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.

  1. 1Texas A&M8-08-0Gap +42.91 in 61key 1.78Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 65 of 136 in 90% of them.
  2. 2Indiana8-08-0Gap +36.81 in 49key 1.69Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 46 of 136 in 90% of them.
  3. 3BYU8-08-0Gap +44.01 in 48key 1.68Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 71 of 136 in 90% of them.
  4. 4Ohio State7-07-0Gap +37.61 in 23key 1.36Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 55 of 136 in 90% of them.
  5. 5Georgia Tech8-08-0Gap +47.71 in 18key 1.26Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 89 of 136 in 90% of them.
  6. 6Alabama7-17-1Gap +12.51 in 16key 1.21Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 77 of 136 in 90% of them.
  7. 7Georgia6-16-1Gap +13.51 in 7key 0.82Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 97 of 136 in 90% of them.
  8. 8Ole Miss7-17-1Gap +16.61 in 6key 0.79Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 101 of 136 in 90% of them.
  9. 9Oregon7-17-1Gap +5.31 in 5key 0.72Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 50 of 136 in 90% of them.
  10. 10Texas Tech7-17-1Gap +5.81 in 5key 0.72Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 58 of 136 in 90% of them.
  11. 11Houston7-17-1Gap +14.31 in 5key 0.67Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 101 of 136 in 90% of them.
  12. 12Navy7-07-0Gap +50.91 in 4key 0.65Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 97 of 136 in 90% of them.
  13. 13Louisville6-16-1Gap +12.01 in 4key 0.64Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 92 of 136 in 90% of them.
  14. 14Vanderbilt7-17-1Gap +5.81 in 4key 0.62Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 58 of 136 in 90% of them.
  15. 15Miami6-16-1Gap +7.11 in 4key 0.62Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 82 of 136 in 90% of them.
  16. 16Virginia7-17-1Gap +13.41 in 4key 0.59Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 9 and 107 of 136 in 90% of them.
  17. 17South Florida6-26-2Gap +6.91 in 3key 0.53Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 89 of 136 in 90% of them.
  18. 18Michigan6-26-2Gap +5.71 in 3key 0.48Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 87 of 136 in 90% of them.
  19. 19North Texas7-17-1Gap +8.11 in 3key 0.48Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 86 of 136 in 90% of them.
  20. 20Tulane6-16-1Gap +15.01 in 3key 0.48Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 14 and 115 of 136 in 90% of them.
  21. 21Texas6-26-2Gap +7.11 in 3key 0.47Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 93 of 136 in 90% of them.
  22. 22Washington6-26-2Gap +5.31 in 3key 0.47Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 88 of 136 in 90% of them.
  23. 23Memphis7-17-1Gap +8.21 in 3key 0.45Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 88 of 136 in 90% of them.
  24. 24Notre Dame5-25-2Gap +3.71 in 3key 0.44Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 85 of 136 in 90% of them.
  25. 25Utah6-26-2Gap -3.11 in 3key 0.43Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 44 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 61 put Texas A&M 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 93 places.

2025 week 9 · 4c34ddec · 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.
#teamrecordhow unlikely1 in this manyexpectedwins this schedule asked forbeat that bypowerrating (rank)gapplaces from the pollrangein 90% of replayshindsight
1Texas A&M8-01 in 615.0+3.017.1 (8)+42.92 to 650.0
2Indiana8-01 in 495.4+2.623.2 (1)+36.81 to 460.0
3BYU8-01 in 485.2+2.816.0 (11)+44.03 to 710.0
4Ohio State7-01 in 234.7+2.322.4 (2)+37.62 to 550.0
5Georgia Tech8-01 in 185.7+2.312.3 (27)+47.75 to 89-3.0
6Alabama7-11 in 164.6+2.417.8 (7)+12.52 to 77+1.0
7Georgia6-11 in 74.3+1.713.5 (18)+13.54 to 97-2.0
8Ole Miss7-11 in 65.3+1.79.5 (39)+16.67 to 101+1.0
9Oregon7-11 in 55.5+1.520.2 (5)+5.31 to 50+3.0
10Texas Tech7-11 in 55.6+1.421.3 (4)+5.81 to 58-3.0
11Houston7-11 in 55.5+1.510.1 (37)+14.37 to 101-1.0
12Navy7-01 in 45.7+1.39.1 (43)+50.98 to 97-13.0
13Louisville6-11 in 44.7+1.313.5 (17)+12.06 to 92+2.0
14Vanderbilt7-11 in 45.7+1.318.6 (6)+5.82 to 580.0
15Miami6-11 in 44.7+1.317.0 (9)+7.12 to 82+5.0
16Virginia7-11 in 45.7+1.310.2 (35)+13.49 to 107+1.0
17South Florida6-21 in 34.9+1.113.7 (16)+6.93 to 89-1.0
18Michigan6-21 in 34.9+1.114.0 (14)+5.72 to 87-1.0
19North Texas7-11 in 35.9+1.113.4 (19)+8.14 to 86+3.0
20Tulane6-11 in 34.9+1.16.6 (58)+15.014 to 1150.0
21Texas6-21 in 35.0+1.012.9 (22)+7.14 to 93-3.0
22Washington6-21 in 35.0+1.014.0 (15)+5.33 to 88+1.0
23Memphis7-11 in 36.0+1.012.5 (26)+8.24 to 88-5.0
24Notre Dame5-21 in 34.1+0.915.4 (13)+3.72 to 85+7.0
25Utah6-21 in 35.0+1.021.8 (3)-3.11 to 44-1.0
Show the full table: top 25 of 136, every columnthe published poll
#teamunderline: 90% rank interval · league median width 93how unlikely1 in this many
1Texas A&MSEC8-0·Power 17.06 (8)·Gap +42.94Ranked 1. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 65 of 136 in 90% of them.1.7841 in 61
2IndianaBig Ten8-0·Power 23.21 (1)·Gap +36.79Ranked 2. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 46 of 136 in 90% of them.1.6871 in 49
3BYUBig 128-0·Power 15.95 (11)·Gap +44.05Ranked 3. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 71 of 136 in 90% of them.1.6771 in 48
4Ohio StateBig Ten7-0·Power 22.39 (2)·Gap +37.61Ranked 4. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 55 of 136 in 90% of them.1.3651 in 23
5Georgia TechACC8-0·Power 12.28 (27)·Gap +47.72·▼3Ranked 5. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 5 and 89 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2591 in 18
6AlabamaSEC7-1·Power 17.82 (7)·Gap +12.46·▲1Ranked 6. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 77 of 136 in 90% of them.1.2071 in 16
7GeorgiaSEC6-1·Power 13.46 (18)·Gap +13.49·▼2Ranked 7. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 97 of 136 in 90% of them.0.8211 in 7
8Ole MissSEC7-1·Power 9.49 (39)·Gap +16.60·▲1Ranked 8. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 101 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7861 in 6
9OregonBig Ten7-1·Power 20.17 (5)·Gap +5.29·▲3Ranked 9. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 50 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7211 in 5
10Texas TechBig 127-1·Power 21.34 (4)·Gap +5.78·▼3Ranked 10. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 58 of 136 in 90% of them.0.7181 in 5
11HoustonBig 127-1·Power 10.10 (37)·Gap +14.28·▼1Ranked 11. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 7 and 101 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6751 in 5
12NavyAmerican Athletic7-0·Power 9.14 (43)·Gap +50.86·▼13Ranked 12. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 8 and 97 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6481 in 4
13LouisvilleACC6-1·Power 13.46 (17)·Gap +12.00·▲2Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 92 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6401 in 4
14VanderbiltSEC7-1·Power 18.64 (6)·Gap +5.79Ranked 14. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 58 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6181 in 4
15MiamiACC6-1·Power 16.97 (9)·Gap +7.10·▲5Ranked 15. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 82 of 136 in 90% of them.0.6161 in 4
16VirginiaACC7-1·Power 10.22 (35)·Gap +13.36·▲1Ranked 16. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 9 and 107 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5871 in 4
17South FloridaAmerican Athletic6-2·Power 13.71 (16)·Gap +6.92·▼1Ranked 17. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 89 of 136 in 90% of them.0.5271 in 3
18MichiganBig Ten6-2·Power 13.99 (14)·Gap +5.74·▼1Ranked 18. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 87 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4851 in 3
19North TexasAmerican Athletic7-1·Power 13.35 (19)·Gap +8.06·▲3Ranked 19. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 86 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4851 in 3
20TulaneAmerican Athletic6-1·Power 6.60 (58)·Gap +14.97Ranked 20. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 14 and 115 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4821 in 3
21TexasSEC6-2·Power 12.88 (22)·Gap +7.15·▼3Ranked 21. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 93 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4711 in 3
22WashingtonBig Ten6-2·Power 13.98 (15)·Gap +5.34·▲1Ranked 22. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 3 and 88 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4671 in 3
23MemphisAmerican Athletic7-1·Power 12.52 (26)·Gap +8.24·▼5Ranked 23. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 4 and 88 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4511 in 3
24Notre DameFBS Independents5-2·Power 15.36 (13)·Gap +3.69·▲7Ranked 24. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 2 and 85 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4371 in 3
25UtahBig 126-2·Power 21.82 (3)·Gap -3.10·▼1Ranked 25. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 1 and 44 of 136 in 90% of them.0.4331 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

Full MeritMargin counts for exactly what it is worth. Nothing is protected.alternate lensJust 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: 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.
run 4c34ddec · published 2026-08-19 23:13:35 UTC · code e215160 · config 1ef7cf23…
q_ref 12.53 (Old Dominion) · β_w 7 · C 32 · h 4.864 · σ 16.105 · λ₁ 150 · λ₂ 0.5 · k 73.92 · w₁ 0.5837 · w₂ 0.0993
reproduce: uv run cfbpoll rank --season 2025 --through-week 9 --out out/
Close

rank 13

Louisville

6-1 · ACC. The model never reads conference names.

1 in 4how hard that record waskey 0.64
4.7wins this schedule asked for
+1.3how far past it they came

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

Ranked 13. The model replayed this schedule 1,000 times, and this team finished between 6 and 92 of 136 in 90% of them.

6 to 92 · 86 places wide

power13.5, ranked 17
gap+12.0
resume25.5, ranked 12
hindsight11 · +2.0 against this rank