Yellow Number 4 Brett Favre T-Shirt
 

One of the Original BCS Computer Rankings...

Showing Which Teams Have Accomplished the Most — to Date

Tigers Are #1-2

  • The LSU and Auburn Tigers claim the top-2 spots
  • Undefeated LSU has already beaten 4 current top-35 teams albeit usually in somewhat miraculous fashion
  • Nebraska vaults to #3 with its win at current-#18 Kansas St. (the highest-ranked foe that a top-10 team has beaten on the road so far this season)
  • The Big 12 claims 4 of the top-11 spots and the overall top conference ranking
  • Mountain West and WAC teams claim 25% of the top-20 spots
More College
Football Links

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

Oct. 3 Rankings

Final 2009-10 Rankings
Final '09 Pre-Bowl Rankings


 

Rating
 W 
 L 
Sched.
Strength
Sched. 
Rank
vs. Current
Top-10
vs. Current
#11-25
Other 
Losses
1.
LSU
.834
6
0
.556
18
0-0
2-0
0
2.
Auburn
.815
6
0
.523
31
0-0
1-0
0
3.
Nebraska
.814
5
0
.523
32
0-0
1-0
0
4.
Oklahoma
.811
5
0
.517
36
0-0
2-0
0
5.
Michigan State
.808
6
0
.513
38
0-0
1-0
0
6.
Boise State
.807
5
0
.511
39
0-0
1-0
0
7.
TCU
.802
6
0
.503
43
0-0
1-0
0
8.
Missouri
.789
5
0
.483
58
0-0
0-0
0
9.
Ohio State
.777
6
0
.465
67
0-0
0-0
0
10.
Oregon
.769
6
0
.455
77
0-0
1-0
0
Rank Team 
Rating
 W 
 L 
Sched. 
Strength
Sched. 
Rank
Conference
Rankings
Rating
W*
 L*
Sched.
Strength*
11. Oklahoma State
.756
5
0
.437
94
  Big 12
.647
36
8
.450
12. Alabama
.756
5
1
.570
12
  Southeastern
.629
27
5
.413
13. Nevada
.747
6
0
.425
98
  Pac-10
.605
21
9
.485
14. Utah
.739
5
0
.414
105
  Big Ten
.586
34
8
.393
15. South Carolina
.736
4
1
.567
13
  Atlantic Coast
.515
23
14
.442
16. Stanford
.722
5
1
.527
29
  Mountain West
.508
16
18
.526
17. Arizona
.720
4
1
.548
23
  WAC
.499
21
17
.467
18. Kansas State
.711
4
1
.536
26
  Big East
.495
22
15
.439
19. Air Force
.698
5
1
.497
45
  Conference USA
.428
18
22
.458
20. Florida State
.693
5
1
.492
49
  Mid-American
.356
14
33
.476
21. Florida
.687
4
2
.594
4
  Sun Belt
.285
4
23
.495
22. Oregon State
.685
3
2
.631
1
  *non-conference play
23. Michigan
.680
5
1
.476
60
 
24. N.C. State
.672
5
1
.468
65
 
25. West Virginia
.669
4
1
.488
53
 
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.
Arkansas
.667
4
1
.485
57
 
74.
Rutgers
.481
3
2
.422
103
27.
Iowa
.649
4
1
.465
68
 
75.
Cincinnati
.479
2
3
.539
25
28.
Colorado
.647
3
2
.590
6
 
76.
Vanderbilt
.474
2
3
.534
28
29.
Mississippi State
.646
4
2
.549
22
 
77.
BYU
.465
2
4
.566
14
30.
Wisconsin
.643
5
1
.436
96
 
78.
Connecticut
.464
3
3
.464
70
31.
Texas
.631
3
2
.573
9
 
79.
Tennessee
.453
2
4
.554
20
32.
North Carolina
.629
3
2
.571
11
 
80.
South Florida
.447
3
2
.388
110
33.
Illinois
.616
3
2
.558
16
 
81.
Tulsa
.446
3
3
.446
85
34.
California
.611
3
2
.552
21
 
82.
Troy
.441
3
2
.383
114
35.
UCLA
.598
3
3
.598
3
 
83.
Clemson
.429
2
3
.488
51
36.
USC
.597
4
2
.497
46
 
84.
Pittsburgh
.423
2
3
.483
59
37.
Maryland
.596
4
1
.409
108
 
85.
Boston College
.408
2
3
.468
64
38.
Virginia Tech
.595
4
2
.495
47
 
86.
Wake Forest
.406
2
4
.506
41
39.
Notre Dame
.586
3
3
.586
7
 
87.
LA Monroe
.404
2
3
.463
72
40.
Northwestern
.585
5
1
.376
115
 
88.
Western Michigan
.394
2
3
.452
78
41.
Texas Tech
.582
3
2
.522
33
 
89.
Colorado State
.392
1
5
.601
2
42.
East Carolina
.574
3
2
.514
37
 
90.
Kansas
.388
2
3
.447
84
43.
SMU
.571
4
2
.470
63
 
91.
Ohio
.388
3
3
.388
112
44.
Georgia Tech
.564
4
2
.463
73
 
92.
Utah State
.387
2
4
.487
55
45.
Hawaii
.563
4
2
.462
74
 
93.
Virginia
.386
2
3
.445
87
46.
Iowa State
.555
3
3
.555
19
 
94.
Tulane
.382
2
3
.441
93
47.
UTEP
.554
5
1
.347
118
 
95.
Louisiana Tech
.369
2
4
.467
66
48.
Miami, Fla.
.551
3
2
.491
50
 
96.
Washington State
.363
1
5
.571
10
49.
Baylor
.551
4
2
.450
80
 
97.
Buffalo
.355
2
3
.412
106
50.
Southern Miss
.546
4
2
.445
86
 
98.
LA Lafayette
.354
2
3
.410
107
51.
Houston
.536
3
2
.475
61
 
99.
UNLV
.349
1
5
.556
17
52.
Toledo
.534
3
3
.534
27
 
100.
Arkansas State
.346
2
4
.443
89
53.
Texas A&M
.525
3
2
.464
69
 
101.
Marshall
.336
1
4
.518
35
54.
Northern Illinois
.524
4
2
.423
100
 
102.
San Jose State
.320
1
5
.523
30
55.
Temple
.522
4
2
.422
102
 
103.
Kent State
.313
2
3
.367
117
56.
Penn State
.520
3
3
.520
34
 
104.
Central Michigan
.312
2
4
.405
109
57.
Purdue
.510
3
2
.450
79
 
105.
Duke
.309
1
4
.488
52
58.
Central Florida
.509
3
2
.449
81
 
106.
New Mexico State
.307
1
4
.485
56
59.
Navy
.508
3
2
.448
83
 
107.
Rice
.300
1
5
.500
44
60.
Washington
.505
2
3
.565
15
 
108.
Ball State
.293
2
4
.383
113
61.
Arizona State
.505
3
3
.505
42
 
109.
UAB
.286
1
4
.460
75
62.
Syracuse
.504
4
1
.324
120
 
110.
Mid. Tenn. St.
.285
2
3
.336
119
63.
San Diego State
.503
3
2
.443
90
 
111.
Memphis
.277
1
5
.472
62
64.
Idaho
.502
3
2
.442
91
 
112.
Fla. International
.277
1
4
.449
82
65.
Mississippi
.501
3
2
.441
92
 
113.
Minnesota
.267
1
5
.459
76
66.
Fresno State
.497
3
2
.437
95
 
114.
Florida Atlantic
.258
1
4
.425
99
67.
Kentucky
.493
3
3
.493
48
 
115.
Bowling Green
.255
1
5
.444
88
68.
Georgia
.491
2
4
.591
5
 
116.
New Mexico
.230
0
6
.544
24
69.
Army
.488
4
2
.388
111
 
117.
Western Kentucky
.204
0
5
.507
40
70.
Miami, Ohio
.487
3
3
.487
54
 
118.
North Texas
.204
1
5
.374
116
71.
Louisville
.486
3
2
.427
97
 
119.
Eastern Michigan
.177
0
6
.463
71
72.
Wyoming
.485
2
4
.585
8
 
120.
Akron
.152
0
6
.418
104
73.
Indiana
.482
3
2
.422
101
     

 
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.  Margin 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, 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 2010 by AndersonSports, all rights reserved