The Poll.ai

2025 season · through week 6

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 +36.81 in 8key 0.88Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 54 of 136 in 90% of them.
  2. 2Texas Tech5-05-0Gap +31.81 in 10key 1.01Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 27 of 136 in 90% of them.
  3. 3Ohio State5-05-0Gap +39.51 in 7key 0.83Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 60 of 136 in 90% of them.
  4. 4Oregon5-05-0Gap +36.81 in 5key 0.71Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 45 of 136 in 90% of them.
  5. 5Miami5-05-0Gap +39.61 in 13key 1.10Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 63 of 136 in 90% of them.
  6. 6Oklahoma5-05-0Gap +43.21 in 5key 0.73Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 77 of 136 in 90% of them.
  7. 7Alabamapoll has it 154-14-1Gap +7.41 in 4key 0.61Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 60 of 136 in 90% of them.
  8. 8Utahpoll has it 204-14-1Gap +2.01 in 2key 0.35Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 58 of 136 in 90% of them.
  9. 9Vanderbiltpoll has it 175-15-1Gap +1.21 in 3key 0.41Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 40 of 136 in 90% of them.
  10. 10USCpoll has it 374-14-1Gap -0.81 in 2key 0.25Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 61 of 136 in 90% of them.
  11. 11North Texas5-05-0Gap +42.81 in 4key 0.59Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 75 of 136 in 90% of them.
  12. 12BYU5-05-0Gap +43.41 in 4key 0.64Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 79 of 136 in 90% of them.
  13. 13Ole Miss5-05-0Gap +48.21 in 4key 0.65Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 100 of 136 in 90% of them.
  14. 14Florida Statepoll has it 503-23-2Gap -6.51 in 1key 0.11Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 72 of 136 in 90% of them.
  15. 15Memphispoll has it 66-06-0Gap +42.41 in 5key 0.66Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.
  16. 16Nebraskapoll has it 414-14-1Gap +5.11 in 2key 0.18Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 103 of 136 in 90% of them.
  17. 17Texas A&Mpoll has it 35-05-0Gap +43.81 in 9key 0.97Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 87 of 136 in 90% of them.
  18. 18Illinoispoll has it 85-15-1Gap +16.51 in 6key 0.79Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 85 of 136 in 90% of them.
  19. 19Washingtonpoll has it 284-14-1Gap +7.71 in 2key 0.33Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 91 of 136 in 90% of them.
  20. 20Notre Damepoll has it 433-23-2Gap -1.41 in 1key 0.17Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 86 of 136 in 90% of them.
  21. 21Missouri5-05-0Gap +48.71 in 2key 0.33Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 96 of 136 in 90% of them.
  22. 22Old Dominionpoll has it 344-14-1Gap +1.11 in 2key 0.23Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 59 of 136 in 90% of them.
  23. 23Georgiapoll has it 184-14-1Gap +10.01 in 3key 0.42Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 91 of 136 in 90% of them.
  24. 24Virginiapoll has it 165-15-1Gap +9.51 in 3key 0.45Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 78 of 136 in 90% of them.
  25. 25Michigan4-14-1Gap +8.41 in 2key 0.38Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 81 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 90 places.

2025 week 6 · 70b6218d · 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 83.5+1.523.2 (3)+36.81 to 540.0
2Texas Tech5-01 in 103.5+1.528.2 (1)+31.81 to 27-1.0
3Ohio State5-01 in 73.6+1.420.5 (8)+39.51 to 60-1.0
4Oregon5-01 in 53.7+1.323.2 (4)+36.81 to 45+2.0
5Miami5-01 in 133.2+1.820.4 (9)+39.62 to 630.0
6Oklahoma5-01 in 53.7+1.316.8 (15)+43.23 to 770.0
7Alabama4-11 in 42.9+1.121.7 (5)+7.42 to 60-1.0
8Utah4-11 in 23.3+0.720.9 (7)+2.01 to 58-1.0
9Vanderbilt5-11 in 34.2+0.823.8 (2)+1.21 to 40-9.0
10USC4-11 in 23.6+0.421.0 (6)-0.82 to 61-7.0
11North Texas5-01 in 43.9+1.117.2 (14)+42.83 to 75+4.0
12BYU5-01 in 43.8+1.216.6 (17)+43.43 to 79-1.0
13Ole Miss5-01 in 43.7+1.311.8 (33)+48.28 to 100+1.0
14Florida State3-21 in 13.2-0.218.7 (11)-6.52 to 72+3.0
15Memphis6-01 in 54.7+1.317.6 (12)+42.43 to 68-8.0
16Nebraska4-11 in 23.8+0.211.8 (34)+5.18 to 103-11.0
17Texas A&M5-01 in 93.4+1.616.2 (18)+43.84 to 87+7.0
18Illinois5-11 in 63.5+1.514.8 (23)+16.56 to 85-1.0
19Washington4-11 in 23.4+0.614.3 (26)+7.76 to 91+4.0
20Notre Dame3-21 in 12.9+0.116.8 (16)-1.44 to 86+4.0
21Missouri5-01 in 24.3+0.711.3 (37)+48.78 to 96+1.0
22Old Dominion4-11 in 23.6+0.420.1 (10)+1.12 to 59+8.0
23Georgia4-11 in 33.2+0.814.8 (22)+10.04 to 91+2.0
24Virginia5-11 in 34.1+0.915.5 (20)+9.54 to 78-1.0
25Michigan4-11 in 23.3+0.715.6 (19)+8.44 to 81+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 90how unlikely1 in this many
1IndianaBig Ten5-0·Power 23.21 (3)·Gap +36.79Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 54 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8841 in 8
2Texas TechBig 125-0·Power 28.20 (1)·Gap +31.80·▼1Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 27 of 136 in 90% of them.1.0091 in 10
3Ohio StateBig Ten5-0·Power 20.51 (8)·Gap +39.49·▼1Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 60 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8311 in 7
4OregonBig Ten5-0·Power 23.20 (4)·Gap +36.80·▲2Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 45 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7131 in 5
5MiamiACC5-0·Power 20.44 (9)·Gap +39.56Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 63 of 136 in 90% of them.1.1021 in 13
6OklahomaSEC5-0·Power 16.82 (15)·Gap +43.18Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 77 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7281 in 5
7AlabamaSEC4-1·Power 21.72 (5)·Gap +7.42·▼1Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 60 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6151 in 4
8UtahBig 124-1·Power 20.95 (7)·Gap +2.03·▼1Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 58 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3541 in 2
9VanderbiltSEC5-1·Power 23.81 (2)·Gap +1.17·▼9Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 40 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4101 in 3
10USCBig Ten4-1·Power 20.99 (6)·Gap -0.79·▼7Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 61 of 136 in 90% of them.0.2521 in 2
11North TexasAmerican Athletic5-0·Power 17.20 (14)·Gap +42.80·▲4Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 75 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5901 in 4
12BYUBig 125-0·Power 16.57 (17)·Gap +43.43·▼1Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 79 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6431 in 4
13Ole MissSEC5-0·Power 11.82 (33)·Gap +48.18·▲1Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 100 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6531 in 4
14Florida StateACC3-2·Power 18.67 (11)·Gap -6.47·▲3Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 72 of 136 in 90% of them.0.1121 in 1
15MemphisAmerican Athletic6-0·Power 17.60 (12)·Gap +42.40·▼8Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6641 in 5
16NebraskaBig Ten4-1·Power 11.82 (34)·Gap +5.09·▼11Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 103 of 136 in 90% of them.0.1781 in 2
17Texas A&MSEC5-0·Power 16.17 (18)·Gap +43.83·▲7Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 87 of 136 in 90% of them.0.9751 in 9
18IllinoisBig Ten5-1·Power 14.76 (23)·Gap +16.48·▼1Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 85 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7851 in 6
19WashingtonBig Ten4-1·Power 14.29 (26)·Gap +7.71·▲4Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 91 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3261 in 2
20Notre DameFBS Independents3-2·Power 16.76 (16)·Gap -1.42·▲4Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 86 of 136 in 90% of them.0.1721 in 1
21MissouriSEC5-0·Power 11.30 (37)·Gap +48.70·▲1Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 96 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3271 in 2
22Old DominionSun Belt4-1·Power 20.10 (10)·Gap +1.09·▲8Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 59 of 136 in 90% of them.0.2341 in 2
23GeorgiaSEC4-1·Power 14.81 (22)·Gap +10.00·▲2Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 91 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4171 in 3
24VirginiaACC5-1·Power 15.53 (20)·Gap +9.53·▼1Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 78 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4501 in 3
25MichiganBig Ten4-1·Power 15.64 (19)·Gap +8.43·▲1Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 81 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3831 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 728 games, and the digest of that exact frame is dfd44ad43376 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 70b6218d · published 2026-08-15 17:12:00 UTC · code c5ee855 · config bf0fa1a3…
q_ref 14.51 (Louisville) · β_w 12 · C uncapped · h 5.606 · σ 17.444 · λ₁ 150 · λ₂ 0.5 · k 81.98 · w₁ 0.5253 · w₂ 0.1373
reproduce: uv run cfbpoll rank --season 2025 --through-week 6 --out out/
Close

rank 25

Michigan

4-1 · Big Ten. The model never reads conference names.

1 in 2how hard that record waskey 0.38
3.3wins this schedule asked for
+0.7how far past it they came

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

Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 81 of 136 in 90% of them.

4 to 81 · 77 places wide

power15.6, ranked 19
gap+8.4
resume24.1, ranked 21
hindsight24 · +1.0 against this rank