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