J-Train College Football Computer Rankings, 2022 Week 10

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 Ohio St 9-0 41 72.01 1
2 Georgia 9-0 35 71.58 0.9% 0.6% 2
3 TCU 9-0 33 67.74 7.8% 5.9% 5
4 Michigan 9-0 77 67.63 0.2% 6.1% 6
5 Tennessee 8-1 20 67.29 0.7% 6.6% 4
6 Alabama 7-2 11 66.59 1.4% 7.5% 3
7 USC 8-1 52 64.30 4.6% 10.7% 8
8 Oregon 8-1 54 64.16 0.3% 10.9% 9
9 LSU 7-2 12 63.55 1.2% 11.7% 13
10 Texas 6-3 5 63.49 0.1% 11.8% 12
11 Clemson 8-1 51 63.30 0.4% 12.1% 7
12 UCLA 8-1 56 63.15 0.3% 12.3% 11
13 Penn St 7-2 22 62.36 1.6% 13.4% 15
14 Utah 7-2 36 62.18 0.4% 13.7% 16
15 Kansas St 6-3 4 61.72 0.9% 14.3% 10
16 Notre Dame 6-3 7 61.71 0.0% 14.3% 22
17 Mississippi 8-1 63 61.61 0.2% 14.4% 14
18 Mississippi St 6-3 15 59.78 3.7% 17.0% 21
19 Tulane 8-1 89 59.48 0.6% 17.4% 20
20 Kansas 6-3 14 59.44 0.1% 17.5% 32
21 UCF 7-2 65 59.44 0.0% 17.5% 27
22 Florida St 6-3 27 59.23 0.4% 17.8% 25
23 Louisville 6-3 32 59.22 0.0% 17.8% 29
24 NC State 7-2 30 58.77 0.9% 18.4% 28
25 Oklahoma St 6-3 13 58.66 0.2% 18.5% 17
26 Illinois 7-2 96 58.65 0.0% 18.6% 18
27 North Carolina 8-1 73 58.13 1.1% 19.3% 26
28 Syracuse 6-3 21 58.07 0.1% 19.4% 19
29 Baylor 6-3 47 58.00 0.1% 19.5% 33
30 Washington 7-2 72 57.47 1.1% 20.2% 34
31 Oklahoma 5-4 9 57.18 0.6% 20.6% 24
32 Wake Forest 6-3 45 57.06 0.2% 20.8% 23
33 Oregon St 6-3 50 56.40 1.3% 21.7% 30
34 South Alabama 7-2 90 56.32 0.2% 21.8% 39
35 Kentucky 6-3 39 55.98 0.7% 22.3% 38
36 Troy 7-2 68 55.55 0.9% 22.9% 36
37 East Carolina 6-3 66 55.27 0.6% 23.3% 37
38 Liberty 8-1 111 55.16 0.2% 23.4% 40
39 Maryland 6-3 60 55.11 0.1% 23.5% 31
40 Cincinnati 7-2 93 55.07 0.1% 23.5% 41
41 Florida 5-4 10 54.96 0.2% 23.7% 49
42 Coastal Car 8-1 99 54.70 0.5% 24.0% 46
43 Arkansas 5-4 19 54.47 0.5% 24.4% 35
44 Iowa St 4-5 17 54.28 0.4% 24.6% 53
45 Minnesota 6-3 83 54.04 0.5% 25.0% 44
46 South Carolina 6-3 64 53.90 0.3% 25.1% 50
47 SMU 5-4 46 53.90 0.0% 25.2% 54
48 Washington St 5-4 43 53.73 0.3% 25.4% 57
49 UT San Antonio 7-2 84 53.59 0.3% 25.6% 48
50 Wisconsin 5-4 55 53.36 0.5% 25.9% 60
51 Duke 6-3 98 53.13 0.5% 26.2% 51
52 Iowa 5-4 53 52.86 0.5% 26.6% 63
53 Texas Tech 4-5 2 52.78 0.2% 26.7% 47
54 Pittsburgh 5-4 57 51.69 2.2% 28.2% 67
55 Purdue 5-4 44 51.55 0.3% 28.4% 42
56 Houston 5-4 42 51.42 0.3% 28.6% 45
57 BYU 5-5 40 51.27 0.3% 28.8% 64
58 Memphis 4-5 34 51.06 0.4% 29.1% 55
59 James Madison 5-3 92 50.97 0.2% 29.2% 43
60 Missouri 4-5 28 50.93 0.1% 29.3% 56
61 Michigan St 4-5 8 50.77 0.3% 29.5% 75
62 Appalachian St 5-4 79 50.46 0.6% 29.9% 52
63 Boise St 6-3 119 49.91 1.1% 30.7% 58
64 Toledo 6-3 120 49.90 0.0% 30.7% 61
65 Marshall 5-4 81 49.66 0.5% 31.0% 70
66 San Jose St 6-2 131 49.30 0.7% 31.5% 65
67 Air Force 6-3 129 49.17 0.3% 31.7% 71
68 North Texas 6-4 106 49.14 0.0% 31.8% 74
69 Auburn 3-6 1 48.79 0.7% 32.2% 68
70 Texas A&M 3-6 18 48.40 0.8% 32.8% 59
71 Ga Southern 5-4 80 48.09 0.6% 33.2% 66
72 WKU 6-4 123 48.08 0.0% 33.2% 73
73 Fresno St 5-4 95 47.82 0.5% 33.6% 78
74 Stanford 3-6 3 46.74 2.2% 35.1% 69
75 Ohio 6-3 116 46.71 0.0% 35.1% 90
76 West Virginia 3-6 16 46.66 0.1% 35.2% 76
77 Georgia St 4-5 67 46.57 0.2% 35.3% 88
78 Southern Miss 5-4 75 46.53 0.1% 35.4% 62
79 UAB 4-5 105 46.21 0.6% 35.8% 77
80 Wyoming 6-3 115 46.06 0.3% 36.0% 80
81 California 3-6 38 45.75 0.6% 36.5% 87
82 Louisiana 4-5 91 45.59 0.3% 36.7% 81
83 Arizona St 3-6 29 45.22 0.8% 37.2% 82
84 Buffalo 5-4 112 45.21 0.0% 37.2% 72
85 Georgia Tech 4-5 25 45.19 0.0% 37.2% 85
86 Virginia 3-6 48 44.38 1.7% 38.4% 84
87 Miami FL 4-5 74 44.24 0.3% 38.6% 79
88 Arizona 3-6 24 43.98 0.5% 38.9% 89
89 Rutgers 4-5 59 43.96 0.0% 39.0% 93
90 FL Atlantic 4-5 103 43.76 0.4% 39.2% 92
91 Connecticut 5-5 88 43.73 0.1% 39.3% 97
92 Vanderbilt 3-6 31 43.68 0.1% 39.3% 83
93 Rice 5-4 109 43.46 0.4% 39.6% 98
94 Indiana 3-6 23 43.30 0.3% 39.9% 86
95 Army 3-5 86 43.14 0.3% 40.1% 91
96 Ball St 5-4 114 42.99 0.3% 40.3% 104
97 UNLV 4-5 94 42.99 0.0% 40.3% 94
98 San Diego St 5-4 110 42.97 0.0% 40.3% 103
99 Old Dominion 3-6 62 42.41 1.1% 41.1% 95
100 Nebraska 3-6 71 42.29 0.2% 41.3% 96
101 Bowling Green 5-4 100 42.22 0.2% 41.4% 106
102 Navy 3-6 70 41.92 0.6% 41.8% 101
103 Tulsa 3-6 87 41.54 0.8% 42.3% 105
104 Kent 3-6 69 41.01 1.1% 43.1% 102
105 Texas St 3-6 97 40.22 1.6% 44.2% 100
106 E Michigan 5-4 127 40.19 0.0% 44.2% 107
107 ULM 3-6 58 40.13 0.1% 44.3% 112
108 C Michigan 3-6 82 40.10 0.1% 44.3% 115
109 Miami OH 4-5 121 39.86 0.5% 44.6% 109
110 Arkansas St 2-7 61 39.48 0.8% 45.2% 108
111 Utah St 4-5 122 39.47 0.0% 45.2% 116
112 MTSU 4-5 117 39.44 0.1% 45.2% 99
113 Louisiana Tech 3-6 85 39.26 0.4% 45.5% 118
114 Virginia Tech 2-7 76 39.14 0.2% 45.6% 110
115 Boston College 2-7 49 38.93 0.4% 45.9% 111
116 Temple 3-6 113 37.93 2.0% 47.3% 123
117 Northwestern 1-8 26 37.58 0.7% 47.8% 122
118 UTEP 4-6 118 36.99 1.2% 48.6% 114
119 W Michigan 3-6 104 36.44 1.1% 49.4% 120
120 South Florida 1-8 37 36.18 0.5% 49.8% 113
121 Colorado 1-8 6 36.10 0.2% 49.9% 121
122 N Illinois 2-7 107 35.93 0.4% 50.1% 117
123 Florida Intl 4-5 125 35.07 1.7% 51.3% 119
124 New Mexico 2-7 124 32.99 4.2% 54.2% 124
125 New Mexico St 3-5 130 32.62 0.7% 54.7% 125
126 Akron 1-8 78 31.41 2.4% 56.4% 128
127 Charlotte 2-8 101 30.52 1.8% 57.6% 126
128 Nevada 2-7 128 30.41 0.2% 57.8% 129
129 Hawaii 2-8 126 30.31 0.2% 57.9% 127
130 Colorado St 2-7 108 30.04 0.5% 58.3% 130
131 Massachusetts 1-8 102 28.04 5.0% 61.1% 131

Best win: Georgia 49-3 vs. Oregon
Worst loss: Colorado St 41-10 vs. CS Sacramento

Rk Conference Rating Best Team Worst Team
1 Big 12 58.00 67.74 46.66
2 SEC 57.25 71.58 43.68
3 Pac-12 53.27 64.30 36.10
4 Big 10 53.25 72.01 37.58
5 ACC 52.18 63.30 38.93
6 American 49.38 59.48 36.18
7 Sun Belt 47.62 56.32 39.48
8 Conference USA 42.32 53.59 30.52
9 MAC 41.00 49.90 31.41
10 Mountain West 40.95 49.91 30.04

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 *