The Only Original and Unaltered
BCS Computer Rankings...

Showing Which Teams Have Accomplished the Most to Date

Missouri Edges Kansas and LSU to Finish #1

  • The Tigers edge the Jayhawks by .0005
  • Missouri was the only team to beat the 12-1 Jayhawks, also beat #22 Illinois, #32 Arkansas, and #34 Texas Tech, and didn't lose to anyone ranked outside the top-10
  • Kansas went 1-1 vs. #1 Missouri and #10 Virginia Tech, and 11-0 otherwise
  • Missouri and Kansas both edge BCS National Champion LSU, which beat 5 top-25 teams but none on the road, and which lost to #25 Kentucky and #32 Arkansas
  • Missouri's .756 rating would only have been good enough for 8th place last season
More College
Football Links
The Anderson & Hester College Football 
Computer Rankings, 2007-08
Dec. 9 Rankings
Dec. 2 Rankings
Nov. 25 Rankings
Nov. 18 Rankings
Nov. 11 Rankings
Nov. 4 Rankings
Oct. 28 Rankings
Oct. 21 Rankings
Oct. 14 Rankings
Final 2006-07 Rankings


 

  Rating
 W 
 L 
Sched.
Strength
Sched. 
Rank
vs. Current
Top-10
vs. Current
#11-25
Other 
Losses
1. Missouri .756 12
2
.553 25 1-2 1-0 0
2. Kansas .756 12
1
.502 61 1-1 0-0 0
3. LSU .754 12
2
.551 26 2-0 3-1 1
4. USC .745 11
2
.547 29 1-0 2-1 1
5. Georgia .745 11
2
.547 30 0-0 4-1 1
6. West Virginia .738 11
2
.538 40 1-0 1-1 1
7. Ohio State .727 11
2
.523 49 0-1 2-1 0
8. Oklahoma .714 11
3
.550 27 2-1 1-0 2
9. Arizona State .708 10
3
.554 24 0-1 1-2 0
10. Virginia Tech .706 11
3
.540 37 0-2 1-1 0
Rank Team  Rating
 W 
 L 
Sched. 
Strength
Sched. 
Rank
Conference
Rankings
Rating
W*
 L*
Sched.
Strength*
11. Tennessee .704
10
4
.584 7   Southeastern .643
47
10
.441
12. Oregon .697
9
4
.590 4   Pac-10 .623
25
12
.518
13. Florida .697
9
4
.590 5   Big 12 .584
41
15
.442
14. BYU .697
11
2
.487 70   Big East .577
32
13
.449
15. Texas .688
10
3
.530 45   Atlantic Coast .560
35
21
.484
16. Boston College .682
11
3
.512 54   Big Ten .546
38
14
.405
17. Auburn .679
9
4
.569 13   Mountain West .506
24
17
.454
18. Oregon State .676
9
4
.566 18   WAC .414
18
23
.450
19. Hawaii .660
12
1
.388 115   Conference USA .387
18
36
.487
20. Cincinnati .657
10
3
.495 64   Sun Belt .364
10
31
.520
21. South Florida .656
9
4
.544 35   Mid-American .354
17
44
.486
22. Illinois .653
9
4
.541 36   *non-conference play
23. Michigan .653
9
4
.540 38  
24. Penn State .640
9
4
.526 48  
25. Kentucky .638
8
5
.571 12  
RANK Team Rating Win Lose Schedule Strength Schedule Strength BCS Football Rankings RANK Team Rating Win Lose Schedule Strength Schedule Strength
Rank Team  Rating
W
L
Sched. 
Strength
Sched. 
Rank
  Rank Team  Rating
W
L
Sched. 
Strength
Sched. 
Rank
26. Clemson .632 9 4 .518 51   73. Miami, Fla. .461 5 7 .511 56
27. Wake Forest .627 9 4 .512 55   74. Central Michigan .448 8 6 .406 106
28. Wisconsin .623 9 4 .508 57   75. Bowling Green .447 8 5 .379 116
29. Mississippi State .623 8 5 .556 23   76. Wyoming .442 5 7 .492 65
30. Virginia .618 9 4 .502 59   77. Ball State .441 7 6 .418 96
31. Utah .616 9 4 .500 62   78. Mississippi .435 3 9 .589 6
32. Arkansas .614 8 5 .546 33   79. Southern Miss .432 7 6 .409 103
33. Connecticut .611 9 4 .495 63   80. LA Monroe .421 6 6 .421 91
34. Texas Tech .606 9 4 .491 68   81. San Diego State .419 4 8 .520 50
35. California .599 7 6 .577 10   82. North Carolina .415 4 8 .516 53
36. Alabama .591 7 6 .569 14   83. Notre Dame .414 3 9 .568 15
37. Oklahoma State .589 7 6 .567 16   84. Louisiana Tech .397 5 7 .445 81
38. Texas A&M .587 7 6 .565 19   85. Nevada .396 6 7 .418 97
39. UCLA .586 6 7 .608 1   86. Memphis .388 7 6 .367 118
40. Air Force .580 9 4 .463 76   87. Iowa State .386 3 9 .539 39
41. South Carolina .576 6 6 .576 11   88. San Jose State .385 5 7 .434 87
42. Central Florida .575 10 4 .444 83   89. Miami, Ohio .384 6 7 .406 107
43. Florida State .572 7 6 .549 28   90. Baylor .383 3 9 .535 41
44. Michigan State .569 7 6 .546 34   91. Western Michigan .381 5 7 .429 89
45. Boise State .568 10 3 .402 109   92. Mid. Tenn. St. .373 5 7 .421 92
46. New Mexico .562 9 4 .445 82   93. Arkansas State .364 5 7 .412 101
47. Rutgers .560 8 5 .491 67   94. Ohio .362 6 6 .362 119
48. Purdue .558 8 5 .489 69   95. Toledo .354 5 7 .401 110
49. Fresno State .554 9 4 .437 85   96. Buffalo .353 5 7 .400 111
50. Tulsa .549 10 4 .418 95   97. Colorado State .352 3 9 .502 60
51. TCU .549 8 5 .479 73   98. Syracuse .352 2 10 .559 22
52. Nebraska .542 5 7 .592 3   99. Akron .327 4 8 .422 90
53. Colorado .541 6 7 .564 20   100. UTEP .320 4 8 .414 98
54. Troy .539 8 4 .438 84   101. Eastern Michigan .320 4 8 .414 99
55. Louisville .535 6 6 .535 42   102. Army .320 3 9 .466 75
56. Arizona .530 5 7 .580 8   103. UNLV .315 2 10 .517 52
57. Georgia Tech .529 7 6 .506 58   104. Tulane .314 4 8 .407 104
58. East Carolina .524 8 5 .454 80   105. Marshall .310 3 9 .455 79
59. Washington State .517 5 7 .566 17   106. New Mexico State .306 4 9 .413 100
60. Indiana .514 7 6 .491 66   107. Temple .300 4 8 .392 114
61. Vanderbilt .512 5 7 .562 21   108. Duke .286 1 11 .546 32
62. Maryland .512 6 7 .535 43   109. LA Lafayette .281 3 9 .420 93
63. Florida Atlantic .506 8 5 .436 86   110. Minnesota .271 1 11 .528 47
64. Kansas State .496 5 7 .546 31   111. Utah State .269 2 10 .462 77
65. Washington .487 4 9 .603 2   112. Rice .267 3 9 .403 108
66. Iowa .484 6 6 .484 71   113. UAB .266 2 10 .458 78
67. Northwestern .482 6 6 .482 72   114. Kent State .261 3 9 .397 113
68. Pittsburgh .481 5 7 .531 44   115. Fla. International .227 1 11 .469 74
69. Navy .480 8 5 .411 102   116. North Texas .226 2 10 .406 105
70. Stanford .479 4 8 .579 9   117. Northern Illinois .206 2 10 .377 117
71. N.C. State .478 5 7 .528 46   118. Idaho .201 1 11 .430 88
72. Houston .466 8 5 .398 112   119. SMU .193 1 11 .419 94

 
The Anderson & Hester Rankings are distinct in four ways: 

1. Unlike the polls, 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 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 2008 by AndersonSports, all rights reserved