American Athletic
2022 · through CFP Finals
American Athletic was the 6th-ranked FBS conference in 2022 by average FanBoardHQ CFP rankings, with 1 team in the top 25. Tulane led the conference, ranked 19th in the FanBoardHQ CFP.
Projected Standings
Every member ordered by projected conference win total — per-game win probabilities combined across each team’s conference schedule. Click any column to re-sort.
| Team | Efficiency rank | SOR rank | Conf. sched. rank | Overall record | Conf. record | Proj. conf. wins |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tulane | 20 | 16 | 11 | 12-2 | 8-1 | 8.0 |
| Cincinnati | 51 | 35 | 9 | 9-4 | 6-2 | 6.0 |
| UCF | 48 | 42 | 10 | 9-5 | 6-3 | 6.0 |
| Houston | 59 | 50 | 8 | 8-5 | 5-3 | 5.0 |
| SMU | 62 | 65 | 4 | 7-6 | 5-3 | 5.0 |
| East Carolina | 60 | 59 | 6 | 8-5 | 4-4 | 4.0 |
| Navy | 73 | 106 | 3 | 4-8 | 4-4 | 4.0 |
| Memphis | 61 | 72 | 2 | 7-6 | 3-5 | 3.0 |
| Tulsa | 83 | 94 | 5 | 5-7 | 3-5 | 3.0 |
| Temple | 104 | 118 | 7 | 3-9 | 1-7 | 1.0 |
| South Florida | 119 | 130 | 1 | 1-11 | 0-8 | 0.0 |
Head-to-head Schedule Comparison
Read a column top to bottom for that team’s full conference schedule — opponents (the rows) are ordered by projected conference wins, so you can see whether a team drew more of the top or the bottom of the league. Cell shade = margin; click a result for the game breakdown, a “Wk N” cell for the matchup projection.
Conference win total projections
Probability of each final conference win total, from per-game win probabilities combined across the schedule. Darker green = more likely; each team’s single most likely total is in bold.
| Team | 0 wins | 1 win | 2 wins | 3 wins | 4 wins | 5 wins | 6 wins | 7 wins | 8 wins | 9 wins |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tulane | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% |
| Cincinnati | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | — |
| UCF | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Houston | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | — |
| SMU | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | — |
| East Carolina | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | — |
| Navy | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | — |
| Memphis | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | — |
| Tulsa | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | — |
| Temple | 0.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | — |
| South Florida | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | — |
Every model rank
Where each member sits in every FanBoardHQ model. Default order is projected conference wins; click any column to re-sort. Pass/Rush Eff blend EPA/play, success rate, and yards/play, standardized over the FBS field.
| Offensive Eff | Defensive Eff | Overall Efficiency | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Team | Pass O Eff | Rush O Eff | Total Off Eff | Pass D Eff | Rush D Eff | Total Def Eff | Overall Eff |
| Tulane | 32 | 28 | 25 | 29 | 45 | 30 | 20 |
| Cincinnati | 87 | 112 | 76 | 15 | 44 | 27 | 51 |
| UCF | 60 | 26 | 35 | 88 | 52 | 65 | 48 |
| Houston | 24 | 49 | 28 | 71 | 86 | 84 | 59 |
| SMU | 26 | 59 | 26 | 45 | 128 | 91 | 62 |
| East Carolina | 36 | 65 | 43 | 105 | 36 | 70 | 60 |
| Navy | 115 | 105 | 103 | 123 | 26 | 45 | 73 |
| Memphis | 63 | 110 | 61 | 55 | 40 | 47 | 61 |
| Tulsa | 72 | 62 | 71 | 93 | 82 | 93 | 83 |
| Temple | 86 | 137 | 102 | 91 | 112 | 92 | 104 |
| South Florida | 82 | 40 | 69 | 125 | 138 | 130 | 119 |
Compare teams
Pick up to three teams to compare their strengths across every model.
Further from center = better (FBS percentile).
Quadrant records
| Team | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tulane | 2-0 | 2-0 | 3-1 | 5-1 | 12-2 |
| Cincinnati | 0-2 | 0-2 | 3-0 | 6-0 | 9-4 |
| UCF | 1-1 | 0-3 | 3-0 | 5-1 | 9-5 |
| Houston | 0-2 | 2-1 | 2-1 | 4-1 | 8-5 |
| SMU | 0-2 | 0-2 | 3-2 | 4-0 | 7-6 |
| East Carolina | 0-1 | 0-1 | 2-2 | 6-1 | 8-5 |
| Navy | 0-1 | 2-2 | 0-2 | 2-3 | 4-8 |
| Memphis | 0-2 | 0-1 | 1-3 | 6-0 | 7-6 |
| Tulsa | 0-2 | 1-0 | 0-3 | 4-2 | 5-7 |
| Temple | 0-0 | 0-3 | 0-4 | 3-2 | 3-9 |
| South Florida | 0-2 | 0-3 | 0-3 | 1-3 | 1-11 |
Weekly GameScore Efficiency Rating
Each team's single-game GameScore, week by week — points better (or worse) than an average team, opponent-adjusted. Green = strong, red = weak, centered at 0. Click a week header to rank that week’s performances, or a cell for that game.
| Team | Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Week 4 | Week 5 | Week 6 | Week 7 | Week 8 | Week 9 | Week 10 | Week 11 | Week 12 | Week 13 | Week 14 | Week 15 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tulane | 6.4 | 10.1 | 28.4 | -14.6 | 7.7 | 15.7 | 2.5 | 22.5 | 13.9 | -4.5 | 32.1 | 10.7 | 16.7 | ||
| Cincinnati | 4.9 | 12.0 | 3.6 | 17.5 | 7.9 | -12.5 | 7.6 | 2.6 | 6.1 | 2.4 | 10.6 | 6.2 | |||
| UCF | -3.2 | 2.4 | 19.4 | 10.3 | 20.3 | 20.4 | -18.4 | 7.8 | 12.4 | 21.9 | -10.1 | -2.6 | 0.7 | ||
| Houston | 7.6 | 12.3 | -15.9 | -9.1 | 7.6 | 5.7 | 21.2 | 1.0 | -12.1 | -7.9 | 36.2 | -13.1 | |||
| SMU | 28.7 | -18.6 | 1.4 | 8.2 | -12.4 | 2.3 | -0.2 | 10.9 | 17.8 | 8.5 | -18.4 | 5.1 | |||
| East Carolina | 1.9 | 3.1 | 17.2 | -5.5 | 12.6 | -0.6 | 1.6 | 26.9 | 4.5 | 5.6 | -39.7 | -6.3 | |||
| Navy | -16.9 | -21.3 | 5.9 | 4.8 | 21.2 | -2.6 | -20.7 | -12.6 | -3.9 | 7.1 | 12.8 | -6.8 | |||
| Memphis | -22.9 | 21.3 | -2.4 | 7.5 | 6.2 | 0.3 | 4.3 | -8.3 | -4.2 | 5.4 | 13.5 | 0.2 | |||
| Tulsa | -10.4 | -15.4 | 25.7 | 4.2 | -7.7 | -28.7 | 0.7 | -13.2 | -6.7 | -7.4 | -12.2 | 11.7 | |||
| Temple | -22.9 | -23.6 | -14.1 | -2.3 | -14.2 | -25.7 | -16.2 | -0.9 | 7.9 | 0.4 | -16.5 | -1.4 | |||
| South Florida | -49.0 | -6.4 | 4.9 | -22.5 | -25.0 | 1.9 | -6.0 | -13.3 | -34.2 | -21.5 | -8.1 | -7.5 |