The Poll.ai

2025 season · through week 16

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. 1Indiana13-013-0Gap +27.31 in 2,079key 3.32Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 12 of 136 in 90% of them.
  2. 2Texas Techpoll has it 712-112-1Gap +5.01 in 44key 1.64Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 11 of 136 in 90% of them.
  3. 3Ohio State12-112-1Gap +7.81 in 102key 2.01Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 15 of 136 in 90% of them.
  4. 4Oregon11-111-1Gap +10.31 in 111key 2.04Ranked 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 -0.61 in 9key 0.97Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 19 of 136 in 90% of them.
  6. 6Utahpoll has it 1610-210-2Gap +1.31 in 7key 0.82Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 28 of 136 in 90% of them.
  7. 7Georgia12-112-1Gap +13.21 in 91key 1.96Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 34 of 136 in 90% of them.
  8. 8Miami10-210-2Gap +2.71 in 8key 0.91Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 31 of 136 in 90% of them.
  9. 9Texas A&M11-111-1Gap +14.11 in 69key 1.84Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 37 of 136 in 90% of them.
  10. 10Ole Miss11-111-1Gap +15.31 in 28key 1.45Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 51 of 136 in 90% of them.
  11. 11Vanderbilt10-210-2Gap +4.21 in 8key 0.93Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 33 of 136 in 90% of them.
  12. 12BYUpoll has it 611-211-2Gap +12.31 in 44key 1.64Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 45 of 136 in 90% of them.
  13. 13Alabama10-310-3Gap +5.51 in 11key 1.05Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 44 of 136 in 90% of them.
  14. 14Oklahomapoll has it 910-210-2Gap +8.01 in 16key 1.22Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 42 of 136 in 90% of them.
  15. 15South Floridapoll has it 229-39-3Gap +0.21 in 3key 0.41Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 41 of 136 in 90% of them.
  16. 16James Madison12-112-1Gap +9.21 in 6key 0.76Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 42 of 136 in 90% of them.
  17. 17USC9-39-3Gap +1.51 in 4key 0.61Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 43 of 136 in 90% of them.
  18. 18North Texas11-211-2Gap +2.91 in 3key 0.52Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 42 of 136 in 90% of them.
  19. 19Texas9-39-3Gap +8.01 in 7key 0.84Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 58 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 54 of 136 in 90% of them.
  21. 21Iowapoll has it 308-48-4Gap +1.11 in 2key 0.31Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 62 of 136 in 90% of them.
  22. 22Michigan9-39-3Gap +4.91 in 4key 0.63Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 59 of 136 in 90% of them.
  23. 23Arizona9-39-3Gap +3.31 in 2key 0.35Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 9 and 63 of 136 in 90% of them.
  24. 24Missouri8-48-4Gap +2.01 in 2key 0.27Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 9 and 63 of 136 in 90% of them.
  25. 25Tennesseepoll has it 318-48-4Gap -0.51 in 2key 0.24Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 60 of 136 in 90% of them.

Take week 16 with you.

The board as it stood that week, drawn for a timeline.

The right-hand number is how hard that season was to pull off against that exact schedule. One in 2,079 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 62 places.

2025 week 16 · f4eed303 · 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
1Indiana13-01 in 2,0798.2+4.832.7 (1)+27.31 to 120.0
2Texas Tech12-11 in 448.8+3.231.7 (2)+5.01 to 11-1.0
3Ohio State12-11 in 1028.2+3.830.9 (3)+7.81 to 15+1.0
4Oregon11-11 in 1117.2+3.828.5 (5)+10.31 to 210.0
5Notre Dame10-21 in 97.7+2.329.0 (4)-0.61 to 190.0
6Utah10-21 in 78.0+2.025.7 (6)+1.32 to 280.0
7Georgia12-11 in 918.0+4.023.8 (9)+13.23 to 34-1.0
8Miami10-21 in 87.8+2.225.2 (7)+2.72 to 31+1.0
9Texas A&M11-11 in 697.4+3.623.7 (10)+14.13 to 370.0
10Ole Miss11-11 in 288.0+3.019.8 (18)+15.36 to 510.0
11Vanderbilt10-21 in 87.8+2.223.9 (8)+4.23 to 330.0
12BYU11-21 in 447.6+3.421.4 (14)+12.35 to 450.0
13Alabama10-31 in 117.4+2.622.1 (12)+5.55 to 44-1.0
14Oklahoma10-21 in 167.1+2.921.8 (13)+8.05 to 42+1.0
15South Florida9-31 in 38.1+0.921.4 (15)+0.24 to 410.0
16James Madison12-11 in 610.2+1.819.2 (20)+9.25 to 42-1.0
17USC9-31 in 47.5+1.522.7 (11)+1.54 to 43+1.0
18North Texas11-21 in 39.7+1.320.5 (16)+2.95 to 420.0
19Texas9-31 in 77.0+2.018.6 (21)+8.08 to 58-2.0
20Washington8-41 in 27.7+0.320.0 (17)-2.07 to 54+1.0
21Iowa8-41 in 27.5+0.518.3 (23)+1.18 to 62+1.0
22Michigan9-31 in 47.4+1.619.3 (19)+4.98 to 590.0
23Arizona9-31 in 28.3+0.716.9 (25)+3.39 to 630.0
24Missouri8-41 in 27.6+0.416.8 (26)+2.09 to 630.0
25Tennessee8-41 in 27.8+0.218.4 (22)-0.58 to 600.0
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 62how unlikely1 in this many
1IndianaBig Ten13-0·Power 32.74 (1)·Gap +27.26Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 12 of 136 in 90% of them.3.3181 in 2,079
2Texas TechBig 1212-1·Power 31.69 (2)·Gap +4.97·▼1Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 11 of 136 in 90% of them.1.6431 in 44
3Ohio StateBig Ten12-1·Power 30.88 (3)·Gap +7.78·▲1Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 15 of 136 in 90% of them.2.0101 in 102
4OregonBig Ten11-1·Power 28.46 (5)·Gap +10.31Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 21 of 136 in 90% of them.2.0431 in 111
5Notre DameFBS Independents10-2·Power 28.97 (4)·Gap -0.61Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 19 of 136 in 90% of them.0.9711 in 9
6UtahBig 1210-2·Power 25.73 (6)·Gap +1.30Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 28 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8191 in 7
7GeorgiaSEC12-1·Power 23.76 (9)·Gap +13.25·▼1Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 34 of 136 in 90% of them.1.9611 in 91
8MiamiACC10-2·Power 25.21 (7)·Gap +2.68·▲1Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 31 of 136 in 90% of them.0.9141 in 8
9Texas A&MSEC11-1·Power 23.66 (10)·Gap +14.09Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 37 of 136 in 90% of them.1.8371 in 69
10Ole MissSEC11-1·Power 19.83 (18)·Gap +15.27Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 51 of 136 in 90% of them.1.4501 in 28
11VanderbiltSEC10-2·Power 23.87 (8)·Gap +4.24Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 33 of 136 in 90% of them.0.9291 in 8
12BYUBig 1211-2·Power 21.39 (14)·Gap +12.29Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 45 of 136 in 90% of them.1.6421 in 44
13AlabamaSEC10-3·Power 22.09 (12)·Gap +5.45·▼1Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 44 of 136 in 90% of them.1.0461 in 11
14OklahomaSEC10-2·Power 21.84 (13)·Gap +8.04·▲1Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 42 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2161 in 16
15South FloridaAmerican Athletic9-3·Power 21.37 (15)·Gap +0.18Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 41 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4121 in 3
16James MadisonSun Belt12-1·Power 19.22 (20)·Gap +9.23·▼1Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 42 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7621 in 6
17USCBig Ten9-3·Power 22.71 (11)·Gap +1.53·▲1Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 43 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6071 in 4
18North TexasAmerican Athletic11-2·Power 20.46 (16)·Gap +2.86Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 42 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5221 in 3
19TexasSEC9-3·Power 18.63 (21)·Gap +8.01·▼2Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 58 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8361 in 7
20WashingtonBig Ten8-4·Power 20.01 (17)·Gap -1.98·▲1Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 54 of 136 in 90% of them.0.2401 in 2
21IowaBig Ten8-4·Power 18.31 (23)·Gap +1.14·▲1Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 62 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3091 in 2
22MichiganBig Ten9-3·Power 19.28 (19)·Gap +4.88Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 59 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6321 in 4
23ArizonaBig 129-3·Power 16.91 (25)·Gap +3.26Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 9 and 63 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3451 in 2
24MissouriSEC8-4·Power 16.80 (26)·Gap +1.98Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 9 and 63 of 136 in 90% of them.0.2741 in 2
25TennesseeSEC8-4·Power 18.37 (22)·Gap -0.47Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 60 of 136 in 90% of them.0.2361 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 1,637 games, and the digest of that exact frame is 26f45004e64c 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 f4eed303 · published 2026-08-15 17:16:07 UTC · code b61a958 · config bf0fa1a3…
q_ref 16.91 (Arizona) · β_w 12 · C uncapped · h 3.683 · σ 15.858 · λ₁ 200 · λ₂ 0.5 · k 72.96 · w₁ 0.4222 · w₂ 0.2839
reproduce: uv run cfbpoll rank --season 2025 --through-week 16 --out out/
Close

rank 1

Indiana

13-0 · Big Ten. The model never reads conference names.

1 in 2,079how hard that record waskey 3.32
8.2wins this schedule asked for
+4.8how far past it they came

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

Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 12 of 136 in 90% of them.

1 to 12 · 11 places wide

power32.7, ranked 1
gap+27.3
resume60.0, ranked 1
hindsight1 · 0.0 against this rank

This team’s wins-based resume hit the bound the model puts on how much one result can be worth, so the figure above understates it.