The Poll.ai

2025 season · through week 8

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. 1Indiana7-07-0Gap +36.21 in 55key 1.74Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 34 of 136 in 90% of them.
  2. 2Ohio State7-07-0Gap +36.11 in 26key 1.42Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 35 of 136 in 90% of them.
  3. 3Oregonpoll has it 106-16-1Gap +2.71 in 5key 0.68Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 33 of 136 in 90% of them.
  4. 4Texas Techpoll has it 96-16-1Gap +5.21 in 5key 0.74Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 35 of 136 in 90% of them.
  5. 5Utahpoll has it 275-25-2Gap -2.01 in 3key 0.40Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 44 of 136 in 90% of them.
  6. 6Alabama6-16-1Gap +11.41 in 11key 1.04Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 61 of 136 in 90% of them.
  7. 7BYU7-07-0Gap +43.81 in 23key 1.36Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 67 of 136 in 90% of them.
  8. 8Notre Damepoll has it 245-25-2Gap +3.21 in 3key 0.46Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 71 of 136 in 90% of them.
  9. 9Miamipoll has it 145-15-1Gap +7.71 in 4key 0.63Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 72 of 136 in 90% of them.
  10. 10South Florida6-16-1Gap +13.01 in 6key 0.78Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 71 of 136 in 90% of them.
  11. 11Vanderbiltpoll has it 166-16-1Gap +4.91 in 4key 0.56Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 45 of 136 in 90% of them.
  12. 12Oklahoma6-16-1Gap +9.11 in 4key 0.63Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 72 of 136 in 90% of them.
  13. 13Texas A&Mpoll has it 27-07-0Gap +43.51 in 33key 1.52Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 78 of 136 in 90% of them.
  14. 14Georgiapoll has it 76-16-1Gap +12.61 in 6key 0.80Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 82 of 136 in 90% of them.
  15. 15USCpoll has it 365-25-2Gap -1.31 in 2key 0.29Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 59 of 136 in 90% of them.
  16. 16Georgia Techpoll has it 57-07-0Gap +47.01 in 18key 1.25Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 89 of 136 in 90% of them.
  17. 17Missouripoll has it 266-16-1Gap +8.91 in 3key 0.41Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 83 of 136 in 90% of them.
  18. 18North Texaspoll has it 236-16-1Gap +7.11 in 3key 0.43Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 82 of 136 in 90% of them.
  19. 19Louisvillepoll has it 135-15-1Gap +10.71 in 4key 0.65Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 77 of 136 in 90% of them.
  20. 20Virginiapoll has it 156-16-1Gap +11.41 in 4key 0.54Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 88 of 136 in 90% of them.
  21. 21Washingtonpoll has it 325-25-2Gap +4.11 in 2key 0.34Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 80 of 136 in 90% of them.
  22. 22Ole Misspoll has it 176-16-1Gap +13.41 in 4key 0.55Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 10 and 101 of 136 in 90% of them.
  23. 23Texaspoll has it 335-25-2Gap +2.91 in 2key 0.32Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 74 of 136 in 90% of them.
  24. 24Memphispoll has it 296-16-1Gap +5.71 in 2key 0.32Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 80 of 136 in 90% of them.
  25. 25Pittsburghpoll has it 375-25-2Gap +0.91 in 2key 0.20Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 82 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 55 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 86.5 places.

2025 week 8 · 7841f2e9 · 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
1Indiana7-01 in 554.4+2.623.8 (2)+36.21 to 340.0
2Ohio State7-01 in 264.6+2.423.9 (1)+36.11 to 350.0
3Oregon6-11 in 54.6+1.423.4 (3)+2.71 to 330.0
4Texas Tech6-11 in 54.6+1.422.8 (4)+5.21 to 350.0
5Utah5-21 in 34.1+0.921.1 (5)-2.01 to 44-4.0
6Alabama6-11 in 114.0+2.019.0 (7)+11.42 to 61+1.0
7BYU7-01 in 234.7+2.316.2 (12)+43.84 to 670.0
8Notre Dame5-21 in 34.0+1.017.0 (10)+3.23 to 71+2.0
9Miami5-11 in 43.7+1.317.8 (9)+7.72 to 72+1.0
10South Florida6-11 in 64.5+1.515.1 (17)+13.03 to 710.0
11Vanderbilt6-11 in 44.8+1.219.9 (6)+4.91 to 45-4.0
12Oklahoma6-11 in 44.6+1.415.9 (14)+9.13 to 720.0
13Texas A&M7-01 in 334.5+2.516.5 (11)+43.53 to 78+2.0
14Georgia6-11 in 64.3+1.714.8 (18)+12.64 to 82+1.0
15USC5-21 in 24.5+0.518.2 (8)-1.33 to 59+1.0
16Georgia Tech7-01 in 184.8+2.213.0 (26)+47.06 to 89-8.0
17Missouri6-11 in 35.2+0.812.7 (29)+8.96 to 83-2.0
18North Texas6-11 in 35.1+0.914.5 (19)+7.14 to 82+2.0
19Louisville5-11 in 43.7+1.316.0 (13)+10.73 to 77+2.0
20Virginia6-11 in 44.9+1.112.9 (28)+11.47 to 88-3.0
21Washington5-21 in 24.3+0.713.9 (22)+4.14 to 80-1.0
22Ole Miss6-11 in 44.8+1.210.6 (41)+13.410 to 101+4.0
23Texas5-21 in 24.4+0.615.3 (16)+2.94 to 74-3.0
24Memphis6-11 in 25.3+0.713.5 (24)+5.74 to 80-10.0
25Pittsburgh5-21 in 24.8+0.213.5 (23)+0.95 to 82-6.0
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 86.5how unlikely1 in this many
1IndianaBig Ten7-0·Power 23.82 (2)·Gap +36.18Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 34 of 136 in 90% of them.1.7401 in 55
2Ohio StateBig Ten7-0·Power 23.87 (1)·Gap +36.13Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 35 of 136 in 90% of them.1.4171 in 26
3OregonBig Ten6-1·Power 23.36 (3)·Gap +2.69Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 33 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6821 in 5
4Texas TechBig 126-1·Power 22.84 (4)·Gap +5.23Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 35 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7361 in 5
5UtahBig 125-2·Power 21.15 (5)·Gap -2.03·▼4Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 44 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4031 in 3
6AlabamaSEC6-1·Power 19.01 (7)·Gap +11.42·▲1Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 61 of 136 in 90% of them.1.0401 in 11
7BYUBig 127-0·Power 16.18 (12)·Gap +43.82Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 67 of 136 in 90% of them.1.3581 in 23
8Notre DameFBS Independents5-2·Power 17.03 (10)·Gap +3.17·▲2Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 71 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4641 in 3
9MiamiACC5-1·Power 17.81 (9)·Gap +7.67·▲1Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 72 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6331 in 4
10South FloridaAmerican Athletic6-1·Power 15.14 (17)·Gap +12.99Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 71 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7801 in 6
11VanderbiltSEC6-1·Power 19.94 (6)·Gap +4.91·▼4Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 45 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5581 in 4
12OklahomaSEC6-1·Power 15.92 (14)·Gap +9.05Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 72 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6291 in 4
13Texas A&MSEC7-0·Power 16.54 (11)·Gap +43.46·▲2Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 78 of 136 in 90% of them.1.5191 in 33
14GeorgiaSEC6-1·Power 14.76 (18)·Gap +12.59·▲1Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 82 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7971 in 6
15USCBig Ten5-2·Power 18.23 (8)·Gap -1.29·▲1Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 59 of 136 in 90% of them.0.2861 in 2
16Georgia TechACC7-0·Power 13.01 (26)·Gap +46.99·▼8Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 89 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2481 in 18
17MissouriSEC6-1·Power 12.74 (29)·Gap +8.94·▼2Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 83 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4091 in 3
18North TexasAmerican Athletic6-1·Power 14.51 (19)·Gap +7.08·▲2Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 82 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4331 in 3
19LouisvilleACC5-1·Power 15.96 (13)·Gap +10.70·▲2Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 77 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6511 in 4
20VirginiaACC6-1·Power 12.89 (28)·Gap +11.44·▼3Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 88 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5451 in 4
21WashingtonBig Ten5-2·Power 13.94 (22)·Gap +4.15·▼1Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 80 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3431 in 2
22Ole MissSEC6-1·Power 10.57 (41)·Gap +13.40·▲4Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 10 and 101 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5531 in 4
23TexasSEC5-2·Power 15.27 (16)·Gap +2.88·▼3Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 74 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3161 in 2
24MemphisAmerican Athletic6-1·Power 13.49 (24)·Gap +5.72·▼10Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 80 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3251 in 2
25PittsburghACC5-2·Power 13.55 (23)·Gap +0.90·▼6Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 82 of 136 in 90% of them.0.2021 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 952 games, and the digest of that exact frame is d2ed101a0fca 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 7841f2e9 · published 2026-08-15 17:12:40 UTC · code c5ee855 · config bf0fa1a3…
q_ref 13.11 (Florida State) · β_w 12 · C uncapped · h 5.077 · σ 16.364 · λ₁ 150 · λ₂ 0.5 · k 76.66 · w₁ 0.4737 · w₂ 0.1501
reproduce: uv run cfbpoll rank --season 2025 --through-week 8 --out out/
Close

rank 24

Memphis

6-1 · American Athletic. The model never reads conference names.

1 in 2how hard that record waskey 0.32
5.3wins this schedule asked for
+0.7how far past it they came

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

Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 80 of 136 in 90% of them.

4 to 80 · 76 places wide

power13.5, ranked 24
gap+5.7
resume19.2, ranked 29
hindsight34 · -10.0 against this rank