Rate
Raw scoring margins enter a pure least-squares Massey system. FCS opponents remain in the network, while only FBS teams are ranked.
College football · 2026 · Through Week 3
A transparent Massey system for team strength, game probabilities, and projected regular-season records—built to change as the games do.
The distinction
Rank measures estimated team strength. Projected wins combine that strength with the difficulty and location of each opponent.
These are preseason estimates, not declarations. Team strength varies in each of 50,000 simulations, and the prior disappears after a team’s fourth game.
Through Week 3
Results included through September 20, 2026.
| Rank | Team | Actual | Rating | SOS | Game projection | Conference projection | 6+ wins | View team |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1▲ 2 | Notre Dame | 3–0 | 47.4 | #5416.2 avg. | 12–0 | 0–0 | 100% | |
| 2▲ 3 | Alabama | 3–0 | 46.3 | #626.0 avg. | 12–0 | 9–0 | 100% | |
| 3▲ 4 | Texas | 3–0 | 46.1 | #229.3 avg. | 12–0 | 9–0 | 99% | |
| 4▼ 2 | Ohio State | 2–1 | 45.0 | #1424.5 avg. | 10–2 | 8–1 | 97% | |
| 5▼ 1 | Utah | 3–0 | 44.8 | #4817.9 avg. | 12–0 | 9–0 | 100% | |
| 6▼ 5 | Indiana | 3–0 | 39.3 | #5815.2 avg. | 11–1 | 8–1 | 100% | |
| 7▼ 1 | Texas A&M | 2–1 | 38.8 | #1324.8 avg. | 7–5 | 4–5 | 91% | |
| 8▲ 1 | Georgia | 3–0 | 38.1 | #3220.7 avg. | 10–2 | 7–2 | 98% | |
| 9▲ 1 | LSU | 2–1 | 37.4 | #1724.0 avg. | 8–4 | 5–4 | 92% | |
| 10▲ 4 | Penn State | 3–0 | 37.2 | #5515.9 avg. | 12–0 | 9–0 | 100% | |
| 11▲ 6 | Ole Miss | 3–0 | 37.0 | #825.5 avg. | 9–3 | 6–3 | 98% | |
| 12▼ 4 | Miami | 3–0 | 36.6 | #6913.5 avg. | 11–1 | 9–0 | 100% | |
| 13▲ 12 | Nebraska | 3–0 | 36.4 | #2122.6 avg. | 9–3 | 6–3 | 97% | |
| 14▲ 6 | Pittsburgh | 3–0 | 36.1 | #6414.7 avg. | 10–2 | 7–2 | 100% | |
| 15▼ 3 | Oklahoma | 2–1 | 34.8 | #130.2 avg. | 7–5 | 5–4 | 74% | |
| 16▼ 3 | Iowa | 3–0 | 34.8 | #3819.7 avg. | 10–2 | 7–2 | 97% | |
| 17▲ 15 | Mississippi State | 3–0 | 34.0 | #1025.3 avg. | 8–4 | 5–4 | 96% | |
| 18▼ 7 | BYU | 3–0 | 33.8 | #2421.8 avg. | 10–2 | 8–1 | 97% | |
| 19 | Tennessee | 3–0 | 33.3 | #1524.3 avg. | 7–5 | 4–5 | 93% | |
| 20▲ 3 | Oregon | 2–1 | 33.1 | #2721.2 avg. | 10–2 | 8–1 | 86% | |
| 21▲ 9 | Florida | 3–0 | 31.7 | #1224.9 avg. | 8–4 | 5–4 | 89% | |
| 22▲ 11 | Louisville | 2–1 | 31.5 | #4418.7 avg. | 10–2 | 9–0 | 94% | |
| 23▼ 2 | Michigan | 3–0 | 30.7 | #725.6 avg. | 8–4 | 5–4 | 94% | |
| 24▼ 9 | Kansas State | 3–0 | 30.7 | #6714.4 avg. | 11–1 | 8–1 | 98% | |
| 25▲ 3 | South Carolina | 2–1 | 30.0 | #1823.5 avg. | 6–6 | 3–6 | 73% | |
| 26▲ 26 | Kentucky | 2–1 | 29.8 | #328.9 avg. | 6–6 | 3–6 | 77% | |
| 27▼ 3 | Vanderbilt | 3–0 | 29.6 | #427.5 avg. | 5–7 | 2–7 | 87% | |
| 28▲ 8 | Duke | 3–0 | 29.3 | #6514.6 avg. | 10–2 | 7–2 | 99% | |
| 29▲ 20 | Virginia Tech | 3–0 | 28.5 | #6813.9 avg. | 9–3 | 6–3 | 98% | |
| 30▲ 4 | James Madison | 3–0 | 27.9 | #1221.3 avg. | 12–0 | 8–0 | 100% | |
| 31▼ 15 | Virginia | 2–1 | 27.8 | #5715.6 avg. | 8–4 | 6–3 | 92% | |
| 32▲ 6 | Maryland | 2–1 | 27.4 | #3320.6 avg. | 7–5 | 5–4 | 81% | |
| 33▲ 12 | Iowa State | 2–1 | 27.1 | #3120.8 avg. | 7–5 | 5–4 | 78% | |
| 34▼ 12 | Texas Tech | 3–0 | 27.0 | #6215.0 avg. | 11–1 | 8–1 | 98% | |
| 35▼ 9 | Missouri | 3–0 | 26.4 | #925.3 avg. | 6–6 | 3–6 | 81% | |
| 36▲ 3 | Illinois | 2–1 | 26.4 | #1923.3 avg. | 3–9 | 1–8 | 66% | |
| 37▼ 8 | Arizona | 2–1 | 26.3 | #2921.1 avg. | 8–4 | 5–4 | 81% | |
| 38▲ 5 | UCF | 2–1 | 26.2 | #5316.9 avg. | 9–3 | 7–2 | 87% | |
| 39▼ 4 | Auburn | 2–1 | 25.8 | #1624.1 avg. | 5–7 | 2–7 | 65% | |
| 40 | Florida State | 1–2 | 25.2 | #3720.0 avg. | 6–6 | 4–4 | 63% | |
| 41▲ 9 | UCLA | 3–0 | 25.1 | #3620.1 avg. | 8–4 | 5–4 | 94% | |
| 42▲ 11 | New Mexico | 2–1 | 24.6 | #1310.1 avg. | 11–1 | 8–0 | 99% | |
| 43▼ 25 | USC | 4–0 | 24.3 | #2322.2 avg. | 6–6 | 3–6 | 91% | |
| 44▼ 7 | SMU | 2–1 | 24.2 | #6015.1 avg. | 10–2 | 8–1 | 93% | |
| 45▲ 6 | Houston | 2–1 | 24.1 | #6115.0 avg. | 8–4 | 5–4 | 82% | |
| 46▲ 2 | Michigan State | 2–1 | 23.4 | #2022.8 avg. | 6–6 | 4–5 | 73% | |
| 47▲ 12 | Wisconsin | 2–1 | 22.1 | #4119.2 avg. | 7–5 | 5–4 | 71% | |
| 48▼ 7 | South Florida | 3–0 | 22.0 | #1073.5 avg. | 11–1 | 7–1 | 100% | |
| 49▼ 3 | NC State | 1–2 | 21.9 | #6314.7 avg. | 7–5 | 5–4 | 70% | |
| 50▲ 12 | Northwestern | 2–0 | 21.9 | #3520.1 avg. | 5–7 | 2–7 | 73% | |
| 51▼ 9 | Cincinnati | 3–0 | 21.7 | #4019.3 avg. | 5–7 | 2–7 | 81% | |
| 52▼ 5 | Arizona State | 2–1 | 21.6 | #5217.4 avg. | 6–6 | 4–5 | 78% | |
| 53▼ 26 | Washington | 3–0 | 21.3 | #2521.7 avg. | 5–7 | 2–7 | 75% | |
| 54▲ 4 | Baylor | 2–1 | 20.2 | #5117.5 avg. | 4–8 | 2–7 | 65% | |
| 55▼ 1 | TCU | 2–1 | 20.1 | #4318.8 avg. | 4–8 | 2–7 | 55% | |
| 56▲ 8 | Minnesota | 2–1 | 20.0 | #3420.5 avg. | 5–7 | 3–6 | 52% | |
| 57▲ 27 | West Virginia | 3–0 | 18.6 | #4218.8 avg. | 7–5 | 4–5 | 83% | |
| 58▼ 2 | Army | 1–1 | 18.5 | #955.7 avg. | 9–2 | 6–2 | 76% | |
| 59▲ 2 | Wake Forest | 2–1 | 18.3 | #5615.9 avg. | 5–7 | 2–7 | 75% | |
| 60▲ 15 | Syracuse | 1–2 | 17.8 | #5017.7 avg. | 4–8 | 3–6 | 38% | |
| 61▼ 6 | Kansas | 1–2 | 17.3 | #3919.6 avg. | 3–9 | 1–8 | 31% | |
| 62▼ 31 | North Texas | 1–2 | 17.1 | #906.1 avg. | 7–5 | 5–3 | 86% | |
| 63▲ 9 | UTSA | 2–1 | 16.5 | #7410.7 avg. | 10–2 | 7–1 | 89% | |
| 64▲ 4 | Tulane | 1–2 | 16.3 | #7212.2 avg. | 8–4 | 6–2 | 74% | |
| 65▲ 28 | Oklahoma State | 2–1 | 16.1 | #4917.7 avg. | 4–8 | 2–7 | 54% | |
| 66▼ 6 | Western Michigan | 2–1 | 15.7 | #1290.3 avg. | 10–2 | 7–1 | 98% | |
| 67▼ 23 | Boise State | 2–1 | 15.3 | #779.6 avg. | 7–4 | 5–2 | 75% | |
| 68▼ 3 | Clemson | 2–1 | 14.2 | #4518.6 avg. | 4–8 | 2–6 | 60% | |
| 69▼ 6 | Toledo | 2–1 | 14.1 | #135-1.6 avg. | 11–1 | 8–0 | 97% | |
| 70▲ 31 | Tulsa | 3–0 | 13.6 | #886.4 avg. | 9–3 | 5–3 | 95% | |
| 71▼ 14 | Georgia Tech | 1–2 | 13.6 | #4718.3 avg. | 4–8 | 3–5 | 23% | |
| 72▲ 14 | UConn | 2–1 | 12.2 | #965.5 avg. | 8–4 | 0–0 | 84% | |
| 73 | Purdue | 1–2 | 12.2 | #1125.1 avg. | 1–11 | 0–9 | 8% | |
| 74▲ 7 | Delaware | 2–1 | 12.0 | #1024.0 avg. | 10–2 | 8–0 | 91% | |
| 75▲ 22 | Texas State | 1–2 | 11.6 | #7013.0 avg. | 6–5 | 4–3 | 50% | |
| 76▼ 5 | East Carolina | 1–2 | 11.6 | #876.7 avg. | 8–4 | 6–2 | 76% | |
| 77▼ 7 | Fresno State | 2–1 | 11.5 | #847.9 avg. | 6–5 | 3–4 | 69% | |
| 78 | Navy | 1–1 | 11.0 | #798.9 avg. | 7–4 | 5–3 | 51% | |
| 79▲ 29 | North Dakota State | 4–0 | 10.6 | #136-3.0 avg. | 11–1 | 8–1 | 100% | |
| 80▼ 4 | San Diego State | 1–2 | 10.5 | #7510.3 avg. | 5–6 | 4–3 | 34% | |
| 81▲ 7 | Colorado State | 2–1 | 10.5 | #808.9 avg. | 5–6 | 3–4 | 55% | |
| 82▲ 12 | Miami (OH) | 1–2 | 10.5 | #1063.5 avg. | 9–3 | 7–1 | 82% | |
| 83▼ 9 | Utah State | 0–3 | 10.3 | #6614.6 avg. | 4–7 | 3–4 | 14% | |
| 84▼ 7 | North Carolina | 2–1 | 10.3 | #2222.2 avg. | 2–10 | 0–8 | 23% | |
| 85▲ 5 | Temple | 1–2 | 10.2 | #818.5 avg. | 5–7 | 3–5 | 59% | |
| 86▼ 6 | California | 2–1 | 9.8 | #5915.2 avg. | 5–7 | 3–6 | 47% | |
| 87▲ 2 | Oregon State | 1–2 | 9.8 | #789.3 avg. | 6–5 | 4–3 | 39% | |
| 88▲ 7 | App State | 3–0 | 9.2 | #1123.1 avg. | 9–3 | 6–2 | 94% | |
| 89▼ 23 | Washington State | 1–2 | 8.4 | #7310.9 avg. | 3–8 | 2–5 | 24% | |
| 90▲ 17 | Liberty | 2–1 | 8.1 | #1251.0 avg. | 10–2 | 7–1 | 88% | |
| 91▼ 8 | Louisiana Tech | 1–2 | 7.9 | #1191.7 avg. | 6–6 | 5–3 | 69% | |
| 92▲ 21 | Troy | 2–1 | 7.6 | #1014.3 avg. | 7–5 | 5–3 | 82% | |
| 93▲ 13 | South Alabama | 2–1 | 6.9 | #1133.1 avg. | 9–3 | 7–1 | 82% | |
| 94▼ 27 | Colorado | 2–1 | 6.8 | #3020.9 avg. | 2–10 | 0–9 | 21% | |
| 95▼ 10 | Old Dominion | 1–2 | 6.7 | #945.7 avg. | 4–8 | 3–5 | 48% | |
| 96 | Ohio | 1–2 | 6.3 | #134-1.0 avg. | 8–4 | 6–2 | 84% | |
| 97▼ 15 | Arkansas | 1–2 | 5.6 | #527.0 avg. | 1–11 | 0–9 | 3% | |
| 98▼ 6 | Florida International | 1–2 | 5.4 | #1152.4 avg. | 6–6 | 4–4 | 65% | |
| 99▼ 20 | Stanford | 1–2 | 5.3 | #2821.2 avg. | 2–10 | 0–9 | 11% | |
| 100▲ 36 | Sam Houston | 1–2 | 4.8 | #1211.5 avg. | 6–6 | 5–3 | 54% | |
| 101▼ 32 | Memphis | 3–1 | 4.4 | #925.9 avg. | 6–6 | 3–5 | 74% | |
| 102▲ 12 | Florida Atlantic | 2–1 | 3.8 | #828.4 avg. | 5–7 | 2–6 | 66% | |
| 103▲ 19 | Georgia State | 2–1 | 3.6 | #1181.8 avg. | 7–5 | 4–4 | 74% | |
| 104▲ 11 | Jacksonville State | 2–2 | 3.2 | #1300.3 avg. | 7–5 | 5–3 | 71% | |
| 105▼ 6 | Rutgers | 0–3 | 3.1 | #4618.5 avg. | 1–11 | 0–9 | 1% | |
| 106▲ 6 | Air Force | 1–1 | 3.0 | #1162.1 avg. | 5–7 | 4–4 | 56% | |
| 107▼ 4 | Georgia Southern | 1–2 | 2.7 | #857.3 avg. | 3–9 | 2–6 | 31% | |
| 108▼ 4 | Louisiana | 2–1 | 2.4 | #133-0.6 avg. | 9–3 | 6–2 | 79% | |
| 109▼ 4 | Kennesaw State | 1–2 | 2.2 | #1201.6 avg. | 4–8 | 3–5 | 49% | |
| 110▼ 23 | UNLV | 1–2 | 1.8 | #1004.4 avg. | 5–7 | 4–4 | 49% | |
| 111▲ 13 | Coastal Carolina | 1–2 | 1.1 | #1053.8 avg. | 4–8 | 3–5 | 37% | |
| 112▼ 14 | Nevada | 1–2 | 0.9 | #1033.9 avg. | 4–8 | 3–5 | 32% | |
| 113▼ 11 | Hawai'i | 1–2 | 0.7 | #1113.1 avg. | 4–8 | 2–6 | 40% | |
| 114▼ 4 | New Mexico State | 1–2 | -0.1 | #1103.2 avg. | 3–9 | 2–6 | 37% | |
| 115▼ 24 | Boston College | 2–1 | -0.2 | #2621.5 avg. | 2–10 | 0–8 | 6% | |
| 116▲ 1 | Marshall | 2–1 | -0.4 | #975.2 avg. | 6–6 | 3–5 | 67% | |
| 117▼ 17 | San José State | 2–2 | -0.9 | #1143.0 avg. | 5–8 | 3–6 | 65% | |
| 118▲ 14 | Massachusetts | 3–0 | -1.0 | #138-4.6 avg. | 8–4 | 5–3 | 91% | |
| 119▼ 3 | Buffalo | 1–2 | -1.5 | #1231.1 avg. | 7–5 | 5–3 | 57% | |
| 120▼ 11 | Arkansas State | 1–2 | -1.8 | #1320.0 avg. | 4–8 | 2–6 | 42% | |
| 121▲ 6 | Rice | 1–2 | -1.9 | #7112.5 avg. | 1–11 | 0–8 | 10% | |
| 122▼ 1 | UAB | 1–2 | -2.5 | #867.1 avg. | 3–9 | 1–7 | 21% | |
| 123 | Northern Illinois | 0–3 | -2.6 | #935.8 avg. | 4–8 | 4–4 | 17% | |
| 124▼ 13 | Missouri State | 1–2 | -3.0 | #985.1 avg. | 4–8 | 3–5 | 25% | |
| 125▲ 4 | Middle Tennessee | 2–1 | -3.0 | #1260.8 avg. | 5–7 | 3–5 | 50% | |
| 126▲ 8 | Charlotte | 0–3 | -3.9 | #769.9 avg. | 0–12 | 0–8 | 5% | |
| 127▼ 1 | UTEP | 1–2 | -4.6 | #896.2 avg. | 5–7 | 4–4 | 27% | |
| 128▼ 10 | Southern Miss | 1–2 | -7.0 | #1043.9 avg. | 3–9 | 2–6 | 13% | |
| 129▼ 1 | Akron | 1–2 | -7.6 | #1280.3 avg. | 2–10 | 1–7 | 29% | |
| 130▼ 10 | Wyoming | 1–2 | -7.7 | #1093.4 avg. | 2–10 | 1–7 | 17% | |
| 131▲ 4 | Central Michigan | 2–1 | -7.9 | #1270.7 avg. | 5–7 | 3–5 | 47% | |
| 132▼ 7 | Bowling Green | 0–3 | -8.1 | #838.3 avg. | 3–9 | 3–5 | 7% | |
| 133▼ 14 | Eastern Michigan | 1–3 | -8.4 | #1241.1 avg. | 3–9 | 2–6 | 18% | |
| 134▼ 3 | Western Kentucky | 0–3 | -9.9 | #916.1 avg. | 1–11 | 0–8 | 8% | |
| 135▼ 5 | Sacramento State | 1–3 | -11.1 | #137-3.3 avg. | 2–10 | 1–7 | 15% | |
| 136▲ 1 | Kent State | 1–2 | -12.5 | #994.7 avg. | 3–9 | 2–6 | 15% | |
| 137▼ 4 | Ball State | 1–2 | -13.2 | #1171.9 avg. | 3–9 | 2–6 | 15% | |
| 138 | UL Monroe | 0–3 | -14.9 | #1083.5 avg. | 0–12 | 0–8 | 2% |
Predictions on the record
Each forecast is preserved before kickoff. Once scores arrive, the original choices remain unchanged and their accuracy is added to the record.
Forecast: Through Week 3 · using results through September 20. A tie at exactly 50% is assigned to the home team for the published pick.
Showing 71 of 71 games
| Date | Matchup | Predicted winner | Predicted margin | Win probability | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 24 | LibertyatCoastal Carolina | Liberty | 7.0 points | 51.6% | Pending |
| Sep 25 | ArmyatTemple | Army | 8.3 points | 53.4% | Pending |
| Sep 25 | HowardatRutgers | Rutgers | 42.4 points | 94.0% | Pending |
| Sep 25 | NavyatUAB | Navy | 13.5 points | 60.7% | Pending |
| Sep 25 | NorthwesternatIndiana | Indiana | 17.3 points | 78.9% | Pending |
| Sep 25 | ClemsonatCalifornia | California | 4.4 points | 52.1% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | TexasatTennessee | Texas | 12.8 points | 59.7% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Sam HoustonatTexas Tech | Texas Tech | 22.1 points | 83.1% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | ColoradoatBaylor | Baylor | 13.3 points | 74.9% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | BucknellatPittsburgh | Pittsburgh | 69.9 points | 98.7% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Virginia TechatBoston College | Virginia Tech | 28.7 points | 78.5% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Wake ForestatLouisville | Louisville | 13.2 points | 74.8% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | IllinoisatOhio State | Ohio State | 18.6 points | 80.1% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | San Diego StateatToledo | Toledo | 3.6 points | 63.2% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Colorado StateatUTSA | UTSA | 5.9 points | 66.2% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | UNLVatAkron | UNLV | 9.4 points | 54.9% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Ball StateatKent State | Kent State | 0.7 points | 59.3% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | South AlabamaatKentucky | Kentucky | 23.0 points | 83.8% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | LindenwoodatEastern Michigan | Eastern Michigan | 18.8 points | 80.3% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | UCLAatMaryland | Maryland | 2.3 points | 61.5% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Notre DameatPurdue | Notre Dame | 35.3 points | 84.2% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Northern IllinoisatGeorgia State | Georgia State | 6.2 points | 66.5% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Central ArkansasatFlorida State | Florida State | 55.2 points | 97.0% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Hawai'iatWyoming | Hawai'i | 8.4 points | 53.6% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Ole MissatFlorida | Florida | 5.3 points | 50.8% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | OklahomaatGeorgia | Georgia | 3.3 points | 62.7% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | TCUatUCF | UCF | 6.1 points | 66.5% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | UtahatIowa State | Utah | 17.6 points | 66.1% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | William & MaryatDuke | Duke | 44.1 points | 94.5% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | IowaatMichigan | Michigan | 4.1 points | 52.6% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Boise StateatWestern Michigan | Western Michigan | 0.5 points | 59.0% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | UConnatMiami (OH) | Miami (OH) | 1.7 points | 55.9% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | New MexicoatNew Mexico State | New Mexico | 24.7 points | 74.5% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Robert MorrisatBuffalo | Buffalo | 36.2 points | 91.7% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | StonehillatOhio | Ohio | 28.5 points | 87.6% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Gardner-WebbatMarshall | Marshall | 11.4 points | 72.8% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | HoustonatGeorgia Southern | Houston | 21.4 points | 70.7% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | North Carolina CentralatEast Carolina | East Carolina | 44.5 points | 94.6% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | VanderbiltatAuburn | Auburn | 3.8 points | 53.0% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | NebraskaatMichigan State | Nebraska | 13.0 points | 60.0% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | WisconsinatPenn State | Penn State | 15.1 points | 76.7% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | South FloridaatBowling Green | South Florida | 30.1 points | 79.9% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | DelawareatVirginia | Virginia | 15.8 points | 77.5% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Incarnate WordatTexas State | Texas State | 24.6 points | 85.0% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Long Island UniversityatFlorida International | Florida International | 25.1 points | 85.4% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | James MadisonatOld Dominion | James Madison | 21.2 points | 70.5% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Central MichiganatMiami | Miami | 44.6 points | 94.6% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | LouisianaatCharlotte | Louisiana | 6.2 points | 50.5% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | South CarolinaatAlabama | Alabama | 16.3 points | 77.9% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Kansas StateatCincinnati | Kansas State | 9.0 points | 54.4% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Oklahoma StateatWest Virginia | West Virginia | 2.6 points | 61.8% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Southern MissatTulane | Tulane | 23.3 points | 84.0% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Kennesaw StateatArkansas State | Arkansas State | 4.1 points | 52.6% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | MercyhurstatWestern Kentucky | Western Kentucky | 19.9 points | 81.3% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Middle TennesseeatJacksonville State | Jacksonville State | 6.2 points | 66.6% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Texas A&MatLSU | LSU | 1.4 points | 56.4% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | ArizonaatWashington State | Arizona | 17.9 points | 66.5% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | OregonatUSC | Oregon | 8.8 points | 54.2% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | TroyatUtah State | Utah State | 2.7 points | 62.0% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Houston ChristianatNorth Texas | North Texas | 49.1 points | 95.8% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | App StateatNC State | NC State | 12.8 points | 74.3% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | MissouriatMississippi State | Mississippi State | 7.5 points | 68.2% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | TulsaatArkansas | Tulsa | 8.1 points | 53.1% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Florida AtlanticatUL Monroe | Florida Atlantic | 18.7 points | 67.5% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Missouri StateatSMU | SMU | 27.1 points | 86.7% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Oregon StateatUTEP | Oregon State | 14.4 points | 61.8% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | MassachusettsatSacramento State | Massachusetts | 10.1 points | 55.9% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | RiceatFresno State | Fresno State | 13.4 points | 75.0% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Georgia TechatStanford | Georgia Tech | 8.3 points | 53.4% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | Air ForceatNevada | Nevada | 2.1 points | 55.4% | Pending |
| Sep 26 | MinnesotaatWashington | Washington | 1.4 points | 60.2% | Pending |
Probability check
A well-calibrated model should win roughly seven of every ten games placed in the 70–79% band. This record accumulates through the season.
How it works
Raw scoring margins enter a pure least-squares Massey system. FCS opponents remain in the network, while only FBS teams are ranked.
A logistic probability curve was trained on chronological 2021–24 predictions and tested against the untouched 2025 season.
Each scheduled game is played 50,000 times while allowing for genuine uncertainty in every team’s preseason strength.
Strength of schedule is the average current Massey rating of every opponent on a team’s known regular-season schedule, including lower-division opponents. Rank No. 1 denotes the most difficult schedule. Because opponent ratings change as results accumulate, schedule strength is recalculated with every weekly update.
The exact weekly calculation
M = Rhome − Raway + SM is the predicted scoring margin from the home team’s perspective. S is the historically observed 2.236-point scoring advantage for a true home game and zero at a neutral site.
P(home) = 1 ÷ (1 + e−(0.056917929D + 0.336009714I))D is the unadjusted rating difference and I is 1 for a true home game or 0 at a neutral site. The 0.336010 home coefficient is equivalent to 5.903 rating points for win-probability purposes; it is not an expected scoring margin. The visitor’s probability is 1 − P(home).
Try it yourself
Use team ratings to calculate the margin automatically, or enter an already calculated margin directly.
At a neutral site, a margin of 0.0 produces a 50.0% probability for each team. At a true home site, the scoring model adds 2.236 points, while the independently fitted probability model gives home status a 0.336010 log-odds effect—equivalent to 5.903 rating points for probability purposes.
The projection label and calibration values above identify the inputs used for the currently displayed week. The scoring adjustment estimates points on the scoreboard; the separately fitted logistic home effect estimates the chance of winning.
Regular-season schedule through Week 14. Conference championships and postseason games are excluded because their participants are not yet known.