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.

  1. 1Indiana13-013-0Gap +30.01 in 1,736key 3.24Ranked 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 +10.81 in 92key 1.96Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 35 of 136 in 90% of them.
  3. 3Georgia12-112-1Gap +13.01 in 86key 1.93Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 44 of 136 in 90% of them.
  4. 4Ohio State12-112-1Gap +7.31 in 82key 1.91Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 24 of 136 in 90% of them.
  5. 5Texas A&M11-111-1Gap +13.81 in 68key 1.83Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 44 of 136 in 90% of them.
  6. 6BYU11-211-2Gap +12.91 in 45key 1.66Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 62 of 136 in 90% of them.
  7. 7Texas Tech12-112-1Gap +4.41 in 45key 1.65Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 22 of 136 in 90% of them.
  8. 8Ole Miss11-111-1Gap +15.91 in 28key 1.44Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.
  9. 9Oklahoma10-210-2Gap +8.21 in 16key 1.19Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 51 of 136 in 90% of them.
  10. 10Alabama10-310-3Gap +6.11 in 11key 1.04Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 58 of 136 in 90% of them.
  11. 11Notre Dame10-210-2Gap -0.81 in 10key 0.98Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 29 of 136 in 90% of them.
  12. 12Miami10-210-2Gap +2.31 in 8key 0.92Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 42 of 136 in 90% of them.
  13. 13Vanderbilt10-210-2Gap +3.71 in 8key 0.91Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 44 of 136 in 90% of them.
  14. 14James Madison12-112-1Gap +9.51 in 7key 0.86Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 57 of 136 in 90% of them.
  15. 15Texas9-39-3Gap +8.21 in 7key 0.84Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 71 of 136 in 90% of them.
  16. 16Utah10-210-2Gap +1.41 in 7key 0.83Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 39 of 136 in 90% of them.
  17. 17Navy10-210-2Gap +14.81 in 6key 0.75Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 16 and 94 of 136 in 90% of them.
  18. 18Tulane11-211-2Gap +13.71 in 5key 0.73Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 17 and 99 of 136 in 90% of them.
  19. 19Michigan9-39-3Gap +5.01 in 4key 0.59Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 74 of 136 in 90% of them.
  20. 20USC9-39-3Gap +1.21 in 4key 0.56Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 58 of 136 in 90% of them.
  21. 21North Texas11-211-2Gap +3.01 in 4key 0.56Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 55 of 136 in 90% of them.
  22. 22South Florida9-39-3Gap +0.21 in 3key 0.44Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 51 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 8 and 74 of 136 in 90% of them.
  24. 24Virginia10-310-3Gap +2.91 in 2key 0.32Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 73 of 136 in 90% of them.
  25. 25Arizona State8-48-4Gap +6.31 in 2key 0.31Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 13 and 94 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 1,736 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 75 places.

2025 week 16 · 61a5fd2c · 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
1Indiana13-01 in 1,7368.2+4.830.0 (2)+30.01 to 240.0
2Oregon11-11 in 927.3+3.726.2 (5)+10.81 to 350.0
3Georgia12-11 in 868.0+4.022.6 (10)+13.02 to 44-1.0
4Ohio State12-11 in 828.3+3.729.4 (3)+7.31 to 24+1.0
5Texas A&M11-11 in 687.4+3.622.7 (9)+13.82 to 440.0
6BYU11-21 in 457.6+3.419.7 (15)+12.94 to 62-1.0
7Texas Tech12-11 in 458.7+3.331.0 (1)+4.41 to 22+1.0
8Ole Miss11-11 in 288.0+3.017.8 (19)+15.95 to 680.0
9Oklahoma10-21 in 167.1+2.920.2 (13)+8.23 to 510.0
10Alabama10-31 in 117.4+2.620.1 (14)+6.13 to 580.0
11Notre Dame10-21 in 107.6+2.428.0 (4)-0.81 to 290.0
12Miami10-21 in 87.8+2.224.4 (7)+2.32 to 420.0
13Vanderbilt10-21 in 87.8+2.223.0 (8)+3.72 to 440.0
14James Madison12-11 in 710.0+2.018.7 (17)+9.53 to 570.0
15Texas9-31 in 77.0+2.017.2 (22)+8.26 to 710.0
16Utah10-21 in 78.0+2.024.5 (6)+1.42 to 390.0
17Navy10-21 in 68.3+1.711.2 (46)+14.816 to 94-1.0
18Tulane11-21 in 59.1+1.910.9 (48)+13.717 to 99+1.0
19Michigan9-31 in 47.5+1.517.5 (20)+5.06 to 74-1.0
20USC9-31 in 47.6+1.421.2 (11)+1.23 to 58+1.0
21North Texas11-21 in 49.6+1.419.4 (16)+3.04 to 550.0
22South Florida9-31 in 38.0+1.020.4 (12)+0.23 to 510.0
23Arizona9-31 in 28.3+0.715.6 (25)+3.38 to 74-2.0
24Virginia10-31 in 29.3+0.715.5 (26)+2.97 to 730.0
25Arizona State8-41 in 27.4+0.611.8 (44)+6.313 to 94-2.0
Show the full table: top 25 of 136, every columnthe published poll
#teamunderline: 90% rank interval · league median width 75how unlikely1 in this many
1IndianaBig Ten13-0·Power 30.00 (2)·Gap +30.00Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 24 of 136 in 90% of them.3.2401 in 1,736
2OregonBig Ten11-1·Power 26.23 (5)·Gap +10.80Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 35 of 136 in 90% of them.1.9631 in 92
3GeorgiaSEC12-1·Power 22.56 (10)·Gap +13.00·▼1Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 44 of 136 in 90% of them.1.9321 in 86
4Ohio StateBig Ten12-1·Power 29.40 (3)·Gap +7.33·▲1Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 24 of 136 in 90% of them.1.9141 in 82
5Texas A&MSEC11-1·Power 22.72 (9)·Gap +13.80Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 44 of 136 in 90% of them.1.8351 in 68
6BYUBig 1211-2·Power 19.72 (15)·Gap +12.89·▼1Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 62 of 136 in 90% of them.1.6571 in 45
7Texas TechBig 1212-1·Power 31.03 (1)·Gap +4.41·▲1Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 22 of 136 in 90% of them.1.6511 in 45
8Ole MissSEC11-1·Power 17.83 (19)·Gap +15.94Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.1.4431 in 28
9OklahomaSEC10-2·Power 20.23 (13)·Gap +8.21Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 51 of 136 in 90% of them.1.1951 in 16
10AlabamaSEC10-3·Power 20.14 (14)·Gap +6.12Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 58 of 136 in 90% of them.1.0401 in 11
11Notre DameFBS Independents10-2·Power 27.96 (4)·Gap -0.76Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 29 of 136 in 90% of them.0.9791 in 10
12MiamiACC10-2·Power 24.41 (7)·Gap +2.29Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 42 of 136 in 90% of them.0.9191 in 8
13VanderbiltSEC10-2·Power 23.02 (8)·Gap +3.68Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 44 of 136 in 90% of them.0.9141 in 8
14James MadisonSun Belt12-1·Power 18.69 (17)·Gap +9.54Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 57 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8641 in 7
15TexasSEC9-3·Power 17.17 (22)·Gap +8.18Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 71 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8351 in 7
16UtahBig 1210-2·Power 24.49 (6)·Gap +1.37Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 39 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8281 in 7
17NavyAmerican Athletic10-2·Power 11.19 (46)·Gap +14.81·▼1Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 16 and 94 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7461 in 6
18TulaneAmerican Athletic11-2·Power 10.87 (48)·Gap +13.67·▲1Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 17 and 99 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7331 in 5
19MichiganBig Ten9-3·Power 17.45 (20)·Gap +5.02·▼1Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 74 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5931 in 4
20USCBig Ten9-3·Power 21.23 (11)·Gap +1.23·▲1Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 58 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5651 in 4
21North TexasAmerican Athletic11-2·Power 19.42 (16)·Gap +3.04Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 55 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5561 in 4
22South FloridaAmerican Athletic9-3·Power 20.40 (12)·Gap +0.23Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 51 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4361 in 3
23ArizonaBig 129-3·Power 15.64 (25)·Gap +3.32·▼2Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 74 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3491 in 2
24VirginiaACC10-3·Power 15.49 (26)·Gap +2.91Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 73 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3231 in 2
25Arizona StateBig 128-4·Power 11.80 (44)·Gap +6.29·▼2Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 13 and 94 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3121 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 1,637 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: 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 61a5fd2c · published 2026-08-19 23:18:03 UTC · code e215160 · config 1ef7cf23…
q_ref 15.64 (Arizona) · β_w 7 · C 32 · h 3.706 · σ 15.884 · λ₁ 200 · λ₂ 0.5 · k 72.96 · w₁ 0.5184 · w₂ 0.3169
reproduce: uv run cfbpoll rank --season 2025 --through-week 16 --out out/
Close

rank 6

BYU

11-2 · Big 12. The model never reads conference names.

1 in 45how hard that record waskey 1.66
7.6wins this schedule asked for
+3.4how far past it they came

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

Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 62 of 136 in 90% of them.

4 to 62 · 58 places wide

power19.7, ranked 15
gap+12.9
resume32.6, ranked 8
hindsight7 · -1.0 against this rank