J-Train College Football Computer Rankings, 2022 Week 8

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 7-0 44 72.48 1
2 Georgia 7-0 61 69.81 5.3% 3.7% 3
3 Alabama 7-1 14 68.60 2.4% 5.4% 4
4 Clemson 8-0 39 68.37 0.5% 5.7% 6
5 TCU 7-0 35 68.26 0.2% 5.8% 5
6 Tennessee 7-0 55 67.67 1.2% 6.6% 2
7 Michigan 7-0 79 67.54 0.3% 6.8% 7
8 USC 6-1 19 67.10 0.9% 7.4% 11
9 Oklahoma St 6-1 31 65.08 4.0% 10.2% 13
10 Syracuse 6-1 33 64.60 1.0% 10.9% 9
11 Oregon 6-1 34 64.02 1.2% 11.7% 20
12 Wake Forest 6-1 52 63.59 0.8% 12.3% 15
13 Texas 5-3 1 63.42 0.3% 12.5% 10
14 Penn St 6-1 43 63.12 0.6% 12.9% 19
15 Mississippi 7-1 53 63.05 0.2% 13.0% 8
16 LSU 6-2 18 62.74 0.6% 13.5% 22
17 UCLA 6-1 46 61.92 1.6% 14.6% 12
18 Utah 5-2 30 61.68 0.5% 14.9% 18
19 Illinois 6-1 112 61.26 0.8% 15.5% 21
20 Tulane 7-1 75 60.93 0.7% 15.9% 26
21 Kansas St 5-2 10 60.77 0.3% 16.2% 17
22 Mississippi St 5-3 5 60.30 0.9% 16.8% 14
23 NC State 5-2 9 60.19 0.2% 17.0% 24
24 Florida St 4-3 3 58.14 4.1% 19.8% 31
25 Oregon St 6-2 45 58.12 0.1% 19.8% 33
26 Kentucky 5-2 56 57.75 0.7% 20.3% 27
27 Maryland 6-2 64 57.61 0.3% 20.5% 25
28 Texas Tech 4-3 4 56.93 1.4% 21.5% 39
29 Kansas 5-3 20 56.92 0.0% 21.5% 23
30 UCF 5-2 86 56.90 0.0% 21.5% 16
31 Liberty 7-1 99 56.84 0.1% 21.6% 44
32 Oklahoma 4-3 8 56.79 0.1% 21.7% 32
33 Washington 6-2 80 56.53 0.5% 22.0% 34
34 Notre Dame 4-3 15 56.51 0.0% 22.0% 45
35 Cincinnati 6-1 113 56.33 0.4% 22.3% 35
36 Troy 6-2 54 56.21 0.2% 22.4% 47
37 Louisville 4-3 29 55.92 0.6% 22.9% 42
38 East Carolina 5-3 57 55.55 0.7% 23.4% 53
39 North Carolina 6-1 92 55.54 0.0% 23.4% 37
40 South Alabama 5-2 89 55.25 0.6% 23.8% 30
41 South Carolina 5-2 72 55.19 0.1% 23.9% 40
42 Baylor 4-3 51 54.88 0.6% 24.3% 55
43 Arkansas 4-3 13 54.82 0.1% 24.4% 36
44 Purdue 5-3 38 54.74 0.2% 24.5% 28
45 James Madison 5-2 102 54.47 0.5% 24.9% 29
46 Houston 4-3 11 54.42 0.1% 24.9% 49
47 Florida 4-3 17 54.17 0.5% 25.3% 41
48 UT San Antonio 6-2 83 53.49 1.3% 26.2% 58
49 Iowa St 3-4 28 53.22 0.5% 26.6% 48
50 Duke 5-3 98 53.04 0.4% 26.8% 59
51 Coastal Car 6-1 117 52.51 1.1% 27.6% 56
52 Minnesota 4-3 77 52.28 0.5% 27.9% 38
53 Memphis 4-4 42 52.22 0.1% 28.0% 46
54 Washington St 4-3 49 51.95 0.5% 28.3% 63
55 Appalachian St 4-3 73 51.48 0.9% 29.0% 66
56 Toledo 5-3 114 51.15 0.7% 29.4% 50
57 Boise St 5-2 116 51.13 0.0% 29.5% 74
58 WKU 5-3 115 51.03 0.2% 29.6% 70
59 Wisconsin 4-4 58 51.02 0.0% 29.6% 80
60 UAB 4-3 106 51.01 0.0% 29.6% 54
61 San Jose St 4-2 129 50.84 0.3% 29.9% 67
62 Auburn 3-4 2 50.75 0.2% 30.0% 62
63 Texas A&M 3-4 21 50.72 0.1% 30.0% 51
64 SMU 3-4 37 50.65 0.2% 30.1% 52
65 BYU 4-4 47 50.60 0.1% 30.2% 57
66 Pittsburgh 4-3 78 50.58 0.0% 30.2% 43
67 Marshall 4-3 91 50.37 0.4% 30.5% 86
68 Louisiana 4-3 100 50.08 0.6% 30.9% 78
69 Stanford 3-4 7 49.94 0.3% 31.1% 72
70 Iowa 3-4 27 49.77 0.3% 31.3% 64
71 Ga Southern 5-3 88 49.71 0.1% 31.4% 69
72 Rice 4-3 66 49.36 0.7% 31.9% 68
73 Missouri 3-4 41 49.11 0.5% 32.2% 71
74 Buffalo 5-3 111 48.55 1.1% 33.0% 85
75 Air Force 5-3 131 48.54 0.0% 33.0% 65
76 Michigan St 3-4 25 48.44 0.2% 33.2% 73
77 Southern Miss 4-3 71 48.42 0.0% 33.2% 81
78 West Virginia 3-4 40 47.38 2.1% 34.6% 60
79 Wyoming 5-3 96 46.94 0.9% 35.2% 84
80 Fresno St 3-4 67 46.83 0.2% 35.4% 95
81 Virginia 3-4 32 46.81 0.0% 35.4% 92
82 Old Dominion 3-4 50 46.75 0.1% 35.5% 75
83 Georgia Tech 3-4 16 46.66 0.2% 35.6% 61
84 Rutgers 4-3 81 46.65 0.0% 35.6% 90
85 Arizona St 2-5 12 46.20 0.9% 36.3% 83
86 Vanderbilt 3-5 24 45.69 1.0% 37.0% 77
87 Indiana 3-5 23 45.55 0.3% 37.2% 79
88 North Texas 4-4 103 45.20 0.7% 37.6% 82
89 Miami FL 3-4 84 44.92 0.6% 38.0% 76
90 Ohio 5-3 120 44.88 0.1% 38.1% 97
91 California 3-4 85 44.44 0.9% 38.7% 93
92 Nebraska 3-4 82 44.38 0.1% 38.8% 91
93 Army 3-4 101 43.97 0.8% 39.3% 109
94 Arizona 3-4 69 43.67 0.6% 39.8% 96
95 UNLV 4-4 108 43.46 0.4% 40.0% 89
96 Tulsa 3-4 121 43.06 0.8% 40.6% 105
97 San Diego St 4-3 118 42.74 0.6% 41.0% 108
98 E Michigan 5-3 126 42.23 1.0% 41.7% 117
99 Ball St 4-4 110 42.23 0.0% 41.7% 94
100 Kent 3-5 70 42.17 0.1% 41.8% 104
101 Connecticut 3-5 63 42.16 0.0% 41.8% 103
102 Arkansas St 2-6 48 42.15 0.0% 41.9% 88
103 Bowling Green 4-4 87 42.00 0.3% 42.1% 116
104 FL Atlantic 3-5 109 41.88 0.2% 42.2% 87
105 MTSU 3-4 93 41.83 0.1% 42.3% 102
106 Boston College 2-5 26 41.69 0.3% 42.5% 107
107 Texas St 3-5 94 41.62 0.1% 42.6% 106
108 Navy 2-5 65 41.23 0.8% 43.1% 99
109 Georgia St 2-5 60 41.01 0.5% 43.4% 100
110 Louisiana Tech 2-5 62 39.90 2.2% 44.9% 112
111 ULM 2-6 36 39.83 0.1% 45.0% 98
112 C Michigan 2-6 68 39.33 1.0% 45.7% 101
113 Miami OH 3-5 104 39.32 0.0% 45.8% 110
114 South Florida 1-6 22 39.24 0.2% 45.9% 118
115 UTEP 4-4 124 39.03 0.4% 46.1% 120
116 Virginia Tech 2-5 90 38.69 0.7% 46.6% 111
117 N Illinois 2-6 97 38.42 0.5% 47.0% 113
118 Utah St 3-5 119 38.02 0.8% 47.5% 114
119 Temple 2-5 95 37.21 1.6% 48.7% 115
120 W Michigan 3-5 107 36.91 0.6% 49.1% 123
121 Northwestern 1-6 59 36.58 0.7% 49.5% 122
122 Colorado 1-6 6 36.02 1.1% 50.3% 119
123 New Mexico 2-6 123 34.89 2.3% 51.9% 121
124 Florida Intl 3-4 127 33.79 2.2% 53.4% 128
125 Akron 1-7 76 32.68 2.2% 54.9% 124
126 Hawaii 2-6 125 31.53 2.3% 56.5% 125
127 Massachusetts 1-6 74 31.36 0.3% 56.7% 126
128 New Mexico St 2-5 128 31.13 0.4% 57.0% 129
129 Colorado St 2-5 122 30.56 1.2% 57.8% 131
130 Nevada 2-6 130 29.82 1.5% 58.9% 127
131 Charlotte 1-7 105 27.32 8.1% 62.3% 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 58.37 68.26 47.38
2 SEC 57.88 69.81 45.69
3 Big 10 53.67 72.48 36.58
4 ACC 53.48 68.37 38.69
5 Pac-12 53.46 67.10 36.02
6 American 49.79 60.93 37.21
7 Sun Belt 48.56 56.21 39.83
8 Conference USA 43.08 53.49 27.32
9 MAC 41.66 51.15 32.68
10 Mountain West 41.27 51.13 29.82

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 *