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

Showing Which Teams Have Accomplished the Most to Date

 USC, Michigan, Ohio St., Then a Big Gap
  • USC has accomplished more than any other team to date (in terms of beating good teams), going 6-0 versus what so far has been the nation's 4th-toughest schedule
  • Michigan is 2nd, having gone 8-0 versus the 9th-toughest schedule to date, with Ohio State (8-0 vs. the 18th-toughest) 3rd
  • Rutgers and Florida round out the top-5, but neither is close to the top-3
  • Four of the 5-toughest schedules to date have been played by the Pac-10:  1. Washington St., 2. Florida, 3. Stanford, 4. USC, and 5. Washington
  • After beating #118 Duke, #49 Miami is within 2 spots of Louisiana-Lafayette
More College
Football Links
The Anderson & Hester College Football 
Computer Rankings, as of October 22 
•Oct. 15 Rankings

•Oct. 8 Rankings

•Oct. 1 Rankings

•Final 2005-06 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
Michigan
Ohio State
Rutgers
Florida
Louisville
California
Notre Dame
Auburn
Tennessee
.856
.847
.832
.803
.797
.787
.783
.780
.776
.770
6
8
8
7
6
7
7
6
7
6
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
.598
.580
.554
.505
.611
.480
.577
.586
.568
.573
*to date
4
9
18
48
2
66
10
8
15
12
0-0
1-0
0-0
0-0
1-1
0-0
0-1
0-1
1-0
1-1
2-0
1-0
1-0
0-0
1-0
0-0
2-0
1-0
2-1
0-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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.
West Virginia
Boise State
Arkansas
Boston College
Clemson
Texas
Missouri
Wisconsin
Texas A&M
Washington State
LSU
Wake Forest
Oregon
Tulsa
Georgia Tech
.765
.756
.739
.736
.732
.728
.706
.705
.705
.689
.687
.681
.676
.659
.651
7
8
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
5
6
6
5
6
5
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
2
1
2
.448
.437
.531
.527
.508
.503
.476
.476
.475
.621
.542
.461
.552
.436
.524
92
96
30
34
47
49
71
72
73
1
25
83
20
98
37
  Southeastern
Pac-10
Big East
Big Ten
Atlantic Coast
Big 12
Conference USA
Mountain West
WAC
Mid-American
Sun Belt
*non-conference play
.625
.621
.614
.579
.545
.535
.438
.436
.433
.388
.368
30
19
32
29
26
33
18
15
16
13
10
7
9
8
11
12
15
28
18
19
26
24
.432
.514
.428
.441
.433
.422
.503
.463
.458
.487
.491
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.
Nebraska
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Navy
Iowa
Penn State
Georgia
Pittsburgh
Alabama
Oregon State
Virginia Tech
BYU
Maryland
Washington
UCLA
Michigan State
Arizona State
Southern Miss
Hawaii
TCU
Central Michigan
LA Lafayette
Texas Tech
Miami, Fla.
South Florida
Florida State
Kentucky
Ohio
Purdue
Houston
Western Michigan
Indiana
Kansas State
Oklahoma State
Air Force
Syracuse
Kent State
N.C. State
Baylor
Connecticut
Cincinnati
Minnesota
Idaho
Arizona
Mid. Tenn. St.
Vanderbilt
Bowling Green
.645
.645
.627
.622
.621
.621
.618
.616
.615
.610
.605
.603
.591
.589
.572
.570
.568
.559
.556
.556
.555
.555
.554
.549
.548
.545
.545
.542
.539
.529
.521
.518
.511
.503
.503
.498
.496
.492
.488
.485
.482
.479
.479
.475
.475
.473
.470
6
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
5
4
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
5
4
5
5
5
4
3
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
5
3
4
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
4

2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
4
3
4
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
4
3
3
3
2
4
4
3
3
5
2
4
4
4
4
5
4
5
3
5
4
.495
.517
.498
.493
.548
.547
.466
.464
.542
.569
.475
.473
.460
.589
.530
.570
.525
.516
.426
.455
.480
.454
.479
.418
.418
.502
.587
.467
.464
.454
.391
.518
.511
.461
.503
.573
.368
.535
.488
.528
.525
.554
.479
.550
.432
.549
.470
56
43
53
57
23
24
80
82
26
14
74
75
85
5
31
13
36
44
105
87
67
88
69
108
109
51
6
79
81
89
114
42
46
84
50
11
118
29
60
33
35
17
70
21
100
22
77
  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.
UTEP
Wyoming
San Jose State
Arkansas State
Northern Illinois
Utah
Nevada
East Carolina
Mississippi
New Mexico
Iowa State
Virginia
Akron
Colorado State
Rice
SMU
Army
Louisiana Tech
Illinois
Mississippi State
Tulane
Kansas
UAB
Central Florida
Florida Atlantic
Marshall
Troy
North Texas
San Diego State
North Carolina
New Mexico State
Fresno State
Colorado
Northwestern
Toledo
Stanford
Memphis
Utah State
Ball State
UNLV
Eastern Michigan
Buffalo
Miami, Ohio
LA Monroe
Temple
Duke
Fla. International
.469
.469
.468
.468
.457
.451
.450
.444
.432
.425
.424
.423
.418
.418
.416
.408
.407
.406
.403
.399
.394
.380
.372
.368
.355
.353
.348
.344
.324
.319
.314
.304
.293
.288
.286
.272
.269
.266
.264
.242
.233
.228
.222
.220
.213
.208
.190
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
3
2
4
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
0
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
3
4
2
2
3
4
3
4
6
4
5
5
4
3
5
4
5
5
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
6
5
6
7
6
6
8
6
7
6
6
6
6
7
6
8
7
7
.427
.469
.370
.342
.383
.451
.408
.486
.586
.425
.499
.498
.460
.376
.491
.408
.481
.537
.556
.552
.524
.453
.445
.496
.482
.480
.445
.470
.528
.539
.436
.522
.522
.429
.426
.599
.480
.489
.400
.444
.432
.425
.430
.413
.519
.512
.485
103
78
117
119
115
91
112
61
7
106
52
54
86
116
58
111
64
28
16
19
38
90
93
55
63
65
94
76
32
27
97
39
40
102
104
3
68
59
113
95
99
107
101
110
41
45
62
*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 2006 by Jeff Anderson and Chris Hester, all rights reserved