The Press Box · College Football

2026 FBSConference Standings

Where every league actually stands — read the race at a glance, and see exactly how each tie breaks.

10 FBS leagues · 2026 through week 7 · 218 conference games played

· from ESPN

Southeastern Conference

POWER FOUR · 16 teams · single-table format

Title gameGeorgia vs Kentucky

# Team Conf Overall GB Diff
1
↳ opponents' conf win% · .350 (7–13)
4–1 6–1 — +80
2
↳ opponents' conf win% · .400 (8–12)
4–1 6–1 — -8
3
↳ opponents' conf win% · .438 (7–9)
3–1 6–1 0.5 +30
4
↳ opponents' conf win% · .412 (7–10)
3–1 5–1 0.5 +47
5
↳ opponents' conf win% · .636 (14–8)
3–2 5–2 1 +73
6
↳ opponents' conf win% · .474 (9–10)
3–2 5–2 1 -15
7
↳ opponents' conf win% · .588 (10–7)
2–2 5–2 1.5 +51
8
↳ opponents' conf win% · .471 (8–9)
2–2 4–2 1.5 -50
9
↳ opponents' conf win% · .529 (9–8)
2–2 5–2 1.5 +14
10
↳ opponents' conf win% · .556 (10–8)
2–2 4–2 1.5 -6
11
↳ opponents' conf win% · .692 (9–4)
1–2 3–3 2 -33
12
↳ opponents' conf win% · .583 (7–5)
1–2 4–2 2 -3
13
↳ opponents' conf win% · .529 (9–8)
1–3 4–3 2.5 -33
14
↳ opponents' conf win% · .632 (12–7)
1–3 3–3 2.5 -20
15
↳ opponents' conf win% · .471 (8–9)
1–3 3–4 2.5 -52
16
↳ opponents' conf win% · .588 (10–7)
0–4 3–4 3.5 -75
How the ties broke 8
  • brokenGeorgia, Kentucky tied at 4–1
    Win pct vs all common conference opponents
    Georgia → Kentucky
    • Georgia2-0 vs 2 common opponent(s)
    • Kentucky1-1 vs 2 common opponent(s)
  • brokenOle Miss, Tennessee tied at 3–1
    Combined conference win pct of all conference opponents
    Tennessee → Ole Miss
    • Ole Miss.412 opponents' conference win pct
    • Tennessee.438 opponents' conference win pct
  • brokenAlabama, Florida tied at 3–2
    Win pct vs all common conference opponents
    Alabama → Florida
    • Alabama1-0 vs 1 common opponent(s)
    • Florida0-1 vs 1 common opponent(s)
  • brokenAuburn, LSU, Mississippi State, Missouri tied at 2–2
    Head-to-head competition
    LSU → Mississippi State → Auburn / Missouri
    • Auburn0-0 vs tied teams
    • LSU1-0 vs tied teams
    • Mississippi State1-1 vs tied teams
    • Missouri0-1 vs tied teams
  • brokenAuburn, Missouri tied at 2–2
    Win pct vs all common conference opponents
    Missouri → Auburn
    • Auburn0-1 vs 1 common opponent(s)
    • Missouri1-0 vs 1 common opponent(s)
  • brokenOklahoma, Texas tied at 1–2
    Head-to-head competition
    Oklahoma → Texas
    • Oklahomabeat Texas 27-24 (2026-10-10)
    • Texaslost to Oklahoma 24-27 (2026-10-10)
  • brokenArkansas, South Carolina, Texas A&M tied at 1–3
    Head-to-head competition
    Texas A&M → Arkansas / South Carolina
    • Arkansas0-1 vs tied teams
    • South Carolina0-0 vs tied teams
    • Texas A&M1-0 vs tied teams
  • brokenArkansas, South Carolina tied at 1–3
    Combined conference win pct of all conference opponents
    South Carolina → Arkansas
    • Arkansas.471 opponents' conference win pct
    • South Carolina.632 opponents' conference win pct
Tiebreaker procedure

Verified against the conference's own published procedure · verified 2026-09-20

The two teams with the best conference winning percentage meet in Atlanta. If exactly two teams tie for first, both play in the championship game and the procedure only decides the home team. The capped scoring margin caps points scored at 42 and points allowed at 48 in each conference game; this build compares the per-game average so the step stays fair if teams play a different number of conference games.

source 1source 2source 3

Big Ten Conference

POWER FOUR · 18 teams · single-table format

Title gameOhio State vs UCLA

# Team Conf Overall GB Diff
1
↳ opponents' conf win% · .429 (6–8)
4–0 6–1 — +73
1
↳ opponents' conf win% · .429 (6–8)
4–0 6–0 — +77
3
↳ opponents' conf win% · .643 (9–5)
3–1 6–1 1 +37
4
↳ opponents' conf win% · .286 (4–10)
3–1 6–1 1 +5
5
↳ opponents' conf win% · .750 (9–3)
2–1 4–2 1.5 +15
6
↳ opponents' conf win% · .545 (6–5)
2–1 5–1 1.5 +1
7
↳ opponents' conf win% · .364 (4–7)
2–1 4–2 1.5 -19
8
↳ opponents' conf win% · .333 (4–8)
2–1 4–2 1.5 +22
9
↳ opponents' conf win% · .250 (3–9)
2–1 5–1 1.5 +18
10
↳ opponents' conf win% · .571 (8–6)
2–2 3–4 2 +9
11
↳ opponents' conf win% · .333 (5–10)
2–2 5–2 2 +37
12
↳ opponents' conf win% · .500 (6–6)
1–2 3–3 2.5 -29
12
↳ opponents' conf win% · .500 (6–6)
1–2 2–4 2.5 -32
14
↳ opponents' conf win% · .400 (4–6)
1–2 4–2 2.5 -4
15
↳ opponents' conf win% · .643 (9–5)
1–3 4–3 3 -12
16
↳ opponents' conf win% · .733 (11–4)
0–4 2–5 4 -112
17
↳ opponents' conf win% · .615 (8–5)
0–4 3–4 4 -36
18
↳ opponents' conf win% · .538 (7–6)
0–4 2–5 4 -50
How the ties broke 7
  • unbrokenOhio State, UCLA tied at 4–0
    next step is SportSource Analytics Team Rating Score, which is not publicly published
  • brokenIndiana, USC tied at 3–1
    Combined conference win pct of all conference opponents
    Indiana → USC
    • Indiana.643 opponents' conference win pct
    • USC.286 opponents' conference win pct
  • brokenIowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Oregon, Wisconsin tied at 2–1
    Combined conference win pct of all conference opponents
    Oregon → Iowa → Minnesota → Wisconsin → Northwestern
    • Iowa.545 opponents' conference win pct
    • Minnesota.364 opponents' conference win pct
    • Northwestern.250 opponents' conference win pct
    • Oregon.750 opponents' conference win pct
    • Wisconsin.333 opponents' conference win pct
  • brokenNebraska, Purdue tied at 2–2
    Combined conference win pct of all conference opponents
    Purdue → Nebraska
    • Nebraska.333 opponents' conference win pct
    • Purdue.571 opponents' conference win pct
  • brokenIllinois, Michigan, Rutgers tied at 1–2
    Combined conference win pct of all conference opponents
    Illinois / Rutgers → Michigan
    • Illinois.500 opponents' conference win pct
    • Michigan.400 opponents' conference win pct
    • Rutgers.500 opponents' conference win pct
  • unbrokenIllinois, Rutgers tied at 1–2
    next step is SportSource Analytics Team Rating Score, which is not publicly published
  • brokenMaryland, Michigan State, Penn State tied at 0–4
    Combined conference win pct of all conference opponents
    Maryland → Penn State → Michigan State
    • Maryland.733 opponents' conference win pct
    • Michigan State.538 opponents' conference win pct
    • Penn State.615 opponents' conference win pct
Tiebreaker procedure

Verified against the conference's own published procedure · verified 2026-09-20

Six published steps. Step 5 is the SportSource Analytics Team Rating Score, which is not published publicly, so a tie that survives step 4 is reported here as unresolved rather than guessed at.

source 1source 2

Big 12 Conference

POWER FOUR · 16 teams · single-table format

Title gameBYU vs Texas Tech

# Team Conf Overall GB Diff
1
↳ opponents' conf win% · .444 (4–5)
3–0 6–0 — +32
2
↳ opponents' conf win% · .400 (4–6)
3–0 6–0 — +52
3
↳ opponents' conf win% · .111 (1–8)
3–0 6–0 — +34
4
↳ opponents' conf win% · .583 (7–5)
3–1 6–1 0.5 +30
5
↳ opponents' conf win% · .500 (5–5)
2–1 5–1 1 +37
6
↳ opponents' conf win% · .455 (5–6)
2–1 4–2 1 +28
7
↳ opponents' conf win% · .222 (2–7)
2–1 4–2 1 +35
8
↳ opponents' conf win% · .700 (7–3)
1–2 3–3 2 -25
9
↳ opponents' conf win% · .667 (6–3)
1–2 3–3 2 -4
10
↳ opponents' conf win% · .600 (6–4)
1–2 3–3 2 -16
11
↳ opponents' conf win% · .556 (5–4)
1–2 3–3 2 -57
12
↳ opponents' conf win% · .400 (4–6)
1–2 4–2 2 -25
13
↳ opponents' conf win% · .400 (4–6)
1–2 4–2 2 -13
14
↳ opponents' conf win% · .500 (6–6)
1–3 4–3 2.5 -38
15
↳ opponents' conf win% · .889 (8–1)
0–3 2–4 3 -35
16
↳ opponents' conf win% · .556 (5–4)
0–3 2–4 3 -35
How the ties broke 5
  • brokenBYU, Texas Tech, Utah tied at 3–0
    Combined conference win pct of all conference opponents
    BYU → Texas Tech → Utah
    • BYU.444 opponents' conference win pct
    • Texas Tech.400 opponents' conference win pct
    • Utah.111 opponents' conference win pct
  • brokenArizona, Baylor, Oklahoma State tied at 2–1
    Combined conference win pct of all conference opponents
    Arizona → Oklahoma State → Baylor
    • Arizona.500 opponents' conference win pct
    • Baylor.222 opponents' conference win pct
    • Oklahoma State.455 opponents' conference win pct
  • brokenArizona State, Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas State, TCU, UCF tied at 1–2
    Combined conference win pct of all conference opponents
    Iowa State → TCU → UCF → Arizona State → Cincinnati / Kansas State
    • Arizona State.556 opponents' conference win pct
    • Cincinnati.400 opponents' conference win pct
    • Iowa State.700 opponents' conference win pct
    • Kansas State.400 opponents' conference win pct
    • TCU.667 opponents' conference win pct
    • UCF.600 opponents' conference win pct
  • brokenCincinnati, Kansas State tied at 1–2
    Head-to-head competition
    Cincinnati → Kansas State
    • Cincinnatibeat Kansas State 31-26 (2026-09-26)
    • Kansas Statelost to Cincinnati 26-31 (2026-09-26)
  • brokenColorado, Kansas tied at 0–3
    Combined conference win pct of all conference opponents
    Colorado → Kansas
    • Colorado.889 opponents' conference win pct
    • Kansas.556 opponents' conference win pct
Tiebreaker procedure

Verified against the conference's own published procedure · verified 2026-09-20

Schedules are unbalanced, so the multi-team head-to-head step only separates teams when the tied group played a full round robin, or when one team beat every other tied team.

source 1source 2

Atlantic Coast Conference

POWER FOUR · 17 teams · single-table format

Title gameMiami vs Wake Forest

# Team Conf Overall GB Diff
1
↳ opponents' conf win% · .500 (8–8)
4–0 6–0 — +88
2
↳ opponents' conf win% · .550 (11–9)
4–1 6–1 0.5 +102
3
↳ opponents' conf win% · .438 (7–9)
3–1 5–1 1 +12
4
↳ opponents' conf win% · .727 (8–3)
2–1 4–2 1.5 -6
5
↳ opponents' conf win% · .500 (5–5)
2–1 4–2 1.5 0
6
↳ opponents' conf win% · .450 (9–11)
3–2 4–3 1.5 +36
7
↳ opponents' conf win% · .500 (8–8)
2–2 3–4 2 -40
7
↳ opponents' conf win% · .357 (5–9)
2–2 5–2 2 +6
7
↳ opponents' conf win% · .333 (5–10)
2–2 4–3 2 -12
7
↳ opponents' conf win% · .429 (6–8)
2–2 5–2 2 +10
11
↳ opponents' conf win% · .583 (7–5)
1–2 3–3 2.5 -10
11
↳ opponents' conf win% · .400 (4–6)
1–2 4–2 2.5 +21
11
↳ opponents' conf win% · .364 (4–7)
1–2 2–4 2.5 -14
11
↳ opponents' conf win% · .643 (9–5)
1–2 3–3 2.5 -47
15
↳ opponents' conf win% · .706 (12–5)
1–3 3–4 3 -4
15
↳ opponents' conf win% · .667 (10–5)
1–3 3–4 3 -114
17
↳ opponents' conf win% · .529 (9–8)
0–4 2–4 4 -28
How the ties broke 4
  • brokenClemson, North Carolina tied at 2–1
    Head-to-head competition
    Clemson → North Carolina
    • Clemsonbeat North Carolina 28-20 (2026-09-19)
    • North Carolinalost to Clemson 20-28 (2026-09-19)
  • unbrokenCalifornia, Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech tied at 2–2
    next step is SportSource Analytics Team Success Ranking, which is not publicly published
  • unbrokenBoston College, Duke, Georgia Tech, NC State tied at 1–2
    next step is SportSource Analytics Team Success Ranking, which is not publicly published
  • unbrokenFlorida State, Stanford tied at 1–3
    next step is SportSource Analytics Team Success Ranking, which is not publicly published
Tiebreaker procedure

Based on reporting of the conference's published procedure · verified 2026-09-20

New for 2026, after the 2025 five-way tie. Twelve members play nine conference games and five play eight, so the league deliberately dropped the opponent-based steps: head-to-head first, then the SportSource Analytics Team Success Ranking, then a draw. Because the Team Success Ranking is not public, ties that head-to-head cannot settle are reported here as unresolved.

source 1source 2

American Conference

GROUP OF FIVE · 14 teams · single-table format

Title gameUTSA vs North Texas

# Team Conf Overall GB Diff
1
↳ opponents' conf win% · .200 (2–8)
3–0 6–1 — +13
1
↳ opponents' conf win% · .333 (2–4)
2–0 4–2 0.5 +41
3
↳ opponents' conf win% · .400 (4–6)
3–1 4–2 0.5 +35
4
↳ opponents' conf win% · .500 (4–4)
2–1 5–2 1 +62
5
↳ opponents' conf win% · .444 (4–5)
2–1 4–3 1 -8
6
↳ opponents' conf win% · .333 (2–4)
1–1 3–3 1.5 +3
6
↳ opponents' conf win% · .500 (4–4)
1–1 4–2 1.5 -24
6
↳ opponents' conf win% · .714 (5–2)
1–1 3–3 1.5 +11
9
↳ opponents' conf win% · .625 (5–3)
1–2 1–6 2 -84
9
↳ opponents' conf win% · .700 (7–3)
1–2 5–2 2 -7
9
↳ opponents' conf win% · .500 (5–5)
1–2 2–5 2 -7
9
↳ opponents' conf win% · .333 (3–6)
1–2 4–3 2 +12
13
↳ opponents' conf win% · .636 (7–4)
1–3 2–4 2.5 -8
14
↳ opponents' conf win% · .625 (5–3)
0–3 1–6 3 -39
How the ties broke 4
  • unbrokenUTSA, North Texas tied at 3–0
    the next step is the College Football Playoff committee rankings (first published in early November), which has not been published yet; this tie can only be settled once it is
  • brokenMemphis, UAB tied at 2–1
    Head-to-head competition
    Memphis → UAB
    • Memphisbeat UAB 38-13 (2026-10-10)
    • UABlost to Memphis 13-38 (2026-10-10)
  • unbrokenEast Carolina, Florida Atlantic, Tulane tied at 1–1
    the next step is the College Football Playoff committee rankings (first published in early November), which has not been published yet; this tie can only be settled once it is
  • unbrokenCharlotte, South Florida, Temple, Tulsa tied at 1–2
    the next step is the College Football Playoff committee rankings (first published in early November), which has not been published yet; this tie can only be settled once it is
Tiebreaker procedure

Based on reporting of the conference's published procedure · verified 2026-09-20

A multi-team tie without a full round robin goes straight to the College Football Playoff rankings, which only exist from early November onward; before then such a tie is reported as unresolved.

source 1source 2

Conference USA

GROUP OF FIVE · 10 teams · single-table format

Title gameJacksonville State vs Liberty

# Team Conf Overall GB Diff
1
↳ opponents' conf win% · .333 (2–4)
3–0 5–2 — +14
1
↳ opponents' conf win% · .000 (0–4)
2–0 5–1 0.5 +48
3
↳ opponents' conf win% · .333 (2–4)
2–1 3–4 1 +13
4
↳ opponents' conf win% · .800 (4–1)
1–1 3–3 1.5 +16
4
↳ opponents' conf win% · .600 (3–2)
1–1 3–3 1.5 -7
4
↳ opponents' conf win% · .400 (2–3)
1–1 2–4 1.5 -18
4
↳ opponents' conf win% · .600 (3–2)
1–1 2–4 1.5 +2
8
↳ opponents' conf win% · .750 (3–1)
0–2 2–4 2.5 -19
8
↳ opponents' conf win% · .800 (4–1)
0–2 1–5 2.5 -4
8
↳ opponents' conf win% · .800 (4–1)
0–2 1–5 2.5 -45
How the ties broke 3
  • unbrokenJacksonville State, Liberty tied at 3–0
    the next step is the College Football Playoff committee rankings (first published in early November), which has not been published yet; this tie can only be settled once it is
  • unbrokenFlorida International, Middle Tennessee, Missouri State, New Mexico State tied at 1–1
    the next step is the College Football Playoff committee rankings (first published in early November), which has not been published yet; this tie can only be settled once it is
  • unbrokenDelaware, Kennesaw State, Sam Houston tied at 0–2
    the next step is the College Football Playoff committee rankings (first published in early November), which has not been published yet; this tie can only be settled once it is
Tiebreaker procedure

Best-effort reconstruction - re-check before relying on it · verified 2026-09-20

CUSA rewrote its procedure for 2024 to line up closely with the American and the Mountain West. The official policy is published only as a PDF; this ordering is modelled on those leagues and should be re-checked against the PDF before it is relied on late in the season.

source 1source 2

Mid-American Conference

GROUP OF FIVE · 13 teams · single-table format

Title gameOhio vs Western Michigan

# Team Conf Overall GB Diff
1
↳ opponents' conf win% · .200 (2–8)
3–0 5–2 — +61
1
↳ opponents' conf win% · .444 (4–5)
3–0 5–2 — +41
3
↳ opponents' conf win% · .214 (3–11)
3–1 4–4 0.5 +17
4
↳ opponents' conf win% · .300 (3–7)
2–1 2–5 1 +31
4
↳ opponents' conf win% · .600 (6–4)
2–1 4–3 1 +19
6
↳ opponents' conf win% · .300 (3–7)
2–1 4–3 1 +17
6
↳ opponents' conf win% · .600 (6–4)
2–1 5–2 1 +20
8
↳ opponents' conf win% · .778 (7–2)
1–2 2–5 2 -21
9
↳ opponents' conf win% · .556 (5–4)
1–2 2–5 2 -27
9
↳ opponents' conf win% · .667 (6–3)
1–2 3–4 2 0
11
↳ opponents' conf win% · .500 (7–7)
1–3 4–3 2.5 -3
12
↳ opponents' conf win% · .600 (6–4)
0–3 1–6 3 -46
12
↳ opponents' conf win% · .643 (9–5)
0–4 1–6 3.5 -109
How the ties broke 7
  • unbrokenOhio, Western Michigan tied at 3–0
    next step is SportSource Analytics Team Rating Score, which is not publicly published
  • brokenBowling Green, Buffalo, Miami (OH), Toledo tied at 2–1
    Head-to-head competition
    Bowling Green / Buffalo → Miami (OH) / Toledo
    • Bowling Green1-0 vs tied teams
    • Buffalo1-0 vs tied teams
    • Miami (OH)0-1 vs tied teams
    • Toledo0-1 vs tied teams
  • unbrokenBowling Green, Buffalo tied at 2–1
    next step is SportSource Analytics Team Rating Score, which is not publicly published
  • unbrokenMiami (OH), Toledo tied at 2–1
    next step is SportSource Analytics Team Rating Score, which is not publicly published
  • brokenBall State, Central Michigan, Kent State tied at 1–2
    Head-to-head competition
    Kent State → Ball State / Central Michigan
    • Ball State0-1 vs tied teams
    • Central Michigan0-0 vs tied teams
    • Kent State1-0 vs tied teams
  • unbrokenBall State, Central Michigan tied at 1–2
    next step is SportSource Analytics Team Rating Score, which is not publicly published
  • unbrokenAkron, Sacramento State tied at 0–3
    next step is SportSource Analytics Team Rating Score, which is not publicly published
Tiebreaker procedure

Verified against the conference's own published procedure · verified 2026-09-20

The MAC puts the SportSource Analytics Team Rating Score third, ahead of the opponent-based steps. That is faithfully encoded here, which means MAC ties surviving the common-opponents step are reported as unresolved.

source 1source 2

Mountain West Conference

GROUP OF FIVE · 10 teams · single-table format

Title gameNew Mexico vs North Dakota State

# Team Conf Overall GB Diff
1
↳ opponents' conf win% · .000 (0–7)
2–0 5–1 — +65
2
↳ opponents' conf win% · .643 (9–5)
3–1 6–1 — +42
3
↳ opponents' conf win% · .500 (6–6)
3–1 5–1 — +28
3
↳ opponents' conf win% · .385 (5–8)
3–1 4–3 — +10
5
↳ opponents' conf win% · .273 (3–8)
2–1 4–3 0.5 +14
5
↳ opponents' conf win% · .500 (6–6)
2–1 4–3 0.5 +11
7
↳ opponents' conf win% · .545 (6–5)
1–2 2–4 1.5 0
8
↳ opponents' conf win% · .750 (6–2)
0–2 0–6 2 -39
8
↳ opponents' conf win% · .625 (5–3)
0–3 1–6 2.5 -84
8
↳ opponents' conf win% · .750 (9–3)
0–4 1–6 3 -47
How the ties broke 4
  • brokenAir Force, North Dakota State, Wyoming tied at 3–1
    Head-to-head competition
    North Dakota State → Air Force / Wyoming
    • Air Force0-1 vs tied teams
    • North Dakota State2-0 vs tied teams
    • Wyoming0-1 vs tied teams
  • unbrokenAir Force, Wyoming tied at 3–1
    the next step is the College Football Playoff committee rankings (first published in early November), which has not been published yet; this tie can only be settled once it is
  • unbrokenSan José State, UNLV tied at 2–1
    the next step is the College Football Playoff committee rankings (first published in early November), which has not been published yet; this tie can only be settled once it is
  • unbrokenNorthern Illinois, UTEP, Hawai'i tied at 0–2
    the next step is the College Football Playoff committee rankings (first published in early November), which has not been published yet; this tie can only be settled once it is
Tiebreaker procedure

Based on reporting of the conference's published procedure · verified 2026-09-20

The league leans on the CFP ranking and then an average of designated computer ratings. The computer composite is not reproducible from public feeds, so it halts the procedure here.

source 1source 2

Sun Belt Conference

GROUP OF FIVE · 14 teams · two divisions

Title gameEast James Madison  ·  West Louisiana Tech contested

East

# Team Conf Overall GB Diff
1
↳ opponents' conf win% · .364 (4–7)
4–0 7–0 — +84
2
↳ opponents' conf win% · .545 (6–5)
2–1 3–4 1.5 +12
3
↳ opponents' conf win% · .625 (5–3)
1–1 4–2 2 +5
4
↳ opponents' conf win% · .286 (2–5)
1–1 4–2 2 -4
5
↳ opponents' conf win% · .429 (3–4)
1–2 2–5 2.5 -4
6
↳ opponents' conf win% · .727 (8–3)
1–3 2–5 3 -59
7
↳ opponents' conf win% · .714 (5–2)
0–2 3–3 3 -34

West

# Team Conf Overall GB Diff
1
↳ opponents' conf win% · .400 (2–3)
2–0 4–2 — +25
1
↳ opponents' conf win% · .200 (1–4)
2–0 4–2 — +24
3
↳ opponents' conf win% · .571 (4–3)
2–1 5–2 0.5 +29
4
↳ opponents' conf win% · .400 (2–3)
1–1 3–3 1 -6
5
↳ opponents' conf win% · .571 (4–3)
1–2 3–4 1.5 0
6
↳ opponents' conf win% · .400 (2–3)
0–2 1–5 2 -31
7
↳ opponents' conf win% · 1.000 (4–0)
0–2 0–6 2 -41
How the ties broke 3
  • brokenApp State, Georgia State tied at 1–1
    Win pct vs the next highest-placed team in the division, proceeding down
    Georgia State → App State
    • App State0-1 vs Old Dominion
    • Georgia State1-0 vs Old Dominion
  • unbrokenLouisiana Tech, South Alabama tied at 2–0
    decided by a draw administered by the commissioner
  • brokenSouthern Miss, UL Monroe tied at 0–2
    Overall winning percentage
    Southern Miss → UL Monroe
    • Southern Miss1-5 overall
    • UL Monroe0-6 overall
Tiebreaker procedure

Based on reporting of the conference's published procedure · verified 2026-09-20

The only FBS league still using divisions: the East and West champions meet for the title. Each team plays six divisional games and two crossovers, so the divisional record carries most of the weight.

source 1source 2

Pac-12 Conference

GROUP OF FIVE · 8 teams · single-table format

Title gameBoise State vs Oregon State

# Team Conf Overall GB Diff
1
↳ opponents' conf win% · .400 (2–3)
2–0 5–1 — +26
2
↳ opponents' conf win% · .250 (2–6)
3–0 5–2 — +100
3
↳ opponents' conf win% · .625 (5–3)
2–1 3–4 0.5 -47
4
↳ opponents' conf win% · .400 (2–3)
1–1 3–3 1 +37
5
↳ opponents' conf win% · .400 (2–3)
1–1 2–4 1 -18
6
↳ opponents' conf win% · .500 (4–4)
1–2 4–3 1.5 +10
7
↳ opponents' conf win% · .800 (4–1)
0–2 2–4 2 -69
8
↳ opponents' conf win% · .625 (5–3)
0–3 1–6 2.5 -39
How the ties broke 3
  • brokenOregon State, Boise State tied at 3–0
    Combined conference win pct of all conference opponents
    Boise State → Oregon State
    • Oregon State.250 opponents' conference win pct
    • Boise State.400 opponents' conference win pct
  • brokenTexas State, Utah State tied at 1–1
    Overall winning percentage
    Texas State → Utah State
    • Texas State3-3 overall
    • Utah State2-4 overall
  • brokenColorado State, Washington State tied at 0–2
    Combined conference win pct of all conference opponents
    Colorado State → Washington State
    • Colorado State.800 opponents' conference win pct
    • Washington State.625 opponents' conference win pct
Tiebreaker procedure

Based on reporting of the conference's published procedure · verified 2026-09-20

The rebuilt eight-team league plays a true round robin (seven conference games), so head-to-head resolves almost every tie. The championship game is hosted by the higher seed.

source 1source 2

FBS Independents

INDEPENDENT · 2 teams · no conference schedule

# Team Conf Overall GB Diff
1
↳ opponents' conf win% · .000 (0–0)
0–0 6–1 — 0
2
↳ opponents' conf win% · .000 (0–0)
0–0 3–3 — 0
Tiebreaker procedure

Verified against the conference's own published procedure · verified 2026-09-20

Independents play no conference schedule; they are listed by overall record.