Ballot Type: Computer
Submitted: Oct. 19, 2026, 10:42 p.m.
Overall Rationale: “Hey, u/JKess207, why’d you change your model halfway through the season?” Because fuck me, that’s why. That’s right, I’ve given my model a complete overhaul because I felt like the old one just wasn’t accurately reflecting the best teams. I like the idea behind this one more; it utilizes both EPA AND Opponent-Adjusted EPA, so I’m still looking at the opponents but not letting as much conference bias in. Since this is the first week I’m using it, it still needs work (as you’ll very clearly see). But I’m optimistic about it going forward once I tweak some stuff.
| Rank | Team | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| 1 |
Notre Dame Fighting Irish
|
Like I said, the model needs work. I ran the numbers multiple times, and even did the math by hand. Doesn’t matter, the model loves the Irish. They’re #1 in Net EPA/Play and /Drive, and #2 in Net Adjusted EPA/Play. Record aside (and let’s be honest, there was some fuckery going on in Provo), the Irish are one of the most efficient teams in the country. |
| 2 |
Ohio State Buckeyes
|
|
| 3 |
UCLA Bruins
|
I thought I was already high on the Bruins, but man this model loves them. Specifically, their defense. #3 in overall defensive success rate, #1 against the pass, #2 in defensive Net EPA/Play. This defense is a UNIT. |
| 4 |
LSU Tigers
|
Another double-take, the model is a lot higher on LSU than I am. They’re #1 in Net Adjusted EPA/Play, which carries their ranking here. The only thing that hurts them is their relative lack of success on the ground, coming in at #49 in rush success rate. |
| 5 |
Utah Utes
|
|
| 6 |
Miami Hurricanes
|
The first school that’s slightly lower in the model than my own list, caused by a defense that’s only Top 30 as opposed to their Top 3 offense. |
| 7 |
Indiana Hoosiers
|
|
| 8 |
Nebraska Cornhuskers
|
Uh, what? |
| 9 |
Georgia Bulldogs
|
T-9. Edge given due to H2H. |
| 10 |
Alabama Crimson Tide
|
T-9. |
| 11 |
BYU Cougars
|
They’re really being dragged down by their defensive success rate, ranked #34. Another item where the model needs some tweaking though. |
| 12 |
Kansas State Wildcats
|
I genuinely have no idea what the model is looking at. |
| 13 |
Tennessee Volunteers
|
|
| 14 |
Houston Cougars
|
|
| 15 |
James Madison Dukes
|
Good example of why I like this model. JMU being unranked in AP is wild. |
| 16 |
Texas Tech Red Raiders
|
|
| 17 |
Duke Blue Devils
|
What the hell? |
| 18 |
Boise State Broncos
|
The PAC-12 will never die. |
| 19 |
Oregon State Beavers
|
See #18. |
| 20 |
Northwestern Wildcats
|
|
| 21 |
Texas Longhorns
|
|
| 22 |
Air Force Falcons
|
This model supports our troops, apparently 🫡 |
| 23 |
Ole Miss Rebels
|
Ole Miss’s defense is deceptively bad. Like, #65 in success rate bad. |
| 24 |
Missouri Tigers
|
Huh, even the model has Mizzou as the token 23-25 SEC team. |
| 25 |
Arizona Wildcats
|
Teams Ranked:
| Rank | Team | Unusualness |
|---|---|---|
| 1 |
Notre Dame Fighting Irish
|
0.94 |
| 2 |
Ohio State Buckeyes
|
0.04 |
| 3 |
UCLA Bruins
|
0.39 |
| 4 |
LSU Tigers
|
2.56 |
| 5 |
Utah Utes
|
0.22 |
| 6 |
Miami Hurricanes
|
-1.42 |
| 7 |
Indiana Hoosiers
|
0.00 |
| 8 |
Nebraska Cornhuskers
|
15.79 |
| 9 |
Georgia Bulldogs
|
0.00 |
| 10 |
Alabama Crimson Tide
|
0.44 |
| 11 |
BYU Cougars
|
-3.09 |
| 12 |
Kansas State Wildcats
|
13.24 |
| 13 |
Tennessee Volunteers
|
0.00 |
| 14 |
Houston Cougars
|
0.00 |
| 15 |
James Madison Dukes
|
0.28 |
| 16 |
Texas Tech Red Raiders
|
-2.62 |
| 17 |
Duke Blue Devils
|
8.21 |
| 18 |
Boise State Broncos
|
0.12 |
| 19 |
Oregon State Beavers
|
5.77 |
| 20 |
Northwestern Wildcats
|
0.00 |
| 21 |
Texas Longhorns
|
0.00 |
| 22 |
Air Force Falcons
|
3.18 |
| 23 |
Ole Miss Rebels
|
-2.58 |
| 24 |
Missouri Tigers
|
0.00 |
| 25 |
Arizona Wildcats
|
-0.09 |
Omissions:
| Team | Unusualness |
|---|---|
Kentucky Wildcats
|
2.23 |
Iowa Hawkeyes
|
1.94 |
Wake Forest Demon Deacons
|
1.75 |
USC Trojans
|
1.46 |
Florida Gators
|
0.42 |
SMU Mustangs
|
0.28 |
Total Score: 69.05