J-Train College Football Computer Rankings, 2022 Week 13

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 12-0 29 72.48 1
2 Michigan 12-0 56 69.78 5.5% 3.7% 4
3 Ohio St 11-1 41 68.78 2.0% 5.1% 2
4 TCU 12-0 26 68.69 0.2% 5.2% 3
5 Alabama 10-2 28 66.47 4.5% 8.3% 5
6 Tennessee 10-2 27 65.76 1.4% 9.3% 8
7 USC 11-1 47 65.46 0.6% 9.7% 9
8 Penn St 10-2 35 65.10 0.7% 10.2% 6
9 Texas 8-4 2 64.72 0.8% 10.7% 10
10 Kansas St 9-3 7 64.55 0.3% 10.9% 12
11 Clemson 10-2 52 62.56 4.0% 13.7% 7
12 Utah 9-3 50 61.90 1.3% 14.6% 15
13 Oregon 9-3 32 61.84 0.1% 14.7% 13
14 Florida St 9-3 44 61.81 0.1% 14.7% 14
15 LSU 9-3 21 61.23 1.2% 15.5% 11
16 Washington 10-2 68 60.15 2.2% 17.0% 21
17 Oregon St 9-3 46 60.02 0.3% 17.2% 22
18 Tulane 10-2 71 60.01 0.0% 17.2% 17
19 Notre Dame 8-4 25 59.18 1.7% 18.4% 16
20 Mississippi St 8-4 16 59.14 0.1% 18.4% 23
21 UCLA 9-3 55 59.12 0.0% 18.4% 19
22 Mississippi 8-4 33 58.18 1.9% 19.7% 20
23 UCF 9-3 72 57.24 1.9% 21.0% 24
24 Louisville 7-5 20 57.18 0.1% 21.1% 18
25 Illinois 8-4 79 57.06 0.2% 21.3% 29
26 South Carolina 8-4 31 56.53 1.1% 22.0% 40
27 Troy 10-2 82 56.35 0.4% 22.3% 34
28 Oklahoma 6-6 11 56.06 0.6% 22.7% 27
29 South Alabama 10-2 109 56.03 0.0% 22.7% 30
30 Texas Tech 7-5 6 56.01 0.1% 22.7% 36
31 Cincinnati 9-3 81 55.68 0.7% 23.2% 31
32 Kentucky 7-5 22 55.67 0.0% 23.2% 45
33 Wake Forest 7-5 43 55.65 0.0% 23.2% 25
34 UT San Antonio 10-2 97 55.64 0.0% 23.2% 33
35 North Carolina 9-3 67 55.18 0.9% 23.9% 28
36 Oklahoma St 7-5 19 55.14 0.1% 23.9% 26
37 Minnesota 8-4 80 55.05 0.2% 24.0% 46
38 Baylor 6-6 13 55.05 0.0% 24.1% 35
39 NC State 8-4 45 55.00 0.1% 24.1% 41
40 Arkansas 6-6 14 54.77 0.5% 24.4% 32
41 Pittsburgh 8-4 64 54.67 0.2% 24.6% 48
42 James Madison 8-3 94 54.56 0.2% 24.7% 51
43 Florida 6-6 9 54.41 0.3% 24.9% 42
44 Maryland 7-5 42 54.37 0.1% 25.0% 49
45 Syracuse 7-5 37 54.01 0.7% 25.5% 44
46 Kansas 6-6 5 53.93 0.2% 25.6% 37
47 Purdue 8-4 60 53.91 0.0% 25.6% 50
48 Washington St 7-5 48 53.78 0.3% 25.8% 39
49 Duke 8-4 92 53.35 0.9% 26.4% 52
50 Boise St 9-3 127 53.34 0.0% 26.4% 55
51 SMU 7-5 51 53.27 0.1% 26.5% 54
52 Iowa 7-5 58 52.94 0.7% 27.0% 38
53 Missouri 6-6 23 52.59 0.7% 27.4% 62
54 Marshall 8-4 85 52.22 0.8% 28.0% 57
55 Coastal Car 9-2 96 52.07 0.3% 28.2% 43
56 Air Force 9-3 131 51.82 0.5% 28.5% 63
57 Houston 7-5 62 51.65 0.4% 28.7% 47
58 Fresno St 8-4 119 51.50 0.3% 29.0% 66
59 Iowa St 4-8 4 51.42 0.1% 29.1% 53
60 Memphis 6-6 66 51.14 0.6% 29.4% 56
61 East Carolina 7-5 70 51.06 0.2% 29.6% 58
62 Auburn 5-7 3 50.80 0.5% 29.9% 59
63 Wisconsin 6-6 54 50.67 0.3% 30.1% 60
64 BYU 7-5 74 50.64 0.1% 30.1% 64
65 Ohio 9-3 122 50.57 0.1% 30.2% 67
66 Texas A&M 5-7 39 50.00 1.2% 31.0% 73
67 West Virginia 5-7 10 49.47 1.1% 31.7% 71
68 WKU 8-5 111 49.11 0.7% 32.2% 70
69 Michigan St 5-7 12 48.97 0.3% 32.4% 68
70 Appalachian St 6-6 86 48.56 0.8% 33.0% 65
71 Louisiana 6-6 83 48.26 0.6% 33.4% 75
72 Liberty 8-4 121 47.96 0.6% 33.8% 61
73 UAB 6-6 95 47.70 0.5% 34.2% 74
74 North Texas 7-5 106 47.50 0.4% 34.5% 76
75 Vanderbilt 5-7 17 47.24 0.5% 34.8% 72
76 San Jose St 7-4 130 46.75 1.0% 35.5% 82
77 Arizona 5-7 30 46.73 0.0% 35.5% 78
78 Toledo 7-5 126 46.60 0.3% 35.7% 69
79 Army 5-6 99 46.12 1.0% 36.4% 81
80 Southern Miss 6-6 78 46.02 0.2% 36.5% 83
81 San Diego St 7-5 101 45.95 0.1% 36.6% 77
82 Ga Southern 6-6 76 45.88 0.1% 36.7% 88
83 California 4-8 34 45.84 0.1% 36.8% 80
84 Georgia Tech 5-7 18 45.30 1.1% 37.5% 84
85 Miami FL 5-7 63 44.93 0.8% 38.0% 79
86 Navy 4-7 57 44.80 0.3% 38.2% 87
87 Indiana 4-8 15 44.55 0.5% 38.5% 86
88 Wyoming 7-5 103 44.38 0.3% 38.8% 85
89 Nebraska 4-8 53 44.30 0.2% 38.9% 99
90 Georgia St 4-8 69 44.08 0.5% 39.2% 89
91 MTSU 7-5 124 44.08 0.0% 39.2% 92
92 Kent 5-7 75 43.43 1.3% 40.1% 97
93 E Michigan 8-4 129 43.42 0.0% 40.1% 100
94 FL Atlantic 5-7 102 43.41 0.0% 40.1% 95
95 Stanford 3-9 8 43.41 0.0% 40.1% 90
96 Connecticut 6-6 91 43.25 0.3% 40.3% 94
97 Tulsa 5-7 89 43.16 0.2% 40.5% 103
98 Arizona St 3-9 36 42.89 0.5% 40.8% 93
99 Buffalo 5-6 117 42.65 0.5% 41.2% 91
100 Rutgers 4-8 40 42.06 1.2% 42.0% 96
101 Virginia 3-7 59 41.81 0.5% 42.3% 98
102 Utah St 6-6 118 41.26 1.1% 43.1% 101
103 Miami OH 6-6 123 40.97 0.6% 43.5% 112
104 Rice 5-7 84 40.96 0.0% 43.5% 105
105 UNLV 5-7 112 40.89 0.1% 43.6% 109
106 Bowling Green 6-6 93 40.77 0.2% 43.7% 102
107 Ball St 5-7 105 40.63 0.3% 44.0% 107
108 ULM 4-8 61 40.28 0.7% 44.4% 104
109 Boston College 3-9 38 40.20 0.2% 44.5% 106
110 Virginia Tech 3-8 73 40.03 0.3% 44.8% 110
111 UTEP 5-7 115 39.84 0.4% 45.0% 114
112 Texas St 4-8 90 39.25 1.2% 45.9% 108
113 Old Dominion 3-9 65 38.95 0.6% 46.3% 113
114 W Michigan 5-7 110 38.78 0.3% 46.5% 119
115 C Michigan 4-8 100 38.55 0.5% 46.8% 111
116 New Mexico St 5-6 128 37.96 1.2% 47.6% 123
117 Arkansas St 3-9 77 37.96 0.0% 47.6% 115
118 Temple 3-9 87 37.91 0.1% 47.7% 116
119 Northwestern 1-11 24 36.71 2.4% 49.4% 117
120 Louisiana Tech 3-9 88 36.54 0.3% 49.6% 118
121 Colorado 1-11 1 36.43 0.2% 49.7% 121
122 South Florida 1-11 49 35.52 1.8% 51.0% 122
123 N Illinois 3-9 120 34.84 1.4% 51.9% 120
124 Colorado St 3-9 114 33.91 1.9% 53.2% 127
125 Hawaii 3-10 116 33.56 0.7% 53.7% 124
126 Akron 2-9 98 33.41 0.3% 53.9% 130
127 Florida Intl 4-8 125 32.40 2.0% 55.3% 126
128 Charlotte 3-9 107 31.94 0.9% 55.9% 128
129 New Mexico 2-10 113 31.35 1.2% 56.8% 125
130 Nevada 2-10 108 31.33 0.0% 56.8% 129
131 Massachusetts 1-11 104 27.60 9.7% 61.9% 131

Best win: Michigan 45-23 vs. Ohio St
Worst loss: Colorado St 41-10 vs. CS Sacramento

Rk Conference Rating Best Team Worst Team
1 SEC 57.52 72.48 47.24
2 Big 12 57.50 68.69 49.47
3 Big 10 53.16 69.78 36.71
4 Pac-12 53.13 65.46 36.43
5 ACC 51.55 62.56 40.03
6 American 49.22 60.01 35.52
7 Sun Belt 47.18 56.35 37.96
8 Conference USA 42.65 55.64 31.94
9 Mountain West 42.17 53.34 31.33
10 MAC 41.22 50.57 33.41

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 *