J-Train College Football Computer Rankings, 2022 Week 9

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 8-0 31 72.06 1
2 Georgia 8-0 56 69.51 5.2% 3.5% 2
3 Alabama 7-1 14 67.85 3.4% 5.8% 3
4 Tennessee 8-0 52 67.85 0.0% 5.8% 6
5 TCU 8-0 29 67.33 1.1% 6.6% 5
6 Michigan 8-0 83 66.53 1.6% 7.7% 7
7 Clemson 8-0 57 65.72 1.7% 8.8% 4
8 USC 7-1 40 64.24 3.0% 10.9% 8
9 Oregon 7-1 38 63.43 1.7% 12.0% 11
10 Kansas St 6-2 4 63.31 0.2% 12.1% 21
11 UCLA 7-1 51 62.20 2.3% 13.7% 17
12 Texas 5-3 5 61.93 0.5% 14.1% 13
13 LSU 6-2 22 61.80 0.3% 14.2% 16
14 Mississippi 8-1 59 61.24 1.2% 15.0% 15
15 Penn St 6-2 23 60.69 1.1% 15.8% 14
16 Utah 6-2 28 60.69 0.0% 15.8% 18
17 Oklahoma St 6-2 17 60.65 0.1% 15.8% 9
18 Illinois 7-1 106 60.58 0.1% 15.9% 19
19 Syracuse 6-2 24 60.43 0.3% 16.1% 10
20 Tulane 7-1 72 60.32 0.2% 16.3% 20
21 Mississippi St 5-3 7 59.39 1.9% 17.6% 22
22 Notre Dame 5-3 9 58.67 1.5% 18.6% 34
23 Wake Forest 6-2 47 58.60 0.1% 18.7% 12
24 Oklahoma 5-3 10 57.79 1.7% 19.8% 32
25 Florida St 5-3 18 57.61 0.4% 20.0% 24
26 North Carolina 7-1 71 57.60 0.0% 20.1% 39
27 UCF 6-2 70 57.46 0.3% 20.3% 30
28 NC State 6-2 27 57.28 0.4% 20.5% 23
29 Louisville 5-3 25 57.28 0.0% 20.5% 37
30 Oregon St 6-2 53 56.94 0.7% 21.0% 25
31 Maryland 6-2 66 56.91 0.1% 21.0% 27
32 Kansas 5-3 16 56.53 0.8% 21.6% 29
33 Baylor 5-3 48 56.41 0.2% 21.7% 42
34 Washington 6-2 85 55.65 1.5% 22.8% 33
35 Arkansas 5-3 20 55.37 0.6% 23.2% 43
36 Troy 6-2 55 55.24 0.3% 23.3% 36
37 East Carolina 6-3 62 54.95 0.6% 23.7% 38
38 Kentucky 5-3 32 54.73 0.4% 24.0% 26
39 South Alabama 6-2 100 54.62 0.2% 24.2% 40
40 Liberty 7-1 118 54.38 0.5% 24.5% 31
41 Cincinnati 6-2 89 54.28 0.2% 24.7% 35
42 Purdue 5-3 37 53.77 1.0% 25.4% 44
43 James Madison 5-2 101 53.48 0.6% 25.8% 45
44 Minnesota 5-3 82 53.28 0.4% 26.1% 52
45 Houston 5-3 36 53.09 0.4% 26.3% 46
46 Coastal Car 7-1 108 53.06 0.1% 26.4% 51
47 Texas Tech 4-4 6 53.06 0.0% 26.4% 28
48 UT San Antonio 6-2 86 52.91 0.3% 26.6% 48
49 Florida 4-4 3 52.79 0.2% 26.7% 47
50 South Carolina 5-3 54 52.68 0.2% 26.9% 41
51 Duke 5-3 96 51.97 1.5% 27.9% 50
52 Appalachian St 5-3 87 51.87 0.2% 28.0% 55
53 Iowa St 3-5 13 51.48 0.8% 28.6% 49
54 SMU 4-4 41 51.33 0.3% 28.8% 64
55 Memphis 4-4 46 51.27 0.1% 28.9% 53
56 Missouri 4-4 35 50.95 0.7% 29.3% 73
57 Washington St 4-4 34 50.60 0.7% 29.8% 54
58 Boise St 6-2 124 50.58 0.0% 29.8% 57
59 Texas A&M 3-5 8 50.40 0.4% 30.1% 63
60 Wisconsin 4-4 61 50.22 0.4% 30.3% 59
61 Toledo 6-3 120 49.67 1.1% 31.1% 56
62 Southern Miss 5-3 68 49.66 0.0% 31.1% 77
63 Iowa 4-4 50 49.61 0.1% 31.2% 70
64 BYU 4-5 33 49.53 0.2% 31.3% 65
65 San Jose St 5-2 130 48.87 1.4% 32.2% 61
66 Ga Southern 5-3 90 48.44 0.9% 32.8% 71
67 Pittsburgh 4-4 65 48.42 0.0% 32.8% 66
68 Auburn 3-5 1 48.40 0.0% 32.8% 62
69 Stanford 3-5 2 48.12 0.6% 33.2% 69
70 Marshall 4-4 78 47.85 0.6% 33.6% 67
71 Air Force 5-3 131 47.66 0.4% 33.9% 75
72 Buffalo 5-3 115 47.25 0.8% 34.4% 74
73 WKU 5-4 107 47.21 0.1% 34.5% 58
74 North Texas 5-4 93 47.20 0.0% 34.5% 88
75 Michigan St 3-5 11 47.09 0.2% 34.6% 76
76 West Virginia 3-5 19 46.97 0.3% 34.8% 78
77 UAB 4-4 110 46.89 0.2% 34.9% 60
78 Fresno St 4-4 73 46.59 0.6% 35.3% 80
79 Miami FL 4-4 77 46.12 1.0% 36.0% 89
80 Wyoming 6-3 116 45.60 1.1% 36.7% 79
81 Louisiana 4-4 105 45.57 0.1% 36.8% 68
82 Arizona St 3-5 42 45.12 0.9% 37.4% 85
83 Vanderbilt 3-5 26 44.57 1.1% 38.1% 86
84 Virginia 3-5 44 44.21 0.7% 38.6% 81
85 Georgia Tech 3-5 15 44.05 0.3% 38.9% 83
86 Indiana 3-5 30 43.91 0.3% 39.1% 87
87 California 3-5 63 43.85 0.1% 39.1% 91
88 Georgia St 3-5 58 43.60 0.5% 39.5% 109
89 Arizona 3-5 45 43.52 0.2% 39.6% 94
90 Ohio 5-3 122 43.43 0.2% 39.7% 90
91 Army 3-4 95 43.33 0.2% 39.9% 93
92 FL Atlantic 4-5 98 43.25 0.2% 40.0% 104
93 Rutgers 4-4 79 43.24 0.0% 40.0% 84
94 UNLV 4-4 97 43.08 0.3% 40.2% 95
95 Old Dominion 3-5 64 42.91 0.4% 40.5% 82
96 Nebraska 3-5 69 42.74 0.3% 40.7% 92
97 Connecticut 4-5 75 42.55 0.4% 41.0% 101
98 Rice 4-4 92 42.37 0.4% 41.2% 72
99 MTSU 4-4 104 42.09 0.6% 41.6% 105
100 Texas St 3-5 84 41.74 0.7% 42.1% 107
101 Navy 3-5 81 41.42 0.6% 42.5% 108
102 Kent 3-5 67 41.30 0.3% 42.7% 100
103 San Diego St 4-4 109 41.05 0.5% 43.0% 97
104 Ball St 4-4 111 40.99 0.1% 43.1% 99
105 Tulsa 3-5 114 40.70 0.6% 43.5% 96
106 Bowling Green 4-4 91 40.69 0.0% 43.5% 103
107 E Michigan 5-4 125 40.05 1.3% 44.4% 98
108 Arkansas St 2-7 49 39.74 0.6% 44.9% 102
109 Miami OH 4-5 123 39.09 1.3% 45.7% 113
110 Virginia Tech 2-6 74 38.98 0.2% 45.9% 116
111 Boston College 2-6 43 38.63 0.7% 46.4% 106
112 ULM 2-6 39 38.57 0.1% 46.5% 111
113 South Florida 1-7 21 38.06 1.0% 47.2% 114
114 UTEP 4-5 119 37.69 0.8% 47.7% 115
115 C Michigan 2-6 76 37.49 0.4% 48.0% 112
116 Utah St 3-5 112 37.14 0.7% 48.5% 118
117 N Illinois 2-6 103 36.65 1.0% 49.1% 117
118 Louisiana Tech 2-6 80 36.61 0.1% 49.2% 110
119 Florida Intl 4-4 126 35.82 1.6% 50.3% 124
120 W Michigan 3-5 113 35.38 0.9% 50.9% 120
121 Colorado 1-7 12 34.99 0.8% 51.4% 122
122 Northwestern 1-7 60 34.69 0.6% 51.9% 121
123 Temple 2-6 102 34.63 0.1% 51.9% 119
124 New Mexico 2-6 121 34.19 0.9% 52.5% 123
125 New Mexico St 3-5 129 32.30 3.9% 55.2% 128
126 Charlotte 2-7 99 31.11 2.4% 56.8% 131
127 Hawaii 2-7 128 30.43 1.4% 57.8% 126
128 Akron 1-8 88 30.09 0.7% 58.2% 125
129 Nevada 2-7 127 29.62 1.0% 58.9% 130
130 Colorado St 2-6 117 29.22 0.8% 59.4% 129
131 Massachusetts 1-7 94 28.17 4.6% 60.9% 127

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 67.33 46.97
2 SEC 56.97 69.51 44.57
3 Big 10 52.52 72.06 34.69
4 Pac-12 52.45 64.24 34.99
5 ACC 51.92 65.72 38.63
6 American 48.86 60.32 34.63
7 Sun Belt 47.60 55.24 38.57
8 Conference USA 42.10 52.91 31.11
9 Mountain West 40.34 50.58 29.22
10 MAC 40.17 49.67 30.09

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 *