J-Train Computer Rankings, 2016 Week 7

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 Michigan 6-0 22 17.569 1
2 Alabama 7-0 21 17.441 0.7% 0.7% 3
3 Ohio St 6-0 38 16.518 5.3% 6.0% 2
4 Clemson 7-0 15 15.926 3.4% 9.4% 4
5 Texas A&M 6-0 37 14.770 6.6% 15.9% 5
6 Washington 6-0 105 14.045 4.1% 20.1% 6
7 W Michigan 7-0 99 13.209 4.8% 24.8% 10
8 Nebraska 6-0 71 13.029 1.0% 25.8% 9
9 Boise St 6-0 77 12.630 2.3% 28.1% 7
10 West Virginia 5-0 90 11.595 5.9% 34.0% 11
11 Louisville 5-1 41 11.577 0.1% 34.1% 12
12 Houston 6-1 70 10.357 6.9% 41.0% 14
13 Baylor 6-0 126 10.043 1.8% 42.8% 13
14 Florida 5-1 74 9.217 4.7% 47.5% 19
15 Tennessee 5-2 1 9.122 0.5% 48.1% 8
16 South Florida 6-1 107 8.584 3.1% 51.1% 21
17 Troy 5-1 93 8.500 0.5% 51.6% 18
18 Florida St 5-2 7 7.917 3.3% 54.9% 29
19 Colorado 5-2 35 7.388 3.0% 57.9% 34
20 Auburn 4-2 14 7.270 0.7% 58.6% 28
21 Wisconsin 4-2 4 7.147 0.7% 59.3% 15
22 Utah 6-1 101 7.013 0.8% 60.1% 31
23 Toledo 5-1 123 6.995 0.1% 60.2% 27
24 Memphis 5-1 117 6.638 2.0% 62.2% 33
25 Navy 4-1 58 6.591 0.3% 62.5% 22
26 Penn St 4-2 6 6.401 1.1% 63.6% 30
27 Oklahoma 4-2 8 6.290 0.6% 64.2% 44
28 Washington St 4-2 42 6.172 0.7% 64.9% 38
29 Miami FL 4-2 60 6.055 0.7% 65.5% 17
30 Arkansas 5-2 19 5.952 0.6% 66.1% 36
31 NC State 4-2 49 5.408 3.1% 69.2% 20
32 Stanford 4-2 9 5.189 1.2% 70.5% 37
33 North Carolina 5-2 32 5.114 0.4% 70.9% 47
34 LSU 4-2 64 5.059 0.3% 71.2% 46
35 Pittsburgh 5-2 66 5.021 0.2% 71.4% 45
36 San Diego St 5-1 124 4.931 0.5% 71.9% 35
37 Appalachian St 4-2 40 4.657 1.6% 73.5% 39
38 Virginia Tech 4-2 69 4.572 0.5% 74.0% 16
39 USC 4-3 2 4.550 0.1% 74.1% 52
40 Minnesota 4-2 59 4.440 0.6% 74.7% 59
41 Wake Forest 5-2 55 4.321 0.7% 75.4% 24
42 Oklahoma St 4-2 67 4.152 1.0% 76.4% 43
43 Arizona St 5-2 47 4.122 0.2% 76.5% 23
44 Mississippi 3-3 5 3.693 2.4% 79.0% 32
45 Wyoming 4-2 61 3.600 0.5% 79.5% 42
46 Maryland 4-2 79 3.137 2.6% 82.1% 25
47 Air Force 4-2 97 3.074 0.4% 82.5% 26
48 Iowa 5-2 119 3.039 0.2% 82.7% 62
49 C Michigan 5-2 88 2.809 1.3% 84.0% 57
50 BYU 4-3 23 2.651 0.9% 84.9% 58
51 Tulsa 4-2 80 2.463 1.1% 86.0% 40
52 Georgia Tech 4-3 29 2.341 0.7% 86.7% 67
53 TCU 4-2 113 2.270 0.4% 87.1% 55
54 E Michigan 5-2 103 2.101 1.0% 88.0% 64
55 MTSU 4-2 115 1.998 0.6% 88.6% 41
56 Old Dominion 4-2 111 1.825 1.0% 89.6% 53
57 Indiana 3-3 13 1.145 3.9% 93.5% 49
58 Northwestern 3-3 30 0.927 1.2% 94.7% 74
59 Temple 4-3 76 0.844 0.5% 95.2% 69
60 California 3-3 28 0.530 1.8% 97.0% 65
61 UCF 3-3 57 0.333 1.1% 98.1% 48
62 UCLA 3-4 10 0.328 0.0% 98.1% 56
63 Army 4-2 128 0.310 0.1% 98.2% 72
64 Georgia 4-3 54 0.190 0.7% 98.9% 50
65 Louisiana Tech 4-3 108 -0.044 1.3% 100.2% 73
66 WKU 4-3 98 -0.050 0.0% 100.3% 79
67 Kansas St 3-3 51 -0.123 0.4% 100.7% 51
68 Akron 4-3 84 -0.534 2.3% 103.0% 61
69 Texas Tech 3-3 65 -0.631 0.5% 103.6% 54
70 Kentucky 3-3 24 -0.945 1.8% 105.4% 70
71 Southern Miss 4-3 110 -1.093 0.8% 106.2% 60
72 Idaho 4-3 52 -1.493 2.3% 108.5% 91
73 Ohio 4-3 122 -1.775 1.6% 110.1% 66
74 Tulane 3-3 82 -1.901 0.7% 110.8% 63
75 Ga Southern 3-3 89 -1.939 0.2% 111.0% 68
76 Texas 3-3 91 -1.990 0.3% 111.3% 90
77 Boston College 3-3 92 -2.137 0.8% 112.2% 75
78 Colorado St 3-4 31 -2.515 2.2% 114.3% 78
79 Vanderbilt 3-4 27 -2.547 0.2% 114.5% 95
80 Oregon 2-4 11 -2.841 1.7% 116.2% 84
81 Cincinnati 3-3 85 -2.858 0.1% 116.3% 82
82 New Mexico 3-3 104 -3.048 1.1% 117.3% 102
83 Ball St 4-3 125 -3.075 0.2% 117.5% 88
84 UT San Antonio 3-3 106 -3.269 1.1% 118.6% 85
85 Syracuse 3-4 33 -3.312 0.2% 118.9% 104
86 Missouri 2-4 17 -3.314 0.0% 118.9% 76
87 Connecticut 3-4 44 -3.798 2.8% 121.6% 80
88 Duke 3-4 63 -3.806 0.0% 121.7% 81
89 Oregon St 2-4 12 -3.960 0.9% 122.5% 86
90 Purdue 3-3 102 -4.415 2.6% 125.1% 77
91 Illinois 2-4 26 -4.461 0.3% 125.4% 110
92 North Texas 3-3 118 -4.531 0.4% 125.8% 94
93 South Alabama 3-3 114 -4.789 1.5% 127.3% 71
94 UNLV 3-4 95 -4.871 0.5% 127.7% 108
95 Mississippi St 2-4 56 -5.151 1.6% 129.3% 83
96 Utah St 2-4 50 -5.465 1.8% 131.1% 99
97 Hawaii 3-4 100 -5.618 0.9% 132.0% 87
98 Rutgers 2-5 3 -5.696 0.4% 132.4% 89
99 Notre Dame 2-5 68 -6.069 2.1% 134.5% 96
100 Arizona 2-5 25 -6.105 0.2% 134.8% 93
101 East Carolina 2-4 45 -6.294 1.1% 135.8% 98
102 South Carolina 2-4 39 -6.303 0.1% 135.9% 101
103 SMU 2-4 46 -6.459 0.9% 136.8% 103
104 Michigan St 2-4 62 -6.655 1.1% 137.9% 92
105 ULM 2-4 73 -7.037 2.2% 140.1% 116
106 Virginia 2-4 83 -7.111 0.4% 140.5% 100
107 ULL 2-4 75 -7.503 2.2% 142.7% 97
108 Arkansas St 2-4 72 -8.182 3.9% 146.6% 122
109 Marshall 2-4 81 -8.219 0.2% 146.8% 117
110 Texas St 2-4 78 -8.544 1.9% 148.6% 105
111 Florida Intl 3-4 121 -8.612 0.4% 149.0% 113
112 Kent 2-5 112 -9.038 2.4% 151.4% 107
113 Georgia St 1-5 20 -9.077 0.2% 151.7% 111
114 Nevada 3-4 127 -9.364 1.6% 153.3% 106
115 Charlotte 2-5 87 -9.640 1.6% 154.9% 112
116 N Illinois 1-6 18 -9.815 1.0% 155.9% 114
117 New Mexico St 2-4 86 -9.924 0.6% 156.5% 109
118 Bowling Green 1-6 16 -10.740 4.6% 161.1% 118
119 Kansas 1-5 36 -10.779 0.2% 161.4% 115
120 San Jose St 2-5 109 -10.953 1.0% 162.3% 124
121 Iowa St 1-6 53 -11.440 2.8% 165.1% 119
122 Fresno St 1-6 43 -11.679 1.4% 166.5% 121
123 Massachusetts 1-6 48 -12.659 5.6% 172.1% 120
124 Miami OH 1-6 96 -13.517 4.9% 176.9% 128
125 FL Atlantic 1-6 116 -14.027 2.9% 179.8% 123
126 UTEP 1-5 94 -14.322 1.7% 181.5% 125
127 Rice 0-6 34 -15.505 6.7% 188.3% 127
128 Buffalo 1-5 120 -15.672 1.0% 189.2% 126

Best win: Alabama 49-10 vs. Tennessee
Worst loss: Virginia 20-37 vs. Richmond

Rk Conference Rating Best Team Worst Team
1 SEC 3.890 17.441 -6.303
2 Big 10 3.723 17.569 -6.655
3 ACC 3.706 15.926 -7.111
4 Pac-12 3.036 14.045 -6.105
5 American 1.209 10.357 -6.459
6 Big 12 0.939 11.595 -11.440
7 Mountain West -2.440 12.630 -11.679
8 MAC -3.254 13.209 -15.672
9 Sun Belt -4.121 8.500 -9.924
10 Conference USA -5.807 1.998 -15.505

SOS = Strength of schedule ranking based on games played
% Bhnd = Percentage of the number one 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 *