Our long wait is over! The 2022 college football season has arrived and brings with it seven FBS vs. FBS matchups in “Week 0”. In total, we get 11 games this week, as four teams will play those “paycheck” games against FCS schools that need to fill the athletic department coffers. Early-season games can certainly be sloppy and a bit crazy, but we have football back and that’s what matters.
For the last several seasons, I’ve put together my own set of college football power ratings. I outlined my process last month in the College Football Betting Guide (subscribe if you haven’t gotten it) and followed that up with how I came up with my home-field advantage values for this season. I’d recommend referring to those two free articles before reading on.
Power ratings have the most value early in the week. Handicapping techniques have more value late in the week - weather, spots, matchup advantages, etc. Power ratings are designed to help you try and beat the market by making good bets with closing line value (CLV). The best indicator of future success in any market is to get the best number you can relative to the closing number. If you can get -6, but wait and then take -7.5 later in the week, that’s not the way to approach this. While -7.5 may still win, there will be times when the game lands 7 and you turned a winner into a loser by not betting early in anticipation of a line move.
As a result, the mark of a good set of power ratings is to have more market lines move towards your spread than away from it. If that doesn’t happen, that’s when bigger adjustments to the teams need to be made.
My goal is for this exercise to provide an educational and informational tool. This is to show those who want to create their own spreads one way to do it and also a way of helping bettors to not overreact as the season goes along. Power ratings serve as a system of checks and balances if updated properly and will keep you grounded with your opinions. I certainly hope we can get some good numbers and winning bets as well.
For now, here is my 1 through 131 list of Week 0 Power Ratings:
|
Rank
|
Team
|
Conference
|
PR
|
HFA
|
|
1
|
Alabama
|
SEC
|
98.5
|
3.5
|
|
2
|
Ohio State
|
Big Ten
|
97.5
|
3.5
|
|
3
|
Georgia
|
SEC
|
95.5
|
3.5
|
|
4
|
Michigan
|
Big Ten
|
88
|
3
|
|
5
|
Clemson
|
ACC
|
87.5
|
3.5
|
|
6
|
Texas A&M
|
SEC
|
86
|
3.5
|
|
7
|
Utah
|
Pac-12
|
85
|
3.5
|
|
8
|
Oklahoma
|
Big 12
|
85
|
3.5
|
|
9
|
Notre Dame
|
Independent
|
84
|
3.5
|
|
10
|
Miami (FL)
|
ACC
|
83.5
|
2.5
|
|
11
|
Wisconsin
|
Big Ten
|
82.5
|
2
|
|
12
|
Tennessee
|
SEC
|
82.5
|
2.5
|
|
13
|
NC State
|
ACC
|
82
|
3
|
|
14
|
Penn State
|
Big Ten
|
82
|
2.5
|
|
15
|
Texas
|
Big 12
|
81.5
|
2
|
|
16
|
Michigan State
|
Big Ten
|
81.5
|
2
|
|
17
|
Oklahoma State
|
Big 12
|
81
|
2
|
|
18
|
Oregon
|
Pac-12
|
81
|
3
|
|
19
|
Ole Miss
|
SEC
|
81
|
3
|
|
20
|
Arkansas
|
SEC
|
81
|
3.5
|
|
21
|
BYU
|
Independent
|
80
|
2
|
|
22
|
Pitt
|
ACC
|
80
|
2
|
|
23
|
Baylor
|
Big 12
|
80
|
2
|
|
24
|
Mississippi State
|
SEC
|
80
|
2.5
|
|
25
|
Cincinnati
|
AAC
|
79.5
|
3.5
|
|
26
|
USC
|
Pac-12
|
79.5
|
2
|
|
27
|
Kentucky
|
SEC
|
78.5
|
2
|
|
28
|
Iowa
|
Big Ten
|
78
|
3
|
|
29
|
Florida
|
SEC
|
78
|
3
|
|
30
|
Auburn
|
SEC
|
78
|
3
|
|
31
|
LSU
|
SEC
|
78
|
2.5
|
|
32
|
UCLA
|
Pac-12
|
77
|
2
|
|
33
|
Kansas State
|
Big 12
|
76.5
|
2
|
|
34
|
Minnesota
|
Big Ten
|
76
|
2
|
|
35
|
Nebraska
|
Big Ten
|
76
|
1.5
|
|
36
|
UCF
|
AAC
|
75.5
|
3.5
|
|
37
|
Louisville
|
ACC
|
75.5
|
2
|
|
38
|
Houston
|
AAC
|
74.5
|
2
|
|
39
|
Florida State
|
ACC
|
74.5
|
2
|
|
40
|
Fresno State
|
Mountain West
|
74
|
2.5
|
|
41
|
Oregon State
|
Pac-12
|
74
|
2
|
|
42
|
Purdue
|
Big Ten
|
74
|
2
|
|
43
|
South Carolina
|
SEC
|
74
|
2
|
|
44
|
Air Force
|
Mountain West
|
73.5
|
2.5
|
|
45
|
Boise State
|
Mountain West
|
73.5
|
2.5
|
|
46
|
TCU
|
Big 12
|
73.5
|
2
|
|
47
|
Iowa State
|
Big 12
|
73
|
2.5
|
|
48
|
Maryland
|
Big Ten
|
73
|
2
|
|
49
|
North Carolina
|
ACC
|
72.5
|
2
|
|
50
|
Washington
|
Pac-12
|
72
|
2
|
|
51
|
Appalachian State
|
Sun Belt
|
71.5
|
3.5
|
|
52
|
Wake Forest
|
ACC
|
71
|
2.5
|
|
53
|
Boston College
|
ACC
|
71
|
2
|
|
54
|
SMU
|
AAC
|
70.5
|
3.5
|
|
55
|
Virginia
|
ACC
|
70
|
3
|
|
56
|
Illinois
|
Big Ten
|
69
|
1.5
|
|
57
|
Missouri
|
SEC
|
69
|
2.5
|
|
58
|
Texas Tech
|
Big 12
|
69
|
2
|
|
59
|
Arizona State
|
Pac-12
|
68.5
|
2.5
|
|
60
|
West Virginia
|
Big 12
|
68.5
|
2.5
|
|
61
|
Coastal Carolina
|
Sun Belt
|
68
|
2
|
|
62
|
UTSA
|
Conference USA
|
68
|
2
|
|
63
|
San Diego State
|
Mountain West
|
68
|
2
|
|
64
|
UAB
|
Conference USA
|
68
|
3.5
|
|
65
|
Liberty
|
Independent
|
68
|
3.5
|
|
66
|
California
|
Pac-12
|
68
|
2
|
|
67
|
Stanford
|
Pac-12
|
68
|
2
|
|
68
|
Army
|
Independent
|
67.5
|
3
|
|
69
|
East Carolina
|
AAC
|
67.5
|
1.5
|
|
70
|
Virginia Tech
|
ACC
|
67.5
|
2
|
|
71
|
Memphis
|
AAC
|
67
|
3.5
|
|
72
|
Marshall
|
Sun Belt
|
67
|
2
|
|
73
|
Indiana
|
Big Ten
|
67
|
2
|
|
74
|
Utah State
|
Mountain West
|
67
|
2
|
|
75
|
Georgia State
|
Sun Belt
|
66.5
|
2
|
|
76
|
Syracuse
|
ACC
|
66.5
|
2
|
|
77
|
Toledo
|
MAC
|
66
|
2.5
|
|
78
|
Washington State
|
Pac-12
|
66
|
3
|
|
79
|
Western Kentucky
|
Conference USA
|
65.5
|
2
|
|
80
|
Tulsa
|
AAC
|
65.5
|
2
|
|
81
|
Louisiana
|
Sun Belt
|
65
|
3
|
|
82
|
Northwestern
|
Big Ten
|
65
|
2
|
|
83
|
Arizona
|
Pac-12
|
64.5
|
2
|
|
84
|
Rutgers
|
Big Ten
|
64
|
1.5
|
|
85
|
Central Michigan
|
MAC
|
63.5
|
2.5
|
|
86
|
Tulane
|
AAC
|
63.5
|
3
|
|
87
|
Troy
|
Sun Belt
|
62
|
2
|
|
88
|
South Florida
|
AAC
|
62
|
2
|
|
89
|
Georgia Tech
|
ACC
|
61
|
2
|
|
90
|
Northern Illinois
|
MAC
|
61
|
2
|
|
91
|
San Jose State
|
Mountain West
|
61
|
2
|
|
92
|
Miami (OH)
|
MAC
|
60.5
|
3
|
|
93
|
Florida Atlantic
|
Conference USA
|
60
|
3
|
|
94
|
Western Michigan
|
MAC
|
60
|
2
|
|
95
|
Colorado State
|
Mountain West
|
60
|
1.5
|
|
96
|
Old Dominion
|
Sun Belt
|
60
|
2
|
|
97
|
Colorado
|
Pac-12
|
60
|
2
|
|
98
|
UTEP
|
Conference USA
|
58.5
|
1
|
|
99
|
Middle Tennessee
|
Conference USA
|
58.5
|
2.5
|
|
100
|
South Alabama
|
Sun Belt
|
58
|
2
|
|
101
|
North Texas
|
Conference USA
|
58
|
2
|
|
102
|
Kansas
|
Big 12
|
58
|
1
|
|
103
|
Navy
|
AAC
|
57.5
|
2
|
|
104
|
Wyoming
|
Mountain West
|
57
|
2.5
|
|
105
|
James Madison
|
Sun Belt
|
57
|
2
|
|
106
|
Eastern Michigan
|
MAC
|
56.5
|
2
|
|
107
|
Louisiana Tech
|
Conference USA
|
56.5
|
2
|
|
108
|
Southern Miss
|
Sun Belt
|
56
|
2
|
|
109
|
Kent State
|
MAC
|
55.5
|
2.5
|
|
110
|
Buffalo
|
MAC
|
55
|
3.5
|
|
111
|
Charlotte
|
Conference USA
|
55
|
2
|
|
112
|
Vanderbilt
|
SEC
|
55
|
1
|
|
113
|
Bowling Green
|
MAC
|
54.5
|
1
|
|
114
|
Ohio
|
MAC
|
54
|
2
|
|
115
|
Nevada
|
Mountain West
|
53.5
|
3
|
|
116
|
UNLV
|
Mountain West
|
52.5
|
1
|
|
117
|
Duke
|
ACC
|
52.5
|
2
|
|
118
|
Ball State
|
MAC
|
52
|
2
|
|
119
|
Georgia Southern
|
Sun Belt
|
52
|
2.5
|
|
120
|
Texas State
|
Sun Belt
|
51
|
1.5
|
|
121
|
New Mexico
|
Mountain West
|
50
|
1
|
|
122
|
Rice
|
Conference USA
|
50
|
1
|
|
123
|
Arkansas State
|
Sun Belt
|
49.5
|
2
|
|
124
|
Temple
|
AAC
|
49.5
|
2
|
|
125
|
Hawaii
|
Mountain West
|
49
|
2
|
|
126
|
Louisiana-Monroe
|
Sun Belt
|
49
|
2
|
|
127
|
Akron
|
MAC
|
46.5
|
1
|
|
128
|
UConn
|
Independent
|
44.5
|
1
|
|
129
|
UMass
|
Independent
|
44
|
1.5
|
|
130
|
New Mexico State
|
Independent
|
43.5
|
2
|
|
131
|
FIU
|
Conference USA
|
43
|
2
|
Here are my Week 0 spreads and the consensus spreads for the FBS vs. FBS games (I don’t power-rate FCS teams; listed by Rotation Number):
Northwestern vs. Nebraska (-11) (Dublin, Ireland) (consensus -13)
Charlotte at FAU (-8) (consensus -7.5)
Nevada (-8) at New Mexico State (consensus -9)
UConn at Utah State (-24.5) (consensus -28)
North Texas at UTEP (-1.5) (consensus UNT -1)
Wyoming at Illinois (-13.5) (consensus -10)
Vanderbilt (-4) at Hawaii (consensus -6.5)
Week 0 and Week 1 lines have been up for a long time, so they’ve largely been molded into shape, though big bets will come in as limits are increased and we’ll see where a lot of bettors and groups stand. I won’t list the consensus lines every week, but will with the limited number of games so that you can see how my lines compare with the market lines.
How do I get these numbers? I take the higher power rating, subtract the lower power rating and apply home-field advantage. So, in the case of Charlotte vs. FAU, my power rating for Charlotte is 55 and my power rating for FAU is 60. My home-field advantage for FAU is 3 points. 60-55 is 5 and then add 3 to get 8.
For Northwestern vs. Nebraska, because it is a neutral-site game, I just use my power rating for each team, which is 76 for Nebraska and 65 for Northwestern.
This is a raw number. This does not factor things like situational spots or weather into account. Also, you’d want to think about a game with a low total a bit differently. For example, my Wyoming vs. Illinois line is -13.5, but the total in that game is just 44. It’s generally harder to win by margin in a low-scoring environment. Therefore, a line like -10 may simply make more sense. I’d be less inclined to wager on a big spread when there’s a difference between my number and the market number because of a low total. That being said, Illinois is one of the teams I’m purposely a little high on in the market because I think they’ll be improved this season.
Just because my lines are close to the market lines doesn’t mean I won’t bet those games. It just means I won’t bet them based on my power ratings. I’ll do my due diligence with other handicapping methods throughout the week to see if I like a side, while still keeping my personal spread in mind.
Power ratings are a living organism. They are always in a state of flux and will be adjusted based on several factors. Next week, I’ll write about the process I use to update my power ratings because we need games - a.k.a data points - to be able to adjust teams up and down based on the results, injuries and the closing lines in the market.
Throughout the season, you can email me aburke@vsin dot com or hit me up on Twitter, @SkatingTripods, to ask any questions you may have about this process (or anything else CFB-related) and I’ll answer them to the best of my ability.