J-Train College Football Computer Rankings, 2022 Week 5

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 5-0 19 73.21 1
2 Alabama 5-0 31 71.15 4.1% 2.8% 3
3 Georgia 5-0 64 67.66 6.9% 7.6% 5
4 Mississippi St 4-1 5 66.86 1.6% 8.7% 14
5 Clemson 5-0 58 66.75 0.2% 8.8% 17
6 Kansas 5-0 47 66.02 1.5% 9.8% 6
7 USC 5-0 68 65.86 0.3% 10.0% 2
8 Penn St 5-0 67 65.62 0.5% 10.4% 4
9 Mississippi 5-0 70 65.51 0.2% 10.5% 13
10 Tennessee 4-0 74 65.23 0.6% 10.9% 7
11 TCU 4-0 101 65.11 0.2% 11.1% 27
12 LSU 4-1 24 64.61 1.0% 11.8% 11
13 James Madison 4-0 110 64.30 0.6% 12.2% 9
14 Michigan 5-0 117 63.78 1.0% 12.9% 19
15 Texas 3-2 4 63.12 1.3% 13.8% 18
16 UCLA 5-0 91 63.11 0.0% 13.8% 23
17 Wake Forest 4-1 10 63.07 0.1% 13.8% 30
18 Syracuse 5-0 89 62.88 0.4% 14.1% 8
19 Oklahoma St 4-0 118 62.16 1.4% 15.1% 31
20 Kansas St 4-1 33 61.98 0.4% 15.3% 25
21 Oregon 4-1 23 60.85 2.3% 16.9% 26
22 Maryland 4-1 57 60.19 1.3% 17.8% 47
23 NC State 4-1 51 60.18 0.0% 17.8% 16
24 Washington 4-1 72 60.07 0.2% 18.0% 10
25 Utah 4-1 106 60.03 0.1% 18.0% 43
26 Memphis 4-1 39 59.91 0.2% 18.2% 50
27 Florida St 4-1 36 59.74 0.3% 18.4% 12
28 Illinois 4-1 124 59.53 0.4% 18.7% 24
29 Liberty 4-1 38 58.87 1.3% 19.6% 34
30 Duke 4-1 85 58.24 1.2% 20.4% 48
31 Kentucky 4-1 82 58.23 0.0% 20.5% 21
32 Oklahoma 3-2 14 58.04 0.4% 20.7% 22
33 Cincinnati 4-1 102 57.93 0.2% 20.9% 29
34 BYU 4-1 94 57.87 0.1% 21.0% 20
35 Tulane 4-1 83 57.63 0.5% 21.3% 45
36 Notre Dame 2-2 1 57.48 0.3% 21.5% 40
37 South Alabama 4-1 100 57.40 0.2% 21.6% 37
38 Purdue 3-2 22 56.42 2.0% 22.9% 51
39 Minnesota 4-1 125 56.22 0.4% 23.2% 15
40 Appalachian St 3-2 18 55.91 0.6% 23.6% 46
41 UNLV 4-1 115 55.80 0.2% 23.8% 56
42 UCF 3-1 120 55.58 0.4% 24.1% 42
43 Baylor 3-2 48 55.35 0.5% 24.4% 28
44 Texas Tech 3-2 8 55.31 0.1% 24.4% 33
45 Arkansas 3-2 12 55.27 0.1% 24.5% 36
46 Washington St 4-1 103 55.24 0.0% 24.5% 64
47 North Carolina 4-1 92 54.91 0.7% 25.0% 67
48 Iowa St 3-2 54 54.87 0.1% 25.1% 38
49 Coastal Car 5-0 126 54.72 0.3% 25.3% 63
50 SMU 2-2 30 54.58 0.3% 25.5% 62
51 Auburn 3-2 11 54.35 0.4% 25.8% 53
52 Texas A&M 3-2 16 54.18 0.3% 26.0% 39
53 Florida 3-2 34 52.93 2.5% 27.7% 54
54 Troy 3-2 40 52.86 0.1% 27.8% 71
55 Oregon St 3-2 50 52.81 0.1% 27.9% 32
56 California 3-2 43 52.70 0.2% 28.0% 44
57 San Jose St 3-1 129 52.41 0.6% 28.4% 85
58 Houston 2-3 3 52.23 0.3% 28.7% 57
59 Pittsburgh 3-2 75 51.92 0.6% 29.1% 41
60 UAB 2-2 63 51.79 0.3% 29.3% 49
61 East Carolina 3-2 116 51.77 0.0% 29.3% 68
62 Air Force 4-1 131 51.69 0.2% 29.4% 55
63 Rice 3-2 45 51.42 0.5% 29.8% 72
64 Iowa 3-2 71 51.41 0.0% 29.8% 52
65 Louisville 2-3 13 50.59 1.6% 30.9% 35
66 UT San Antonio 3-2 73 50.49 0.2% 31.0% 83
67 Toledo 3-2 108 50.46 0.1% 31.1% 82
68 Missouri 2-3 28 49.79 1.3% 32.0% 81
69 Southern Miss 2-2 52 49.67 0.2% 32.2% 73
70 West Virginia 2-3 29 49.19 0.9% 32.8% 59
71 South Carolina 3-2 105 49.11 0.2% 32.9% 87
72 Miami FL 2-2 80 49.03 0.2% 33.0% 65
73 Ga Southern 3-2 95 48.92 0.2% 33.2% 75
74 Marshall 3-2 119 48.75 0.3% 33.4% 84
75 Arkansas St 2-3 32 48.63 0.2% 33.6% 97
76 Michigan St 2-3 20 48.47 0.3% 33.8% 60
77 Vanderbilt 3-2 77 48.22 0.5% 34.1% 80
78 MTSU 3-2 97 48.01 0.4% 34.4% 61
79 Wisconsin 2-3 42 47.88 0.3% 34.6% 66
80 Rutgers 3-2 56 47.61 0.5% 35.0% 79
81 WKU 3-2 127 47.35 0.5% 35.3% 70
82 Indiana 3-2 59 47.34 0.0% 35.3% 58
83 Arizona 3-2 86 46.97 0.7% 35.8% 92
84 North Texas 3-3 65 46.81 0.3% 36.1% 102
85 Boise St 3-2 121 46.71 0.2% 36.2% 95
86 Wyoming 3-3 37 46.11 1.2% 37.0% 69
87 Georgia Tech 2-3 7 46.00 0.2% 37.2% 105
88 Virginia 2-3 25 45.97 0.1% 37.2% 74
89 Tulsa 2-3 109 45.88 0.2% 37.3% 78
90 Kent 2-3 21 45.50 0.8% 37.9% 89
91 Louisiana 2-3 93 45.18 0.6% 38.3% 94
92 Stanford 1-3 6 44.58 1.2% 39.1% 76
93 Old Dominion 2-3 35 44.23 0.7% 39.6% 88
94 New Mexico 2-3 61 44.09 0.3% 39.8% 91
95 ULM 2-3 15 43.79 0.6% 40.2% 86
96 Nebraska 2-3 88 43.70 0.2% 40.3% 112
97 Temple 2-3 79 43.17 1.1% 41.0% 96
98 C Michigan 1-4 9 41.77 2.8% 42.9% 90
99 Bowling Green 2-3 46 41.69 0.2% 43.1% 110
100 Boston College 2-3 76 41.55 0.3% 43.3% 109
101 Fresno St 1-3 66 41.27 0.5% 43.6% 77
102 Virginia Tech 2-3 99 41.24 0.1% 43.7% 93
103 Buffalo 2-3 84 41.06 0.4% 43.9% 122
104 FL Atlantic 2-4 113 40.73 0.6% 44.4% 99
105 San Diego St 2-3 69 40.70 0.1% 44.4% 101
106 Arizona St 1-4 17 40.56 0.3% 44.6% 117
107 Miami OH 2-3 81 40.46 0.2% 44.7% 100
108 Ball St 2-3 96 40.43 0.1% 44.8% 115
109 UTEP 3-3 114 40.27 0.3% 45.0% 106
110 Connecticut 2-4 41 39.82 0.9% 45.6% 116
111 Ohio 2-3 62 39.76 0.1% 45.7% 98
112 Louisiana Tech 1-3 27 39.48 0.6% 46.1% 111
113 W Michigan 2-3 87 39.42 0.1% 46.2% 119
114 Texas St 2-3 107 39.40 0.0% 46.2% 108
115 Navy 1-3 55 39.07 0.6% 46.6% 118
116 E Michigan 3-2 128 38.64 0.9% 47.2% 124
117 Northwestern 1-4 60 38.64 0.0% 47.2% 123
118 Army 1-3 112 37.93 1.4% 48.2% 103
119 Utah St 1-4 26 37.45 1.0% 48.9% 120
120 Georgia St 1-4 78 37.06 0.8% 49.4% 128
121 South Florida 1-4 53 37.02 0.1% 49.4% 104
122 N Illinois 1-4 90 36.78 0.5% 49.8% 107
123 Akron 1-4 49 35.96 1.6% 50.9% 113
124 Nevada 2-3 123 35.83 0.3% 51.1% 114
125 Colorado 0-5 2 33.34 5.0% 54.5% 121
126 Florida Intl 2-2 130 31.49 3.7% 57.0% 129
127 Massachusetts 1-4 98 31.20 0.6% 57.4% 126
128 New Mexico St 1-5 122 28.30 5.8% 61.3% 125
129 Hawaii 1-4 104 28.17 0.3% 61.5% 127
130 Charlotte 1-5 111 27.57 1.2% 62.3% 131
131 Colorado St 0-4 44 26.30 9.7% 64.1% 130

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 59.11 66.02 49.19
2 SEC 58.79 71.15 48.22
3 Big 10 54.29 73.21 38.64
4 ACC 53.72 66.75 41.24
5 Pac-12 53.01 65.86 33.34
6 American 50.43 59.91 37.02
7 Sun Belt 49.34 64.30 37.06
8 Conference USA 43.22 51.79 27.57
9 Mountain West 42.21 55.80 26.30
10 MAC 40.99 50.46 35.96

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 *