College football, 2026 season
Data-driven picks for every FBS game + interactive charts you can customize to support any narrative (except Big 12 supremacy).
Picks and projected scores for every FBS game this week.
Moonshot of the week.
Every pick, graded.
Our Top 25 after last week, and where we split from the AP and Coaches polls.
The 12-team field if the season ended today.
The week's stories in charts. Screenshot to end (or start) an argument in the group chat.
The best, worst, luckiest and most overrated so far. Tap a tile to learn more.
Who's streaking and who's shitting the bed.
Everything you build can be saved as an image for the group chat.
The parlay builder needs the lines, and you've turned them off for this browser. Turn them back on with the Show betting lines switch at the bottom of any page.
Up to 10 legs, one per game: a moneyline, a side against the spread or an over/under. Lines and prices are DraftKings'. When we don't have DraftKings' price on a spread or total, it shows the standard −110. Each leg shows our call on it, from our number (SP+ and PRIME): a Lock, Take or Lean on the side we like, Other side when we'd bet the opposite. Random parlay grabs 3 to 6 games from the list and picks a leg in each, no thinking involved. It's for fun. If gambling stops being fun, call 1-800-GAMBLER.
Drag a team by its handle (⋮⋮) to move it; with a keyboard, focus the handle and use the up and down arrow keys. To put a different team in a spot, pick it from that row's menu; if it's already ranked somewhere else, the two trade places. Your ranking is saved in this browser.
About
Everything on this site starts with someone else's data, and we credit all of it. The projections, picks, rankings and tiers are our own math on top.
| Source | What we use | How often |
|---|---|---|
| CollegeFootballData.com, via the public cfbfastR files | Schedules, final scores, pregame Elo, play-by-play and box score stats, rosters | Usually posted Sunday or Monday morning after games |
| DraftKings lines (via The Odds API and CollegeFootballData.com) | The line and total on each game, and where each opened | Every morning, and before kickoffs Thursday to Saturday |
| Team logos and colors (ESPN's, via CollegeFootballData.com) | The logos on charts, game cards and team pages. They belong to the schools and are used only to identify the teams. | Preseason |
| SP+ by Bill Connelly (CFB Update) | Overall, offense, defense and special teams ratings | Weekly |
| PRIME (primecfb.com) | Net, offense, defense and special teams ratings, strength of schedule, strength of record | Weekly |
| AP Top 25 (via NCAA.com) | Rankings and points, including others receiving votes | Sunday afternoons |
| AFCA Coaches Poll (via Yahoo Sports, CBS Sports, SI) | Rankings and points, including others receiving votes | Sundays |
| 247Sports | Team talent composite, star counts, 2026 transfer portal rankings | Preseason |
| The NIL Standard | Estimated NIL roster values | Preseason |
| us-atlas (U.S. Census Bureau boundaries) | State shapes for the map | Once |
Rushing yards here exclude sacks, so they run higher than official totals. Ranks are out of the 138 FBS teams.
About
Every stat and term on the site, explained like you're five. Or like you're a grown adult who never asked what EPA means and is now too embarrassed to.
The words on the betting side of the site, explained like you've never placed a bet. Good for you.
What the numbers on team pages, charts and head to head mean.
How Big Al's picks, tiers and projections work. The full method is on Sources and methods.
Who's who and how the 12-team field works.
Nothing matches that. Try a shorter word.
For where the numbers come from and the exact math, see Sources and methods. If gambling stops being fun, call 1-800-GAMBLER.
About
Last updated October 26, 2026.
This is a free site for fun and information. Use it, share it, argue with it, but don't treat it as a promise about Saturday.
Big Al's CFB Lab publishes college football statistics, projections and opinions. Everything here is for information and entertainment. Projections and picks are estimates from public data and can be wrong, sometimes badly.
Nothing on this site is advice to place a bet. If you choose to bet, you're responsible for following the laws where you live, and you must be of legal age. If gambling stops being fun, call or text 1-800-GAMBLER.
Our numbers come from the sources listed on the Sources and methods page and from our own calculations. We try to keep them accurate and current, but we can't guarantee that every number is complete, correct or up to date.
You're welcome to share images you make with the share tools and to link to any page. Please keep the Big Al's CFB Lab credit on shared images. Team and school names belong to their owners; we use them only to identify teams.
Please don't overload the site, try to break it, or copy the whole thing to republish as your own.
The site is provided as is. To the extent the law allows, we aren't liable for losses that come from using it or relying on it.
We may update these terms as the site grows. The date at the top shows the latest version.
About
Last updated October 26, 2026.
There are no accounts and no ad trackers. The only personal information we collect is your email address, and only if you sign up for the newsletter.
The site remembers a few choices in your browser's local storage so they're there next time: the teams you last compared, your filters and chart settings, and any Top 25 you build. That information stays in your browser. It isn't sent to us, and you can clear it any time by clearing your browser's site data.
Images you make with the share tools are created in your browser. We don't upload or keep them.
When you sign up for the newsletter, your email address goes to Beehiiv, the service that sends it. We use it only to send the newsletter. Every issue has an unsubscribe link, and unsubscribing removes you from the list.
Our host, Cloudflare, keeps standard server logs, such as IP addresses and the pages requested, to run and protect the site. We count visits with Cloudflare Web Analytics, which doesn't use cookies or track you across sites.
The site isn't directed at children under 13, and we don't knowingly collect information from them.
If this policy changes, we'll update the date at the top.
Drag a team by its handle (⋮⋮) to reseed it; with a keyboard, focus the handle and use the up and down arrow keys. Pick a different team from a row's menu to swap it in. Your field is saved in this browser.
The first issue is coming soon.
Projected scores come from SP+ offense, defense and special teams, plus 2.5 points for the home team. Cards also show DraftKings' line and total as facts: we pick winners, not bets. Open Details for the full read, or Head to head for every stat.
Final scores against what we said before kickoff. Big Al's pick is the team at least two of SP+, PRIME and Elo favored, unless he made the call himself on a toss-up or one of the week's biggest games. Ranked means in that week's AP poll. Open a game for the full preview as it stood going into the week.
Straight-up picks: did the pick win? Big Al's pick is the team at least two of SP+, PRIME and Elo favor. Big Al and SP+ picks start in Week 8; Elo picks go back to Week 1.
Each column is that week's ranking. Arrows compare the latest poll to the week before. NR means not ranked.
Rankings come from cfbtrack.com. Week 1 is the preseason poll; each later week is the poll released before that week's games.
SP+ vs. payroll is the average, across a conference's teams with an NIL valuation (positive means its teams play better than their payrolls predict). Blue-chip ratio is the share of all its rostered players who were 4- or 5-star recruits.
Ranks are national, out of 138 FBS teams. A top-10 team also counts toward the top 25 and top 40, and everyone outside the last cutoff counts as weak. Open a conference to see its teams.
Seeds 1–4 get first-round byes. Seeds 5–8 host the first round.
The columns on the right show where each team would be seeded under the other ratings. A dash means out.
How we picked it
Three ratings look at a team in three different ways. The numbers' pick is the team at least two of them favor. On the toss-ups and the biggest games, Big Al makes the call himself and says why.
Where the game is won
Each row puts one team's unit against the unit it faces, by national rank out of all FBS teams. An edge is a gap of 25 spots or more.
Injuries and availability
Statuses come from the conference availability reports and team news, as of the date shown. "Hasn't played" means a regular (the main passer, a quarter of the carries or 15% of the catches) with no pass, carry or catch in his team's last two games, from the play-by-play. That can be an injury, a benching or a suspension. Linemen and defenders don't show up in that check.
The teams in charts
The players in charts
FAQ
Keep going
Ratings: SP+ via CFB Update; PRIME via primecfb.com. Box and play stats computed from CollegeFootballData.com play data (via the public cfbfastR files), FBS games only for scoring. Rushing yards here exclude sacks, so they run higher than official totals. Ranks are out of 138 FBS teams.
Week 9, Sat, Oct 31, 7:30 PM ET, Acrisure Stadium.
Big Al's pick: Pittsburgh, 75% to win.
| Kickoff | Sat, Oct 31, 7:30 PM ET |
|---|---|
| TV | ESPN2 |
| Where | Acrisure Stadium |
| Weather | 58°, overcast, wind 2 mph |
| Line | Pittsburgh −7.5, total 54.5 |
| Line movement | Opened Pittsburgh −7; moved 0.5 points toward Pittsburgh. Total opened 52.5, up 2. |
| Series | Pittsburgh leads 12–6 |
| Last meeting | Pittsburgh 42–28 in 2025 |
| Margin | Win chance | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SP+ | Pittsburgh by 11.5 | 79% | 59 |
| PRIME | Pittsburgh by 7.7 | 71% | |
| Elo | Pittsburgh | 79% | |
| The line | Pittsburgh −7.5, opened −7 | 54.5, opened 52.5 |
Margins include home field. SP+ is Bill Connelly's rating; Sources has PRIME and Elo. Line and total from DraftKings, as of Wed, Oct 28, 2:21 PM ET.
Big Al's pick: Pittsburgh. 76% to win
All three ratings favor Pittsburgh, by 7.7 to 11.5 points. Pittsburgh's best matchup is its offensive line, 23rd in line yards per carry, against Georgia Tech's run-stopping front at 126th. Georgia Tech's way back in is its big-play offense, 21st in explosive play rate, against Pittsburgh's big-play defense at 67th.
| SP+ offense | SP+ defense | |
|---|---|---|
| Georgia Tech | 28.3 (57th) | 29.4 (95th) |
| Pittsburgh | 30.0 (46th) | 22.4 (39th) |
| SUPLEX | SUPLEX allowed | |
|---|---|---|
| Georgia Tech | 61.5% (27th) | 57.6% (96th) |
| Pittsburgh | 56.6% (68th) | 44.2% (19th) |
| Success rate | Explosive play rate | |
|---|---|---|
| Georgia Tech | 44.1% (66th) | 15.0% (21st) |
| Pittsburgh | 46.3% (38th) | 13.2% (40th) |
| Success rate allowed | Explosive plays allowed | |
|---|---|---|
| Georgia Tech | 46.1% (112th) | 13.9% (113th) |
| Pittsburgh | 34.9% (13th) | 10.9% (67th) |
| Yards per carry | Yards per attempt | |
|---|---|---|
| Georgia Tech | 5.49 (43rd) | 7.90 (58th) |
| Pittsburgh | 5.02 (78th) | 8.48 (36th) |
| 3rd down conversion | 3rd downs allowed | |
|---|---|---|
| Georgia Tech | 32.9% (119th) | 46.5% (122nd) |
| Pittsburgh | 42.2% (58th) | 39.6% (78th) |
Each chart puts all 138 FBS teams on two stats; Georgia Tech and Pittsburgh are lit. Dashed lines are the FBS averages, and up and right is better. Ranks in parentheses. Games through Oct 24, 2026.
| Player | Passing success rate (per dropback) | Passing yards |
|---|---|---|
| Alberto Mendoza, Georgia Tech | 46.7% (43rd) | 1,768 (24th) |
| Mason Heintschel, Pittsburgh | 49.4% (24th) | 1,306 (84th) |
| Player | Yards per carry | Rushing success rate |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Haynes, Georgia Tech | 5.1 (155th) | 43.3% (175th) |
| Damon Ferguson Jr., Pittsburgh | 5.3 (134th) | 46.1% (128th) |
| Player | Explosive catches (16+ yards) | Receiving yards |
|---|---|---|
| Jordan Allen, Georgia Tech | 15 (22nd) | 533 (43rd) |
| Dalen Penson, Georgia Tech | 11 (57th) | 438 (72nd) |
| Cataurus Hicks, Pittsburgh | 14 (27th) | 649 (20th) |
| Carson Kent, Pittsburgh | 4 (388th) | 276 (222nd) |
| Player | Sacks | INTs | Fumble recoveries | FBS rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nick James, Pittsburgh | 2 | 0 | 1 | 203rd |
| Raion Strader, Pittsburgh | 0 | 3 | 0 | 204th |
| Tawfiq Thomas, Georgia Tech | 2 | 0 | 0 | 349th |
| Alex Sanford, Pittsburgh | 2 | 0 | 0 | 480th |
| C.J. Gamble, Georgia Tech | 0 | 1 | 0 | 851st |
| Cayman Spaulding, Georgia Tech | 1 | 0 | 0 | 852nd |
The scatter charts show the top 40 FBS players at the position by both stats combined, plus the players lit here. Dashed lines are the averages; up and right is better. Ranks are among every FBS player at the position with enough snaps. Takeaways are interceptions plus fumble recoveries. Games through Oct 24, 2026.
On a neutral field, SP+ has Pittsburgh 9.0 points better (44th to 75th). PRIME also has Pittsburgh ahead, by 5.2. Elo, which only sees results, also has Pittsburgh ahead (52nd to 89th).
| Georgia Tech | Pittsburgh | |
|---|---|---|
| SP+ overall | -1.1 (75th) | 7.9 (44th) |
| SP+ offense | 28.3 (57th) | 30.0 (46th) |
| SP+ defense | 29.4 (95th) | 22.4 (39th) |
| SP+ special teams | 0.0 (68th) | 0.3 (28th) |
| PRIME net | -2.5 (81st) | 2.7 (57th) |
| PRIME offense | 0.62 (59th) | -0.58 (72nd) |
| PRIME defense | -3.21 (94th) | 2.94 (43rd) |
| PRIME SOS | -1.4 (60th) | 0.3 (42nd) |
| PRIME SOR | -1.7 (113th) | 1.1 (37th) |
| Elo | 1412 (89th) | 1588 (52nd) |
Opponent-adjusted power ratings. These drive the projection.
Georgia Tech's offense ranks 58th in adjusted EPA per play, and the Pittsburgh defense it faces ranks 39th in EPA per play allowed. Pittsburgh's offense ranks 68th against Georgia Tech's 129th-ranked defense. The matchup that decides it is Pittsburgh's offense against Georgia Tech's defense. The biggest edge on the board is Pittsburgh's offensive line in the run game: 23rd in adjusted line yards per carry, against Georgia Tech's 126th-ranked defense. That's a mismatch.
| Georgia Tech | Pittsburgh | |
|---|---|---|
| EPA per play (adjusted) | +0.12 (58th) | +0.11 (68th) |
| EPA per pass (adjusted) | +0.18 (76th) | +0.20 (65th) |
| EPA per rush (adjusted) | +0.07 (56th) | +0.06 (77th) |
| Success rate (adjusted) | 43.2% (51st) | 42.3% (59th) |
| Success rate, standard downs (adjusted) | 48.0% (46th) | 47.4% (53rd) |
| Success rate, passing downs (adjusted) | 30.3% (75th) | 31.2% (52nd) |
| Explosiveness (adjusted) | 0.95 (40th) | 0.90 (130th) |
| Line yards per carry (adjusted) | 2.92 (86th) | 3.11 (23rd) |
| Open-field yards per carry (adjusted) | 1.32 (20th) | 1.01 (106th) |
| EPA per play allowed (adjusted) | +0.22 (129th) | +0.06 (39th) |
| EPA per pass allowed (adjusted) | +0.29 (126th) | +0.23 (94th) |
| EPA per rush allowed (adjusted) | +0.15 (127th) | −0.04 (6th) |
| Success rate allowed (adjusted) | 44.8% (107th) | 36.6% (15th) |
| Explosiveness allowed (adjusted) | 0.94 (88th) | 0.94 (77th) |
| Line yards allowed per carry (adjusted) | 3.19 (126th) | 2.43 (2nd) |
| Open-field yards allowed per carry (adjusted) | 1.34 (118th) | 0.88 (9th) |
The same efficiency numbers, adjusted for the offenses and defenses each team has faced (CollegeFootballData.com). A good number against a soft schedule shrinks; one against a hard schedule grows.
Georgia Tech is about as good throwing (64th in EPA per pass) as running (60th). Pittsburgh is better throwing (52nd in EPA per pass) than running (68th). Georgia Tech's pass defense ranks 125th, so that's a mismatch. On third down, Pittsburgh has the edge: its offense ranks 47th in EPA per third-down play, and the defense it faces ranks 130th.
| Georgia Tech | Pittsburgh | |
|---|---|---|
| EPA per play | +0.16 (57th) | +0.16 (57th) |
| EPA per pass | +0.23 (64th) | +0.26 (52nd) |
| EPA per rush | +0.12 (60th) | +0.10 (68th) |
| EPA per 3rd-down play | +0.32 (102nd) | +0.54 (47th) |
| EPA per play allowed | +0.24 (124th) | +0.04 (42nd) |
| EPA per pass allowed | +0.38 (125th) | +0.28 (103rd) |
| EPA per rush allowed | +0.18 (121st) | −0.16 (4th) |
| EPA per 3rd-down play allowed | +0.67 (130th) | +0.45 (86th) |
Expected points added per play, from CollegeFootballData.com. EPA measures how much each play changes the points a team can expect from the drive. Zero is break-even; +0.20 is very good. Not adjusted for opponents.
Georgia Tech is outscored by 3.6 a game, and Pittsburgh by 10.7. Georgia Tech's offense ranks 82nd in scoring, and the Pittsburgh defense it faces ranks 40th in points allowed. Pittsburgh's offense ranks 49th against Georgia Tech's 114th-ranked defense. The matchup that decides it is Pittsburgh's offense against Georgia Tech's defense.
| Georgia Tech | Pittsburgh | |
|---|---|---|
| Points scored | 26.7 (82nd) | 31.6 (49th) |
| Points allowed | 30.3 (114th) | 20.9 (40th) |
Per game, FBS opponents only.
Georgia Tech's best matchup is big plays: its offense ranks 21st in explosive play rate, and Pittsburgh's defense ranks 67th in explosive plays allowed. Pittsburgh's best matchup is staying on schedule: its offense ranks 38th in success rate, and Georgia Tech's defense ranks 112th in success rate allowed. That's a mismatch.
| Georgia Tech | Pittsburgh | |
|---|---|---|
| Pass yards / game | 263.0 (38th) | 289.3 (18th) |
| Rush yards / game | 140.4 (100th) | 160.8 (77th) |
| Yards per play | 6.63 (37th) | 6.69 (32nd) |
| Yards per carry | 5.49 (43rd) | 5.02 (78th) |
| Yards per attempt | 7.90 (58th) | 8.48 (36th) |
| Completion % | 68.7% (38th) | 65.2% (57th) |
| Success rate | 44.1% (66th) | 46.3% (38th) |
| Explosive play rate | 15.0% (21st) | 13.2% (40th) |
| 3rd down conversion | 32.9% (119th) | 42.2% (58th) |
| Sack rate (taken) | 5.7% (74th) | 3.2% (21st) |
| INT rate (thrown) | 2.6% (82nd) | 1.8% (47th) |
| SUPLEX | 61.5% (27th) | 56.6% (68th) |
Per game and per play, from play-by-play.
Pittsburgh's defense is best placed to keep offenses behind schedule: it ranks 13th in success rate allowed, and Georgia Tech's offense is middle of the pack in success rate (66th).
| Georgia Tech | Pittsburgh | |
|---|---|---|
| Pass yards allowed / game | 200.0 (46th) | 270.0 (127th) |
| Rush yards allowed / game | 203.4 (127th) | 76.0 (2nd) |
| Yards per play allowed | 6.64 (114th) | 5.83 (77th) |
| Yards per carry allowed | 5.79 (123rd) | 3.27 (2nd) |
| Yards per attempt allowed | 8.24 (98th) | 7.94 (89th) |
| Success rate allowed | 46.1% (112th) | 34.9% (13th) |
| Explosive plays allowed | 13.9% (113th) | 10.9% (67th) |
| 3rd downs allowed | 46.5% (122nd) | 39.6% (78th) |
| Sack rate (generated) | 5.0% (95th) | 5.9% (74th) |
| INT rate (generated) | 0.6% (137th) | 3.3% (35th) |
| SUPLEX allowed | 57.6% (96th) | 44.2% (19th) |
What opponents managed against them.
Pittsburgh is +0.4 in turnover margin a game and Georgia Tech is −0.9. At about five points a turnover, that's roughly a 6-point edge for Pittsburgh. Turnover margin rarely holds from one month to the next, so don't count on it.
| Georgia Tech | Pittsburgh | |
|---|---|---|
| Interceptions thrown / game | 0.86 (84th) | 0.63 (52nd) |
| Fumbles lost / game | 0.43 (53rd) | 0.38 (42nd) |
| Giveaways / game | 1.29 (71st) | 1.00 (37th) |
| Interceptions / game | 0.14 (136th) | 1.13 (19th) |
| Fumbles recovered / game | 0.29 (94th) | 0.25 (113th) |
| Takeaways / game | 0.43 (135th) | 1.38 (50th) |
| Turnover margin / game | -0.9 (121st) | +0.4 (42nd) |
Per game, from play-by-play.
Georgia Tech has the more talented roster (34th in the 247Sports talent composite; Pittsburgh is 64th). But Pittsburgh plays further above its talent: +7.1 points of SP+ beyond what its roster predicts, to Georgia Tech's −6.7.
| Georgia Tech | Pittsburgh | |
|---|---|---|
| Talent composite | 751.7 (34th) | 675.0 (64th) |
| Blue-chip ratio | 15.5% (48th) | 13.0% (56th) |
| Players on roster | 107 (94th) | 112 (58th) |
| Rated by 247Sports | 84 (44th) | 77 (78th) |
| 5-star players | 2 (19th) | 0 (37th) |
| 4-star players | 11 (53rd) | 10 (58th) |
| 3-star players | 71 (23rd) | 65 (54th) |
| Below 3-star | 0 (113th) | 2 (68th) |
| 2026 transfers in | 19 (84th) | 16 (111th) |
| Transfer share | 22.6% (95th) | 20.8% (107th) |
| SP+ vs. talent | -6.7 (108th) | +7.1 (29th) |
| Returning production | 12.6% (117th) | 39.7% (67th) |
| Returning passing production | 0.0% (109th) | 58.6% (64th) |
| Returning rushing production | 34.8% (75th) | 67.2% (52nd) |
| Returning receiving production | 11.3% (122nd) | 24.0% (95th) |
| 2026 recruiting class (national rank) | 41 (41st) | 44 (44th) |
| Recruiting rank, last four classes | 39.2 (36th) | 46.8 (46th) |
247Sports team talent composite and 2026 transfer portal class. Star counts cover only the players 247Sports rates, not walk-ons, so they add up to less than the full roster. Ranks are out of all 138 FBS teams.
Pittsburgh's roster is valued at $22.1M, Georgia Tech's at $20.1M. Pittsburgh also plays better per dollar: +0.5 points of SP+ above what its payroll predicts, to −6.4 for Georgia Tech.
| Georgia Tech | Pittsburgh | |
|---|---|---|
| Roster value | $20.1M (52nd) | $22.1M (37th) |
| Roster cost per win | $10.1M (65th) | $4.4M (20th) |
| Projected wins per $1M | 0.22 (51st) | 0.35 (19th) |
| SP+ vs. payroll | -6.4 (60th) | +0.5 (37th) |
NIL roster value from The NIL Standard (power-conference teams plus Boise State and Oregon State). Ranks are out of 70 teams with a valuation.
Georgia Tech is −1.5 wins against a .500 team; the biggest piece is luck (−1.6). Pittsburgh is +1.0 wins against a .500 team; the biggest piece is coaching (+1.0). Georgia Tech's record is 1.6 wins worse than its play on bad luck, so it's better than the record says.
| Georgia Tech | Pittsburgh | |
|---|---|---|
| BAWA (total) | -1.5 (115th) | +1.0 (50th) |
| Schedule BAWA | +0.3 (75th) | +0.0 (88th) |
| Roster BAWA | +0.5 (36th) | +0.1 (61st) |
| Coach BAWA | -0.8 (101st) | +1.0 (25th) |
| Luck BAWA | -1.6 (134th) | -0.2 (81st) |
Big Al Wins Added: where the wins came from. Every team starts as a .500 team. Then each win (or loss) goes to the schedule, the roster, the coaching or luck, and the four add up to the real record. Wins above or below a .500 team.
Big Al picks Pittsburgh, 76% to win. All three ratings favor the same team. Pittsburgh's best matchup is its offensive line, 23rd in line yards per carry, against Georgia Tech's run-stopping front at 126th.
Sat, Oct 31, 7:30 PM ET at Acrisure Stadium, on ESPN2.
DraftKings has Pittsburgh −7.5, total 54.5. Big Al picks winners, not bets.
Pittsburgh leads 12–6. Last meeting: Pittsburgh won 42–28 in 2025.
Georgia Tech's is Alberto Mendoza (1,768 passing yards this season); Pittsburgh's is Mason Heintschel (1,306 passing yards this season).
Numbers through the games of Oct 24, 2026. SP+ as of Oct 27, 2026. Updated every week.
Georgia Tech and Pittsburgh: team pages with every stat and national rank. Compare any two teams.