College Bowl Rankings
College Football Power Rankings Top 100 (see all)
| Rank | Team | Rating | v 1-10 | v 11-25 | v 26-40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alabama (13-0) | 72.8 | 3-0 | 4-0 | 3-0 |
| 2 | Boise State (13-0) | 67.2 | 1-0 | 1-0 | 0-0 |
| 3 | Florida (12-1) | 62.8 | 1-1 | 4-0 | 3-0 |
| 4 | TX Christian (11-1) | 57.7 | 1-1 | 1-0 | 2-0 |
| 5 | Texas (13-1) | 53.8 | 0-1 | 3-0 | 1-0 |
| 6 | Ohio State (11-2) | 52.2 | 1-0 | 3-0 | 0-1 |
| 7 | BYU (11-2) | 48.6 | 0-1 | 2-1 | 2-0 |
| 8 | Penn State (10-2) | 48.3 | 0-1 | 1-1 | 1-0 |
| 9 | VA Tech (10-3) | 47.6 | 0-1 | 1-1 | 2-1 |
| 10 | Cincinnati (11-1) | 47.3 | 0-1 | 1-0 | 4-0 |
| 11 | Iowa (10-2) | 47.0 | 1-1 | 2-0 | 0-1 |
| 12 | Arkansas (7-5) | 44.6 | 0-2 | 1-3 | 2-0 |
| 13 | LSU (9-4) | 44.0 | 0-3 | 3-1 | 1-0 |
| 14 | Mississippi (7-4) | 43.5 | 0-1 | 2-1 | 2-2 |
| 15 | Utah (10-3) | 42.8 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 1-0 |
| 16 | Nebraska (10-4) | 42.0 | 0-2 | 1-1 | 0-0 |
| 17 | Oregon (10-3) | 41.7 | 0-2 | 1-0 | 2-1 |
| 18 | Auburn (7-5) | 41.2 | 0-1 | 1-3 | 4-0 |
| 19 | Georgia (7-5) | 41.1 | 0-1 | 3-1 | 1-2 |
| 20 | GA Tech (10-3) | 40.7 | 1-0 | 1-2 | 4-1 |
| 21 | Oklahoma (7-5) | 40.6 | 0-2 | 0-2 | 2-1 |
| 22 | Wisconsin (9-3) | 40.6 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 1-1 |
| 23 | Florida St (6-6) | 39.7 | 1-1 | 0-1 | 2-2 |
| 24 | Pittsburgh (9-3) | 39.3 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 3-1 |
| 25 | Texas Tech (8-4) | 38.9 | 0-1 | 2-0 | 0-1 |
| 26 | Connecticut (7-5) | 38.8 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 1-3 |
| 27 | Clemson (8-5) | 38.3 | 0-1 | 1-2 | 1-1 |
| 28 | Air Force (7-5) | 38.1 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 0-0 |
| 29 | Miss State (4-7) | 37.9 | 0-2 | 1-4 | 0-0 |
| 30 | Miami (FL) (8-4) | 36.8 | 0-1 | 3-1 | 0-2 |
| 31 | W Virginia (8-4) | 36.6 | 0-1 | 1-2 | 2-0 |
| 32 | Tennessee (7-6) | 36.4 | 0-3 | 1-2 | 1-0 |
| 33 | Oregon St (7-5) | 34.8 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 1-1 |
| 34 | Oklahoma St (8-4) | 34.2 | 0-1 | 2-2 | 0-0 |
| 35 | N Carolina (6-5) | 34.0 | 1-0 | 0-3 | 2-0 |
| 36 | S Carolina (6-6) | 33.4 | 0-2 | 1-2 | 1-2 |
| 37 | Stanford (8-5) | 33.2 | 0-0 | 1-1 | 1-1 |
| 38 | USC (9-4) | 33.2 | 1-0 | 0-1 | 1-1 |
| 39 | Rutgers (7-4) | 33.2 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 1-1 |
| 40 | Northwestrn (7-5) | 33.0 | 0-1 | 2-1 | 0-0 |
| 41 | Arizona (7-5) | 32.8 | 0-0 | 0-3 | 3-0 |
| 42 | E Carolina (8-5) | 32.1 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 0-2 |
| 43 | Kentucky (6-6) | 32.0 | 0-2 | 2-0 | 0-4 |
| 44 | Navy (9-4) | 31.8 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 1-0 |
| 45 | Central Mich (11-2) | 31.0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 46 | S Florida (6-5) | 30.3 | 0-1 | 1-1 | 1-3 |
| 47 | California (7-5) | 30.0 | 0-0 | 0-2 | 1-2 |
| 48 | Wyoming (6-6) | 28.9 | 0-3 | 0-1 | 0-1 |
| 49 | Middle Tenn (10-3) | 27.8 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-2 |
| 50 | Washington (5-7) | 27.6 | 0-0 | 0-2 | 1-2 |
| 51 | Wake Forest (4-7) | 27.5 | 0-0 | 0-2 | 1-2 |
| 52 | UCLA (7-6) | 27.5 | 0-0 | 0-1 | 1-3 |
| 53 | Boston Col (7-5) | 27.1 | 0-1 | 1-0 | 0-3 |
| 54 | Michigan St (5-7) | 26.5 | 0-1 | 0-3 | 1-0 |
| 55 | Texas A&M (6-7) | 26.1 | 0-1 | 1-3 | 0-1 |
| 56 | Houston (9-4) | 26.0 | 0-0 | 1-0 | 2-1 |
| 57 | S Methodist (7-5) | 25.7 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 58 | Missouri (7-5) | 25.7 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 0-1 |
| 59 | Notre Dame (6-6) | 25.4 | 0-0 | 0-1 | 0-3 |
| 60 | NC State (3-7) | 25.4 | 0-1 | 1-1 | 1-2 |
| 61 | Fresno St (7-5) | 25.2 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 0-0 |
| 62 | Iowa State (6-6) | 25.2 | 0-0 | 1-1 | 0-1 |
| 63 | Central FL (7-5) | 25.0 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0-2 |
| 64 | Nevada (8-5) | 23.6 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 65 | Purdue (5-7) | 23.6 | 1-0 | 0-2 | 0-1 |
| 66 | Syracuse (3-8) | 23.1 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 2-2 |
| 67 | Troy (9-4) | 22.8 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 0-0 |
| 68 | Minnesota (5-7) | 22.3 | 0-2 | 0-2 | 2-0 |
| 69 | Kansas St (4-6) | 22.0 | 0-0 | 0-3 | 0-0 |
| 70 | Baylor (3-8) | 21.5 | 0-1 | 0-3 | 0-2 |
| 71 | UNLV (4-7) | 21.4 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 0-2 |
| 72 | Duke (4-6) | 21.0 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 0-2 |
| 73 | Hawaii (5-7) | 20.7 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 0-0 |
| 74 | S Mississippi (6-6) | 20.3 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 75 | Louisville (3-8) | 19.5 | 0-1 | 0-2 | 0-3 |
| 76 | Kansas (4-7) | 19.1 | 0-1 | 0-3 | 0-0 |
| 77 | LA Tech (3-8) | 18.8 | 0-1 | 0-2 | 0-0 |
| 78 | Marshall (6-6) | 18.8 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0-1 |
| 79 | Arizona St (3-8) | 18.7 | 0-0 | 0-2 | 0-3 |
| 80 | Virginia (3-8) | 18.4 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 1-2 |
| 81 | Utah State (3-8) | 18.2 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 0-0 |
| 82 | Colorado (3-9) | 18.1 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 0-2 |
| 83 | Illinois (2-9) | 17.5 | 0-3 | 0-0 | 0-1 |
| 84 | Idaho (8-5) | 17.3 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 85 | Temple (9-3) | 17.0 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 86 | UAB (5-7) | 16.9 | 0-0 | 0-1 | 0-0 |
| 87 | Michigan (4-7) | 15.7 | 0-2 | 0-2 | 0-0 |
| 88 | San Diego St (3-8) | 15.4 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 0-1 |
| 89 | Ohio (8-5) | 14.8 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-2 |
| 90 | Indiana (3-8) | 14.7 | 0-2 | 0-2 | 0-1 |
| 91 | Maryland (1-10) | 14.2 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 1-1 |
| 92 | Vanderbilt (1-10) | 13.0 | 0-1 | 0-4 | 0-3 |
| 93 | Bowling Grn (7-6) | 12.9 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 94 | Tulsa (4-7) | 11.7 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 0-0 |
| 95 | TX El Paso (4-8) | 11.1 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| 96 | Fla Atlantic (5-7) | 9.0 | 0-0 | 0-1 | 0-1 |
| 97 | N Illinois (6-6) | 8.4 | 0-0 | 0-1 | 0-0 |
| 98 | Colorado St (2-9) | 8.2 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 0-1 |
| 99 | Rice (2-10) | 7.6 | 0-0 | 0-1 | 0-1 |
| 100 | Buffalo (4-7) | 7.1 | 0-0 | 0-1 | 0-0 |
College Bowl Rankings (By Team)
College Bowl Rankings (By Conference)
About College Bowl Team Power Ratings
Our college bowl power ratings measure the relative performance of all college bowl teams using 100% objective college bowl performance stats and sophisticated computational algorithms.
Our proprietary college bowl power ratings model iteratively analyzes information on every college bowl game, including team performance, home/away status, margin of victory, and other factors. As each college bowl season progresses, the college bowl power ratings model builds a sophisticated, multi-layered web of knowledge: how each team has performed in various game scenarios, the strength of each team's opponents, the strength of each team's opponents' opponents, and so on.
The college bowl power ratings model computes unbiased, quantitative ratings that assess both general (e.g. Overall college bowl power ratings) and situational (e.g. Home/Away college bowl power ratings) performance for every college bowl team. The system is complex, unbiased, and dynamic; whenever a new college bowl game result comes in, the power ratings of many teams will typically change as a result.
Like fine wine, college bowl power ratings tend to improve with age. As more games are played, the potential impact of good luck on a team's results decreases, and the college bowl power ratings model can make more "connections" between teams in conferences of varying strength. For some more insight, read more about how we rank teams.