Week 1 College Football Power Ratings:
We’re going to find out a lot about some teams in Week 1 and find out pretty much nothing about others. This week does bring us a few outstanding matchups and some interesting Group of Six games, but we also have a lot of those “paycheck” games where lesser teams go on the road for an ass-kicking and a six or seven-figure pay day for the athletic department. Those games are even more important nowadays in the NIL era. We also have a bunch of FCS vs. FBS games on the docket.
While I don’t make my own numbers for any FCS game, I should mention briefly that losing to or coming close to losing to a FCS team really crushes a team’s optics and the public sentiment about them. Many wind up becoming very solid ATS teams because everybody discards them and never considers going back to them. The oddsmakers also make their adjustments about them as well and often go a bit too far in downgrading them.
The other point I want to drive home this week is that every team will play their best game and worst game of the season at some point and you just might happen to get your eyes on it. Just because you see a team once and they look like they could hang with an NFL team or look like they would lose to the top high school team in the state doesn’t mean that’s who they are going to be. All of the roster and coaching turnover creates a ton of early-season variance. Plus, as teams get tape on themselves and their opponents, they find a lot of things that they can fix.
Much like last week, these numbers have been up for a very long time. Early bettors have molded and shaped this market, much like they have the season win totals and futures. That doesn’t mean that the line moves will be correct. It doesn’t mean that the equity has been wiped out across the board. It simply means that opinions and positions have been stated by various groups and now we have bigger betting limits to see where these lines ultimately go.
I made some adjustments to the teams that played in Week 0, plus a team that got some disappointing injury news. It is tough early in the season to trust your prep and research from the summer and not overreact to what you saw or what the box score displayed. I try to give teams a bit of a grace period before I determine the degree to which my numbers are wrong. Remember, I sourced six different sets of rankings – Steve Makinen, Tyler Shoemaker’s T Shoe Index, Brad Powers, Bill Connelly’s SP+, ESPN Football Power Index (FPI), and TeamRankings – to create my initial numbers. It’s up to me now to track everything and move teams around accordingly.
We have five days worth of college football this week, with games Thursday-Monday. Not too shabby.
Week 1 College Football Power Ratings
| Rank | Team | PR | HFA |
| 1 | Ohio State | 93 | 3.5 |
| 2 | Notre Dame | 92.5 | 3.5 |
| 3 | Oregon | 92 | 3.5 |
| 4 | Georgia | 90.5 | 2.5 |
| 5 | Indiana | 90.5 | 3.5 |
| 6 | Texas | 90.5 | 3.5 |
| 7 | Miami (Florida) | 87.5 | 3 |
| 8 | Texas Tech | 86.5 | 3.5 |
| 9 | Texas A&M | 85.5 | 2 |
| 10 | Alabama | 84.5 | 3.5 |
| 11 | LSU | 84.5 | 3 |
| 12 | Oklahoma | 84 | 3 |
| 13 | Mississippi | 83.5 | 3.5 |
| 14 | Michigan | 83 | 2.5 |
| 15 | USC | 82 | 3 |
| 16 | Tennessee | 81 | 2.5 |
| 17 | Penn State | 80.5 | 2.5 |
| 18 | Florida | 80 | 2 |
| 19 | BYU | 79.5 | 3.5 |
| 20 | Washington | 79 | 3.5 |
| 21 | Missouri | 78.5 | 3.5 |
| 22 | Iowa | 78 | 3.5 |
| 23 | SMU | 78 | 3.5 |
| 24 | South Carolina | 78 | 2.5 |
| 25 | Auburn | 77.5 | 2 |
| 26 | Clemson | 77.5 | 2.5 |
| 27 | Utah | 77 | 2.5 |
| 28 | Louisville | 76.5 | 3.5 |
| 29 | Virginia | 76 | 2 |
| 30 | Vanderbilt | 75 | 2.5 |
| 31 | Arizona | 74.5 | 3 |
| 32 | Houston | 74.5 | 2 |
| 33 | Florida State | 74 | 2.5 |
| 34 | Illinois | 74 | 2.5 |
| 35 | Kansas State | 74 | 3 |
| 36 | Virginia Tech | 74 | 2 |
| 37 | Nebraska | 73.5 | 2 |
| 38 | Pittsburgh | 73.5 | 2.5 |
| 39 | Arizona State | 72 | 2 |
| 40 | Boise State | 71.5 | 3.5 |
| 41 | Georgia Tech | 71.5 | 2 |
| 42 | Kentucky | 71.5 | 2 |
| 43 | TCU | 71.5 | 2.5 |
| 44 | Wisconsin | 71.5 | 2 |
| 45 | Minnesota | 71 | 2.5 |
| 46 | UCLA | 71 | 1.5 |
| 47 | Arkansas | 70.5 | 1.5 |
| 48 | Baylor | 70.5 | 1.5 |
| 49 | Mississippi State | 70.5 | 2 |
| 50 | Oklahoma State | 70.5 | 2 |
| 51 | Kansas | 69.5 | 2.5 |
| 52 | Northwestern | 69.5 | 1.5 |
| 53 | Duke | 69 | 2.5 |
| 54 | North Carolina State | 69 | 2.5 |
| 55 | Wake Forest | 69 | 2 |
| 56 | California | 68.5 | 2 |
| 57 | Cincinnati | 68.5 | 1.5 |
| 58 | Maryland | 68.5 | 2 |
| 59 | UCF | 68 | 2 |
| 60 | West Virginia | 68 | 2 |
| 61 | Colorado | 67 | 2.5 |
| 62 | Rutgers | 66.5 | 2 |
| 63 | UNLV | 66.5 | 2.5 |
| 64 | Michigan State | 66 | 1.5 |
| 65 | Navy | 66 | 2.5 |
| 66 | North Carolina | 66 | 2 |
| 67 | Stanford | 66 | 1.5 |
| 68 | Iowa State | 65.5 | 2.5 |
| 69 | Memphis | 65.5 | 2.5 |
| 70 | San Diego State | 65.5 | 2 |
| 71 | Syracuse | 65.5 | 2.5 |
| 72 | Fresno State | 65 | 2 |
| 73 | UTSA | 65 | 3.5 |
| 74 | James Madison | 64.5 | 3.5 |
| 75 | South Florida | 64.5 | 3 |
| 76 | Tulane | 64.5 | 2.5 |
| 77 | Purdue | 64 | 1 |
| 78 | East Carolina | 63.5 | 2 |
| 79 | North Dakota State | 63.5 | 3.5 |
| 80 | Army | 63 | 2.5 |
| 81 | Boston College | 62 | 2 |
| 82 | Texas State | 62 | 2 |
| 83 | Old Dominion | 61.5 | 1.5 |
| 84 | Washington State | 61.5 | 3 |
| 85 | Air Force | 60.5 | 2 |
| 86 | Hawai’i | 60 | 3 |
| 87 | New Mexico | 60 | 2 |
| 88 | Western Michigan | 60 | 3.5 |
| 89 | Utah State | 59.5 | 3 |
| 90 | Western Kentucky | 59.5 | 3 |
| 91 | Liberty | 59 | 2.5 |
| 92 | Miami (Ohio) | 59 | 3.5 |
| 93 | Marshall | 58.5 | 3.5 |
| 94 | Toledo | 58.5 | 3.5 |
| 95 | Troy | 58.5 | 3 |
| 96 | Florida Atlantic | 57.5 | 1.5 |
| 97 | North Texas | 57.5 | 2.5 |
| 98 | Louisiana-Lafayette | 57 | 2 |
| 99 | Temple | 57 | 2 |
| 100 | Arkansas State | 56.5 | 2.5 |
| 101 | Louisiana Tech | 56.5 | 2 |
| 102 | Oregon State | 56.5 | 3.5 |
| 103 | Tulsa | 56.5 | 1 |
| 104 | Georgia Southern | 56 | 3.5 |
| 105 | Jacksonville State | 56 | 3.5 |
| 106 | Delaware | 55.5 | 1 |
| 107 | Kennesaw State | 55.5 | 2.5 |
| 108 | Colorado State | 55 | 2 |
| 109 | Connecticut | 55 | 3 |
| 110 | Ohio | 55 | 3.5 |
| 111 | Appalachian State | 54.5 | 2 |
| 112 | Wyoming | 54.5 | 2 |
| 113 | Central Michigan | 54 | 3 |
| 114 | South Alabama | 54 | 2 |
| 115 | Florida International | 53 | 2 |
| 116 | Coastal Carolina | 52.5 | 2 |
| 117 | Nevada | 52.5 | 1 |
| 118 | Buffalo | 52 | 2 |
| 119 | Eastern Michigan | 51.5 | 2.5 |
| 120 | Rice | 51.5 | 3 |
| 121 | San Jose State | 51.5 | 2.5 |
| 122 | Bowling Green | 50.5 | 2 |
| 123 | Missouri State | 50 | 2 |
| 124 | New Mexico State | 50 | 2.5 |
| 125 | Southern Mississippi | 49.5 | 2 |
| 126 | UAB | 49.5 | 2.5 |
| 127 | Akron | 48.5 | 2 |
| 128 | Middle Tennessee | 48.5 | 1.5 |
| 129 | Georgia State | 48 | 1 |
| 130 | Northern Illinois | 47.5 | 1.5 |
| 131 | UTEP | 47 | 1 |
| 132 | Kent State | 46.5 | 1 |
| 133 | Sacramento State | 46.5 | 2 |
| 134 | Louisiana-Monroe | 46 | 2 |
| 135 | Charlotte | 44.5 | 1 |
| 136 | Sam Houston State | 44.5 | 2 |
| 137 | Ball State | 44 | 3 |
| 138 | Massachusetts | 40 | 1 |
Every week, I’ll include the adjustments that I made and give the reasons why on the biggest movers (usually 3+ points):
Week 1 PR Adjustments
Up: Stanford +2.5, Memphis +1.5, Virginia +2.5, North Dakota State +1.5
Down: TCU -2, Sacramento State -1.5, Hawaii -1.5, Jacksonville State -1.5, NC State -1.5, USC -1.5, New Mexico -4 (Layne inj.)
Virginia +2.5: Beau Pribula looks like a great fit in this offense and the defense was dominant against NC State, a team that many had high hopes for entering the season. Game On Paper had the Wolfpack in the 3rd percentile in EPA/Play based off 2025 numbers. Woof.
Stanford +2.5: The Trees were coasting until Micah Alejado woke up in the fourth quarter. Davis Warren threw for over 300 yards in his Stanford debut, a good sign for HC Tavita Pritchard and “Andrew Luck Director of Offense” Terry Heffernan.
New Mexico -4: The Lobos have had time to adjust before playing a game, but the loss of QB Jack Layne for the season is a big deal. While he only had a 13/10 TD/INT ratio last season, he completed better than 65% of his passes for nearly 2,500 yards and now the Lobos don’t have a clear-cut QB.
My Week 1 College Football Lines
(note: games are ordered by rotation number)
| Date | Away | Home | Line |
| 9/3 | UMass | Rutgers | -28.5 |
| Akron | Wake Forest | -22.5 | |
| Colorado | Georgia Tech | -6.5 | |
| UAB | Illinois | -27 | |
| 9/4 | San Jose State | Eastern Michigan | -2.5 |
| Toledo | Michigan State | -9 | |
| Fresno State | USC | -20 | |
| Miami (FL) | Stanford | +20 | |
| UTEP | Oklahoma | -40 | |
| 9/5 | Miami (OH) | Pitt | -17 |
| Boston College | Cincinnati | -8 | |
| Coastal Carolina | West Virginia | -17.5 | |
| Liberty | James Madison | -9 | |
| Marshall | Penn State | -24.5 | |
| Western Michigan | Michigan | -25.5 | |
| Tulane | Duke | -7 | |
| Kent State | South Carolina | -34 | |
| FIU | South Florida | -14.5 | |
| Ball State | Ohio State | -52.5 | |
| FAU | Florida | -24.5 | |
| North Texas | Indiana | -36.5 | |
| Oklahoma State | Tulsa | +13 | |
| East Carolina | Alabama | -24.5 | |
| UL Monroe | Mississippi State | -26.5 | |
| Ohio | Nebraska | -20.5 | |
| Texas State | Texas | -32 | |
| Missouri State | Texas A&M | -37.5 | |
| Northern Illinois | Iowa | -34 | |
| Central Michigan | New Mexico | -8 | |
| Wyoming | Colorado State | -2.5 | |
| UCLA | Cal | +0.5 | |
| Western Kentucky | Nevada | +6 | |
| Boise State | Oregon | -24 | |
| Baylor | Auburn (N – Atlanta) | -7 | |
| Oregon State | Houston | -20 | |
| Sam Houston State | Troy | -17 | |
| Arkansas State | Memphis | -11.5 | |
| UNLV | Hawaii | +3.5 | |
| Clemson | LSU | -10 | |
| 9/6 | Washington State | Washington | -21 |
| Wisconsin | Notre Dame (N – Green Bay) | -21 | |
| Louisville | Ole Miss (N – Nashville) | -7 | |
| 9/7 | SMU | Florida State | +1.5 |
Games to consider:
Stanford +24.5 (+20.5) vs. Miami (FL): Miami does have the luxury of having the new-look Stanford team on film, but Davis Warren really exceeded my expectations against Hawaii. Clearly this is a much harder matchup, but Stanford was +1.99 YPP and pretty clearly the better team, even if the game was hanging in the balance late.
James Madison -6.5 (-9) vs. Liberty: Prove it to me, Jamey Chadwell. Prove to me that Liberty is back. I know JMU is going through the loss of another coach and another major roster overhaul, but Chadwell’s Liberty tenure has been a bust and I’m probably lower on them than the market as a result.
East Carolina +28.5 (+24.5) at Alabama: I really love how tenacious the ECU defense plays for HC Blake Harrell. My worry here is how much they can score because it’s hard for any G6 team to hold Alabama’s talent down.
Central Michigan +10.5 (+8) at New Mexico: CMU has a ground-and-pound style attack and HC Matt Drinkall, who was Army’s OL coach, has recruited a larger offensive line. With New Mexico’s QB uncertainty in a game that could have limited possessions, CMU is not only an ATS candidate, but an outright one as well.
Western Kentucky -2.5 (-6) at Nevada: The travel to Reno is worrisome here for WKU, especially with the air conditions thanks to the wildfires as a possible compromising factor to add to the elevation. But, I really think WKU is the vastly better team.
We’ll fire up our regular weekly cadence on the College Football Betting Podcast this week, and I’ll be on every Monday to discuss some things about my power ratings, fire off some more hot takes so other fan bases can hate me, and give you an early look at my thoughts on the games, especially when we have weeknight action.
I’ll be posting this weekly Power Ratings update all season long, including my lines on the games. Keep it locked in right here at VSiN and bookmark our weekly College Football Hub to get all of our written content every week during CFB season.





