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 64 of 136 in 90% of them.
  10. 10Alabama8-28-2Gap +6.91 in 9key 0.96Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.
  11. 11Georgia Tech9-19-1Gap +14.81 in 5key 0.74Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 101 of 136 in 90% of them.
  12. 12North Texas9-19-1Gap +10.01 in 5key 0.73Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 73 of 136 in 90% of them.
  13. 13Oklahoma8-28-2Gap +8.01 in 8key 0.89Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 73 of 136 in 90% of them.
  14. 14Notre Dame8-28-2Gap +2.81 in 7key 0.84Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 50 of 136 in 90% of them.
  15. 15Utah8-28-2Gap -0.01 in 5key 0.67Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 42 of 136 in 90% of them.
  16. 16Michigan8-28-2Gap +8.11 in 4key 0.63Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 87 of 136 in 90% of them.
  17. 17USC8-28-2Gap +3.41 in 4key 0.64Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 59 of 136 in 90% of them.
  18. 18Miami8-28-2Gap +0.81 in 4key 0.60Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 46 of 136 in 90% of them.
  19. 19Vanderbilt8-28-2Gap +3.21 in 4key 0.58Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 50 of 136 in 90% of them.
  20. 20Virginia9-29-2Gap +8.01 in 4key 0.59Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 84 of 136 in 90% of them.
  21. 21Texas7-37-3Gap +6.21 in 4key 0.56Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 78 of 136 in 90% of them.
  22. 22Navy8-28-2Gap +11.91 in 3key 0.47Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 13 and 110 of 136 in 90% of them.
  23. 23Tulane8-28-2Gap +12.81 in 3key 0.52Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 16 and 111 of 136 in 90% of them.
  24. 24Houston8-28-2Gap +9.31 in 3key 0.47Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 97 of 136 in 90% of them.
  25. 25Illinois7-37-3Gap +8.61 in 3key 0.47Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 103 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 237 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 87 places.

2025 week 12 · 93e74315 · code b61a958 · Just Win · method b4343205 · 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
1Indiana11-01 in 2377.2+3.823.6 (2)+36.41 to 390.0
2Ohio State10-01 in 606.9+3.123.4 (3)+36.61 to 340.0
3Texas A&M10-01 in 2756.1+3.919.1 (8)+40.92 to 530.0
4BYU9-11 in 376.0+3.015.8 (13)+16.72 to 590.0
5Texas Tech10-11 in 197.5+2.524.4 (1)+5.91 to 28-2.0
6Georgia9-11 in 285.9+3.116.5 (12)+13.63 to 570.0
7Oregon9-11 in 166.5+2.520.1 (6)+9.02 to 46+2.0
8Ole Miss10-11 in 177.4+2.611.3 (30)+17.78 to 860.0
9James Madison9-11 in 67.2+1.815.7 (14)+9.22 to 64-2.0
10Alabama8-21 in 95.8+2.217.2 (10)+6.92 to 680.0
11Georgia Tech9-11 in 57.3+1.79.2 (39)+14.87 to 101-3.0
12North Texas9-11 in 57.3+1.713.8 (18)+10.03 to 73+3.0
13Oklahoma8-21 in 85.9+2.115.3 (15)+8.04 to 73+1.0
14Notre Dame8-21 in 76.0+2.020.2 (5)+2.81 to 50+1.0
15Utah8-21 in 56.4+1.621.1 (4)-0.02 to 42-4.0
16Michigan8-21 in 46.5+1.512.8 (22)+8.15 to 87-1.0
17USC8-21 in 46.5+1.517.6 (9)+3.43 to 59+1.0
18Miami8-21 in 46.6+1.419.6 (7)+0.81 to 46+3.0
19Vanderbilt8-21 in 46.6+1.417.0 (11)+3.23 to 50+1.0
20Virginia9-21 in 47.5+1.511.8 (28)+8.06 to 84-2.0
21Texas7-31 in 45.7+1.313.0 (21)+6.25 to 78-2.0
22Navy8-21 in 37.0+1.07.2 (48)+11.913 to 110+2.0
23Tulane8-21 in 36.7+1.36.3 (60)+12.816 to 111-1.0
24Houston8-21 in 36.9+1.19.2 (38)+9.38 to 97-1.0
25Illinois7-31 in 35.9+1.19.4 (36)+8.68 to 103+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 87how unlikely1 in this many
1IndianaBig Ten11-0·Power 23.60 (2)·Gap +36.40Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 39 of 136 in 90% of them.2.3751 in 237
2Ohio StateBig Ten10-0·Power 23.44 (3)·Gap +36.56Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 34 of 136 in 90% of them.1.7811 in 60
3Texas A&MSEC10-0·Power 19.12 (8)·Gap +40.88Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 53 of 136 in 90% of them.2.4391 in 275
4BYUBig 129-1·Power 15.83 (13)·Gap +16.67Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 59 of 136 in 90% of them.1.5721 in 37
5Texas TechBig 1210-1·Power 24.37 (1)·Gap +5.90·▼2Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 28 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2761 in 19
6GeorgiaSEC9-1·Power 16.50 (12)·Gap +13.63Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 57 of 136 in 90% of them.1.4531 in 28
7OregonBig Ten9-1·Power 20.13 (6)·Gap +9.05·▲2Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 46 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2001 in 16
8Ole MissSEC10-1·Power 11.30 (30)·Gap +17.73Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 86 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2261 in 17
9James MadisonSun Belt9-1·Power 15.72 (14)·Gap +9.22·▼2Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 64 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7901 in 6
10AlabamaSEC8-2·Power 17.19 (10)·Gap +6.87Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.0.9601 in 9
11Georgia TechACC9-1·Power 9.17 (39)·Gap +14.84·▼3Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 101 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7361 in 5
12North TexasAmerican Athletic9-1·Power 13.81 (18)·Gap +9.95·▲3Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 73 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7351 in 5
13OklahomaSEC8-2·Power 15.35 (15)·Gap +8.03·▲1Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 73 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8901 in 8
14Notre DameFBS Independents8-2·Power 20.20 (5)·Gap +2.75·▲1Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 50 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8381 in 7
15UtahBig 128-2·Power 21.15 (4)·Gap -0.00·▼4Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 42 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6721 in 5
16MichiganBig Ten8-2·Power 12.85 (22)·Gap +8.10·▼1Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 87 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6351 in 4
17USCBig Ten8-2·Power 17.58 (9)·Gap +3.37·▲1Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 59 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6401 in 4
18MiamiACC8-2·Power 19.61 (7)·Gap +0.79·▲3Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 46 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6051 in 4
19VanderbiltSEC8-2·Power 17.03 (11)·Gap +3.18·▲1Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 50 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5771 in 4
20VirginiaACC9-2·Power 11.77 (28)·Gap +7.98·▼2Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 84 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5851 in 4
21TexasSEC7-3·Power 13.03 (21)·Gap +6.22·▼2Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 78 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5551 in 4
22NavyAmerican Athletic8-2·Power 7.19 (48)·Gap +11.94·▲2Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 13 and 110 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4661 in 3
23TulaneAmerican Athletic8-2·Power 6.29 (60)·Gap +12.77·▼1Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 16 and 111 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5191 in 3
24HoustonBig 128-2·Power 9.24 (38)·Gap +9.27·▼1Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 97 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4701 in 3
25IllinoisBig Ten7-3·Power 9.43 (36)·Gap +8.63·▲4Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 103 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4681 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 1,412 games, and the digest of that exact frame is 8584c6e3628d under all three. Switching lens changes the constants above and nothing else. Method digest for this one: b43432059de8.

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 93e74315 · published 2026-08-15 17:20:07 UTC · code b61a958 · config dfc23153…
q_ref 12.24 (Louisville) · β_w 7 · C 1 · h 4.353 · σ 15.911 · λ₁ 150 · λ₂ 2.0 · k 70.79 · w₁ 0.6442 · w₂ 0.2599
reproduce: uv run cfbpoll rank --season 2025 --through-week 12 --out out/
Close

rank 20

Virginia

9-2 · ACC. The model never reads conference names.

1 in 4how hard that record waskey 0.59
7.5wins this schedule asked for
+1.5how far past it they came

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

Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 84 of 136 in 90% of them.

6 to 84 · 78 places wide

power11.8, ranked 28
gap+8.0
resume19.7, ranked 20
hindsight22 · -2.0 against this rank