J-Train College Football Computer Rankings, 2018 Week 12

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 11-0 47 73.51 1
2 Clemson 11-0 45 71.56 3.9% 2.6% 2
3 Michigan 10-1 15 70.35 2.4% 4.3% 4
4 Georgia 10-1 20 70.25 0.2% 4.4% 3
5 Notre Dame 11-0 23 70.14 0.2% 4.6% 5
6 Oklahoma 10-1 36 66.84 6.6% 9.1% 6
7 UCF 10-0 95 65.87 1.9% 10.4% 10
8 Ohio St 10-1 50 64.25 3.3% 12.6% 7
9 LSU 9-2 30 63.51 1.5% 13.6% 8
10 Washington St 10-1 83 62.57 1.9% 14.9% 12
11 Penn St 8-3 14 62.41 0.3% 15.1% 11
12 West Virginia 8-2 55 61.93 1.0% 15.8% 9
13 Missouri 7-4 3 61.34 1.2% 16.6% 17
14 Fresno St 9-2 102 60.83 1.0% 17.3% 14
15 Mississippi St 7-4 13 60.42 0.8% 17.8% 18
16 Texas 8-3 22 60.40 0.0% 17.8% 22
17 Kentucky 8-3 16 60.25 0.3% 18.0% 21
18 Utah 8-3 46 60.11 0.3% 18.2% 23
19 Iowa 7-4 37 59.83 0.6% 18.6% 24
20 Florida 8-3 33 59.80 0.0% 18.6% 16
21 Texas A&M 7-4 6 59.65 0.3% 18.9% 28
22 Utah St 10-1 127 59.55 0.2% 19.0% 13
23 Boise St 9-2 79 59.32 0.5% 19.3% 25
24 Washington 8-3 54 59.08 0.5% 19.6% 26
25 Cincinnati 9-2 84 58.59 1.0% 20.3% 15
26 Syracuse 8-3 61 58.30 0.6% 20.7% 20
27 Auburn 7-4 31 58.08 0.4% 21.0% 32
28 Appalachian St 8-2 119 57.98 0.2% 21.1% 31
29 Iowa St 6-4 12 57.39 1.2% 21.9% 19
30 Northwestern 7-4 5 57.32 0.1% 22.0% 40
31 Pittsburgh 7-4 17 57.20 0.2% 22.2% 41
32 NC State 7-3 59 57.04 0.3% 22.4% 36
33 South Carolina 6-4 10 56.98 0.1% 22.5% 33
34 Army 9-2 103 56.67 0.6% 22.9% 30
35 Stanford 6-4 24 56.66 0.0% 22.9% 37
36 Michigan St 6-5 1 56.54 0.2% 23.1% 29
37 Wisconsin 7-4 42 56.43 0.2% 23.2% 44
38 Duke 7-4 34 55.85 1.2% 24.0% 35
39 Purdue 5-6 4 55.43 0.8% 24.6% 39
40 Buffalo 9-2 112 55.35 0.2% 24.7% 27
41 Boston College 7-4 57 55.31 0.1% 24.8% 34
42 Troy 9-2 120 54.65 1.3% 25.7% 42
43 Virginia 7-4 69 54.61 0.1% 25.7% 43
44 Temple 7-4 60 54.58 0.1% 25.8% 47
45 Oklahoma St 6-5 38 53.99 1.2% 26.6% 51
46 UAB 9-2 126 53.93 0.1% 26.6% 38
47 Houston 8-3 121 53.87 0.1% 26.7% 50
48 Georgia Tech 7-4 72 53.70 0.3% 26.9% 53
49 Miami FL 6-5 53 53.60 0.2% 27.1% 55
50 Oregon 7-4 65 53.58 0.0% 27.1% 54
51 Ga Southern 8-3 105 53.39 0.4% 27.4% 52
52 Arizona St 6-5 49 52.88 1.0% 28.1% 46
53 Ohio 7-4 110 52.86 0.0% 28.1% 65
54 Vanderbilt 5-6 8 52.86 0.0% 28.1% 59
55 Maryland 5-6 18 52.52 0.7% 28.6% 57
56 North Texas 8-3 129 52.40 0.2% 28.7% 49
57 Texas Tech 5-6 28 52.15 0.5% 29.1% 45
58 Memphis 7-4 123 51.31 1.7% 30.2% 66
59 BYU 6-5 70 51.22 0.2% 30.3% 64
60 Tennessee 5-6 9 51.05 0.3% 30.5% 48
61 Marshall 7-3 124 51.05 0.0% 30.5% 69
62 Indiana 5-6 7 50.82 0.5% 30.9% 63
63 N Illinois 7-4 63 50.52 0.6% 31.3% 58
64 Arkansas St 7-4 107 50.51 0.0% 31.3% 70
65 Mississippi 5-6 35 50.22 0.6% 31.7% 56
66 MTSU 7-4 96 50.14 0.2% 31.8% 61
67 TCU 5-6 26 50.04 0.2% 31.9% 71
68 Florida Intl 8-3 130 49.78 0.5% 32.3% 77
69 San Diego St 7-4 82 49.65 0.3% 32.5% 62
70 Toledo 6-5 92 49.58 0.1% 32.6% 79
71 Minnesota 5-6 27 49.54 0.1% 32.6% 67
72 USC 5-6 40 49.47 0.1% 32.7% 60
73 California 6-4 75 49.42 0.1% 32.8% 76
74 Nebraska 4-7 19 49.39 0.1% 32.8% 84
75 Nevada 7-4 100 49.34 0.1% 32.9% 73
76 E Michigan 6-5 89 49.27 0.1% 33.0% 68
77 Kansas St 5-6 44 48.81 0.9% 33.6% 90
78 Arizona 5-6 56 48.27 1.1% 34.3% 74
79 Miami OH 5-6 64 48.00 0.5% 34.7% 89
80 ULL 6-5 85 47.99 0.0% 34.7% 83
81 Baylor 5-6 41 47.98 0.0% 34.7% 72
82 Florida St 5-6 25 47.97 0.0% 34.7% 91
83 FL Atlantic 5-6 66 47.92 0.1% 34.8% 81
84 Wake Forest 5-6 39 47.56 0.7% 35.3% 78
85 Louisiana Tech 7-4 118 47.43 0.3% 35.5% 75
86 Colorado 5-6 68 46.95 1.0% 36.1% 85
87 South Florida 7-4 114 46.95 0.0% 36.1% 82
88 Tulane 5-6 71 46.56 0.8% 36.7% 80
89 SMU 5-6 51 46.18 0.8% 37.2% 87
90 W Michigan 6-5 98 45.85 0.7% 37.6% 88
91 Air Force 4-7 81 45.73 0.2% 37.8% 86
92 Virginia Tech 4-6 48 45.37 0.7% 38.3% 92
93 Southern Miss 5-5 115 45.36 0.0% 38.3% 95
94 UCLA 3-8 2 45.08 0.6% 38.7% 98
95 Wyoming 5-6 74 45.05 0.1% 38.7% 97
96 Hawaii 7-5 113 44.84 0.4% 39.0% 96
97 ULM 6-5 108 44.16 1.4% 39.9% 93
98 Coastal Car 5-6 77 43.04 2.2% 41.5% 94
99 Illinois 4-7 62 41.41 3.3% 43.7% 100
100 Navy 3-8 43 41.36 0.1% 43.7% 105
101 Arkansas 2-9 29 40.68 1.3% 44.7% 102
102 Kansas 3-8 58 40.57 0.2% 44.8% 103
103 Liberty 4-6 97 40.55 0.0% 44.8% 101
104 North Carolina 2-8 52 40.08 0.9% 45.5% 108
105 Charlotte 4-7 99 39.77 0.6% 45.9% 104
106 Akron 4-6 104 39.55 0.4% 46.2% 99
107 Ball St 4-7 101 39.08 1.0% 46.8% 113
108 East Carolina 3-7 91 38.67 0.8% 47.4% 115
109 Massachusetts 4-8 80 38.62 0.1% 47.5% 107
110 Old Dominion 4-7 116 38.58 0.1% 47.5% 114
111 New Mexico 3-8 88 38.33 0.5% 47.9% 106
112 Oregon St 2-9 32 37.56 1.5% 48.9% 110
113 Louisville 2-9 21 37.48 0.2% 49.0% 109
114 Rutgers 1-10 11 36.89 1.2% 49.8% 116
115 Tulsa 2-9 87 36.52 0.7% 50.3% 111
116 UNLV 3-8 111 36.09 0.9% 50.9% 112
117 Colorado St 3-8 86 35.50 1.2% 51.7% 121
118 Texas St 3-8 125 35.38 0.2% 51.9% 117
119 Bowling Green 3-8 106 34.90 1.0% 52.5% 126
120 South Alabama 2-9 73 34.65 0.5% 52.9% 119
121 Georgia St 2-9 78 34.56 0.2% 53.0% 120
122 Kent 2-9 90 34.30 0.5% 53.3% 118
123 San Jose St 1-10 76 33.26 2.1% 54.7% 124
124 UT San Antonio 3-8 109 33.17 0.2% 54.9% 122
125 WKU 2-9 122 32.86 0.6% 55.3% 128
126 C Michigan 1-10 94 32.52 0.7% 55.8% 125
127 New Mexico St 3-8 117 32.45 0.1% 55.8% 123
128 Connecticut 1-10 67 30.07 4.8% 59.1% 127
129 Rice 1-11 93 28.13 3.9% 61.7% 130
130 UTEP 1-10 128 26.53 11.9% 63.9% 129

Best win: LSU 36-16 vs. Georgia
Worst loss: UTEP 10-30 vs. Northern Arizona

Rk Conference Rating Best Team Worst Team
1 SEC 58.47 73.51 40.68
2 Big 10 54.51 70.35 36.89
3 Big 12 54.01 66.84 40.57
4 ACC 52.55 71.56 37.48
5 Pac-12 51.80 62.57 37.56
6 American 47.54 65.87 30.07
7 Mountain West 46.46 60.83 33.26
8 Sun Belt 45.63 57.98 34.56
9 MAC 44.31 55.35 32.52
10 Conference USA 42.65 53.93 26.53

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 *