J-Train College Football Computer Rankings, 2021 Week 11

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 Georgia 10-0 26 73.47 1
2 Ohio St 9-1 35 68.33 10.4% 7.0% 3
3 Michigan 9-1 21 67.49 1.7% 8.1% 2
4 Notre Dame 9-1 11 65.96 3.1% 10.2% 5
5 Alabama 9-1 65 65.58 0.8% 10.7% 4
6 Cincinnati 10-0 104 64.46 2.3% 12.3% 6
7 Wisconsin 7-3 2 64.04 0.9% 12.8% 7
8 Michigan St 9-1 39 63.50 1.1% 13.6% 8
9 Wake Forest 9-1 60 63.23 0.5% 13.9% 9
10 Oklahoma St 9-1 53 62.72 1.0% 14.6% 12
11 Mississippi 8-2 19 62.10 1.3% 15.5% 15
12 Iowa 8-2 29 60.57 3.1% 17.6% 14
13 Oregon 9-1 74 60.47 0.2% 17.7% 17
14 UT San Antonio 10-0 125 60.46 0.0% 17.7% 13
15 Baylor 8-2 59 60.37 0.2% 17.8% 20
16 Texas A&M 7-3 24 60.19 0.4% 18.1% 10
17 Oklahoma 9-1 72 60.14 0.1% 18.1% 11
18 Penn St 6-4 8 59.53 1.2% 19.0% 16
19 Pittsburgh 8-2 93 59.37 0.3% 19.2% 18
20 BYU 8-2 44 59.05 0.6% 19.6% 21
21 NC State 7-3 48 58.84 0.4% 19.9% 22
22 Houston 9-1 119 58.77 0.1% 20.0% 27
23 Arkansas 7-3 30 58.54 0.5% 20.3% 24
24 Boise St 6-4 15 58.49 0.1% 20.4% 26
25 Utah 7-3 61 57.84 1.3% 21.3% 25
26 Purdue 6-4 3 57.65 0.4% 21.5% 19
27 Appalachian St 8-2 89 57.62 0.1% 21.6% 28
28 SMU 8-2 109 57.03 1.2% 22.4% 41
29 Auburn 6-4 12 56.83 0.4% 22.7% 23
30 Mississippi St 6-4 9 56.76 0.1% 22.7% 36
31 San Diego St 9-1 114 56.71 0.1% 22.8% 32
32 Clemson 7-3 41 56.49 0.4% 23.1% 31
33 Kansas St 7-3 54 56.27 0.5% 23.4% 37
34 Air Force 7-3 75 56.04 0.5% 23.7% 35
35 Army 6-3 62 55.41 1.3% 24.6% 39
36 Iowa St 6-4 47 55.40 0.0% 24.6% 29
37 Minnesota 6-4 36 55.39 0.0% 24.6% 30
38 Kentucky 7-3 55 55.33 0.1% 24.7% 34
39 Arizona St 7-3 73 55.21 0.2% 24.9% 38
40 Liberty 7-3 117 54.40 1.6% 26.0% 44
41 Fresno St 8-3 92 54.32 0.2% 26.1% 47
42 Coastal Car 8-2 130 54.29 0.1% 26.1% 33
43 Louisiana 9-1 128 54.21 0.2% 26.2% 52
44 Louisville 5-5 18 54.03 0.4% 26.5% 58
45 Nevada 7-3 97 53.93 0.2% 26.6% 42
46 Tennessee 5-5 14 53.81 0.3% 26.8% 40
47 Utah St 8-2 103 53.68 0.3% 26.9% 54
48 UCLA 6-4 52 53.61 0.1% 27.0% 53
49 WKU 6-4 100 52.88 1.5% 28.0% 55
50 Virginia 6-4 34 52.78 0.2% 28.2% 43
51 North Carolina 5-5 16 52.69 0.2% 28.3% 46
52 UAB 7-3 102 52.39 0.6% 28.7% 63
53 Florida 5-5 40 52.16 0.5% 29.0% 49
54 Marshall 6-4 115 52.02 0.3% 29.2% 50
55 Miami FL 5-5 10 51.75 0.6% 29.6% 45
56 Rutgers 5-5 28 51.27 1.0% 30.2% 68
57 UCF 6-4 63 51.24 0.1% 30.3% 51
58 Nebraska 3-7 7 51.12 0.2% 30.4% 57
59 Oregon St 6-4 85 51.06 0.1% 30.5% 67
60 LSU 4-6 6 50.88 0.4% 30.7% 60
61 Texas 4-6 17 50.87 0.0% 30.8% 48
62 Syracuse 5-5 42 50.72 0.3% 31.0% 56
63 East Carolina 6-4 81 50.46 0.5% 31.3% 66
64 Washington St 5-5 37 50.21 0.5% 31.7% 59
65 Boston College 6-4 88 50.06 0.3% 31.9% 72
66 Virginia Tech 5-5 56 49.93 0.3% 32.0% 71
67 Illinois 4-6 5 49.85 0.2% 32.2% 61
68 Texas Tech 6-4 71 49.42 0.9% 32.7% 73
69 Toledo 5-5 111 49.04 0.8% 33.3% 76
70 N Illinois 7-3 90 48.98 0.1% 33.3% 70
71 West Virginia 4-6 22 48.89 0.2% 33.5% 64
72 Maryland 5-5 20 48.84 0.1% 33.5% 62
73 South Carolina 5-5 38 48.64 0.4% 33.8% 65
74 Miami OH 5-5 87 48.02 1.3% 34.6% 83
75 Florida St 4-6 33 47.83 0.4% 34.9% 82
76 W Michigan 6-4 86 47.76 0.1% 35.0% 75
77 Memphis 5-5 76 47.68 0.2% 35.1% 77
78 Missouri 5-5 46 47.62 0.1% 35.2% 85
79 USC 4-5 45 47.55 0.1% 35.3% 78
80 TCU 4-6 25 46.85 1.4% 36.2% 74
81 C Michigan 6-4 116 46.84 0.0% 36.3% 93
82 E Michigan 6-4 124 46.79 0.1% 36.3% 69
83 Georgia St 5-5 57 46.61 0.4% 36.6% 88
84 Ball St 5-5 79 46.08 1.1% 37.3% 81
85 UTEP 6-4 126 45.93 0.3% 37.5% 79
86 Washington 4-6 69 45.30 1.3% 38.3% 89
87 FL Atlantic 5-5 112 44.59 1.4% 39.3% 80
88 MTSU 5-5 121 44.45 0.3% 39.5% 96
89 Tulsa 4-6 51 44.40 0.1% 39.6% 98
90 Georgia Tech 3-7 50 44.36 0.1% 39.6% 84
91 Wyoming 5-5 107 43.87 1.0% 40.3% 92
92 Northwestern 3-7 23 43.77 0.2% 40.4% 91
93 Stanford 3-7 31 43.64 0.3% 40.6% 90
94 Indiana 2-8 1 43.55 0.2% 40.7% 86
95 California 3-6 82 43.41 0.3% 40.9% 95
96 Kent 5-5 84 42.86 1.1% 41.7% 87
97 Troy 5-5 122 42.85 0.0% 41.7% 94
98 Old Dominion 4-6 91 42.70 0.3% 41.9% 108
99 Navy 2-7 4 42.70 0.0% 41.9% 99
100 South Alabama 5-5 129 42.32 0.8% 42.4% 97
101 Louisiana Tech 3-7 58 42.19 0.3% 42.6% 110
102 Colorado St 3-7 77 41.88 0.6% 43.0% 100
103 San Jose St 5-6 108 41.24 1.3% 43.9% 101
104 North Texas 4-6 96 40.65 1.2% 44.7% 114
105 Colorado 3-7 49 40.63 0.0% 44.7% 103
106 South Florida 2-8 32 40.33 0.6% 45.1% 111
107 Charlotte 5-5 127 40.20 0.3% 45.3% 102
108 Hawaii 4-7 98 39.72 1.0% 45.9% 105
109 Buffalo 4-6 123 39.50 0.4% 46.2% 104
110 Tulane 1-9 13 39.04 0.9% 46.9% 109
111 Duke 3-7 70 38.94 0.2% 47.0% 107
112 ULM 4-6 94 38.93 0.0% 47.0% 106
113 UNLV 2-8 64 38.29 1.3% 47.9% 118
114 Rice 3-7 68 37.56 1.5% 48.9% 113
115 Ohio 3-7 113 37.47 0.2% 49.0% 120
116 Temple 3-7 66 36.70 1.6% 50.1% 116
117 Bowling Green 3-7 105 36.64 0.1% 50.1% 112
118 Ga Southern 3-7 106 36.57 0.1% 50.2% 119
119 New Mexico 3-7 83 36.16 0.8% 50.8% 115
120 Arizona 1-9 43 35.49 1.4% 51.7% 121
121 Kansas 2-8 27 35.28 0.4% 52.0% 124
122 Texas St 3-7 120 34.90 0.8% 52.5% 117
123 Vanderbilt 2-8 67 33.78 2.3% 54.0% 122
124 Arkansas St 2-8 95 33.60 0.4% 54.3% 125
125 Akron 2-8 99 33.24 0.7% 54.8% 123
126 Southern Miss 1-9 80 31.07 4.4% 57.7% 127
127 New Mexico St 1-9 78 30.01 2.2% 59.2% 128
128 Florida Intl 1-9 110 28.89 2.3% 60.7% 126
129 Connecticut 1-9 118 27.38 3.1% 62.7% 130
130 Massachusetts 1-9 101 26.49 7.1% 63.9% 129

Best win: Notre Dame 41-13 vs. Wisconsin
Worst loss: Massachusetts 35-10 vs. Maine

Rk Conference Rating Best Team Worst Team
1 Big 10 56.06 68.33 43.55
2 SEC 55.41 73.47 33.78
3 Big 12 52.62 62.72 35.28
4 ACC 52.22 63.23 38.94
5 Pac-12 48.70 60.47 35.49
6 American 48.44 64.46 36.70
7 Mountain West 47.86 58.49 36.16
8 Sun Belt 44.19 57.62 33.60
9 Conference USA 44.00 60.46 28.89
10 MAC 43.60 49.04 33.24

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 *