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

Showing Which Teams Have Accomplished the Most to Date

 The Texas Longhorns Finish #1

Goodbye to Stanford Stadium

  • Texas posted the highest rating (.849) of any team in the BCS era
  • The Big Ten, led by #3 Penn St. and #4 Ohio St., beat out the Big 12 and ACC as the top conference
  • The Pac-10 landed 3 teams in the top 10 (tops among all conferences), led by #2 USC
  • Oklahoma played by far the nation's toughest schedule:  the Sooners played 6 of their 12 games against teams that finished in the top 25 (4 vs. teams that finished in the top 12), with only 1 of those at home
More College
Football Links
The Anderson & Hester College Football 
Computer Rankings, 2005-06 
•Final Pre-Bowl Rankings
•Nov. 28 Rankings
•Nov. 21 Rankings
•Nov. 14 Rankings
•Nov. 7 Rankings
•Oct. 31 Rankings
•Oct. 24 Rankings
•Oct. 17 Rankings
•Oct. 10 Rankings
•Oct. 3 Rankings

•Final 2004-05 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
Ohio State
West Virginia
Virginia Tech
LSU
TCU
UCLA
Oregon
.849
.813
.794
.776
.764
.755
.744
.743
.741
.732
13
12
11
10
11
11
11
11
10
10
0
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
.585
.587
.561
.597
.518
.560
.545
.490
.551
.539
*to date
13
11
35
6
60
36
47
68
44
53
2-0
2-1
1-0
0-2
0-1
1-0
0-0
0-0
0-1
0-1
2-0
1-0
2-1
3-0
2-0
2-1
4-1
1-0
2-0
0-1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
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
Oklahoma
Georgia
Miami, Fla.
Florida
Wisconsin
Boston College
Notre Dame
Texas Tech
Auburn
Nebraska
Michigan
Clemson
Northwestern
Louisville
.730
.729
.719
.714
.712
.710
.705
.699
.685
.685
.671
.662
.661
.655
.640
10
8
10
9
9
10
9
9
9
9
8
7
8
7
9
2
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
5
4
5
3
.537
.642
.567
.573
.571
.556
.563
.556
.540
.539
.576
.616
.565
.608
.489
55
1
29
25
27
41
33
42
51
52
19
2
32
5
70
  Big Ten
Big 12
Atlantic Coast
Pac-10
Southeastern
Big East
Mountain West
Conference USA
Mid-American
WAC
Sun Belt
*non-conference play
.648
.638
.631
.603
.585
.510
.480
.434
.399
.382
.302
31
36
32
26
30
20
15
18
14
10
6
10
8
12
10
12
16
17
24
24
24
27
.494
.440
.495
.467
.454
.476
.499
.477
.477
.506
.491
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.
Minnesota
Georgia Tech
Florida State
Colorado
Iowa
Arizona State
South Carolina
Kansas
Missouri
Iowa State
California
N.C. State
Virginia
North Carolina
Tulsa
Maryland
Texas A&M
Purdue
Tennessee
Stanford
Baylor
Michigan State
Utah
Nevada
Boise State
Kansas State
South Florida
Oregon State
Navy
Toledo
Colorado State
Central Florida
BYU
Fresno State
Wake Forest
Rutgers
New Mexico
Vanderbilt
Southern Miss
Louisiana Tech
Memphis
UTEP
Oklahoma State
Arkansas
Central Michigan
Indiana
Pittsburgh		 .637
.637
.635
.630
.622
.622
.621
.615
.610
.606
.603
.599
.592
.586
.570
.566
.560
.557
.556
.555
.551
.549
.537
.536
.530
.530
.519
.516
.515
.515
.514
.508
.506
.502
.501
.499
.495
.491
.488
.484
.480
.478
.474
.474
.471
.468
.467
7
7
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
7
7
5
9
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
9
9
5
6
5
8
9
6
8
6
8
4
7
6
5
7
7
7
8
4
4
6
4
5

5
5
5
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
6
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
3
4
6
6
6
4
3
6
5
6
5
7
5
5
6
5
4
5
4
7
7
5
7
6
.590
.589
.568
.609
.574
.574
.573
.566
.561
.557
.503
.550
.543
.612
.453
.593
.587
.584
.583
.581
.578
.575
.487
.383
.414
.557
.519
.543
.415
.363
.514
.439
.506
.433
.582
.449
.468
.518
.438
.403
.431
.379
.557
.556
.444
.551
.494
9
10
28
4
23
24
26
30
34
37
66
46
49
3
81
8
12
14
15
17
18
21
71
106
96
38
58
48
95
113
61
88
64
91
16
84
76
59
89
100
92
109
39
40
87
45
67
  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
Washington State
San Diego State
Miami, Ohio
Houston
Arizona
Western Michigan
SMU
East Carolina
Connecticut
Bowling Green
Akron
Wyoming
Hawaii
Army
Cincinnati
Kentucky
Air Force
Ball State
Illinois
Mississippi State
UAB
Washington
Mississippi
LA Lafayette
Marshall
Ohio
Arkansas State
Eastern Michigan
LA Monroe
Florida International
Duke
Mid. Tenn. St.
Utah State
UNLV
Troy
Syracuse
San Jose State
Rice
Tulane
Temple
Florida Atlantic
North Texas
Idaho
Kent State
Buffalo
New Mexico State
.462
.460
.459
.457
.449
.436
.432
.431
.431
.426
.413
.411
.408
.406
.404
.401
.400
.399
.396
.395
.390
.381
.377
.374
.372
.366
.356
.348
.323
.323
.308
.307
.307
.291
.281
.281
.275
.260
.258
.246
.236
.233
.228
.221
.170
.170
.170
7
4
5
7
6
3
7
5
5
5
6
7
4
5
4
4
3
4
4
2
3
5
2
3
6
4
4
6
4
5
5
1
4
3
2
4
1
3
1
2
0
2
2
2
1
1
0
5
7
7
4
6
8
4
6
6
6
5
6
7
7
7
7
8
7
7
9
8
6
9
8
5
7
7
6
7
6
6
10
7
8
9
7
10
8
10
9
11
9
9
9
10
10
12
.412
.543
.509
.377
.449
.576
.353
.458
.458
.453
.387
.389
.490
.455
.485
.482
.539
.480
.477
.593
.528
.407
.575
.512
.347
.446
.435
.348
.400
.348
.331
.565
.381
.418
.466
.352
.526
.380
.504
.422
.553
.404
.398
.389
.376
.375
.450
97
50
63
110
85
20
114
78
79
82
105
104
69
80
72
73
54
74
75
7
56
98
22
62
118
86
90
116
101
117
119
31
107
94
77
115
57
108
65
93
43
99
102
103
111
112
83
*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 2006 by Jeff Anderson and Chris Hester, all rights reserved