The Only Original and Unaltered 
BCS Computer Rankings...

Showing Which Teams Have Accomplished the Most to Date

Oklahoma Edges LSU for #1, with 
USC a Relatively Distant 3rd

The BCS, Not the Polls, Got It Right
  • With all due respect to #3 USC, the teams most deserving of invitations to the Sugar Bowl are #1 Oklahoma and #2 LSU
  • All 3 teams have 1 loss, and USC simply has not beaten anywhere near the caliber of teams that Oklahoma and LSU have beaten:
  • Based on teams' current rankings, Oklahoma and LSU have each played 2 games vs. better teams than USC's toughest opponent, and they have each played 5 games vs. better teams than USC's 2nd-toughest opponent
  • USC has not played a current top-15 team, and the Trojans are only 2-1 vs. the current top-40, despite playing #38 and #40
  • The best team USC has beaten is #18 Washington St., while Oklahoma has beaten #5 Texas, and LSU has beaten #12 Georgia twice
  • The 2nd-best team USC has played is #38 Cal, which beat the Trojans
  • Oklahoma and LSU have each lost only to a current top-25 team (#16 Kansas St. and #24 Florida, respectively), and they have combined for 9 wins over teams currently ranked higher than Cal
  • As the following list shows, USC has posted only 2 of the 10 best wins by these 3 teams (based on teams' current rankings):  1. Oklahoma over #5 Texas, 2. (tie) LSU over #12 Georgia (regular season), 2. (tie) LSU over #12 Georgia (SEC championship game), 4. USC over #18 Washington St., 5. Oklahoma over #19 Oklahoma St., 6. LSU over #20 Arkansas, 7. LSU over #23 Mississippi, 8. Oklahoma over #31 Texas Tech, 9. Oklahoma over #32 Missouri, 10. (tie) USC over #40 Auburn, 10. (tie) LSU over #40 Auburn
  • In sum, the Trojans' top wins are over much worse teams than the Sooners and Tigers have beaten, and the Trojans' loss is to a much worse team too:  Oklahoma and LSU deserve to play in the Sugar Bowl
More College
Football Links
The Anderson & Hester College Football 
Computer Rankings, end of 2003 regular season
•Nov. 30 Rankings
•Nov. 23 Rankings
•Nov. 16 Rankings
•Nov. 9 Rankings
•Nov. 2 Rankings
•Oct. 26 Rankings
•Oct. 19 Rankings
•Oct. 12 Rankings
•Oct. 5 Rankings
•Sept. 28 Rankings

•Final 2002-03 Rankings
•Final 2001-02 Rankings
 
    Rating  W  L Sched.
Strength*		 Sched. 
Rank*		 vs. Current
Top-10		 vs. Current
#11-25		 Other 
Losses
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10.
Oklahoma
LSU
USC
Miami, Ohio
Texas
Ohio State
Michigan
Florida State
Miami, Fla.
Tennessee
.781
.776
.760
.749
.742
.741
.740
.738
.731
.724
12
12
11
12
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
.538
.531
.514
.493
.551
.550
.549
.547
.538
.530
*to date
33
40
54
71
19
20
22
27
34
41
1-0
0-0
0-0
0-0
0-1
0-1
1-0
0-1
1-0
1-0
1-1
4-1
1-0
0-1
3-1
2-0
1-1
1-0
1-1
1-1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
Rank Team  Rating W L Sched. 
Strength		 Sched. 
Rank		   Conference
Rankings		 Rating W*  L* Sched.
Strength*
11. 
12. 
13. 
14. 
15. 
16. 
17. 
18. 
19. 
20. 
21. 
22. 
23. 
24. 
25.
TCU
Georgia
Utah
Iowa
Purdue
Kansas State
Nebraska
Washington State
Oklahoma State
Arkansas
Boise State
Southern Miss
Mississippi
Florida
Maryland
.706
.703
.701
.693
.693
.693
.690
.676
.662
.661
.657
.657
.654
.653
.645
11
10
9
9
9
11
9
9
9
8
12
9
9
8
9
1
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
1
3
3
4
3
.445
.548
.512
.549
.549
.525
.545
.529
.513
.566
.385
.508
.504
.557
.494
89
25
60
23
24
48
28
44
58
11
114
61
63
18
69
  Big 12
Big Ten
Pac-10
Southeastern
Atlantic Coast
Big East
Mountain West
Conference USA
WAC
Mid-American
Sun Belt
*non-conference play
.597
.591
.576
.572
.565
.536
.529
.458
.422
.416
.290
37
30
25
32
22
25
23
23
17
24
7
12
14
15
17
14
15
16
21
26
32
39
.440
.482
.501
.480
.499
.461
.475
.445
.485
.458
.498
Rank Team  Rating W L Sched. 
Strength		 Sched. 
Rank		   Rank Team  Rating  W L Sched.
Strength		 Sched.
Rank
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
Oregon
Minnesota
Michigan State
Bowling Green
Pittsburgh
Texas Tech
Missouri
Clemson
Northern Illinois
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Virginia Tech
California
N.C. State
Auburn
Louisville
New Mexico
Colorado State
Virginia
Boston College
Connecticut
Oregon State
Notre Dame
Northwestern
UCLA
Memphis
Colorado
North Texas
Georgia Tech
Marshall
Washington
Toledo
Houston
Air Force
Fresno State
UNLV
Kansas
South Florida
South Carolina
Syracuse
Tulsa
Hawaii
Texas A&M
Navy
Wake Forest
Alabama
.639
.638
.635
.632
.615
.607
.604
.603
.602
.601
.599
.594
.587
.587
.579
.578
.578
.576
.575
.572
.565
.563
.560
.560
.559
.557
.556
.541
.540
.538
.537
.532
.532
.529
.528
.528
.524
.524
.518
.515
.509
.507
.503
.491
.489
.486
8
9
8
10
8
7
8
8
10
8
7
8
7
7
7
9
8
7
7
7
9
7
5
6
6
8
5
9
6
8
6
8
7
7
8
6
6
7
5
6
8
8
4
8
5
4

4
3
4
3
4
5
4
4
2
4
5
4
6
5
5
3
4
5
5
5
3
5
7
6
6
4
7
3
6
4
6
4
5
5
5
6
6
4
7
6
4
5
8
4
7
9
.542
.487
.537
.468
.515
.558
.504
.504
.393
.501
.550
.494
.565
.538
.530
.425
.477
.526
.525
.522
.412
.513
.609
.560
.559
.456
.605
.388
.540
.437
.537
.431
.482
.479
.458
.528
.524
.442
.568
.515
.408
.438
.603
.391
.539
.602
30
74
37
83
51
16
64
65
110
68
21
70
12
35
42
101
82
46
47
50
106
57
1
14
15
86
2
113
31
94
36
97
78
80
85
45
49
91
9
52
107
93
3
112
32
4
  72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
San Diego State
Stanford
BYU
Arizona State
UAB
Rutgers
Nevada
Troy State
Louisiana Tech
Tulane
Cincinnati
Duke
Akron
Penn State
Wyoming
Western Michigan
Baylor
Rice
Kentucky
Kent State
Arizona
Ball State
Iowa State
Mississippi State
Vanderbilt
LA Lafayette
Indiana
North Carolina
Arkansas State
Illinois
San Jose State
Mid. Tenn. St.
Central Michigan
Utah State
Central Florida
Eastern Michigan
New Mexico St.
East Carolina
Temple
Ohio
Idaho
Buffalo
UTEP
Army
SMU
LA Monroe
.478
.475
.465
.464
.463
.452
.450
.443
.437
.435
.434
.429
.425
.415
.413
.401
.395
.392
.390
.387
.385
.380
.373
.356
.337
.333
.331
.330
.324
.306
.303
.301
.285
.283
.280
.278
.268
.260
.256
.244
.239
.226
.225
.202
.192
.178
6
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
5
5
5
4
7
3
4
5
3
5
4
5
2
4
2
2
2
4
2
2
5
1
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
2
3
1
2
0
0
1
6
7
8
7
7
7
6
6
7
7
7
8
5
9
8
7
9
7
8
7
10
8
10
10
10
8
10
10
7
11
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
11
11
10
9
11
11
13
12
11
.478
.557
.566
.514
.513
.502
.450
.443
.487
.485
.484
.529
.377
.568
.514
.450
.548
.440
.490
.435
.594
.479
.581
.563
.543
.428
.536
.535
.369
.570
.432
.393
.425
.423
.419
.417
.405
.513
.507
.429
.368
.467
.413
.504
.487
.395
81
17
10
53
59
67
88
90
75
76
77
43
115
8
55
87
26
92
72
95
5
79
6
13
29
99
38
39
116
7
96
111
100
102
103
104
108
56
62
98
117
84
105
66
73
109
The Anderson & Hester Rankings are distinct in four ways: 

1. These rankings do not reward teams for running up scores.  Teams are rewarded for beating quality opponents, which is the object of the game.  Margin of victory, which is not the object of the game, is not considered. 

2. Unlike the A.P. and coaches' polls, these rankings do not prejudge teams.  These rankings first appear after the season's fifth week, and each team's ranking reflects its actual accomplishments on the field, not its perceived potential. 

3. These rankings compute the most accurate strength of schedule ratings.  Each team's opponents and opponents' opponents are judged not only by their won-lost records but also, uniquely, by their conferences' strength (see #4). 

4. These rankings provide the most accurate conference ratings.  Each conference is rated according to its non-conference won-lost record and the difficulty of its non-conference schedule. 

Contact AndersonSports

 Copyright 2003 by Jeff Anderson and Chris Hester, all rights reserved