2015 College Football Ratings Summary |
College |
Conference |
W |
L |
P-Rank |
P-Rating |
R-Rank |
R-Rating |
CFP Rank |
AP Rank |
Georgia State | Sun Belt | 0 | 1 | 128 | -25.0 | 116 | -6.3 | | |
New Mexico State | Sun Belt | 0 | 1 | 127 | -23.4 | 90 | -4.5 | | |
North Carolina-Charlotte | Conference USA | 1 | 0 | 125 | -23.2 | 1 | 6.3 | | |
Eastern Michigan | Mid-American | 0 | 1 | 126 | -23.2 | 116 | -6.3 | | |
Kent State | Mid-American | 0 | 1 | 124 | -23.1 | 90 | -4.5 | | |
Idaho | Sun Belt | 0 | 1 | 123 | -22.8 | 116 | -6.3 | | |
Troy | Sun Belt | 0 | 1 | 122 | -18.0 | 90 | -4.5 | | |
Southern Methodist | American Athletic | 0 | 1 | 121 | -17.1 | 116 | -6.3 | | |
Massachusetts | Mid-American | 0 | 0 | 120 | -16.3 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Old Dominion | Conference USA | 1 | 0 | 119 | -16.1 | 1 | 6.3 | | |
Akron | Mid-American | 0 | 1 | 118 | -15.8 | 90 | -4.5 | | |
Nevada-Las Vegas | Mountain West | 0 | 1 | 117 | -15.3 | 90 | -4.5 | | |
Army | Independent | 0 | 0 | 116 | -15.2 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Buffalo | Mid-American | 0 | 0 | 115 | -15.0 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Georgia Southern | Sun Belt | 0 | 1 | 114 | -14.7 | 90 | -4.5 | | |
Tulane | American Athletic | 0 | 1 | 113 | -14.6 | 116 | -6.3 | | |
Texas-El Paso | Conference USA | 0 | 1 | 112 | -14.5 | 90 | -4.5 | | |
North Texas | Conference USA | 0 | 0 | 111 | -14.4 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Miami (Ohio) | Mid-American | 0 | 0 | 110 | -14.2 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
South Alabama | Sun Belt | 0 | 0 | 109 | -13.3 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Appalachian State | Sun Belt | 0 | 0 | 108 | -13.2 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Louisiana-Monroe | Sun Belt | 0 | 1 | 107 | -13.2 | 90 | -4.5 | | |
Connecticut | American Athletic | 0 | 0 | 106 | -12.8 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
New Mexico | Mountain West | 0 | 0 | 105 | -12.7 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Wyoming | Mountain West | 0 | 0 | 103 | -12.4 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Texas State | Sun Belt | 0 | 1 | 104 | -12.4 | 90 | -4.5 | | |
San Jose State | Mountain West | 0 | 0 | 102 | -11.8 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Bowling Green State | Mid-American | 0 | 1 | 101 | -11.6 | 111 | -5.4 | | |
Arkansas State | Sun Belt | 0 | 1 | 100 | -11.5 | 90 | -4.5 | | |
Tulsa | American Athletic | 1 | 0 | 99 | -11.2 | 19 | 4.5 | | |
Ball State | Mid-American | 0 | 0 | 98 | -10.7 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Southern Mississippi | Conference USA | 0 | 1 | 97 | -10.4 | 116 | -6.3 | | |
Florida Atlantic | Conference USA | 0 | 1 | 96 | -9.7 | 90 | -4.5 | | |
Ohio U. | Mid-American | 1 | 0 | 95 | -9.6 | 1 | 6.3 | | |
Texas-San Antonio | Conference USA | 0 | 1 | 94 | -9.3 | 90 | -4.5 | | |
Central Michigan | Mid-American | 0 | 1 | 93 | -9.1 | 116 | -6.3 | | |
Air Force | Mountain West | 0 | 0 | 92 | -8.9 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Hawaii | Mountain West | 1 | 0 | 91 | -8.3 | 19 | 4.5 | | |
Northern Illinois | Mid-American | 1 | 0 | 89 | -8.2 | 19 | 4.5 | | |
Middle Tennessee State | Conference USA | 0 | 0 | 90 | -8.2 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Rice | Conference USA | 0 | 0 | 88 | -7.7 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Florida International | Conference USA | 1 | 0 | 87 | -7.6 | 1 | 6.3 | | |
Fresno State | Mountain West | 0 | 0 | 86 | -6.9 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Utah State | Mountain West | 0 | 0 | 85 | -6.9 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Navy | American Athletic | 0 | 0 | 84 | -6.7 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Nevada | Mountain West | 0 | 0 | 83 | -6.4 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Louisiana-Lafayette | Sun Belt | 0 | 1 | 82 | -5.1 | 90 | -4.5 | | |
Colorado | Pac 12 | 0 | 1 | 81 | -4.8 | 90 | -4.5 | | |
Western Michigan | Mid-American | 0 | 1 | 80 | -4.5 | 116 | -6.3 | | |
Toledo | Mid-American | 0 | 0 | 79 | -4.4 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Colorado State | Mountain West | 0 | 0 | 78 | -4.3 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
San Diego State | Mountain West | 0 | 0 | 77 | -4.2 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Central Florida | American Athletic | 0 | 1 | 76 | -4.0 | 116 | -6.3 | | |
South Florida | American Athletic | 0 | 0 | 75 | -3.8 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
East Carolina | American Athletic | 0 | 0 | 73 | -3.3 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Wake Forest | ACC | 0 | 0 | 74 | -3.3 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Iowa State | Big 12 | 0 | 0 | 71 | -2.7 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Kansas | Big 12 | 0 | 0 | 72 | -2.7 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Western Kentucky | Conference USA | 1 | 0 | 70 | -2.4 | 1 | 6.3 | | |
Purdue | Big Ten | 0 | 1 | 69 | -2.2 | 90 | -4.5 | | |
Vanderbilt | SEC | 0 | 1 | 68 | -2.2 | 116 | -6.3 | | |
Syracuse | ACC | 0 | 0 | 67 | -1.1 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Houston | American Athletic | 0 | 0 | 66 | -0.8 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Memphis | American Athletic | 0 | 0 | 65 | 0.1 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Louisiana Tech | Conference USA | 0 | 0 | 64 | 0.9 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Indiana | Big Ten | 0 | 0 | 63 | 1.0 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Penn State | Big Ten | 0 | 1 | 62 | 1.2 | 90 | -4.5 | | |
Washington State | Pac 12 | 0 | 0 | 61 | 1.4 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Cincinnati | American Athletic | 0 | 0 | 60 | 1.8 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Temple | American Athletic | 1 | 0 | 59 | 2.5 | 19 | 4.5 | | |
Oregon State | Pac 12 | 0 | 0 | 58 | 2.9 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Rutgers | Big Ten | 0 | 0 | 57 | 2.9 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Kentucky | SEC | 1 | 0 | 55 | 3.1 | 19 | 4.5 | | |
Texas Tech | Big 12 | 0 | 0 | 56 | 3.1 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Boston College | ACC | 0 | 0 | 54 | 3.3 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Iowa | Big Ten | 0 | 0 | 53 | 3.9 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Maryland | Big Ten | 0 | 0 | 52 | 4.1 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Texas | Big 12 | 0 | 1 | 51 | 4.1 | 90 | -4.5 | | |
Pittsburgh | ACC | 0 | 0 | 50 | 4.2 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
North Carolina State | ACC | 1 | 0 | 49 | 5.2 | 19 | 4.5 | | |
North Carolina | ACC | 0 | 1 | 48 | 5.5 | 111 | -5.4 | | |
Marshall | Conference USA | 1 | 0 | 46 | 5.6 | 19 | 4.5 | | |
Virginia | ACC | 0 | 1 | 47 | 5.6 | 90 | -4.5 | | |
Northwestern | Big Ten | 1 | 0 | 45 | 5.8 | 19 | 4.5 | | |
Minnesota | Big Ten | 0 | 1 | 44 | 6.0 | 116 | -6.3 | | |
Boise State | Mountain West | 1 | 0 | 42 | 6.5 | 19 | 4.5 | | 20 |
California | Pac 12 | 0 | 0 | 43 | 6.5 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Brigham Young | Independent | 1 | 0 | 41 | 6.6 | 1 | 6.3 | | |
Arizona | Pac 12 | 1 | 0 | 40 | 6.7 | 19 | 4.5 | | 22 |
Illinois | Big Ten | 1 | 0 | 39 | 6.9 | 19 | 4.5 | | |
Oklahoma State | Big 12 | 1 | 0 | 38 | 7.0 | 1 | 6.3 | | |
Michigan | Big Ten | 0 | 1 | 37 | 7.5 | 90 | -4.5 | | |
Virginia Tech | ACC | 0 | 1 | 36 | 8.2 | 116 | -6.3 | | |
Nebraska | Big Ten | 0 | 1 | 35 | 8.4 | 116 | -6.3 | | |
Duke | ACC | 1 | 0 | 34 | 8.8 | 1 | 6.3 | | |
Arizona State | Pac 12 | 0 | 1 | 33 | 8.9 | 111 | -5.4 | | |
Georgia Tech | ACC | 0 | 0 | 31 | 9.3 | 40 | 0.0 | | 15 |
Stanford | Pac 12 | 0 | 1 | 32 | 9.3 | 90 | -4.5 | | |
Utah | Pac 12 | 1 | 0 | 30 | 9.6 | 19 | 4.5 | | 24 |
Wisconsin | Big Ten | 0 | 1 | 29 | 9.7 | 111 | -5.4 | | |
Washington | Pac 12 | 0 | 1 | 28 | 10.2 | 90 | -4.5 | | |
Louisville | ACC | 0 | 1 | 27 | 10.3 | 111 | -5.4 | | |
Kansas State | Big 12 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 10.4 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
South Carolina | SEC | 1 | 0 | 25 | 11.4 | 14 | 5.4 | | |
Missouri | SEC | 0 | 0 | 24 | 11.9 | 40 | 0.0 | | 21 |
Miami (Fla.) | ACC | 0 | 0 | 23 | 12.1 | 40 | 0.0 | | |
Mississippi State | SEC | 1 | 0 | 22 | 14.3 | 1 | 6.3 | | 25 |
Tennessee | SEC | 1 | 0 | 21 | 14.9 | 14 | 5.4 | | 23 |
Michigan State | Big Ten | 1 | 0 | 20 | 15.0 | 1 | 6.3 | | 5 |
West Virginia | Big 12 | 1 | 0 | 19 | 15.0 | 19 | 4.5 | | |
Arkansas | SEC | 1 | 0 | 18 | 15.2 | 19 | 4.5 | | 18 |
Clemson | ACC | 0 | 0 | 17 | 16.3 | 40 | 0.0 | | 12 |
Florida | SEC | 1 | 0 | 16 | 16.8 | 19 | 4.5 | | |
LSU | SEC | 0 | 0 | 15 | 16.9 | 40 | 0.0 | | 14 |
Oklahoma | Big 12 | 1 | 0 | 14 | 17.3 | 19 | 4.5 | | 19 |
Mississippi | SEC | 0 | 0 | 13 | 17.4 | 40 | 0.0 | | 17 |
Texas Christian | Big 12 | 1 | 0 | 12 | 17.6 | 1 | 6.3 | | 3 |
Baylor | Big 12 | 1 | 0 | 11 | 17.8 | 1 | 6.3 | | 4 |
UCLA | Pac 12 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 17.9 | 19 | 4.5 | | 13 |
Auburn | SEC | 1 | 0 | 9 | 18.9 | 14 | 5.4 | | 6 |
Texas A&M | SEC | 1 | 0 | 8 | 19.5 | 14 | 5.4 | | 16 |
Notre Dame | Independent | 1 | 0 | 7 | 20.6 | 19 | 4.5 | | 9 |
Florida State | ACC | 1 | 0 | 5 | 20.8 | 19 | 4.5 | | 11 |
Georgia | SEC | 1 | 0 | 6 | 20.8 | 19 | 4.5 | | 10 |
Oregon | Pac 12 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 21.3 | 40 | 0.0 | | 7 |
USC | Pac 12 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 23.0 | 19 | 4.5 | | 8 |
Alabama | SEC | 1 | 0 | 2 | 25.0 | 14 | 5.4 | | 2 |
Ohio State | Big Ten | 1 | 0 | 1 | 25.3 | 1 | 6.3 | | 1 |
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.