College Football Playoff Expansion, but How Far to Expand

College football is one of the most presitgious amateur sports which possesses one of the largest fan bases of 37+ million fans,who either follow, watch or attend games during the course of the season. The problem with college football is in how they determine their national championship and how long it takes to start the process. The BCS system in (1998) was dependent on a computerized system to determine the best two (2) CFB programs and this process lasted too long. By the (2014) college football season, a new playoff format was being implemented due to the disgust from fans and media that the 2-team playoff was not right and there was a need for expansion. The next expansion for a college football playoff format was to expand to 4-teams, which was and is the next logical move. However, eventhough the CFP4 system is still in its infancy stages, there are a few primary issues with this CFP4 system.

A. The delayed start of the college football playoff does not start until New Year’s Weekend or day. Yes, the delayed start allows for injuries to heal and academic finals to be taken. However, the delayed start takes away form any momentum teams had at the end fo November or beginning of December. Its very hard to maintain performance standards when you stop playing for 25+ days. This type of delayed start is bad for the sport, fans and players. This is like telling the Men’s NCAA Basketball Tournament to start 3-weeks after the field of 68 are announced.

B. The next factor that effects the CFP4 is the validation and credibility of the selction committee members and the power brokers who control the process of selection and seeding. The committee members themselves should possess no direct relationship to the process and have no need to excuse themselves from the process. All thoughts and ideas, either good or bad, need to be heard from all committee members with no vested interest towards the final process. Time to select a committee that has possesses no external influences, vested interests and adheres to the selection process.

c. The most interesting factor that effects the CFP4 is that the protocol in the selection process changes year to year and that the power brokers and primary power broker; Mr. Bill Hancock; should have no influence or conference affiliation to the process. The selection process needs to be crystal clear and adhered to at the end of the final discussion without waverying from the process to accommodate those conferences with in which they are affiliated with either as alumni or have represented. Let’s call this the Hancock Process and the relationship with the Southeastern Confernence.

D. The most interesting factor that effects the CFP4 is that all FBS programs do not have just and equal opportunity to compete for the multi-million dollars on the table at a minimum of $50+ Million, the gold statue and the notoriety and prestige of being called “National Champion”. There have been several FBS programs during the BCS system and CFP system in which earned 0-loss or 1-loss final season records and have been left out of the playoff format. This has occured on both sides of the label/classification aisle of BCS/Power 5 Conference or Non-BCS/Group of Five Conferences. This suggests a time for expansion for the college football playoff to either eight (8) or sixteen (16) FBS programs.

These are just a few arguments against the CFP4 system and there are more.

Now that we have watched a a few seasons of the CFP4 playoffs, there is more controversy being disucssed to the disdain of how the CFP4 is being executed by the process and protocol. As this college football season concluded days ago and the National Championship Game in Atlanta possessed two FBS programs from the same conference, the media and fans would like to see expansion of the playoff in the future to the next phase of eight (8) FBS members. There have been many media member such as; Joel Klatt, Nick Wright and Danny Kannel, all three are sports media members from FOX Sports. All three (3) I believe were employed at one time in the past by ESPN.

I have reviewed, read and or listened to all three of their ideas of expanding the college football playoff to eight (8) FBS programs. All of which have posted their ideas/thoughts via the FOX Sports Facbook webpage. All three (3) ideas are similar in design and style. Each of these sports media members suggest taking each conference championship winner from each of the Power Five Conferences, and three (3) at large bids with one of those at-large bids being reserved for one (1) Group of Five Conference member. One of the three (3) media members, I believe it was Nick Wright that made one adjustment to the eight-team playoff theory pertaining to the three (3) at-large bids. He believes that you only invite a Group of Five Conference programs, if and only if, that G5 program ends the season at 0-losses or basically un-defeated.

What Nick Wright is asking of any of the (65) G5 FBS programs, student atheltes and coaching staff is an elitist, perfectionist and euphoric type situtation, that any blemish, loss, close loss or close win by any G5 FBS program automatically eliminates them from the playoff format. The next arguement against Nick Wright’s idea is if any G5 FBS program does complete the season with 0-loss, he will argue that their schedule strength was to weak or did not schedule a or a couple of quality opponnents to be considered for his eight (8) team playoff. There is always some form of scrutiny that the G5 FBS programs must succumb to be be viable and or credible enough to considered for a playoff spot.

What these three (3) sports media members do not realize, this includes a large group of media members and college football fans across the United States, is that there are rules, bylaws and laws in place that protects the G5 programs. I think the next step for a college football playoff format would be to jump to 16 teams. However. logic dictates that eight (8) is the next step. If an eight-team CFB playoff format is the next phase, then that phase needs to be implemented soon. Once the eight-team CFB Playoff is implemented, then the G5 FBS Conferences and Programs MUST have representation no matter if that G5 FBS program is the only 1-loss or 0-loss G5 program left. The G5 group of coaches, student athletes, and administration have more than earned the right to compete for the title of National Champion, the money that comes along with it, in addition to the notoriety and prestige; It’s time to break the “good ole boys network” either by process or legal action.

There is already published, copywritten and well researched material that supports that college football at the FBS level, can support and inplement a 16-team playoff format. This 16-team playoff does not extend the season any further than it does now and stays within the written bylaws of starting the college football season. The time is now to start the discussion and full presentation of an expanded playoff format to the college presidents, administrators, athletic directors, and coaches. I am available for presentaion.

If you plan on using any of my ideas, thoughts or rankings to discuss publically in print, web based media postings or on air debates either in television or radio; please adhere to the APA/MLA policies and procedures when citing sources.

The book “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Solution” (Siggelow, 2016) is available at Lulu.com for 20% OFF. The link below should get direct to the page.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/matthew-j-siggelow/college-football-in-the-bcs-era-the-untold-truth-facts-evidence-and-solution/paperback/product-22978392.html

 

Final 2017 MOCK CFB Playoff Pairings For Field Of 16

The 2017 College Football season has come to it’s regular season conclusion, all except for the Army/Navy game this weekend. When the college football season draws to a conclusion, this sport possesses a post season events like none other to end the calendar year. They call it bowl season and the College Football Playoffs. This is reletively a new tradition that was started in (1996) with a two team playoff format called the BCS. That was suppose to be the “best” way to determine college football’s national champion. However, after a 12-year run, it was determined that the BCS system was a bifurcated system and many were calling for expanding the playoffs. The decision to only select two FBS teams to compete became tougher, because other FBS programs with similar or better records were left out and did not know the reason why. The BCS system ran its course, which allowed the power brokers of college fooball, Mike Slive, Bill Hancock, ESPN and a few other big name college football commissioners; decided to expand the college football playoff to four teams. Let’s expand to four teams and guess what, lets have a committee of “experts” select the four teams, develop criteria, change the criteria, not sure which criteria to use, have committee members who need to be excused from the selection process due to the fact that they are related to a member on the football team or represent that school.

This is where we are now in its early stages, a four team college football playoff (CFP) and after 4 years of this new tradition, the fans are ready for expansion and the “sports media experts” are already talking about expanding the playoffs as a topic, but with no real crystal clear cognitive thoughts on how to explain their reasoning. Becuase they believe they are the “experts” with a platform and voice with microphone or television camera, makes them more knowledgeable then someone with a degree, authored a book, performed research and already investigated the expanded the college football playoff concept. I believe that college football at the FBS level of play, under the NCAA blue logo and allows all FBS members a fair, equal and just opportunity to compete for the $50 MIllions dollars at stake, the gold statue and the notoriety that comes along with winning the national championship and being called a “National Champion” in college football at the highets level.

For the past 10+ years now I have performed a MOCK selection and seeding my field of 16 for college football at the FBS level. I started with the 1996 college football season, and continues to seed and select the current and future college football season. The reason why, is to prove that an expanded playof format can be implimented at this level of college athletics. If I can demonstrate that an expanded playoff format can be implimented based upon research, selection and seeding based upon criteria, then this would provide me with strategic positioning. I developed a ranking and selection system which is based upon the current season, many categorical variables, examines the current scheduled season and developed criterion on how each FBS teams should be ranked. I possess no biases and I treat each FBS team as equals. All playing under the same rules. For those who are going to ask, how do you rank, seed and select for your MOCK field of 16?  I use the professional model theory to rank, seed and select my field of 16. I have been performimg MOCK playoff fields since (2007). Yes, it can be done ranking 1 through 130 FBS teams with not worrying about conference affiliation or member name. Each FBS team is ranked by the criterion in which I developed. My system is more accurate and provides a better playoff picture allowing more FBS programs a playoff opportunity without eliminating any bowl games.

From what my research has discovered, is that every 0-loss team and 1-loss team at the end of the regular season would make the field of 16. All 2-loss programs have an 83% success rate of making my mock field of 16. Yes, it is possible for a 3-loss team to make my field of 16 but only at a 38% chance. That means, that during the course of the college football season, that any FBS team does not have to worry about losing 1 game or requiring them to complete the season with no losses in any games. My expanded playoff format of 16 would significantly decreases emotional and mental pressure from both coaches and players to end the season at 0-losses and placing the fate of their playoff hopes in the hands of a subjective, Democritusly driven and biofurcated system. A loss is a loss. A win is a win. There are no bad losses or good losses. No need to split hairs and try to scrutinze or provide an answer to the reason. No need for a committee to select or seed. All the players and coaches would have full comprehension of how the playoff system, format and selection process works.

I will now present my 2017 MOCK playoff field for college football at the FBS level of play, under the NCAA blue logo. ALL FBS teams are eligible to compete under my research, system and theory. The ONLY way an FBS football program is not eligible to compete for my playoff format is if they are UNDER NCAA violations and or sanctions, which automatically eliminates them from competing in post season.

ALL GAMES BELOW start on the First WEEKEND of December and SEEDS 1 THROUGH 8 RECEIVE Home field advantage becaused they earned it based upon data and records earned.

A B C D
16 WASHINGTON (10-2) 1 WISCONSIN (12-0) 80321 $9.5 MIL
9 USC (10-2) 8 MEMPHIS (10-1) 62380 $7.7 MIL
12 SAN DIEGO STATE (10-2) 5 CLEMSON (11-1) 81500 $9.6 MIL
13 TOLEDO (10-2) 4 GEORGIA (11-1) 92746 $10.5 MIL
14 TROY (10-2) 3 OKLAHOMA (11-1) 86112 $10.1 MIL
11 PENN STATE (10-2) 6 ALABAMA (11-1) 101821 $11.6 MIL
10 OHIO STATE (10-2) 7 MIAMI FLA (10-2) 65326 $8.0  MIL
15 AUBURN (10-2) 2 CENTRAL FLORIDA (11-0) 45323 $6.0 MIL

Last Team Out: TCU (10-2)

The breakdown per conference relationship: American Athletic Conference 2, Atlantic Coast Conference 2, Big 10 Conference 3, Big 12 Conference 1, Southeastern Conference 3, Pac 12 Conference 2, Mountain West Conference 1, Mid American Conference 1, Sun Belt Conference 1, Not represented: Conference USA and the Independents. With this format their will be plenty of represnetation, just not the Power Five Conferences.

Estimated revenue possibly generated from these 8 playoff games: $72+ Million Dollars, exlcuding any advertising dollars and television dollars.

GRID EXPLANATION: A- Visiting Team and Record; B- Home Team and Record, (NOTE: I DO NOT COUNT CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP GAMES, explanation below); C- Stadium Seating Capacty of the HOME TEAM and D- Estimated Revenue possibly generated by Ticket Sales, Concessions, Parking, Souvenirs and Tax Based Dollars and Ripple effect by these games in that specific area or region of the country that effects businesses.

Conference championship games are only an extra game to help determine who the conference champion is and not automatically scheduled. The conference championship games are earned, not entitled. If my expanded playoff format were to be implimented, then the conference championship games would be replaced by the first round of 16, on the first weekend of December. The second week of December is scheduled for Acadmics Final week. Student Athletes need time to take their final exams to remain eligible as student athletes for the second semester and the bowl season. The winners of the first round of 16 games will move forward to play in first set of bowl games on the third weekend of December when bowl season starts.

Winner of Seed 16 and 1 will play Winner of Seed 8 and 9

Winner of Seed 12 and 5 will play Winner of Seed 13 and 4

Winner of Seed 14 and 3 plays Winner of 11 and 6

Winner of Seed 10 and 7 plays the Winner of Seed 15 and 2

This creates four more games and use of the four early bowl games to add more revenue and more excitement. Keep the bowl game names and game dates in tact but move the bowl game sites to another location to increase seating capcacity. This would create an exponential influx of revenue, advertising dollars and significantly improve the beginning of bowl season with games that possess meaning and purpose. Each of these Quarter-Final Games would more than likely sellout, generate more revenue and fan interest. You do realize that there are 37+ Million college football fans across America.

Once these four games are decided then the four winners advance to the Semi Final Bowl Games and Championship Game which are already in place and sites already established. With this playoff format, the college football season DOES NOT start any earlier than scheduled within the rules and bylaws of the NCAA guidelines and DOES NOT end any later than the college football season that ends now. NO DRASTIC changes.

I believe that the exponential financial growth from an expanded playoff format such as the one I developed, would generate in upwards of $250 MIllion Dollars over the course of the college football playoff format. This is all hypothetical because the power brokers fear a playoff expansion due to the fact they want to control every part of the system.

In conclusion, the playoff system we have now for college football may be better. However, with that said, the committee has a tough job in selecting and seeding four FBS college football teams and making it right. Furthermore, the criterion in which they are to use is always ever changing. There is no one specific criterial process in which they follow. It’s very sad for those FBS programs within the Group of Five Conferences to work so hard, achieve greatness and sometimes end with 0-losses. All to find out that they will NEVER compete for the $50 Million Dollar prize, the gold statue and the notoriety that comes with being called “national champion”. It’s time to seriously think about expanding the playoffs for college footbal and increasing  the number to 8 then 16. Either way 8 and 16 work.

If you plan on using any of my ideas, thoughts or rankings to discuss publically in print, web based media postings or on air debates either in television or radio; please adhere to the APA/MLA policies and procedures when citing sources.

My book “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Solutions” (Siggelow, 2016); is the published research, The book is available at lulu.com

 

Wisconsin Ends 2017 FBS Season #1

Congratulations to the Wisconsin Badgers (12-0) for ending the 2017 college football regular season as only one (1) of two (2) 0-loss programs and securing the number one ranking in my weekly coaches poll. For those who have asked why Wisconsin, first and foremost, they played twelve (12) FBS programs this season, did not schedule a FCS opponent and they scheduled and played an away game at BYU to play a regular season game. That means they LEFT the comfort of their home and home region to play another FBS opponent. With only two (2) 0-loss programs left at the end of the regular season, I guess this supports my research and findings in my book.

Also, congratulations to the Knights from Central Florida (11-0) for ending the regular season as the other 0-loss FBS program. The Knights had to make schedule maneuvers to accomodate for the start of the 2017 college football season, handled adversity with hurricanes that effected not only one (1) scheduled game, but two (2) scheduled games. This act of God, required Central Florida to re-schedule their confernece game with Memphis later in the season, which makes conference games a requirment to re-schedule over any other non-conference game. Central Florida dropped their FCS game with the Maine Bears to accomodate for the game with Memphis. However, UCF later scheduled Austin Peay, an FCS member. Any FBS team who can handle adversity, remain un-defeated, handle the act of God situation, not once, but twice and finally survive one of the best college football games of the season with South Florida. Central Florida in my book, EARNED the second ranking and a trip to the CFP.

I also believe that Central Florida should be under consideration for the College Football Playoff (CFP). However, I believe that the CFP Committee has specific protocol to follow and that protocol states, that NO Group of Five Conference FBS member is eligible to compete for the College Football Playoff and the National Championship. Eventhough, UFC and the Director of Athletics, Daniel J. White, makes sure that the UCF athletic programs abide by and are compliant with the NCAA Bylaws. The UCF Director of Athletics also, is required to meet NCAA Bylaw 20, then abide by NCAA Bylaw 3.1 thought 3.4. Then congruent with that, UCF must meet and abide by the Title IX rules and regulations which are also inclusive to the NCAA Bylaw 20. If college athletics is being operated under a “business like structure”, then college athletics and the Group of Five Conference Commissioners, Athletic Directors, their FBS programs, Coaches and Players should press the issue and ask for an improved playoff format which is more Utilitarianistic, under the Stuart MIll’s philosophy, which is more “inclusive” then exclusive. If the Group of Five does not see a change under that manner in which is “inclusive”, then they should ban together and file suit against the power brokers under the Sherman Act of 1890 which protects them. Once the Sherman Act of 1890 is started, then the Clayton Act of 1914 protects them in more ways that you can only imagine. I have investigated both and pubished a chapter within my book, with that chapter being called: Chapter 17: The Sherman Act vs. The NCAA and the Power Brokers.

However, its interesting that Central Florida MIGHT be able to compete for one of the New Year’s Day Six Bowl Games (NYDSBG). I call this the “bridesmaid prize”, because UCF needs to meet specific requirements to be considered for the “bridesmaid” prize. That means they need to beat Memphis in the American Athletic Conference Championship Game to just earn the “bridesmaid” prize. Eventhought UCF would be (12-0), they won’t be on the CFP committees radar. If UCF loses the AAC Championship Game, then UCF might not receive that (NYDSBG) bid.  Might want to purchase and read my book. It’s time for an expanded playoff format.

I will now explain how my weekly rankings work. I rank based upon the professional model theory. This means that college athletics generates tripel digits of Millons of dollars annually in revenue, just like the professional levels of sports (i.e. the NFL, the NBA. the NHL, the MLB and the MLS). I do not use subjective assessments, the eye test or biasness to rank. I use dependent variables and categorical variable within those dependent varaibles to rank weekly.  Each variable has a direct relationship and effect on the independent variable. I do not rank FBS programs based upon vested interest or that’s my favorite or that this team need to be ranked higher than this team because they are from this conference. Each FBS team earns their ranking based upon varaibles in which they create and results based. I also examine the non-confernce schedule as a major variable. By examining the non-conference schedule, I can assess and evaluate the non conference schedule based upon number of home games versus number of away games. If any FBS team plays more home games than away games within their non-conference schedule, then I can assess that that specific FBS team does not take ANY risks within their non-conference schedule. If any FBS teams plays more away games in their non-conference schedule and earns a credible record, then they will have a better ranked position over any FBS team who plays more home games in their non-conference schedule. I have read the various peer reviewed research and articles that examined home field advantage in relationship to schedule, more home games and how it impacts your overall record.  NO RISK… NO REWARD. This is just part of how I rank each week of the college football season. There are three (3) chapters within my book that examined the research and I published other results that supports the already pubished peer reviewed research.

Here is this weeks, almost final rankings.  There is one more week that needs to be completed before the final rankings. The Sun Belt Confernce FBS programs and Florida State each must play one more game before the FINAL rankings appear. This 2017 College Football FBS Season has been exciting and great for the 37+ MIllion college football fans to watch and enjoy. Many upsets appeared as the season wound down towards the end. Never use a crystal ball to see the future or make predictions, especially in a college athletics. Just let the games play out.

A B C D E F G H
1 WISCONSIN (12-0) (.514) 75 (19-18) (.476) 103 (69-76) (.358) 129 (29-52) (.452) 20 29 7
2 CENTRAL FLORIDA (11-0) (.471) 90 (16-18) (.504) 85 (64-63) (.453) 96 (29-35) (.503) 2 20 8
3 OKLAHOMA (11-1) (.417) 103  (15-21) (.479) 99 (69-75) (.463) 94 (37-43) (.564) 1 19 5
4 GEORGIA (11-1) (.618) 33 (21-13) (.574) 27 (74-55) (.438) 100 (28-36) (.483) 11 26 8
5 CLEMSON (11-1) (.556) 58 (20-16) (.562) 43 (73-57) (.500) 92 (32-32) (.409) 34 31 5
6 ALABAMA (11-1) (.600) 37 (21-14) (.565) 36 (74-57) (.406) 123 (26-38) (.531) 3 31 6
7 MIAMI (FLA) (10-1) (.765) 2 (26-8) (.539) 61 (69-59) (.411) 120 (23-33) (.391) 45 22 4
8 MEMPHIS (10-1) (.485) 85 (16-17) (.476) 102 (60-66) (.453) 97 (29-35) (.513) 6 16 6
9 USC (10-2) (.583) 43 (21-15) (.528) 70 (76-68) (.493) 73 (35-36) (.409) 35 21 2
10 OHIO STATE (10-2) (.686) 10 (24-11) (.538) 62 (77-66) (.407) 122 (33-48) (.519 ) 5 24 8
11 PENN STATE (10-2) (.529) 68 (18-16) (.557) 47 (78-62) (.506) 59 (41-40) (.481) 12 33 7
12 SAN DIEGO STATE (10-2) (.667) 15 (24-12) (.474) 104 (63-70) (.438) 105 (28-36) (.401) 39 21 5
13 TOLEDO (10-2) (.429) 98 (15-20) (.466) 110 (61-70) (.500) 68 (32-32) (.510) 7 21 5
14 WASHINGTON (10-2) (.542) 66 (13-11) (.515) 80 (68-64) (.420) 119 (34-47) (.493) 10 28 8
15 TCU (10-2) (.458) 91 (11-13) (.500) 89 (66-66) (.475) 83 (38-47) (.392) 44 32 4
16 AUBURN (10-2) (.500) 77 (17-17) (.615) 7 (80-50) (.563) 19 (36-28) (.468) 16 28 7
17 TROY (9-2) (.583) 44 (21-15) (.423) 122 (52-71) (.448) 98 (26-32) (.377) 55 21 5
18 SOUTH FLORIDA (9-3) (.222) 129 (8-28) (.377) 130 (49-81) (.422) 118 (27-37) (.438) 22 27 5
19 OKLAHOMA STATE (9-3) (.314) 121 (11-24) (.469) 109 (67-76) (.488) 76 (39-41) (.520) 4 23 5
20 BOISE STATE (9-3) (.583) 45 (28-20) (.542) 60 (78-66) (.547) 29 (35-29) (.377) 54 24 4
21 STANFORD (9-3) (.588) 42 (20-14) (.563) 39 (81-63) (.494) 70 (40-41) (.444) 21 16 2
22 NOTRE DAME (9-3) (.582) 52 (39-28) (.641) 3 (91-51) (.765) 1 (39-12) (.420) 27 20 5
23 NORTHWESTERN (9-3) (.306) 123 (11-25) (.486) 94 (70-74) (.469) 86 (38-43) (.349) 76 23 3
24 MICHIGAN STATE (9-3) (.528) 70 (19-17) (.563) 41 (81-63) (.494) 71 (40-41) (.321) 94 27 2
25 FLORIDA ATLANTIC (9-3) (.686) 12 (24-11) (.546) 54 (71-59) (.492) 74 (31-32) (.497) 9 19 5

ANY FBS team that is in BOLD is an FBS team that scheduled and played an FCS program during the course of the 2017 regular season.

Honorable Mentioned: All are (9-3); Virginia Tech, North Texas, Fresno State, Washington State, and LSU

Key: A-Rank Order; B- Team and Current Overall Record; C- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Non-Conference Schedule, Rank within that Categorical Variable and the Overall Record; D- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Overall Regular Season Schedule, Rank within that Categorical Variable and the Overall Record; E- Percentage Rate of the ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Conference Schedule, Rank within that Categorical Variable and Overall Record; F- Percentage Rate of your Offensive Efficiency and Ranking within that Categorical Variable (described as: number of offensive and defensive possessions that results in points); G- Defensive Efficiency Rating (described as: number of times that your teams Defense were successful in possessing 3 consecutive stops against your opponent when they possessed the ball and stopped them from scoring (3 consecutive stops equals 1)) and H- Game Control Categorical Variable based upon the three possession score outcome (described as: the end score result that possesses a 21 point differential in final score).

As of this time of the current college football season there are 80 bowl eligible FBS programs with six (6) wins or more, and 3 more waiting in the wings with five (5) wins. Those five (5) win programs are; New Mexico State, Louisiana Lafayette and Florida State. Each have one (1) more regular season game to complete this week. This means that there will be no need to assess any credible (5-7) FBS programs for any open bowl openings, even if there was an expanded playoff format of 8 or 16 FBS programs. If there were a need for any (5-7) FBS programs, these programs would be and should be considered for a bowl game based upon research and number of 1-possession losses. Those programs are: Eastern Michigan with six (6) 1-possession losses, and both Indiana and Tulane with four (4) 1-possession losses.

If you plan on using any of my ideas, thoughts or rankings to disucss publically in print, web based media postings or on air debates either in television or radio; please adhere to the APA/MLA policies and procedures when citing sources.

My book “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Solutions” (Siggelow, 2016); is the published research, The book is available at lulu.com

College Football Playoff Field of 16 Mock 2107.4

This is the fourth installment of my MOCK college football playoff field of 16 for the FBS level of play. If only the power brokers of college football could be more open minded to assess and evaluate, how this expanded playoff format would be more beneficial to the the fans of college football and the exponential potential in generating more revenue, then college football would truly possess a real “National Champion”.

If you have followed along with my MOCK field of 16 as I have posted them throughout the course of this FBS season, you can admire the changes from week to week, in how the games have become more interesting as the season winds down. I believe that this type of playoff format would make for better entertainment, excitement and causes confusion amongst the television media on which game to show to the fans who cannot be in attendance. All 8 of these games would make for great television, viewership and media attention.

At this current time ONLY USC at (10-2) is in the clubhouse and has at least secured one (1) of the sixteen (16) seeds within my expanded playoff format for college football. USC’s actual seed placement cannot be determined until the regular season of college football is completed and at least all playoff possibilities are eliminated. This last week of college football is going to be very interesting, exciting and possible upsets.

This is how the field of 16 would be seeded if the season were to have concluded this past weekend and the playoffs starting this following weekend:

16 SEED TOLEDO (9-2) AT 1 SEED WISCONSIN (11-0)

9 SEED MEMPHIS (9-1) AT 8 SEED USC (10-2)

12 BOISE STATE (9-2) AT 5 SEED OKLAHOMA (10-1)

13 SEED OHIO STATE (9-2) AT 4 SEED CENTRAL FLORIDA (10-0)

14 SEED PENN STATE (9-2) AT 3 SEED MIAMI FLA. (9-0)

11 SEED NOTRE DAME (9-2) AT 6 SEED GEORGIA (10-1)

10 SEED SOUTH FLORIDA (9-1) AT 7 SEED CLEMSON (10-1)

15 SEED SAN DIEGO STATE (9-2) AT 2 SEED ALABAMA (11-0)

If you examine the playoff pairings; of these 8 games, everyone has potential for excitement and upset potential. Six (6) of the games would have 6 FBS programs traveling some distance to play the games. However, in today’s scheduling of regualr season games; I don’t think traveling would a problem. With an average of 37+ Million fans that attend collge football games annually, I believe each of these games would be SOLD OUT. Can you imagine how much fun, excitement and media coverage the first weekend of December would be for college football with so much at stake.

The breakdown for this field of 16 based upon conference affiliation, numbers per conference, Power Five Conference and Group of Five Conference is; 10 FBS programs from the Power Five Conferences and 6 FBS programs from the Group of Five Conferences. This is a great demonstration of how balance and parity appears during the college football season. ALL Power Five Conferences would possess representation into this field of 16. Is that not what the power brokers want. The opportunity to be part of the playoffs and not left out because of subectivity. Within this playoff mode and pairings, only the Sun Belt Conference would not be represented in this grouping of playoff caliber programs from the Group of Five Conferences. I believe that ALL the Group of Five Conference programs want is the OPPORTUNITY to compete in the playoffs, compete for the $50 Million dollars on the table, the gold statue and the notoriety which comes along with being called ” National Champion”.

As for the breakdown for each conference;  the Power Five Conference breakdown is led by The Big 10, who would possess 3 seeds, the ACC and the SEC would each hold 2 seeds and concluding with the Pac 12 and the Big 12 with 1 representation. Notre Dame would be the only Independent program represented in the playoffs. In addition to those 10 FBS programs, the Group of Five Conferences would be represneted with 3 FBS programs from the American Athletic Conference (AAC), 2 FBS program from the Mountain West Conference (MWC) and 1 from the Mid-American Conference (MAC).

At the conclusion of this weeks games, I willhopefully have enough data and information to publish the final pairings of my MOCK field of 16 for college football. In addition to the final posting, I will even post how the playoffs would be played out in the month long tournament.

If you plan in using any of my ideas, thoughts or ranking to disucss publically in print, web based media postings or on air debates either in television or radio; please adhere to the APA/MLA policies and procedures when citing sources.

My book “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Solutions” (Siggelow, 2016); is the published research, The book is available at lulu.com

Wisconsin Still Number #1

College football is the one of the most exciting amateur sports, that 37+ Million fans attend each year, during the last quarter of the calender year. There is excitement, great plays, upsets, and all performed by student athletes. The most challenging aspect of college football is rewarding those FBS programs the opportunity to be ranked within the college football polls as the best Top 25, at that moment in time, during that week. Those FBS programs who can sustain excellence with a high level of competition and attentional focus, will always be ranked with the better ranking. Wisconsin (11-0) from the Big 10 Conference has sustained their attentional focus and are still one (1) of only four (4) FBS programs with 0-losses this season. The key question is, can Wisconsin sustain that for one more week of their regular season and then receive one (1) of the four CFP playoff spots? In a field of 16 Wisconsin is already in even if they lost their last regualr season game to Minnesota.

For the past weeks from mid-October to this last part of rivalry weekend, there have been many upsets and great games played. This weekend coming will be the most entertaining weekend of all. There are at least 20+ games that will effect the rankings, the playoff picture, my field of 16, and how many 0-loss programs will remain. Wisconsin plays Minnesota on the road, Alabama plays Auburn on the road, Miami (Fla.) hosts Pittsburgh and Central Florida host South Florida. Who will remain standing at the end of the regular season with 0-losses. I believe that there will be 2 FBS programs ending the season at 0-losses.

Ranking teams, programs and individuals is not the easiest concept, but witholding a bias against or for each item you rank is key. Ranking should be based upon the current season’s work and how they accumulate their overall record in relationship to their overall schedule, non-conference schedule and conference schedule. Credibility is based upon how you perform against your schedule during the course of the season. All FBS programs that are associated or a member of a conference, each possesses has NO control over their conference schedule, but they do have COMPLETE control over their non-conference schedule. However, that non-conference schedule is developed with contracts signed years in advance with the pre-determination that the FBS program you are sheduling those non conference games minimally 2+ years in advance. All under the premise that the FBS program you scheudle will be successful, viable and competitive. If a FBS program schedules an FCS program (i.e. Mercer), your credibility should possess a negative effect. Research supports that when an FBS program schedules and plays an FCS program during the regular season at any point in time of that regular season and ALWAYS at home against the FCS program; FBS programs win 90+% of the time and by 4+ possessions or more (meaning by at least 28 Points or more), then that game should not count in your win total and held negatively against you. However, thew win and loss does count but not held in any negative aspect when subjectively assessing.

The review of this weeks rankings shows no changes in the Top 8 ranked placements from my previous week. The only aspects that does change within the weekly rankings are the data points and which data points I use to demonstarte a more descriptive ranking system with no bias. Here is this weeks rankings for college football at the FBS level.

 

A B C D E F G
1 WISCONSIN (11-0) (.500) 80 (.481) 99 (.361) 130 (.449) 22 26
2 ALABAMA (11-0) (.576) 48 (.562) 42 (.393) 123 (.556) 2 30
3 MIAMI FLA. (10-0) (.774) 2 (.538) 67 (.392) 124 (.412) 33 22
4 CENTRAL FLORIDA (10-0) (.484) 87 (.509) 84 (.446) 101 (.560) 18 18
5 OKLAHOMA (10-1) (.412) 109 (.481) 100 (.465) 92 (.551) 3 18
6 GEORGIA (10-1) (.645) 22 (.593) 19 (.510) 56 (.471) 13 24
7 CLEMSON (10-1) (.576) 49 (.563) 40 (.492) 74 (.406) 38 28
8 USC (10-2) (.636) 24 (.545) 59 (.438) 106 (.408) 37 21
9 MEMPHIS (9-1) (.500) 81 (.487) 96 (.464) 95 (.490) 9 14
10 SOUTH FLORIDA (9-1) (.206) 129 (.367) 130 (.411) 119 (.438) 25 24
11 NOTRE DAME (9-2) (.574) 56 (.641) 3 (.787) 1 (.430) 27 19
12 BOISE STATE (9-2) (.591) 44 (.541) 66 (.544) 34 (.452) 21 23
13 OHIO STATE (9-2) (.697) 10 (.553) 55 (.417) 114 (.531) 4 22
14 PENN STATE (9-2) (.516) 73 (.563) 41 (.514) 55 (.462) 19 29
15 SAN DIEGO STATE (9-2) (.667) 17 (.467) 107 (.421) 112 (.400) 43 16
16 TOLEDO (9-2) (.452) 99 (.479) 102 (.518) 52 (.503) 8 19
17 WASHINGTON (9-2) (.545) 59 (.512) 81 (.411) 115 (.489) 10 25
18 TCU (9-2) (.455) 92 (.504) 87 (.479) 86 (.384) 49 29
19 AUBURN (9-2) (.484) 88 (.622) 10 (.579) 16 (.469) 15 26
20 WASHINGTON STATE (9-2) (.500) 82 (.549) 56 (.473) 88 (.400) 44 27
21 TROY (8-2) (.545) 60 (.404) 126 (.442) 103 (.344) 76 18
22 OKLAHOMA STATE (8-3) (.313) 122 (.473) 105 (.493) 73 (.506) 7 20
23 STANFORD (8-3) (.613) 34 (.564) 39 (.479) 85 (.446) 23 15
24 NORTHEWESTERN (8-3) (.273) 126 (.477) 103 (.458) 97 (.347) 75 19
25 MICHIGAN STATE (8-3) (.576) 50 (.583) 25 (.500) 63 (.292) 108 25

Honorable Mentioned: Michigan, Virginia Tech, Florida Atlantic, North Texas, Army, Northern Illinois, Ohio, Fresno State, LSU, Mississippi State and South Carolina all are (8-3).

Key: A-Rank Order; B- Team and Current Overall Record; C- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Non-Conference Schedule and Rank within that Categorical Variable; D- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Overall Regular Season Schedule and Rank within that Categorical Variable; E- Percentage Rate of the ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Conference Schedule and Rank, F- Percentage Rate of your Offensive Efficiency and Ranking within that Categorical Variable (described as: number of offensive and defensive possessions that results in points). G- Defensive Efficiency Rating (described as: number of times that your teams Defense were successful in possessing 3 consecutive stops against your opponent when they possessed the ball and stopped them from scoring (3 consecutive stops equals 1)).

As of this time of the current college football season there are 70 bowl eligible FBS programs with six (6) wins or more, and 18 more waiting in the wings with five (5) wins. At the four (4) win level and now with only two (2) opportunities to become bowl eligible; there are two (2) four (4) win FBS programs that can still earn bowl eligibility. There are only two (2) weeks remaining in the season; It’s going to be exciting, fun and heart breaking for some of these FBS programs.

If you plan on using any of my ideas, thoughts or rankings to disucss publically in print, web based media postings or on air debates either in television or radio; please adhere to the APA/MLA policies and procedures when citing sources.

My book “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Solutions” (Siggelow, 2016); is the published research, The book is available at lulu.com

CFP Playoff Field of 16 Mock 2017.3

This is the third installment of my MOCK college football playoff field of 16 for the FBS level of play. If only the power brokers of college football could see how this expanded playoff format would be more beneficial to the the fans of college football, then we woudl truly possess a real “National Champion”.

If you have followed along with my MOCK field of 16 as I have posted them throughout the course of this FBS season, you can admire the changes from week to week, in how the games have become more interesting as the season winds down. I believe that this type of playoff format would make for better entertainment and causes confusion amongst the television media on which game to show to the fans who cannot be in attendance. All 8 of these games would make for great television, viewership and media attention.

This is how the field of 16 would be seeded if the season were to have concluded this past weekend and the playoffs starting this following weekend:

16 SEED OHIO STATE (8-2) AT 1 SEED WISCONSIN (10-0)

9 SEED WASHINGTON STATE (9-2) AT 8 SEED USC (9-2)

12 SEED OKLAHOMA STATE (8-2) ST 5 SEED OKLAHOMA (9-1)

13 SEED NOTRE DAME (8-2) AT 4 SEED CENTRAL FLORIDA (9-0)

14 SEED BOISE STATE (8-2) AT 3 SEED MIAMI FLA. (9-0)

11 SEED SOUTH FLORIDA (8-1) AT 6 SEED GEORGIA (9-1)

10 SEED MEMPHIS AT 7 SEED CLEMSON (9-1)

15 SEED MICHIGAN AT 2 SEED ALABAMA (10-0)

If you examine the playoff pairings; of these 8 games, 3 of the games would be conference bragging rights or rematches between top programs. Three (3) of the games would have 3 FBS programs traveling some distance to play the games. However, in today’s scheduling of regualr season games; I don’t think traveling would a problem. With an average of 37+ Million fans that attend collge football games annually, I believe each of these games would be SOLD OUT. Can you imagine how much fun, excitement and media coverage the first weekend of December would be for college football with so much at stake.

The breakdown for the field of 16 based upon conference affiliation, numbers per conference, Power Five Conference and Group of Five Conference is; 12 FBS programs from the Power Five Conferences and 5 FBS programs from the Group of Five Conferences. ALL Power Five Connferences would possess representation into this field of 16. Is that not what the power brokers want. The opportunity to be part of the playoffs and not left out because of subectivity. The remaining 4 playoff spots would be secured by the Group of Five Conferences. I believe that ALL the Group of Five Conference programs want is the OPPORTUNITY to compete in the playoffs, compete for the $50 Million dollars on the table, the gold statue and the notoriety which comes along with being called ” National Champion”.

As for the breakdown for each conference;  the Power Five Conference breakdown is led by The Big 10, who would possess 3 seeds, the ACC, the Big 12, the Pac 12 and the SEC would each hold 2 seeds. Notre Dame would be the only Independent program represented in the playoffs. In addition to those 12 FBS programs, the Group of Five Conferences would be represneted with 3 FBS programs from the American Athletic Conference (AAC) and 1 FBS program from the Mountain West Conference (MWC).

In about two (2) weeks, I will publish the final pairings of my MOCK field of 16 for college football. In addition to the final posting I will even post how the playoffs would be played out in the month long tournament.

If you plan in using any of my ideas, thoughts or ranking to disucss publically in print, web based media postings or on air debates either in television or radio; please adhere to the APA/MLA policies and procedures when citing sources.

My book “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Solutions” (Siggelow, 2016); is the published research, The book is available at lulu.com

Wisconsin Remains #1 As The Unexpected Continues

From the Big 10 Conference, Wisconsin remains number one in my weekly poll for the fourth week in a row. Looking below Wisconsin in my college football poll, it seems there is constant movement of musical chairs being played as the college football season winds down in the home stretch. The upsets and unexpected outcomes of college football keeps happening. What many media members fail to understand is towards the end of the college football season, normalcy does not exist, but the unexpected seems to rear its ugly head. This causes a shake up with everyones polls, rankings, confidence levels, cognitive thoughts and the facing of the reality of how college football changes on a week to week basis. These types of changes are great for the sport of college football and those fans who enjoy the games, in addition to the possibility of expanding the playoffs.

With three (3) weeks remaining in the college football season, their are only four (4) 0-loss programs remaining. Of those 0-loss programs, Central Florida from the American Athletic Conference (AAC) is not receiving the credit or just due ranking either in the coaches poll or CFP polls, for their successful season in which they have earned, not given. I am the only one who ranks Central Florida in the Top Five (5). Central Florida ranks first in Offensive Efficiency with my rating system in which I designed and created. Central Florida’s Offensive Efficiency Rating (OER) is at (.580). This means Central Florida’s scoring efficiency is based upon number of total game possessions both offensively and defensively, and turning those possession into points, at 58% of the time. Moreover, Central Florida ranks in the Top Half of all FBS programs in cumulative records within their non-conference scheduled opponents at a rate of (.536). I guess the CFP committee does not use all data points to give credit in ranking, where credit is due.

As we head into the final stretch run of college football, there are still MANY great games to be played with many more upsets to come. Here is my weekly Top Twenty-Five rankings:

A B C D E F
1 WISCONSIN (10-0) (.484) 86 (.488) 98 (.365) 128 (.467) 14
2 ALABAMA (10-0) (.533) 66 (.555) 54 (.388) 125 (.558) 3
3 MIAMI FLA. (9-0) (.750) 5 (.528) 70 (.400) 120 (.405) 41
4 CENTRAL FLORIDA (9-0) (.536) 64 (.533) 69 (.460) 92 (.580) 1
5 OKLAHOMA (9-1) (.387) 113 (.479) 103 (.468) 86 (.561) 2
6 GEORGIA (9-1) (.655) 22 (.593) 22 (.426) 111 (.464) 16
7 CLEMSON (9-1) (.567) 52 (.556) 53 (.491) 79 (.373) 61
8 USC (9-2) (.633) 25 (.557) 50 (.455) 99 (.415) 38
9 WASHINGTON STATE (9-2) (.500) 77 (.554) 55 (.470) 85 (.400) 42
10 MEMPHIS (8-1) (.536) 65 (.505) 88 (.460) 93 (.469) 13
11 SOUTH FLORIDA (8-1) (.194) 129 (.367) 130 (.408) 117 (.447) 24
12 OKLAHOMA STATE (8-2) (.345) 119 (.479) 105 (.484) 81 (.514) 6
13 NOTRE DAME (8-2) (.564) 57 (.639) 3 (.786) 1 (.426) 30
14 BOISE STATE (8-2) (.619) 33 (.553) 56 (.551) 29 (.427) 29
15 MICHIGAN (8-2) (.345) 118 (.538) 67 (.524) 49 (.353) 70
16 OHIO STATE (8-2) (.700) 12 (.567) 40 (.429) 108 (.530) 5
17 PENN STATE (8-2) (.517) 73 (.573) 36 (.524) 48 (.447) 23
18 SAN DIEGO STATE (8-2) (.633) 26 (.459) 108 (.429) 109 (.393) 47
19 ARMY (8-2) (.484) 87 (.418) 123 (.392) 124 (.444) 25
20 TOLEDO (8-2) (.464) 94 (.481) 102 (.521) 53 (.477) 10
21 OHIO (8-2) (.267) 125 (.382) 129 (.458) 98 (.475) 11
22 WASHINGTON (8-2) (.550) 58 (.518) 80 (.409) 116 (.479) 8
23 TCU (8-2) (.500) 78 (.518) 79 (.487) 79 (.381) 57
24 TROY (8-2) (.533) 67 (.394) 126 (.422) 114 (.344) 77
25 AUBURN (8-2) (.464) 95 (.604) 14 (.560) 24 (.474) 12

Key: A-Rank Order; B- Team and Current Overall Record; C- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Non-Conference Schedule and Rank within that Categorical Variable; D- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Overall Regular Season Schedule and Rank within that Categorical Variable; E- Percentage Rate of the ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Conference Schedule and Rank; and F- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Offensive Efficiency and Rank within that Categorical Variable.

As of this time of the current college football season there are 59 bowl eligible FBS programs with six (6) wins or more, and 21 more waiting in the wings with five (5) wins. There are three (3) weeks remaining in the season; there are plenty of opportunities for the 21 four (4) win FBS programs to earn bowl eligibility. Time is running out on some. Who will earn those bowl bids? How many FBS programs will become bowl eligible? We will find out soon.

If you plan in reciting any of my ideas, thoughts or rankings to disucss publically in print, web based media postings or on air debates either in television or radio; please adhere to the APA/MLA polocies and procedures when citing sources.

My book “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Solutions” (Siggelow, 2016); is the published research, The book is available at lulu.com

Wisconsin Remains #1 in Weekly Poll

Even thought the primary ranking groups of the; CFP Committee, the Amway Coaches Poll, and the AP Media Poll weekly college football rankings, do not have Wisconsin ranked as Number 1, I do. It was said, on an ESPN late night radio show from the Freddie and Fitz show, and I will be paraphasing from Ian Fitzimmons based out of the ESPN-Dallas area and when a caller from Arizona commented about the College Football Playoff ranking of the Top 4. The callers question was “why not just rank the 0-loss programs as the top four seeds because they are un-defeated”. Ian Fitzsimmons commented to the caller ” we are not handing out participation trophies here, its about selecting the best four football programs” (Fitzsimmons, 2017). Interesting that Wisconsin football team is a 0-loss program and on the outside looking in for the College Football Playoff. I have them ranked number one in my polls th the last few weeks over the popular 0-loss programs of Georgia and Alabama.

What the sports media “experts” and the CFP Committee, fail to understand is that numbers and data do not lie. The sports media can manipulate the image in what we see and do their best to forget about the numbers and data. I am purely opposite, I use the professional model theory to support my rankings and other variables to account for why and how I rank one (1) through twenty-five (25). Ranking programs is more than just an eye test, and media promotion of what they believe is the best college football programs. Games are played by the players, coaches coach the game, each make cognitive decisions to make the best play and each effort by both coaches and players is only measured by play outcomes both good or bad. The ranking numbers by the media possesses vested interest, where as I rank based upon specific data points, not vested interest. Ranked positions are earned not given. The rankings should not be based upon who you are, which conference you represent or who the sports media supports.

There are so many more great games to be played during the remaining 3+ weeks of the college football season. With many more upsets to occur and more great finishes to watch as the top teams go head to head to create more controversy of who will make the publicized playoffs. I believe we are at the “top of turn four” of the college football season. Its going to be an exciting, remaining, last few weeks as many will root for the upsets and more great games. Here are my weekly rankings for college football.

A B C D E
1 WISCONSIN (9-0) (.448) 95 (.482) 100 (.352) 129
2 GEORGIA (9-0) (.654) 3 (.598) 21 (.413) 117
3 ALABAMA (9-0) (.556) 56 (.566) 46 (.395) 123
4 MIAMI FLA. (8-0) (.840) 1 (.568) 44 (.436) 105
5 CENTRAL FLORIDA (8-0) (.560) 55 (.552) 59 (.477) 84
6 NOTRE DAME (8-1) (.540) 67 (.626) 1 (.784) 1
7 OKLAHOMA (8-1) (.357) 117 (.477) 102 (.472) 94
8 TOLEDO (8-1) (.423) 102 (.469) 104 (.525) 47
9 CLEMSON (8-1) (.556) 57 (.557) 54 (.489) 76
10 TCU (8-1) (.556) 58 (.525) 77 (.472) 93
11 WASHINGTON (8-1) (.556) 59 (.524) 79 (.407) 120
12 MEMPHIS (8-1) (.500) 78 (.495) 96 (.455) 98
13 SOUTH FLORIDA (8-1) (.179) 129 (.360) 130 (.395) 124
14 USC (8-2) (.630) 27 (.559) 52 (.448) 100
15 SAN DIEGO STATE (8-2) (.630) 28 (.460) 111 (.419) 114
16 WASHINGTON STATE (8-2) (.444) 97 (.553) 57 (.475) 92
17 BOISE STATE (7-2) (.605) 43 (.549) 63 (.545) 38
18 OKLAHOMA STATE (8-2) (.333) 118 (.481) 101 (.491) 74
19 MICHIGAN STATE (7-2) (.630) 29 (.602) 20 (.481) 82
20 MICHIGAN (7-2) (.385) 113 (.551) 61 (.519) 52
21 OHIO STATE (7-2) (.704) 2 (.583) 32 (.444) 101
22 PENN STATE (7-2) (.538) 68 (.590) 27 (.537) 42
23 ARMY (7-2) (.464) 90 (.404) 124 (.380) 127
24 TROY (7-2) (.556) 60 (.400) 125 (.421) 113
25 OHIO (7-2) (.259) 127 (.384) 129 (.475) 91

Honorable Mentioned: Mississippi State, Auburn and Virginia Tech all are (7-2).

Key: A-Rank Order; B- Team and Current Overall Record; C- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Non-Conference Schedule and Rank within that Categorical Variable; D- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Overall Regular Season Schedule and Rank within that Categorical Variable; E- Percentage Rate of the ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Conference Schedule and Rank.

As of this time of the current college football season there are 50 bowl eligible FBS programs wth six (6) wins or more, and 21 more waiting in the wings with five (5) wins. At the four (4) win level and only 3 or 4 opportunities to become bowl eligible. There are three (3) + weeks remaining in the season; It’s going to be exciting, fun and heart breaking.

If you plan on using any of my ideas, thoughts or rankings to disucss publically in print, web based media postings or on air debates either in television or radio; please adhere to the APA/MLA policies and procedures when citing sources.

My book “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Solutions” (Siggelow, 2016); is the published research, The book is available at lulu.com

Coleman, Freddie and Ian Fitzsimmons (2017). ESPN Radio. Evening Time Slot. “Discussing the current college football playoff rankings, taking listener calls and questions.”. Talk Radio. ESPN-Bristol and ESPN- Dallas. ESPN Studios.

CFP Playoffs Field of 16 Mock 2017.2

How the games that are played during the regular season can change the field of 16 in a matter of moments. If you think last weeks field of 16 had some great games, this weeks field of 16 has even better games and rematches. This mock field of 16 for a future college football playoff format,  is what the media won’t speak about yet, but internally want this more than ever. I believe that their are a group of college football coaches at the FBS level who would embrace the college football playoff being expanded. Their thoughts are concurrent with mine. However, my research in my book supports and proves that an expanded field of 16 can be implimented into the FBS level of college football, under the NCAA blue logo, allowing all FBS football programs equal, fair and just opportunity to compete for the National Championship and exponentially generate more revenue for the college athletics.

Here is the second edition of the Mock 2017.2 Field of 16:

Seed 16 Washington State (8-2) at Seed 1 Wisconsin (9-0)

Seed 9 Clemson (8-1) at Seed 8 Toledo (8-1)

Seed 12 Memphis (8-1) at Seed 5 Central Florida (8-0)

Seed 13 South Florida (8-1) at Seed 4 Miami (Fla.) (8-0)

Seed 14 USC (8-2) at Seed 3 Alabama (9-0)

Seed 11 Washington at Seed 6 Notre Dame (8-1)

Seed 10 TCU (8-1) at Seed 7 Oklahoma (8-1)

Seed 15 San Diego State at Seed 2 Georgia (9-0)

This field is well represented by ALL Power Five Conference, Independents and three (3) of the Group of Five Conferenes. The Pac 12 and AAC earned three (3) berths, the SEC, ACC, and the Big 12 earned two (2) berths, and the Big 10, the MAC, the MWC and Notre Dame earned one (1) berth. This is what could be and possibly will be in the future. Please rememebr, each week this will change until the FINAL FIELD of 16.

Each week prior to the final Mock 2017 Field of 16 for college football I will post a new bracket. Once any FBS program earns at least a berth into my Field of 16, but not the exact seeding placement; I will place them in BOLD.  This will notify anyone who reads this blog post that, that FBS program has earned a berth to my field of 16.

If you plan in using any of my ideas, thoughts or ranking to disucss publically in print, web based media postings or on air debates either in television or radio; please adhere to the APA/MLA polocies and procedures when citing sources.

My book “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Solutions” (Siggelow, 2016); is the published research, The book is available at lulu.com

CFP Brackets Released, Field Of 16

If college football possessed an expanded playoff format which included all FBS programs equal and just opportunity to compete for; the $50 Million Dollars at stake, the crystal football trophy and the right to earn and be called a “National Champion”, what would that bracket reveal? Since published  research supports that an expanded college football play can be implimented with a field of 16 FBS programs, then what would the early version of playoff pairings look like.

Here is the MOCK version at this stage of the college football season with the field of 16:

16 Seed Virginia Tech (7-1) at  1 seed Wisconsin (8-0)

9 Seed Ohio State (7-1) at 8 Seed Oklahoma (7-1)

12 Seed Clemson (7-1) at 5 Seed Central Florida (7-0)

13 Seed TCU (7-1) at 4 Seed Miami (Fla) (7-0)

14 Seed Washington (7-1) at 3 Seed Alabama (8-0)

10 Seed Penn State (7-0) at 7 Seed Oklahoma State (7-1)

11 Seed Toledo (7-1) at 6 Seed Notre Dame (7-1)

15 Seed Memphis (7-1) at 2 Seed Georgia (8-0)

The breakdown of this field indicates that 13 FBS programs are from the Power 5 Conferences and 3 FBS programs are from the Group of 5 Conferences. Taking the break down even further, ALL P5 Conferences would have representation within this expanded playoff format; 3 each from the Big 12, Big 10 and ACC, 2 each from the AAC and SEC and 1 representation from the PAC12, Independents, and MAC. This style of an expanded playoff format allows all FBS programs from ALL of the FBS Conferences and Independents, an equal and fair opportunity to compete for the National Championship. All the Group of Five Conference FBS members and the 3 Independent FBS members want, is an opporunity to compete for what’s at stake at the end of the college football season. Just like the other 87 NCAA sponsored Championship Events, all FBS schools are considered to compete for the National Championship. It is only the NCAA ponsored sport of Football, in which ONLY the FBS members from the Group of Five Conferences are NOT considered. The current CFP system and the previous BCS system are based upon an exclusive club membership based upon sports media lable status and not who has earned the right to compete for the “National Championship”.

The CFP committee has a tough time narrowing the field to the four FBS teams they believe should be part of the playoff. Expansion to 16 FBS teams makes it fair for all FBS programs within college football. Time for a change.

As the remaining weeks play out within this 2017 FBS college football season, this MOCK expanded playoff seedings will change.