J-Train College Football Computer Rankings, 2021 Week 5

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 5-0 10 73.60 2
2 Michigan 5-0 13 71.78 3.8% 2.5% 1
3 Iowa 5-0 46 66.94 10.0% 9.1% 9
4 Alabama 5-0 58 66.60 0.7% 9.5% 5
5 Cincinnati 4-0 74 65.21 2.9% 11.4% 13
6 Arkansas 4-1 3 64.66 1.1% 12.1% 3
7 Texas 4-1 12 63.37 2.7% 13.9% 7
8 Penn St 5-0 75 63.24 0.3% 14.1% 16
9 Florida 3-2 2 61.82 2.9% 16.0% 6
10 BYU 5-0 62 61.56 0.5% 16.4% 20
11 Wake Forest 5-0 104 61.45 0.2% 16.5% 15
12 Michigan St 5-0 96 61.28 0.4% 16.7% 14
13 Kentucky 5-0 63 61.17 0.2% 16.9% 22
14 Ohio St 4-1 59 61.12 0.1% 17.0% 23
15 Oklahoma 5-0 71 60.30 1.7% 18.1% 21
16 Pittsburgh 4-1 82 59.72 1.2% 18.9% 33
17 Notre Dame 4-1 16 59.51 0.4% 19.1% 8
18 SMU 5-0 114 58.76 1.6% 20.2% 25
19 Mississippi 3-1 61 57.98 1.6% 21.2% 4
20 W Michigan 4-1 25 57.92 0.1% 21.3% 31
21 Oklahoma St 5-0 76 57.70 0.4% 21.6% 29
22 Coastal Car 5-0 130 57.63 0.1% 21.7% 30
23 Arizona St 4-1 91 57.28 0.7% 22.2% 54
24 Oregon 4-1 70 57.14 0.3% 22.4% 10
25 Clemson 3-2 7 56.60 1.1% 23.1% 49
26 NC State 4-1 72 56.53 0.1% 23.2% 36
27 Maryland 4-1 41 56.40 0.2% 23.4% 19
28 Liberty 4-1 107 56.40 0.0% 23.4% 41
29 UT San Antonio 5-0 117 56.25 0.3% 23.6% 24
30 UCLA 3-2 14 55.97 0.6% 24.0% 11
31 Oregon St 4-1 85 55.89 0.2% 24.1% 32
32 Air Force 4-1 111 55.60 0.6% 24.5% 50
33 Rutgers 3-2 18 55.55 0.1% 24.5% 12
34 Auburn 4-1 101 55.34 0.4% 24.8% 40
35 Boston College 4-1 109 54.90 0.9% 25.4% 18
36 Kansas St 3-2 23 54.76 0.3% 25.6% 39
37 Tennessee 3-2 43 54.67 0.2% 25.7% 57
38 San Diego St 4-0 129 54.66 0.0% 25.7% 38
39 Appalachian St 4-1 108 54.47 0.4% 26.0% 53
40 Mississippi St 3-2 17 54.17 0.6% 26.4% 43
41 Texas Tech 4-1 65 53.87 0.6% 26.8% 55
42 Stanford 3-2 15 53.83 0.1% 26.9% 62
43 North Carolina 3-2 44 53.72 0.2% 27.0% 58
44 Virginia Tech 3-1 84 53.68 0.1% 27.1% 47
45 Texas A&M 3-2 36 53.58 0.2% 27.2% 27
46 Houston 4-1 118 53.43 0.3% 27.4% 65
47 South Carolina 3-2 19 53.03 0.8% 28.0% 67
48 Nebraska 3-3 48 52.43 1.2% 28.8% 66
49 USC 3-2 52 52.21 0.5% 29.1% 68
50 Purdue 3-2 33 52.02 0.4% 29.3% 28
51 Wyoming 4-0 128 51.83 0.4% 29.6% 60
52 Boise St 2-3 24 51.46 0.8% 30.1% 26
53 LSU 3-2 60 51.40 0.1% 30.2% 34
54 Baylor 4-1 121 51.35 0.1% 30.2% 35
55 Minnesota 3-2 38 51.30 0.1% 30.3% 72
56 West Virginia 2-3 20 51.15 0.3% 30.5% 45
57 Army 4-1 122 51.10 0.1% 30.6% 17
58 Nevada 3-1 95 50.58 1.1% 31.3% 83
59 Louisville 3-2 53 50.58 0.0% 31.3% 46
60 Virginia 3-2 37 50.55 0.1% 31.3% 74
61 Wisconsin 1-3 1 49.80 1.5% 32.3% 56
62 N Illinois 3-2 30 49.63 0.4% 32.6% 73
63 Utah 2-2 56 49.60 0.1% 32.6% 70
64 Fresno St 4-2 110 49.57 0.1% 32.7% 37
65 Iowa St 3-2 105 49.57 0.0% 32.7% 78
66 Louisiana 4-1 106 49.38 0.4% 32.9% 86
67 UAB 3-2 51 49.37 0.0% 32.9% 44
68 Georgia Tech 2-3 26 49.12 0.5% 33.3% 61
69 FL Atlantic 3-2 88 48.91 0.4% 33.6% 84
70 South Alabama 3-1 124 48.46 0.9% 34.2% 48
71 TCU 2-2 55 48.16 0.6% 34.6% 71
72 Utah St 3-2 39 48.03 0.3% 34.7% 64
73 Miami FL 2-3 8 48.00 0.1% 34.8% 69
74 Syracuse 3-2 103 47.97 0.0% 34.8% 51
75 Memphis 3-2 94 47.44 1.1% 35.5% 52
76 East Carolina 3-2 78 47.19 0.5% 35.9% 96
77 Toledo 3-2 115 47.16 0.1% 35.9% 95
78 Indiana 2-3 5 46.81 0.7% 36.4% 77
79 Illinois 2-4 9 46.77 0.1% 36.5% 87
80 UTEP 4-1 127 46.27 1.0% 37.1% 79
81 Marshall 2-3 100 45.69 1.2% 37.9% 81
82 UCF 2-2 102 45.48 0.5% 38.2% 42
83 Louisiana Tech 2-3 49 45.25 0.5% 38.5% 82
84 Temple 3-2 87 45.04 0.4% 38.8% 88
85 Buffalo 2-3 47 44.53 1.0% 39.5% 93
86 Missouri 2-3 45 44.48 0.1% 39.6% 63
87 Duke 3-2 120 44.29 0.4% 39.8% 59
88 Miami OH 2-3 54 43.79 1.0% 40.5% 99
89 Kent 2-3 28 43.75 0.1% 40.6% 101
90 San Jose St 3-2 97 43.74 0.0% 40.6% 97
91 E Michigan 3-2 126 43.57 0.3% 40.8% 76
92 Washington 2-3 80 43.20 0.8% 41.3% 89
93 Hawaii 3-3 83 43.20 0.0% 41.3% 102
94 WKU 1-3 50 42.99 0.4% 41.6% 80
95 MTSU 2-3 67 42.86 0.3% 41.8% 104
96 Charlotte 3-2 112 42.66 0.4% 42.0% 75
97 Troy 2-3 89 42.34 0.7% 42.5% 90
98 ULM 2-2 42 42.21 0.3% 42.6% 85
99 Ball St 2-3 34 42.13 0.2% 42.8% 117
100 Bowling Green 2-3 68 42.02 0.2% 42.9% 92
101 Washington St 2-3 93 40.88 2.4% 44.5% 113
102 Rice 2-3 29 40.48 0.8% 45.0% 108
103 South Florida 1-4 4 40.29 0.4% 45.3% 103
104 Northwestern 2-3 90 40.12 0.4% 45.5% 94
105 Florida St 1-4 27 40.04 0.2% 45.6% 114
106 Tulane 1-4 31 39.05 2.0% 46.9% 91
107 Ga Southern 2-3 81 38.74 0.6% 47.4% 116
108 Old Dominion 1-4 40 38.51 0.5% 47.7% 106
109 Navy 1-3 21 37.73 1.6% 48.7% 128
110 Colorado St 1-3 77 37.60 0.3% 48.9% 115
111 Colorado 1-4 32 37.59 0.0% 48.9% 107
112 New Mexico 2-3 92 37.29 0.6% 49.3% 105
113 Georgia St 1-4 11 37.05 0.5% 49.7% 100
114 C Michigan 2-3 113 36.60 0.9% 50.3% 98
115 North Texas 1-3 66 36.45 0.3% 50.5% 111
116 Tulsa 1-4 64 35.41 2.2% 51.9% 110
117 California 1-4 99 35.31 0.2% 52.0% 109
118 Southern Miss 1-4 69 34.90 0.8% 52.6% 112
119 Vanderbilt 2-3 79 34.85 0.1% 52.7% 124
120 Arizona 0-4 22 33.19 3.4% 54.9% 119
121 UNLV 0-5 35 30.99 4.6% 57.9% 129
122 Florida Intl 1-4 116 30.55 0.9% 58.5% 121
123 New Mexico St 1-5 98 29.94 1.3% 59.3% 126
124 Akron 1-4 86 29.84 0.2% 59.5% 118
125 Kansas 1-4 57 29.78 0.1% 59.5% 122
126 Massachusetts 0-5 6 29.74 0.1% 59.6% 123
127 Texas St 1-3 125 28.96 1.6% 60.7% 125
128 Arkansas St 1-4 123 28.82 0.3% 60.8% 120
129 Ohio 1-4 119 28.46 0.7% 61.3% 130
130 Connecticut 0-6 73 26.83 4.4% 63.5% 127

Best win: Georgia 37-0 vs. Arkansas
Worst loss: Vanderbilt 20-3 vs. Eastern Tennessee St

Rk Conference Rating Best Team Worst Team
1 SEC 56.24 73.60 34.85
2 Big 10 55.40 71.78 40.12
3 Big 12 52.00 63.37 29.78
4 ACC 51.94 61.45 40.04
5 Pac-12 47.67 57.28 33.19
6 American 46.82 65.21 35.41
7 Mountain West 46.21 55.60 30.99
8 Conference USA 42.94 56.25 30.55
9 Sun Belt 42.81 57.63 28.82
10 MAC 42.45 57.92 28.46

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 *