J-Train College Football Computer Rankings, 2022 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 29 72.21 2
2 Ohio St 10-0 45 71.30 1.9% 1.3% 1
3 TCU 10-0 26 68.29 6.1% 5.4% 3
4 Tennessee 9-1 27 67.77 1.1% 6.1% 5
5 Michigan 10-0 76 67.47 0.6% 6.6% 4
6 Alabama 8-2 8 66.86 1.3% 7.4% 6
7 USC 9-1 59 63.89 6.1% 11.5% 7
8 Penn St 8-2 24 63.83 0.1% 11.6% 13
9 Clemson 9-1 42 63.65 0.4% 11.9% 11
10 LSU 8-2 9 63.40 0.5% 12.2% 9
11 Utah 8-2 39 63.07 0.7% 12.7% 14
12 Kansas St 7-3 5 62.73 0.7% 13.1% 15
13 Texas 6-4 1 62.65 0.2% 13.2% 10
14 Oregon 8-2 43 62.02 1.3% 14.1% 8
15 Florida St 7-3 28 60.74 2.6% 15.9% 22
16 UCF 8-2 57 60.06 1.4% 16.8% 21
17 Mississippi 8-2 50 59.97 0.2% 17.0% 17
18 Notre Dame 7-3 18 59.95 0.0% 17.0% 16
19 UCLA 8-2 64 59.55 0.8% 17.5% 12
20 Oklahoma St 7-3 14 59.00 1.1% 18.3% 25
21 Washington 8-2 60 58.61 0.8% 18.8% 30
22 Mississippi St 6-4 7 58.01 1.2% 19.7% 18
23 North Carolina 9-1 70 57.97 0.1% 19.7% 27
24 Tulane 8-2 79 57.63 0.7% 20.2% 19
25 Oregon St 7-3 44 57.59 0.1% 20.2% 33
26 Louisville 6-4 22 57.48 0.2% 20.4% 23
27 Kansas 6-4 15 56.51 2.0% 21.7% 20
28 Florida 6-4 10 56.32 0.4% 22.0% 41
29 South Alabama 8-2 99 56.15 0.3% 22.2% 34
30 Illinois 7-3 89 56.09 0.1% 22.3% 26
31 NC State 7-3 41 55.99 0.2% 22.5% 24
32 Wake Forest 6-4 33 55.95 0.1% 22.5% 32
33 Baylor 6-4 34 55.50 0.9% 23.1% 29
34 Syracuse 6-4 23 55.31 0.4% 23.4% 28
35 Cincinnati 8-2 88 55.28 0.1% 23.5% 40
36 Troy 8-2 69 54.92 0.7% 23.9% 36
37 Oklahoma 5-5 13 54.64 0.6% 24.3% 31
38 Minnesota 7-3 91 54.60 0.1% 24.4% 45
39 Texas Tech 5-5 4 54.54 0.1% 24.5% 53
40 UT San Antonio 8-2 95 54.43 0.2% 24.6% 49
41 Iowa 6-4 52 53.92 1.0% 25.3% 52
42 Washington St 6-4 51 53.83 0.2% 25.5% 48
43 Coastal Car 9-1 105 53.78 0.1% 25.5% 42
44 SMU 6-4 62 53.60 0.4% 25.8% 47
45 East Carolina 6-4 66 53.41 0.4% 26.0% 37
46 Arkansas 5-5 20 53.24 0.4% 26.3% 43
47 Kentucky 6-4 48 53.16 0.1% 26.4% 35
48 Duke 7-3 108 53.07 0.2% 26.5% 51
49 Maryland 6-4 46 52.96 0.2% 26.7% 39
50 Purdue 6-4 37 52.94 0.0% 26.7% 55
51 Iowa St 4-6 12 52.89 0.1% 26.8% 44
52 Liberty 8-2 111 52.49 0.8% 27.3% 38
53 Pittsburgh 6-4 67 52.23 0.5% 27.7% 54
54 James Madison 6-3 103 51.70 1.1% 28.4% 59
55 Wisconsin 5-5 49 51.17 1.1% 29.1% 50
56 Memphis 5-5 55 51.12 0.1% 29.2% 58
57 Toledo 7-3 114 50.96 0.3% 29.4% 64
58 Houston 6-4 56 50.95 0.0% 29.4% 56
59 South Carolina 6-4 65 50.86 0.2% 29.6% 46
60 Boise St 7-3 123 50.77 0.2% 29.7% 63
61 Michigan St 5-5 19 50.47 0.6% 30.1% 61
62 Marshall 6-4 83 50.20 0.6% 30.5% 65
63 BYU 5-5 47 49.94 0.5% 30.8% 57
64 Air Force 7-3 130 49.76 0.4% 31.1% 67
65 Missouri 4-6 17 49.68 0.2% 31.2% 60
66 WKU 7-4 121 49.53 0.3% 31.4% 72
67 Auburn 4-6 6 48.88 1.3% 32.3% 69
68 Fresno St 6-4 94 48.80 0.2% 32.4% 73
69 Appalachian St 5-5 80 48.38 0.9% 33.0% 62
70 UAB 5-5 101 48.00 0.8% 33.5% 79
71 West Virginia 4-6 16 47.82 0.4% 33.8% 76
72 Ohio 7-3 116 47.76 0.1% 33.9% 75
73 Louisiana 5-5 92 47.41 0.7% 34.3% 82
74 North Texas 6-5 98 47.01 0.8% 34.9% 68
75 Texas A&M 3-7 25 46.72 0.6% 35.3% 70
76 Arizona 4-6 21 46.58 0.3% 35.5% 88
77 San Jose St 6-3 129 46.48 0.2% 35.6% 66
78 Miami FL 5-5 75 45.82 1.4% 36.6% 87
79 San Diego St 6-4 96 45.69 0.3% 36.7% 98
80 Southern Miss 5-5 73 45.59 0.2% 36.9% 78
81 Ga Southern 5-5 81 45.44 0.3% 37.1% 71
82 FL Atlantic 5-5 109 45.21 0.5% 37.4% 90
83 Stanford 3-7 3 45.19 0.0% 37.4% 74
84 Vanderbilt 4-6 35 45.09 0.2% 37.6% 92
85 Connecticut 6-5 86 45.04 0.1% 37.6% 91
86 Wyoming 7-3 126 44.70 0.7% 38.1% 80
87 California 3-7 31 44.36 0.7% 38.6% 81
88 Arizona St 3-7 32 44.11 0.5% 38.9% 83
89 Georgia St 4-6 77 43.71 0.8% 39.5% 77
90 Rutgers 4-6 53 43.42 0.6% 39.9% 89
91 Army 3-6 78 43.19 0.5% 40.2% 95
92 Buffalo 5-5 115 43.15 0.1% 40.2% 84
93 Indiana 3-7 11 43.14 0.0% 40.3% 94
94 Kent 4-6 72 42.99 0.3% 40.5% 104
95 Georgia Tech 4-6 36 42.90 0.2% 40.6% 85
96 Ball St 5-5 100 42.56 0.7% 41.1% 96
97 Navy 3-7 63 42.24 0.6% 41.5% 102
98 Virginia 3-7 54 41.74 1.0% 42.2% 86
99 Rice 5-5 97 41.73 0.0% 42.2% 93
100 UNLV 4-6 93 41.67 0.1% 42.3% 97
101 Nebraska 3-7 58 41.60 0.1% 42.4% 100
102 C Michigan 4-6 85 41.43 0.3% 42.6% 108
103 ULM 4-6 61 41.38 0.1% 42.7% 107
104 Boston College 3-7 38 41.24 0.3% 42.9% 115
105 MTSU 5-5 119 40.54 1.4% 43.9% 112
106 E Michigan 6-4 128 40.47 0.1% 44.0% 106
107 Tulsa 3-7 84 40.15 0.7% 44.4% 103
108 Utah St 5-5 127 39.82 0.7% 44.9% 111
109 Old Dominion 3-7 68 39.56 0.5% 45.2% 99
110 Arkansas St 3-7 74 39.24 0.7% 45.7% 110
111 Texas St 3-7 90 39.22 0.0% 45.7% 105
112 Bowling Green 5-5 107 38.98 0.5% 46.0% 101
113 Virginia Tech 2-8 71 38.27 1.4% 47.0% 114
114 Miami OH 4-6 120 37.83 0.9% 47.6% 109
115 Louisiana Tech 3-7 82 37.66 0.3% 47.8% 113
116 Temple 3-7 102 37.62 0.1% 47.9% 116
117 N Illinois 3-7 110 36.92 1.4% 48.9% 122
118 UTEP 4-6 118 36.52 0.8% 49.4% 118
119 Northwestern 1-9 30 36.40 0.3% 49.6% 117
120 Colorado 1-9 2 36.03 0.8% 50.1% 121
121 South Florida 1-9 40 35.26 1.6% 51.2% 120
122 W Michigan 3-7 112 34.83 0.9% 51.8% 119
123 New Mexico St 4-5 131 34.46 0.8% 52.3% 125
124 Florida Intl 4-6 122 33.54 1.9% 53.6% 123
125 New Mexico 2-8 113 32.35 2.4% 55.2% 124
126 Akron 1-9 87 30.70 3.4% 57.5% 126
127 Colorado St 2-8 117 30.61 0.2% 57.6% 130
128 Hawaii 2-9 125 30.56 0.1% 57.7% 129
129 Nevada 2-8 124 30.29 0.6% 58.1% 128
130 Charlotte 2-9 106 29.38 1.9% 59.3% 127
131 Massachusetts 1-9 104 28.01 5.3% 61.2% 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 57.46 68.29 47.82
2 SEC 56.58 72.21 45.09
3 Pac-12 52.90 63.89 36.03
4 Big 10 52.81 71.30 36.40
5 ACC 51.60 63.65 38.27
6 American 48.85 60.06 35.26
7 Sun Belt 46.91 56.15 39.22
8 Conference USA 42.14 54.43 29.38
9 Mountain West 40.96 50.77 30.29
10 MAC 40.71 50.96 30.70

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 *