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.

Just WinALTERNATE LENS. The same games, ranked on different beliefs.
  1. 1Indiana12-012-0Gap +33.91 in 240key 2.38Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 28 of 136 in 90% of them.
  2. 2Ohio State12-012-0Gap +33.01 in 163key 2.21Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 23 of 136 in 90% of them.
  3. 3BYU11-111-1Gap +16.71 in 66key 1.82Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 59 of 136 in 90% of them.
  4. 4Oregon11-111-1Gap +11.11 in 68key 1.83Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 37 of 136 in 90% of them.
  5. 5Texas A&M11-111-1Gap +12.91 in 54key 1.73Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 42 of 136 in 90% of them.
  6. 6Georgia11-111-1Gap +13.11 in 37key 1.57Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 51 of 136 in 90% of them.
  7. 7Texas Tech11-111-1Gap +3.51 in 20key 1.29Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 25 of 136 in 90% of them.
  8. 8Ole Miss11-111-1Gap +16.11 in 22key 1.34Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 69 of 136 in 90% of them.
  9. 9Alabama10-210-2Gap +7.71 in 16key 1.20Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 52 of 136 in 90% of them.
  10. 10North Texaspoll has it 1611-111-1Gap +7.61 in 8key 0.90Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 50 of 136 in 90% of them.
  11. 11James Madisonpoll has it 1711-111-1Gap +9.61 in 8key 0.88Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 61 of 136 in 90% of them.
  12. 12Oklahoma10-210-2Gap +8.41 in 14key 1.15Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 52 of 136 in 90% of them.
  13. 13Notre Dame10-210-2Gap -0.11 in 9key 0.94Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 29 of 136 in 90% of them.
  14. 14Vanderbilt10-210-2Gap +3.51 in 8key 0.89Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 43 of 136 in 90% of them.
  15. 15Miami10-210-2Gap +2.51 in 7key 0.86Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 43 of 136 in 90% of them.
  16. 16Utah10-210-2Gap +1.91 in 6key 0.80Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 44 of 136 in 90% of them.
  17. 17Navy9-29-2Gap +13.01 in 5key 0.67Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 10 and 90 of 136 in 90% of them.
  18. 18Texas9-39-3Gap +7.91 in 6key 0.78Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 72 of 136 in 90% of them.
  19. 19Tulane10-210-2Gap +12.61 in 4key 0.55Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 15 and 96 of 136 in 90% of them.
  20. 20Virginia10-210-2Gap +6.11 in 3key 0.51Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 73 of 136 in 90% of them.
  21. 21Michigan9-39-3Gap +4.51 in 4key 0.56Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 70 of 136 in 90% of them.
  22. 22USC9-39-3Gap +1.01 in 3key 0.52Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 54 of 136 in 90% of them.
  23. 23South Florida9-39-3Gap +1.01 in 3key 0.48Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 54 of 136 in 90% of them.
  24. 24Arizona9-39-3Gap +4.01 in 2key 0.34Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 74 of 136 in 90% of them.
  25. 25Houston9-39-3Gap +5.51 in 2key 0.31Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 11 and 89 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 240 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 76 places.

2025 week 14 · c0c766d4 · code b61a958 · Just Win · method b4343205 · 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 2408.2+3.826.1 (3)+33.91 to 280.0
2Ohio State12-01 in 1638.2+3.827.0 (2)+33.01 to 230.0
3BYU11-11 in 667.5+3.518.0 (14)+16.72 to 59-1.0
4Oregon11-11 in 687.4+3.622.8 (5)+11.11 to 37+1.0
5Texas A&M11-11 in 547.6+3.420.6 (9)+12.92 to 420.0
6Georgia11-11 in 377.6+3.418.4 (13)+13.13 to 510.0
7Texas Tech11-11 in 208.4+2.627.5 (1)+3.51 to 250.0
8Ole Miss11-11 in 228.2+2.814.5 (22)+16.16 to 690.0
9Alabama10-21 in 167.2+2.819.0 (10)+7.73 to 520.0
10North Texas11-11 in 88.9+2.118.7 (11)+7.62 to 50-1.0
11James Madison11-11 in 88.9+2.116.7 (17)+9.62 to 61+1.0
12Oklahoma10-21 in 147.2+2.817.6 (16)+8.44 to 520.0
13Notre Dame10-21 in 97.7+2.324.7 (4)-0.11 to 290.0
14Vanderbilt10-21 in 87.9+2.120.8 (8)+3.52 to 43-1.0
15Miami10-21 in 77.9+2.121.4 (6)+2.52 to 43+1.0
16Utah10-21 in 68.0+2.021.4 (7)+1.92 to 44-1.0
17Navy9-21 in 57.5+1.510.1 (37)+13.010 to 90+1.0
18Texas9-31 in 67.1+1.914.6 (21)+7.96 to 720.0
19Tulane10-21 in 48.6+1.47.9 (51)+12.615 to 960.0
20Virginia10-21 in 38.7+1.313.7 (24)+6.15 to 73-1.0
21Michigan9-31 in 47.6+1.415.3 (19)+4.56 to 70-1.0
22USC9-31 in 37.7+1.318.6 (12)+1.02 to 54+2.0
23South Florida9-31 in 37.9+1.117.9 (15)+1.03 to 540.0
24Arizona9-31 in 28.3+0.712.6 (28)+4.08 to 740.0
25Houston9-31 in 28.4+0.610.6 (36)+5.511 to 89-1.0
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 76how unlikely1 in this many
1IndianaBig Ten12-0·Power 26.06 (3)·Gap +33.94Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 28 of 136 in 90% of them.2.3801 in 240
2Ohio StateBig Ten12-0·Power 26.97 (2)·Gap +33.03Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 23 of 136 in 90% of them.2.2121 in 163
3BYUBig 1211-1·Power 17.98 (14)·Gap +16.68·▼1Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 59 of 136 in 90% of them.1.8171 in 66
4OregonBig Ten11-1·Power 22.84 (5)·Gap +11.08·▲1Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 37 of 136 in 90% of them.1.8311 in 68
5Texas A&MSEC11-1·Power 20.64 (9)·Gap +12.92Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 42 of 136 in 90% of them.1.7301 in 54
6GeorgiaSEC11-1·Power 18.42 (13)·Gap +13.10Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 51 of 136 in 90% of them.1.5731 in 37
7Texas TechBig 1211-1·Power 27.52 (1)·Gap +3.55Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 25 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2921 in 20
8Ole MissSEC11-1·Power 14.54 (22)·Gap +16.08Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 69 of 136 in 90% of them.1.3361 in 22
9AlabamaSEC10-2·Power 19.00 (10)·Gap +7.65Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 52 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2041 in 16
10North TexasAmerican Athletic11-1·Power 18.73 (11)·Gap +7.55·▼1Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 50 of 136 in 90% of them.0.9021 in 8
11James MadisonSun Belt11-1·Power 16.71 (17)·Gap +9.57·▲1Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 61 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8791 in 8
12OklahomaSEC10-2·Power 17.57 (16)·Gap +8.37Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 52 of 136 in 90% of them.1.1521 in 14
13Notre DameFBS Independents10-2·Power 24.67 (4)·Gap -0.07Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 29 of 136 in 90% of them.0.9381 in 9
14VanderbiltSEC10-2·Power 20.75 (8)·Gap +3.46·▼1Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 43 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8861 in 8
15MiamiACC10-2·Power 21.40 (6)·Gap +2.48·▲1Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 43 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8631 in 7
16UtahBig 1210-2·Power 21.37 (7)·Gap +1.91·▼1Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 44 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7961 in 6
17NavyAmerican Athletic9-2·Power 10.13 (37)·Gap +13.01·▲1Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 10 and 90 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6681 in 5
18TexasSEC9-3·Power 14.59 (21)·Gap +7.94Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 72 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7801 in 6
19TulaneAmerican Athletic10-2·Power 7.87 (51)·Gap +12.55Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 15 and 96 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5541 in 4
20VirginiaACC10-2·Power 13.71 (24)·Gap +6.14·▼1Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 73 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5151 in 3
21MichiganBig Ten9-3·Power 15.27 (19)·Gap +4.52·▼1Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 70 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5561 in 4
22USCBig Ten9-3·Power 18.63 (12)·Gap +0.96·▲2Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 54 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5201 in 3
23South FloridaAmerican Athletic9-3·Power 17.88 (15)·Gap +1.04Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 54 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4781 in 3
24ArizonaBig 129-3·Power 12.59 (28)·Gap +3.95Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 74 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3391 in 2
25HoustonBig 129-3·Power 10.61 (36)·Gap +5.49·▼1Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 11 and 89 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3091 in 2

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 1,614 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: 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 c0c766d4 · published 2026-08-15 17:21:32 UTC · code b61a958 · config dfc23153…
q_ref 13.38 (Toledo) · β_w 7 · C 1 · h 3.660 · σ 15.910 · λ₁ 200 · λ₂ 2.0 · k 73.19 · w₁ 0.6549 · w₂ 0.6222
reproduce: uv run cfbpoll rank --season 2025 --through-week 14 --out out/
Close

rank 15

Miami

10-2 · ACC. The model never reads conference names.

1 in 7how hard that record waskey 0.86
7.9wins this schedule asked for
+2.1how far past it they came

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

Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 43 of 136 in 90% of them.

2 to 43 · 41 places wide

power21.4, ranked 6
gap+2.5
resume23.9, ranked 15
hindsight14 · +1.0 against this rank