Connectivity report · 2025 week 9
What this ranking is standing on.
The poll opened in Week 5. This is week 9; the schedule graph below is what the ranking is standing on.
The schedule graph
Diagnostics
| teams in the fitEvery team with at least one game against an FBS or FCS opponent. | 315 |
|---|---|
| games played | 1065 |
| connected componentsSeparate islands of the schedule graph. Two teams in different components have no chain of results connecting them at all, at any length. | 1 |
| largest componentShare of the field that is mutually comparable through played games. | 315 teams (100.0%) |
| bridge gamesSingle games whose removal would split the graph in two, each holding at least two teams on. Every rating on the far side rests on that one result. | 0 |
| fitted λ₂ (results core)Chosen by cross-validation every week. λ is a ratio of variances, a statement about how much the model does not know, containing no team-specific information whatsoever. It is large when the data is thin and falls as the season accumulates. Regularization stays a statement about variance and never becomes a reputation prior. | 0.500 |
| median 90% rank-interval widthOut of 136 ranked teams, from 1,000 replays of this exact schedule. This is the number that says whether the season has settled. | 93 places |
| teams whose interval spans the league90% interval at least 90% as wide as the whole field. | 0 |
| teams no closer than three hops to the top tenThey have not played a top-ten team and share no opponent with one. Their position relative to the top of the poll is an extrapolation. | 113 |
These are the measures for the weeks before the poll opens, published whether or not they are flattering. The one worth understanding is the penalty the model puts on itself: chosen fresh every week by testing, identical for every team, and carrying nothing about any particular one. Pulling an unknown team toward the middle is a statement about the model’s own ignorance, which is why it can produce a number in week 2 without being told which conferences are supposed to be good.
Bridge games
No bridge games this week. Every link in the graph has a second path around it, which means no single result is load-bearing for a whole cluster of ratings. That is a good week, and it is the first thing that stops being true when you go looking at week 2.
What would have to be true
The graph is welded: every team is connected to every other through some chain of results. That is the condition under which a ranking is a measurement rather than an extrapolation, and it is why the opening week is week 5 and not week 1.
Every one of these is worth more to this poll than its television slot suggests. They are the games that turn two separate islands of results into one comparable field, and no ranking that exists today will tell you which they are.
The provisional table
The estimator runs from week 1. The headline poll does not. What is behind this click is real output from the real model on the real schedule, and it is not the poll. It is labelled provisional on every row, on purpose, because the difference between computing something and being willing to publish it as a ranking is the entire point of this page.
Show the provisional table: 136 teams, ranked by schedule oddsThis week is past the start line: this is the published poll.
| # | teamunderline: 90% rank interval · league median width 93 | how unlikely1 in this many |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Texas A&MSEC | 1.7841 in 61 |
| 2 | IndianaBig Ten | 1.6871 in 49 |
| 3 | BYUBig 12 | 1.6771 in 48 |
| 4 | Ohio StateBig Ten | 1.3651 in 23 |
| 5 | Georgia TechACC | 1.2591 in 18 |
| 6 | AlabamaSEC | 1.2071 in 16 |
| 7 | GeorgiaSEC | 0.8211 in 7 |
| 8 | Ole MissSEC | 0.7861 in 6 |
| 9 | OregonBig Ten | 0.7211 in 5 |
| 10 | Texas TechBig 12 | 0.7181 in 5 |
| 11 | HoustonBig 12 | 0.6751 in 5 |
| 12 | NavyAmerican Athletic | 0.6481 in 4 |
| 13 | LouisvilleACC | 0.6401 in 4 |
| 14 | VanderbiltSEC | 0.6181 in 4 |
| 15 | MiamiACC | 0.6161 in 4 |
| 16 | VirginiaACC | 0.5871 in 4 |
| 17 | South FloridaAmerican Athletic | 0.5271 in 3 |
| 18 | MichiganBig Ten | 0.4851 in 3 |
| 19 | North TexasAmerican Athletic | 0.4851 in 3 |
| 20 | TulaneAmerican Athletic | 0.4821 in 3 |
| 21 | TexasSEC | 0.4711 in 3 |
| 22 | WashingtonBig Ten | 0.4671 in 3 |
| 23 | MemphisAmerican Athletic | 0.4511 in 3 |
| 24 | Notre DameFBS Independents | 0.4371 in 3 |
| 25 | UtahBig 12 | 0.4331 in 3 |
Top 25 of 136. The full table, the résumé column, the schedule receipts and the sort controls arrive with the week 5 launch.