The Only Original and Unaltered 
BCS Computer Rankings...

Showing Which Teams Have Accomplished the Most to Date

Splitting Hairs at the Top
  • #1 Oklahoma's rating is .84083 to #2 USC's .84078 (with a .5689 SOS rating to .5688).
  • At this point, Auburn is a relatively distant third.
  • The top 3 teams have each played 4 opponents currently ranked in the top-40, but Oklahoma's and USC's opponents have been tougher:  Oklahoma has played teams currently ranked #6, #13, #20, and #25 (average ranking of #16); USC has played #5, #8, #21, and #29 (average ranking of #16); Auburn has played #12, #15, #16, and #40 (average ranking of #21).
  • Meanwhile, Auburn has also played 4 bottom-40 or non-I-A opponents (non-I-A Citadel, #94, #93, and #85), while USC has played only 2 (#104 and #87) and Oklahoma only 1 (#89).  In other words, Auburn has effectively gotten to take more than 1/3 of the season off, while USC and Oklahoma have not.
More College
Football Links
The Anderson & Hester College Football 
Computer Rankings, as of Nov. 22 
•Nov. 15 Rankings
•Nov. 8 Rankings
•Nov. 1 Rankings
•Oct. 25 Rankings
•Oct. 18 Rankings
•Oct. 11 Rankings
•Oct. 4 Rankings

•Final 2003-04 Rankings

•Final 2003-04 Pre-Bowl 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
USC
Auburn
Utah
California
Texas
Boise State
Arizona State
Iowa
Miami, Fla.
.841
.841
.825
.804
.787
.786
.784
.783
.763
.745
11
10
11
11
9
9
10
8
9
8
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
2
2
.569
.569
.541
.507
.564
.564
.476
.630
.591
.579
*to date
24
25
48
67
31
32
75
2
11
20
1-0
2-0
0-0
0-0
1-1
0-1
0-0
1-2
0-1
0-0
3-0
1-0
3-0
1-0
0-0
2-0
1-0
1-0
3-1
3-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
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.
Michigan
Tennessee
Texas A&M
Virginia
Georgia
LSU
Louisville
Florida State
Wisconsin
Oklahoma State
Virginia Tech
Ohio State
Purdue
UTEP
Texas Tech
.744
.737
.736
.722
.720
.714
.710
.709
.707
.704
.682
.668
.657
.655
.648
9
8
7
8
8
8
8
8
9
7
8
7
7
8
6
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
3
2
3
2
4
4
2
4
.565
.569
.631
.550
.547
.540
.471
.582
.520
.593
.502
.591
.579
.472
.591
30
26
1
42
45
49
78
15
63
7
68
9
21
77
10
  Big 12
Pac-10
Atlantic Coast
Big Ten
Southeastern
Mountain West
Conference USA
Big East
WAC
Sun Belt
Mid-American
*non-conference play
.625
.617
.609
.583
.545
.525
.502
.498
.438
.365
.327
28
18
23
24
24
16
14
21
15
12
10
8
11
9
9
11
16
15
13
17
28
32
.454
.546
.476
.444
.432
.525
.512
.427
.457
.484
.483
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.
Boston College
Colorado
Notre Dame
Oregon State
West Virginia
North Carolina
Northwestern
Iowa State
Florida
Georgia Tech
Clemson
UCLA
UAB
New Mexico
Arkansas
South Carolina
Navy
Pittsburgh
Fresno State
Minnesota
Memphis
Alabama
Cincinnati
Michigan State
Nebraska
BYU
N.C. State
Syracuse
Bowling Green
Washington State
Oregon
Louisiana Tech
Kansas
Maryland
TCU
Wyoming
Connecticut
Southern Miss
Stanford
Wake Forest
Miami, Ohio
Penn State
North Texas
Northern Illinois
Toledo
Kansas State
.641
.637
.637
.634
.623
.622
.622
.620
.614
.614
.606
.596
.591
.591
.583
.571
.568
.566
.566
.564
.561
.552
.545
.539
.536
.535
.530
.529
.529
.525
.524
.520
.511
.510
.509
.505
.505
.501
.500
.488
.482
.481
.479
.476
.475
.473
8
6
6
6
8
6
6
6
7
6
6
6
7
7
5
6
8
6
7
6
7
6
6
5
5
5
4
5
8
5
5
5
4
4
5
6
6
5
4
4
8
4
7
8
7
4

2
4
4
5
2
5
5
4
4
4
5
4
3
4
5
5
2
3
3
5
3
5
4
6
5
6
6
5
2
6
6
6
7
6
5
5
4
4
7
6
3
7
4
3
3
7
.457
.580
.579
.608
.437
.596
.596
.562
.533
.555
.579
.537
.470
.509
.583
.544
.383
.465
.445
.537
.439
.525
.485
.566
.536
.562
.589
.529
.346
.552
.551
.548
.593
.570
.509
.478
.444
.468
.582
.548
.347
.563
.398
.341
.357
.556
85
17
19
3
91
5
6
35
54
37
18
51
79
65
14
46
104
83
86
50
89
59
72
29
53
34
12
55
114
39
41
44
8
23
66
74
87
82
16
43
113
33
99
115
111
36
  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.
Troy
Baylor
Missouri
Air Force
Mississippi
Colorado State
South Florida
Hawaii
Marshall
Illinois
Rutgers
San Diego State
New Mexico St.
Mississippi State
Indiana
Arizona
Tulane
Houston
Akron
SMU
Duke
Kentucky
LA Monroe
Rice
Mid. Tenn. St.
Nevada
Vanderbilt
Tulsa
Temple
UNLV
East Carolina
Utah State
Washington
Kent State
Army
Arkansas State
LA Lafayette
Ohio
Idaho
Central Michigan
Eastern Michigan
San Jose State
Ball State
Buffalo
Western Michigan
Central Florida
.470
.466
.462
.458
.451
.443
.435
.428
.416
.413
.412
.412
.411
.407
.404
.398
.392
.389
.389
.377
.370
.367
.361
.352
.343
.341
.341
.328
.328
.327
.311
.311
.310
.310
.303
.296
.294
.291
.276
.271
.265
.257
.230
.194
.183
.154
7
3
4
5
3
4
4
5
6
3
4
4
5
3
3
2
4
3
6
3
2
2
5
3
5
5
2
3
2
2
2
3
1
4
2
3
4
4
3
4
4
2
2
2
1
0
4
8
6
6
7
7
5
5
5
8
6
7
6
7
8
8
5
8
5
8
9
8
6
7
6
6
9
8
9
9
8
8
10
6
8
8
7
7
9
7
7
8
9
9
10
10
.389
.605
.522
.486
.573
.526
.468
.428
.389
.552
.472
.494
.438
.528
.543
.584
.424
.527
.363
.514
.568
.552
.387
.469
.368
.366
.536
.461
.522
.520
.490
.441
.568
.364
.480
.424
.366
.363
.414
.341
.334
.424
.400
.350
.396
.422
102
4
61
71
22
58
81
92
101
38
76
69
90
56
47
13
93
57
110
64
27
40
103
80
105
107
52
84
60
62
70
88
28
108
73
94
106
109
97
116
117
95
98
112
100
96
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 2004 by Jeff Anderson and Chris Hester, all rights reserved