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.

  1. 1Texas A&M11-011-0Gap +37.81 in 390key 2.59Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 50 of 136 in 90% of them.
  2. 2Indiana11-011-0Gap +33.21 in 226key 2.35Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 29 of 136 in 90% of them.
  3. 3Ohio State11-011-0Gap +32.61 in 77key 1.89Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 29 of 136 in 90% of them.
  4. 4BYU10-110-1Gap +16.11 in 58key 1.76Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 64 of 136 in 90% of them.
  5. 5Georgia10-110-1Gap +12.01 in 32key 1.51Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 50 of 136 in 90% of them.
  6. 6Oregon10-110-1Gap +9.11 in 30key 1.48Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 38 of 136 in 90% of them.
  7. 7Ole Miss10-110-1Gap +16.21 in 18key 1.25Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 81 of 136 in 90% of them.
  8. 8Texas Tech10-110-1Gap +5.01 in 17key 1.24Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 29 of 136 in 90% of them.
  9. 9Oklahoma9-29-2Gap +8.21 in 13key 1.12Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 59 of 136 in 90% of them.
  10. 10Alabama9-29-2Gap +6.11 in 12key 1.07Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 61 of 136 in 90% of them.
  11. 11Notre Dame9-29-2Gap -0.11 in 8key 0.88Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 33 of 136 in 90% of them.
  12. 12Michigan9-29-2Gap +7.01 in 6key 0.78Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 62 of 136 in 90% of them.
  13. 13James Madison10-110-1Gap +9.01 in 6key 0.74Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 64 of 136 in 90% of them.
  14. 14North Texas10-110-1Gap +7.31 in 5key 0.72Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 56 of 136 in 90% of them.
  15. 15Vanderbilt9-29-2Gap +3.01 in 5key 0.70Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 54 of 136 in 90% of them.
  16. 16Utah9-29-2Gap +1.01 in 5key 0.69Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 41 of 136 in 90% of them.
  17. 17Miami9-29-2Gap +1.61 in 5key 0.67Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 44 of 136 in 90% of them.
  18. 18Texas8-38-3Gap +6.51 in 4key 0.65Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 82 of 136 in 90% of them.
  19. 19Tulane9-29-2Gap +12.41 in 4key 0.58Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 14 and 100 of 136 in 90% of them.
  20. 20USC8-38-3Gap +0.71 in 3key 0.53Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 50 of 136 in 90% of them.
  21. 21Arizona State8-38-3Gap +7.81 in 3key 0.48Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 11 and 91 of 136 in 90% of them.
  22. 22Virginia9-29-2Gap +6.71 in 3key 0.48Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 82 of 136 in 90% of them.
  23. 23Navy8-28-2Gap +12.81 in 3key 0.43Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 16 and 103 of 136 in 90% of them.
  24. 24South Florida8-38-3Gap +1.41 in 3key 0.42Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 67 of 136 in 90% of them.
  25. 25Georgia Tech9-29-2Gap +9.31 in 2key 0.37Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 17 and 99 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 390 put Texas A&M on top. One in 2 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 79 places.

2025 week 13 · 53151ddb · 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&M11-01 in 3907.0+4.022.2 (6)+37.81 to 50-1.0
2Indiana11-01 in 2267.3+3.726.8 (2)+33.21 to 29+1.0
3Ohio State11-01 in 777.7+3.327.4 (1)+32.61 to 290.0
4BYU10-11 in 586.6+3.418.7 (14)+16.12 to 640.0
5Georgia10-11 in 326.9+3.120.4 (11)+12.02 to 50-1.0
6Oregon10-11 in 307.0+3.023.5 (5)+9.11 to 38+1.0
7Ole Miss10-11 in 187.4+2.615.1 (23)+16.27 to 810.0
8Texas Tech10-11 in 177.6+2.426.8 (3)+5.01 to 290.0
9Oklahoma9-21 in 136.4+2.618.8 (13)+8.23 to 590.0
10Alabama9-21 in 126.6+2.420.8 (9)+6.12 to 610.0
11Notre Dame9-21 in 86.9+2.125.3 (4)-0.11 to 330.0
12Michigan9-21 in 67.1+1.917.4 (19)+7.04 to 62-1.0
13James Madison10-11 in 68.3+1.717.0 (20)+9.03 to 64-2.0
14North Texas10-11 in 58.3+1.718.1 (17)+7.32 to 56+2.0
15Vanderbilt9-21 in 57.3+1.720.6 (10)+3.02 to 54-1.0
16Utah9-21 in 57.3+1.722.2 (7)+1.02 to 41-1.0
17Miami9-21 in 57.4+1.621.6 (8)+1.62 to 44+3.0
18Texas8-31 in 46.5+1.515.8 (21)+6.55 to 820.0
19Tulane9-21 in 47.6+1.49.4 (46)+12.414 to 100-1.0
20USC8-31 in 36.7+1.320.1 (12)+0.72 to 50+1.0
21Arizona State8-31 in 36.8+1.212.2 (37)+7.811 to 91-1.0
22Virginia9-21 in 37.8+1.213.9 (29)+6.76 to 82+1.0
23Navy8-21 in 37.1+0.98.4 (57)+12.816 to 103-1.0
24South Florida8-31 in 37.1+0.917.9 (18)+1.43 to 67+1.0
25Georgia Tech9-21 in 28.2+0.89.7 (45)+9.317 to 990.0
Show the full table: top 25 of 136, every columnthe published poll
#teamunderline: 90% rank interval · league median width 79how unlikely1 in this many
1Texas A&MSEC11-0·Power 22.25 (6)·Gap +37.75·▼1Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 50 of 136 in 90% of them.2.5911 in 390
2IndianaBig Ten11-0·Power 26.83 (2)·Gap +33.17·▲1Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 29 of 136 in 90% of them.2.3541 in 226
3Ohio StateBig Ten11-0·Power 27.40 (1)·Gap +32.60Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 29 of 136 in 90% of them.1.8861 in 77
4BYUBig 1210-1·Power 18.74 (14)·Gap +16.15Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 64 of 136 in 90% of them.1.7651 in 58
5GeorgiaSEC10-1·Power 20.38 (11)·Gap +11.99·▼1Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 50 of 136 in 90% of them.1.5061 in 32
6OregonBig Ten10-1·Power 23.48 (5)·Gap +9.13·▲1Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 38 of 136 in 90% of them.1.4761 in 30
7Ole MissSEC10-1·Power 15.07 (23)·Gap +16.24Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 81 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2511 in 18
8Texas TechBig 1210-1·Power 26.80 (3)·Gap +5.03Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 29 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2351 in 17
9OklahomaSEC9-2·Power 18.81 (13)·Gap +8.17Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 59 of 136 in 90% of them.1.1151 in 13
10AlabamaSEC9-2·Power 20.81 (9)·Gap +6.06Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 61 of 136 in 90% of them.1.0681 in 12
11Notre DameFBS Independents9-2·Power 25.34 (4)·Gap -0.07Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 33 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8821 in 8
12MichiganBig Ten9-2·Power 17.37 (19)·Gap +6.96·▼1Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 62 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7841 in 6
13James MadisonSun Belt10-1·Power 17.01 (20)·Gap +9.01·▼2Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 64 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7431 in 6
14North TexasAmerican Athletic10-1·Power 18.09 (17)·Gap +7.28·▲2Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 56 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7161 in 5
15VanderbiltSEC9-2·Power 20.63 (10)·Gap +2.96·▼1Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 54 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7001 in 5
16UtahBig 129-2·Power 22.21 (7)·Gap +1.04·▼1Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 41 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6881 in 5
17MiamiACC9-2·Power 21.57 (8)·Gap +1.60·▲3Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 44 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6731 in 5
18TexasSEC8-3·Power 15.84 (21)·Gap +6.53Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 82 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6451 in 4
19TulaneAmerican Athletic9-2·Power 9.39 (46)·Gap +12.36·▼1Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 14 and 100 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5751 in 4
20USCBig Ten8-3·Power 20.15 (12)·Gap +0.72·▲1Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 50 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5281 in 3
21Arizona StateBig 128-3·Power 12.24 (37)·Gap +7.77·▼1Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 11 and 91 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4841 in 3
22VirginiaACC9-2·Power 13.91 (29)·Gap +6.65·▲1Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 82 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4821 in 3
23NavyAmerican Athletic8-2·Power 8.45 (57)·Gap +12.77·▼1Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 16 and 103 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4321 in 3
24South FloridaAmerican Athletic8-3·Power 17.85 (18)·Gap +1.37·▲1Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 67 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4151 in 3
25Georgia TechACC9-2·Power 9.65 (45)·Gap +9.27Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 17 and 99 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3681 in 2

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 1,536 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: 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 53151ddb · published 2026-08-19 23:15:59 UTC · code e215160 · config 1ef7cf23…
q_ref 14.61 (Missouri) · β_w 7 · C 32 · h 4.280 · σ 15.317 · λ₁ 175 · λ₂ 0.5 · k 72.21 · w₁ 0.5330 · w₂ 0.2470
reproduce: uv run cfbpoll rank --season 2025 --through-week 13 --out out/
Close

rank 19

Tulane

9-2 · American Athletic. The model never reads conference names.

1 in 4how hard that record waskey 0.58
7.6wins this schedule asked for
+1.4how far past it they came

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

Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 14 and 100 of 136 in 90% of them.

14 to 100 · 86 places wide

power9.4, ranked 46
gap+12.4
resume21.7, ranked 19
hindsight20 · -1.0 against this rank