Yellow Number 4 Brett Favre T-Shirt

Part of the BCS Throughout Its Entire 16-Year Run...

Showing Which Teams Have the Best Win-Loss Records Considering Their Schedules—to Date

Georgia Finishes at #1

  • The Bulldogs—with a 2-1 record versus the top-5 and 5-1 record vs. the top-25—finished as the clear #1 team on the season
  • Michigan, Cincinnati, and Alabama finish nearly tied (.780, .779, and .778, respectively) at #2-4 in terms of season-long success
  • Alabama fared better against elite competition (2-1 vs. the top-5) but lost to #28 Texas A&M, whereas Michigan (0-1 vs. the top-5 and 3-2 vs. the top-15) and Cincinnati (0-1 vs. the top-5 and 2-1 vs. the top-20) didn’t lose to anyone outside of the top-10
  • The team that finished the most games over .500 vs. the top-10 (3-1) was actually #6 Oklahoma State—only the Cowboys’ loss to #38 Iowa St. kept them out of the top-5
  • Overall, the top-10 went 14-1 vs. the rest of the top-25
  • With a 5-2 bowl record, the Big 12 nipped the Big Ten (6-4 in bowls) as the top conference on the season, followed by the SEC (5-7 in bowls)
  • There was a huge gap between the top 3 conferences and the next trio of conferences (#4 ACC, #5 American, and #6 Mountain West)
  • The Pac-12 (the #7 conference) had no teams in the top-30 and 6 teams (half the conference) ranked #100 or higher, in its worst season since becoming the Pac-12—and perhaps ever
  • (10-3) Air Force cracked the top-25
More College
Football Links

The Jeff Anderson & Chris Hester
College Football Computer Rankings, 2021-22

•Dec. 5 Rankings
•Nov. 28 Rankings
•Nov. 22 Rankings
•Nov. 15 Rankings
•Nov. 8 Rankings
•Nov. 1 Rankings
•Oct. 26 Rankings

•Final 2020-21 Rankings
•Final ’20 Pre-Bowl Rankings

•Final 2019-20 Rankings
•Final ’19 Pre-Bowl Rankings
Rating
 W 
 L 
Sched.
Strength
Sched. 
Rank
vs. Current
Top-10
vs. Current
#11-25
Other 
Losses
1.
 Georgia
.809
14
1
.572
16
2-1
3-0
0
2.
 Michigan
.780
12
2
.586
6
1-2
2-0
0
3.
 Cincinnati
.779
13
1
.530
42
1-1
1-0
0
4.
 Alabama
.778
13
2
.577
9
2-1
2-0
1
5.
 Baylor
.771
12
2
.573
8
2-1
1-0
1
6.
 Oklahoma St.
.770
12
2
.572
10
3-1
0-0
1
7.
 Ohio State
.759
11
2
.566
20
1-1
2-0
1
8.
 Michigan St.
.754
11
2
.558
24
1-1
1-1
0
9.
 Oklahoma
.746
11
2
.548
32
0-2
0-0
0
10.
 Notre Dame
.734
11
2
.533
41
0-2
2-0
0

Rank Team 
Rating
 W 
 L 
Sched. 
Strength
Sched. 
Rank
 Conference
Rankings
Rating
W*
 L*
Sched.
Strength*
11.
 Mississippi
.705
10
3
.550
30
   Big 12
.624
29
8
.450
12.
 Louisiana 
.701
13
1
.430
107
   Big Ten
.621
39
13
.469
13.
 Wisconsin
.691
9
4
.583
7
   Southeastern
.602
53
15
.430
14.
 Iowa
.691
10
4
.569
18
   Atlantic Coast
.519
36
24
.459
15.
 San Diego State
.690
12
2
.471
76
   American Athletic
.507
28
20
.457
16.
 Purdue
.683
9
4
.574
13
   Mountain West
.496
35
20
.415
17.
 Kentucky
.675
10
3
.515
47
   Pac-12
.446
16
25
.512
18.
 Clemson
.674
10
3
.514
50
   Sun Belt
.442
24
20
.415
19.
 Arkansas
.674
9
4
.564
21
   Mid-American
.416
24
32
.458
20.
 Houston
.669
12
2
.447
100
   Conference USA .409 27 37 .455
21.
 Wake Forest
.662
11
3
.489
57
   *non-conference play
22.
 Pittsburgh
.661
11
3
.488
59
  
23.
 UTSA
.651
12
2
.428
110
  
24.
 Minnesota
.651
9
4
.538
37
  
25.
 Air Force
.639
10
3
.475
68
  
n/a n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a


 

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.
 BYU
.636
10
3
.472
72
  
79.
 Navy
.460
4
8
.561
22
27.
 Utah State
.632
11
3
.457
87
  
80.
 Marshall
.456
7
6
.434
106
28.
 Texas A&M
.632
8
4
.534
40
  
81.
 Syracuse
.453
5
7
.503
53
29.
 N.C. State
.630
9
3
.479
67
  
82.
 Kent State
.450
7
7
.450
97
30.
 Kansas State
.619
8
5
.551
29
  
83.
 Miami, Ohio
.449
7
6
.427
111
31.
 Fresno State
.619
10
3
.453
93
  
84.
 Nebraska
.449
3
9
.602
3
32.
 Utah
.612
10
4
.482
62
  
85.
 Eastern Michigan
.443
7
6
.420
115
33.
 Penn State
.610
7
6
.588
4
  
86.
 UTEP
.435
7
6
.412
120
34.
 Appalachian St.
.609
10
4
.479
66
  
87.
 Hawaii
.431
6
7
.454
91
35.
 Boise State
.605
7
5
.556
26
  
88.
 Ball State
.427
6
7
.450
99
36.
 Oregon
.604
10
4
.474
71
  
89.
 Indiana
.419
2
10
.628
1
37.
 Coastal Carolina
.603
11
2
.385
128
  
90.
 Toledo
.419
7
6
.397
127
38.
 Iowa State
.595
7
6
.572
15
  
91.
 Troy
.414
5
7
.464
81
39.
 Maryland
.592
7
6
.570
17
  
92.
 San Jose State
.409
5
7
.458
85
40.
 Army
.591
9
4
.474
70
  
93.
 Mid. Tenn. St.
.406
7
6
.384
129
41.
 Tennessee
.578
7
6
.555
27
  
94.
 North Texas
.395
6
7
.418
118
42.
 Texas Tech
.575
7
6
.552
28
  
95.
 Northwestern
.394
3
9
.547
33
43.
 Mississippi State
.572
7
6
.549
31
  
96.
 LA Monroe
.392
4
8
.492
55
44.
 Miami, Fla.
.572
7
5
.522
44
  
97.
 Georgia Tech
.384
3
9
.536
38
45.
 UCF
.571
9
4
.454
92
  
98.
 South Alabama
.381
5
7
.429
109
46.
 South Carolina
.564
7
6
.541
35
  
99.
 Old Dominion
.376
6
7
.398
126
47.
 Auburn
.564
6
7
.586
5
  
100.
 USC
.370
4
8
.468
78
48.
 SMU
.560
8
4
.459
84
  
101.
 California
.367
5
7
.415
119
49.
 Texas
.559
5
7
.608
2
  
102.
 Kansas
.365
2
10
.572
14
50.
 UAB
.556
9
4
.439
105
  
103.
 Florida Atlantic
.363
5
7
.411
122
51.
 West Virginia
.553
6
7
.576
11
  
104.
 Rice
.363
4
8
.461
83
52.
 LSU
.552
6
7
.575
12
  
105.
 Colorado
.359
4
8
.456
89
53.
 Georgia State
.544
8
5
.474
69
  
106.
 Texas State
.347
4
8
.443
102
54.
 UCLA
.544
8
4
.443
103
  
107.
 New Mexico
.345
3
9
.494
54
55.
 Nevada
.541
8
5
.471
75
  
108.
 Stanford
.342
3
9
.491
56
56.
 Western Kentucky
.538
9
5
.452
96
  
109.
 Tulane
.339
2
10
.545
34
57.
 Central Michigan
.538
9
4
.421
114
  
110.
 Charlotte
.334
5
7
.380
130
58.
 Northern Illinois
.536
9
5
.450
98
  
111.
 Georgia Southern
.334
3
9
.482
63
59.
 East Carolina
.531
7
5
.480
65
  
112.
 Colorado State
.333
3
9
.481
64
60.
 Western Michigan
.525
8
5
.456
90
  
113.
 Washington
.331
4
8
.426
112
61.
 Liberty
.521
8
5
.452
95
  
114.
 Temple
.324
3
9
.471
74
62.
 Illinois
.518
5
7
.568
19
  
115.
 Duke
.320
3
9
.467
80
63.
 Missouri
.516
6
7
.539
36
  
116.
 UNLV
.318
2
10
.521
45
64.
 Virginia
.513
6
6
.513
51
  
117.
 Bowling Green
.318
4
8
.411
121
65.
 Louisville
.512
6
7
.535
39
  
118.
 Vanderbilt
.313
2
10
.515
48
66.
 TCU
.510
5
7
.560
23
  
119.
 South Florida
.312
2
10
.515
49
67.
 Tulsa
.509
7
6
.486
60
  
120.
 Buffalo
.312
4
8
.405
124
68.
 Florida
.502
6
7
.525
43
  
121.
 Louisiana Tech
.298
3
9
.440
104
69.
 Arizona State
.498
8
5
.429
108
  
122.
 New Mexico State
.287
2
10
.485
61
70.
 North Carolina
.493
6
7
.516
46
  
123.
 Southern Miss
.280
3
9
.419
117
71.
 Rutgers
.488
5
8
.558
25
  
124.
 Ohio
.271
3
9
.408
123
72.
 Wyoming
.480
7
6
.457
88
  
125.
 Arkansas State
.265
2
10
.457
86
73.
 Oregon State
.476
7
6
.453
94
  
126.
 Akron
.236
2
10
.420
116
74.
 Memphis
.472
6
6
.472
73
  
127.
 Arizona
.227
1
11
.469
77
75.
 Washington State
.467
7
6
.444
101
  
128.
 Connecticut
.226
1
11
.467
79
76.
 Virginia Tech
.466
6
7
.489
58
  
129.
 Massachusetts
.198
1
11
.426
113
77.
 Boston College
.462
6
6
.462
82
  
130.
 Fla. International
.181
1
11
.399
125
78.
 Florida State
.460
5
7
.510
52
  
 

 
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.  Posting large margins 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 eighth week, and each team’s ranking reflects its actual accomplishments — on the field, to date — 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 2022 by AndersonSports, all rights reserved