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.
"Off by" is how far the final margin landed from the projected margin.
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. Big Al's pick is the team at least two of them favor.
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, 3:15 PM ET, L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium.
Big Al's pick: Louisville, 97% to win.
| Kickoff | Sat, Oct 31, 3:15 PM ET |
|---|---|
| TV | ACC Network |
| Where | L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium |
| Weather | 72°, overcast, wind 5 mph |
| Line | Louisville −22.5, total 60.5 |
| Line movement | Opened Louisville −21; moved 1.5 points toward Louisville. Total opened 61.5, down 1. |
| Series | Stanford leads 1–0 |
| Last meeting | Stanford 38–35 in 2024 |
| Margin | Win chance | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SP+ | Louisville by 25.5 | 97% | 65 |
| PRIME | Louisville by 23.3 | 95% | |
| Elo | Louisville | 97% | |
| The line | Louisville −22.5, opened −21 | 60.5, opened 61.5 |
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: Louisville. 96% to win
All three ratings favor Louisville, by 23.3 to 25.5 points, and it isn't close. Louisville's best matchup is its run game, 1st in yards per carry, against Stanford's run defense at 124th. Stanford's way back in is its passing game, 52nd in pass yards per game, against Louisville's pass defense at 122nd.
| SP+ offense | SP+ defense | |
|---|---|---|
| Stanford | 22.0 (106th) | 32.3 (114th) |
| Louisville | 37.7 (6th) | 25.4 (61st) |
| SUPLEX | SUPLEX allowed | |
|---|---|---|
| Stanford | 54.1% (85th) | 60.6% (111th) |
| Louisville | 70.3% (4th) | 58.9% (102nd) |
| Success rate | Explosive play rate | |
|---|---|---|
| Stanford | 43.5% (73rd) | 10.9% (101st) |
| Louisville | 48.1% (28th) | 17.7% (2nd) |
| Success rate allowed | Explosive plays allowed | |
|---|---|---|
| Stanford | 45.1% (103rd) | 14.2% (119th) |
| Louisville | 43.6% (89th) | 11.6% (80th) |
| Yards per carry | Yards per attempt | |
|---|---|---|
| Stanford | 4.65 (107th) | 8.30 (43rd) |
| Louisville | 7.70 (1st) | 8.70 (30th) |
| 3rd down conversion | 3rd downs allowed | |
|---|---|---|
| Stanford | 44.0% (48th) | 41.1% (90th) |
| Louisville | 41.7% (61st) | 39.2% (77th) |
Each chart puts all 138 FBS teams on two stats; Stanford and Louisville 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Lincoln Kienholz, Louisville | 50.6% (18th) | 1,557 (49th) |
| Player | Yards per carry | Rushing success rate |
|---|---|---|
| Micah Ford, Stanford | 5.0 (163rd) | 41.2% (218th) |
| Isaac Brown, Louisville | 8.1 (8th) | 43.1% (180th) |
| Player | Explosive catches (16+ yards) | Receiving yards |
|---|---|---|
| Caden High, Stanford | 9 (108th) | 446 (68th) |
| Benjamin Blackburn, Stanford | 4 (398th) | 244 (281st) |
| Lawayne McCoy, Louisville | 12 (45th) | 451 (64th) |
| Tre Richardson, Louisville | 11 (61st) | 420 (87th) |
| Player | Sacks | INTs | Fumble recoveries | FBS rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kaleb Beasley, Louisville | 0 | 5 | 0 | 23rd |
| Tyler Thompson, Louisville | 3 | 0 | 1 | 55th |
| Tevarua Tafiti, Stanford | 1 | 0 | 2 | 216th |
| Clev Lubin, Louisville | 3 | 0 | 0 | 167th |
| Brandon Nicholson, Stanford | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1346th |
| Charlie Eckhardt, Stanford | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1347th |
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 Louisville 23.0 points better (25th to 112th). PRIME also has Louisville ahead, by 20.8. Elo, which only sees results, also has Louisville ahead (29th to 127th).
| Stanford | Louisville | |
|---|---|---|
| SP+ overall | -10.8 (112th) | 12.2 (25th) |
| SP+ offense | 22.0 (106th) | 37.7 (6th) |
| SP+ defense | 32.3 (114th) | 25.4 (61st) |
| SP+ special teams | -0.5 (124th) | -0.1 (80th) |
| PRIME net | -8.5 (103rd) | 12.3 (20th) |
| PRIME offense | -2.75 (89th) | 9.81 (16th) |
| PRIME defense | -5.64 (112th) | 2.84 (46th) |
| PRIME SOS | 1.7 (28th) | 2.5 (19th) |
| PRIME SOR | 0.3 (58th) | 0.9 (44th) |
| Elo | 1157 (127th) | 1713 (29th) |
Opponent-adjusted power ratings. These drive the projection.
Stanford's offense ranks 84th in adjusted EPA per play, and the Louisville defense it faces ranks 52nd in EPA per play allowed. Louisville's offense ranks 18th against Stanford's 135th-ranked defense. The matchup that decides it is Louisville's offense against Stanford's defense. The biggest edge on the board is Louisville's big plays: 1st in adjusted explosiveness, against Stanford's 136th-ranked defense. That's a mismatch. Adjust for opponents and Stanford's offense falls from 50th to 84th in EPA per play: a lot of that came against soft defenses.
| Stanford | Louisville | |
|---|---|---|
| EPA per play (adjusted) | +0.07 (84th) | +0.20 (18th) |
| EPA per pass (adjusted) | +0.17 (80th) | +0.27 (24th) |
| EPA per rush (adjusted) | +0.01 (118th) | +0.12 (28th) |
| Success rate (adjusted) | 37.7% (121st) | 44.7% (34th) |
| Success rate, standard downs (adjusted) | 46.0% (82nd) | 49.7% (31st) |
| Success rate, passing downs (adjusted) | 26.0% (130th) | 31.0% (59th) |
| Explosiveness (adjusted) | 0.91 (117th) | 1.02 (1st) |
| Line yards per carry (adjusted) | 2.86 (100th) | 2.73 (128th) |
| Open-field yards per carry (adjusted) | 0.94 (124th) | 1.89 (1st) |
| EPA per play allowed (adjusted) | +0.25 (135th) | +0.07 (52nd) |
| EPA per pass allowed (adjusted) | +0.33 (135th) | +0.22 (89th) |
| EPA per rush allowed (adjusted) | +0.19 (136th) | +0.03 (39th) |
| Success rate allowed (adjusted) | 47.4% (131st) | 40.7% (52nd) |
| Explosiveness allowed (adjusted) | 0.99 (136th) | 0.89 (4th) |
| Line yards allowed per carry (adjusted) | 3.18 (125th) | 3.03 (92nd) |
| Open-field yards allowed per carry (adjusted) | 1.32 (115th) | 1.01 (36th) |
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.
Stanford is better throwing (49th in EPA per pass) than running (96th). Louisville's pass defense ranks 106th, so that's an edge. Louisville is about as good throwing (15th in EPA per pass) as running (14th). On third down, Louisville has the edge: its offense ranks 12th in EPA per third-down play, and the defense it faces ranks 134th.
| Stanford | Louisville | |
|---|---|---|
| EPA per play | +0.18 (50th) | +0.32 (7th) |
| EPA per pass | +0.28 (49th) | +0.43 (15th) |
| EPA per rush | +0.04 (96th) | +0.23 (14th) |
| EPA per 3rd-down play | +0.36 (93rd) | +0.73 (12th) |
| EPA per play allowed | +0.31 (136th) | +0.10 (73rd) |
| EPA per pass allowed | +0.36 (118th) | +0.29 (106th) |
| EPA per rush allowed | +0.30 (136th) | 0.00 (45th) |
| EPA per 3rd-down play allowed | +0.74 (134th) | +0.28 (34th) |
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.
Stanford is outscored by 15.6 a game, and Louisville by 11.3. Stanford's offense ranks 125th in scoring, and the Louisville defense it faces ranks 99th in points allowed. Louisville's offense ranks 11th against Stanford's 132nd-ranked defense. The matchup that decides it is Louisville's offense against Stanford's defense.
| Stanford | Louisville | |
|---|---|---|
| Points scored | 19.9 (125th) | 38.7 (11th) |
| Points allowed | 35.5 (132nd) | 27.4 (99th) |
Per game, FBS opponents only.
Stanford's best matchup is third downs: its offense ranks 48th in 3rd down conversion rate, and Louisville's defense ranks 77th in 3rd down conversions allowed. Louisville's best matchup is its run game: its offense ranks 1st in yards per carry, and Stanford's defense ranks 124th in yards per carry allowed. That's a mismatch.
| Stanford | Louisville | |
|---|---|---|
| Pass yards / game | 245.9 (52nd) | 269.8 (31st) |
| Rush yards / game | 127.8 (117th) | 247.7 (7th) |
| Yards per play | 6.37 (53rd) | 7.98 (2nd) |
| Yards per carry | 4.65 (107th) | 7.70 (1st) |
| Yards per attempt | 8.30 (43rd) | 8.70 (30th) |
| Completion % | 71.3% (22nd) | 58.6% (90th) |
| Success rate | 43.5% (73rd) | 48.1% (28th) |
| Explosive play rate | 10.9% (101st) | 17.7% (2nd) |
| 3rd down conversion | 44.0% (48th) | 41.7% (61st) |
| Sack rate (taken) | 4.8% (53rd) | 5.1% (62nd) |
| INT rate (thrown) | 1.3% (25th) | 1.6% (38th) |
| SUPLEX | 54.1% (85th) | 70.3% (4th) |
Per game and per play, from play-by-play.
Louisville's defense is best placed to stop the run: it ranks 63rd in yards per carry allowed, and Stanford's offense is bottom-40 in yards per carry (107th).
| Stanford | Louisville | |
|---|---|---|
| Pass yards allowed / game | 265.9 (125th) | 259.2 (122nd) |
| Rush yards allowed / game | 193.6 (118th) | 161.3 (87th) |
| Yards per play allowed | 6.35 (102nd) | 6.21 (93rd) |
| Yards per carry allowed | 5.89 (124th) | 4.70 (63rd) |
| Yards per attempt allowed | 6.86 (57th) | 8.45 (110th) |
| Success rate allowed | 45.1% (103rd) | 43.6% (89th) |
| Explosive plays allowed | 14.2% (119th) | 11.6% (80th) |
| 3rd downs allowed | 41.1% (90th) | 39.2% (77th) |
| Sack rate (generated) | 1.9% (137th) | 8.0% (28th) |
| INT rate (generated) | 1.0% (132nd) | 3.3% (39th) |
| SUPLEX allowed | 60.6% (111th) | 58.9% (102nd) |
What opponents managed against them.
Louisville is +0.7 in turnover margin a game and Stanford is −0.1. At about five points a turnover, that's roughly a 4-point edge for Louisville. Turnover margin rarely holds from one month to the next, so don't count on it.
| Stanford | Louisville | |
|---|---|---|
| Interceptions thrown / game | 0.43 (26th) | 0.43 (26th) |
| Fumbles lost / game | 0.43 (53rd) | 0.43 (53rd) |
| Giveaways / game | 0.86 (26th) | 0.86 (26th) |
| Interceptions / game | 0.43 (105th) | 1.00 (22nd) |
| Fumbles recovered / game | 0.29 (94th) | 0.57 (49th) |
| Takeaways / game | 0.71 (118th) | 1.57 (27th) |
| Turnover margin / game | -0.1 (76th) | +0.7 (18th) |
Per game, from play-by-play.
Louisville has the more talented roster (41st in the 247Sports talent composite; Stanford is 50th). Louisville also plays further above its talent: +8.1 points of SP+ beyond what its roster predicts, to Stanford's −13.5.
| Stanford | Louisville | |
|---|---|---|
| Talent composite | 705.8 (50th) | 728.6 (41st) |
| Blue-chip ratio | 11.6% (62nd) | 25.7% (32nd) |
| Players on roster | 112 (58th) | 102 (128th) |
| Rated by 247Sports | 95 (10th) | 74 (84th) |
| 5-star players | 0 (37th) | 0 (37th) |
| 4-star players | 11 (53rd) | 19 (35th) |
| 3-star players | 81 (5th) | 53 (99th) |
| Below 3-star | 3 (53rd) | 2 (68th) |
| 2026 transfers in | 6 (133rd) | 34 (21st) |
| Transfer share | 6.3% (134th) | 45.9% (24th) |
| SP+ vs. talent | -13.5 (130th) | +8.1 (25th) |
| Returning production | 21.3% (96th) | 34.8% (82nd) |
| Returning passing production | -1.2% (121st) | 0.0% (109th) |
| Returning rushing production | 134.6% (8th) | 84.6% (34th) |
| Returning receiving production | 31.2% (80th) | 18.2% (106th) |
| 2026 recruiting class (national rank) | 37 (37th) | 48 (48th) |
| Recruiting rank, last four classes | 42.2 (41st) | 51.2 (51st) |
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.
Louisville's roster is valued at $21.6M, Stanford's at $17.8M. Louisville also plays better per dollar: +5.3 points of SP+ above what its payroll predicts, to −13.5 for Stanford.
| Stanford | Louisville | |
|---|---|---|
| Roster value | $17.8M (66th) | $21.6M (40th) |
| Roster cost per win | $4.5M (22nd) | $5.4M (34th) |
| Projected wins per $1M | 0.15 (67th) | 0.39 (11th) |
| SP+ vs. payroll | -13.5 (70th) | +5.3 (15th) |
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.
Stanford is 0.0 wins against a .500 team; the biggest piece is luck (+1.8). Louisville is +0.5 wins against a .500 team; the biggest piece is coaching (+1.3). Stanford's record is running 1.8 wins ahead of its play on luck alone, so it's not as good as the record says.
| Stanford | Louisville | |
|---|---|---|
| BAWA (total) | 0.0 (82nd) | +0.5 (57th) |
| Schedule BAWA | -0.5 (111th) | -0.5 (111th) |
| Roster BAWA | +0.2 (56th) | +0.5 (39th) |
| Coach BAWA | -1.5 (124th) | +1.3 (18th) |
| Luck BAWA | +1.8 (2nd) | -0.8 (115th) |
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 Louisville, 96% to win. All three ratings favor the same team. Louisville's best matchup is its run game, 1st in yards per carry, against Stanford's run defense at 124th.
Sat, Oct 31, 3:15 PM ET at L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium, on ACC Network.
DraftKings has Louisville −22.5, total 60.5. Big Al picks winners, not bets.
Stanford leads 1–0. Last meeting: Stanford won 38–35 in 2024.
Numbers through the games of Oct 24, 2026. SP+ as of Oct 27, 2026. Updated every week.
Stanford and Louisville: team pages with every stat and national rank. Compare any two teams.