The Only Original and Unaltered* 
BCS Computer Rankings...

Showing Which Teams Have Accomplished the Most to Date

It's a 2-Horse Race:  Texas vs. USC
  • The Longhorns edge the Trojans by .004, while the gap between #2 and #3 (.027) is quite large—larger than the gap between #10 and #18
  • Unsung Penn State edges Alabama for 3rd, having posted an impressive 4-1 mark vs. the top 25 (average rank of those 5 teams:  #16) versus Alabama's 1-0 mark vs. the top 25 (vs. #16 Florida, at home)
  • Miami cracks the top 5 after knocking off Virginia Tech in Blacksburg
More College
Football Links
The Anderson & Hester College Football 
Computer Rankings, as of Nov. 7 
•Oct. 31 Rankings

•Oct. 24 Rankings

•Oct. 17 Rankings

•Oct. 10 Rankings

•Oct. 3 Rankings

•Final 2004-05 Rankings

•Final 2003-04 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.
Texas
USC
Penn State
Alabama
Miami, Fla.
Virginia Tech
Wisconsin
Oregon
Ohio State
Georgia
.848
.844
.817
.813
.794
.793
.764
.761
.759
.747
9
9
9
9
7
8
8
8
7
7
0
0
1
0
1
1
2
1
2
1
.583
.574
.611
.521
.593
.582
.604
.537
.612
.529
*to date
20
28
9
55
15
22
10
48
8
50
1-0
1-0
2-0
0-0
1-0
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-2
0-0
3-0
1-0
2-1
1-0
1-1
3-0
2-1
0-0
1-0
0-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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.
Colorado
UCLA
TCU
LSU
Texas Tech
Florida
Notre Dame
Georgia Tech
Michigan
West Virginia
Oklahoma
Minnesota
Northwestern
Florida State
Boston College
.742
.739
.734
.732
.729
.727
.724
.722
.718
.715
.704
.704
.703
.678
.671
7
8
9
7
8
7
6
6
6
7
5
6
6
7
6
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
3
3
3
2
3
.590
.507
.492
.509
.495
.571
.585
.583
.629
.488
.638
.613
.613
.513
.577
17
62
71
61
70
31
19
21
5
73
4
6
7
60
25
  Big Ten
Atlantic Coast
Big 12
Pac-10
Southeastern
Big East
Mountain West
Conference USA
Mid-American
WAC
Sun Belt
*non-conference play
.665
.631
.615
.586
.567
.526
.487
.447
.411
.371
.309
27
25
31
22
24
19
13
14
13
8
5
6
7
5
7
8
12
14
20
23
20
24
.470
.459
.387
.427
.413
.458
.498
.500
.494
.499
.507
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.
72.
Louisville
Auburn
South Carolina
North Carolina
UTEP
Arizona State
Iowa State
South Florida
Clemson
Michigan State
Missouri
Nebraska
Iowa
N.C. State
Colorado State
Fresno State
California
Maryland
Kansas
Stanford
Tennessee
Texas A&M
Virginia
Central Florida
Boise State
Oregon State
Baylor
Purdue
Kansas State
BYU
New Mexico
Rutgers
Toledo
Utah
Indiana
Tulsa
Southern Miss
Wake Forest
Vanderbilt
Central Michigan
Arizona
Miami, Ohio
Navy
Louisiana Tech
Pittsburgh
Houston
Nevada
.670
.663
.659
.654
.633
.624
.613
.611
.605
.602
.601
.599
.596
.595
.591
.589
.586
.580
.579
.577
.576
.575
.574
.567
.561
.559
.542
.541
.537
.534
.531
.530
.530
.524
.523
.518
.518
.516
.507
.499
.494
.485
.476
.475
.470
.467
.466
6
7
6
4
7
5
6
4
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
7
6
4
5
4
3
5
5
6
7
5
4
3
4
5
5
6
7
5
4
5
4
4
4
5
3
6
5
5
4
4
5

2
2
3
4
1
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
3
4
4
4
5
4
3
3
2
4
5
6
5
4
4
3
2
4
5
4
3
6
5
4
6
3
3
3
5
4
3
.522
.496
.563
.654
.396
.592
.513
.570
.573
.569
.569
.567
.563
.595
.559
.352
.485
.580
.546
.577
.648
.542
.499
.466
.389
.526
.575
.639
.570
.501
.498
.429
.360
.490
.556
.484
.475
.575
.541
.466
.594
.386
.402
.401
.503
.467
.392
54
68
39
1
106
16
58
33
29
34
36
37
38
13
41
117
74
23
43
24
2
44
66
80
109
52
27
3
32
65
67
96
116
72
42
76
78
26
45
81
14
110
103
104
63
79
107
  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.
118.
119.
Northern Illinois
Wyoming
Marshall
Cincinnati
Oklahoma State
Mississippi
Washington State
Connecticut
Arkansas
Western Michigan
Memphis
Illinois
Ohio
Bowling Green
San Diego State
UAB
East Carolina
Mississippi State
Kentucky
Ball State
Army
Akron
Mid. Tenn. St.
SMU
Air Force
Washington
Hawaii
LA Lafayette
Arkansas State
Eastern Michigan
Troy
Duke
LA Monroe
Utah State
Tulane
North Texas
Syracuse
Florida International
UNLV
Idaho
Temple
Florida Atlantic
Rice
San Jose State
New Mexico State
Kent State
Buffalo
.463
.462
.460
.460
.458
.440
.438
.438
.433
.432
.431
.428
.424
.417
.413
.398
.391
.389
.387
.386
.374
.372
.362
.359
.359
.357
.355
.353
.347
.346
.333
.320
.313
.299
.297
.291
.277
.275
.273
.251
.248
.227
.217
.212
.209
.201
.151
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
2
6
4
2
4
5
3
4
3
2
2
3
2
4
3
3
3
1
3
4
4
3
4
1
3
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
4
5
4
4
5
5
6
4
6
3
4
7
5
4
6
4
5
7
6
6
6
5
4
6
7
8
6
5
4
6
5
9
5
6
6
6
7
5
7
6
10
8
8
8
9
8
9
.430
.495
.460
.460
.533
.515
.539
.438
.586
.336
.431
.600
.457
.385
.514
.398
.465
.560
.539
.485
.526
.404
.402
.457
.477
.604
.452
.385
.347
.443
.363
.572
.381
.443
.439
.433
.502
.391
.428
.384
.569
.447
.526
.426
.513
.408
.416
95
69
83
84
49
56
47
92
18
119
94
12
85
111
57
105
82
40
46
75
51
101
102
86
77
11
87
112
118
90
115
30
114
89
91
93
64
108
97
113
35
88
53
98
59
100
99
*These rankings have benefited from some minor improvements from year-to-year, but their basic formula has remained unaltered throughout the duration of their involvement with the BCS.
 
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 2005 by Jeff Anderson and Chris Hester, all rights reserved