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

Showing Which Teams Have Accomplished the Most to Date

A Crystal-Clear Championship Matchup

Goodbye to Stanford Stadium

  • #1 USC takes on #2 Texas in a game that wouldn't have happened in the pre-BCS era
  • A playoff could only mess up this matchup; it couldn't improve upon it 
  • All of the BCS bowl teams are top-12 teams—except for the winner of the ACC's 1-game playoff:  #31 Florida State
More College
Football Links
The Anderson & Hester College Football 
Computer Rankings, as of Dec. 5 
•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
•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
Texas
Penn State
Ohio State
Oregon
Georgia
Virginia Tech
Miami, Fla.
Notre Dame
LSU
.845
.842
.805
.786
.771
.752
.748
.744
.739
.738
12
12
10
9
10
10
10
9
9
10
0
0
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
.577
.572
.585
.622
.535
.566
.559
.566
.559
.547
*to date
28
32
23
5
55
38
41
39
42
50
2-0
1-0
1-0
0-2
0-1
1-0
0-1
1-0
0-1
0-1
1-0
2-0
3-1
3-0
0-0
1-2
3-0
0-1
1-0
3-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
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.
UCLA
West Virginia
TCU
Auburn
Oklahoma
Texas Tech
Wisconsin
Alabama
Michigan
Florida
Northwestern
Boston College
Minnesota
Georgia Tech
Louisville
.735
.735
.726
.726
.717
.717
.717
.716
.713
.708
.698
.697
.693
.682
.677
9
10
10
9
7
9
9
9
7
8
7
8
7
7
9
2
1
1
2
4
2
3
2
4
3
4
3
4
4
2
.553
.486
.475
.542
.646
.531
.576
.530
.640
.581
.624
.568
.618
.606
.484
46
70
74
53
1
58
29
59
2
27
3
36
8
11
71
  Big Ten
Atlantic Coast
Big 12
Pac-10
Southeastern
Big East
Mountain West
Conference USA
Mid-American
WAC
Sun Belt
*non-conference play
.665
.621
.621
.594
.576
.517
.469
.434
.411
.381
.313
28
27
31
23
27
19
13
15
13
9
6
6
9
5
8
9
13
15
21
23
22
26
.466
.469
.393
.446
.423
.460
.490
.483
.494
.507
.501
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.
Iowa
Colorado
South Carolina
Nebraska
Clemson
Florida State
Iowa State
Arizona State
Kansas
California
Missouri
Purdue
North Carolina
N.C. State
Michigan State
Texas A&M
Virginia
Tennessee
Stanford
Maryland
Baylor
South Florida
Tulsa
Boise State
Colorado State
Kansas State
Oregon State
Central Florida
Rutgers
Fresno State
BYU
Nevada
Wake Forest
Vanderbilt
Indiana
Utah
UTEP
Navy
New Mexico
Arkansas
Toledo
Oklahoma State
Louisiana Tech
Pittsburgh
Central Michigan
Washington State
Northern Illinois
.669
.665
.661
.661
.650
.648
.637
.623
.614
.600
.596
.593
.592
.584
.583
.574
.571
.568
.568
.563
.560
.559
.550
.549
.544
.541
.530
.530
.530
.526
.523
.518
.509
.507
.502
.501
.498
.494
.492
.491
.490
.489
.488
.484
.474
.470
.467
7
7
7
7
7
8
7
6
6
7
6
5
5
6
5
5
6
5
5
5
5
6
8
9
6
5
5
8
7
8
6
8
4
5
4
6
8
7
6
4
8
4
7
5
6
4
7

4
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
4
5
6
6
5
6
6
5
6
6
6
6
5
4
3
5
6
6
4
4
4
5
3
7
6
7
5
3
4
5
7
3
7
4
6
5
7
5
.592
.619
.584
.583
.572
.551
.558
.597
.588
.519
.570
.619
.618
.557
.609
.600
.544
.595
.594
.590
.587
.532
.448
.396
.517
.568
.557
.429
.447
.425
.496
.380
.591
.534
.583
.474
.362
.412
.465
.573
.355
.571
.406
.511
.446
.553
.417
16
6
24
26
31
48
43
13
21
61
35
7
9
44
10
12
51
14
15
18
22
57
83
102
62
37
45
91
84
92
67
108
17
56
25
75
112
97
77
30
115
33
98
63
85
47
95
  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.
Southern Miss
Miami, Ohio
Houston
Memphis
San Diego State
Arizona
Connecticut
Akron
SMU
Western Michigan
East Carolina
Illinois
Kentucky
Cincinnati
Hawaii
Bowling Green
Army
Wyoming
Mississippi State
Ball State
Air Force
Washington
Mississippi
LA Lafayette
UAB
Arkansas State
Marshall
Ohio
LA Monroe
Eastern Michigan
Florida International
Duke
Mid. Tenn. St.
Syracuse
Utah State
Troy
UNLV
San Jose State
Rice
Florida Atlantic
Tulane
Temple
North Texas
Idaho
New Mexico State
Kent State
Buffalo
.465
.460
.460
.459
.457
.449
.444
.434
.427
.425
.424
.424
.423
.416
.414
.411
.408
.406
.401
.400
.396
.391
.383
.378
.377
.366
.362
.357
.333
.325
.316
.312
.311
.289
.289
.286
.277
.264
.253
.244
.243
.233
.232
.225
.173
.171
.171
6
7
6
6
5
3
5
7
5
7
5
2
3
4
5
6
4
4
3
4
4
2
3
6
5
6
4
4
5
4
5
1
4
1
3
4
2
3
1
2
2
0
2
2
0
1
1
5
4
5
5
7
8
6
5
6
4
6
9
8
7
7
5
7
7
8
7
7
9
8
5
6
5
7
7
6
7
6
10
7
10
8
7
9
8
10
9
9
11
9
9
12
10
10
.438
.380
.433
.432
.507
.588
.472
.385
.454
.347
.451
.622
.562
.498
.463
.385
.489
.488
.540
.481
.477
.590
.521
.353
.403
.341
.441
.436
.358
.401
.340
.571
.386
.544
.416
.358
.461
.386
.499
.419
.417
.548
.403
.393
.456
.377
.376
87
109
89
90
64
20
76
106
81
117
82
4
40
66
78
107
68
69
54
72
73
19
60
116
99
118
86
88
114
101
119
34
105
52
96
113
79
104
65
93
94
49
100
103
80
110
111
*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 2005 by Jeff Anderson and Chris Hester, all rights reserved