The Only Original and Unaltered 
BCS Computer Rankings...

Showing Which Teams Have Accomplished the Most to Date

It's All OU
  • The gap between #1 Oklahoma and #2 Miami (.054) is huge:  larger than the gap between #10 Michigan and #25 Florida (.051)
  • Miami remains in the top-2, having posted a 2-1 record vs. #3 Florida St., #7 Virginia Tech, and #25 Florida.  The Hurricanes have played the toughest schedule of any top-10 team and have suffered only 1 loss.
  • TCU, the only undefeated team aside from OU, is ranked #4 not so much because its own accomplishments are riveting, but because most of the top 1-loss teams (1) have not beaten a current top-10 team and (2) have lost to teams far removed from the current top-10:  #5 Ohio St. lost to #34 Wisconsin; #6 USC lost to #50 Cal; #7 Virginia Tech lost to #64 West Virginia; and #8 LSU lost to #25 Florida 
  • The top 2-loss team has been #10 Michigan.  The top 3-loss team has been #25 Florida.  The top 4-loss team has been #40 Wake Forest.  The top 5-loss team has been #50 Cal.
  • The Pac-10 has the highest percentage of its teams in the top-50 (70%) of any conference
More College
Football Links
The Anderson & Hester College Football 
Computer Rankings, as of Nov. 2
•Oct. 26 Rankings
•Oct. 19 Rankings
•Oct. 12 Rankings
•Oct. 5 Rankings
•Sept. 28 Rankings

•Final 2002-03 Rankings

•Final 2001-02 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.
Oklahoma
Miami, Fla.
Florida State
TCU
Ohio State
USC
Virginia Tech
LSU
Miami, Ohio
Michigan
.825
.771
.759
.754
.753
.751
.737
.722
.711
.709
9
7
8
8
8
8
7
8
7
8
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
.540
.560
.534
.434
.526
.523
.515
.486
.483
.534
*to date
23
15
31
96
38
41
50
70
72
32
0-0
1-1
0-1
0-0
0-0
0-0
1-0
0-0
0-0
0-0
2-0
1-0
0-0
0-0
2-0
1-0
0-0
1-1
0-1
2-1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
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.
Tennessee
Nebraska
Purdue
Georgia
Iowa
Utah
Michigan State
Northern Illinois
Texas
Washington State
Oklahoma State
Mississippi
Pittsburgh
Bowling Green
Florida
.705
.705
.701
.698
.697
.692
.685
.682
.678
.676
.670
.669
.668
.664
.658
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
7
7
7
7
6
7
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
.563
.544
.540
.536
.534
.529
.521
.437
.513
.511
.504
.503
.520
.429
.562
13
20
24
28
30
36
43
95
53
55
61
63
45
100
14
  Big 12
Big Ten
Pac-10
Southeastern
Big East
Atlantic Coast
Mountain West
Conference USA
Mid-American
WAC
Sun Belt
*non-conference play
.608
.597
.575
.569
.559
.548
.541
.478
.422
.412
.278
37
30
25
29
24
19
22
21
24
15
5
12
14
14
14
12
12
15
18
31
25
36
.451
.488
.490
.463
.458
.480
.484
.455
.460
.486
.506
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.
Missouri
Arkansas
Minnesota
Texas Tech
Georgia Tech
Boise State
UCLA
N.C. State
Wisconsin
Louisville
Air Force
Auburn
Kansas State
Southern Miss
Wake Forest
UNLV
South Carolina
Boston College
Syracuse
Oregon
Oregon State
Colorado State
Maryland
Washington
California
Texas A&M
North Texas
Kansas
Houston
Northwestern
Memphis
Alabama
Virginia
Hawaii
Marshall
Connecticut
South Florida
Toledo
West Virginia
Stanford
Fresno State
Notre Dame
Clemson
Colorado
New Mexico
BYU
.652
.651
.645
.641
.627
.626
.624
.622
.617
.616
.609
.605
.599
.594
.572
.572
.570
.568
.568
.566
.564
.563
.562
.560
.558
.556
.547
.546
.544
.541
.541
.540
.539
.534
.533
.531
.528
.528
.522
.522
.521
.518
.517
.514
.510
.505
6
5
8
6
5
8
6
7
6
7
6
6
7
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
6
5
6
5
5
4
6
5
5
4
6
3
5
6
6
7
5
6
4
3
5
2
5
3
5
4

2
3
2
3
3
1
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
5
5
3
4
3
5
3
6
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
6
4
6
4
6
.503
.579
.461
.543
.554
.378
.525
.502
.518
.378
.509
.505
.478
.519
.539
.539
.537
.535
.526
.533
.463
.530
.461
.526
.558
.589
.446
.513
.469
.574
.440
.638
.505
.433
.433
.409
.452
.427
.522
.564
.487
.666
.483
.614
.476
.565
62
8
88
21
19
115
40
64
48
116
57
60
74
47
25
26
27
29
39
34
83
35
86
37
17
5
92
54
80
10
93
2
59
98
99
107
91
101
42
12
69
1
71
3
76
11
  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.
Navy
UAB
Louisiana Tech
Arizona State
Rutgers
Ball State
Wyoming
Troy State
Cincinnati
Tulsa
Kentucky
Nevada
Iowa State
San Diego State
Penn State
Tulane
Baylor
Akron
Western Michigan
Kent State
Mississippi State
Duke
Utah State
Arkansas State
Central Michigan
Arizona
Illinois
Rice
Central Florida
Indiana
Vanderbilt
North Carolina
San Jose State
LA Lafayette
Ohio
East Carolina
Temple
Mid. Tenn. St.
UTEP
Buffalo
New Mexico St.
Army
Eastern Michigan
LA Monroe
Idaho
SMU
.498
.487
.482
.480
.478
.475
.462
.458
.458
.450
.448
.448
.430
.429
.406
.397
.393
.387
.373
.368
.368
.364
.361
.352
.342
.341
.338
.325
.320
.316
.312
.301
.292
.287
.276
.274
.252
.250
.244
.231
.216
.209
.206
.192
.188
.179
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
5
2
4
2
3
3
5
3
3
2
2
3
4
3
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
0
1
1
1
0
3
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
4
4
5
4
6
5
7
6
6
5
6
6
6
7
6
5
6
8
9
6
6
8
8
8
6
8
6
8
7
7
7
9
7
9
8
8
8
9
.398
.520
.516
.514
.478
.509
.496
.492
.458
.418
.482
.415
.583
.462
.577
.496
.492
.387
.471
.467
.520
.534
.459
.384
.439
.588
.592
.472
.414
.560
.556
.543
.434
.462
.415
.510
.470
.399
.393
.461
.355
.514
.417
.396
.389
.466
109
44
49
52
75
58
66
68
90
102
73
104
7
84
9
65
67
113
78
81
46
33
89
114
94
6
4
77
106
16
18
22
97
85
105
56
79
108
111
87
117
51
103
110
112
82
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 2003 by Jeff Anderson and Chris Hester, all rights reserved