← College Football · All rankings & methodology
STATE AND NATION TOP 25 · COLLEGE FOOTBALL · 2026-10-20
Miami sets the pace, but BYU brings the pressure
The Hurricanes lead the State and Nation Top 25, with BYU and Texas Tech close behind. Quality wins make the difference, and an unbeaten record comes with questions about the opposition.
By Bob LePage · Rankings by State and Nation
Miami has the top spot. BYU has an argument. Texas Tech has plenty of company waiting for either one to stumble.
The first State and Nation Top 25 gives the unbeaten Hurricanes a narrow lead over the unbeaten Cougars, with the unbeaten Red Raiders third. Miami’s 73.04 index leaves BYU less than half a point away. That is a lead worth having, and a small enough cushion to keep this conversation lively.
Miami’s case begins with six wins and no losses, backed by a 291–84 scoring advantage. The model also gives the Hurricanes the strongest opponent-adjusted scoring rating in the FBS field. Saturday’s 43–35 win over Florida State added another victory to a résumé that has earned its place at the front.
BYU brings the résumé; Texas Tech brings the pressure
BYU’s 28–24 victory over Notre Dame gives the Cougars a result that matters well beyond the final whistle. Their résumé includes two wins over teams in the model’s top 25 for underlying strength and another against Nos. 26–50. That earns five quality-win points, two more than Miami. Those tiers come from State and Nation’s own strength ratings, so the credit follows the opponent’s overall performance rather than the number beside its name on game day.
Texas Tech sits just behind them at 71.59 after beating Arizona State 53–25. The Red Raiders combine a clean record with two wins over opponents in the model’s top strength tier. UCLA completes the unbeaten quartet at the top, with a 6–0 record and a 213–97 scoring advantage. The Bruins have done enough to lead the next group; the most valuable quality-win credits are what separate the first three.
Ohio State and Indiana settle one close argument on the field
Here is a ranking discussion with an actual game attached. Ohio State beat Indiana 19–15 on Saturday. The two teams are close enough in the model’s preliminary scores for their direct meeting to enter the comparison, and that result helps put the Buckeyes fifth and the Hoosiers sixth.
Indiana still has a substantial case: a 6–1 record, five quality-win points and only 90 points allowed. Houston is almost alongside the Hoosiers at No. 7. Notre Dame is eighth despite one of the country’s strongest adjusted scoring profiles. The Irish’s defeat at BYU counts, and teams above them have collected more credit for high-value victories.
The unbeaten teams with more to prove
James Madison is 7–0 and has outscored its opponents 300–112. That deserves attention. It earns the Dukes No. 13 here, while a 3.79-point schedule discount keeps them outside the first dozen. The record has done its part; the strength of the opposition is the remaining issue in this model.
Utah faces a similar argument at No. 18. The Utes are 6–0 with a 241–89 scoring advantage, but they receive no wins credit against the model’s top 50 strength teams and lose 3.01 points to the schedule adjustment. Winning keeps both teams in the discussion. More demanding opposition would give the model stronger evidence for placing them higher.
Good numbers do not erase a second loss
Alabama is No. 14 and LSU No. 16. Both still grade well in opponent-adjusted scoring strength. Both are 5–2, and those two losses each cost 3.43 index points. LSU’s particularly strong scoring profile cannot carry the entire argument when its quality-win credit is only one point.
That is the idea behind this poll: reward how well a team plays, make its record matter, and ask who supplied the opposition. The college football formula gives equal starting weight to adjusted strength and résumé, then applies the published deductions and quality-win comparisons. It borrows comparison principles from the CFP, while using State and Nation’s own weights. Small gaps remain small gaps. They should make for a better debate, not a claim that October has already settled the season.
State and Nation Top 25: the complete order
| Rank | Team | Record | Index |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Miami Hurricanes | 6-0 | 73.04 |
| 2 | BYU Cougars | 6-0 | 72.55 |
| 3 | Texas Tech Red Raiders | 6-0 | 71.59 |
| 4 | UCLA Bruins | 6-0 | 68.79 |
| 5 | Ohio State Buckeyes | 6-1 | 68.53 |
| 6 | Indiana Hoosiers | 6-1 | 67.94 |
| 7 | Houston Cougars | 6-1 | 67.91 |
| 8 | Notre Dame Fighting Irish | 6-1 | 67.47 |
| 9 | Ole Miss Rebels | 5-1 | 67.24 |
| 10 | Tennessee Volunteers | 6-1 | 65.92 |
| 11 | Georgia Bulldogs | 6-1 | 65.78 |
| 12 | Kentucky Wildcats | 6-1 | 64.98 |
| 13 | James Madison Dukes | 7-0 | 64.62 |
| 14 | Alabama Crimson Tide | 5-2 | 64.61 |
| 15 | Wake Forest Demon Deacons | 6-1 | 64.45 |
| 16 | LSU Tigers | 5-2 | 64.06 |
| 17 | Oregon Ducks | 4-2 | 62.00 |
| 18 | Utah Utes | 6-0 | 61.65 |
| 19 | Boise State Broncos | 5-1 | 60.81 |
| 20 | Texas Longhorns | 4-2 | 59.97 |
| 21 | USC Trojans | 6-1 | 59.77 |
| 22 | Northwestern Wildcats | 5-1 | 58.94 |
| 23 | Florida Gators | 5-2 | 58.83 |
| 24 | Nebraska Cornhuskers | 5-2 | 57.23 |
| 25 | Missouri Tigers | 5-2 | 57.18 |
Around the rankings
1. Miami Hurricanes (6-0)
Six wins, no losses and the strongest adjusted scoring rating in the FBS field put Miami first. The Hurricanes have scored 291 points and allowed 84. BYU is close enough to keep the lead uncomfortable, but Miami owns the best overall balance in this edition.
2. BYU Cougars (6-0)
Beating Notre Dame 28–24 gives BYU a substantial piece of evidence for its place near the top. The Cougars collect five quality-win points, compared with Miami’s three, and avoid both loss and weak-schedule deductions. They finish less than half a point behind the leader.
3. Texas Tech Red Raiders (6-0)
Texas Tech pairs its unbeaten record with two victories over opponents in the model’s top strength tier. The Red Raiders’ 53–25 win over Arizona State adds to a 227–106 scoring advantage. That combination keeps them comfortably in the leading three.
4. UCLA Bruins (6-0)
UCLA has kept its record clean and its opponents to 97 points across six games. The Bruins also escape a weak-schedule deduction. Their two wins in the model’s second strength tier earn useful credit, although the teams above them have more valuable top-tier victories.
5. Ohio State Buckeyes (6-1)
The Buckeyes have a direct answer to the team immediately behind them: a 19–15 win over Indiana. That meeting matters because their preliminary scores are close. Ohio State also brings a strong adjusted scoring rating and a 275–94 scoring advantage to its No. 5 position.
6. Indiana Hoosiers (6-1)
Indiana’s résumé remains impressive after the Ohio State loss: 6–1, just 90 points allowed and five quality-win points. The head-to-head comparison goes against the Hoosiers, but the rest of their body of work keeps them sixth, barely ahead of Houston.
7. Houston Cougars (6-1)
Houston is close enough to Indiana that the displayed scores differ by only three hundredths of a point. Two wins over opponents in the model’s top strength tier help the Cougars stay in that company. Their one loss still carries the same direct deduction as other 6–1 teams.
8. Notre Dame Fighting Irish (6-1)
Notre Dame’s adjusted scoring strength says it can compete with the leaders. Its résumé places it eighth. The Irish have two wins in the model’s second quality tier, while several teams ahead of them have more top-tier victories. The loss at BYU also remains on the account.
9. Ole Miss Rebels (5-1)
Ole Miss gets five quality-win points and no schedule discount, a useful combination for a team with one loss. At 5–1, the Rebels have played fewer games than several nearby rivals. Their best results keep them within reach of Notre Dame and Houston.
10. Tennessee Volunteers (6-1)
Tennessee combines a 6–1 record with a 234–103 scoring advantage. Three quality-win points and a positive adjustment from its close-team comparisons help the Volunteers stay just ahead of Georgia. The margin is small enough that this is a neighborhood, not a clear dividing line.
11. Georgia Bulldogs (6-1)
Georgia’s 301 points scored give it plenty of statistical muscle. The Bulldogs are also 6–1 and face no weak-schedule deduction. Their two quality-win points leave them just behind Tennessee, with a small positive comparison adjustment helping to keep the gap narrow.
12. Kentucky Wildcats (6-1)
Kentucky’s four quality-win points do real work for the Wildcats. Their adjusted scoring strength is lower than that of several nearby teams, and the close-team comparisons subtract half a point. A 6–1 record and a résumé with substance still earn No. 12.
13. James Madison Dukes (7-0)
The Dukes have done the winning: seven games, seven victories and a 300–112 scoring advantage. The obstacle is schedule strength, which takes 3.79 points off their index. No. 13 recognizes the unbeaten run while leaving room for stronger evidence against demanding opposition.
14. Alabama Crimson Tide (5-2)
Alabama’s underlying strength remains substantial, but a 5–2 record brings a 3.43-point loss deduction. Three wins in the model’s second quality tier help keep the Crimson Tide in the middle of the poll. They finish almost level with James Madison.
15. Wake Forest Demon Deacons (6-1)
Wake Forest’s 6–1 record and 262–136 scoring advantage make a solid case for inclusion. One top-tier quality win adds two points. A small schedule deduction and fewer quality-win credits than some nearby rivals leave the Demon Deacons fifteenth.
16. LSU Tigers (5-2)
LSU is the clearest reminder that an impressive scoring profile cannot do every job in this poll. The Tigers have outscored opponents 283–111 and rate highly in adjusted strength. Two losses and only one quality-win point keep that strength from becoming a top-ten résumé.
17. Oregon Ducks (4-2)
Oregon’s two top-tier quality wins, plus another in the second tier, keep the Ducks relevant despite two defeats. Their close-team comparisons also add value. The 4–2 record costs four index points, leaving Oregon seventeenth rather than among the leading contenders.
18. Utah Utes (6-0)
Utah’s 6–0 record and 89 points allowed would look attractive on any résumé. The issue is the opposition: no top-50 strength-tier wins and a 3.01-point schedule deduction. The Utes remain unbeaten, with more to establish in this model’s national comparison.
19. Boise State Broncos (5-1)
Boise State gets credit for a 5–1 record and avoids a weak-schedule deduction. Its one victory in the second quality tier helps, while an unfavorable close-team head-to-head comparison costs three-quarters of a point. The Broncos settle into the lower part of the Top 25.
20. Texas Longhorns (4-2)
Texas has two wins over opponents in the model’s top strength tier, enough to keep its résumé in the conversation. The Longhorns are also 4–2, which costs four index points. Those competing pieces leave them twentieth, just ahead of USC.
21. USC Trojans (6-1)
USC’s 6–1 record gives the Trojans a strong starting argument. The model is less enthusiastic about their adjusted scoring strength, and their quality-win credit is limited to one point. That leaves USC behind teams with less tidy records but stronger opponent-based evidence.
22. Northwestern Wildcats (5-1)
Northwestern’s 5–1 record and 201–102 scoring advantage deserve a place in the poll. The Wildcats face no weak-schedule deduction, but they have yet to earn a win in either of the model’s quality tiers. That missing credit limits how far the résumé carries them.
23. Florida Gators (5-2)
Florida collects four quality-win points, a meaningful boost in this part of the table. Its 5–2 record and lower adjusted scoring strength keep the Gators from climbing further. The résumé has enough substance to put them ahead of Nebraska and Missouri.
24. Nebraska Cornhuskers (5-2)
Nebraska’s 249–108 scoring advantage keeps its underlying strength well above what a bare 5–2 record might suggest. The Cornhuskers receive no quality-win bonus, however, and two losses carry a direct cost. They hold a narrow edge over Missouri for No. 24.
25. Missouri Tigers (5-2)
Missouri claims the final place with a 5–2 record and two wins in the model’s second quality tier. Nebraska’s stronger adjusted scoring profile leaves the Tigers just behind it. The gap is only five hundredths of a point at the displayed precision.
See the model, deductions and full statistical breakdown
Completed-game cutoff: 10/20/2026, 11:37:21 AM EDT · 510 games · Model SN-1.1
Model revision: Updated October 20: explicit loss and weak-schedule deductions, plus CFP-style quality-win and comparable-team factors. Same game cutoff as the original edition; earlier model snapshot retained.
A direct loss deduction equals 12 times (losses + half of ties) divided by completed games. This scales the deduction across different season lengths. A weak-schedule deduction equals 4 times the amount that average opponent strength falls below the eligible field’s average schedule, in standard-deviation units, capped at eight points. Above-average schedules receive no deduction.
CFP-style résumé factors supplement the loss and schedule deductions. Wins over the top 25 teams in the model’s unadjusted FBS strength ordering earn two points each; wins over Nos. 26–50 earn one, with a six-point cap. These tiers use current model strength, not AP or CFP poll positions.
For teams within one index point before comparison adjustments, the model examines head-to-head results; when those are absent, it compares win/loss outcomes against at least two shared opponents. The average head-to-head comparison can contribute up to plus or minus 0.75; a common-opponent comparison up to plus or minus 0.25, without using scoring margins. Every applicable comparison is shown below.
The official CFP protocol identifies schedule difficulty, direct meetings, shared-opponent results and relevant personnel circumstances as comparison evidence. Our numerical weights, quality-win tiers and comparison threshold are State and Nation choices. This is an independent Top 25, not an official CFP ranking or playoff field. Personnel availability and conference-qualification rules are not converted into invented points.
The model gives 50% of its standardized composite to opponent-adjusted scoring strength and 50% to a Colley win/loss rating. These weights are editorial starting assumptions, not parameters optimized against historical test seasons. The unadjusted composite starts at 50; final scores then subtract loss and weak-schedule penalties and, for FBS football, add the published CFP-style résumé adjustments. Differences are index points, not winning probabilities.
The leader’s adjusted strength is 15.97 scoring units above the fitted field reference, versus 12.04 for BYU Cougars. Its composite is 73.04, compared with 72.55 for the runner-up. Résumé and strength can disagree; the two displayed contributions show how the final order is produced.
Margins are capped at 28 before a 2.5-unit home advantage adjustment; neutral sites receive no venue adjustment. Games lose half their weight after 42 days in the margin fit. Ridge shrinkage of 2 pulls thin samples toward the field reference. The Colley component uses every completed game equally, rewards actual wins, and accounts for the opponent network.
This score-based first version does not measure possessions, EPA, player availability, garbage time, or expected goals. Opponent strength already informs the fit and the Colley rating. The additional explicit schedule discount is an intentional editorial emphasis requested by the publisher, not an independent statistical signal. Scores remain uncertain early in a season; small gaps should be read as similar evidence, not proof that adjacent teams differ. The model has not yet been validated out of sample, and its index is not a betting forecast.
| Rank | Team | Record | Final index | Strength + | Résumé + | Loss deduction | Weak-schedule deduction | Quality-win credit | Comparison ± | Sensitivity rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Miami Hurricanes | 6-0 | 73.04 | 10.24 | 9.81 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3.00 | 0.00 | 1–2 |
| 2 | BYU Cougars | 6-0 | 72.55 | 7.08 | 10.47 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 5.00 | 0.00 | 1–2 |
| 3 | Texas Tech Red Raiders | 6-0 | 71.59 | 8.69 | 8.90 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 4.00 | 0.00 | 3–3 |
| 4 | UCLA Bruins | 6-0 | 68.79 | 6.95 | 9.84 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2.00 | 0.00 | 4–7 |
| 5 | Ohio State Buckeyes | 6-1 | 68.53 | 9.25 | 7.24 | 1.71 | 0.00 | 3.00 | 0.75 | 5–9 |
| 6 | Indiana Hoosiers | 6-1 | 67.94 | 8.49 | 6.92 | 1.71 | 0.00 | 5.00 | -0.75 | 4–7 |
| 7 | Houston Cougars | 6-1 | 67.91 | 7.43 | 8.19 | 1.71 | 0.00 | 4.00 | 0.00 | 5–9 |
| 8 | Notre Dame Fighting Irish | 6-1 | 67.47 | 9.73 | 7.46 | 1.71 | 0.00 | 2.00 | 0.00 | 5–9 |
| 9 | Ole Miss Rebels | 5-1 | 67.24 | 6.99 | 7.25 | 2.00 | 0.00 | 5.00 | 0.00 | 5–11 |
| 10 | Tennessee Volunteers | 6-1 | 65.92 | 7.35 | 6.78 | 1.71 | 0.00 | 3.00 | 0.50 | 10–13 |
| 11 | Georgia Bulldogs | 6-1 | 65.78 | 8.21 | 7.03 | 1.71 | 0.00 | 2.00 | 0.25 | 9–14 |
| 12 | Kentucky Wildcats | 6-1 | 64.98 | 4.56 | 8.63 | 1.71 | 0.00 | 4.00 | -0.50 | 12–13 |
| 13 | James Madison Dukes | 7-0 | 64.62 | 8.10 | 8.31 | 0.00 | 3.79 | 2.00 | 0.00 | 10–16 |
| 14 | Alabama Crimson Tide | 5-2 | 64.61 | 8.68 | 6.48 | 3.43 | 0.00 | 3.00 | -0.13 | 11–17 |
| 15 | Wake Forest Demon Deacons | 6-1 | 64.45 | 7.54 | 6.79 | 1.71 | 0.17 | 2.00 | 0.00 | 11–16 |
| 16 | LSU Tigers | 5-2 | 64.06 | 10.14 | 6.59 | 3.43 | 0.00 | 1.00 | -0.25 | 14–16 |
| 17 | Oregon Ducks | 4-2 | 62.00 | 4.65 | 5.60 | 4.00 | 0.00 | 5.00 | 0.75 | 17–18 |
| 18 | Utah Utes | 6-0 | 61.65 | 6.87 | 7.80 | 0.00 | 3.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 17–19 |
| 19 | Boise State Broncos | 5-1 | 60.81 | 6.24 | 6.32 | 2.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | -0.75 | 16–20 |
| 20 | Texas Longhorns | 4-2 | 59.97 | 3.90 | 6.07 | 4.00 | 0.00 | 4.00 | 0.00 | 20–21 |
| 21 | USC Trojans | 6-1 | 59.77 | 3.55 | 6.94 | 1.71 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 21–22 |
| 22 | Northwestern Wildcats | 5-1 | 58.94 | 6.16 | 4.78 | 2.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 22–23 |
| 23 | Florida Gators | 5-2 | 58.83 | 2.24 | 6.01 | 3.43 | 0.00 | 4.00 | 0.00 | 19–24 |
| 24 | Nebraska Cornhuskers | 5-2 | 57.23 | 7.30 | 3.36 | 3.43 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 22–26 |
| 25 | Missouri Tigers | 5-2 | 57.18 | 3.94 | 4.67 | 3.43 | 0.00 | 2.00 | 0.00 | 24–28 |
Final index = 50 + strength contribution + résumé contribution − loss deduction − weak-schedule deduction + quality-win credit + comparison adjustment. Displayed numbers are rounded; full precision determines rank. Sensitivity rank shows the range when shrinkage or recency half-life is halved or doubled. It is a model-choice stress test, not a confidence interval. FCS opponents inform the fit; only FBS teams are eligible.
Ohio State Buckeyes comparison evidence: head-to-head versus Indiana Hoosiers: 1 wins in 1 head-to-head games (+0.75 before averaging).
Indiana Hoosiers comparison evidence: head-to-head versus Ohio State Buckeyes: 0 wins in 1 head-to-head games (-0.75 before averaging).
Tennessee Volunteers comparison evidence: head-to-head versus Alabama Crimson Tide: 1 wins in 1 head-to-head games (+0.75 before averaging). common-opponents versus Georgia Bulldogs: 3 common opponents; average result 100.0% versus 66.7%; no scoring margins (+0.25 before averaging).
Georgia Bulldogs comparison evidence: common-opponents versus Tennessee Volunteers: 3 common opponents; average result 66.7% versus 100.0%; no scoring margins (-0.25 before averaging). head-to-head versus Alabama Crimson Tide: 1 wins in 1 head-to-head games (+0.75 before averaging). common-opponents versus Kentucky Wildcats: 2 common opponents; average result 100.0% versus 50.0%; no scoring margins (+0.25 before averaging).
Kentucky Wildcats comparison evidence: head-to-head versus Alabama Crimson Tide: 0 wins in 1 head-to-head games (-0.75 before averaging). common-opponents versus Georgia Bulldogs: 2 common opponents; average result 50.0% versus 100.0%; no scoring margins (-0.25 before averaging).
Alabama Crimson Tide comparison evidence: head-to-head versus Tennessee Volunteers: 0 wins in 1 head-to-head games (-0.75 before averaging). head-to-head versus Georgia Bulldogs: 0 wins in 1 head-to-head games (-0.75 before averaging). head-to-head versus Kentucky Wildcats: 1 wins in 1 head-to-head games (+0.75 before averaging). common-opponents versus LSU Tigers: 2 common opponents; average result 100.0% versus 50.0%; no scoring margins (+0.25 before averaging).
LSU Tigers comparison evidence: common-opponents versus Alabama Crimson Tide: 2 common opponents; average result 50.0% versus 100.0%; no scoring margins (-0.25 before averaging).
Oregon Ducks comparison evidence: head-to-head versus Boise State Broncos: 1 wins in 1 head-to-head games (+0.75 before averaging).
Boise State Broncos comparison evidence: head-to-head versus Oregon Ducks: 0 wins in 1 head-to-head games (-0.75 before averaging).
Sources
CFP selection protocol — principles informing our independent model
ESPN completed-game scoreboards
Property of State and Nation Media Group LLC.