The Only Original and Unaltered 
BCS Computer Rankings...

Showing Which Teams Have Accomplished the Most to Date

The Sooners Stake a Solid Claim to #1
  • Hats off to the A.P. poll for finally adjusting from its preseason rankings and putting Oklahoma on top of Miami.  The Sooners' performance merits the top postition. 
  • Oklahoma has played the nation's 9th-toughest schedule, while Miami has played the 46th-toughest.  Oklahoma has beaten a current top-10 team (#6 Texas), while Miami has not.  Oklahoma has beaten 4 current top-20 teams (the most in the nation), while Miami has beaten only 2.
  • Notre Dame at #10 in the coaches' poll?  The (8-1) Irish have 3 wins over current top-20 teams (Michigan, Florida St., and Pitt), which is more than any team in the nation except for Oklahoma.  Meanwhile, no other 1-loss team has more than 1 win over the current top-20.  The Irish have earned the #4 ranking.
  • #15 Bowling Green is 8-0 versus the nation's easiest schedule (#117).
More College
Football Links
The Anderson & Hester College Football 
Computer Rankings, as of Nov. 3
•Oct. 27 Rankings

•Oct. 20 Rankings

•Oct. 13 Rankings

•Oct. 6 Rankings
 

•Final 2001-02 Rankings

•Final 2001-02 Pre-Bowl Rankings
 
    Rating W  L Sched. 
Strength*		 Sched. 
Rank*		 vs. the 
Top-10		 vs. 
#11-20		 Other 
Losses
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10.
Oklahoma
Ohio State
Miami, Fla.
Notre Dame
Washington State
Texas
Georgia
Iowa
USC
Virginia Tech
.847
.824
.812
.784
.778
.777
.771
.765
.743
.735
8
10
8
8
8
8
8
9
6
8
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
.581
.539
.519
.569
.560
.559
.551
.534
.609
.502
*to date
9
33
46
16
20
21
26
38
3
54
1-0
1-0
0-0
0-0
1-1
0-1
0-0
0-0
0-1
0-0
3-0
0-0
2-0
3-0
0-0
1-0
1-1
1-1
1-0
0-1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
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.
Alabama
Florida State
Michigan
Florida
Bowling Green
Colorado State
N.C. State
Iowa State
Colorado
Pittsburgh
LSU
Penn State
Arkansas
UCLA
Oregon
.726
.713
.705
.699
.696
.694
.688
.685
.682
.682
.681
.668
.664
.663
.662
7
6
7
6
8
8
9
7
6
7
6
6
5
6
7
2
3
2
3
0
2
1
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
.570
.624
.544
.608
.364
.517
.436
.571
.589
.518
.534
.573
.594
.567
.495
14
1
28
4
117
48
103
13
8
47
36
11
6
17
58
  Southeastern
Pac-10
Big 12
Atlantic Coast
Big Ten
Big East
Mountain West
Conference USA
Mid-American
WAC
Sun Belt

*non-conference play

.616
.614
.597
.591
.588
.550
.458
.435
.408
.392
.353
33
29
36
23
32
25
17
15
22
12
10
9
10
14
11
13
13
23
20
31
27
29
.439
.466
.463
.484
.460
.454
.503
.477
.458
.507
.500
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.
Maryland
Virginia
Boise State
TCU
Kentucky
Auburn
Boston College
Kansas State
South Florida
Tennessee
Georgia Tech
Wisconsin
Oregon State
California
Arizona State
Minnesota
Texas Tech
South Carolina
Clemson
Miami, Ohio
Air Force
Nebraska
West Virginia
Mississippi
Louisville
Wake Forest
Northern Illinois
New Mexico St.
Hawaii
Texas A&M
Southern Miss
Toledo
Marshall
Missouri
Washington
Purdue
Oklahoma State
Tulane
Fresno State
Michigan State
Stanford
Cincinnati
North Texas
BYU
North Carolina
Mississippi State
.656
.651
.650
.648
.640
.637
.635
.633
.629
.628
.627
.623
.623
.622
.619
.614
.612
.604
.602
.592
.587
.579
.565
.562
.557
.554
.552
.550
.548
.539
.523
.519
.519
.516
.509
.506
.502
.497
.475
.474
.468
.467
.450
.441
.435
.434
7
6
8
7
6
6
5
7
6
5
6
6
6
5
7
7
6
5
5
7
6
6
6
5
5
5
6
6
7
5
5
5
6
4
4
4
4
6
4
3
2
3
4
4
2
3
2
3
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
4
3
4
3
2
4
4
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
5
3
3
2
4
3
3
2
5
5
5
4
3
5
6
6
5
5
5
7
5
.488
.554
.403
.411
.542
.539
.563
.463
.477
.555
.528
.565
.524
.590
.499
.443
.554
.571
.570
.471
.486
.520
.464
.529
.481
.554
.450
.449
.377
.505
.447
.444
.367
.550
.542
.539
.502
.397
.509
.575
.621
.542
.483
.474
.606
.509
60
23
109
108
32
34
19
79
71
22
41
18
43
7
56
100
24
12
15
75
61
45
77
39
67
25
91
92
114
53
95
97
115
27
30
35
55
112
52
10
2
31
64
73
5
51
  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.
UAB
Illinois
Houston
Temple
Indiana
Nevada
UNLV
New Mexico
Ball State
Arizona
San Jose State
Central Michigan
Northwestern
San Diego State
Baylor
Arkansas State
Central Florida
Louisiana Tech
Vanderbilt
Duke
Syracuse
Connecticut
Kent State
Ohio
East Carolina
Utah
Troy State
Rice
Wyoming
Akron
Kansas
Western Michigan
Utah State
LA Lafayette
UTEP
Eastern Michigan
Memphis
Mid. Tenn. St.
Idaho
LA Monroe
Rutgers
Navy
Tulsa
SMU
Buffalo
Army
.433
.428
.428
.423
.423
.423
.423
.422
.416
.414
.412
.404
.392
.382
.381
.373
.371
.368
.364
.359
.358
.354
.353
.351
.344
.340
.334
.334
.321
.320
.318
.318
.318
.314
.313
.305
.299
.293
.285
.271
.250
.246
.227
.226
.190
.157
4
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
3
3
3
5
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
4
6
4
6
6
5
5
5
5
6
6
5
7
6
6
6
5
5
7
8
6
6
6
6
5
6
7
5
7
7
8
7
6
7
7
6
7
7
7
7
8
7
8
9
8
8
.433
.529
.428
.524
.524
.455
.455
.454
.449
.515
.472
.437
.513
.482
.480
.399
.444
.441
.534
.544
.456
.451
.450
.448
.470
.488
.451
.365
.486
.485
.498
.483
.464
.478
.476
.397
.460
.453
.443
.426
.478
.462
.447
.454
.393
.427
104
40
105
42
44
83
84
85
93
49
74
102
50
66
68
110
98
101
37
29
82
88
90
94
76
59
89
116
62
63
57
65
78
70
72
111
81
87
99
107
69
80
96
86
113
106
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 2002 by Jeff Anderson and Chris Hester, all rights reserved