26
Final
23
38
Final
61
13
Final
20
30
Final
24
34
Final
6
31
Final
34
34
Final
41
16
Final
35
19
Final
16
38
Final
35
14
Final
28
28
Final
31
38
Final
45
14
Final
42
24
Final
20
13
Final
6
20
Final
59
49
Final
51
23
Final
52
24
Final
37
38
Final
17
24
Final
25
28
Final
27
20
Final
35
10
Final
21
24
Final
27
56
Final
21
31
Final
39
24
Final
31
20
Final
31
49
Final
39
10
Final
13
23
Final
15
10
Final
28
17
Final
34
49
Final
27
17
Final
28
20
Final
24
21
Final
14
13
Final
28
31
Final
35
0
Final
26
31
Final
10
49
Final
56
20
Final
16
24
Final
57
32
Final
38
3
Final
39
17
Final
20
7
Final
24
27
Final
34
17
Final
34
31
Final
30
42
Final
19
16
Final
21
13
Final
21
Blue Chip Analytics treats college football analysis as something to be examined rather than protected: we publish the data, assumptions and models behind a result so another analyst can repeat the process and reach the same conclusion, or identify where they disagree. Every study states its sample explicitly - the market-efficiency work runs on 3,616 FBS games from 2021 to 2025 - and distinguishes what the data shows from what we infer and what remains uncertain. For readers and fellow analysts, this page is the standard to hold our research to.
College football analysis should be open to examination, not protected from it.
Our aim is to make the data, assumptions and models behind our research as transparent as possible. A result is more valuable when another analyst can understand how it was produced, repeat the process and reach the same conclusion-or identify where they disagree.
That means our work should be replicable. We will explain the sample, define the measures we use and distinguish clearly between what the data shows, what we infer from it and what remains uncertain.
In practice that is why every piece of research here closes with its sample size, its window, and the caveats that come with them, and why the inputs behind the ratings are set out in our methodology.
Challenges are not merely accepted; they are encouraged. If a result looks wrong, a method feels questionable or an explanation does not convince you, tell us. A frank exchange of ideas is one of the best safeguards against becoming overly attached to a theory.
When we get something wrong we say so and fix it in the open, under our corrections policy.
This matters because college football is noise. Short seasons, uneven schedules, changing rosters, extreme scorelines and a relatively small number of games create enormous variance. That unpredictability is part of what makes the sport unique. It is also what makes analyzing it difficult.
The purpose of this research is not to eliminate uncertainty or manufacture definitive answers. It is to separate genuine signals from randomness as carefully and honestly as the available evidence allows-and to remain willing to change our minds when better evidence arrives.
Transparency, replicability and openness to challenge. We explain the sample, define the measures, and distinguish clearly between what the data shows, what we infer from it, and what remains uncertain.
That is the aim. Every piece of research states its sample, its window and its caveats, and the inputs behind the ratings are set out in the methodology, so another analyst can repeat the process and reach the same conclusion - or identify where they disagree.
Tell us. Challenges are not merely accepted, they are encouraged. A frank exchange of ideas is one of the best safeguards against becoming overly attached to a theory, and when we get something wrong we fix it in the open under our corrections policy.
Short seasons, uneven schedules, changing rosters, extreme scorelines and a relatively small number of games create enormous variance. That unpredictability is part of what makes the sport unique, and it is also what makes separating signal from randomness difficult.
College football is noise, and the purpose of this research is not to eliminate uncertainty but to separate genuine signal from randomness as honestly as the available evidence allows.