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

Giving the SEC and Pac-12 Their Due

Vindicating the BCS

Bowl Championship Splendor

  • Both the Coaches' and A.P. polls are underrating teams from the top conferences (the SEC and Pac-12) while overrating teams from other conferences
  • The top 4 teams are a fair amount (.015) ahead of the rest of the field (and the polls have those 4 teams at the top, with the Coaches' Poll having them in the same order as they appear here)
  • Beyond that, however, there's not much separation between the #5 and #9 teams (only .012), while every other team is well behind (at least .017 behind) #9 Ole Miss — yet the Coaches' and A.P. polls both rank #10 Ohio State in the top-8 and #15 Baylor in the top-6
  • Ohio State has not played a team in the current top-25 yet has a loss (at home to #69 Virginia Tech), while Baylor has played only 1 team in the current top-25, hasn't played a top-25 team on the road, has posted only a .750 winning percentage (3-1) versus the current top-90 (losing at #33 West Virginia), and has played most of its games against teams ranked #91 or beyond
  • Meanwhile, #6 Auburn — ranked behind the Buckeyes and Bears in both polls — has 3 wins versus the current top-20 (2 of them on the road), 6 wins versus the current top-50, has a winning record versus (3-2) versus the current top-25 (with 1 of those losses being at #1 Mississippi State), and has otherwise been perfect, going 7-2 overall versus the nation's toughest schedule
  • #27 Michigan State is ranked ahead of #7 UCLA in both polls, even though the Spartans have gone 1-2 versus the current top-15, 1-2 versus the current top-50, and 2-2 versus the current top-80, while the Bruins have gone 2-1 versus the current top-15, 5-2 versus the current top-50, and 7-2 versus the current top-80
More College
Football Links

The Jeff Anderson & Chris Hester
College Football Computer Rankings, as of Nov. 10

•Nov. 3 Rankings
•Oct. 27 Rankings
•Oct. 20 Rankings
•Oct. 13 Rankings
•Oct. 6 Rankings

•Final 2013-14 Rankings
•Final '13 Pre-Bowl Rankings


 
Rating
 W 
 L 
Sched.
Strength
Sched. 
Rank
vs. Current
Top-10
vs. Current
#11-25
Other 
Losses
1.
 Mississippi St.
.833
9
0
.555
36
1-0
2-0
0
2.
 Florida State
.817
9
0
.527
50
0-0
2-0
0
3.
 Alabama
.803
8
1
.597
11
0-1
3-0
0
4.
 Oregon
.797
9
1
.580
21
1-0
0-1
0
5.
 Arizona State
.782
8
1
.566
27
0-1
1-0
0
6.
 Auburn
.782
7
2
.641
1
1-1
2-1
0
7.
 UCLA
.779
8
2
.623
4
1-1
1-0
1
8.
 TCU
.775
8
1
.556
34
0-0
1-1
0
9.
 Mississippi
.770
8
2
.612
6
1-1
2-1
0
10.
 Ohio State
.753
8
1
.526
52
0-0
0-0
1
Rank Team 
Rating
 W 
 L 
Sched. 
Strength
Sched. 
Rank
 Conference
Rankings
Rating
W*
 L*
Sched.
Strength*
11. Georgia
.747
7
2
.596
13
   Southeastern
.691
43
3
.412
12. Notre Dame
.739
7
2
.586
17
   Pac-12
.642
30
5
.417
13. Nebraska
.732
8
1
.498
70
   Big 12
.587
22
8
.445
14. Arizona
.730
7
2
.575
24
   Big Ten
.578
40
14
.431
15. Baylor
.719
8
1
.482
74
   Atlantic Coast
.558
36
14
.424
16. Kansas State
.715
7
2
.556
32
   Mountain West
.482
27
23
.458
17. LSU
.714
7
3
.605
10
   Conference USA
.437
23
28
.466
18. Clemson
.706
7
2
.546
40
   American Athletic
.421
16
27
.498
19. Colorado State
.703
9
1
.454
87
   Mid-American
.355
19
33
.433
20. Missouri
.702
7
2
.541
44
   Sun Belt
.347
11
28
.475
21. Marshall
.699
9
0
.367
126
   *non-conference play
22. Duke
.698
8
1
.457
86
  
23. Florida
.698
5
3
.631
2
  
24. Texas A&M
.695
7
3
.583
19
  
25. Boise State
.691
7
2
.528
49
  
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.
 Oklahoma
.689
6
3
.596
12
  
78.
 Pittsburgh
.465
4
5
.499
69
27.
 Michigan State
.688
7
2
.525
53
  
79.
 Texas Tech
.462
3
6
.563
28
28.
 USC
.688
6
3
.596
14
  
80.
 Northwestern
.461
3
6
.562
29
29.
 Utah
.687
6
3
.594
16
  
81.
 Syracuse
.457
3
7
.579
22
30.
 Georgia Tech
.686
8
2
.507
63
  
82.
 Central Michigan
.450
6
4
.392
118
31.
 Minnesota
.671
7
2
.505
65
  
83.
 Purdue
.448
3
7
.570
26
32.
 Wisconsin
.671
7
2
.505
66
  
84.
 Wyoming
.446
4
6
.506
64
33.
 West Virginia
.651
6
4
.594
15
  
85.
 UAB
.444
5
5
.444
92
34.
 Miami, Fla.
.650
6
3
.554
37
  
86.
 Temple
.442
5
4
.410
108
35.
 Louisville
.639
7
3
.521
57
  
87.
 Western Kentucky
.441
4
5
.474
77
36.
 Maryland
.622
6
3
.524
54
  
88.
 Houston
.436
5
4
.403
110
37.
 Stanford
.610
5
4
.578
23
  
89.
 Vanderbilt
.434
3
7
.555
35
38.
 California
.605
5
4
.572
25
  
90.
 Fresno State
.434
4
6
.493
72
39.
 Washington
.602
6
4
.543
43
  
91.
 Kansas
.431
3
6
.532
48
40.
 Nevada
.600
6
3
.500
68
  
92.
 South Alabama
.426
5
4
.394
116
41.
 Tennessee
.598
4
5
.629
3
  
93.
 Indiana
.426
3
6
.527
51
42.
 Louisiana Tech
.587
7
3
.465
79
  
94.
 Colorado
.421
2
8
.607
8
43.
 Arkansas
.586
4
5
.618
5
  
95.
 San Diego State
.417
5
4
.385
119
44.
 Kentucky
.586
5
5
.586
18
  
96.
 San Jose State
.411
3
6
.511
61
45.
 Texas
.580
5
5
.580
20
  
97.
 Texas State
.401
5
4
.369
124
46.
 Boston College
.575
6
4
.515
60
  
98.
 Southern Miss
.400
3
7
.521
56
47.
 Utah State
.574
7
3
.452
88
  
99.
 Ohio
.399
5
5
.399
112
48.
 Oklahoma State
.573
5
4
.541
45
  
100.
 Iowa State
.386
2
7
.557
31
49.
 South Carolina
.573
4
5
.605
9
  
101.
 Old Dominion
.385
4
6
.444
93
50.
 Rutgers
.568
5
4
.535
47
  
102.
 Akron
.380
4
5
.412
107
51.
 Iowa
.566
6
3
.465
78
  
103.
 New Mexico
.367
3
6
.465
80
52.
 Memphis
.565
6
3
.464
82
  
104.
 Tulane
.362
3
6
.460
83
53.
 Air Force
.563
7
2
.392
117
  
105.
 Florida Atlantic
.360
3
7
.479
76
54.
 Georgia Southern
.558
8
2
.372
123
  
106.
 South Florida
.352
3
6
.449
89
55.
 Penn State
.555
5
4
.522
55
  
107.
 Wake Forest
.349
2
7
.518
59
56.
 East Carolina
.554
6
2
.401
111
  
108.
 LA Monroe
.349
3
6
.446
90
57.
 BYU
.553
5
4
.520
58
  
109.
 North Texas
.333
3
6
.428
102
58.
 Michigan
.546
5
5
.546
39
  
110.
 Appalachian St.
.320
4
5
.350
128
59.
 Cincinnati
.541
5
3
.465
81
  
111.
 UTSA
.318
2
7
.482
75
60.
 N.C. State
.540
5
5
.540
46
  
112.
 Hawaii
.318
2
8
.497
71
61.
 LA Lafayette
.538
6
3
.437
98
  
113.
 Fla. International
.314
3
7
.428
103
62.
 Rice
.532
6
3
.431
101
  
114.
 Ball State
.303
3
6
.395
115
63.
 North Carolina
.523
4
5
.556
33
  
115.
 Tulsa
.296
2
7
.457
84
64.
 Northern Illinois
.522
7
2
.353
127
  
116.
 Army
.288
3
6
.378
122
65.
 Arkansas State
.521
6
3
.420
105
  
117.
 UNLV
.283
2
8
.457
85
66.
 Mid. Tenn. St.
.516
5
4
.483
73
  
118.
 Connecticut
.282
2
7
.440
96
67.
 Central Florida
.515
5
3
.440
97
  
119.
 Buffalo
.280
3
6
.369
125
68.
 Illinois
.512
4
5
.546
41
  
120.
 Eastern Michigan
.278
2
7
.435
100
69.
 Virginia Tech
.512
4
5
.545
42
  
121.
 Massachusetts
.268
2
7
.423
104
70.
 Virginia
.501
4
6
.561
30
  
122.
 Troy
.248
2
8
.412
106
71.
 Bowling Green
.499
6
3
.399
113
  
123.
 Miami, Ohio
.244
2
8
.406
109
72.
 Toledo
.498
6
3
.398
114
  
124.
 SMU
.231
0
8
.546
38
73.
 Washington State
.491
3
7
.612
7
  
125.
 New Mexico State
.227
2
8
.385
120
74.
 Oregon State
.478
4
5
.511
62
  
126.
 Idaho
.225
1
8
.445
91
75.
 Western Michigan
.478
6
3
.379
121
  
127.
 Kent State
.220
1
8
.437
99
76.
 UTEP
.474
5
4
.441
95
  
128.
 Georgia State
.217
1
9
.441
94
77.
 Navy
.467
4
5
.501
67
  
 

 
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 sixth 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 2014 by AndersonSports, all rights reserved