THE POWER RANK

  • About
    • About The Power Rank
    • Start Here
    • Contact
  • Predictions
    • Games
    • March Madness
  • Content
    • Must Read
    • Blog
    • Podcast
    • March Madness Book
  • Rankings
    • College Basketball
    • NFL
    • College Football
    • MLB
    • Cluster Luck
    • CFB yards per play
    • World Soccer/Football
  • Members
    • My Account
    • Login
    • Become a member
    • COVID-19 Policy
  • Log in

College football rankings after week 4, 2018

By Dr. Ed Feng Leave a Comment

These college football rankings take four weeks of data and adjust margin of victory for strength of schedule. The rating gives a predicted margin of victory against an average FBS team.

As these numbers only consider 4 games at most for any team, the results show clear noise.  Appalachian State is not the 3rd best team in the nation, even if they played Penn State tough in their opener.

Also, Eastern Michigan is ranked ahead of Michigan despite a 2-2 record.  They’re getting credit for staying close with Buffalo (13th, another small sample size disaster)  and San Diego State (39th), but Eastern Michigan is not a top 25 team.

I post these noisy rankings to show why I keep weight on preseason rankings in both the public points based rankings and the more accurate member rankings.

With only data from this year, you get some non-sensical predictions.  To get a prediction, subtract the rating of two teams and add 3 points for the home team.

For example, Penn State would be a 21 point favorite at home over Ohio State.  That doesn’t pass the stupid test.

As another example, Colorado would be a 10 point favorite at home over UCLA.

1. Alabama, (4-0), 46.20
2. Penn State, (4-0), 41.10
3. Appalachian State, (2-1), 36.79
4. Georgia, (4-0), 36.15
5. Clemson, (4-0), 30.68
6. Texas A&M, (2-2), 26.49
7. Duke, (4-0), 25.24
8. Ohio State, (4-0), 22.79
9. Stanford, (4-0), 19.73
10. LSU, (4-0), 18.24
11. Oklahoma, (4-0), 18.08
12. Missouri, (3-1), 17.76
13. Buffalo, (4-0), 17.11
14. Michigan State, (2-1), 16.34
15. North Texas, (4-0), 16.19
16. Auburn, (3-1), 15.46
17. Washington, (3-1), 15.29
18. Kentucky, (4-0), 15.11
19. Wisconsin, (3-1), 14.90
20. South Carolina, (2-1), 13.06
21. Texas, (3-1), 12.99
22. Virginia, (3-1), 12.57
23. Brigham Young, (3-1), 11.85
24. Arizona State, (2-2), 11.84
25. Eastern Michigan, (2-2), 11.76
26. California, (3-0), 11.42
27. Notre Dame, (4-0), 11.38
28. Washington State, (3-1), 11.02
29. Utah State, (3-1), 10.74
30. Temple, (2-2), 10.70
31. Michigan, (3-1), 10.37
32. Army, (2-2), 10.07
33. West Virginia, (3-0), 9.89
34. UCF, (3-0), 9.66
35. North Carolina State, (3-0), 9.23
36. Baylor, (3-1), 9.19
37. South Florida, (4-0), 9.01
38. Purdue, (1-3), 8.94
39. San Diego State, (3-1), 8.78
40. Indiana, (3-1), 8.69
41. Iowa, (3-1), 8.43
42. Akron, (2-1), 8.15
43. Iowa State, (1-2), 8.07
44. Northwestern, (1-2), 7.83
45. Oregon, (3-1), 7.24
46. Mississippi, (3-1), 6.99
47. Maryland, (3-1), 6.81
48. Miami (FL), (3-1), 6.77
49. TCU, (2-2), 6.33
50. USC, (2-2), 6.23
51. Texas Tech, (3-1), 5.46
52. East Carolina, (1-2), 4.98
53. Louisville, (2-2), 4.89
54. Florida, (3-1), 4.83
55. Vanderbilt, (2-2), 3.40
56. Houston, (3-1), 3.32
57. Boston College, (3-1), 3.26
58. Arkansas State, (3-1), 2.92
59. Georgia Southern, (2-1), 2.67
60. Hawaii, (4-1), 2.04
61. Syracuse, (4-0), 1.64
62. Louisiana Tech, (2-1), 1.61
63. Tulsa, (1-3), 1.34
64. Fresno State, (2-1), 1.21
65. Mississippi State, (3-1), 0.79
66. Wake Forest, (2-2), 0.41
67. Air Force, (1-2), 0.39
68. Utah, (2-1), 0.24
69. Illinois, (2-2), -0.31
70. Cincinnati, (4-0), -0.35
71. Georgia Tech, (1-3), -0.72
72. North Carolina, (1-2), -0.93
73. Memphis, (3-1), -0.95
74. Kansas, (2-2), -1.68
75. Ohio, (1-2), -2.08
76. Florida International, (2-2), -2.38
77. Pittsburgh, (2-2), -2.46
78. Oklahoma State, (3-1), -2.51
79. Western Kentucky, (1-3), -3.35
80. Arizona, (2-2), -4.00
81. Minnesota, (3-1), -4.05
82. Ball State, (1-3), -4.74
83. Central Michigan, (1-3), -5.27
84. UNLV, (2-2), -5.27
85. Colorado, (3-0), -5.56
86. Kent State, (1-3), -5.81
87. Middle Tennessee, (1-2), -6.97
88. Navy, (2-2), -7.36
89. Florida Atlantic, (2-2), -7.88
90. San Jose State, (0-3), -8.83
91. Wyoming, (2-2), -9.39
92. Charlotte, (2-2), -9.50
93. Boise State, (2-1), -9.73
94. Southern Miss, (2-1), -10.09
95. Tulane, (1-3), -10.14
96. Marshall, (2-1), -10.66
97. SMU, (1-3), -10.76
98. New Mexico, (2-1), -10.95
99. Louisiana Monroe, (2-2), -11.73
100. Liberty, (1-2), -12.15
101. Virginia Tech, (2-1), -12.21
102. UCLA, (0-3), -12.87
103. Northern Illinois, (1-3), -13.00
104. Coastal Carolina, (3-1), -13.05
105. Old Dominion, (1-3), -13.87
106. Arkansas, (1-3), -13.93
107. Massachusetts, (2-3), -14.58
108. South Alabama, (1-3), -15.40
109. Western Michigan, (2-2), -16.08
110. Rice, (1-3), -16.12
111. Florida State, (2-2), -16.38
112. Troy, (3-1), -16.47
113. Kansas State, (2-2), -16.76
114. Toledo, (2-1), -17.10
115. UAB, (2-1), -17.72
116. Tennessee, (2-2), -18.04
117. Colorado State, (1-4), -18.63
118. Rutgers, (1-3), -20.67
119. UTSA, (1-3), -21.21
120. Miami (OH), (1-3), -21.22
121. Nebraska, (0-3), -21.91
122. Oregon State, (1-3), -22.78
123. Nevada, (2-2), -25.40
124. Bowling Green, (1-3), -26.30
125. Georgia State, (1-3), -26.62
126. Louisiana, (1-2), -26.74
127. Connecticut, (1-3), -27.03
128. Texas State, (1-3), -28.29
129. New Mexico State, (1-4), -33.52
130. UTEP, (0-4), -38.57

Filed Under: College Football

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Predictions from Ed Feng

I use my Stanford Ph.D. in applied math to make football and March Madness predictions.

To get a sample of my best American football predictions and March Madness cheat sheet, sign up for my free email newsletter.

Enter your email and click on "Sign up now!"

Popular Articles

  • How to win your NCAA tournament pool
  • The ultimate guide to predictive college basketball analytics
  • How to predict interceptions in the NFL
  • Accurate football predictions with linear regression
  • The surprising truth about passing and rushing in the NFL
  • Football analytics resource guide
  • The Reason You Can’t Avoid The Curse of Small Sample Size
  • The essential guide to predictive CFB rankings
  • How computer rankings make you smarter about sports
  • How to win your college football bowl pool
  • Do you make these 3 mistakes with college football statistics?
  • The Top 10 Things to Know About The Power Rank’s Methods
  • 5 insights from academic research on predicting world soccer/football matches

Recent Articles

  • Podcast: Julian Packer on modeling and betting props
  • Podcast: Colin Davy on analytics for The Masters and Jeopardy
  • Podcast: Jordan Sperber on College Basketball Analytics and Strategy
  • Member: Final Four analysis
  • Members: Sweet Sixteen analysis for March 27-28, 2021

© 2021 The Power Rank Inc., All rights reserved.

About, Terms of Use, Privacy Policy

Get a sample of my best football predictions

While I usually save my best predictions for paying members of the site, I offer a sample in my weekly email newsletter.


To get this service, sign up for my free email newsletter.


Enter your email and click on "Sign up now!"

No thanks, I'll make predictions without data and analytics.

{"cookieName":"wBounce","isAggressive":false,"isSitewide":true,"hesitation":"","openAnimation":false,"exitAnimation":false,"timer":"","sensitivity":"","cookieExpire":"","cookieDomain":"","autoFire":"","isAnalyticsEnabled":true}
  • About
    • About The Power Rank
    • Start Here
    • Contact
  • Predictions
    • Games
    • March Madness
  • Content
    • Must Read
    • Blog
    • Podcast
    • March Madness Book
  • Rankings
    • College Basketball
    • NFL
    • College Football
    • MLB
    • Cluster Luck
    • CFB yards per play
    • World Soccer/Football
  • Members
    • My Account
    • Login
    • Become a member
    • COVID-19 Policy