J-Train College Football Computer Rankings, 2021 Week 6

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 6-0 11 74.08 1
2 Michigan 6-0 17 70.15 8.0% 5.3% 2
3 Iowa 6-0 18 69.11 2.1% 6.7% 3
4 Cincinnati 5-0 78 67.03 4.2% 9.5% 5
5 Ohio St 5-1 37 65.73 2.6% 11.3% 14
6 Penn St 5-1 25 63.92 3.7% 13.7% 8
7 Michigan St 6-0 83 63.88 0.1% 13.8% 12
8 Alabama 5-1 45 63.24 1.3% 14.6% 4
9 Wake Forest 6-0 91 62.33 1.8% 15.9% 11
10 Kentucky 6-0 74 62.20 0.3% 16.0% 13
11 Oklahoma 6-0 63 62.12 0.2% 16.1% 15
12 Arkansas 4-2 2 62.02 0.2% 16.3% 6
13 Notre Dame 5-1 7 61.85 0.4% 16.5% 17
14 Florida 4-2 19 61.60 0.5% 16.8% 9
15 Oklahoma St 5-0 55 60.91 1.4% 17.8% 21
16 Pittsburgh 4-1 88 60.19 1.5% 18.7% 16
17 Texas 4-2 10 60.03 0.3% 19.0% 7
18 BYU 5-1 33 59.78 0.5% 19.3% 10
19 Mississippi 4-1 42 59.75 0.1% 19.3% 19
20 Arizona St 5-1 90 59.59 0.3% 19.6% 23
21 SMU 6-0 118 59.04 1.1% 20.3% 18
22 Liberty 5-1 107 58.87 0.3% 20.5% 28
23 Air Force 5-1 101 58.30 1.2% 21.3% 32
24 Oregon 4-1 76 57.76 1.1% 22.0% 24
25 Tennessee 4-2 57 57.58 0.4% 22.3% 37
26 Boise St 3-3 5 57.43 0.3% 22.5% 52
27 Coastal Car 6-0 130 57.40 0.1% 22.5% 22
28 San Diego St 5-0 128 57.31 0.2% 22.6% 38
29 Clemson 3-2 8 57.15 0.3% 22.9% 25
30 Texas A&M 4-2 22 56.97 0.4% 23.1% 45
31 NC State 4-1 81 56.75 0.4% 23.4% 26
32 Baylor 5-1 102 56.52 0.5% 23.7% 54
33 Boston College 4-1 108 56.43 0.2% 23.8% 35
34 UT San Antonio 6-0 124 55.99 0.9% 24.4% 29
35 Auburn 4-2 40 55.91 0.2% 24.5% 34
36 Appalachian St 4-1 106 55.70 0.4% 24.8% 39
37 Kansas St 3-2 21 55.65 0.1% 24.9% 36
38 UCLA 4-2 44 55.65 0.0% 24.9% 30
39 Houston 5-1 123 55.35 0.6% 25.3% 46
40 Utah 3-2 48 54.31 2.1% 26.7% 63
41 Wisconsin 2-3 1 54.22 0.2% 26.8% 61
42 Mississippi St 3-2 20 54.21 0.0% 26.8% 40
43 Rutgers 3-3 6 53.95 0.5% 27.2% 33
44 Army 4-1 114 53.49 0.9% 27.8% 57
45 Nebraska 3-4 26 53.25 0.5% 28.1% 48
46 Nevada 4-1 111 53.25 0.0% 28.1% 58
47 Maryland 4-2 28 53.24 0.0% 28.1% 27
48 UAB 4-2 64 52.68 1.1% 28.9% 67
49 TCU 3-2 66 52.53 0.3% 29.1% 71
50 Minnesota 3-2 46 51.76 1.6% 30.1% 55
51 Virginia Tech 3-2 73 51.65 0.2% 30.3% 44
52 N Illinois 4-2 35 51.64 0.0% 30.3% 62
53 Virginia 4-2 58 51.50 0.3% 30.5% 60
54 Purdue 3-2 59 51.44 0.1% 30.6% 50
55 Iowa St 3-2 98 51.43 0.0% 30.6% 65
56 W Michigan 4-2 49 51.40 0.1% 30.6% 20
57 Oregon St 4-2 99 51.37 0.1% 30.7% 31
58 Wyoming 4-1 104 51.20 0.3% 30.9% 51
59 Louisville 3-3 36 51.16 0.1% 30.9% 59
60 Stanford 3-3 12 51.12 0.1% 31.0% 42
61 North Carolina 3-3 52 50.62 1.0% 31.7% 43
62 Georgia Tech 3-3 43 50.25 0.7% 32.2% 68
63 Utah St 3-2 31 50.17 0.2% 32.3% 72
64 South Carolina 3-3 15 50.06 0.2% 32.4% 47
65 LSU 3-3 38 49.82 0.5% 32.8% 53
66 UCF 3-2 84 49.76 0.1% 32.8% 82
67 Fresno St 4-2 120 49.74 0.1% 32.9% 64
68 Syracuse 3-3 70 49.67 0.1% 33.0% 74
69 Texas Tech 4-2 77 49.45 0.4% 33.2% 41
70 Toledo 3-3 86 49.14 0.6% 33.7% 77
71 UTEP 5-1 127 48.70 0.9% 34.3% 80
72 USC 3-3 65 48.58 0.3% 34.4% 49
73 Miami FL 2-3 13 48.22 0.7% 34.9% 73
74 Louisiana 4-1 122 48.20 0.0% 34.9% 66
75 Ball St 3-3 34 48.00 0.4% 35.2% 99
76 E Michigan 4-2 112 47.99 0.0% 35.2% 91
77 Indiana 2-3 4 47.73 0.5% 35.6% 78
78 Marshall 3-3 110 47.51 0.4% 35.9% 81
79 Missouri 3-3 71 47.39 0.2% 36.0% 86
80 West Virginia 2-4 27 47.13 0.5% 36.4% 56
81 FL Atlantic 3-3 82 46.55 1.2% 37.2% 69
82 Kent 3-3 47 46.06 1.0% 37.8% 89
83 East Carolina 3-3 79 45.94 0.2% 38.0% 76
84 Washington St 3-3 80 45.85 0.2% 38.1% 101
85 Louisiana Tech 2-3 67 45.37 1.0% 38.8% 83
86 Florida St 2-4 24 45.26 0.2% 38.9% 105
87 Temple 3-3 56 44.72 1.1% 39.6% 84
88 Illinois 2-5 14 44.69 0.0% 39.7% 79
89 Memphis 3-3 105 44.66 0.1% 39.7% 75
90 Charlotte 4-2 125 44.35 0.6% 40.1% 96
91 Miami OH 2-4 51 44.14 0.4% 40.4% 88
92 WKU 1-4 32 43.93 0.4% 40.7% 94
93 Duke 3-3 115 43.78 0.3% 40.9% 87
94 South Alabama 3-2 129 43.53 0.5% 41.2% 70
95 Colorado St 2-3 89 43.09 0.9% 41.8% 110
96 Washington 2-3 97 42.90 0.4% 42.1% 92
97 Troy 3-3 116 42.70 0.4% 42.4% 97
98 Hawaii 3-3 103 42.10 1.2% 43.2% 93
99 Georgia St 2-4 29 41.91 0.4% 43.4% 113
100 MTSU 2-4 53 41.85 0.1% 43.5% 95
101 Buffalo 2-4 75 41.42 0.9% 44.1% 85
102 Northwestern 2-3 95 41.09 0.7% 44.5% 104
103 Navy 1-4 3 41.00 0.2% 44.6% 109
104 Tulsa 2-4 60 40.89 0.2% 44.8% 116
105 South Florida 1-4 9 39.98 1.8% 46.0% 103
106 Rice 2-3 54 39.53 0.9% 46.6% 102
107 Tulane 1-5 23 39.21 0.6% 47.1% 106
108 San Jose St 3-3 117 39.08 0.3% 47.3% 90
109 Bowling Green 2-4 94 38.42 1.3% 48.1% 100
110 New Mexico 2-4 68 38.29 0.3% 48.3% 112
111 Old Dominion 1-5 50 38.24 0.1% 48.4% 108
112 C Michigan 3-3 126 38.13 0.2% 48.5% 114
113 Colorado 1-4 39 38.10 0.1% 48.6% 111
114 ULM 2-3 72 37.89 0.4% 48.9% 98
115 California 1-4 85 37.56 0.7% 49.3% 117
116 Ga Southern 2-4 100 37.27 0.6% 49.7% 107
117 North Texas 1-4 69 35.91 2.8% 51.5% 115
118 Texas St 2-3 113 35.80 0.2% 51.7% 127
119 Akron 2-4 93 35.70 0.2% 51.8% 124
120 Vanderbilt 2-4 62 35.44 0.5% 52.2% 119
121 Massachusetts 1-5 30 33.94 3.0% 54.2% 126
122 Arizona 0-5 16 33.80 0.3% 54.4% 120
123 Southern Miss 1-5 87 33.13 1.4% 55.3% 118
124 UNLV 0-5 41 31.77 2.8% 57.1% 121
125 Kansas 1-4 61 31.00 1.6% 58.2% 125
126 Florida Intl 1-5 119 30.61 0.8% 58.7% 122
127 New Mexico St 1-6 92 30.26 0.7% 59.2% 123
128 Ohio 1-5 121 29.94 0.6% 59.6% 129
129 Arkansas St 1-5 109 29.92 0.0% 59.6% 128
130 Connecticut 0-7 96 25.97 8.7% 65.0% 130

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 56.45 74.08 35.44
2 Big 10 56.01 70.15 41.09
3 Big 12 52.68 62.12 31.00
4 ACC 52.50 62.33 43.78
5 Pac-12 48.05 59.59 33.80
6 American 47.96 67.03 39.21
7 Mountain West 47.64 58.30 31.77
8 MAC 43.50 51.64 29.94
9 Conference USA 43.17 55.99 30.61
10 Sun Belt 43.03 57.40 29.92

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 *