J-Train College Football Computer Rankings, 2022 Week 12

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 11-0 24 72.37 1
2 Ohio St 11-0 46 71.20 2.4% 1.6% 2
3 TCU 11-0 22 67.88 6.7% 6.2% 3
4 Michigan 11-0 71 67.60 0.6% 6.6% 5
5 Alabama 9-2 21 66.07 3.1% 8.7% 6
6 Penn St 9-2 33 64.51 3.2% 10.9% 8
7 Clemson 10-1 47 64.47 0.1% 10.9% 9
8 Tennessee 9-2 23 64.45 0.0% 10.9% 4
9 USC 10-1 55 64.28 0.3% 11.2% 7
10 Texas 7-4 1 64.22 0.1% 11.3% 13
11 LSU 9-2 15 63.97 0.5% 11.6% 10
12 Kansas St 8-3 5 63.52 0.9% 12.2% 12
13 Oregon 9-2 39 62.92 1.2% 13.1% 14
14 Florida St 8-3 38 61.95 2.0% 14.4% 15
15 Utah 8-3 35 61.88 0.1% 14.5% 11
16 Notre Dame 8-3 30 60.67 2.4% 16.2% 18
17 Tulane 9-2 77 59.34 2.7% 18.0% 24
18 Louisville 7-4 19 59.03 0.6% 18.4% 26
19 UCLA 8-3 51 58.94 0.2% 18.6% 19
20 Mississippi 8-3 40 58.76 0.4% 18.8% 17
21 Washington 9-2 74 58.68 0.2% 18.9% 21
22 Oregon St 8-3 57 58.49 0.4% 19.2% 25
23 Mississippi St 7-4 16 58.41 0.1% 19.3% 22
24 UCF 8-3 63 57.92 1.0% 20.0% 16
25 Wake Forest 7-4 31 57.53 0.8% 20.5% 32
26 Oklahoma St 7-4 12 56.93 1.2% 21.3% 20
27 Oklahoma 6-5 10 56.65 0.6% 21.7% 37
28 North Carolina 9-2 69 56.41 0.5% 22.1% 23
29 Illinois 7-4 75 56.26 0.3% 22.3% 30
30 South Alabama 9-2 102 56.18 0.2% 22.4% 29
31 Cincinnati 9-2 91 56.01 0.3% 22.6% 35
32 Arkansas 6-5 11 55.93 0.1% 22.7% 46
33 UT San Antonio 9-2 94 55.86 0.1% 22.8% 40
34 Troy 9-2 76 55.85 0.0% 22.8% 36
35 Baylor 6-5 20 55.85 0.0% 22.8% 33
36 Texas Tech 6-5 3 55.30 1.1% 23.6% 39
37 Kansas 6-5 8 55.05 0.5% 23.9% 27
38 Iowa 7-4 50 54.78 0.6% 24.3% 41
39 Washington St 7-4 58 54.77 0.0% 24.3% 42
40 South Carolina 7-4 45 54.75 0.0% 24.3% 59
41 NC State 7-4 41 54.60 0.3% 24.6% 31
42 Florida 6-5 13 54.47 0.3% 24.7% 28
43 Coastal Car 9-1 101 54.24 0.5% 25.1% 43
44 Syracuse 6-5 17 54.18 0.1% 25.1% 34
45 Kentucky 6-5 27 53.59 1.2% 26.0% 47
46 Minnesota 7-4 86 53.58 0.0% 26.0% 38
47 Houston 7-4 54 53.51 0.1% 26.1% 58
48 Pittsburgh 7-4 65 53.23 0.6% 26.5% 53
49 Maryland 6-5 28 53.09 0.3% 26.6% 49
50 Purdue 7-4 59 52.68 0.8% 27.2% 50
51 James Madison 7-3 97 52.51 0.3% 27.4% 54
52 Duke 7-4 98 52.41 0.2% 27.6% 48
53 Iowa St 4-7 9 52.32 0.2% 27.7% 51
54 SMU 6-5 48 52.25 0.1% 27.8% 44
55 Boise St 8-3 127 51.88 0.8% 28.3% 60
56 Memphis 6-5 70 51.79 0.2% 28.4% 56
57 Marshall 7-4 83 51.76 0.1% 28.5% 62
58 East Carolina 6-5 62 51.35 0.8% 29.0% 45
59 Auburn 5-6 6 51.17 0.4% 29.3% 67
60 Wisconsin 6-5 61 51.13 0.1% 29.3% 55
61 Liberty 8-3 116 50.80 0.7% 29.8% 52
62 Missouri 5-6 37 50.80 0.0% 29.8% 65
63 Air Force 8-3 131 50.45 0.7% 30.3% 64
64 BYU 6-5 66 50.41 0.1% 30.3% 63
65 Appalachian St 6-5 84 49.60 1.6% 31.5% 69
66 Fresno St 7-4 105 49.46 0.3% 31.7% 68
67 Ohio 8-3 121 48.89 1.2% 32.4% 72
68 Michigan St 5-6 25 48.74 0.3% 32.7% 61
69 Toledo 7-4 120 48.72 0.0% 32.7% 57
70 WKU 7-5 110 48.55 0.3% 32.9% 66
71 West Virginia 4-7 7 47.82 1.5% 33.9% 71
72 Vanderbilt 5-6 26 47.77 0.1% 34.0% 84
73 Texas A&M 4-7 44 47.47 0.6% 34.4% 75
74 UAB 5-6 85 47.25 0.5% 34.7% 70
75 Louisiana 5-6 79 46.65 1.2% 35.5% 73
76 North Texas 6-5 104 46.64 0.0% 35.6% 74
77 San Diego St 7-4 112 46.45 0.4% 35.8% 79
78 Arizona 4-7 18 45.96 1.0% 36.5% 76
79 Miami FL 5-6 64 45.95 0.0% 36.5% 78
80 California 4-7 42 45.76 0.4% 36.8% 87
81 Army 4-6 80 45.70 0.1% 36.8% 91
82 San Jose St 6-4 129 45.55 0.3% 37.1% 77
83 Southern Miss 5-6 67 45.45 0.2% 37.2% 80
84 Georgia Tech 5-6 36 45.20 0.5% 37.5% 95
85 Wyoming 7-4 118 45.05 0.3% 37.7% 86
86 Indiana 4-7 14 45.01 0.1% 37.8% 93
87 Navy 4-7 52 44.84 0.3% 38.0% 97
88 Ga Southern 5-6 81 44.29 1.1% 38.8% 81
89 Georgia St 4-7 72 44.26 0.1% 38.8% 89
90 Stanford 3-8 4 44.09 0.3% 39.1% 83
91 Buffalo 5-5 115 43.51 1.2% 39.9% 92
92 MTSU 6-5 119 43.36 0.3% 40.1% 105
93 Arizona St 3-8 32 43.17 0.4% 40.4% 88
94 Connecticut 6-6 90 43.10 0.1% 40.4% 85
95 FL Atlantic 5-6 111 43.04 0.1% 40.5% 82
96 Rutgers 4-7 43 43.00 0.1% 40.6% 90
97 Kent 4-7 78 41.98 2.1% 42.0% 94
98 Virginia 3-7 56 41.88 0.2% 42.1% 98
99 Nebraska 3-8 60 41.86 0.0% 42.2% 101
100 E Michigan 7-4 128 41.60 0.5% 42.5% 106
101 Utah St 6-5 125 41.52 0.1% 42.6% 108
102 Bowling Green 6-5 100 41.38 0.3% 42.8% 112
103 Tulsa 4-7 93 41.22 0.3% 43.0% 107
104 ULM 4-7 53 41.21 0.0% 43.1% 103
105 Rice 5-6 87 41.01 0.4% 43.3% 99
106 Boston College 3-8 29 40.92 0.2% 43.5% 104
107 Ball St 5-6 106 40.79 0.2% 43.6% 96
108 Texas St 4-7 95 40.34 0.9% 44.3% 111
109 UNLV 4-7 99 40.25 0.2% 44.4% 100
110 Virginia Tech 3-8 73 40.10 0.3% 44.6% 113
111 C Michigan 4-7 96 39.97 0.3% 44.8% 102
112 Miami OH 5-6 122 39.51 0.9% 45.4% 114
113 Old Dominion 3-8 68 38.90 1.2% 46.3% 109
114 UTEP 5-6 124 38.71 0.4% 46.5% 118
115 Arkansas St 3-8 82 38.46 0.5% 46.9% 110
116 Temple 3-8 88 37.71 1.5% 47.9% 116
117 Northwestern 1-10 34 36.71 2.0% 49.3% 119
118 Louisiana Tech 3-8 92 36.62 0.2% 49.4% 115
119 W Michigan 4-7 117 36.47 0.3% 49.6% 122
120 N Illinois 3-8 113 36.33 0.3% 49.8% 117
121 Colorado 1-10 2 35.80 1.1% 50.5% 120
122 South Florida 1-10 49 34.85 1.9% 51.8% 121
123 New Mexico St 4-6 130 34.05 1.6% 52.9% 123
124 Hawaii 3-9 123 33.06 2.0% 54.3% 128
125 New Mexico 2-9 108 32.20 1.8% 55.5% 125
126 Florida Intl 4-7 126 31.80 0.8% 56.1% 124
127 Colorado St 2-9 103 31.68 0.2% 56.2% 127
128 Charlotte 3-9 109 31.38 0.6% 56.6% 130
129 Nevada 2-9 114 30.65 1.5% 57.6% 129
130 Akron 1-9 89 30.49 0.3% 57.9% 126
131 Massachusetts 1-10 107 27.77 8.0% 61.6% 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 57.55 67.88 47.82
2 SEC 57.14 72.37 47.47
3 Pac-12 52.89 64.28 35.80
4 Big 10 52.87 71.20 36.71
5 ACC 51.99 64.47 40.10
6 American 49.16 59.34 34.85
7 Sun Belt 47.12 56.18 38.46
8 Conference USA 42.20 55.86 31.38
9 Mountain West 41.52 51.88 30.65
10 MAC 40.80 48.89 30.49

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 *