A gap is not proof that either side is correct. Select a card, inspect the résumé and document whether a future revision is justified.
Selection Sunday · Dec 72025 National Résumé Rating Top 25
18-team path2× byeBowl byeHostRoadCC
More details
Move compares this checkpoint with the prior NRR release. Δ compares NRR with the official CFP ranking released on the same date.
Five projected conference champions are protected. Tulane holds the required non-Power Four berth.
AP and Coaches are comparison views only; NRR remains the proposal’s primary order.
NRRTeamRecordIndexMoveCFPΔSAROAPQ1
Selection Sunday field notes
The bracket does not stop at No. 25.
Required champions beyond Top 251
CFP comparison · 4 teams
Official CFP Top 25, below the NRR cutline.
Current reference order
2026 Preseason AP Top 25
This is the published ranking displayed today. It supplies the current Bracket Lab field; the NRR below remains a separate résumé calculation.
Checking sourceAP Top 25Released August 17, 2026 · checked every 30 minutesView source ↗
Displayed nowAP
The display changes to the official CFP order when the current-season committee rankings begin.
1Ohio State
2Oregon
3Georgia
4Notre Dame
5Texas
6Indiana
7Miami
8Texas A&M
9Ole Miss
10Oklahoma
11LSU
12Texas Tech
13Alabama
14BYU
15Southern California
16Michigan
17Washington
18Penn State
19SMU
20Tennessee
21Utah
22Iowa
23Houston
24Louisville
25Missouri
The proposed default
Five scored measures. Résumé first. Record always.
Version 0.48 asks five clear questions: Who did you beat? How strong was the full schedule? How costly were the losses? How well did you play? How convincingly did you win? The weights are 30% quality-win depth, 30% schedule-adjusted record, 20% loss integrity, 15% opponent-adjusted performance, and 5% win control.
Selected measure
Schedule-adjusted record
30% of NRR
What it asks
How strong is the actual record after accounting for what a fixed top-25-caliber benchmark was expected to do against the same slate?
How it works
1
Start with the team’s actual wins and losses. That is 40% of this measure.
2
Next ask how many games a fixed Top-25-caliber team would be expected to win against the same opponents, at the same locations. Beating that expectation raises the score; falling short lowers it. That is 30%.
3
Use the final 30% to measure schedule challenge. Every opponent counts, while the hardest games receive extra influence without creating a hard schedule tier.
What keeps it fair
Actual record remains the largest single input. The benchmark and percentages are fixed for every team and season; there is no committee adjustment or conference multiplier.
Show technical calculation and complete inputs Optional detail
Exact calculation
Give the achieved record 40% of the component, wins above a fixed national benchmark 30%, and schedule-challenge caliber 30%. For a ranked opponent, the schedule input blends 90% of that opponent’s selected official checkpoint standing with 10% national play-level strength; an unranked opponent uses national play-level strength. The schedule measure blends a 30% full-slate average with a 70% smooth challenge-weighted average, so every opponent remains counted while the hardest games carry proportionate—not exclusive—context. One continuous 12-point logistic contrast curve then separates materially strong slates from ordinary ones without a tier line or hard evidence cap. The benchmark’s game-by-game expectation uses the same opponent strength and location with a fixed 12-point-per-win scale. Subtract eight points for an additional loss to the same opponent. Every conference-title loss receives half record and frequency treatment; a rematch still retains the repeat-opponent deduction.
Complete inputs
Actual wins and losses
40% achieved record
30% wins above fixed benchmark expectation
30% schedule-challenge caliber
90% official checkpoint standing for ranked opponents
10% national play-level strength for ranked opponents
30% full-slate average
70% smooth challenge-weighted average
Continuous 12-point schedule-contrast curve
Every opponent counted
No schedule tier cutoff or counted-game cap
Fixed 12 points per win above or below expectation
Fixed benchmark rating of 75
Home, road and neutral location
Eight-point repeat-opponent loss deduction
Conditional half-loss title-game protection
Technical guardrail
Actual record remains the largest single input, tied with neither supporting measure, while benchmark performance and schedule challenge together distinguish similar records earned against materially different slates. Every opponent still counts. The benchmark, curves, blends, and shares never change by team, season, conference, brand, or Group-of-Five status; there is no hard tier cutoff, counted-game cap, or manual placement.
Method and evidence
Transparent when you want it. Quiet when you do not.
The technical record stays public without crowding the rankings themselves.
How version 0.48 works 10 steps
01
Results only
Completed games create the rating. No preseason rank, brand value, recruiting score, or future result enters NRR.
02
National play-level fit
Completed plays estimate how well every offense and defense performed against the same national network. A soft-schedule deduction fades as a team proves itself against stronger, better-connected opponents. School and conference names never enter the calculation.
03
Schedule-adjusted record
Forty percent is the team’s actual record. Thirty percent asks how that record compares with one fixed Top-25-caliber benchmark facing the same opponents and locations. The final thirty percent measures the full schedule’s challenge; every opponent counts, while the hardest games carry more context.
04
Quality-win depth
Every win receives an Opponent Value and a Game Grade at that week’s checkpoint. Beating a stronger team creates more evidence, but the curve prevents one marquee result from overwhelming the rest of the résumé. There are no hand-picked tiers or school-specific bonuses.
05
Peer head-to-head
A direct win adds a small 0.35 raw-composite tiebreak only when the teams have the same record and sit within one point in the frozen provisional résumé Index. The narrow rule can separate those two peers without becoming a global bonus over unrelated teams with better records.
06
Loss integrity
Every loss is judged by opponent quality, margin, game state, venue, and whether it repeats an earlier matchup. A bad loss costs more than a competitive road loss to an elite opponent, but no loss earns positive credit. Additional losses compound the damage.
07
Win control
Final margin supplies most of this small 5% measure, with fourth-quarter checkpoints showing whether the winner stayed in control. Kneels, nullified plays, and late snaps after published blowout thresholds are removed.
08
Record foundation
The five measures pass through one record-first credibility factor. Strong evidence can improve a résumé, but it cannot make a multi-loss team equivalent to a team that consistently won. Soft schedules matter more as losses accumulate.
09
One NRR Index
The five weighted measures and the narrow peer head-to-head tiebreak produce one public Index: 20 + 0.85 × raw composite. That number alone determines the order—there is no committee adjustment, team override, or conference bonus afterward.
10
Weekly rebuild
The complete calculation is rebuilt from the games available at each release. Year, week, components, score, rank, and movement all come from the same repeatable code path intended for the 2026 live season.
Known limitations 7 open items
Version 0.48 tests twelve CFP-window checkpoints across 2024 and 2025. Earlier-season research previews and true out-of-sample seasons remain future validation work.
Non-FBS opponents receive a low fixed strength floor until their complete schedules are added.
Conference titles remain visible and can govern access or a published tiebreaker, but do not receive duplicate NRR points.
Opponent-adjusted performance is descriptive evidence from completed plays, not the separate predictive Team Strength Rating proposed for availability and forward-looking context.
Version 0.48 keeps the 30 / 30 / 15 / 20 / 5 headline weights and recalibrates universal Loss Integrity game severity. Official-checkpoint-majority opponent quality now anchors every loss, margin is discounted more sharply as opponent quality rises, and the weak-opponent penalty follows a smooth uncapped curve. Additive allocation remains in place: each loss receives its proportional share of the already-calculated Loss Integrity deficit and final Index cost. The shares reconcile exactly to the résumé total and do not change the underlying formula. Opponent Value, nonlinear win evidence, venue scaling, and loss curves remain provisional until additional held-out seasons and the live 2026 weekly run are complete.
The record-first design still respects an excellent one-loss season against a weak schedule, but two or three losses against that same slate receive progressively less credibility. Quality-Win Depth and the published schedule diagnostic expose the underlying evidence; the model does not add a hidden school, conference, or Group-of-Five penalty to force a preferred order.
Published score-state filters reduce late-blowout noise but do not identify substitutions or prove when every possession became noncompetitive. Lineup-aware validation remains open.
