AndersonSports: The Jeff Anderson & Chris Hester College Football Computer Rankings

One of the Original BCS Computer Rankings...

Showing Which Teams Have Accomplished the Most — to Date

Alabama Premiers at #1

Through the first 5 weeks of the season, Alabama has accomplished the most of any team in the nation
Alabama and Texas are picking up where they left off two seasons ago, as #1 and #2 — with a great defense leading the Tide, and with players named McCoy and Shipley playing key roles for the Longhorns (although not quite as key as before)
Aside from the top 2, Clemson has accomplished the most through the first 5 weeks, followed by Boise St., LSU, Oklahoma St., Michigan, Oklahoma, Stanford, and Illinois — now we'll see who can keep it up, starting with the Red River Rivalry in historic Cotton Bowl Stadium
The Big 12 (27-3 in non-conference play) has been the top conference so far, and half of its teams are currently in the top-20

More College
Football Links

The Jeff Anderson & Chris Hester
College Football Computer Rankings, as of Oct. 2

•Final 2010-11 Rankings
•Final '10 Pre-Bowl Ranking s

		Rating	W	L	Sched. Strength	Sched. Rank	vs. Current Top-10	vs. Current #11-25	Other Losses
1.	Alabama	.835	5	0	.557	16	0-0	1-0	0
2.	Texas	.834	4	0	.557	17	0-0	0-0	0
3.	Clemson	.828	5	0	.545	18	0-0	2-0	0
4.	Boise State	.817	4	0	.527	24	0-0	0-0	0
5.	LSU	.815	5	0	.523	25	0-0	1-0	0
6.	Oklahoma State	.813	4	0	.521	26	0-0	0-0	0
7.	Michigan	.811	5	0	.517	28	0-0	0-0	0
8.	Oklahoma	.810	4	0	.516	29	0-0	0-0	0
9.	Stanford	.790	4	0	.485	54	0-0	0-0	0
10.	Illinois	.788	5	0	.482	59	0-0	0-0	0

Rank	Team	Rating	W	L	Sched. Strength	Sched. Rank	Conference Rankings	Rating	W*	L*	Sched. Strength*
11.	Georgia Tech	.770	5	0	.456	77	Big 12	.704	27	3	.455
12.	Kansas State	.769	4	0	.454	80	Southeastern	.647	28	4	.410
13.	South Carolina	.746	4	1	.580	9	Big Ten	.575	34	13	.438
14.	Auburn	.738	4	1	.570	14	Big East	.570	23	11	.463
15.	Houston	.725	5	0	.397	111	Pac-12	.545	19	11	.464
16.	Wisconsin	.720	5	0	.391	113	Atlantic Coast	.540	27	11	.412
17.	Texas Tech	.708	4	0	.377	117	Mountain West	.483	18	13	.435
18.	Nebraska	.695	4	1	.517	27	Conference USA	.463	18	22	.493
19.	North Carolina	.694	4	1	.516	30	Mid-American	.431	20	28	.481
20.	Florida	.689	4	1	.510	36	Sun Belt	.405	10	20	.505
21.	Virginia Tech	.685	4	1	.506	38	WAC	.361	9	21	.480
22.	USC	.684	4	1	.505	40	*non-conference play
23.	West Virginia	.684	4	1	.504	42
24.	South Florida	.682	4	1	.503	43
25.	Washington	.669	4	1	.487	51


Rank	Team	Rating	W	L	Sched. Strength	Sched. Rank	Rank	Team	Rating	W	L	Sched. Strength	Sched. Rank
26.	Arkansas	.664	4	1	.482	58	74.	Hawaii	.472	3	2	.413	106
27.	Iowa State	.664	3	1	.515	31	75.	Virginia	.460	3	2	.401	110
28.	Rutgers	.663	3	1	.514	32	76.	Louisville	.454	2	2	.454	79
29.	Baylor	.662	3	1	.513	34	77.	Purdue	.451	2	2	.451	82
30.	LA Lafayette	.661	4	1	.478	63	78.	Nevada	.451	1	3	.604	3
31.	Arizona State	.656	4	1	.472	66	79.	Bowling Green	.446	3	2	.388	115
32.	San Diego State	.648	3	1	.497	45	80.	Toledo	.444	2	3	.504	41
33.	Oregon	.646	3	1	.496	48	81.	Mississippi	.442	2	3	.502	44
34.	Penn State	.643	4	1	.459	75	82.	Northwestern	.439	2	2	.439	91
35.	Notre Dame	.639	3	2	.581	8	83.	Kentucky	.437	2	3	.497	46
36.	Ohio	.633	4	1	.448	84	84.	San Jose State	.435	2	3	.495	49
37.	Michigan State	.628	4	1	.442	88	85.	Rice	.432	1	3	.586	6
38.	SMU	.621	4	1	.435	95	86.	Army	.426	2	3	.485	52
39.	Southern Miss	.619	4	1	.433	97	87.	UTEP	.426	2	3	.485	53
40.	Vanderbilt	.618	3	1	.466	71	88.	Connecticut	.424	2	3	.484	55
41.	Georgia	.600	3	2	.541	20	89.	East Carolina	.421	1	3	.574	12
42.	Western Michigan	.592	3	2	.532	22	90.	Central Florida	.420	2	2	.420	103
43.	Iowa	.591	3	1	.437	93	91.	Navy	.411	2	2	.411	107
44.	Tennessee	.587	3	1	.433	96	92.	Arizona	.409	1	4	.595	4
45.	California	.585	3	1	.431	98	93.	Kent State	.406	1	4	.592	5
46.	Texas A&M	.575	2	2	.575	11	94.	Northern Illinois	.406	2	3	.465	73
47.	BYU	.573	3	2	.514	33	95.	North Texas	.399	1	4	.585	7
48.	Washington State	.573	3	1	.420	104	96.	N.C. State	.393	2	3	.452	81
49.	Syracuse	.572	3	2	.512	35	97.	Central Michigan	.390	2	3	.449	83
50.	Ball State	.556	3	2	.496	47	98.	Fresno State	.384	2	3	.443	87
51.	Pittsburgh	.554	3	2	.494	50	99.	Colorado State	.384	3	2	.328	120
52.	Tulsa	.554	2	3	.612	2	100.	New Mexico State	.348	2	3	.404	109
53.	Cincinnati	.551	4	1	.366	118	101.	LA Monroe	.335	1	3	.484	56
54.	Wyoming	.548	3	1	.395	112	102.	Mid. Tenn. St.	.332	1	3	.480	62
55.	Utah	.542	2	2	.542	19	103.	Tulane	.331	2	3	.386	116
56.	Wake Forest	.541	3	1	.388	114	104.	UNLV	.320	1	3	.467	69
57.	Florida State	.537	2	2	.537	21	105.	Utah State	.319	1	3	.465	72
58.	Fla. International	.523	3	2	.463	74	106.	Florida Atlantic	.304	0	4	.636	1
59.	Ohio State	.519	3	2	.458	76	107.	Buffalo	.303	1	4	.480	61
60.	UCLA	.517	2	3	.577	10	108.	Louisiana Tech	.295	1	4	.471	67
61.	TCU	.514	3	2	.454	78	109.	Colorado	.295	1	4	.471	68
62.	Marshall	.514	2	3	.574	13	110.	Indiana	.292	1	4	.467	70
63.	Air Force	.508	3	1	.357	119	111.	Minnesota	.275	1	4	.447	85
64.	Kansas	.506	2	2	.506	37	112.	Akron	.273	1	4	.444	86
65.	Mississippi State	.506	2	3	.566	15	113.	Idaho	.270	1	4	.440	89
66.	Troy	.506	2	2	.506	39	114.	Memphis	.266	1	4	.436	94
67.	Eastern Michigan	.498	3	2	.438	92	115.	Boston College	.255	1	4	.422	102
68.	Duke	.486	3	2	.427	100	116.	Oregon State	.220	0	4	.530	23
69.	Temple	.483	3	2	.423	101	117.	UAB	.189	0	4	.483	57
70.	Miami, Fla.	.481	2	2	.481	60	118.	Miami, Ohio	.164	0	4	.440	90
71.	Arkansas State	.478	3	2	.418	105	119.	New Mexico	.159	0	5	.431	99
72.	Missouri	.474	2	2	.474	64	120.	Western Kentucky	.147	0	4	.408	108
73.	Maryland	.473	2	2	.473	65

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 fifth 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.