The Poll.ai

2025 season · through week 13

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. 1Indiana11-011-0Gap +30.61 in 262key 2.42Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 15 of 136 in 90% of them.
  2. 2Ohio State11-011-0Gap +31.01 in 89key 1.95Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 15 of 136 in 90% of them.
  3. 3Texas Techpoll has it 810-110-1Gap +5.61 in 17key 1.23Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 17 of 136 in 90% of them.
  4. 4Oregon10-110-1Gap +8.51 in 35key 1.54Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 26 of 136 in 90% of them.
  5. 5Notre Damepoll has it 119-29-2Gap -0.21 in 8key 0.88Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 23 of 136 in 90% of them.
  6. 6Utahpoll has it 169-29-2Gap +0.71 in 5key 0.69Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 30 of 136 in 90% of them.
  7. 7Texas A&Mpoll has it 111-011-0Gap +36.51 in 402key 2.60Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 35 of 136 in 90% of them.
  8. 8BYU10-110-1Gap +15.41 in 60key 1.78Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 43 of 136 in 90% of them.
  9. 9Alabama9-29-2Gap +5.61 in 12key 1.09Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 43 of 136 in 90% of them.
  10. 10Georgiapoll has it 510-110-1Gap +12.01 in 33key 1.52Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 40 of 136 in 90% of them.
  11. 11North Texas10-110-1Gap +6.81 in 5key 0.68Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 43 of 136 in 90% of them.
  12. 12Miamipoll has it 179-29-2Gap +2.01 in 5key 0.67Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 37 of 136 in 90% of them.
  13. 13Oklahoma9-29-2Gap +7.91 in 14key 1.14Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 46 of 136 in 90% of them.
  14. 14Ole Misspoll has it 710-110-1Gap +15.31 in 19key 1.27Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 60 of 136 in 90% of them.
  15. 15Vanderbilt9-29-2Gap +3.51 in 5key 0.72Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 38 of 136 in 90% of them.
  16. 16USC8-38-3Gap +1.01 in 4key 0.57Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 40 of 136 in 90% of them.
  17. 17South Floridapoll has it 248-38-3Gap +1.31 in 2key 0.40Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 49 of 136 in 90% of them.
  18. 18Washingtonpoll has it 278-38-3Gap -0.91 in 2key 0.33Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 49 of 136 in 90% of them.
  19. 19James Madisonpoll has it 1310-110-1Gap +8.81 in 5key 0.66Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 54 of 136 in 90% of them.
  20. 20Michiganpoll has it 129-29-2Gap +6.81 in 7key 0.83Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 54 of 136 in 90% of them.
  21. 21Tennesseepoll has it 268-38-3Gap +0.31 in 2key 0.38Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 51 of 136 in 90% of them.
  22. 22Texas8-38-3Gap +6.41 in 5key 0.65Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 61 of 136 in 90% of them.
  23. 23Pittsburghpoll has it 288-38-3Gap +2.81 in 2key 0.27Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 10 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.
  24. 24Missouripoll has it 347-47-4Gap +0.61 in 2key 0.22Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 9 and 65 of 136 in 90% of them.
  25. 25Virginia9-29-2Gap +6.41 in 3key 0.47Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 10 and 69 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 262 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 67.5 places.

2025 week 13 · 7771c32f · code b61a958 · 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
1Indiana11-01 in 2627.3+3.729.4 (1)+30.61 to 150.0
2Ohio State11-01 in 897.7+3.329.0 (2)+31.01 to 150.0
3Texas Tech10-11 in 177.6+2.427.5 (3)+5.61 to 17-1.0
4Oregon10-11 in 356.9+3.125.8 (5)+8.51 to 26+1.0
5Notre Dame9-21 in 86.9+2.126.7 (4)-0.21 to 230.0
6Utah9-21 in 57.3+1.723.8 (6)+0.72 to 300.0
7Texas A&M11-01 in 4027.0+4.023.5 (7)+36.52 to 350.0
8BYU10-11 in 606.6+3.420.8 (13)+15.44 to 430.0
9Alabama9-21 in 126.5+2.522.7 (8)+5.63 to 430.0
10Georgia10-11 in 336.9+3.121.8 (10)+12.03 to 400.0
11North Texas10-11 in 58.4+1.619.5 (17)+6.83 to 43-1.0
12Miami9-21 in 57.4+1.622.4 (9)+2.03 to 37+1.0
13Oklahoma9-21 in 146.4+2.620.6 (14)+7.94 to 460.0
14Ole Miss10-11 in 197.4+2.617.5 (21)+15.37 to 600.0
15Vanderbilt9-21 in 57.3+1.721.7 (12)+3.53 to 38-1.0
16USC8-31 in 46.6+1.421.7 (11)+1.03 to 40+1.0
17South Florida8-31 in 27.1+0.919.0 (19)+1.35 to 490.0
18Washington8-31 in 27.4+0.619.8 (15)-0.94 to 490.0
19James Madison10-11 in 58.5+1.517.5 (20)+8.84 to 540.0
20Michigan9-21 in 77.0+2.019.2 (18)+6.86 to 540.0
21Tennessee8-31 in 27.2+0.819.6 (16)+0.35 to 510.0
22Texas8-31 in 56.5+1.517.4 (22)+6.48 to 610.0
23Pittsburgh8-31 in 27.6+0.415.2 (29)+2.810 to 68-1.0
24Missouri7-41 in 26.9+0.116.0 (24)+0.69 to 65-4.0
25Virginia9-21 in 37.9+1.115.2 (28)+6.410 to 690.0
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 67.5how unlikely1 in this many
1IndianaBig Ten11-0·Power 29.45 (1)·Gap +30.55Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 15 of 136 in 90% of them.2.4181 in 262
2Ohio StateBig Ten11-0·Power 29.01 (2)·Gap +30.99Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 15 of 136 in 90% of them.1.9491 in 89
3Texas TechBig 1210-1·Power 27.48 (3)·Gap +5.64·▼1Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 17 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2271 in 17
4OregonBig Ten10-1·Power 25.83 (5)·Gap +8.54·▲1Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 26 of 136 in 90% of them.1.5451 in 35
5Notre DameFBS Independents9-2·Power 26.67 (4)·Gap -0.17Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 23 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8801 in 8
6UtahBig 129-2·Power 23.81 (6)·Gap +0.70Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 30 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6851 in 5
7Texas A&MSEC11-0·Power 23.45 (7)·Gap +36.55Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 35 of 136 in 90% of them.2.6051 in 402
8BYUBig 1210-1·Power 20.78 (13)·Gap +15.39Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 43 of 136 in 90% of them.1.7771 in 60
9AlabamaSEC9-2·Power 22.73 (8)·Gap +5.60Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 43 of 136 in 90% of them.1.0931 in 12
10GeorgiaSEC10-1·Power 21.76 (10)·Gap +12.00Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 40 of 136 in 90% of them.1.5211 in 33
11North TexasAmerican Athletic10-1·Power 19.47 (17)·Gap +6.77·▼1Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 43 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6791 in 5
12MiamiACC9-2·Power 22.44 (9)·Gap +1.97·▲1Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 37 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6701 in 5
13OklahomaSEC9-2·Power 20.63 (14)·Gap +7.85Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 46 of 136 in 90% of them.1.1421 in 14
14Ole MissSEC10-1·Power 17.47 (21)·Gap +15.33Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 60 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2721 in 19
15VanderbiltSEC9-2·Power 21.67 (12)·Gap +3.48·▼1Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 38 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7231 in 5
16USCBig Ten8-3·Power 21.75 (11)·Gap +0.96·▲1Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 40 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5721 in 4
17South FloridaAmerican Athletic8-3·Power 18.95 (19)·Gap +1.27Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 49 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3971 in 2
18WashingtonBig Ten8-3·Power 19.82 (15)·Gap -0.87Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 49 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3251 in 2
19James MadisonSun Belt10-1·Power 17.52 (20)·Gap +8.79Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 54 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6571 in 5
20MichiganBig Ten9-2·Power 19.24 (18)·Gap +6.83Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 54 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8331 in 7
21TennesseeSEC8-3·Power 19.55 (16)·Gap +0.27Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 51 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3761 in 2
22TexasSEC8-3·Power 17.37 (22)·Gap +6.42Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 61 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6551 in 5
23PittsburghACC8-3·Power 15.15 (29)·Gap +2.81·▼1Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 10 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.0.2751 in 2
24MissouriSEC7-4·Power 16.00 (24)·Gap +0.57·▼4Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 9 and 65 of 136 in 90% of them.0.2161 in 2
25VirginiaACC9-2·Power 15.21 (28)·Gap +6.43Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 10 and 69 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4681 in 3

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 1,536 games, and the digest of that exact frame is 40e2482025f3 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 7771c32f · published 2026-08-15 17:14:43 UTC · code b61a958 · config bf0fa1a3…
q_ref 15.89 (Old Dominion) · β_w 12 · C uncapped · h 4.252 · σ 15.300 · λ₁ 175 · λ₂ 0.5 · k 72.21 · w₁ 0.4256 · w₂ 0.2493
reproduce: uv run cfbpoll rank --season 2025 --through-week 13 --out out/
Close

rank 14

Ole Miss

10-1 · SEC. The model never reads conference names.

1 in 19how hard that record waskey 1.27
7.4wins this schedule asked for
+2.6how far past it they came

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

Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 60 of 136 in 90% of them.

7 to 60 · 53 places wide

power17.5, ranked 21
gap+15.3
resume32.8, ranked 8
hindsight14 · 0.0 against this rank