The Poll.ai

2025 season · through week 9

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. 1Indiana8-08-0Gap +33.71 in 53key 1.72Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 20 of 136 in 90% of them.
  2. 2Ohio State7-07-0Gap +34.91 in 26key 1.42Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 32 of 136 in 90% of them.
  3. 3Texas Techpoll has it 107-17-1Gap +6.11 in 5key 0.71Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 33 of 136 in 90% of them.
  4. 4Oregonpoll has it 97-17-1Gap +4.81 in 5key 0.74Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 41 of 136 in 90% of them.
  5. 5Utahpoll has it 256-26-2Gap -3.41 in 3key 0.42Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 35 of 136 in 90% of them.
  6. 6BYU8-08-0Gap +41.51 in 50key 1.70Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 58 of 136 in 90% of them.
  7. 7Alabama7-17-1Gap +11.61 in 17key 1.23Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 55 of 136 in 90% of them.
  8. 8Texas A&Mpoll has it 18-08-0Gap +40.71 in 67key 1.83Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 61 of 136 in 90% of them.
  9. 9Notre Damepoll has it 245-25-2Gap +2.71 in 3key 0.45Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.
  10. 10Miamipoll has it 156-16-1Gap +6.81 in 4key 0.64Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 60 of 136 in 90% of them.
  11. 11Georgia6-16-1Gap +12.41 in 7key 0.83Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 77 of 136 in 90% of them.
  12. 12Vanderbilt7-17-1Gap +6.51 in 4key 0.64Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 48 of 136 in 90% of them.
  13. 13North Texaspoll has it 197-17-1Gap +7.01 in 3key 0.46Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 69 of 136 in 90% of them.
  14. 14South Florida6-26-2Gap +6.41 in 3key 0.53Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 71 of 136 in 90% of them.
  15. 15USCpoll has it 375-25-2Gap -1.51 in 2key 0.26Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 64 of 136 in 90% of them.
  16. 16Georgia Techpoll has it 58-08-0Gap +45.31 in 18key 1.25Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 77 of 136 in 90% of them.
  17. 17Washingtonpoll has it 226-26-2Gap +4.61 in 3key 0.48Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 74 of 136 in 90% of them.
  18. 18Ole Misspoll has it 87-17-1Gap +15.21 in 7key 0.82Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 9 and 89 of 136 in 90% of them.
  19. 19Texas6-26-2Gap +6.81 in 3key 0.48Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 72 of 136 in 90% of them.
  20. 20Oklahomapoll has it 316-26-2Gap +3.11 in 2key 0.34Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 77 of 136 in 90% of them.
  21. 21Michigan6-26-2Gap +5.41 in 3key 0.51Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 71 of 136 in 90% of them.
  22. 22Missouripoll has it 326-26-2Gap +4.41 in 2key 0.29Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 77 of 136 in 90% of them.
  23. 23Tennesseepoll has it 296-26-2Gap +2.01 in 2key 0.37Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.
  24. 24Pittsburghpoll has it 386-26-2Gap +1.51 in 2key 0.23Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 72 of 136 in 90% of them.
  25. 25Memphis7-17-1Gap +7.71 in 3key 0.42Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 72 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 53 put Indiana 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 82 places.

2025 week 9 · b5c2ba3d · 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
1Indiana8-01 in 535.4+2.626.3 (1)+33.71 to 200.0
2Ohio State7-01 in 264.6+2.425.1 (2)+34.91 to 320.0
3Texas Tech7-11 in 55.7+1.322.4 (4)+6.11 to 33-1.0
4Oregon7-11 in 55.4+1.622.4 (5)+4.81 to 41+1.0
5Utah6-21 in 35.1+0.923.5 (3)-3.41 to 350.0
6BYU8-01 in 505.2+2.818.5 (11)+41.53 to 58-1.0
7Alabama7-11 in 174.6+2.420.3 (6)+11.62 to 55+1.0
8Texas A&M8-01 in 675.0+3.019.3 (8)+40.72 to 610.0
9Notre Dame5-21 in 34.0+1.018.0 (12)+2.73 to 68-1.0
10Miami6-11 in 44.6+1.419.1 (9)+6.82 to 60+1.0
11Georgia6-11 in 74.3+1.716.1 (16)+12.44 to 770.0
12Vanderbilt7-11 in 45.6+1.419.7 (7)+6.52 to 48-2.0
13North Texas7-11 in 36.0+1.015.5 (18)+7.04 to 69-2.0
14South Florida6-21 in 34.9+1.115.8 (17)+6.44 to 71-2.0
15USC5-21 in 24.6+0.418.7 (10)-1.53 to 64+3.0
16Georgia Tech8-01 in 185.8+2.214.7 (22)+45.35 to 77-6.0
17Washington6-21 in 34.9+1.116.4 (14)+4.65 to 74-1.0
18Ole Miss7-11 in 75.3+1.712.8 (29)+15.29 to 89+5.0
19Texas6-21 in 35.0+1.014.9 (21)+6.86 to 72-5.0
20Oklahoma6-21 in 25.3+0.715.4 (19)+3.14 to 77+3.0
21Michigan6-21 in 34.9+1.116.3 (15)+5.44 to 71+2.0
22Missouri6-21 in 25.5+0.513.5 (27)+4.47 to 77-1.0
23Tennessee6-21 in 25.2+0.817.3 (13)+2.04 to 68-2.0
24Pittsburgh6-21 in 25.7+0.314.4 (23)+1.55 to 72-4.0
25Memphis7-11 in 36.1+0.914.0 (25)+7.75 to 72-4.0
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 82how unlikely1 in this many
1IndianaBig Ten8-0·Power 26.28 (1)·Gap +33.72Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 20 of 136 in 90% of them.1.7211 in 53
2Ohio StateBig Ten7-0·Power 25.10 (2)·Gap +34.90Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 32 of 136 in 90% of them.1.4221 in 26
3Texas TechBig 127-1·Power 22.44 (4)·Gap +6.06·▼1Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 33 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7061 in 5
4OregonBig Ten7-1·Power 22.41 (5)·Gap +4.76·▲1Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 41 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7381 in 5
5UtahBig 126-2·Power 23.45 (3)·Gap -3.40Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 35 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4241 in 3
6BYUBig 128-0·Power 18.49 (11)·Gap +41.51·▼1Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 58 of 136 in 90% of them.1.7031 in 50
7AlabamaSEC7-1·Power 20.26 (6)·Gap +11.64·▲1Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 55 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2341 in 17
8Texas A&MSEC8-0·Power 19.32 (8)·Gap +40.68Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 61 of 136 in 90% of them.1.8271 in 67
9Notre DameFBS Independents5-2·Power 18.02 (12)·Gap +2.67·▼1Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4471 in 3
10MiamiACC6-1·Power 19.10 (9)·Gap +6.81·▲1Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 60 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6441 in 4
11GeorgiaSEC6-1·Power 16.05 (16)·Gap +12.40Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 77 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8311 in 7
12VanderbiltSEC7-1·Power 19.73 (7)·Gap +6.54·▼2Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 48 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6391 in 4
13North TexasAmerican Athletic7-1·Power 15.46 (18)·Gap +7.05·▼2Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 69 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4631 in 3
14South FloridaAmerican Athletic6-2·Power 15.85 (17)·Gap +6.41·▼2Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 71 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5331 in 3
15USCBig Ten5-2·Power 18.66 (10)·Gap -1.51·▲3Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 64 of 136 in 90% of them.0.2621 in 2
16Georgia TechACC8-0·Power 14.65 (22)·Gap +45.35·▼6Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 77 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2451 in 18
17WashingtonBig Ten6-2·Power 16.42 (14)·Gap +4.61·▼1Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 74 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4811 in 3
18Ole MissSEC7-1·Power 12.76 (29)·Gap +15.23·▲5Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 9 and 89 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8211 in 7
19TexasSEC6-2·Power 14.90 (21)·Gap +6.79·▼5Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 72 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4771 in 3
20OklahomaSEC6-2·Power 15.38 (19)·Gap +3.08·▲3Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 77 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3451 in 2
21MichiganBig Ten6-2·Power 16.29 (15)·Gap +5.36·▲2Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 71 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5141 in 3
22MissouriSEC6-2·Power 13.53 (27)·Gap +4.42·▼1Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 77 of 136 in 90% of them.0.2901 in 2
23TennesseeSEC6-2·Power 17.28 (13)·Gap +2.02·▼2Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 68 of 136 in 90% of them.0.3681 in 2
24PittsburghACC6-2·Power 14.40 (23)·Gap +1.50·▼4Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 72 of 136 in 90% of them.0.2271 in 2
25MemphisAmerican Athletic7-1·Power 14.01 (25)·Gap +7.69·▼4Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 72 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4211 in 3

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 1,065 games, and the digest of that exact frame is ee59f839a0ed 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 b5c2ba3d · published 2026-08-15 17:13:03 UTC · code c5ee855 · config bf0fa1a3…
q_ref 14.01 (Memphis) · β_w 12 · C uncapped · h 4.839 · σ 15.964 · λ₁ 150 · λ₂ 0.5 · k 73.92 · w₁ 0.4540 · w₂ 0.1820
reproduce: uv run cfbpoll rank --season 2025 --through-week 9 --out out/
Close

rank 21

Michigan

6-2 · Big Ten. The model never reads conference names.

1 in 3how hard that record waskey 0.51
4.9wins this schedule asked for
+1.1how far past it they came

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

Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 71 of 136 in 90% of them.

4 to 71 · 67 places wide

power16.3, ranked 15
gap+5.4
resume21.7, ranked 22
hindsight19 · +2.0 against this rank