The Poll.ai

2025 season · through week 14

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. 1Indiana12-012-0Gap +27.81 in 358key 2.55Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 13 of 136 in 90% of them.
  2. 2Ohio State12-012-0Gap +28.61 in 221key 2.34Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 13 of 136 in 90% of them.
  3. 3Texas Techpoll has it 811-111-1Gap +4.01 in 20key 1.30Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 13 of 136 in 90% of them.
  4. 4Oregon11-111-1Gap +10.01 in 101key 2.00Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 21 of 136 in 90% of them.
  5. 5Notre Damepoll has it 1110-210-2Gap -0.81 in 9key 0.96Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 18 of 136 in 90% of them.
  6. 6Utahpoll has it 1410-210-2Gap +1.11 in 6key 0.80Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 27 of 136 in 90% of them.
  7. 7Miamipoll has it 1310-210-2Gap +2.51 in 8key 0.91Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 30 of 136 in 90% of them.
  8. 8BYU11-111-1Gap +16.01 in 76key 1.88Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 42 of 136 in 90% of them.
  9. 9Alabama10-210-2Gap +7.21 in 19key 1.28Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 39 of 136 in 90% of them.
  10. 10Georgia11-111-1Gap +12.81 in 41key 1.61Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 40 of 136 in 90% of them.
  11. 11Texas A&Mpoll has it 511-111-1Gap +13.81 in 67key 1.83Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 36 of 136 in 90% of them.
  12. 12Ole Misspoll has it 711-111-1Gap +14.81 in 25key 1.39Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 53 of 136 in 90% of them.
  13. 13North Texas11-111-1Gap +6.71 in 6key 0.76Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 38 of 136 in 90% of them.
  14. 14Vanderbilt10-210-2Gap +4.21 in 9key 0.94Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 31 of 136 in 90% of them.
  15. 15Oklahomapoll has it 1010-210-2Gap +8.11 in 16key 1.20Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 42 of 136 in 90% of them.
  16. 16South Floridapoll has it 239-39-3Gap +0.11 in 3key 0.41Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 38 of 136 in 90% of them.
  17. 17James Madison11-111-1Gap +8.61 in 5key 0.69Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 43 of 136 in 90% of them.
  18. 18USC9-39-3Gap +1.41 in 4key 0.59Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 42 of 136 in 90% of them.
  19. 19Texas9-39-3Gap +7.81 in 7key 0.82Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 57 of 136 in 90% of them.
  20. 20Washingtonpoll has it 328-48-4Gap -2.01 in 2key 0.24Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 52 of 136 in 90% of them.
  21. 21Iowapoll has it 308-48-4Gap +1.11 in 2key 0.30Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 9 and 62 of 136 in 90% of them.
  22. 22Michigan9-39-3Gap +4.81 in 4key 0.62Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 59 of 136 in 90% of them.
  23. 23Missouripoll has it 288-48-4Gap +2.01 in 2key 0.28Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 10 and 62 of 136 in 90% of them.
  24. 24Arizona9-39-3Gap +3.21 in 2key 0.34Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 10 and 63 of 136 in 90% of them.
  25. 25Tennesseepoll has it 338-48-4Gap -0.61 in 2key 0.23Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 59 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 358 put Indiana 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 61.5 places.

2025 week 14 · a560eb6c · 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
1Indiana12-01 in 3588.1+3.932.2 (1)+27.81 to 130.0
2Ohio State12-01 in 2218.1+3.931.4 (2)+28.61 to 130.0
3Texas Tech11-11 in 208.4+2.630.8 (3)+4.01 to 130.0
4Oregon11-11 in 1017.2+3.828.4 (5)+10.01 to 210.0
5Notre Dame10-21 in 97.7+2.329.0 (4)-0.81 to 180.0
6Utah10-21 in 68.0+2.025.8 (6)+1.12 to 270.0
7Miami10-21 in 87.8+2.225.3 (7)+2.52 to 300.0
8BYU11-11 in 767.5+3.522.4 (13)+16.04 to 420.0
9Alabama10-21 in 197.1+2.923.5 (10)+7.23 to 390.0
10Georgia11-11 in 417.6+3.422.5 (12)+12.84 to 400.0
11Texas A&M11-11 in 677.5+3.523.8 (9)+13.83 to 360.0
12Ole Miss11-11 in 258.1+2.919.8 (18)+14.87 to 530.0
13North Texas11-11 in 69.2+1.821.7 (15)+6.74 to 380.0
14Vanderbilt10-21 in 97.8+2.224.1 (8)+4.23 to 310.0
15Oklahoma10-21 in 167.1+2.921.8 (14)+8.15 to 420.0
16South Florida9-31 in 38.1+0.921.5 (16)+0.14 to 380.0
17James Madison11-11 in 59.4+1.619.3 (20)+8.65 to 430.0
18USC9-31 in 47.5+1.522.7 (11)+1.44 to 420.0
19Texas9-31 in 77.0+2.018.6 (21)+7.88 to 57-2.0
20Washington8-41 in 27.8+0.220.1 (17)-2.07 to 52+1.0
21Iowa8-41 in 27.5+0.518.3 (23)+1.19 to 62+1.0
22Michigan9-31 in 47.4+1.619.4 (19)+4.88 to 590.0
23Missouri8-41 in 27.6+0.417.0 (26)+2.010 to 62-2.0
24Arizona9-31 in 28.3+0.717.0 (25)+3.210 to 63+1.0
25Tennessee8-41 in 27.8+0.218.5 (22)-0.68 to 59-1.0
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 61.5how unlikely1 in this many
1IndianaBig Ten12-0·Power 32.19 (1)·Gap +27.81Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 13 of 136 in 90% of them.2.5541 in 358
2Ohio StateBig Ten12-0·Power 31.43 (2)·Gap +28.57Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 13 of 136 in 90% of them.2.3441 in 221
3Texas TechBig 1211-1·Power 30.78 (3)·Gap +3.95Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 13 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2991 in 20
4OregonBig Ten11-1·Power 28.45 (5)·Gap +9.99Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 21 of 136 in 90% of them.2.0051 in 101
5Notre DameFBS Independents10-2·Power 29.04 (4)·Gap -0.78Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 18 of 136 in 90% of them.0.9551 in 9
6UtahBig 1210-2·Power 25.83 (6)·Gap +1.09Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 27 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8041 in 6
7MiamiACC10-2·Power 25.33 (7)·Gap +2.52Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 30 of 136 in 90% of them.0.9061 in 8
8BYUBig 1211-1·Power 22.42 (13)·Gap +15.97Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 42 of 136 in 90% of them.1.8791 in 76
9AlabamaSEC10-2·Power 23.51 (10)·Gap +7.17Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 39 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2771 in 19
10GeorgiaSEC11-1·Power 22.50 (12)·Gap +12.79Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 40 of 136 in 90% of them.1.6091 in 41
11Texas A&MSEC11-1·Power 23.79 (9)·Gap +13.83Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 36 of 136 in 90% of them.1.8281 in 67
12Ole MissSEC11-1·Power 19.78 (18)·Gap +14.79Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 53 of 136 in 90% of them.1.3931 in 25
13North TexasAmerican Athletic11-1·Power 21.66 (15)·Gap +6.74Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 38 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7571 in 6
14VanderbiltSEC10-2·Power 24.10 (8)·Gap +4.18Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 31 of 136 in 90% of them.0.9411 in 9
15OklahomaSEC10-2·Power 21.83 (14)·Gap +8.06Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 42 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2041 in 16
16South FloridaAmerican Athletic9-3·Power 21.48 (16)·Gap +0.09Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 38 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4061 in 3
17James MadisonSun Belt11-1·Power 19.34 (20)·Gap +8.60Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 43 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6941 in 5
18USCBig Ten9-3·Power 22.74 (11)·Gap +1.39Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 42 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5921 in 4
19TexasSEC9-3·Power 18.64 (21)·Gap +7.84·▼2Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 57 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8151 in 7
20WashingtonBig Ten8-4·Power 20.13 (17)·Gap -2.02·▲1Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 52 of 136 in 90% of them.0.2381 in 2
21IowaBig Ten8-4·Power 18.26 (23)·Gap +1.08·▲1Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 9 and 62 of 136 in 90% of them.0.2971 in 2
22MichiganBig Ten9-3·Power 19.35 (19)·Gap +4.78Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 59 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6231 in 4
23MissouriSEC8-4·Power 16.98 (26)·Gap +2.00·▼2Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 10 and 62 of 136 in 90% of them.0.2791 in 2
24ArizonaBig 129-3·Power 17.03 (25)·Gap +3.20·▲1Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 10 and 63 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3421 in 2
25TennesseeSEC8-4·Power 18.45 (22)·Gap -0.58·▼1Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 59 of 136 in 90% of them.0.2291 in 2

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 1,614 games, and the digest of that exact frame is 7e8522190ea5 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 a560eb6c · published 2026-08-15 17:15:11 UTC · code b61a958 · config bf0fa1a3…
q_ref 17.03 (Arizona) · β_w 12 · C uncapped · h 3.647 · σ 15.693 · λ₁ 200 · λ₂ 0.5 · k 73.19 · w₁ 0.4205 · w₂ 0.2864
reproduce: uv run cfbpoll rank --season 2025 --through-week 14 --out out/
Close

rank 13

North Texas

11-1 · American Athletic. The model never reads conference names.

1 in 6how hard that record waskey 0.76
9.2wins this schedule asked for
+1.8how far past it they came

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

Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 38 of 136 in 90% of them.

4 to 38 · 34 places wide

power21.7, ranked 15
gap+6.7
resume28.4, ranked 11
hindsight13 · 0.0 against this rank