[h=1]COLLEGE FOOTBALL POWER RATINGS
NCAA FOOTBALL POWER RATINGS 2017[/h]College Football Power Ratings are a numerical value of relative strength of teams based on a performance, changes in personnel, coaching, schedule strength and current form. College Football Power Ratings are statistical and historical ratings and do not take into account emotional factors. College football power ratings are purely objective and a deadly weapon in any handicapper's arsenal. No emotion or bias is involved. College football power ratings must be updated weekly or they become skewed and stale. Our college football power ratings allow us to judge pretty accurately the relative strengths of teams in any given matchup. College football power ratings are an exceptional handicapping tool and should be utilized with many other handicapping tools such as trend, statistical and fundamental analysis. Our aim is to obtain winners via college football power ratings and using other handicapping methodology to confirm, adjust and predict a point spread to compare against the Las Vegas odds.
To make point spread predictions for scheduled upcoming games, simply compare the college football powers ratings. The higher the PR the stronger the team. For example, if Alabama visits Arizona, then Alabama would be a the favorite by the difference in the ratings. Then add points to any home team (HFA) for final line value.
NCAA FOOTBALL POWER RATINGS 2017[/h]College Football Power Ratings are a numerical value of relative strength of teams based on a performance, changes in personnel, coaching, schedule strength and current form. College Football Power Ratings are statistical and historical ratings and do not take into account emotional factors. College football power ratings are purely objective and a deadly weapon in any handicapper's arsenal. No emotion or bias is involved. College football power ratings must be updated weekly or they become skewed and stale. Our college football power ratings allow us to judge pretty accurately the relative strengths of teams in any given matchup. College football power ratings are an exceptional handicapping tool and should be utilized with many other handicapping tools such as trend, statistical and fundamental analysis. Our aim is to obtain winners via college football power ratings and using other handicapping methodology to confirm, adjust and predict a point spread to compare against the Las Vegas odds.
To make point spread predictions for scheduled upcoming games, simply compare the college football powers ratings. The higher the PR the stronger the team. For example, if Alabama visits Arizona, then Alabama would be a the favorite by the difference in the ratings. Then add points to any home team (HFA) for final line value.
| Top GPR is 100. Add the HFA (Home Field Advantge) to the home team. Subtract lower GPR from higher GPR. This is the GPR | |||||||||||
| pointspread. Example: Team A GPR is 90, Team B (at home) GPR is 77+3 HFA = 80. Team A favored by 10 points. | |||||||||||
| GRIDIRON GOLD COLLEGE FOOTBALL POWER RATINGS | |||||||||||
| TEAM | GPR | HFA | TEAM | GPR | HFA | TEAM | GPR | HFA | TEAM | GPR | HFA |
| AIR FORCE | 69 | 3 | FRESNO ST | 48 | 2 | MISSISSIPPI ST | 68 | 3 | SO. MISS | 60 | 3 |
| AKRON | 59 | 3 | GEORGIA | 73 | 3 | MISSOURI | 63 | 4 | STANFORD | 75 | 3 |
| ALABAMA | 100 | 4 | GA SOUTHERN | 56 | 3 | NAVY | 71 | 3 | SYRACUSE | 57 | 3 |
| APP ST | 70 | 3 | GEORGIA STATE | 50 | 2 | NEBRASKA | 73 | 5 | T.C.U. | 71 | 3 |
| ARIZONA | 58 | 4 | GEORGIA TECH | 73 | 3 | NEVADA | 53 | 4 | TEMPLE | 78 | 3 |
| ARIZONA ST | 60 | 3 | HAWAII | 53 | 4 | NEW MEXICO | 64 | 3 | TENNESSEE | 74 | 3 |
| ARKANSAS | 71 | 3 | HOUSTON | 76 | 3 | NEW MEXICO ST | 47 | 2 | TEXAS | 72 | 4 |
| ARKANSAS ST | 65 | 3 | IDAHO | 60 | 2 | NO. CAROLINA | 78 | 3 | TEXAS A | 74 | 4 |
| ARMY | 61 | 2 | ILLINOIS | 55 | 2 | NO CARO ST. | 73 | 3 | TEXAS ST | 38 | 1 |
| AUBURN | 82 | 3 | INDIANA | 68 | 3 | NORTH TEXAS | 49 | 3 | TEXAS TECH | 65 | 4 |
| BALL ST | 58 | 2 | IOWA | 75 | 3 | NO. ILLINOIS | 66 | 3 | TOLEDO | 72 | 3 |
| BAYLOR | 66 | 4 | IOWA ST | 62 | 4 | NORTHWESTERN | 72 | 3 | TROY | 65 | 3 |
| BOISE ST | 76 | 4 | KANSAS | 53 | 2 | NOTRE DAME | 70 | 3 | TULANE | 55 | 3 |
| BOSTON C. | 65 | 2 | KANSAS ST | 78 | 4 | OHIO | 65 | 6 | TULSA | 72 | 3 |
| B. GREEN | 53 | 2 | KENT ST. | 51 | 3 | OHIO ST. | 91 | 3 | U.C.F. | 70 | 3 |
| BUFFALO | 44 | 2 | KENTUCKY | 67 | 3 | OKLAHOMA | 90 | 4 | U.C.L.A. | 64 | 3 |
| B.Y.U. | 75 | 3 | LA LAFAYETTE | 63 | 2 | OKLAHOMA ST | 79 | 3 | U.N.L.V. | 56 | 2 |
| CALIFORNIA | 62 | 4 | LA MONROE | 51 | 2 | OLD DOMINION | 65 | 4 | UTAH | 75 | 4 |
| C MICHIGAN | 63 | 3 | LA TECH | 68 | 4 | OREGON | 65 | 3 | UTAH ST | 61 | 3 |
| CHARLOTTE | 50 | 2 | LOUISVILLE | 87 | 5 | OREGON ST | 63 | 3 | U.T.E.P. | 47 | 2 |
| CINCINNATI | 58 | 3 | L.S.U. | 86 | 3 | PENN ST | 82 | 3 | U.T.S.A. | 61 | 3 |
| CLEMSON | 91 | 3 | MARSHALL | 46 | 2 | PITTSBURGH | 77 | 3 | VANDERBILT | 69 | 3 |
| COLORADO | 78 | 4 | MARYLAND | 61 | 3 | PURDUE | 55 | 2 | VIRGINIA | 58 | 3 |
| COLORADO ST | 70 | 3 | MASS. U. | 37 | 3 | RICE | 53 | 2 | VIRGINIA TECH | 80 | 4 |
| CONNECTICUT | 51 | 3 | MEMPHIS | 72 | 3 | RUTGERS | 48 | 2 | WAKE FOREST | 64 | 3 |
| DUKE | 64 | 3 | MIAMI | 79 | 4 | SAN DIEGO ST | 73 | 3 | WASHINGTON | 88 | 5 |
| E CAROLINA | 55 | 3 | MIAMI OHIO | 61 | 3 | SAN JOSE ST | 57 | 2 | WASH. ST. | 74 | 4 |
| E MICHIGAN | 63 | 3 | MICHIGAN | 82 | 4 | S.M.U. | 60 | 3 | W VIRGINIA | 77 | 3 |
| FLORIDA | 72 | 4 | MICHIGAN ST | 65 | 3 | SO. ALABAMA | 56 | 3 | W KENTUCKY | 77 | 4 |
| FLA ATLANTIC | 48 | 2 | MID TENN ST | 62 | 3 | SO. CAROLINA | 65 | 4 | W MICHIGAN | 78 | 3 |
| FLA INT'L | 53 | 1 | MINNESOTA | 71 | 3 | SO. FLORIDA | 76 | 3 | WISCONSIN | 81 | 3 |
| FLORIDA ST | 85 | 3 | MISSISSIPPI | 68 | 4 | SO. CALIFORNIA | 87 | 4 | WYOMING | 66 | 3 |
