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.
- 1Miami5-01 in 14key 1.15
- 2Texas Tech5-01 in 13key 1.10
- 3Texas A&M5-01 in 10key 0.99
- 4Indiana5-01 in 9key 0.96
- 5Ohio State5-01 in 8key 0.92
- 6Memphis6-01 in 8key 0.89
- 7Oregon5-01 in 7key 0.86
- 8Illinois5-11 in 6key 0.79
- 9Oklahoma5-01 in 6key 0.78
- 10Georgia Tech5-01 in 6key 0.77
- 11BYU5-01 in 5key 0.73
- 12UNLV5-01 in 5key 0.70
- 13North Texas5-01 in 5key 0.69
- 14Ole Miss5-01 in 5key 0.69
- 15Alabama4-11 in 5key 0.69
- 16Virginia5-11 in 3key 0.54
- 17Vanderbilt5-11 in 3key 0.52
- 18Georgia4-11 in 3key 0.50
- 19Houston4-11 in 3key 0.48
- 20Utah4-11 in 3key 0.47
- 21Iowa State5-11 in 3key 0.42
- 22Missouri5-01 in 3key 0.41
- 23Western Kentucky5-11 in 3key 0.40
- 24LSU4-11 in 3key 0.40
- 25South Florida4-11 in 3key 0.40
The right-hand number is how hard that season was to pull off against that exact schedule. One in 14 put Miami on top. One in 3 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 103 places.
2025 week 6 · a671ed1d · 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.
| # | team | record | how unlikely1 in this many | expectedwins this schedule asked for | beat that by | powerrating (rank) | gapplaces from the poll | rangein 90% of replays | hindsight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Miami | 5-0 | 1 in 14 | 3.2 | +1.8 | 15.0 (10) | +45.0 | 2 to 86 | -1.0 |
| 2 | Texas Tech | 5-0 | 1 in 13 | 3.4 | +1.6 | 25.6 (1) | +34.4 | 1 to 70 | -1.0 |
| 3 | Texas A&M | 5-0 | 1 in 10 | 3.3 | +1.7 | 10.7 (22) | +49.3 | 3 to 93 | +2.0 |
| 4 | Indiana | 5-0 | 1 in 9 | 3.4 | +1.6 | 16.3 (8) | +43.7 | 3 to 91 | -1.0 |
| 5 | Ohio State | 5-0 | 1 in 8 | 3.4 | +1.6 | 14.8 (11) | +45.2 | 3 to 96 | -1.0 |
| 6 | Memphis | 6-0 | 1 in 8 | 4.3 | +1.7 | 14.0 (13) | +46.0 | 5 to 92 | -9.0 |
| 7 | Oregon | 5-0 | 1 in 7 | 3.5 | +1.5 | 19.2 (3) | +40.8 | 4 to 69 | +3.0 |
| 8 | Illinois | 5-1 | 1 in 6 | 3.5 | +1.5 | 8.6 (33) | +17.9 | 4 to 96 | +1.0 |
| 9 | Oklahoma | 5-0 | 1 in 6 | 3.6 | +1.4 | 10.5 (24) | +49.5 | 5 to 103 | +1.0 |
| 10 | Georgia Tech | 5-0 | 1 in 6 | 3.6 | +1.4 | 4.8 (56) | +55.2 | 9 to 124 | -1.0 |
| 11 | BYU | 5-0 | 1 in 5 | 3.7 | +1.3 | 12.4 (18) | +47.6 | 6 to 109 | -2.0 |
| 12 | UNLV | 5-0 | 1 in 5 | 3.7 | +1.3 | 0.4 (83) | +59.6 | 31 to 129 | -4.0 |
| 13 | North Texas | 5-0 | 1 in 5 | 3.7 | +1.3 | 12.7 (16) | +47.3 | 6 to 104 | +4.0 |
| 14 | Ole Miss | 5-0 | 1 in 5 | 3.7 | +1.3 | 4.6 (58) | +55.4 | 8 to 122 | +4.0 |
| 15 | Alabama | 4-1 | 1 in 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 | 17.7 (5) | +8.4 | 1 to 77 | +3.0 |
| 16 | Virginia | 5-1 | 1 in 3 | 3.9 | +1.1 | 11.4 (20) | +11.1 | 2 to 107 | -5.0 |
| 17 | Vanderbilt | 5-1 | 1 in 3 | 3.9 | +1.1 | 22.3 (2) | +0.4 | 1 to 46 | -5.0 |
| 18 | Georgia | 4-1 | 1 in 3 | 3.0 | +1.0 | 10.2 (25) | +11.9 | 2 to 114 | -2.0 |
| 19 | Houston | 4-1 | 1 in 3 | 3.0 | +1.0 | 6.1 (51) | +15.4 | 11 to 115 | -9.0 |
| 20 | Utah | 4-1 | 1 in 3 | 3.0 | +1.0 | 17.0 (7) | +4.2 | 2 to 80 | -7.0 |
| 21 | Iowa State | 5-1 | 1 in 3 | 4.1 | +0.9 | 8.1 (36) | +11.1 | 5 to 109 | +7.0 |
| 22 | Missouri | 5-0 | 1 in 3 | 4.2 | +0.8 | 7.8 (38) | +52.2 | 15 to 107 | -2.0 |
| 23 | Western Kentucky | 5-1 | 1 in 3 | 4.2 | +0.8 | 1.8 (72) | +18.0 | 18 to 130 | -13.0 |
| 24 | LSU | 4-1 | 1 in 3 | 3.2 | +0.8 | 6.6 (47) | +12.6 | 10 to 112 | +5.0 |
| 25 | South Florida | 4-1 | 1 in 3 | 3.3 | +0.7 | 6.3 (49) | +14.4 | 11 to 125 | +7.0 |
Show the full table: top 25 of 136, every columnthe published poll
| # | teamunderline: 90% rank interval · league median width 103 | how unlikely1 in this many |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | MiamiACC | 1.1541 in 14 |
| 2 | Texas TechBig 12 | 1.0991 in 13 |
| 3 | Texas A&MSEC | 0.9911 in 10 |
| 4 | IndianaBig Ten | 0.9581 in 9 |
| 5 | Ohio StateBig Ten | 0.9181 in 8 |
| 6 | MemphisAmerican Athletic | 0.8891 in 8 |
| 7 | OregonBig Ten | 0.8571 in 7 |
| 8 | IllinoisBig Ten | 0.7911 in 6 |
| 9 | OklahomaSEC | 0.7831 in 6 |
| 10 | Georgia TechACC | 0.7661 in 6 |
| 11 | BYUBig 12 | 0.7291 in 5 |
| 12 | UNLVMountain West | 0.7011 in 5 |
| 13 | North TexasAmerican Athletic | 0.6911 in 5 |
| 14 | Ole MissSEC | 0.6901 in 5 |
| 15 | AlabamaSEC | 0.6871 in 5 |
| 16 | VirginiaACC | 0.5401 in 3 |
| 17 | VanderbiltSEC | 0.5241 in 3 |
| 18 | GeorgiaSEC | 0.4961 in 3 |
| 19 | HoustonBig 12 | 0.4821 in 3 |
| 20 | UtahBig 12 | 0.4701 in 3 |
| 21 | Iowa StateBig 12 | 0.4231 in 3 |
| 22 | MissouriSEC | 0.4151 in 3 |
| 23 | Western KentuckyConference USA | 0.4051 in 3 |
| 24 | LSUSEC | 0.4021 in 3 |
| 25 | South FloridaAmerican Athletic | 0.4001 in 3 |
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
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: 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.