J-Train College Football Computer Rankings, 2017 Week 6

ShareShare on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+0Email this to someone

More information on this system can be found here. Conference rankings are listed at the bottom. Thanks to Ken Massey for the data. These rankings are included on Massey’s ranking composite page.

Rk Team Record SOS Rating % Bhnd % Bhnd 1st Prev
1 Alabama 6-0 21 73.78 2
2 Clemson 6-0 16 73.18 1.2% 0.8% 3
3 UCF 4-0 44 72.78 0.8% 1.4% 1
4 Georgia 6-0 34 71.30 2.9% 3.4% 6
5 Penn St 6-0 46 70.49 1.6% 4.5% 8
6 TCU 5-0 47 69.30 2.4% 6.1% 5
7 Notre Dame 5-1 24 69.29 0.0% 6.1% 7
8 Wisconsin 5-0 60 68.86 0.9% 6.7% 9
9 Ohio St 5-1 25 68.79 0.2% 6.8% 12
10 Michigan 4-1 9 67.99 1.6% 7.8% 4
11 Miami FL 4-0 65 66.90 2.2% 9.3% 10
12 Washington 6-0 107 66.85 0.1% 9.4% 14
13 USC 5-1 10 66.76 0.2% 9.5% 13
14 Washington St 6-0 70 66.08 1.4% 10.4% 17
15 Michigan St 4-1 3 65.61 0.9% 11.1% 24
16 Oklahoma St 4-1 39 63.56 4.1% 13.9% 15
17 Iowa 4-2 8 63.54 0.0% 13.9% 22
18 San Diego St 6-0 71 63.08 0.9% 14.5% 21
19 Navy 5-0 56 62.87 0.4% 14.8% 16
20 Oklahoma 4-1 53 62.71 0.3% 15.0% 11
21 NC State 5-1 42 62.16 1.1% 15.7% 31
22 Auburn 5-1 97 61.51 1.3% 16.6% 23
23 Stanford 4-2 12 60.75 1.5% 17.7% 28
24 Houston 4-1 50 60.16 1.2% 18.5% 42
25 Texas Tech 4-1 69 59.46 1.4% 19.4% 33
26 Virginia Tech 5-1 99 59.18 0.6% 19.8% 32
27 Purdue 3-2 15 59.06 0.2% 20.0% 35
28 Wake Forest 4-2 37 58.44 1.2% 20.8% 26
29 South Florida 5-0 130 58.36 0.2% 20.9% 29
30 Texas 3-2 20 57.98 0.8% 21.4% 39
31 Oregon 4-2 54 57.75 0.5% 21.7% 19
32 Florida 3-2 6 57.74 0.0% 21.7% 18
33 Iowa St 3-2 28 57.53 0.4% 22.0% 65
34 South Carolina 4-2 26 57.39 0.3% 22.2% 49
35 Boise St 3-2 19 57.28 0.2% 22.4% 46
36 Kentucky 5-1 79 56.99 0.6% 22.8% 34
37 Maryland 3-2 5 56.95 0.1% 22.8% 20
38 Virginia 4-1 93 56.63 0.6% 23.2% 52
39 Mississippi St 3-2 30 56.58 0.1% 23.3% 43
40 Louisville 4-2 40 56.47 0.2% 23.5% 30
41 Texas A&M 4-2 48 56.43 0.1% 23.5% 40
42 SMU 4-2 64 56.08 0.7% 24.0% 27
43 Florida St 1-3 1 56.04 0.1% 24.0% 44
44 Minnesota 3-2 43 55.86 0.4% 24.3% 25
45 Georgia Tech 3-1 118 55.63 0.5% 24.6% 38
46 Memphis 4-1 78 55.59 0.1% 24.7% 48
47 Utah 4-1 111 55.20 0.8% 25.2% 37
48 Tulane 3-2 49 54.13 2.1% 26.6% 61
49 Duke 4-2 83 54.02 0.2% 26.8% 36
50 Troy 4-1 86 53.89 0.3% 27.0% 56
51 Colorado St 4-2 91 53.84 0.1% 27.0% 58
52 Indiana 3-2 41 53.79 0.1% 27.1% 57
53 UCLA 3-2 29 53.76 0.1% 27.1% 50
54 W Michigan 4-2 67 53.59 0.3% 27.4% 55
55 LSU 4-2 72 53.36 0.5% 27.7% 68
56 Marshall 4-1 110 53.18 0.4% 27.9% 41
57 West Virginia 3-2 102 52.82 0.7% 28.4% 53
58 Toledo 4-1 104 52.56 0.5% 28.8% 64
59 Arizona 3-2 100 52.28 0.6% 29.1% 74
60 Nebraska 3-3 32 52.27 0.0% 29.2% 47
61 N Illinois 3-2 89 52.19 0.2% 29.3% 66
62 Appalachian St 3-2 80 52.15 0.1% 29.3% 69
63 Vanderbilt 3-3 14 52.15 0.0% 29.3% 51
64 Army 4-2 103 51.58 1.1% 30.1% 75
65 Arizona St 2-3 4 51.42 0.3% 30.3% 60
66 Fresno St 3-2 68 51.37 0.1% 30.4% 77
67 FL Atlantic 3-3 57 50.95 0.8% 30.9% 79
68 Colorado 3-3 63 50.91 0.1% 31.0% 54
69 North Texas 3-2 58 50.69 0.4% 31.3% 72
70 UT San Antonio 3-1 129 50.12 1.1% 32.1% 45
71 Southern Miss 3-2 82 50.12 0.0% 32.1% 84
72 Tennessee 3-2 59 49.24 1.8% 33.3% 70
73 New Mexico 3-2 105 48.97 0.5% 33.6% 76
74 Northwestern 2-3 22 48.79 0.4% 33.9% 82
75 Kansas St 3-2 122 48.76 0.0% 33.9% 62
76 Boston College 2-4 2 48.57 0.4% 34.2% 78
77 California 3-3 36 48.46 0.2% 34.3% 63
78 Buffalo 3-3 84 48.42 0.1% 34.4% 71
79 Arkansas 2-3 38 48.02 0.8% 34.9% 59
80 Akron 3-3 75 47.82 0.4% 35.2% 100
81 Syracuse 3-3 94 47.80 0.0% 35.2% 95
82 Utah St 3-3 77 47.20 1.2% 36.0% 73
83 Wyoming 3-2 108 46.67 1.1% 36.7% 81
84 Air Force 1-4 13 46.58 0.2% 36.9% 90
85 Ohio 4-2 124 46.32 0.5% 37.2% 67
86 Louisiana Tech 3-3 106 45.75 1.1% 38.0% 80
87 Cincinnati 2-4 11 45.22 1.1% 38.7% 85
88 MTSU 3-3 73 45.03 0.4% 39.0% 105
89 ULM 3-2 119 44.85 0.3% 39.2% 101
90 Mississippi 2-3 51 44.72 0.3% 39.4% 83
91 E Michigan 2-3 92 44.30 0.9% 40.0% 86
92 Arkansas St 2-2 120 43.98 0.6% 40.4% 97
93 UNLV 2-3 87 43.86 0.2% 40.5% 88
94 Pittsburgh 2-4 45 43.38 1.0% 41.2% 93
95 Temple 3-3 90 43.36 0.0% 41.2% 102
96 Illinois 2-3 35 43.20 0.3% 41.5% 87
97 New Mexico St 2-4 66 42.76 0.9% 42.0% 91
98 Rutgers 1-4 27 42.65 0.2% 42.2% 99
99 Tulsa 1-5 18 42.45 0.4% 42.5% 96
100 UAB 3-2 125 42.23 0.4% 42.8% 106
101 North Carolina 1-5 17 42.02 0.4% 43.1% 98
102 Miami OH 2-4 98 41.63 0.8% 43.6% 89
103 WKU 3-2 127 41.61 0.0% 43.6% 94
104 Missouri 1-4 23 40.59 2.0% 45.0% 107
105 Florida Intl 3-2 117 39.79 1.6% 46.1% 92
106 C Michigan 3-3 115 38.40 2.8% 47.9% 116
107 Georgia St 2-2 126 38.34 0.1% 48.0% 113
108 BYU 1-5 33 38.08 0.5% 48.4% 108
109 Oregon St 1-5 7 37.65 0.9% 49.0% 114
110 Ball St 2-4 109 37.54 0.2% 49.1% 104
111 Idaho 2-3 123 37.15 0.8% 49.6% 103
112 ULL 2-3 113 35.86 2.6% 51.4% 122
113 Kent 1-5 31 35.53 0.7% 51.8% 111
114 Nevada 1-5 74 35.45 0.2% 52.0% 124
115 Old Dominion 2-3 114 35.17 0.5% 52.3% 109
116 Hawaii 2-4 116 34.14 2.0% 53.7% 110
117 South Alabama 1-4 101 33.97 0.3% 54.0% 115
118 Baylor 0-5 55 33.88 0.2% 54.1% 112
119 Bowling Green 1-5 81 33.27 1.2% 54.9% 129
120 Kansas 1-4 96 33.09 0.4% 55.2% 119
121 Connecticut 1-4 95 33.04 0.1% 55.2% 117
122 Rice 1-5 62 32.80 0.5% 55.5% 118
123 San Jose St 1-6 52 32.21 1.2% 56.3% 121
124 Texas St 1-5 88 31.12 2.2% 57.8% 120
125 East Carolina 1-5 85 28.88 4.5% 60.9% 123
126 UTEP 0-6 61 28.07 1.6% 62.0% 127
127 Coastal Car 1-4 128 27.82 0.5% 62.3% 126
128 Massachusetts 0-6 121 27.28 1.1% 63.0% 125
129 Ga Southern 0-4 76 26.17 2.2% 64.5% 128
130 Charlotte 0-6 112 25.78 4.0% 65.1% 130

Best win: Oklahoma 31-16 vs. Ohio St.
Worst loss: Coastal Carolina 10-52 vs. Western Illinois

Rk Conference Rating Best Team Worst Team
1 Big 10 58.42 70.49 42.65
2 ACC 55.74 73.18 42.02
3 SEC 55.70 73.78 40.59
4 Pac-12 55.66 66.85 37.65
5 Big 12 53.91 69.30 33.09
6 American 51.08 72.78 28.88
7 Mountain West 46.72 63.08 32.21
8 MAC 44.30 53.59 33.27
9 Conference USA 42.24 53.18 25.78
10 Sun Belt 39.00 53.89 26.17

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

ShareShare on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+0Email this to someone

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *