NCAA Football · Power Rankings

2026 College Football Rankings

Predictive power rankings based on BBMI’s team ratings and projected performance. All 138 FBS teams ranked by BBMI Score: projected winning percentage against an average schedule. Games played count as results, adjusted for how hard each one was; games left count at the team’s Talent. Drawn from the same model that sets the game lines.

Snapshot

Live · 2026

138

FBS teams

200k

Season sims

Oct 26

Ratings anchor

Click a column heading to sort

▴
1	Miami (FL)ACC	7–0	.964	.940	11.3–0.7	5–0	-9.3	+14.4
2▲1	IndianaBig Ten	7–1	.933	.908	10.8–1.2	4–1	-15.0	+8.6
3▼1	Ohio StateBig Ten	6–1	.933	.937	10.2–1.8	5–0	-15.2	+12.7
4	KentuckySEC	7–1	.928	.755	8.7–3.3	5–0	-3.6	+6.8
5	UCLABig Ten	7–0	.910	.846	10.9–1.1	5–0	-8.8	+5.0
6	Notre DameFBS Independents	6–1	.894	.921	10.4–1.6	4–1	-11.2	+13.0
7	GeorgiaSEC	6–1	.891	.934	10.3–1.7	4–1	-13.0	+13.1
8	UtahBig 12	7–0	.877	.846	10.7–1.3	5–0	-8.2	+9.2
9	BYUBig 12	6–1	.876	.850	9.9–2.1	4–1	-8.3	+7.4
10	AlabamaSEC	6–2	.869	.881	9.2–2.8	3–2	-9.3	+10.7
11	HoustonBig 12	6–2	.864	.805	9.4–2.6	4–1	-2.9	+9.6
12	TexasSEC	5–2	.849	.829	8.3–3.7	3–2	-11.4	+8.1
13	Wake ForestACC	6–1	.843	.756	9.8–2.2	4–1	-4.6	+6.6
14▲1	Texas TechBig 12	6–1	.834	.824	9.8–2.2	4–1	-7.7	+9.7
15▼1	Ole MissSEC	5–2	.830	.759	8.5–3.5	3–2	-2.7	+10.7
16	TennesseeSEC	6–2	.809	.851	9.0–3.0	3–2	-9.0	+7.9
17	ArizonaBig 12	6–1	.809	.812	9.4–2.6	5–0	-6.9	+8.9
18	NorthwesternBig Ten	6–1	.803	.802	9.0–3.0	4–1	-6.8	+6.3
19	Boise StatePac-12	6–1	.791	.756	9.3–1.7	5–0	-2.3	+7.7
20	LSUSEC	6–2	.789	.887	8.9–3.1	4–1	-12.6	+12.3
21	SMUACC	6–1	.778	.757	9.3–2.7	4–1	-5.5	+7.6
22	OregonBig Ten	4–3	.772	.722	6.9–5.1	3–2	-9.4	+6.7
23	FloridaSEC	5–2	.768	.708	7.9–4.1	3–2	-2.4	+7.0
24	NebraskaBig Ten	5–2	.750	.825	8.5–3.5	3–2	-9.2	+5.7
25▲1	UTSAAmerican Athletic	7–1	.743	.614	9.8–2.2	5–0	+2.1	+5.0
26▼1	Oklahoma StateBig 12	5–2	.735	.797	8.7–3.3	4–1	-1.8	+9.6
27▲2	New MexicoMountain West	6–1	.722	.708	9.7–2.3	4–1	-8.3	+0.3
28	MissouriSEC	5–2	.719	.758	8.0–4.0	3–2	-9.4	+4.4
29▼2	IowaBig Ten	5–2	.713	.677	7.3–4.7	3–2	-10.6	+0.8
30▲3	James MadisonSun Belt	7–1	.713	.719	10.7–1.3	4–1	-4.2	+6.0
31▼1	WisconsinBig Ten	5–2	.710	.660	8.7–3.3	4–1	-10.8	-2.9
32▲2	South CarolinaSEC	4–3	.709	.755	7.0–5.0	2–3	-2.8	+7.1
33▼2	USCBig Ten	6–2	.705	.710	7.6–4.4	3–2	-3.5	+10.1
34▼2	OklahomaSEC	4–3	.700	.645	6.4–5.6	3–2	-11.7	-2.2
35	Mississippi StateSEC	4–3	.690	.532	6.5–5.5	2–3	+0.4	+5.4
36	AuburnSEC	4–3	.678	.568	6.3–5.7	2–3	-5.5	+0.0
37	North Dakota StateMountain West	6–2	.663	.645	9.6–2.4	3–2	-9.1	-1.1
38	LibertyConference USA	6–1	.659	.632	10.5–1.5	5–0	-4.9	+2.0
39	CincinnatiBig 12	5–2	.654	.632	7.2–4.8	3–2	+1.5	+7.3
40	LouisvilleACC	4–3	.651	.759	7.9–4.1	3–2	-0.5	+11.2
41	UCFBig 12	4–3	.643	.579	7.4–4.6	3–2	-3.1	+0.7
42	Oregon StatePac-12	5–2	.632	.632	7.5–3.5	5–0	-1.2	+5.1
43	DukeACC	5–2	.624	.632	7.4–4.6	3–2	-3.0	+3.2
44▲1	MemphisAmerican Athletic	6–2	.624	.632	8.9–3.1	4–1	+0.7	+7.3
45▲2	Virginia TechACC	6–2	.616	.660	8.0–4.0	3–2	-3.5	+4.9
46▼2	North CarolinaACC	4–3	.616	.517	5.7–6.3	2–3	-3.4	-0.2
47▲1	MinnesotaBig Ten	5–2	.614	.632	6.4–5.6	4–1	-6.1	-2.9
48▼2	MichiganBig Ten	4–3	.611	.620	6.3–5.7	2–3	-13.2	-2.1
49▲1	North TexasAmerican Athletic	5–2	.604	.517	8.7–3.3	4–1	+7.8	+7.0
50▼1	PittsburghACC	5–3	.603	.614	7.7–4.3	2–3	-3.5	+3.5
51▲1	West VirginiaBig 12	5–3	.582	.393	5.5–6.5	2–3	+7.3	+6.4
52▼1	IllinoisBig Ten	4–3	.581	.632	5.9–6.1	3–2	-0.4	+5.2
53▲1	PurdueBig Ten	3–4	.579	.536	4.6–7.4	2–3	+4.5	+3.5
54▼1	BaylorBig 12	4–3	.573	.645	5.9–6.1	3–2	-5.9	+1.5
55▲3	ArmyAmerican Athletic	5–2	.568	.556	8.2–3.8	4–1	+3.6	+3.7
56▲1	Kansas StateBig 12	4–3	.561	.632	6.7–5.3	2–3	-2.9	+4.9
57▲9	Jacksonville StateConference USA	6–2	.557	.498	9.0–3.0	5–0	+2.2	-1.0
58▼2	Louisiana TechSun Belt	5–2	.557	.498	8.6–3.4	4–1	+0.9	-1.9
59▼4	Boston CollegeACC	4–3	.556	.517	5.5–6.5	3–2	-0.8	-2.6
60▲1	Air ForceMountain West	5–2	.549	.534	8.0–4.0	4–1	+1.7	+0.1
61▲2	South FloridaAmerican Athletic	5–2	.548	.534	8.1–3.9	3–2	-1.4	+0.0
62▼3	WashingtonBig Ten	4–3	.544	.556	5.7–6.3	2–3	-5.7	+3.2
63▼3	Arizona StateBig 12	4–3	.543	.494	5.5–6.5	3–2	-1.6	+0.4
64	OhioMid-American	6–2	.543	.517	8.8–3.2	5–0	-0.4	-2.6
65▼3	ClemsonACC	4–3	.538	.498	6.1–5.9	3–2	-6.9	-3.2
66▲1	ToledoMid-American	6–2	.522	.568	9.2–2.8	4–1	-0.1	+1.7
67▼2	TCUBig 12	3–4	.515	.625	4.7–7.3	2–3	-9.4	-1.2
68	UNLVMountain West	4–3	.514	.498	7.2–4.8	3–2	+1.7	-1.2
69▲1	Appalachian StateSun Belt	5–2	.509	.451	8.1–3.9	3–2	+3.6	-2.3
70▲1	Western MichiganMid-American	5–3	.506	.466	8.2–3.8	3–2	-0.1	-3.7
71▼2	Florida StateACC	3–4	.488	.487	5.4–6.6	2–3	+1.2	+6.2
72	Texas A&MSEC	4–4	.479	.488	4.8–7.2	2–3	-5.1	+3.6
73	Penn StateBig Ten	3–4	.469	.544	6.7–5.3	1–4	-6.1	+2.4
74▲4	LouisianaSun Belt	5–3	.467	.544	8.3–3.7	3–2	+0.8	+0.7
75▲1	Fresno StatePac-12	4–3	.467	.537	6.3–4.7	3–2	-2.5	-0.8
76▲4	Miami (OH)Mid-American	5–3	.463	.466	7.5–4.5	4–1	+1.4	-3.5
77▼2	ArkansasSEC	3–4	.463	.428	3.8–8.2	2–3	+2.4	+1.2
78▲1	ConnecticutFBS Independents	4–3	.459	.556	6.4–5.6	3–2	+2.7	+2.7
79▼5	KansasBig 12	3–4	.458	.483	4.6–7.4	2–3	-0.9	+1.0
80▼3	SyracuseACC	3–4	.458	.460	4.4–7.6	2–3	+2.4	-0.8
81	Florida AtlanticAmerican Athletic	5–2	.442	.373	6.5–5.5	4–1	+8.0	+3.6
82▲1	Texas StatePac-12	4–3	.434	.526	6.3–4.7	4–1	+5.7	+7.0
83▼1	VirginiaACC	4–4	.426	.530	6.1–5.9	2–3	-4.4	+0.5
84▲1	TulsaAmerican Athletic	4–4	.418	.498	6.7–5.3	1–4	+3.0	+0.3
85▼1	Georgia SouthernSun Belt	3–4	.417	.423	5.8–6.2	2–3	+2.9	-2.1
86▲2	WyomingMountain West	5–3	.407	.423	7.2–4.8	4–1	-0.9	-9.0
87	TulaneAmerican Athletic	3–4	.407	.343	5.3–6.7	2–3	+2.2	-7.1
88▼2	NC StateACC	3–4	.402	.451	5.5–6.5	2–3	+5.1	+3.5
89	CaliforniaACC	3–5	.393	.276	4.1–7.9	1–4	+4.6	-3.7
90	BuffaloMid-American	5–3	.391	.301	7.3–4.7	4–1	+2.6	-10.4
91	UABAmerican Athletic	4–3	.391	.328	6.0–6.0	3–2	+4.6	-6.5
92▲1	Arkansas StateSun Belt	4–4	.389	.416	6.5–5.5	3–2	+6.3	-1.1
93▲1	San Jose StateMountain West	4–4	.378	.315	5.6–7.4	2–3	+1.1	-10.6
94▲3	South AlabamaSun Belt	4–3	.373	.304	6.1–5.9	3–2	+11.6	+0.0
95▲1	Iowa StateBig 12	3–4	.357	.316	4.0–8.0	2–3	-0.7	-2.9
96▼1	VanderbiltSEC	3–5	.356	.301	3.2–8.8	0–5	+2.8	+0.4
97▲2	Georgia StateSun Belt	4–3	.351	.343	6.5–5.5	2–3	+9.4	-0.2
98	San Diego StatePac-12	3–5	.346	.279	4.6–6.4	2–3	+5.7	-4.1
99▲7	MarshallSun Belt	4–3	.345	.289	6.6–5.4	3–2	+8.5	-2.8
100▲3	East CarolinaAmerican Athletic	3–4	.343	.398	6.0–6.0	3–2	+0.5	-4.3
101▼9	Middle TennesseeConference USA	4–4	.342	.281	5.9–6.1	2–3	+7.8	-8.4
102	StanfordACC	4–4	.334	.184	4.4–7.6	3–2	+6.4	-4.5
103▼2	Michigan StateBig Ten	2–6	.330	.288	3.1–8.9	0–5	+0.4	-3.4
104▼4	MarylandBig Ten	2–5	.329	.287	2.7–9.3	0–5	+2.8	+0.1
105	NavyAmerican Athletic	2–5	.328	.399	4.2–7.8	1–4	+4.5	+2.5
106▲1	NevadaMountain West	3–4	.320	.487	5.6–6.4	2–3	-1.3	-5.6
107▲10	DelawareConference USA	4–4	.318	.301	6.0–6.0	2–3	+8.5	-3.4
108▼4	ColoradoBig 12	2–5	.318	.259	2.7–9.3	0–5	+0.6	-3.8
109	FIUConference USA	3–4	.316	.416	6.2–5.8	2–3	-0.5	-8.6
110▼2	Georgia TechACC	2–5	.308	.394	2.7–9.3	2–3	+3.5	+1.8
111▲1	Colorado StatePac-12	3–4	.303	.281	4.3–6.7	1–4	+11.1	+2.1
112▼2	TempleAmerican Athletic	2–5	.301	.370	4.0–8.0	1–4	+7.4	-1.0
113▲1	MassachusettsMid-American	4–4	.281	.315	6.1–5.9	1–4	+3.7	-8.0
114▼1	New Mexico StateConference USA	3–5	.281	.269	4.4–7.6	2–3	+4.3	-9.2
115▲1	Eastern MichiganMid-American	4–5	.261	.235	5.4–6.6	3–2	+6.0	-9.2
116▼5	Western KentuckyConference USA	3–5	.255	.299	4.6–7.4	3–2	+4.8	-7.7
117▼2	RutgersBig Ten	2–5	.249	.230	2.6–9.4	2–3	+8.1	+2.2
118	Coastal CarolinaSun Belt	2–5	.244	.315	3.5–8.5	1–4	+7.8	-3.2
119▲2	Ball StateMid-American	3–5	.230	.147	4.2–7.8	2–3	+11.2	-9.0
120▼1	Utah StatePac-12	2–5	.228	.271	3.3–7.7	2–3	-0.0	-9.3
121▼1	Old DominionSun Belt	2–6	.227	.213	3.6–8.4	1–4	+1.6	-13.1
122▲8	Kennesaw StateConference USA	2–6	.224	.233	3.3–8.7	1–4	+4.8	-9.1
123▼1	HawaiiMountain West	2–6	.222	.370	4.1–7.9	1–4	+2.9	-7.4
124▼1	TroySun Belt	3–4	.221	.283	4.4–7.6	1–4	+2.9	-7.4
125	Central MichiganMid-American	3–5	.211	.219	5.1–6.9	1–4	+5.4	-11.5
126▼2	Southern MissSun Belt	2–5	.209	.207	3.6–8.4	1–4	+9.7	-6.3
127▼1	Missouri StateConference USA	3–5	.178	.202	4.0–8.0	2–3	+9.5	-7.5
128▼1	Kent StateMid-American	3–5	.161	.154	4.4–7.6	2–3	+7.8	-13.4
129▼1	RiceAmerican Athletic	1–7	.149	.202	1.9–10.1	0–5	+7.3	-7.2
130▼1	Washington StatePac-12	1–7	.135	.123	1.4–9.6	0–5	+3.6	-10.7
131	Louisiana MonroeSun Belt	1–6	.118	.117	1.8–10.2	1–4	+12.3	-11.8
132	CharlotteAmerican Athletic	1–6	.114	.059	1.3–10.7	1–4	+14.8	-11.0
133	Bowling GreenMid-American	2–6	.111	.234	3.6–8.4	2–3	+7.6	-11.1
134▲1	UTEPMountain West	1–6	.097	.102	2.1–9.9	0–5	+10.7	-13.8
135▲1	AkronMid-American	1–7	.087	.096	1.5–10.5	0–5	+12.5	-12.6
136▲1	Sacramento StateMid-American	1–7	.078	.094	1.6–10.4	0–5	+13.3	-16.1
137▼3	Sam Houston StateConference USA	1–7	.074	.176	2.1–9.9	0–5	+5.7	-12.6
138	Northern IllinoisMountain West	0–7	.022	.053	0.5–11.5	0–5	+12.5	-13.0

Showing 138 of 138 teamsBBMI SCORE = projected win % vs an average schedule · TALENT = win % vs every FBS team, neutral field · LAST 5 = record over the last 5 games

Movers

rank change vs last week

RISERS

DEL▲ 10

JXST▲ 9

KENN▲ 8

MRSH▲ 7

FALLERS

MTSU▼ 9

KU▼ 5

WKU▼ 5

BC▼ 4

Conference strength

avg BBMI Score

SEC.720

Big Ten.641

Big 12.637

ACC.565

American Athletic.427

Pac-12.417

Mountain West.389

Sun Belt.367

Conference USA.320

Mid-American.296

Mean BBMI Score of the conference’s teams. Leagues with fewer than four FBS members are left out.

How ratings work

BBMI SCORE: Projected winning percentage against an average schedule, and the ranking key. Played games count as schedule-adjusted results; remaining games count at the team’s Talent.
RATING: Projected margin against an average FBS team on a neutral field. The gap between two ratings is roughly the model’s spread, before home field. Under More columns.
TALENT: Winning percentage against every other FBS team on a neutral field, priced by the BBMI line model, with no schedule and no results in it. Compare it with the record to see who is over- or under-performing.
LAST 5: Record over the last five games. Green when the five-game pace is ahead of the season pace, red when behind.
DEF / OFF: Points per game conceded and scored against an average opponent, shown as the gap from the FBS average. A negative DEF is a better-than-average defense.
PROJ W–L: Mean regular-season record across 200,000 simulations of the schedule that remains.

Read the methodology →

Showing 138 of 138 FBS teams. BBMI Score = projected win% against an average schedule (the ranking key): (wins + schedule adjustment + Talent × games remaining) ÷ regular-season games scheduled; Rating = neutral-field point rating; Def/Off from SP+ via CollegeFootballData.com. Talent, SOS and Proj W are priced by the BBMI line model, the same model that sets the game lines; Playoff comes from a simulation of the remaining season run 200,000 times. Proj W–L is an expected record, not a most likely one, so gaps of a few tenths between teams are inside the simulation’s own noise even though the column sorts. Def and Off are shown as the gap from the FBS average, so a negative Def is a better-than-average defense. The playoff figure is how often a team reaches the 12-team field when five conference champions take auto-bids and seven at-large places follow on a resume of wins adjusted for quality and schedule strength. That resume is how this model would seed the field. It is not a prediction of what the selection committee will do.