J-Train College Football Computer Rankings, 2022 Final

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 14-0 6 73.06 1
2 Ohio St 11-2 16 67.67 11.2% 7.4% 3
3 Michigan 13-1 49 67.66 0.0% 7.4% 2
4 Alabama 11-2 23 66.43 2.5% 9.1% 5
5 Tennessee 11-2 20 65.71 1.5% 10.1% 6
6 Penn St 10-2 31 64.91 1.7% 11.2% 8
7 TCU 13-1 7 64.51 0.8% 11.7% 4
8 Kansas St 10-4 4 61.49 6.3% 15.8% 7
9 USC 11-3 35 61.15 0.7% 16.3% 10
10 Clemson 11-3 42 61.12 0.1% 16.3% 11
11 Texas 8-5 3 60.90 0.4% 16.6% 9
12 Florida St 10-3 48 60.68 0.5% 17.0% 14
13 LSU 10-4 8 60.63 0.1% 17.0% 16
14 Oregon 10-3 33 60.51 0.2% 17.2% 13
15 Utah 10-3 37 60.47 0.1% 17.2% 12
16 Tulane 12-2 65 60.36 0.2% 17.4% 15
17 Washington 11-2 68 59.80 1.2% 18.1% 17
18 Oregon St 10-3 51 59.69 0.2% 18.3% 18
19 Mississippi St 9-4 12 58.87 1.7% 19.4% 19
20 Notre Dame 9-4 32 58.23 1.3% 20.3% 21
21 Troy 12-2 77 57.05 2.5% 21.9% 23
22 Louisville 8-5 27 56.80 0.5% 22.3% 24
23 UCLA 9-4 59 56.39 0.9% 22.8% 20
24 Mississippi 8-5 29 55.49 1.9% 24.1% 22
25 Wake Forest 8-5 46 55.35 0.3% 24.2% 33
26 Minnesota 9-4 72 55.20 0.3% 24.5% 35
27 Illinois 8-5 69 55.05 0.3% 24.6% 25
28 Texas Tech 8-5 15 54.92 0.3% 24.8% 30
29 UT San Antonio 11-3 87 54.71 0.4% 25.1% 27
30 Pittsburgh 9-4 64 54.44 0.6% 25.5% 41
31 South Carolina 8-5 28 54.33 0.2% 25.6% 26
32 Maryland 8-5 43 54.00 0.7% 26.1% 43
33 Arkansas 7-6 18 53.93 0.1% 26.2% 39
34 Duke 9-4 88 53.78 0.3% 26.4% 49
35 UCF 9-5 63 53.44 0.7% 26.9% 31
36 Iowa 8-5 57 53.37 0.1% 26.9% 51
37 James Madison 8-3 101 53.34 0.1% 27.0% 42
38 Oklahoma 6-7 14 53.17 0.4% 27.2% 29
39 Fresno St 10-4 108 53.10 0.1% 27.3% 53
40 Cincinnati 9-4 78 53.07 0.0% 27.4% 34
41 NC State 8-5 45 52.95 0.3% 27.5% 37
42 South Alabama 10-3 109 52.93 0.0% 27.6% 28
43 North Carolina 9-5 55 52.78 0.3% 27.8% 45
44 Kentucky 7-6 25 52.71 0.2% 27.9% 32
45 Air Force 10-3 129 52.26 0.9% 28.5% 56
46 Syracuse 7-6 36 51.82 0.9% 29.1% 44
47 Florida 6-7 5 51.81 0.0% 29.1% 40
48 Boise St 10-4 117 51.76 0.1% 29.2% 55
49 Marshall 9-4 92 51.65 0.2% 29.3% 54
50 Oklahoma St 7-6 39 51.46 0.4% 29.6% 36
51 East Carolina 8-5 71 51.31 0.3% 29.8% 60
52 Houston 8-5 67 51.16 0.3% 30.0% 57
53 Baylor 6-7 30 51.15 0.0% 30.0% 38
54 Purdue 8-6 34 51.13 0.0% 30.0% 48
55 Kansas 6-7 11 50.98 0.3% 30.2% 46
56 Memphis 7-6 73 50.94 0.1% 30.3% 59
57 SMU 7-6 56 50.94 0.0% 30.3% 50
58 Wisconsin 7-6 54 50.90 0.1% 30.3% 63
59 Washington St 7-6 52 50.77 0.3% 30.5% 47
60 Missouri 6-7 26 50.43 0.7% 31.0% 52
61 WKU 9-5 105 50.07 0.7% 31.5% 67
62 BYU 8-5 76 50.04 0.1% 31.5% 64
63 Auburn 5-7 2 49.86 0.4% 31.8% 62
64 Iowa St 4-8 13 48.92 2.0% 33.0% 58
65 Texas A&M 5-7 44 48.83 0.2% 33.2% 65
66 Ohio 10-4 127 48.78 0.1% 33.2% 68
67 Coastal Car 9-4 82 48.29 1.0% 33.9% 61
68 Toledo 9-5 121 48.10 0.4% 34.2% 72
69 Michigan St 5-7 9 48.04 0.1% 34.2% 69
70 Appalachian St 6-6 90 47.29 1.6% 35.3% 70
71 UAB 7-6 102 47.08 0.4% 35.6% 74
72 West Virginia 5-7 21 46.97 0.2% 35.7% 66
73 Liberty 8-5 115 46.78 0.4% 36.0% 73
74 Louisiana 6-7 81 46.50 0.6% 36.4% 71
75 Army 6-6 104 45.99 1.1% 37.1% 76
76 Vanderbilt 5-7 19 45.95 0.1% 37.1% 75
77 Southern Miss 7-6 84 45.76 0.4% 37.4% 81
78 North Texas 7-7 91 45.29 1.0% 38.0% 79
79 Arizona 5-7 40 44.99 0.6% 38.4% 78
80 San Diego St 7-6 98 44.62 0.8% 38.9% 80
81 E Michigan 9-4 128 44.47 0.3% 39.1% 92
82 San Jose St 7-5 130 44.46 0.0% 39.1% 77
83 California 4-8 47 44.18 0.6% 39.5% 83
84 MTSU 8-5 125 44.18 0.0% 39.5% 89
85 Miami FL 5-7 62 44.01 0.3% 39.8% 85
86 Georgia Tech 5-7 24 44.01 0.0% 39.8% 84
87 Ga Southern 6-7 83 43.63 0.8% 40.3% 82
88 Indiana 4-8 17 43.30 0.7% 40.7% 86
89 Wyoming 7-6 99 43.15 0.3% 40.9% 87
90 Nebraska 4-8 58 43.03 0.2% 41.1% 88
91 Navy 4-8 60 42.98 0.1% 41.2% 90
92 Kent 5-7 75 42.84 0.3% 41.4% 94
93 Buffalo 7-6 124 42.83 0.0% 41.4% 99
94 Georgia St 4-8 74 42.58 0.5% 41.7% 91
95 FL Atlantic 5-7 111 42.19 0.8% 42.2% 96
96 Tulsa 5-7 93 41.95 0.5% 42.6% 97
97 Stanford 3-9 10 41.75 0.4% 42.9% 95
98 Connecticut 6-7 86 41.64 0.2% 43.0% 93
99 Rutgers 4-8 38 41.18 0.9% 43.6% 100
100 Arizona St 3-9 50 41.17 0.0% 43.7% 98
101 Virginia 3-7 61 40.67 1.0% 44.3% 101
102 UNLV 5-7 116 40.06 1.3% 45.2% 103
103 Ball St 5-7 106 39.98 0.2% 45.3% 107
104 New Mexico St 7-6 131 39.89 0.2% 45.4% 112
105 Miami OH 6-7 123 39.62 0.6% 45.8% 104
106 Utah St 6-7 112 39.44 0.4% 46.0% 102
107 Bowling Green 6-7 95 39.20 0.5% 46.4% 106
108 Boston College 3-9 41 39.10 0.2% 46.5% 109
109 ULM 4-8 66 38.89 0.4% 46.8% 108
110 Rice 5-8 85 38.88 0.0% 46.8% 105
111 UTEP 5-7 120 38.85 0.0% 46.8% 111
112 Virginia Tech 3-8 79 38.82 0.1% 46.9% 110
113 W Michigan 5-7 114 38.11 1.5% 47.8% 114
114 Texas St 4-8 97 38.05 0.1% 47.9% 113
115 C Michigan 4-8 103 37.81 0.5% 48.2% 116
116 Old Dominion 3-9 70 37.44 0.8% 48.8% 115
117 Arkansas St 3-9 80 36.97 1.0% 49.4% 117
118 Temple 3-9 89 36.89 0.1% 49.5% 118
119 Northwestern 1-11 22 35.89 2.1% 50.9% 120
120 Louisiana Tech 3-9 94 35.29 1.2% 51.7% 119
121 Colorado 1-11 1 34.68 1.3% 52.5% 121
122 South Florida 1-11 53 34.23 0.9% 53.2% 122
123 N Illinois 3-9 122 34.11 0.3% 53.3% 123
124 Hawaii 3-10 118 32.90 2.5% 55.0% 125
125 Akron 2-10 100 32.84 0.1% 55.1% 126
126 Colorado St 3-9 119 32.80 0.1% 55.1% 124
127 Florida Intl 4-8 126 31.78 2.1% 56.5% 127
128 Charlotte 3-9 113 31.11 1.4% 57.4% 128
129 Nevada 2-10 107 30.89 0.5% 57.7% 129
130 New Mexico 2-10 110 30.82 0.1% 57.8% 130
131 Massachusetts 1-11 96 27.42 9.1% 62.5% 131

Best win: Georgia 65-7 vs. TCU
Worst loss: Colorado St 41-10 vs. CS Sacramento

Rk Conference Rating Best Team Worst Team
1 SEC 56.29 73.06 45.95
2 Big 12 54.45 64.51 46.97
3 Big 10 52.24 67.67 35.89
4 Pac-12 51.30 61.15 34.68
5 ACC 50.45 61.12 38.82
6 American 47.93 60.36 34.23
7 Sun Belt 45.74 57.05 36.97
8 Conference USA 41.77 54.71 31.11
9 Mountain West 41.35 53.10 30.82
10 MAC 40.72 48.78 32.84

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 *