Ballot Type: Hybrid
Submitted: Sept. 21, 2025, 11:15 p.m.
Overall Rationale: For weeks 4-8, I will use my own eyes with influence on a rankings model I built. I am using this season as my trial year to see if it makes sense by the end and to evaluate the weighting system I came up with. The model replicates a version of how NCAA does their PairWise rankings for tournament seeding. My model creates a total weighted win percentage (weights assigned to home/road/neutral/fcs wins), an RPI rating that does not factor FCS games, incorporating strength of scheduling, and either a H2H score or amount of 32+ wins against FBS opponents. It values winning more than anything which is a category and incorporated into the RPI. Each team (all 136) are compared to each other on 3 categories with a best 2 out of 3, starting with weighted W% and then RPI. If each team is tied after those, it goes to the 3rd category of H2H if possible or 32+ point wins. Hopefully I won't find a weird tie needing an additional tie breaker as we go through the season. If these categories are the same throughout or ends up in a 1-1-tie situation, neither team gets a point. Whichever teams wins the category battle is awarded 1 overall point. The idea is that the #1 will have 135 total points, #2 is 134 and so on. Because it is so early in the season, many teams are tied (neither gets points) so I do not want to fully rely on it but it really helps in the 15-25 area. I will throw in where the model placed these teams in my reasons to show why I am not fully relying on it and I also think the human element is still very important in rankings. There might be some pretty big fluctuations in ranks from last week for me but now I have data.
Rank | Team | Reason |
---|---|---|
1 |
![]() |
Model rank: 23 |
2 |
![]() |
Model rank: 9 |
3 |
![]() |
Model rank: 4 |
4 |
![]() |
Florida was desperate but I did expect more. Model rank: 17 |
5 |
![]() |
Watched them in-person with my own eyes. The popular story is Utah was overrated/just not good. The story should be Tech is that good. Maybe I'm biased but Tech deserves to be recognized. Model rank: 28 |
6 |
![]() |
Model rank: 24 |
7 |
![]() |
Model rank: 13 |
8 |
![]() |
Need's to play someone. Model rank: 25 |
9 |
![]() |
Model rank: 8 |
10 |
![]() |
That...was...impressive. Model rank: 2 |
11 |
![]() |
Big test in Aggieland this weekend. Model rank: 27 |
12 |
![]() |
Crushed a solid G5 team. Model rank: 1 |
13 |
![]() |
Model rank: 12 |
14 |
![]() |
Model rank: 20 |
15 |
![]() |
Model rank: 37 |
16 |
![]() |
Arch flexing on Sam Houston players isn't tough. Model rank also places them behind this group of SEC teams. Model rank: 42 |
17 |
![]() |
Model rank: 10 |
18 |
![]() |
Model rank: 3 |
19 |
![]() |
It was kind of lucky but still huge. Model rank: 16 |
20 |
![]() |
As shown below, has a high model rank but that offense doesn't seem to scare anyone and hasn't played anyone really. Model rank: 6 |
21 |
![]() |
Model rank: 26 |
22 |
![]() |
Model rank: 31 |
23 |
![]() |
Model rank: 34 |
24 |
![]() |
Team looks solid. Model rank: 11 |
25 |
![]() |
Model rank: 19 |
Teams Ranked:
Rank | Team | Unusualness |
---|---|---|
1 |
![]() |
0.00 |
2 |
![]() |
0.19 |
3 |
![]() |
0.00 |
4 |
![]() |
0.00 |
5 |
![]() |
0.97 |
6 |
![]() |
0.00 |
7 |
![]() |
0.00 |
8 |
![]() |
0.00 |
9 |
![]() |
0.00 |
10 |
![]() |
0.00 |
11 |
![]() |
0.00 |
12 |
![]() |
0.00 |
13 |
![]() |
0.00 |
14 |
![]() |
0.00 |
15 |
![]() |
0.00 |
16 |
![]() |
0.00 |
17 |
![]() |
0.00 |
18 |
![]() |
0.00 |
19 |
![]() |
1.04 |
20 |
![]() |
0.00 |
21 |
![]() |
0.00 |
22 |
![]() |
-0.87 |
23 |
![]() |
0.00 |
24 |
![]() |
0.00 |
25 |
![]() |
0.00 |