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.

  1. 1Texas A&M10-010-0Gap +39.01 in 341key 2.53Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 53 of 136 in 90% of them.
  2. 2Indiana11-011-0Gap +34.41 in 267key 2.43Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 38 of 136 in 90% of them.
  3. 3Ohio State10-010-0Gap +34.51 in 67key 1.83Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 34 of 136 in 90% of them.
  4. 4BYU9-19-1Gap +16.41 in 43key 1.63Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 59 of 136 in 90% of them.
  5. 5Georgia9-19-1Gap +12.81 in 31key 1.49Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 54 of 136 in 90% of them.
  6. 6Texas Tech10-110-1Gap +5.91 in 20key 1.30Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 29 of 136 in 90% of them.
  7. 7Ole Miss10-110-1Gap +17.21 in 19key 1.29Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 87 of 136 in 90% of them.
  8. 8Oregon9-19-1Gap +8.71 in 17key 1.23Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 46 of 136 in 90% of them.
  9. 9Alabama8-28-2Gap +6.81 in 10key 1.02Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.
  10. 10Oklahoma8-28-2Gap +7.61 in 8key 0.92Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 71 of 136 in 90% of them.
  11. 11Notre Dame8-28-2Gap +2.01 in 7key 0.87Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 41 of 136 in 90% of them.
  12. 12James Madison9-19-1Gap +8.81 in 5key 0.74Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 64 of 136 in 90% of them.
  13. 13Georgia Tech9-19-1Gap +14.51 in 5key 0.73Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 9 and 102 of 136 in 90% of them.
  14. 14North Texas9-19-1Gap +9.31 in 5key 0.70Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.
  15. 15Utah8-28-2Gap -0.81 in 5key 0.68Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 42 of 136 in 90% of them.
  16. 16USC8-28-2Gap +3.31 in 5key 0.66Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 61 of 136 in 90% of them.
  17. 17Michigan8-28-2Gap +8.21 in 5key 0.66Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 86 of 136 in 90% of them.
  18. 18Miami8-28-2Gap +0.71 in 4key 0.62Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 46 of 136 in 90% of them.
  19. 19Vanderbilt8-28-2Gap +3.41 in 4key 0.60Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 65 of 136 in 90% of them.
  20. 20Texas7-37-3Gap +6.31 in 4key 0.58Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 77 of 136 in 90% of them.
  21. 21Virginia9-29-2Gap +7.61 in 4key 0.57Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 87 of 136 in 90% of them.
  22. 22Tulane8-28-2Gap +12.71 in 3key 0.52Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 16 and 112 of 136 in 90% of them.
  23. 23Illinois7-37-3Gap +8.11 in 3key 0.49Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 96 of 136 in 90% of them.
  24. 24Arizona State7-37-3Gap +8.81 in 3key 0.47Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 14 and 98 of 136 in 90% of them.
  25. 25Houston8-28-2Gap +9.11 in 3key 0.46Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 98 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 341 put Texas A&M 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 86 places.

2025 week 12 · 2e15f1cc · 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
1Texas A&M10-01 in 3416.0+4.021.0 (8)+39.01 to 53-1.0
2Indiana11-01 in 2677.2+3.825.6 (2)+34.41 to 38+1.0
3Ohio State10-01 in 676.8+3.225.5 (3)+34.51 to 340.0
4BYU9-11 in 435.9+3.117.8 (13)+16.42 to 590.0
5Georgia9-11 in 315.9+3.118.8 (11)+12.82 to 54-1.0
6Texas Tech10-11 in 207.4+2.626.0 (1)+5.91 to 29-2.0
7Ole Miss10-11 in 197.3+2.713.7 (24)+17.28 to 870.0
8Oregon9-11 in 176.5+2.522.0 (6)+8.72 to 46+3.0
9Alabama8-21 in 105.7+2.319.0 (10)+6.82 to 680.0
10Oklahoma8-21 in 85.8+2.217.3 (14)+7.63 to 710.0
11Notre Dame8-21 in 76.0+2.022.5 (5)+2.01 to 410.0
12James Madison9-11 in 57.3+1.716.9 (15)+8.83 to 64-5.0
13Georgia Tech9-11 in 57.3+1.710.7 (40)+14.59 to 102-2.0
14North Texas9-11 in 57.4+1.615.4 (19)+9.34 to 68+2.0
15Utah8-21 in 56.4+1.623.3 (4)-0.81 to 42-5.0
16USC8-21 in 56.4+1.619.3 (9)+3.32 to 61+2.0
17Michigan8-21 in 56.5+1.514.3 (22)+8.25 to 86+1.0
18Miami8-21 in 46.5+1.521.2 (7)+0.72 to 46+5.0
19Vanderbilt8-21 in 46.6+1.418.5 (12)+3.43 to 65+1.0
20Texas7-31 in 45.6+1.414.7 (20)+6.35 to 77-1.0
21Virginia9-21 in 47.6+1.413.3 (28)+7.66 to 87-1.0
22Tulane8-21 in 36.7+1.37.6 (60)+12.716 to 112-1.0
23Illinois7-31 in 35.9+1.111.6 (36)+8.17 to 96+4.0
24Arizona State7-31 in 35.9+1.110.4 (42)+8.814 to 98-1.0
25Houston8-21 in 36.9+1.110.6 (41)+9.18 to 98-1.0
Show the full table: top 25 of 136, every columnthe published poll
#teamunderline: 90% rank interval · league median width 86how unlikely1 in this many
1Texas A&MSEC10-0·Power 20.99 (8)·Gap +39.01·▼1Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 53 of 136 in 90% of them.2.5331 in 341
2IndianaBig Ten11-0·Power 25.57 (2)·Gap +34.43·▲1Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 38 of 136 in 90% of them.2.4261 in 267
3Ohio StateBig Ten10-0·Power 25.51 (3)·Gap +34.49Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 34 of 136 in 90% of them.1.8271 in 67
4BYUBig 129-1·Power 17.75 (13)·Gap +16.40Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 59 of 136 in 90% of them.1.6281 in 43
5GeorgiaSEC9-1·Power 18.79 (11)·Gap +12.85·▼1Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 54 of 136 in 90% of them.1.4901 in 31
6Texas TechBig 1210-1·Power 25.97 (1)·Gap +5.88·▼2Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 29 of 136 in 90% of them.1.3031 in 20
7Ole MissSEC10-1·Power 13.66 (24)·Gap +17.20Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 87 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2871 in 19
8OregonBig Ten9-1·Power 22.03 (6)·Gap +8.69·▲3Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 46 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2301 in 17
9AlabamaSEC8-2·Power 18.99 (10)·Gap +6.83Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.1.0161 in 10
10OklahomaSEC8-2·Power 17.31 (14)·Gap +7.59Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 71 of 136 in 90% of them.0.9171 in 8
11Notre DameFBS Independents8-2·Power 22.52 (5)·Gap +1.99Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 41 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8661 in 7
12James MadisonSun Belt9-1·Power 16.87 (15)·Gap +8.78·▼5Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 64 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7391 in 5
13Georgia TechACC9-1·Power 10.67 (40)·Gap +14.55·▼2Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 9 and 102 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7311 in 5
14North TexasAmerican Athletic9-1·Power 15.37 (19)·Gap +9.26·▲2Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6981 in 5
15UtahBig 128-2·Power 23.29 (4)·Gap -0.76·▼5Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 42 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6811 in 5
16USCBig Ten8-2·Power 19.27 (9)·Gap +3.30·▲2Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 61 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6641 in 5
17MichiganBig Ten8-2·Power 14.32 (22)·Gap +8.16·▲1Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 86 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6551 in 5
18MiamiACC8-2·Power 21.23 (7)·Gap +0.69·▲5Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 46 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6221 in 4
19VanderbiltSEC8-2·Power 18.47 (12)·Gap +3.35·▲1Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 65 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6001 in 4
20TexasSEC7-3·Power 14.67 (20)·Gap +6.29·▼1Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 77 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5851 in 4
21VirginiaACC9-2·Power 13.26 (28)·Gap +7.64·▼1Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 87 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5751 in 4
22TulaneAmerican Athletic8-2·Power 7.62 (60)·Gap +12.73·▼1Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 16 and 112 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5181 in 3
23IllinoisBig Ten7-3·Power 11.60 (36)·Gap +8.07·▲4Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 96 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4871 in 3
24Arizona StateBig 127-3·Power 10.36 (42)·Gap +8.76·▼1Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 14 and 98 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4701 in 3
25HoustonBig 128-2·Power 10.63 (41)·Gap +9.09·▼1Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 98 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4641 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 1,412 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: 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 2e15f1cc · published 2026-08-19 23:15:20 UTC · code e215160 · config 1ef7cf23…
q_ref 13.54 (Louisville) · β_w 7 · C 32 · h 4.362 · σ 15.819 · λ₁ 150 · λ₂ 0.5 · k 70.79 · w₁ 0.5523 · w₂ 0.1862
reproduce: uv run cfbpoll rank --season 2025 --through-week 12 --out out/
Close

rank 22

Tulane

8-2 · American Athletic. The model never reads conference names.

1 in 3how hard that record waskey 0.52
6.7wins this schedule asked for
+1.3how far past it they came

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

Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 16 and 112 of 136 in 90% of them.

16 to 112 · 96 places wide

power7.6, ranked 60
gap+12.7
resume20.3, ranked 23
hindsight23 · -1.0 against this rank