digdat0 Ballot for 2026 Week 5
Ballot Type: Computer
Submitted: Sept. 27, 2026, 2:14 p.m.
Overall Rationale: This ranking measures how good each team is right now. Its biggest input is opponent-adjusted scoring: how many points a team scores and allows compared with what its opponents usually give up and score. That is combined with results, strength of schedule, quality of wins and losses, and recent form. It adjusts for home field, limits the effect of blowouts, gives more credit for beating highly ranked opponents, and penalizes bad losses. Recent games count more than early ones. Early-season rankings lean partly on preseason ratings and can look odd until more games are played.
| Rank | Team | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| 1 |
Texas Longhorns
|
1. Texas — Score: 0.286 | Results: 1.664, SOS Rank: #1, Quality: 0.279, Recency: 0.000 | T10W: 1, T25W: 1, T50W: 3, Off Rk: #53, Def Rk: #1 |
| 2 |
Alabama Crimson Tide
|
2. Alabama — Score: 0.235 | Results: 1.709, SOS Rank: #19, Quality: 0.133, Recency: 0.000 | T10W: 0, T25W: 0, T50W: 1, Off Rk: #3, Def Rk: #35 |
| 3 |
Florida Gators
|
3. Florida — Score: 0.234 | Results: 1.591, SOS Rank: #6, Quality: 0.171, Recency: 0.000 | T10W: 0, T25W: 0, T50W: 2, Off Rk: #1, Def Rk: #73 |
| 4 |
Notre Dame Fighting Irish
|
4. Notre Dame — Score: 0.234 | Results: 1.668, SOS Rank: #52, Quality: 0.129, Recency: 0.000 | T10W: 0, T25W: 0, T50W: 1, Off Rk: #18, Def Rk: #2 |
| 5 |
Georgia Bulldogs
|
5. Georgia — Score: 0.207 | Results: 1.560, SOS Rank: #109, Quality: 0.062, Recency: 0.000 | T10W: 0, T25W: 0, T50W: 0, Off Rk: #2, Def Rk: #56 |
| 6 |
Utah Utes
|
6. Utah — Score: 0.194 | Results: 1.564, SOS Rank: #103, Quality: 0.067, Recency: 0.000 | T10W: 0, T25W: 0, T50W: 0, Off Rk: #13, Def Rk: #5 |
| 7 |
Texas Tech Red Raiders
|
7. Texas Tech — Score: 0.188 | Results: 1.496, SOS Rank: #53, Quality: 0.131, Recency: 0.000 | T10W: 0, T25W: 1, T50W: 2, Off Rk: #24, Def Rk: #23 |
| 8 |
Indiana Hoosiers
|
8. Indiana — Score: 0.187 | Results: 1.428, SOS Rank: #86, Quality: 0.082, Recency: 0.000 | T10W: 0, T25W: 0, T50W: 1, Off Rk: #35, Def Rk: #4 |
| 9 |
Nebraska Cornhuskers
|
9. Nebraska — Score: 0.186 | Results: 1.542, SOS Rank: #80, Quality: 0.032, Recency: 0.000 | T10W: 0, T25W: 0, T50W: 0, Off Rk: #14, Def Rk: #10 |
| 10 |
Ohio State Buckeyes
|
10. Ohio State — Score: 0.182 | Results: 0.971, SOS Rank: #38, Quality: 0.048, Recency: 0.000 | T10W: 0, T25W: 0, T50W: 0, Off Rk: #7, Def Rk: #21 |
| 11 |
Pittsburgh Panthers
|
11. Pittsburgh — Score: 0.182 | Results: 1.406, SOS Rank: #74, Quality: 0.114, Recency: 0.000 | T10W: 0, T25W: 1, T50W: 1, Off Rk: #32, Def Rk: #17 |
| 12 |
Miami Hurricanes
|
12. Miami — Score: 0.181 | Results: 1.483, SOS Rank: #110, Quality: 0.033, Recency: 0.000 | T10W: 0, T25W: 0, T50W: 0, Off Rk: #4, Def Rk: #29 |
| 13 |
Oregon Ducks
|
13. Oregon — Score: 0.177 | Results: 0.889, SOS Rank: #29, Quality: 0.136, Recency: 0.000 | T10W: 0, T25W: 1, T50W: 2, Off Rk: #9, Def Rk: #71 |
| 14 |
Mississippi State Bulldogs
|
14. Mississippi State — Score: 0.175 | Results: 1.600, SOS Rank: #56, Quality: 0.119, Recency: 0.000 | T10W: 0, T25W: 0, T50W: 2, Off Rk: #12, Def Rk: #50 |
| 15 |
Iowa Hawkeyes
|
15. Iowa — Score: 0.166 | Results: 1.421, SOS Rank: #68, Quality: 0.085, Recency: 0.000 | T10W: 0, T25W: 0, T50W: 1, Off Rk: #67, Def Rk: #3 |
| 16 |
UCLA Bruins
|
16. UCLA — Score: 0.165 | Results: 1.630, SOS Rank: #96, Quality: 0.015, Recency: 0.000 | T10W: 0, T25W: 0, T50W: 0, Off Rk: #8, Def Rk: #51 |
| 17 |
James Madison Dukes
|
17. James Madison — Score: 0.158 | Results: 1.455, SOS Rank: #120, Quality: 0.059, Recency: 0.000 | T10W: 0, T25W: 0, T50W: 1, Off Rk: #16, Def Rk: #49 |
| 18 |
Oklahoma State Cowboys
|
18. Oklahoma State — Score: 0.158 | Results: 0.924, SOS Rank: #47, Quality: 0.141, Recency: 0.000 | T10W: 0, T25W: 1, T50W: 2, Off Rk: #37, Def Rk: #54 |
| 19 |
BYU Cougars
|
19. BYU — Score: 0.153 | Results: 1.468, SOS Rank: #115, Quality: 0.061, Recency: 0.000 | T10W: 0, T25W: 0, T50W: 0, Off Rk: #43, Def Rk: #24 |
| 20 |
LSU Tigers
|
20. LSU — Score: 0.148 | Results: 0.941, SOS Rank: #32, Quality: 0.082, Recency: 0.000 | T10W: 0, T25W: 0, T50W: 1, Off Rk: #21, Def Rk: #9 |
| 21 |
UCF Knights
|
21. UCF — Score: 0.140 | Results: 0.892, SOS Rank: #12, Quality: 0.067, Recency: 0.000 | T10W: 0, T25W: 0, T50W: 0, Off Rk: #41, Def Rk: #13 |
| 22 |
Duke Blue Devils
|
22. Duke — Score: 0.135 | Results: 1.369, SOS Rank: #111, Quality: 0.030, Recency: 0.000 | T10W: 0, T25W: 0, T50W: 0, Off Rk: #65, Def Rk: #14 |
| 23 |
Houston Cougars
|
23. Houston — Score: 0.127 | Results: 0.851, SOS Rank: #40, Quality: 0.059, Recency: 0.000 | T10W: 0, T25W: 0, T50W: 1, Off Rk: #6, Def Rk: #67 |
| 24 |
Cincinnati Bearcats
|
24. Cincinnati — Score: 0.123 | Results: 1.370, SOS Rank: #63, Quality: 0.053, Recency: 0.000 | T10W: 0, T25W: 0, T50W: 1, Off Rk: #26, Def Rk: #76 |
| 25 |
Boise State Broncos
|
25. Boise State — Score: 0.122 | Results: 1.026, SOS Rank: #17, Quality: 0.035, Recency: 0.000 | T10W: 0, T25W: 0, T50W: 0, Off Rk: #40, Def Rk: #15 |
Teams Ranked:
| Rank | Team | Unusualness |
|---|---|---|
| 1 |
Texas Longhorns
|
0.00 |
| 2 |
Alabama Crimson Tide
|
0.99 |
| 3 |
Florida Gators
|
0.54 |
| 4 |
Notre Dame Fighting Irish
|
0.00 |
| 5 |
Georgia Bulldogs
|
0.00 |
| 6 |
Utah Utes
|
0.82 |
| 7 |
Texas Tech Red Raiders
|
0.54 |
| 8 |
Indiana Hoosiers
|
0.00 |
| 9 |
Nebraska Cornhuskers
|
2.50 |
| 10 |
Ohio State Buckeyes
|
0.00 |
| 11 |
Pittsburgh Panthers
|
1.94 |
| 12 |
Miami Hurricanes
|
-2.00 |
| 13 |
Oregon Ducks
|
0.10 |
| 14 |
Mississippi State Bulldogs
|
0.00 |
| 15 |
Iowa Hawkeyes
|
0.00 |
| 16 |
UCLA Bruins
|
0.00 |
| 17 |
James Madison Dukes
|
2.67 |
| 18 |
Oklahoma State Cowboys
|
0.21 |
| 19 |
BYU Cougars
|
-0.98 |
| 20 |
LSU Tigers
|
-0.54 |
| 21 |
UCF Knights
|
4.23 |
| 22 |
Duke Blue Devils
|
0.00 |
| 23 |
Houston Cougars
|
0.00 |
| 24 |
Cincinnati Bearcats
|
0.00 |
| 25 |
Boise State Broncos
|
0.00 |
Omissions:
| Team | Unusualness |
|---|---|
Ole Miss Rebels
|
1.88 |
Tennessee Volunteers
|
0.85 |
USC Trojans
|
0.32 |
Virginia Tech Hokies
|
0.06 |
Total Score: 21.17