The Poll.ai

2025 season · through week 7

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. 1Indiana6-06-0Gap +35.11 in 41key 1.62Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 39 of 136 in 90% of them.
  2. 2Texas Tech6-06-0Gap +34.21 in 19key 1.29Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 32 of 136 in 90% of them.
  3. 3Ohio State6-06-0Gap +37.61 in 24key 1.37Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 45 of 136 in 90% of them.
  4. 4Miami5-05-0Gap +39.41 in 17key 1.22Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.
  5. 5Utahpoll has it 155-15-1Gap +3.41 in 4key 0.56Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 50 of 136 in 90% of them.
  6. 6Oregonpoll has it 195-15-1Gap +4.71 in 3key 0.51Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 60 of 136 in 90% of them.
  7. 7Alabama5-15-1Gap +11.01 in 8key 0.92Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 62 of 136 in 90% of them.
  8. 8Notre Damepoll has it 324-24-2Gap +1.21 in 2key 0.34Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 75 of 136 in 90% of them.
  9. 9BYU6-06-0Gap +44.11 in 10key 1.00Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 78 of 136 in 90% of them.
  10. 10Vanderbiltpoll has it 185-15-1Gap +2.71 in 3key 0.47Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 45 of 136 in 90% of them.
  11. 11Memphis6-06-0Gap +43.91 in 6key 0.76Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 71 of 136 in 90% of them.
  12. 12USCpoll has it 255-15-1Gap +3.21 in 3key 0.40Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 65 of 136 in 90% of them.
  13. 13South Florida5-15-1Gap +14.11 in 6key 0.78Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 79 of 136 in 90% of them.
  14. 14Washingtonpoll has it 205-15-1Gap +8.41 in 3key 0.51Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 82 of 136 in 90% of them.
  15. 15Georgia5-15-1Gap +11.91 in 5key 0.70Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 85 of 136 in 90% of them.
  16. 16Texas A&Mpoll has it 46-06-0Gap +43.51 in 17key 1.24Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 84 of 136 in 90% of them.
  17. 17Oklahomapoll has it 225-15-1Gap +9.21 in 3key 0.45Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 86 of 136 in 90% of them.
  18. 18Virginia5-15-1Gap +9.71 in 3key 0.49Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 82 of 136 in 90% of them.
  19. 19Nebraskapoll has it 315-15-1Gap +9.41 in 2key 0.34Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 98 of 136 in 90% of them.
  20. 20Ole Misspoll has it 106-06-0Gap +50.31 in 6key 0.79Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 11 and 105 of 136 in 90% of them.
  21. 21Tennesseepoll has it 265-15-1Gap +5.71 in 2key 0.39Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 81 of 136 in 90% of them.
  22. 22Georgia Techpoll has it 76-06-0Gap +48.51 in 8key 0.93Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 98 of 136 in 90% of them.
  23. 23Missouripoll has it 375-15-1Gap +5.71 in 2key 0.23Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 93 of 136 in 90% of them.
  24. 24LSU5-15-1Gap +12.21 in 3key 0.51Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 9 and 98 of 136 in 90% of them.
  25. 25Florida Statepoll has it 723-33-3Gap -9.61 in 1key 0.05Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 78 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 41 put Indiana on top. One in 1 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 89 places.

2025 week 7 · 5c9d7fe3 · 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
1Indiana6-01 in 413.6+2.424.9 (2)+35.11 to 390.0
2Texas Tech6-01 in 194.1+1.925.8 (1)+34.21 to 32-1.0
3Ohio State6-01 in 243.8+2.222.4 (3)+37.61 to 45+1.0
4Miami5-01 in 173.0+2.020.6 (6)+39.41 to 68-1.0
5Utah5-11 in 43.8+1.221.4 (5)+3.41 to 50-1.0
6Oregon5-11 in 34.0+1.019.8 (8)+4.72 to 60+2.0
7Alabama5-11 in 83.3+1.720.0 (7)+11.02 to 620.0
8Notre Dame4-21 in 23.4+0.617.3 (10)+1.23 to 75-1.0
9BYU6-01 in 104.3+1.715.9 (15)+44.14 to 78-2.0
10Vanderbilt5-11 in 34.1+0.921.9 (4)+2.71 to 45-4.0
11Memphis6-01 in 64.5+1.516.1 (14)+43.93 to 71-7.0
12USC5-11 in 34.2+0.818.9 (9)+3.22 to 65+2.0
13South Florida5-11 in 63.5+1.515.4 (20)+14.14 to 79+1.0
14Washington5-11 in 33.9+1.115.6 (17)+8.44 to 82+1.0
15Georgia5-11 in 53.6+1.415.6 (19)+11.94 to 85-1.0
16Texas A&M6-01 in 173.9+2.116.5 (13)+43.53 to 84+8.0
17Oklahoma5-11 in 34.1+0.913.8 (23)+9.25 to 86+2.0
18Virginia5-11 in 34.0+1.014.6 (21)+9.74 to 82-1.0
19Nebraska5-11 in 24.3+0.711.1 (37)+9.47 to 98-5.0
20Ole Miss6-01 in 64.5+1.59.7 (46)+50.311 to 105+3.0
21Tennessee5-11 in 24.2+0.815.9 (16)+5.74 to 81-4.0
22Georgia Tech6-01 in 84.3+1.711.5 (34)+48.58 to 98-6.0
23Missouri5-11 in 24.6+0.412.0 (32)+5.77 to 93-3.0
24LSU5-11 in 33.9+1.111.7 (33)+12.29 to 98+4.0
25Florida State3-31 in 13.8-0.815.6 (18)-9.64 to 78+3.0
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 89how unlikely1 in this many
1IndianaBig Ten6-0·Power 24.87 (2)·Gap +35.13Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 39 of 136 in 90% of them.1.6151 in 41
2Texas TechBig 126-0·Power 25.80 (1)·Gap +34.20·▼1Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 32 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2891 in 19
3Ohio StateBig Ten6-0·Power 22.41 (3)·Gap +37.59·▲1Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 45 of 136 in 90% of them.1.3751 in 24
4MiamiACC5-0·Power 20.61 (6)·Gap +39.39·▼1Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2211 in 17
5UtahBig 125-1·Power 21.35 (5)·Gap +3.43·▼1Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 50 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5561 in 4
6OregonBig Ten5-1·Power 19.78 (8)·Gap +4.74·▲2Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 60 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5061 in 3
7AlabamaSEC5-1·Power 19.96 (7)·Gap +11.01Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 62 of 136 in 90% of them.0.9221 in 8
8Notre DameFBS Independents4-2·Power 17.34 (10)·Gap +1.23·▼1Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 75 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3381 in 2
9BYUBig 126-0·Power 15.94 (15)·Gap +44.06·▼2Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 78 of 136 in 90% of them.0.9961 in 10
10VanderbiltSEC5-1·Power 21.86 (4)·Gap +2.71·▼4Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 45 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4671 in 3
11MemphisAmerican Athletic6-0·Power 16.07 (14)·Gap +43.93·▼7Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 71 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7561 in 6
12USCBig Ten5-1·Power 18.88 (9)·Gap +3.18·▲2Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 65 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4021 in 3
13South FloridaAmerican Athletic5-1·Power 15.41 (20)·Gap +14.14·▲1Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 79 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7781 in 6
14WashingtonBig Ten5-1·Power 15.64 (17)·Gap +8.42·▲1Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 82 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5111 in 3
15GeorgiaSEC5-1·Power 15.56 (19)·Gap +11.95·▼1Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 85 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7011 in 5
16Texas A&MSEC6-0·Power 16.48 (13)·Gap +43.52·▲8Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 84 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2371 in 17
17OklahomaSEC5-1·Power 13.85 (23)·Gap +9.22·▲2Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 86 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4541 in 3
18VirginiaACC5-1·Power 14.60 (21)·Gap +9.74·▼1Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 82 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4881 in 3
19NebraskaBig Ten5-1·Power 11.11 (37)·Gap +9.42·▼5Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 98 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3381 in 2
20Ole MissSEC6-0·Power 9.75 (46)·Gap +50.25·▲3Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 11 and 105 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7941 in 6
21TennesseeSEC5-1·Power 15.93 (16)·Gap +5.73·▼4Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 81 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3921 in 2
22Georgia TechACC6-0·Power 11.51 (34)·Gap +48.49·▼6Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 98 of 136 in 90% of them.0.9281 in 8
23MissouriSEC5-1·Power 11.98 (32)·Gap +5.66·▼3Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 93 of 136 in 90% of them.0.2331 in 2
24LSUSEC5-1·Power 11.73 (33)·Gap +12.15·▲4Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 9 and 98 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5141 in 3
25Florida StateACC3-3·Power 15.64 (18)·Gap -9.64·▲3Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 78 of 136 in 90% of them.0.0511 in 1

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 840 games, and the digest of that exact frame is 8834d28d912e 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 5c9d7fe3 · published 2026-08-15 17:12:19 UTC · code c5ee855 · config bf0fa1a3…
q_ref 13.08 (Iowa) · β_w 12 · C uncapped · h 5.443 · σ 17.268 · λ₁ 125 · λ₂ 0.5 · k 74.78 · w₁ 0.4922 · w₂ 0.1311
reproduce: uv run cfbpoll rank --season 2025 --through-week 7 --out out/
Close

rank 6

Oregon

5-1 · Big Ten. The model never reads conference names.

1 in 3how hard that record waskey 0.51
4.0wins this schedule asked for
+1.0how 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 2 and 60 of 136 in 90% of them.

2 to 60 · 58 places wide

power19.8, ranked 8
gap+4.7
resume24.5, ranked 17
hindsight4 · +2.0 against this rank