Mid-American, at a glance.
Top 10 by power rating — 2026 season, through the latest games.
Home Conferences FBS 2026 season
The weekly grind · 2026
Toledo holds the Mid-American lead heading into this week's games.
Mid-American is more top-heavy than deep. Toledo gives the league punch, but the middle tier falls away faster than the top leagues.
Top 10 by power rating — 2026 season, through the latest games.
The MAC sent three programs to a combined 27-13 in 2025 with average recruiting ranks above #100: Western Michigan went 10-4 with the 104th recruiting class (+82 coaching gap), Ohio went 9-4 with the 121st class (+81), and Toledo went 8-5 with the 73rd class (+60). The same conference where Northern Illinois went 3-9 with a #84 recruiting class. MACtion's identity has always been "more competitive than the rankings say" — the 2025 results proved that again.




The depth argument for this conference rests on how many credible opponents are clustered behind the leader. A wide talent spread separates the haves from the have-nots.
Toledo holds the Mid-American lead heading into this week's games.
The Conference LeaderToledo enters 2026 with the MAC’s highest SP+ ranking (#13 nationally) and a +60 coaching premium on a #73 recruiting class. They went 8-5 in 2025, which undersells how good they are by the power metrics. Three MAC titles, a win over Penn State in 2016, and an NFL draft pipeline that starts at the offensive line — Toledo’s formula doesn’t change and it keeps working. The Tuesday night game that ends with Toledo covering is almost always the one worth watching.
Why it matters →
The Best RecordWestern Michigan’s coaching premium is +82 — a #104 recruiting rank producing an SP+ of #22 and a 10-4 record in 2025. In a conference where most programs overperform, Western Michigan overperformed the most. Ten wins from Kalamazoo, Michigan with a class that ranked in the bottom half of FBS. The program nobody outside the MAC watches closely produced results that deserve national attention.
Why it matters →
The Other SideNorthern Illinois went 3-9 in 2025 with a #84 recruiting class — a -30 coaching gap that is the conference’s worst. The program that beat Iowa in 2013 and built the MAC’s most famous single-game moment holds the second-worst SP+ ranking in the conference entering 2026. Ball State went 4-8 at sp#126. The MAC’s MACtion identity runs through programs that overperform — and NIU is currently the argument for why coaching matters more than recruiting.
Why it matters →Can Kent State sustain its momentum against stronger opponents?
Can Western Michigan's mobile quarterback stress Michigan's defense?
Can Boise State sustain its momentum following this strong start to the 2026 season?
Will the NCAA take further action to address replay protocol failures?
Can the Gamecocks maintain their momentum against tougher opponents?
Where each Mid-American program stands nationally in fan sentiment (100th = most positive in FBS, 0 = least). Conference median: 62nd percentile. The label is the band (Bullish, Leaning, Mixed, Souring); the number after it is the change in percentile points since the prior week.
Most volatile: Kent State
Fan confidence has swung 100 percentile points in the last 8 weeks — currently at the 97th percentile nationally.
Positive gap means the coaching staff won more than the recruiting class predicted. Data: Mid-American teams, 13 programs.
2026 season, in progress — sorted by power rating. The tag beside a team is its long-run program standing.
| # | Team | Record | Power | Resume |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
ToledoNational Program II#46
|
6-2 | +23.7 | +60.6 |
| 2 |
Western MichiganRegional Program I#83
|
6-3 | +21.9 | +64.9 |
| 3 |
OhioRegional Program I#77
|
7-2 | +21.0 | +70.8 |
| 4 |
Miami (OH)Regional Program I#85
|
5-4 | +16.3 | +50.7 |
| 5 |
BuffaloRegional Program IV#114
|
6-3 | +14.9 | +85.2 |
| 6 |
Central MichiganRegional Program IV#111
|
3-5 | +14.4 | +68.8 |
| 7 |
Eastern MichiganRegional Program V#126
|
4-5 | +13.8 | +48.0 |
| 8 |
Bowling GreenRegional Program IV#118
|
2-7 | +13.3 | +61.6 |
| 9 |
Ball StateRegional Program V#132
|
3-5 | +13.0 | +73.8 |
| 10 |
AkronRegional Program V#133
|
1-8 | +12.6 | +10.6 |
| 11 |
MassachusettsRegional Program VI#136
|
4-4 | +12.2 | +76.9 |
| 12 |
Kent StateRegional Program VI#138
|
3-6 | +10.4 | +56.5 |
| 13 |
Sacramento StateRegional Program V#130
|
2-7 | +8.5 | +26.4 |
Projected standings · Mid-American · 2026
Odds of winning at least N conference games from current power ratings — full slate played out, not locked to results. Avg = expected wins; W-L = most-likely record.
| # | Team | W-L | Pwr | Avg | ≥8 | ≥7 | ≥6 | ≥5 | ≥4 | ≥3 | ≥2 | ≥1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Favorites | ||||||||||||
| 1 | Toledo | 6-2 | +8.7 | 5.6 | 5 | 24 | 54 | 80 | 94 | 99 | ✓ | ✓ |
| 2 | Ohio | 5-3 | +6.0 | 5.2 | 3 | 17 | 44 | 72 | 90 | 98 | ✓ | ✓ |
| 3 | Western Michigan | 5-3 | +6.9 | 5.2 | 3 | 17 | 44 | 72 | 91 | 98 | ✓ | ✓ |
| Challengers | ||||||||||||
| 4 | Miami (OH) | 4-4 | +1.2 | 4.2 | 1 | 4 | 18 | 42 | 70 | 89 | 98 | ✓ |
| 5 | Central Michigan | 4-4 | −0.7 | 3.8 | 2 | 11 | 32 | 60 | 84 | 96 | ✓ | |
| 6 | Buffalo | 4-4 | −0.2 | 3.8 | 2 | 11 | 31 | 59 | 83 | 96 | ✓ | |
| The field | ||||||||||||
| 7 | Bowling Green | 4-4 | −1.8 | 3.7 | 2 | 9 | 27 | 56 | 81 | 95 | ✓ | |
| 8 | Eastern Michigan | 4-4 | −1.3 | 3.7 | 2 | 9 | 27 | 55 | 81 | 95 | 99 | |
| 9 | Ball State | 4-4 | −2.1 | 3.7 | 2 | 9 | 27 | 55 | 80 | 95 | 99 | |
| 10 | Akron | 3-5 | −2.5 | 3.4 | 1 | 7 | 22 | 48 | 75 | 92 | 99 | |
| Rebuilding | ||||||||||||
| 11 | Massachusetts | 4-4 | −2.9 | 3.6 | 2 | 8 | 26 | 53 | 79 | 94 | 99 | |
| 12 | Kent State | 3-5 | −4.6 | 3.2 | 1 | 4 | 16 | 40 | 68 | 90 | 98 | |
| 13 | Sacramento State | 3-5 | −6.6 | 2.8 | 2 | 10 | 29 | 57 | 84 | 97 | ||
Six advanced-stat dimensions per team, ranked against all 134 FBS programs, 2026 season. Every column reads higher-is-better. Click a column to sort.
| Team | Scoring | Converts | Defense | Identity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Toledo | +0.24 | 43.5% | +0.03 | Big-play offense |
Western Michigan | +0.11 | 41.1% | −0.07 | Grind-it-out |
Ohio | +0.19 | 45.4% | −0.04 | Balanced |
Miami (OH) | +0.15 | 40.9% | −0.09 | Grind-it-out |
Buffalo | +0.05 | 35.5% | −0.10 | High-tempo |
Central Michigan | +0.06 | 37.9% | −0.14 | Grind-it-out |
Eastern Michigan | +0.02 | 38.6% | −0.15 | Balanced |
Bowling Green | +0.01 | 38.6% | −0.14 | Grind-it-out |
Ball State | +0.10 | 39.0% | −0.25 | Defense is the problem |
Akron | +0.07 | 42.4% | −0.22 | Defense is the problem |
Massachusetts | +0.15 | 41.9% | −0.04 | Grind-it-out |
Kent State | −0.11 | 32.3% | −0.10 | Can't sustain drives |
Sacramento State | −0.07 | 37.4% | −0.10 | No explosive plays |
Identity is the single dimension where a team is most above or below the FBS average (pace, defense, big plays, or converting drives) — "Balanced" means nothing stands out either way. CFBD 2026 advanced stats, excludes garbage time.
Mid-American's highest CFB Zeitgeist Scores, 2026 season so far.
| # | Player | Team | National |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Michael MolnarLB | Ohio | #1 of 567 |
| 2 | Andrew ZockEDGE | Toledo | #2 of 405 |
| 3 | Myles BradleyEDGE | Bowling Green | #3 of 405 |
| 4 | Quincy ByasEDGE | Eastern Michigan | #6 of 405 |
| 5 | Isaac ZayLB | Toledo | #11 of 567 |
| 6 | Dillon MooreLB | Western Michigan | #17 of 567 |
| 7 | Boogsie SilveraS | Sacramento State | #11 of 537 |
| 8 | Ahmed TounkaraIDL | Western Michigan | #13 of 300 |
| 9 | Scoop Gardner Jr.EDGE | Western Michigan | #19 of 405 |
| 10 | Justin TaylorS | Central Michigan | #17 of 537 |
Conference strength, as a round-robin adjusted power rating.
Best available American odds · sportsbook consensus.
| # | Team | Odds |
|---|---|---|
| 1 |
Toledo
|
+120 |
| 2 |
Western Michigan
|
+200 |
| 3 |
Ohio
|
+300 |
| 4 |
Miami (OH)
|
+425 |
| 5 |
Central Michigan
|
+1000 |
| 6 |
Buffalo
|
+1200 |
| 7 |
Eastern Michigan
|
+1500 |
| 8 |
Bowling Green
|
+2000 |
| 9 |
UMass
|
+3000 |
| 10 |
Akron
|
+4200 |