Category Archives: Rankings

J-Train Computer Rankings, 2016 Week 5

Leave a reply

More information on this system can be found here. Conference rankings are listed at the bottom. Thanks to Ken Massey for the data.

Rk Team Record SOS Rating % Bhnd % Bhnd 1st
1 Michigan 5-0 8 18.730 – –
2 Ohio St 4-0 52 17.032 9.1% 9.1%
3 Tennessee 5-0 5 16.397 3.4% 12.5%
4 Alabama 5-0 48 15.867 2.8% 15.3%
5 Clemson 5-0 18 15.659 1.1% 16.4%
6 Texas A&M 5-0 40 14.989 3.6% 20.0%
7 Washington 5-0 90 14.567 2.2% 22.2%
8 Houston 5-0 93 14.497 0.4% 22.6%
9 Miami FL 4-0 101 14.276 1.2% 23.8%
10 W Michigan 5-0 89 13.622 3.5% 27.3%
11 Nebraska 5-0 87 13.151 2.5% 29.8%
12 Boise St 4-0 86 12.557 3.2% 33.0%
13 Maryland 4-0 116 12.462 0.5% 33.5%
14 Air Force 4-0 117 11.329 6.0% 39.5%
15 Louisville 4-1 43 11.105 1.2% 40.7%
16 West Virginia 4-0 97 10.616 2.6% 43.3%
17 Baylor 5-0 124 10.589 0.1% 43.5%
18 Wisconsin 4-1 20 9.944 3.4% 46.9%
19 Stanford 3-1 4 9.472 2.5% 49.4%
20 Florida 4-1 39 9.444 0.2% 49.6%
21 Troy 4-1 57 9.310 0.7% 50.3%
22 Colorado 4-1 68 8.368 5.0% 55.3%
23 Virginia Tech 3-1 45 8.305 0.3% 55.7%
24 Arkansas 4-1 44 7.566 3.9% 59.6%
25 NC State 3-1 88 7.555 0.1% 59.7%
26 South Florida 4-1 107 7.312 1.3% 61.0%
27 North Carolina 4-1 74 6.542 4.1% 65.1%
28 Wake Forest 4-1 56 6.497 0.2% 65.3%
29 Arizona St 4-1 80 6.396 0.5% 65.9%
30 Southern Miss 4-1 118 6.291 0.6% 66.4%
31 Indiana 3-1 59 6.196 0.5% 66.9%
32 Texas Tech 3-1 110 5.694 2.7% 69.6%
33 Mississippi 3-2 19 5.597 0.5% 70.1%
34 Utah 4-1 102 5.522 0.4% 70.5%
35 Ga Southern 3-1 78 5.204 1.7% 72.2%
36 Navy 3-1 73 5.182 0.1% 72.3%
37 Florida St 3-2 15 5.136 0.2% 72.6%
38 UCLA 3-2 12 4.984 0.8% 73.4%
39 Auburn 3-2 26 4.745 1.3% 74.7%
40 MTSU 4-1 119 4.725 0.1% 74.8%
41 Appalachian St 3-2 10 4.695 0.2% 74.9%
42 Memphis 3-1 121 4.490 1.1% 76.0%
43 Minnesota 3-1 114 4.341 0.8% 76.8%
44 Army 3-1 125 4.332 0.0% 76.9%
45 Tulsa 3-1 111 4.220 0.6% 77.5%
46 Georgia Tech 3-2 17 3.881 1.8% 79.3%
47 Penn St 3-2 11 3.866 0.1% 79.4%
48 UCF 3-2 35 3.845 0.1% 79.5%
49 Toledo 3-1 128 3.819 0.1% 79.6%
50 LSU 3-2 42 3.768 0.3% 79.9%
51 California 3-2 24 3.752 0.1% 80.0%
52 San Diego St 3-1 113 3.726 0.1% 80.1%
53 Oklahoma St 3-2 46 3.526 1.1% 81.2%
54 E Michigan 4-1 120 3.333 1.0% 82.2%
55 Oklahoma 2-2 2 3.180 0.8% 83.0%
56 TCU 3-2 99 2.358 4.4% 87.4%
57 Pittsburgh 3-2 69 2.348 0.1% 87.5%
58 Georgia 3-2 22 2.030 1.7% 89.2%
59 Temple 3-2 104 1.559 2.5% 91.7%
60 Wyoming 3-2 82 1.305 1.4% 93.0%
61 Kansas St 2-2 63 1.222 0.4% 93.5%
62 C Michigan 3-2 67 1.055 0.9% 94.4%
63 Boston College 3-2 106 1.045 0.1% 94.4%
64 USC 2-3 1 1.032 0.1% 94.5%
65 Tulane 3-2 92 0.951 0.4% 94.9%
66 Washington St 2-2 79 0.828 0.7% 95.6%
67 Ohio 3-2 109 0.745 0.4% 96.0%
68 Mississippi St 2-2 65 0.485 1.4% 97.4%
69 Cincinnati 3-2 75 0.452 0.2% 97.6%
70 Old Dominion 3-2 103 0.258 1.0% 98.6%
71 WKU 3-2 115 0.223 0.2% 98.8%
72 Akron 3-2 95 0.177 0.2% 99.1%
73 South Alabama 3-2 72 0.119 0.3% 99.4%
74 BYU 2-3 6 -0.154 1.5% 100.8%
75 Michigan St 2-2 50 -0.773 3.3% 104.1%
76 Iowa 3-2 126 -0.859 0.5% 104.6%
77 Texas 2-2 58 -1.321 2.5% 107.1%
78 Missouri 2-3 29 -1.431 0.6% 107.6%
79 Texas St 2-2 27 -1.629 1.1% 108.7%
80 Vanderbilt 2-3 13 -1.632 0.0% 108.7%
81 Oregon 2-3 36 -1.637 0.0% 108.7%
82 Northwestern 2-3 28 -1.662 0.1% 108.9%
83 Kentucky 2-3 7 -1.872 1.1% 110.0%
84 Ball St 3-2 123 -2.009 0.7% 110.7%
85 Louisiana Tech 2-3 64 -2.256 1.3% 112.0%
86 Arizona 2-3 41 -2.761 2.7% 114.7%
87 Rutgers 2-3 23 -2.879 0.6% 115.4%
88 Purdue 2-2 83 -3.027 0.8% 116.2%
89 South Carolina 2-3 25 -3.202 0.9% 117.1%
90 Notre Dame 2-3 94 -3.344 0.8% 117.9%
91 East Carolina 2-3 34 -3.764 2.2% 120.1%
92 Utah St 2-3 62 -3.925 0.9% 121.0%
93 New Mexico 2-2 127 -4.273 1.9% 122.8%
94 ULL 2-3 66 -4.646 2.0% 124.8%
95 Colorado St 2-3 71 -5.017 2.0% 126.8%
96 Connecticut 2-3 60 -5.225 1.1% 127.9%
97 Syracuse 2-3 54 -5.228 0.0% 127.9%
98 UNLV 2-3 108 -5.253 0.1% 128.0%
99 Hawaii 2-3 51 -5.527 1.5% 129.5%
100 SMU 2-3 61 -5.590 0.3% 129.8%
101 Duke 2-3 96 -5.650 0.3% 130.2%
102 Illinois 1-3 9 -5.933 1.5% 131.7%
103 Virginia 2-3 112 -6.071 0.7% 132.4%
104 Idaho 2-3 31 -6.157 0.5% 132.9%
105 Oregon St 1-3 21 -6.559 2.1% 135.0%
106 North Texas 2-3 100 -6.682 0.7% 135.7%
107 New Mexico St 2-3 70 -7.120 2.3% 138.0%
108 Marshall 1-3 47 -8.809 9.0% 147.0%
109 ULM 1-3 49 -8.836 0.1% 147.2%
110 Nevada 2-3 122 -8.852 0.1% 147.3%
111 UT San Antonio 1-3 91 -9.041 1.0% 148.3%
112 Kansas 1-3 55 -9.498 2.4% 150.7%
113 Massachusetts 1-4 32 -9.541 0.2% 150.9%
114 Bowling Green 1-4 16 -10.023 2.6% 153.5%
115 N Illinois 1-4 53 -10.088 0.3% 153.9%
116 Fresno St 1-4 38 -10.181 0.5% 154.4%
117 Kent 1-4 77 -10.358 0.9% 155.3%
118 Iowa St 1-4 85 -10.405 0.3% 155.6%
119 Charlotte 1-4 37 -10.886 2.6% 158.1%
120 Florida Intl 1-4 30 -10.973 0.5% 158.6%
121 FL Atlantic 1-4 76 -11.017 0.2% 158.8%
122 UTEP 1-4 33 -11.163 0.8% 159.6%
123 Georgia St 0-4 3 -12.068 4.8% 164.4%
124 Buffalo 1-3 105 -12.179 0.6% 165.0%
125 San Jose St 1-4 98 -12.224 0.2% 165.3%
126 Rice 0-5 14 -14.663 13.0% 178.3%
127 Miami OH 0-5 84 -16.116 7.8% 186.0%
128 Arkansas St 0-4 81 -17.656 8.2% 194.3%

Rk Conference Rating Best Team Worst Team
1 SEC 5.196 16.397 -3.202
2 Big 10 5.042 18.730 -5.933
3 ACC 4.671 15.659 -6.071
4 Pac-12 3.664 14.567 -6.559
5 American 2.327 14.497 -5.590
6 Big 12 1.596 10.616 -10.405
7 Mountain West -2.194 12.557 -12.224
8 MAC -3.169 13.622 -16.116
9 Sun Belt -3.526 9.310 -17.656
10 Conference USA -5.692 6.291 -14.663

SOS = Strength of schedule ranking based on games played
% Bhnd = Percentage of the number one team’s rating a team is behind the next highest-ranked team
% Bhnd 1st = Percentage a team is behind the number one team

J-Train Computer Rankings

2 Replies

This week I will be debuting my FBS computer rankings. Creating a ranking system is something I’ve wanted to try for a long time. The math is very simple but I believe I’ve implemented the basic value system that I had hoped for. I was influenced by and share essentially the same core concepts as the late David Rothman. (I’m interested to see if my system produces similar results to his over time.)

  • The system is retrodictive. The point is to determine the quality of a team’s “resumé” rather than to predict future games.
  • The system is win-centric. A win is almost always worth more than a loss, with the exceptions involving close wins over very bad teams and close losses to great teams.
  • Margin of victory counts, although the returns are diminishing. The rating increase from a one-point win to a 15-point win is substantial and considerably higher than the increase from a 21-point win to a 35-point win. The increase in margin from 51 to 65 is essentially negligible. It has been said that the point of the game is simply to score more points than the opponent, but it could also be said (without much controversy) that the point is to score as many points as you can while holding the opponent to as few points as you can. Particularly in a league with as few games relative to the amount of teams as college football, margin of victory is a viable differentiator.
  • Strength of opponent is important. A one-point win over a great team is worth more than a 50-point win over a bad team.
  • Date of game is not included. The dates are essentially arbitrary and beyond the control of any team. Also, I have always considered one of college football’s great strengths to be how a game in early September can be just as important as one in late November (and known to be so at the time played).
  • Location of game is not included. I consider location, as well as weather, injuries, etc. to be part of the game that occasionally must be overcome. Even if I felt the location should be included, it would be (in my opinion) impossible to account for the real difference it made on a given day.

Thanks to Ken Massey of masseyratings.com for helping me along.