The Only Original and Unaltered 
BCS Computer Rankings...

Showing Which Teams Have Accomplished the Most to Date

USC Is the National Champion
  • This was a season of extraordinary teams:  the top 5 teams (USC, Auburn, Oklahoma, Utah, and Texas) each finished with higher ratings than last season's national champion (LSU, .792 rating)
  • USC posted the 2nd-highest rating of any team in the BCS era (.840), second only to that of the 2000-01 Oklahoma Sooners (.842)
  • Auburn posted by far the highest runner-up rating in the BCS era (.831), joining only 2 other non-#1 teams to post ratings over .800 (the 2000-01 Miami Hurricanes, at .815; and the 2000-01 Washington Huskies, at .812) 
More College
Football Links
The Anderson & Hester College Football 
Computer Rankings, 2004-05 
•Final Pre-Bowl Rankings
•Nov. 29 Rankings
•Nov. 22 Rankings
•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
 
    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.
USC
Auburn
Oklahoma
Utah
Texas
Iowa
Louisville
Georgia
California
Boise State
.840
.831
.807
.797
.797
.752
.745
.743
.739
.738
13
13
12
12
11
10
11
10
10
11
0
0
1
0
1
2
1
2
2
1
.567
.552
.577
.495
.566
.565
.494
.553
.548
.485
*to date
16
33
14
67
17
18
68
31
36
73
2-0
1-0
1-1
0-0
0-1
0-0
1-0
0-1
0-1
0-1
3-0
4-0
4-0
1-0
5-0
3-2
0-1
2-1
2-1
1-0
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.
Arizona State
Tennessee
Miami, Fla.
Michigan
Virginia Tech
LSU
Florida State
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
Wisconsin
Ohio State
Virginia
Colorado
Oregon State
Oklahoma State
.737
.727
.723
.701
.698
.696
.696
.687
.684
.665
.658
.651
.647
.643
.643
9
10
9
9
10
9
9
7
8
9
8
8
8
7
7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
4
3
4
4
5
5
5
.601
.576
.585
.559
.542
.552
.552
.643
.591
.517
.562
.554
.581
.596
.596
2
15
11
24
43
32
34
1
6
59
21
29
13
3
4
  Big 12
Pac-10
Atlantic Coast
Southeastern
Big Ten
Mountain West
Big East
Conference USA
WAC
Sun Belt
Mid-American
*non-conference play
.633
.629
.600
.569
.568
.530
.501
.479
.472
.353
.329
32
23
27
28
27
18
24
17
19
12
12
11
13
13
14
14
17
16
21
19
30
35
.485
.548
.495
.468
.472
.522
.441
.511
.472
.480
.473
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
Purdue
Georgia Tech
Fresno State
Navy
Notre Dame
Florida
UTEP
North Carolina
Pittsburgh
Clemson
Iowa State
New Mexico
West Virginia
Arkansas
Minnesota
Northwestern
South Carolina
UCLA
Louisiana Tech
Connecticut
Memphis
Wyoming
BYU
Cincinnati
Syracuse
Southern Miss
Hawaii
Bowling Green
N.C. State
Alabama
Nebraska
Washington State
Maryland
UAB
Kansas
Oregon
Toledo
Northern Illinois
Missouri
Michigan State
Stanford
Kansas State
Mississippi
TCU
Air Force
.613
.610
.605
.604
.597
.589
.585
.585
.585
.583
.580
.580
.570
.566
.562
.561
.558
.553
.543
.541
.538
.537
.532
.531
.528
.527
.526
.525
.524
.520
.519
.517
.517
.515
.512
.510
.506
.503
.500
.486
.486
.481
.468
.463
.461
.461
9
7
7
9
10
6
7
8
6
8
6
7
7
8
5
7
6
6
6
6
8
8
7
5
7
6
7
8
9
5
6
5
5
5
7
4
5
9
9
5
5
4
4
4
5
5

3
5
5
3
2
6
5
4
6
4
5
5
5
4
6
5
6
5
6
6
4
4
5
6
5
6
5
5
3
6
6
6
6
6
5
7
6
4
3
6
7
7
7
7
6
6
.460
.562
.556
.450
.388
.589
.536
.484
.585
.483
.554
.531
.520
.465
.588
.511
.558
.526
.543
.541
.437
.436
.481
.559
.478
.527
.475
.456
.372
.547
.519
.545
.544
.542
.462
.591
.533
.387
.350
.514
.536
.563
.551
.545
.488
.488
86
20
26
88
104
7
46
74
10
75
30
49
56
84
8
64
25
53
41
44
91
92
76
23
79
52
81
87
108
37
57
39
40
42
85
5
47
105
114
60
45
19
35
38
71
72
  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.
North Texas
Penn State
Colorado State
Arizona
Wake Forest
Baylor
Miami, Ohio
Troy
Tulane
San Diego State
Marshall
New Mexico St.
South Florida
Rutgers
Illinois
Tulsa
Akron
SMU
Houston
Indiana
Mississippi State
Nevada
Kentucky
Duke
LA Monroe
Rice
Mid. Tenn. St.
Vanderbilt
UNLV
Temple
Kent State
Washington
Utah State
East Carolina
Ohio
Arkansas State
Army
LA Lafayette
Idaho
Central Michigan
Eastern Michigan
San Jose State
Ball State
Buffalo
Western Michigan
Central Florida
.452
.450
.448
.447
.446
.443
.440
.439
.414
.411
.396
.394
.391
.386
.381
.379
.378
.376
.376
.373
.370
.366
.359
.358
.358
.357
.331
.331
.328
.321
.313
.304
.300
.293
.292
.290
.290
.286
.274
.271
.271
.266
.231
.195
.184
.142
7
4
4
3
4
3
8
7
5
4
6
5
4
4
3
4
6
3
3
3
3
5
2
2
5
3
5
2
2
2
5
1
3
2
4
3
2
4
3
4
4
2
2
2
1
0
5
7
7
8
7
8
5
5
6
7
6
6
7
7
8
8
5
8
8
8
8
7
9
9
6
8
6
9
9
9
6
10
8
9
7
8
9
7
9
7
7
9
9
9
10
11
.403
.532
.530
.586
.528
.582
.373
.390
.441
.493
.396
.420
.471
.466
.518
.478
.353
.513
.513
.511
.507
.414
.556
.555
.384
.493
.356
.525
.522
.514
.337
.561
.428
.481
.364
.417
.477
.358
.412
.341
.340
.447
.401
.352
.397
.399
98
48
50
9
51
12
107
103
90
70
102
94
82
83
58
78
112
62
63
65
66
96
27
28
106
69
111
54
55
61
117
22
93
77
109
95
80
110
97
115
116
89
99
113
101
100
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