digdat0 Ballot for 2025 Week 16 & Bowls
Ballot Type: Computer
Submitted: Dec. 7, 2025, 1:52 p.m.
Overall Rationale: This ranking formula measures overall team strength using results, schedule difficulty, quality of wins, and recency. It adjusts for game location, caps margin of victory, and gives bonus credit for beating top-ranked opponents. The final score ranks FBS teams by rewarding recent, high-quality performances against strong competition. The poll treats conference championships as just another game.
| Rank | Team | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| 1 |
Indiana Hoosiers
|
1. Indiana — Score: 0.822 | Results: 1.082, SOS Rank: #50, Quality: 0.063, Recency: 0.155 | T10W: 2, T25W: 3, T50W: 7, Off Rk: #5, Def Rk: #2 |
| 2 |
Ohio State Buckeyes
|
2. Ohio State — Score: 0.747 | Results: 1.011, SOS Rank: #32, Quality: 0.012, Recency: 0.165 | T10W: 0, T25W: 3, T50W: 5, Off Rk: #18, Def Rk: #1 |
| 3 |
Texas Tech Red Raiders
|
3. Texas Tech — Score: 0.744 | Results: 0.958, SOS Rank: #77, Quality: 0.029, Recency: 0.157 | T10W: 1, T25W: 3, T50W: 4, Off Rk: #3, Def Rk: #3 |
| 4 |
Oregon Ducks
|
4. Oregon — Score: 0.735 | Results: 0.947, SOS Rank: #42, Quality: 0.013, Recency: 0.148 | T10W: 0, T25W: 2, T50W: 4, Off Rk: #9, Def Rk: #8 |
| 5 |
Georgia Bulldogs
|
5. Georgia — Score: 0.705 | Results: 0.976, SOS Rank: #34, Quality: 0.016, Recency: 0.165 | T10W: 1, T25W: 3, T50W: 5, Off Rk: #34, Def Rk: #11 |
| 6 |
Notre Dame Fighting Irish
|
6. Notre Dame — Score: 0.701 | Results: 0.851, SOS Rank: #48, Quality: -0.005, Recency: 0.157 | T10W: 0, T25W: 1, T50W: 4, Off Rk: #4, Def Rk: #13 |
| 7 |
James Madison Dukes
|
7. James Madison — Score: 0.687 | Results: 0.888, SOS Rank: #111, Quality: -0.020, Recency: 0.166 | T10W: 0, T25W: 1, T50W: 1, Off Rk: #10, Def Rk: #10 |
| 8 |
Ole Miss Rebels
|
8. Ole Miss — Score: 0.668 | Results: 0.865, SOS Rank: #74, Quality: 0.040, Recency: 0.143 | T10W: 0, T25W: 2, T50W: 2, Off Rk: #11, Def Rk: #24 |
| 9 |
Miami Hurricanes
|
9. Miami — Score: 0.668 | Results: 0.805, SOS Rank: #56, Quality: -0.030, Recency: 0.155 | T10W: 1, T25W: 2, T50W: 3, Off Rk: #20, Def Rk: #6 |
| 10 |
Utah Utes
|
10. Utah — Score: 0.657 | Results: 0.769, SOS Rank: #80, Quality: -0.009, Recency: 0.147 | T10W: 0, T25W: 0, T50W: 1, Off Rk: #6, Def Rk: #16 |
| 11 |
BYU Cougars
|
11. BYU — Score: 0.645 | Results: 0.833, SOS Rank: #29, Quality: -0.017, Recency: 0.165 | T10W: 1, T25W: 2, T50W: 5, Off Rk: #35, Def Rk: #19 |
| 12 |
Alabama Crimson Tide
|
12. Alabama — Score: 0.627 | Results: 0.713, SOS Rank: #23, Quality: 0.018, Recency: 0.163 | T10W: 1, T25W: 2, T50W: 4, Off Rk: #41, Def Rk: #12 |
| 13 |
Texas A&M Aggies
|
13. Texas A&M — Score: 0.627 | Results: 0.862, SOS Rank: #89, Quality: -0.008, Recency: 0.152 | T10W: 1, T25W: 1, T50W: 2, Off Rk: #14, Def Rk: #41 |
| 14 |
Oklahoma Sooners
|
14. Oklahoma — Score: 0.612 | Results: 0.843, SOS Rank: #11, Quality: -0.004, Recency: 0.148 | T10W: 0, T25W: 2, T50W: 4, Off Rk: #78, Def Rk: #7 |
| 15 |
Vanderbilt Commodores
|
15. Vanderbilt — Score: 0.610 | Results: 0.754, SOS Rank: #78, Quality: -0.031, Recency: 0.143 | T10W: 0, T25W: 0, T50W: 2, Off Rk: #8, Def Rk: #42 |
| 16 |
USC Trojans
|
16. USC — Score: 0.605 | Results: 0.697, SOS Rank: #25, Quality: -0.018, Recency: 0.150 | T10W: 0, T25W: 1, T50W: 2, Off Rk: #13, Def Rk: #46 |
| 17 |
North Texas Mean Green
|
17. North Texas — Score: 0.595 | Results: 0.805, SOS Rank: #68, Quality: -0.028, Recency: 0.158 | T10W: 0, T25W: 0, T50W: 1, Off Rk: #1, Def Rk: #71 |
| 18 |
USF Bulls
|
18. South Florida — Score: 0.590 | Results: 0.684, SOS Rank: #45, Quality: -0.039, Recency: 0.150 | T10W: 0, T25W: 1, T50W: 2, Off Rk: #2, Def Rk: #57 |
| 19 |
Arizona Wildcats
|
19. Arizona — Score: 0.585 | Results: 0.627, SOS Rank: #70, Quality: -0.043, Recency: 0.153 | T10W: 0, T25W: 0, T50W: 1, Off Rk: #30, Def Rk: #18 |
| 20 |
Virginia Cavaliers
|
20. Virginia — Score: 0.572 | Results: 0.650, SOS Rank: #71, Quality: -0.060, Recency: 0.154 | T10W: 0, T25W: 0, T50W: 2, Off Rk: #33, Def Rk: #31 |
| 21 |
Old Dominion Monarchs
|
21. Old Dominion — Score: 0.570 | Results: 0.597, SOS Rank: #92, Quality: -0.031, Recency: 0.150 | T10W: 0, T25W: 0, T50W: 0, Off Rk: #29, Def Rk: #20 |
| 22 |
Washington Huskies
|
22. Washington — Score: 0.568 | Results: 0.507, SOS Rank: #60, Quality: -0.031, Recency: 0.153 | T10W: 0, T25W: 0, T50W: 1, Off Rk: #22, Def Rk: #21 |
| 23 |
Texas Longhorns
|
23. Texas — Score: 0.567 | Results: 0.648, SOS Rank: #46, Quality: 0.018, Recency: 0.148 | T10W: 0, T25W: 3, T50W: 3, Off Rk: #52, Def Rk: #23 |
| 24 |
Michigan Wolverines
|
24. Michigan — Score: 0.555 | Results: 0.673, SOS Rank: #26, Quality: -0.009, Recency: 0.148 | T10W: 0, T25W: 1, T50W: 2, Off Rk: #72, Def Rk: #17 |
| 25 |
Tulane Green Wave
|
25. Tulane — Score: 0.555 | Results: 0.784, SOS Rank: #66, Quality: -0.016, Recency: 0.162 | T10W: 0, T25W: 1, T50W: 4, Off Rk: #58, Def Rk: #50 |
Teams Ranked:
| Rank | Team | Unusualness |
|---|---|---|
| 1 |
Indiana Hoosiers
|
0.00 |
| 2 |
Ohio State Buckeyes
|
0.00 |
| 3 |
Texas Tech Red Raiders
|
0.05 |
| 4 |
Oregon Ducks
|
0.24 |
| 5 |
Georgia Bulldogs
|
-1.03 |
| 6 |
Notre Dame Fighting Irish
|
0.62 |
| 7 |
James Madison Dukes
|
1.58 |
| 8 |
Ole Miss Rebels
|
0.00 |
| 9 |
Miami Hurricanes
|
0.00 |
| 10 |
Utah Utes
|
0.90 |
| 11 |
BYU Cougars
|
0.00 |
| 12 |
Alabama Crimson Tide
|
0.00 |
| 13 |
Texas A&M Aggies
|
-2.33 |
| 14 |
Oklahoma Sooners
|
-1.65 |
| 15 |
Vanderbilt Commodores
|
-0.08 |
| 16 |
USC Trojans
|
0.00 |
| 17 |
North Texas Mean Green
|
0.63 |
| 18 |
USF Bulls
|
5.09 |
| 19 |
Arizona Wildcats
|
0.04 |
| 20 |
Virginia Cavaliers
|
0.00 |
| 21 |
Old Dominion Monarchs
|
4.18 |
| 22 |
Washington Huskies
|
2.93 |
| 23 |
Texas Longhorns
|
-1.87 |
| 24 |
Michigan Wolverines
|
-1.28 |
| 25 |
Tulane Green Wave
|
-1.49 |
Omissions:
| Team | Unusualness |
|---|---|
Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets
|
0.30 |
Navy Midshipmen
|
0.31 |
Iowa Hawkeyes
|
0.03 |
Total Score: 26.63