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.

Just WinALTERNATE LENS. The same games, ranked on different beliefs.
  1. 1Indiana13-013-0Gap +33.11 in 1,232key 3.09Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 24 of 136 in 90% of them.
  2. 2Oregon11-111-1Gap +11.41 in 74key 1.87Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 37 of 136 in 90% of them.
  3. 3Ohio State12-112-1Gap +7.81 in 68key 1.83Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 25 of 136 in 90% of them.
  4. 4Texas A&M11-111-1Gap +13.11 in 54key 1.74Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 41 of 136 in 90% of them.
  5. 5Georgia12-112-1Gap +13.41 in 80key 1.90Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 45 of 136 in 90% of them.
  6. 6Texas Tech12-112-1Gap +4.51 in 41key 1.61Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 20 of 136 in 90% of them.
  7. 7Ole Miss11-111-1Gap +16.51 in 24key 1.39Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.
  8. 8BYU11-211-2Gap +12.91 in 38key 1.58Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 62 of 136 in 90% of them.
  9. 9James Madisonpoll has it 1412-112-1Gap +10.01 in 9key 0.95Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 57 of 136 in 90% of them.
  10. 10Oklahoma10-210-2Gap +8.41 in 15key 1.17Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 51 of 136 in 90% of them.
  11. 11Notre Dame10-210-2Gap +0.11 in 9key 0.95Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 28 of 136 in 90% of them.
  12. 12Vanderbilt10-210-2Gap +3.51 in 7key 0.87Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 43 of 136 in 90% of them.
  13. 13Navy10-210-2Gap +13.41 in 6key 0.78Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 10 and 93 of 136 in 90% of them.
  14. 14Miami10-210-2Gap +2.61 in 7key 0.87Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 43 of 136 in 90% of them.
  15. 15Alabamapoll has it 1010-310-3Gap +5.91 in 10key 0.98Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 56 of 136 in 90% of them.
  16. 16Utah10-210-2Gap +2.11 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. 17Texas9-39-3Gap +8.11 in 6key 0.80Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 71 of 136 in 90% of them.
  18. 18Tulane11-211-2Gap +13.71 in 6key 0.75Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 18 and 92 of 136 in 90% of them.
  19. 19North Texas11-211-2Gap +3.41 in 4key 0.63Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 53 of 136 in 90% of them.
  20. 20Michigan9-39-3Gap +4.61 in 4key 0.56Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 67 of 136 in 90% of them.
  21. 21USC9-39-3Gap +1.11 in 3key 0.53Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 59 of 136 in 90% of them.
  22. 22South Florida9-39-3Gap +1.11 in 3key 0.48Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 63 of 136 in 90% of them.
  23. 23Arizona9-39-3Gap +4.01 in 2key 0.34Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 74 of 136 in 90% of them.
  24. 24Virginia10-310-3Gap +2.81 in 2key 0.33Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 71 of 136 in 90% of them.
  25. 25Houston9-39-3Gap +5.61 in 2key 0.31Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 11 and 91 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 1,232 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 16 · f41abc9d · 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
1Indiana13-01 in 1,2328.3+4.726.9 (2)+33.11 to 240.0
2Oregon11-11 in 747.4+3.622.9 (5)+11.41 to 370.0
3Ohio State12-11 in 688.4+3.626.1 (3)+7.81 to 250.0
4Texas A&M11-11 in 547.6+3.420.5 (9)+13.12 to 410.0
5Georgia12-11 in 808.0+4.019.7 (10)+13.43 to 450.0
6Texas Tech12-11 in 418.8+3.228.3 (1)+4.51 to 200.0
7Ole Miss11-11 in 248.1+2.914.6 (21)+16.56 to 680.0
8BYU11-21 in 387.7+3.317.0 (16)+12.94 to 620.0
9James Madison12-11 in 99.8+2.216.8 (17)+10.02 to 570.0
10Oklahoma10-21 in 157.2+2.817.6 (14)+8.44 to 510.0
11Notre Dame10-21 in 97.7+2.324.6 (4)+0.11 to 280.0
12Vanderbilt10-21 in 77.9+2.120.5 (8)+3.52 to 43-2.0
13Navy10-21 in 68.2+1.810.5 (36)+13.410 to 930.0
14Miami10-21 in 77.9+2.121.3 (6)+2.62 to 43+2.0
15Alabama10-31 in 107.5+2.517.6 (13)+5.94 to 560.0
16Utah10-21 in 68.0+2.021.2 (7)+2.12 to 440.0
17Texas9-31 in 67.1+1.914.6 (22)+8.15 to 71-1.0
18Tulane11-21 in 69.1+1.98.8 (48)+13.718 to 92+1.0
19North Texas11-21 in 49.4+1.617.6 (15)+3.43 to 530.0
20Michigan9-31 in 47.6+1.415.1 (19)+4.66 to 67-1.0
21USC9-31 in 37.7+1.318.6 (11)+1.12 to 59+1.0
22South Florida9-31 in 37.8+1.217.8 (12)+1.13 to 630.0
23Arizona9-31 in 28.3+0.712.5 (29)+4.08 to 74-1.0
24Virginia10-31 in 29.3+0.713.4 (24)+2.86 to 71+1.0
25Houston9-31 in 28.4+0.610.5 (37)+5.611 to 91-1.0
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 Ten13-0·Power 26.90 (2)·Gap +33.10Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 24 of 136 in 90% of them.3.0911 in 1,232
2OregonBig Ten11-1·Power 22.86 (5)·Gap +11.38Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 37 of 136 in 90% of them.1.8701 in 74
3Ohio StateBig Ten12-1·Power 26.13 (3)·Gap +7.82Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 25 of 136 in 90% of them.1.8341 in 68
4Texas A&MSEC11-1·Power 20.51 (9)·Gap +13.12Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 41 of 136 in 90% of them.1.7361 in 54
5GeorgiaSEC12-1·Power 19.69 (10)·Gap +13.44Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 45 of 136 in 90% of them.1.9011 in 80
6Texas TechBig 1212-1·Power 28.33 (1)·Gap +4.52Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 20 of 136 in 90% of them.1.6111 in 41
7Ole MissSEC11-1·Power 14.59 (21)·Gap +16.51Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.1.3861 in 24
8BYUBig 1211-2·Power 17.02 (16)·Gap +12.86Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 62 of 136 in 90% of them.1.5811 in 38
9James MadisonSun Belt12-1·Power 16.77 (17)·Gap +9.96Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 57 of 136 in 90% of them.0.9551 in 9
10OklahomaSEC10-2·Power 17.58 (14)·Gap +8.40Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 51 of 136 in 90% of them.1.1701 in 15
11Notre DameFBS Independents10-2·Power 24.60 (4)·Gap +0.08Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 28 of 136 in 90% of them.0.9501 in 9
12VanderbiltSEC10-2·Power 20.53 (8)·Gap +3.50·▼2Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 43 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8741 in 7
13NavyAmerican Athletic10-2·Power 10.53 (36)·Gap +13.39Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 10 and 93 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7781 in 6
14MiamiACC10-2·Power 21.28 (6)·Gap +2.62·▲2Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 43 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8681 in 7
15AlabamaSEC10-3·Power 17.60 (13)·Gap +5.89Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 56 of 136 in 90% of them.0.9781 in 10
16UtahBig 1210-2·Power 21.23 (7)·Gap +2.10Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 44 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8041 in 6
17TexasSEC9-3·Power 14.56 (22)·Gap +8.09·▼1Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 71 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7961 in 6
18TulaneAmerican Athletic11-2·Power 8.75 (48)·Gap +13.68·▲1Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 18 and 92 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7551 in 6
19North TexasAmerican Athletic11-2·Power 17.57 (15)·Gap +3.41Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 53 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6301 in 4
20MichiganBig Ten9-3·Power 15.15 (19)·Gap +4.60·▼1Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 67 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5581 in 4
21USCBig Ten9-3·Power 18.56 (11)·Gap +1.10·▲1Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 59 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5291 in 3
22South FloridaAmerican Athletic9-3·Power 17.78 (12)·Gap +1.12Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 63 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4811 in 3
23ArizonaBig 129-3·Power 12.45 (29)·Gap +4.00·▼1Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 74 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3371 in 2
24VirginiaACC10-3·Power 13.39 (24)·Gap +2.76·▲1Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 71 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3281 in 2
25HoustonBig 129-3·Power 10.51 (37)·Gap +5.58·▼1Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 11 and 91 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3111 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 1,637 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: 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 f41abc9d · published 2026-08-15 17:22:54 UTC · code b61a958 · config dfc23153…
q_ref 13.30 (Toledo) · β_w 7 · C 1 · h 3.697 · σ 16.022 · λ₁ 200 · λ₂ 2.0 · k 72.96 · w₁ 0.6554 · w₂ 0.6107
reproduce: uv run cfbpoll rank --season 2025 --through-week 16 --out out/
Close

rank 14

Miami

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

1 in 7how hard that record waskey 0.87
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 14. 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

power21.3, ranked 6
gap+2.6
resume23.9, ranked 14
hindsight12 · +2.0 against this rank