Humans vs. Computers: Comparing all the Week 3 college football rankings

There are a million ways college football is unique from other sports. The most striking way? No other sport relies so much on opinion to organize its standings. The NFL, MLB and every other league rely on win-loss standings. College football has always leaned on voters and a Top 25. That’s the way it’s been and the way it remains, for better or worse.

The human element of the polls gives way to endless debates over who should be ranked where. Who got snubbed? Who is overrated? Who is underrated? We debate these things even though they’re largely meaningless (until it’s the College Football Playoff committee doing the rating).

But the humans aren’t the only ones doing the ranking. There are a slew of advanced stat metrics keeping score. Remember the much-maligned BCS computer rankings? Sagarin, Billingsley, Dunkel and Massey are all still around. There are plenty more where that came from too — from the Fremeau Efficiency Index (FEI) to ESPN’s Football Power Index (FPI). Those rankings have plenty to say about the current hierarchy of college football.

What do you get when you put the humans and the computers together? A consensus ranking! First, let’s look at what a combined Top 25 looks like and then we’ll discuss the biggest agreements and disagreements

Consensus college football rankings for Week 3

Note: Massey actually has a composite ranking including 40 different rankings. But that heavily weighs the computers compared to two human polls. So for this exercise, I’ve evened things out: Using the AP and Coaches Top 25s and FPI, ESPN’s predictive model, and FEI, an efficiency-based computer ranking.

First five out: Michigan, South Florida, Florida, TCU, Arizona State

Which college football teams are ranked most drastically different?

USC’s great divide

USC is by far the biggest disagreement between the computers and humans. The Trojans aren’t ranked in either of the human polls — they’re not even the first, second or third team out. Meanwhile, the computers are extremely high on Lincoln Riley’s crew. FPI slots them in at No. 5 while FEI has them at No. 9. If you average both sides of the disagreement, the difference in position is 22 spots. What gives?

Skepticism about USC is entirely warranted. They have gotten worse each season of Riley’s tenure, going 7-6 in 2024. Last year, their defense remained suspect and, without a star quarterback, their offense looked pedestrian. Going into 2025, questions remain about the offensive line, the quarterback, the run defense, and, critically, the head coach. Thus, the unranked status.

Why do the computers love them, then? Well, here’s the thing: The computers liked them last year too. Despite a 7-6 record, USC finished the season ranked 17th in FPI and 16th in FEI. Basically, the Trojans lost games they should have won on paper — hell, they led in the fourth quarter of five of their six losses.

The computers know that USC played well enough to boast a significantly better record over the last year. The voters know that USC has played badly enough to lose those games. This year, the computers have noted the Trojans beating Missouri State by 60 and Georgia Southern by 39. The voters have noted the Trojans getting to 2-0 by beating Missouri State and Georgia Southern.

If USC keeps winning, the human rankings will catch up to the computers soon enough.

Is Florida State legit?

Florida State is the complete opposite. The humans are convinced by what they see in 2025. The computers are still very skeptical based on 2024 outcomes.

The Seminoles rank 10th in the AP and 12th in the coaches’ poll after battering Alabama to open the season. They started out unranked and off the radar, but that impressive showing was all voters needed to see. They immediately boosted FSU into the rankings.

Meanwhile, FEI has Mike Norvell’s squad at a much more humble 44th. FPI is higher on the Seminoles at 26th. It’s important to remember that all of these computer models factor in last year’s data at the start of the season. They’ll phase out that data as the current season fills in more up-to-date stats. For now, the 2024 season looms large. Where USC was a good team on paper who just lost more games than they should have, Florida State was straight-up a bad team in most metrics last year.

But that was with the conglomeration of DJ Uiagalelei, Brock Glenn and Luke Kromenhoek at quarterback. And with offensive coordinator Alex Atkins and defensive coordinator Adam Fuller falling flat on their faces.

The computers can’t yet quantify how much better the FSU offense looks with quarterback Tommy Castellanos at the helm. And they can’t recognize how much more physical the Seminoles defense looks under new defensive coordinator Tony White. The numbers on the page don’t quite do it all justice.

If Florida State keeps playing at this level — say it with me now! — the computer rankings will catch up to their human ranking soon enough.

What college football rankings do the humans and computers agree on?

Georgia and Notre Dame are spot on

The top 10 does have some interesting disagreements between the voters and computers. LSU is nine spots higher according to the voters than the computers. Miami is 12 higher and Ole Miss is seven lower. But there is some spot on agreement.

Both Georgia and Notre Dame average to the same spot in both metrics. Georgia is sixth in the AP and FPI while sitting third in the coaches and FEI. That averages to fourth. Notre Dame is eight in both human polls, 10th in FPI and sixth in FEI. That averages to eighth.

The Bulldogs have a big opportunity to move up with a trip to face consensus No. 10 Tennessee in Week 3. The same goes for the Fighting Irish. They take on consensus No. 14 Texas A&M. Notre Dame was on a bye after their season opener disappointment against Miami. Another letdown will leave them 0-2.