The Poll.ai

2025 season · through week 5

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. 1Indiana5-05-0Gap +41.71 in 8key 0.93Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 70 of 136 in 90% of them.
  2. 2Texas Tech4-04-0Gap +34.51 in 6key 0.79Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 45 of 136 in 90% of them.
  3. 3Ohio Statepoll has it 94-04-0Gap +45.11 in 6key 0.75Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 90 of 136 in 90% of them.
  4. 4Oregon5-05-0Gap +39.91 in 6key 0.75Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 59 of 136 in 90% of them.
  5. 5Florida Statepoll has it 433-13-1Gap -1.41 in 2key 0.22Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 77 of 136 in 90% of them.
  6. 6Vanderbiltpoll has it 115-05-0Gap +35.41 in 5key 0.68Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 40 of 136 in 90% of them.
  7. 7Oklahoma4-04-0Gap +47.61 in 7key 0.85Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 101 of 136 in 90% of them.
  8. 8Utahpoll has it 194-14-1Gap +4.01 in 3key 0.48Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 66 of 136 in 90% of them.
  9. 9BYUpoll has it 154-04-0Gap +44.11 in 5key 0.66Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 88 of 136 in 90% of them.
  10. 10Miamipoll has it 164-04-0Gap +47.21 in 4key 0.58Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 100 of 136 in 90% of them.
  11. 11Alabamapoll has it 283-13-1Gap +4.91 in 2key 0.36Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 82 of 136 in 90% of them.
  12. 12Nebraskapoll has it 493-13-1Gap +3.21 in 1key 0.16Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 108 of 136 in 90% of them.
  13. 13North Texas5-05-0Gap +45.61 in 5key 0.66Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 84 of 136 in 90% of them.
  14. 14Memphispoll has it 25-05-0Gap +44.51 in 6key 0.80Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 82 of 136 in 90% of them.
  15. 15Ole Misspoll has it 85-05-0Gap +53.11 in 5key 0.74Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 12 and 112 of 136 in 90% of them.
  16. 16USCpoll has it 344-14-1Gap -0.41 in 2key 0.29Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 64 of 136 in 90% of them.
  17. 17Michiganpoll has it 253-13-1Gap +7.81 in 2key 0.40Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 94 of 136 in 90% of them.
  18. 18Missouri5-05-0Gap +51.21 in 3key 0.43Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 10 and 106 of 136 in 90% of them.
  19. 19Houstonpoll has it 104-04-0Gap +51.31 in 5key 0.68Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 112 of 136 in 90% of them.
  20. 20Georgia3-13-1Gap +12.91 in 3key 0.42Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 112 of 136 in 90% of them.
  21. 21Louisvillepoll has it 144-04-0Gap +46.71 in 5key 0.66Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 96 of 136 in 90% of them.
  22. 22Mississippi Statepoll has it 314-14-1Gap +9.11 in 2key 0.32Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 104 of 136 in 90% of them.
  23. 23Tennesseepoll has it 364-14-1Gap +2.81 in 2key 0.28Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 86 of 136 in 90% of them.
  24. 24Penn Statepoll has it 553-13-1Gap +2.21 in 1key 0.11Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 113 of 136 in 90% of them.
  25. 25Old Dominionpoll has it 373-13-1Gap +2.71 in 2key 0.27Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 83 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 8 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 100 places.

2025 week 5 · 7fa5ef79 · code c5ee855 · 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
1Indiana5-01 in 83.4+1.618.3 (6)+41.72 to 700.0
2Texas Tech4-01 in 62.9+1.125.5 (1)+34.51 to 45-1.0
3Ohio State4-01 in 62.7+1.314.9 (13)+45.13 to 90-1.0
4Oregon5-01 in 63.7+1.320.1 (3)+39.92 to 59+2.0
5Florida State3-11 in 22.7+0.318.0 (7)-1.41 to 77-1.0
6Vanderbilt5-01 in 53.7+1.324.6 (2)+35.41 to 40-2.0
7Oklahoma4-01 in 72.5+1.512.4 (21)+47.64 to 1010.0
8Utah4-11 in 33.0+1.019.1 (4)+4.02 to 66-5.0
9BYU4-01 in 52.8+1.215.9 (10)+44.12 to 880.0
10Miami4-01 in 42.9+1.112.8 (20)+47.24 to 100+5.0
11Alabama3-11 in 22.4+0.617.4 (8)+4.92 to 82-6.0
12Nebraska3-11 in 12.9+0.110.1 (28)+3.26 to 108-13.0
13North Texas5-01 in 53.7+1.314.4 (14)+45.63 to 84+3.0
14Memphis5-01 in 63.5+1.515.5 (11)+44.53 to 82-16.0
15Ole Miss5-01 in 53.6+1.46.9 (48)+53.112 to 112-1.0
16USC4-11 in 23.5+0.518.6 (5)-0.42 to 64-2.0
17Michigan3-11 in 22.3+0.714.4 (15)+7.83 to 94-7.0
18Missouri5-01 in 34.1+0.98.8 (36)+51.210 to 106-4.0
19Houston4-01 in 52.7+1.38.7 (37)+51.37 to 112-16.0
20Georgia3-11 in 32.2+0.810.0 (30)+12.96 to 112-7.0
21Louisville4-01 in 52.8+1.213.3 (19)+46.73 to 960.0
22Mississippi State4-11 in 23.4+0.69.7 (31)+9.18 to 104-14.0
23Tennessee4-11 in 23.5+0.515.1 (12)+2.83 to 86-6.0
24Penn State3-11 in 13.0-0.08.7 (38)+2.27 to 113+12.0
25Old Dominion3-11 in 22.5+0.516.4 (9)+2.72 to 83+2.0
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 100how unlikely1 in this many
1IndianaBig Ten5-0·Power 18.29 (6)·Gap +41.71Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 70 of 136 in 90% of them.0.9291 in 8
2Texas TechBig 124-0·Power 25.46 (1)·Gap +34.54·▼1Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 45 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7871 in 6
3Ohio StateBig Ten4-0·Power 14.93 (13)·Gap +45.07·▼1Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 90 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7481 in 6
4OregonBig Ten5-0·Power 20.13 (3)·Gap +39.87·▲2Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 59 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7461 in 6
5Florida StateACC3-1·Power 17.99 (7)·Gap -1.38·▼1Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 77 of 136 in 90% of them.0.2211 in 2
6VanderbiltSEC5-0·Power 24.62 (2)·Gap +35.38·▼2Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 40 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6801 in 5
7OklahomaSEC4-0·Power 12.42 (21)·Gap +47.58Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 101 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8531 in 7
8UtahBig 124-1·Power 19.13 (4)·Gap +4.04·▼5Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 66 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4791 in 3
9BYUBig 124-0·Power 15.93 (10)·Gap +44.07Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 88 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6641 in 5
10MiamiACC4-0·Power 12.77 (20)·Gap +47.23·▲5Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 100 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5771 in 4
11AlabamaSEC3-1·Power 17.36 (8)·Gap +4.90·▼6Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 82 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3641 in 2
12NebraskaBig Ten3-1·Power 10.11 (28)·Gap +3.17·▼13Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 108 of 136 in 90% of them.0.1651 in 1
13North TexasAmerican Athletic5-0·Power 14.44 (14)·Gap +45.56·▲3Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 84 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6551 in 5
14MemphisAmerican Athletic5-0·Power 15.51 (11)·Gap +44.49·▼16Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 82 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7991 in 6
15Ole MissSEC5-0·Power 6.88 (48)·Gap +53.12·▼1Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 12 and 112 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7381 in 5
16USCBig Ten4-1·Power 18.61 (5)·Gap -0.44·▼2Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 64 of 136 in 90% of them.0.2881 in 2
17MichiganBig Ten3-1·Power 14.38 (15)·Gap +7.79·▼7Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 94 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3961 in 2
18MissouriSEC5-0·Power 8.83 (36)·Gap +51.17·▼4Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 10 and 106 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4251 in 3
19HoustonBig 124-0·Power 8.70 (37)·Gap +51.30·▼16Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 112 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6841 in 5
20GeorgiaSEC3-1·Power 10.00 (30)·Gap +12.87·▼7Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 112 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4221 in 3
21LouisvilleACC4-0·Power 13.32 (19)·Gap +46.68Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 96 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6601 in 5
22Mississippi StateSEC4-1·Power 9.73 (31)·Gap +9.14·▼14Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 104 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3151 in 2
23TennesseeSEC4-1·Power 15.07 (12)·Gap +2.85·▼6Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 86 of 136 in 90% of them.0.2791 in 2
24Penn StateBig Ten3-1·Power 8.65 (38)·Gap +2.25·▲12Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 113 of 136 in 90% of them.0.1151 in 1
25Old DominionSun Belt3-1·Power 16.44 (9)·Gap +2.71·▲2Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 83 of 136 in 90% of them.0.2691 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 620 games, and the digest of that exact frame is b15ad904c26c 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 7fa5ef79 · published 2026-08-15 17:11:42 UTC · code c5ee855 · config bf0fa1a3…
q_ref 11.06 (Notre Dame) · β_w 12 · C uncapped · h 5.841 · σ 19.258 · λ₁ 200 · λ₂ 0.5 · k 95.58 · w₁ 0.6195 · w₂ 0.0255
reproduce: uv run cfbpoll rank --season 2025 --through-week 5 --out out/
Close

rank 18

Missouri

5-0 · SEC. The model never reads conference names.

1 in 3how hard that record waskey 0.43
4.1wins this schedule asked for
+0.9how far past it they came

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

Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 10 and 106 of 136 in 90% of them.

10 to 106 · 96 places wide

power8.8, ranked 36
gap+51.2
resume60.0, ranked 10
hindsight22 · -4.0 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.