2015 College Football Ratings Summary |
College |
Conference |
W |
L |
P-Rank |
P-Rating |
R-Rank |
R-Rating |
CFP Rank |
AP Rank |
North Carolina-Charlotte | Conference USA | 1 | 2 | 128 | -29.9 | 101 | -7.8 | | |
New Mexico State | Sun Belt | 0 | 3 | 127 | -26.3 | 127 | -17.0 | | |
Georgia State | Sun Belt | 1 | 2 | 126 | -25.1 | 110 | -9.6 | | |
Idaho | Sun Belt | 0 | 3 | 125 | -24.2 | 119 | -11.9 | | |
Old Dominion | Conference USA | 1 | 2 | 124 | -23.4 | 89 | -5.0 | | |
Miami (Ohio) | Mid-American | 0 | 3 | 123 | -23.0 | 117 | -11.5 | | |
North Texas | Conference USA | 0 | 3 | 122 | -22.8 | 123 | -13.2 | | |
Eastern Michigan | Mid-American | 1 | 3 | 121 | -22.4 | 124 | -13.6 | | |
Wyoming | Mountain West | 0 | 3 | 120 | -22.3 | 128 | -18.7 | | |
Tulane | American Athletic | 0 | 2 | 119 | -21.0 | 114 | -10.6 | | |
Texas-El Paso | Conference USA | 1 | 2 | 118 | -20.8 | 96 | -6.1 | | |
South Alabama | Sun Belt | 1 | 2 | 117 | -19.2 | 77 | -3.6 | | |
Kent State | Mid-American | 0 | 3 | 116 | -17.8 | 116 | -11.4 | | |
Texas State | Sun Belt | 0 | 3 | 115 | -17.8 | 120 | -12.1 | | |
Massachusetts | Mid-American | 0 | 3 | 114 | -16.6 | 105 | -8.3 | | |
Texas-San Antonio | Conference USA | 0 | 4 | 113 | -16.5 | 125 | -13.7 | | |
Fresno State | Mountain West | 0 | 3 | 112 | -15.8 | 113 | -9.9 | | |
New Mexico | Mountain West | 1 | 2 | 111 | -15.6 | 99 | -7.3 | | |
Troy | Sun Belt | 0 | 2 | 110 | -14.2 | 95 | -6.0 | | |
Florida Atlantic | Conference USA | 1 | 3 | 109 | -14.1 | 98 | -6.8 | | |
Arkansas State | Sun Belt | 0 | 3 | 108 | -13.3 | 112 | -9.9 | | |
Nevada-Las Vegas | Mountain West | 0 | 3 | 107 | -12.1 | 109 | -9.6 | | |
San Diego State | Mountain West | 0 | 3 | 106 | -12.0 | 118 | -11.7 | | |
Kansas | Big 12 | 0 | 2 | 105 | -11.9 | 108 | -9.3 | | |
Louisiana-Lafayette | Sun Belt | 0 | 2 | 104 | -11.7 | 115 | -10.6 | | |
Southern Methodist | American Athletic | 1 | 2 | 103 | -11.2 | 76 | -3.4 | | |
Louisiana-Monroe | Sun Belt | 0 | 2 | 102 | -10.9 | 91 | -5.5 | | |
Rice | Conference USA | 1 | 2 | 101 | -10.4 | 84 | -4.1 | | |
Army | Independent | 1 | 2 | 100 | -10.0 | 100 | -7.5 | | |
Purdue | Big Ten | 0 | 3 | 99 | -9.9 | 126 | -14.9 | | |
San Jose State | Mountain West | 1 | 2 | 98 | -9.8 | 93 | -5.9 | | |
Akron | Mid-American | 1 | 2 | 97 | -9.7 | 73 | -2.7 | | |
Hawaii | Mountain West | 1 | 2 | 96 | -9.4 | 61 | 0.0 | | |
Western Michigan | Mid-American | 0 | 3 | 95 | -9.4 | 103 | -8.1 | | |
Buffalo | Mid-American | 1 | 2 | 94 | -8.7 | 83 | -4.1 | | |
Connecticut | American Athletic | 1 | 2 | 93 | -8.5 | 78 | -3.7 | | |
Ball State | Mid-American | 1 | 2 | 92 | -7.4 | 60 | 0.1 | | |
Florida International | Conference USA | 1 | 2 | 91 | -7.0 | 72 | -2.7 | | |
Nevada | Mountain West | 1 | 2 | 90 | -7.0 | 67 | -1.0 | | |
Southern Mississippi | Conference USA | 1 | 2 | 89 | -6.6 | 88 | -4.6 | | |
South Florida | American Athletic | 0 | 2 | 88 | -6.4 | 106 | -9.1 | | |
Colorado State | Mountain West | 1 | 2 | 87 | -6.2 | 90 | -5.3 | | |
Wake Forest | ACC | 1 | 2 | 86 | -5.3 | 69 | -1.4 | | |
Ohio U. | Mid-American | 2 | 1 | 85 | -5.2 | 43 | 4.3 | | |
Central Michigan | Mid-American | 0 | 3 | 84 | -5.1 | 104 | -8.3 | | |
Tulsa | American Athletic | 2 | 1 | 83 | -5.0 | 40 | 5.0 | | |
Maryland | Big Ten | 1 | 2 | 82 | -4.8 | 94 | -5.9 | | |
Georgia Southern | Sun Belt | 2 | 1 | 81 | -4.6 | 52 | 2.8 | | |
Central Florida | American Athletic | 0 | 3 | 80 | -4.3 | 121 | -12.1 | | |
Rutgers | Big Ten | 1 | 2 | 79 | -4.1 | 87 | -4.4 | | |
Cincinnati | American Athletic | 1 | 2 | 78 | -3.9 | 66 | -1.0 | | |
Iowa State | Big 12 | 0 | 2 | 77 | -3.3 | 97 | -6.4 | | |
Bowling Green State | Mid-American | 2 | 2 | 76 | -2.8 | 64 | -0.6 | | |
Air Force | Mountain West | 1 | 1 | 75 | -2.7 | 54 | 1.3 | | |
Appalachian State | Sun Belt | 1 | 1 | 74 | -2.2 | 51 | 3.0 | | |
Marshall | Conference USA | 2 | 1 | 73 | -1.9 | 56 | 0.9 | | |
Virginia | ACC | 0 | 3 | 72 | -1.6 | 111 | -9.7 | | |
Minnesota | Big Ten | 3 | 1 | 71 | -1.4 | 33 | 7.3 | | |
Utah State | Mountain West | 0 | 2 | 70 | -1.4 | 102 | -8.0 | | |
Oregon State | Pac 12 | 1 | 2 | 69 | -1.3 | 71 | -2.5 | | |
Colorado | Pac 12 | 2 | 1 | 68 | -1.1 | 55 | 1.3 | | |
East Carolina | American Athletic | 1 | 2 | 67 | -1.1 | 58 | 0.3 | | |
Northern Illinois | Mid-American | 1 | 2 | 66 | -1.0 | 79 | -3.7 | | |
Washington State | Pac 12 | 2 | 0 | 65 | -0.8 | 32 | 7.3 | | |
Syracuse | ACC | 2 | 1 | 64 | 0.6 | 49 | 3.6 | | |
Temple | American Athletic | 3 | 0 | 63 | 1.3 | 8 | 13.2 | | |
Boston College | ACC | 1 | 1 | 62 | 1.3 | 62 | -0.2 | | |
Illinois | Big Ten | 2 | 1 | 61 | 1.5 | 59 | 0.2 | | |
Middle Tennessee State | Conference USA | 1 | 2 | 60 | 1.9 | 82 | -3.9 | | |
Navy | American Athletic | 2 | 0 | 59 | 2.4 | 20 | 10.0 | | |
Louisiana Tech | Conference USA | 1 | 2 | 58 | 2.4 | 68 | -1.2 | | |
Indiana | Big Ten | 3 | 0 | 57 | 2.6 | 9 | 13.1 | | |
Missouri | SEC | 2 | 1 | 56 | 2.8 | 46 | 3.9 | | |
Western Kentucky | Conference USA | 3 | 1 | 55 | 3.0 | 36 | 6.2 | | |
Vanderbilt | SEC | 0 | 3 | 54 | 3.3 | 107 | -9.1 | | |
Penn State | Big Ten | 3 | 1 | 53 | 3.5 | 39 | 5.3 | | |
Toledo | Mid-American | 3 | 0 | 52 | 3.6 | 26 | 8.9 | | |
Texas | Big 12 | 1 | 3 | 51 | 3.7 | 81 | -3.8 | | |
Arizona State | Pac 12 | 1 | 2 | 50 | 3.8 | 86 | -4.3 | | |
Arizona | Pac 12 | 2 | 1 | 49 | 4.6 | 42 | 4.6 | | |
Kentucky | SEC | 3 | 1 | 48 | 4.8 | 29 | 8.1 | | |
Memphis | American Athletic | 3 | 0 | 47 | 5.3 | 12 | 11.9 | | |
Oregon | Pac 12 | 1 | 2 | 46 | 6.5 | 70 | -2.2 | | |
Virginia Tech | ACC | 1 | 2 | 45 | 7.0 | 85 | -4.2 | | |
South Carolina | SEC | 2 | 2 | 44 | 7.1 | 57 | 0.6 | | |
Arkansas | SEC | 1 | 3 | 43 | 7.2 | 92 | -5.8 | | |
Pittsburgh | ACC | 1 | 1 | 42 | 7.2 | 44 | 4.1 | | |
Duke | ACC | 2 | 1 | 41 | 7.5 | 45 | 4.0 | | |
Louisville | ACC | 0 | 3 | 40 | 7.6 | 122 | -12.5 | | |
Northwestern | Big Ten | 3 | 0 | 39 | 7.7 | 3 | 15.6 | | 16 |
Brigham Young | Independent | 2 | 2 | 38 | 8.1 | 37 | 5.8 | | |
Houston | American Athletic | 2 | 0 | 37 | 8.6 | 38 | 5.4 | | |
Nebraska | Big Ten | 2 | 2 | 36 | 8.8 | 63 | -0.3 | | |
Washington | Pac 12 | 1 | 2 | 35 | 9.3 | 80 | -3.7 | | |
Iowa | Big Ten | 3 | 0 | 34 | 9.5 | 17 | 10.6 | | |
Kansas State | Big 12 | 2 | 0 | 33 | 9.9 | 31 | 7.4 | | |
California | Pac 12 | 3 | 0 | 32 | 10.4 | 16 | 11.1 | | 24 |
North Carolina | ACC | 1 | 1 | 31 | 10.8 | 65 | -0.8 | | |
Michigan State | Big Ten | 4 | 0 | 30 | 11.0 | 14 | 11.4 | | 2 |
North Carolina State | ACC | 3 | 0 | 29 | 11.3 | 15 | 11.3 | | |
Miami (Fla.) | ACC | 2 | 0 | 28 | 11.5 | 25 | 9.1 | | |
Texas Tech | Big 12 | 2 | 1 | 27 | 11.6 | 41 | 4.6 | | |
Georgia Tech | ACC | 1 | 2 | 26 | 11.7 | 74 | -3.1 | | |
Auburn | SEC | 1 | 2 | 25 | 12.1 | 75 | -3.1 | | |
Boise State | Mountain West | 2 | 1 | 24 | 12.5 | 50 | 3.4 | | |
Florida | SEC | 4 | 0 | 23 | 12.7 | 4 | 15.1 | | 25 |
Wisconsin | Big Ten | 3 | 1 | 22 | 13.3 | 48 | 3.7 | | 19 |
Texas Christian | Big 12 | 3 | 0 | 21 | 13.7 | 1 | 16.4 | | 4 |
Oklahoma State | Big 12 | 3 | 0 | 20 | 13.8 | 21 | 10.0 | | 20 |
Tennessee | SEC | 1 | 2 | 19 | 15.2 | 53 | 1.4 | | |
Michigan | Big Ten | 3 | 1 | 18 | 15.4 | 30 | 7.9 | | 22 |
Texas A&M | SEC | 4 | 0 | 17 | 16.1 | 11 | 12.0 | | 14 |
Stanford | Pac 12 | 3 | 1 | 16 | 16.6 | 18 | 10.5 | | 18 |
Utah | Pac 12 | 4 | 0 | 15 | 16.9 | 6 | 13.7 | | 10 |
Mississippi State | SEC | 2 | 1 | 14 | 17.0 | 34 | 6.7 | | 21 |
Notre Dame | Independent | 4 | 0 | 13 | 17.0 | 19 | 10.1 | | 6 |
Florida State | ACC | 3 | 0 | 12 | 17.3 | 22 | 10.0 | | 11 |
Oklahoma | Big 12 | 3 | 0 | 11 | 17.8 | 7 | 13.5 | | 15 |
Clemson | ACC | 2 | 0 | 10 | 17.9 | 27 | 8.8 | | 12 |
UCLA | Pac 12 | 4 | 0 | 9 | 18.6 | 5 | 14.7 | | 7 |
Ohio State | Big Ten | 4 | 0 | 8 | 19.4 | 13 | 11.6 | | 1 |
LSU | SEC | 3 | 0 | 7 | 20.5 | 2 | 16.0 | | 9 |
West Virginia | Big 12 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 21.2 | 28 | 8.7 | | 23 |
USC | Pac 12 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 21.4 | 47 | 3.8 | | 17 |
Mississippi | SEC | 3 | 0 | 4 | 22.0 | 10 | 12.5 | | 3 |
Alabama | SEC | 3 | 1 | 3 | 22.8 | 35 | 6.7 | | 13 |
Baylor | Big 12 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 24.3 | 24 | 9.2 | | 5 |
Georgia | SEC | 3 | 0 | 1 | 24.7 | 23 | 10.0 | | 8 |
College sports ratings use a somewhat less sophisticated version of the NFL model that does not use individual play data. Final scores and game location are the only data used. Unlike BCS computer ratings, point difference is factored rather than simply the outcome of the game. Instead of adjusting ratings for repeatability, both teams in each game are given equal responsibility for the result. Each team is assigned a normal probability distribution for quality such that the most likely scenario considering all games at once is optimized. In doing so, home field advantage is factored where applicable and strength of schedule is automatically accounted for. After 1 game, a team's rating will simply be their net points divided by 2. Past the first game, relative strength of opponents and how far a result is from the expected result begin to factor in. Like the NFL ratings, the first few weeks' ratings are unreliable but quickly become increasingly accurate thereafter. Subtracting one team's rating from another's will give an expected point spread should they play at a neutral site.