J-Train College Football Computer Rankings, 2017 Week 8

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.

This week’s full rankings:

Rk Team Record SOS Rating % Bhnd % Bhnd 1st Prev
1 Alabama 8-0 28 74.29 1
2 Penn St 7-0 24 73.94 0.7% 0.5% 2
3 Notre Dame 6-1 16 72.40 3.0% 2.6% 8
4 UCF 6-0 63 71.78 1.2% 3.4% 4
5 Georgia 7-0 54 70.87 1.8% 4.6% 5
6 Wisconsin 7-0 48 70.74 0.2% 4.8% 7
7 Clemson 6-1 17 69.83 1.8% 6.0% 9
8 Ohio St 6-1 37 69.39 0.9% 6.6% 6
9 TCU 7-0 77 68.82 1.1% 7.4% 3
10 Miami FL 6-0 49 67.23 3.1% 9.5% 10
11 Washington 6-1 90 65.05 4.3% 12.4% 15
12 Oklahoma St 6-1 55 64.90 0.3% 12.6% 14
13 Michigan St 6-1 8 64.70 0.4% 12.9% 13
14 NC State 6-1 44 64.25 0.9% 13.5% 17
15 Michigan 5-2 5 63.73 1.0% 14.2% 11
16 Oklahoma 6-1 57 63.57 0.3% 14.4% 19
17 USC 6-2 7 62.71 1.7% 15.6% 12
18 Virginia Tech 6-1 92 62.48 0.4% 15.9% 23
19 Stanford 5-2 25 62.31 0.3% 16.1% 18
20 Washington St 7-1 85 61.63 1.3% 17.0% 20
21 Auburn 6-2 78 61.61 0.0% 17.1% 24
22 South Florida 7-0 126 61.11 1.0% 17.7% 25
23 Mississippi St 5-2 45 60.91 0.4% 18.0% 32
24 Iowa 4-3 4 60.62 0.6% 18.4% 16
25 Iowa St 5-2 65 59.93 1.3% 19.3% 30
26 Georgia Tech 4-2 75 59.39 1.1% 20.1% 39
27 Boise St 5-2 42 59.35 0.1% 20.1% 26
28 Navy 5-2 26 59.20 0.3% 20.3% 22
29 Memphis 6-1 61 59.14 0.1% 20.4% 34
30 South Carolina 5-2 30 58.67 0.9% 21.0% 27
31 Fresno St 5-2 72 58.20 0.9% 21.7% 47
32 Toledo 6-1 102 58.09 0.2% 21.8% 46
33 LSU 6-2 62 58.03 0.1% 21.9% 42
34 Texas A&M 5-2 50 57.78 0.5% 22.2% 29
35 Marshall 6-1 111 57.77 0.0% 22.2% 50
36 San Diego St 6-2 53 56.95 1.6% 23.3% 21
37 SMU 5-2 80 56.48 0.9% 24.0% 38
38 West Virginia 5-2 97 56.14 0.7% 24.4% 37
39 Northwestern 4-3 18 56.12 0.0% 24.5% 58
40 Arizona St 4-3 12 56.12 0.0% 24.5% 49
41 Wake Forest 4-3 31 55.94 0.3% 24.7% 31
42 Louisville 5-3 46 55.65 0.6% 25.1% 54
43 Purdue 3-4 9 55.62 0.1% 25.1% 35
44 Florida St 2-4 1 55.51 0.2% 25.3% 28
45 Arizona 5-2 98 55.30 0.4% 25.6% 48
46 Florida 3-3 11 55.15 0.3% 25.8% 43
47 Texas 3-4 15 55.07 0.2% 25.9% 44
48 Boston College 4-4 2 54.89 0.4% 26.1% 73
49 UCLA 4-3 21 54.81 0.2% 26.2% 64
50 Kentucky 5-2 66 54.61 0.4% 26.5% 36
51 Colorado St 6-2 106 54.10 1.0% 27.2% 57
52 N Illinois 5-2 110 53.84 0.5% 27.5% 59
53 Minnesota 4-3 68 53.83 0.0% 27.5% 52
54 Texas Tech 4-3 52 53.76 0.1% 27.6% 40
55 Virginia 5-2 89 53.66 0.2% 27.8% 33
56 FL Atlantic 4-3 83 53.60 0.1% 27.9% 70
57 Syracuse 4-4 27 53.43 0.3% 28.1% 61
58 Houston 4-3 59 52.85 1.1% 28.9% 53
59 Troy 5-2 93 52.75 0.2% 29.0% 71
60 Oregon 4-4 35 52.62 0.3% 29.2% 45
61 Utah 4-3 84 52.29 0.7% 29.6% 41
62 Indiana 3-4 20 52.19 0.2% 29.7% 51
63 Army 6-2 112 52.07 0.2% 29.9% 65
64 California 4-4 34 51.89 0.4% 30.2% 55
65 Nebraska 3-4 13 51.76 0.2% 30.3% 67
66 Maryland 3-4 3 51.68 0.2% 30.4% 62
67 Southern Miss 5-2 116 51.33 0.7% 30.9% 69
68 W Michigan 5-3 96 51.22 0.2% 31.1% 63
69 Ohio 6-2 125 51.18 0.1% 31.1% 83
70 Duke 4-4 74 50.75 0.9% 31.7% 56
71 Appalachian St 5-2 120 50.38 0.7% 32.2% 66
72 Tulane 3-4 51 49.40 1.9% 33.5% 74
73 Arkansas St 4-2 127 49.31 0.2% 33.6% 88
74 UT San Antonio 4-2 128 49.20 0.2% 33.8% 77
75 Colorado 4-4 76 49.05 0.3% 34.0% 72
76 Tennessee 3-4 19 48.99 0.1% 34.1% 80
77 Mississippi 3-4 32 48.98 0.0% 34.1% 68
78 North Texas 4-3 73 48.70 0.5% 34.4% 60
79 Kansas St 3-4 86 48.34 0.7% 34.9% 82
80 Rutgers 3-4 43 48.11 0.4% 35.2% 91
81 Vanderbilt 3-4 29 48.10 0.0% 35.3% 79
82 Akron 4-4 67 47.99 0.2% 35.4% 75
83 Utah St 4-4 100 47.51 0.9% 36.0% 89
84 Pittsburgh 3-5 22 47.51 0.0% 36.0% 93
85 Wyoming 4-3 105 47.30 0.4% 36.3% 78
86 Louisiana Tech 3-4 88 46.87 0.9% 36.9% 81
87 Arkansas 2-5 6 46.61 0.5% 37.3% 76
88 New Mexico 3-4 79 46.50 0.2% 37.4% 86
89 E Michigan 2-5 60 46.11 0.8% 37.9% 90
90 Air Force 3-4 81 46.00 0.2% 38.1% 87
91 Buffalo 3-5 91 45.73 0.5% 38.4% 84
92 WKU 5-2 130 44.97 1.5% 39.5% 96
93 Florida Intl 4-2 115 44.92 0.1% 39.5% 94
94 Tulsa 2-6 40 44.67 0.5% 39.9% 85
95 Missouri 2-5 33 44.03 1.3% 40.7% 104
96 Miami OH 3-5 101 44.02 0.0% 40.7% 107
97 Cincinnati 2-6 14 43.92 0.2% 40.9% 98
98 C Michigan 4-4 103 43.66 0.5% 41.2% 110
99 MTSU 3-5 70 43.23 0.8% 41.8% 95
100 South Alabama 3-4 99 43.22 0.0% 41.8% 105
101 Temple 3-5 87 42.98 0.5% 42.2% 106
102 New Mexico St 3-4 108 42.97 0.0% 42.2% 99
103 Georgia St 3-3 117 41.98 1.9% 43.5% 97
104 North Carolina 1-7 10 41.82 0.3% 43.7% 102
105 UAB 4-3 129 41.48 0.7% 44.2% 92
106 Illinois 2-5 41 41.25 0.5% 44.5% 103
107 Connecticut 3-4 95 41.01 0.5% 44.8% 114
108 ULM 3-4 118 40.90 0.2% 44.9% 100
109 UNLV 2-5 104 39.33 3.1% 47.1% 101
110 Nevada 1-7 56 38.82 1.0% 47.7% 113
111 Hawaii 3-4 121 38.01 1.6% 48.8% 117
112 Kent 2-6 47 36.80 2.4% 50.5% 115
113 ULL 3-4 122 36.48 0.6% 50.9% 108
114 Old Dominion 2-5 94 36.38 0.2% 51.0% 118
115 BYU 1-7 36 36.33 0.1% 51.1% 111
116 Oregon St 1-6 23 36.31 0.0% 51.1% 116
117 East Carolina 2-6 58 36.28 0.1% 51.2% 123
118 Baylor 0-7 39 35.82 0.9% 51.8% 119
119 Idaho 2-5 119 35.73 0.2% 51.9% 109
120 Kansas 1-6 38 35.40 0.6% 52.3% 120
121 Ball St 2-5 114 34.99 0.8% 52.9% 112
122 Bowling Green 1-7 71 33.52 2.9% 54.9% 122
123 Rice 1-6 69 33.50 0.0% 54.9% 121
124 Massachusetts 1-6 124 32.59 1.8% 56.1% 128
125 San Jose St 1-7 82 31.14 2.8% 58.1% 124
126 Charlotte 1-7 109 30.34 1.6% 59.2% 130
127 Coastal Car 1-6 123 29.50 1.6% 60.3% 127
128 UTEP 0-7 64 29.50 0.0% 60.3% 126
129 Texas St 1-6 113 28.60 1.8% 61.5% 125
130 Ga Southern 0-6 107 24.97 8.9% 66.4% 129

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 58.12 73.94 41.25
2 ACC 56.60 69.83 41.82
3 SEC 56.33 74.29 44.03
4 Pac-12 55.01 65.05 36.31
5 Big 12 54.18 68.82 35.40
6 American 51.57 71.78 36.28
7 Mountain West 46.93 59.35 31.14
8 MAC 45.60 58.09 33.52
9 Conference USA 43.70 57.77 29.50
10 Sun Belt 39.73 52.75 24.97

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

Leave a Reply

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