2018 CFB Field of 16 Announced

Since 2007, I have been researching college football at the highest level of the FBS, under the NCAA blue logo. With the ultimate objective being how college football at this level can implement an expanded college football playoff without causing MAJOR debate and controversy. I have been successful with this idea and concept. All while I continuously collecting quantitative and qualitative data, recording, documenting, examining multiple variables with those data points, analyzing that data and creating a MOCK/Fictional College Football Playoff field for 16 FBS members since 2007. MY expanded playoff format is an “INCLUSIVE” playoff format for all competing FBS programs during that college football season. The current and bifurcated CFP system is an “EXCLUSIVE” playoff format for only 66 FBS prorgams all of which are media classified as Power Five Conferences and Members ONLY.

Within my published research and book, which examines college football historical evidence from the 1996 CFB season and forward to the current and future seasons. I was able to develop the right system to select and seed the field of 16. My field of 16 is selected by a criterial based set of data points which are qualitaitve and quantitive. Very Similar to using the  the professsional model theory in which the National Football League (NFL), National Basketball League (NBA), National Hockey League (NHL) and Major League Baseball (MLB) determine their playoff participants. All of which are criterion based with playoff elibility rules and requirements that ALL Teams, Players, Coaches, Owners and Fans know what it takes to make the playoffs. There is no second guessing, no “subjective eye test”, no SIGNIFICANT advantages in their game schedules, no playing lower level farm club systems to earn extra victories and pad their personal and team statistics.

What the current and past CFP committee(s) possesses are selection biases with Democritus values, based upon financial investments from ESPN, committee bias with the selection committee possessing direct relationships to specific power brokers and fails to examine the possible implemention of a playoff process which is inclusive for all FBS programs who compete in football, under the NCAA blue logo. The CFP system is a small step forward but still a Democritusly driven bifurcated system. The current system prohibits the G5 Conferences and programs to participate or make the criterion so subjectively bias to be considered for this playoff format. The only prize the G5  Conferences and Programs are eligible for is what I call the “bridemaid prize”. One bid, if they meet specific criterion to a New Years Day Six Bowl Game. No matter if that G5 program ends the seaons with 0-losses or completed successive FBS seasons with 0-losses.

If you surveyed and or asked college fans, coaches, players, administrators and sports media “experts” one specific question, they would more than likely agree and come to the same  conclusion, with a SIGNIFICANT percentage rate of 90% or greater, in favor that college athletics is a business. If college athletics is a business, then why has there not been legal action taken against the power brokers. If the system were ever challenged by the Group of Five (G5) Confernece Commissioners, Athletic Directors, College Presidents, College Board of Trustees, Coaches and Players all bonded together; there is a strong and significant possibility of a a violation within the Sherman Act of 1890. There is enough sufficient evidence to process this claim based upon my published research and peer reviewed educational research where Doctoral professors have published their thoughts and findings within this subject matter. If there is enough evidence, then the Clayton Act of 1914 would be imposed and protect the G5 FBS programs and conferneces. There is a chapter dedicated to this very topic within my book.

The best way to assimilate the controversy and debate between the power brokers of college football, Bill Hancock; the CFP Executive Director, the SEC conference members, the SEC commissioner Greg Sankey, ESPN, ESPN college football personalities, analysts, other sports media member versus the G5 Conferences, their members and fans of college football is by using the lyrics from The Trees, by Rush, written by Neil Peart:

” There is unrest in the forest, there is trouble with the trees”

” For the maples want more sunlight, but the oaks ignore their pleas”

” The trouble with the maples, and they quite convinced they’re right”

 

” They say the oaks are just to lofty, and grab up all the light”

” But if the oaks can’t help their feelings, if they like the way they’re made”

” And they wonder why the maples, can’t be happy in their shade”

 

” There is trouble in the forest, and the creatures all have fled”

” As the maples scream ‘oppression! and the oaks, just shake their heads”

 

” So the maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights”

” The oaks are just too greedy, we will make them give us light”

” Now there’s no more oak oppression, for they passed a noble law”

” And the trees are all kept equal, by hatchet, axe and saw”

(Peart, 1978)

Then there is the possibility that the CFP committee and ESPN staff, personalities and analyst has a playoff system in which they really do not understand, cannot really explain to the general audience or possess a belief for change to expand the college football playoff to be inclusive to all FBS programs and give all student athletes of FBS football programs fair, equal and just opportunity to compete for the $50 Millon Dollars at stake, National Notoriety, possessing the “gold” iconic trophy and the rings on the fingers that come with being called “National Champion” of college football. The best way to assimilate this thought for many, is by using the lyrics from Natural Science, by Rush, written by Neil Peart;

” Wheels within wheels, in a spiral array”

” A pattern so grand and complex, time after time”

” We lose sight of the way, our causes can’t see their effects”

(Peart, 1980)

The interesting dichotomy when comparing playoff formats of the CFP and my expanded playoff format of 16, at least I can explain the function and how the “wheels within wheels” (Peart, 1980), works “within the spiral array” (Peart, 1980). My expanded field of 16 playoff is easy to understand and could generate up to a minimum of $150+ Million dollars in revenue which would benefit college athletics as a whole.

Here are the 2018 College Fooball Playoff Brackets and Dates. This is a mock simulation of an expanded playoff bracket based upon the professional model theory. This is all part of my research to significantly prove that an expanded college football playoff of 16 FBS programs, which is inclusive and not exclusive, can be implemented.

Field of 16, seeds and schedule:

1st Saturday in December; December 1, 2018 (All FBS Seeds 1 through 8 HOST the First Round Games)

1 Notre Dame (12-0) vs. 16 UAB (10-2)

8 Boise State (10-2)  vs. 9 Michigan (10-2)

5 Ohio State (11-1) vs. 12 Buffalo (10-2)

4 Central Florida (11-0)  vs. 13 Utah State (10-2)

3 Alabama (12-0) vs. 14 Washington State (10-2)

6 Oklahoma (11-1) vs. 11 Fresno State (10-2)

7 Georgia (11-1) vs.10  Cincinnati (10-2)

2 Clemson (12-0) vs. 15 Appalchian State (10-2)

ALL GAMES must be started before 7PM Eastern Standard Time. This is the Academic Rule in which i developed to assist with student athlete acadademic study time. Starting Monday December 3, 2018; This should be Academic Finals week for the student athletes. No Structured/Coach Supervised practice can happen. ONCE ALL student athletes complete their FINAL Exams, then Supervised/Game Planned/Head Coach and Assistant Coach Practices can resume for the remaining FBS programs who advanced to the Quarter Finals games with the four bowl games.

Bowl Games start on the 3rd Saturday of December which is the annual kickoff of college football bowl season. MY solution which is published in my book ” College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Solution” incorporates the FIRST four (4) bowl games as the beginning of college football bowl season. By incorporating these four bowl games: The New Mexico Bowl, The Cure Bowl, The Las Vegas Bowl The New Orleans R+L Carriers Bowl; You will SIGNIFICANTLY increase revenue dollars at an exponetial rate with incresed advertising dollars and increased fan attendance. This means based upon the brackets above these four bowl games would have the winners from:

1 Notre Dame(12-0)/16 UAB (10-2) vs. 8 Boise State(10-2)/9 Michigan(10-2)

5 Ohio State(11-1)/12 (10-2) Buffalo vs. 4 Central Florida (11-0)/13 Utah State(10-2)

3 Alabama(12-0)/14 Washington State (10-2) vs. 6 Oklahoma (11-1)/11 Fresno State (10-2)

7 Georgia(11-1)/10 Cincinnati (10-2) vs 2 Clemson(12-0)/15 Appalachian State (10-2)

The remaining four winners from these First Four Bowl games will advance to two (2) of the four (4) Major Bowl games on New Years Day which includes The Rose Bowl, The Sugar Bowl, The Orange Bowl, the Fiesta Bowl. This means there would be another week off for the remaining FBS programs to compete in these bowl games. The remaining two (2) FBS programs from this expanded playoff format will participate in the National Chamionship Game on that following Monday in January, on the said, assiagned date in which the National Championship Game is already schedueld to be played.

I wrote about this same concept and idea with a special chapter dedicated to this process in my book. It’s well thought out , self explanatory and eliminates subjectivity; also known as the eye test. Ther expandedplayoff format takes into account for time off for minor injury recovery and academic purposes. What many of the sports madia fail to understand is that all FBS student athletes are recruited to play across the country. However, only in FBS Football under the NCAA blue logo is where the student athletes for the G5 Conferences and Programs are in-eligible to compete for a “National Championship”. These same student athletes that compete for the G5 Conferences and Programs; are eligible for the same academic scholarship, abide by the same NCAA academic rules, abide by the same Bylaws within and under the NCAA Blue Logo, but are prohibited from competing for the CFP playoffs all due to the fact of who they are playing for. If this is not a bias or a prohibited of competing for and being called National Champion, then the CFP commiitee and executives need to be brought up on charges.

If you have any questions, please reach out to me via twitter @cfbpoexpert and I will reply as quick as I can.

Always rememeber if you use, say or verbalize anything from my posts, please adhere to MLA/APA rules and cite your source.

Peart, Neil (1978). “The Trees”. Recorded by Rush. Hemispheres. Available on CD, Cassette and Record. Recorded at Rockfield Studios. South Wales UK. Anthem, Atlantic, Epic/Sony, and Mercury. Released 7/1978.

Peart, Neil (1979). “Natural Science”. Recorded by Rush. Permanent Waves. Available on CD, Cassette and Record. Recorded at Le Studios. South Wales UK. Anthem, Atlantic, Epic/Sony, and Mercury. Released 1/1980.

 

Week 7 CFB Rankings: Top 4 Stay The Same

As the college football season winds down in the last remaining week of the regular season, there are plenty of amazing games left that will possess a significant impact on the CFP4 Playoff and my well designed mock simulation of an expanded field of 16. It seems fitting that with the last week remaining in the regualr season there are still four (4) 0-loss programs left standing. Only three (3) of which are part of the bifurcated CFP4 system, with Central Florida still looking as impressive and consistent, but not receiving the earned credibility it has earned over the past two (2) seasons.

This coming weekend for college football is called “rivalry weekend”. The traditional games in which possess state and regional rights for the competing college football programs. All college football fans get excited about this coming weekend for college football because of what is at stake.These games have meaning, history, and high emotional impact. Who will survive and advance and keep their playoff hopes alive. As for my mock field of 16, I know that the four (4) 0-loss FBS programs have all secured berths and cannot be eliminated from the field of 16, based upon the professional model theory. That leaves twelve (12) open spots with six (6) 1-loss programs and nine (9) 2-loss programs battling for the remaining  twelve (12) spots. It will be an exciting final week. Let’s see who remains standing after next weekend.

For the past four weeks of my weekly college football rankings, the Top 4 have remained the same as a group and the Top 7 has remained the same group with one (1) position change between Ohio State and Oklahoma. I have also performed an analysis in comparing my Top 25 rankings versus the Top 25 rankings of the so called ranking “experts” based upon sustainability to keep their ranked position when comparing the subjective system to the professional model theory system. The early results have determined that my professional model theory system has a slight advantage in sustainabilty and success when compared to the subjective system.

Below are my college football Week 7 CFBPOEXPERT rankings. The rankings are more accurate and data driven based upon multiple categorical variables which are quantifiable and qualitative.  Please be aware that the grid might be off center within the blog post page. I have tried my best to make sure it fits to page for best viewing. The statistics and data are collected and evaluated during every week of the college football season.

TEAM/RECORD OVRL OP NC ONLY NC OP OVRL CONF OP
1 NOTRE DAME (11-0) (69-61) .531 (73) (14-14) .500 (90) (50-37) .575 (48) (12-18) .400 (125)
2 CLEMSON (11-0) (69-41) .627 (13) (8-2) .800 (18) (21-11) .656 (23) (26-33) .441 (115)
3 ALABAMA (11-0) (64-57) .529 (75) (7-4) .636 (56) (15-18) .455 (94) (21-34) .382 (129)
4 CENT. FLORIDA (10-0) (56-63) .471 (111) (4-7) .364 (120) (14-18) .438 (101) (25-31) .446 (112)
5 MICHIGAN (10-1) (75-57) .568 (36) (11-5) .688 (44) (22-11) .667 (20) (36-36) .500 (67)
6 OKLAHOMA (10-1) (68-62) .523 (80) (6-6) .500 (91) (17-16) .515 (73) (37-40) .481 (86)
7 OHIO STATE (10-1) (61-71) .462 (116) (4-6) .400 (112) (12-21) .364 (118) (31-41) .431 (118)
8 UTAH STATE (10-1) (50-72) .410 (127) (5-7) .417 (110) (15-18) .455 (96) (20-36) .357 (130)
9 WASHINGTON ST (10-1) (58-61) .487 (102) ((1-6) .143 (129) (6-16) .273 (127) (34-38) .472 (94)
10 GEORGIA (10-1) (73-48) .603 (20) (6-7) .462 (101) (28-16) .529 (65) (29-30) .492 (72)
11 BOISE STATE (9-2) (70-62) .530 (74) (8-6) .571 (69) (22-22) .500 (82) 30-26) .536 (32)
12 TROY (9-2) (57-62) .479 (107) (8-6) .571 (70) (17-15) .531 (64) (24-32) .429 (120)
13 BUFFALO (9-2) (51-69) .425 (124) (6-6) .500 (98) (17-16) .515 (78) (23-33) .411 (124)
14 FRESNO STATE (9-2) (56-66) .459 (117) (5-5) .500 (96) (14-19) .424 (104) (25-31) .446 (113)
15 UAB (9-2) (53-66) .438 (121) (7-5) .583 (67) (17-16) .515 (77) (25-31) .446 (111)
16 CINCINNATI (9-2) (56-63) .471 (112) (2-9) .182 (128) (15-18) .455 (95) (27-29) .482 (84)
17 LSU (9-2) (71-51) .582 (33) (6-6) .500 (86) (14-20) .412 (106) (30-27) .526 (39)
18 ARMY (9-2) (56-54) .509 (82) (10-13) .435 (107) (27-28) .491 (84) (17-18) .486 (79)
19 APPALACHIAN ST (8-2) (59-61) .492 (98) (5-5) .500 (94) (17-15) .53 (62) (25-31) .446 (109)
20 WEST VIRGINIA (8-2) (65-54) .546 (58) (6-1) .857 (12) (12-9) .571 (49) (34-38) .472 (91)
21 PENN STATE (8-3) (72-59) .550 (55) (4-7) .364 (118) (17-15) .531 (61) (35-37) .486 (75)
22 TEXAS (8-3) (65-65) .500 (87) (4-5) .444 (103) (12-21) .364 (117) (34-38) .472 (93)
23 UTAH (8-3) (68-52) .567 (38) (3-6) .333 (122) (13-9) .591 (41) (38-34) .528 (37)
24 SYRACUSE (8-3) (64-55) .538 (66) (11-5) .688 (45) (18-15) .545 (57) (28-31) .475 (89)
25 GA. SOUTHERN (8-3) (60-61) .496 (92) (6-6) .500 (93) (18-16) .529 (66) (26-30) .464 (101)

GRID EXPLANATIONTeam– FBS team, Record and Rank; Non Conference Overall Opponent– This is the cumulative combined overall records, percentage rate and rank of the ranked FBS teams non conference scheduled opponents records within their 2018 FBS season Overall Opponent– This is the cumulative record, percentage rate and rank within that categorical variable for that ranked FBS teams combined opponents record within their 2018 FBS football schedule versus FBS programs ONLY; Non Conference Only: This is the cumulative record, percentage rate and rank within this categorical variable for that ranked FBS teams combined records associated within their 2018 Non Conference scheduled games versus FBS programs ONLY; Conference Opponent: This is the cumulative record of games scheduled within their 2018 conference schedule versus their conference opponents ONLY and their rank amongst the group of FBS programs.

Below is my new ranking system which is criterial based, in which I have collected for the past 5 FBS seasons, previous to this 2018 FBS season. This ranking criteria examines FBS Offensive Efficiency and Defensive Effectiveness. These categories are quantitative, qualitative and measurable with no subective basis. These are EARNED statistical data points and ranked positions which shows efficency and effectiveness. This is the first time I have ever posted these data points in relationship to FBS prorgams. This TOP 25 is ranked in order based upon offensive efficiency percentage rates and defensive data points.

TEAM/RECORD OFF EFF DEF 3 PS GM CTRL
1 OKLAHOMA (10-1) (84-137) .613 13 (100) 5 (17)
2 ALABAMA (11-0) (86-143) .601 28 (2) 11 (1)
3 GEORGIA (10-1) (72-127) .567 17 (58) 6 (11)
4 UTAH STATE (10-1) (90-164) .549 23 (17) 7 (5)
5 CENTRAL FLORIDA (10-0) (68-129) .527 21 (25) 6 (9)
6 WASHINGTON STATE (10-1) (70-134) .522 17 (59) 4 (28)
7 OHIO (7-4) (71-139) .511 17 (60) 4 (29)
8 MICHIGAN (10-1) (68-135) .504 25 (10) 7 (4)
9 ARMY (9-2) (63-106) .500 14 (89) 3 (48)
10 MEMPHIS (7-4) (75-151) .497 19 (43) 4 (25)
11 WEST VIRGINIA (9-2) (64-129) .496 19 (44) 5 (15)
12 BOISE STATE (9-2) (65-132) .492 18 (50) 4 (26)
13 GEORGIA TECH (7-4) (62-126) .492 18 (51) 4 (27)
14 NC STATE (7-3) (58-118) .492 14 (90) 2 (76)
15 CLEMSON (11-0) (75-155) .484 33 (1) 8 (2)
16 OKLAHOMA STATE (7-4) (72-149) .483 18 (52) 3 (42)
17 MISSOURI (7-4) (69-144) .479 17 (61) 5 (16)
18 FLORIDA INTERN (8-3) (63-132) .477 16 (69) 4 (31)
19 MISSISSIPPI (5-6) (70-147) .476 10 (118) 2 (85)
20 APPLACHIAN STATE (8-2) (61-130) .469 25 (11) 6 (8)
21 HOUSTON (8-3) (79-170) .465 20 (37) 5 (14)
22 NORTH TEXAS (8-3) (70-152) .461 27 (4) 6 (6)
23 OHIO STATE (10-1) (72-158) .456 23 (18) 4 (21)
24 SOUTH CAROLINA (6-4) (54-119) .454 12 (107) 3 (53)
25 TEXAS TECH (5-6) (70-155) .452 17 (62) 3 (45)

GRID EXPLANATIONTeam– FBS team, Record and Rank; Offensive Efficiency- This is the cumulative total of number of offensive possessions during the FBS 2018 season, total number of scoring drives, and total number of offensive possessions. This does includes any scoring that the defense earned in relationship to interception touchdowns, punt return touchdowns, kickoff touchdowns and safeties in which resulted in a score. Defensive 3 Possession Stops- This categorical variable is the ability of the FBS team defense to stop their opponent in 3 SUCCESSIVE possessions WITHOUT their opponent scoring any points. Each 3 SUCCESSFUL defensive possession stops equals 1. The number in parenthesies is the that FBS team rank within the whole group of FBS teams to allow for comparison. Game Control- This is acategorical variable which is determined by the ranked FBS teams ability to win games based upon final outcomes by winning by 21 points or 3 possessions or more.

As we head into the final week of college football’s regular season, there are 71 FBS programs that are bowl eligible. In addition to the final week being rivalry week, there are twenty-three (23) (5-6) FBS programs still competing for bowl eligibility. Based upon my research, there are plenty of bowl eligible programs and bowl games to accomodate the support of an expanded 16 team playoff format for college football at the highest FBS level. We are down to the last furlong of this college football season. Who will survive the last week?

If you have any questions, please reach out to me via twitter @cfbpoexpert and I will reply as quick as I can.

Always rememeber if you use, say or verbalize anything from my posts, please adhere to MLA/APA rules and cite your source.

Week 6 CFB Rankings

Please forgive this is late. I was focusing on my first responders course for work and just could not get to posting and publishing my weekly rankings. I will provide the Week 6 CFB rankings, since I still collect the data and rank CFB programs even when I do get busy.

Here are the week 6 Top 25 CFB football rankings for all of the FBS level.

TEAM/RECORD OVRL OP NC ONLY NC OP OVRL CONF OP
1 NOTRE DAME (10-0) (62-57) .521 (81) (14-13) .519 (87) (44-35) .557 (52) (11-16) .407 (125)
2 CLEMSON (10-0) (63-37) .630 (11) (6-2) .750 (29) (18-11) .621 (32) (23-29) .442 (113)
3 ALABAMA (10-0) (57-53) .518 (84) (7-4) .636 (58) (13-17) .433 (102) (19-32) .373 (129)
4 CENTRAL FLORIDA (9-0) (50-58) .463 (114) (3-7) .300 (122) (12-17) .414 (106) (21-27) .438 (119)
5 MICHIGAN (9-1) (70-50) .583 (31) (10-5) .667 (47) (21-9) .700 (16) (32-30) .516 (56)
6 OHIO STATE (9-1) (58-62) .483 (102) (4-6) .400 (114) (11-19) .367 (118) (29-33) .468 (100)
7 OKLAHOMA (9-1) (62-56) .525 (77) (5-6) .455 (100) (15-15) .500 (82) (33-35) .485 (78)
8 UAB (9-1) (50-60) .455(119) (6-5) .545 (85) (16-14) .533 (64) (23-27) .460 (107)
9 BUFFALO (9-1) (45-66) .405 (127) (5-6) .455 (102) (15-15) .500 (83) (19-31) .380 (128)
10 UTAH STATE (9-1) (46-65) .414 (126) (5-7) .417 (112) (14-160 .467 (92) (18-31) .367 (130)
11 CINCINNATI (9-1) (49-59) .454 (120) (2-9) .182 (128) (12-18) .400 (112) (23-25) .479 (92)
12 WASHINGTON ST (9-1) (54-56) .491 (96) (1-6) .143 (129) (5-15) .250 (127) (31-34) .477 (93)
13 GEORGIA (9-1) (65-45) .591 (27) (6-5) .545 (78) (17-14) .548 (55) (27-29) .482 (83)
14 WEST VIRGINIA (8-1) (59-49) .546 (60) (6-1) .857 (13) (11-8) .579 (47) (29-34) .460 (106)
15 BOISE STATE (8-2) (63-57) .525 (79) (8-6) .571 (73) (19-21) .475 (89) (27-22) .551 (28)
16 SYRACUSE (8-2) (58-50) .537 (72) (10-5) .667 (50) (17-13) .567 (490 (24-28) .462 (103)
17 TROY (8-2) (52-56) .481 (104) (8-5) .615 (66) (15-14) .517 (70) (21-27) .438 (116)
18 FRESNO STATE (8-2) (50-61) .450 (121) (5-5) .500 (96) (12-18) .400 (109) (22-27) .449 (111)
19 LSU (8-2) (64-47) .577 (35) (6-5) .545 (79) (13-18) .419 (105) (29-26) .527 (45)
20ARMY (8-2) (52-49) .515 (85) (10-12) .455 (101) (24-26) .480 (88) (16-15) .516 (58)
21 APPALACHIAN ST (7-2) (53-56) .486 (100) (5-5) .500 ( 93) (15-14) .517 (71) (21-270 .438 (117)
22 NOR. ILLINOIS (7-3) (57-64) .471 (109) (9-4) .692 (45) (22-18) .550 (53) (27-210 .563 (24)
23PENN STATE (7-3) (67-52) .563 (47) (4-7) .364 (116) (15-14) .517 (72) (32-30) .516 (570
24 TEXAS (7-3) (62-56) .525 (78) (4-5) .444 (104) (13-17) .433 (104) (30-33) .476 (96)
25 MID TENNESSEE (7-3) (56-53) .514 (86) (7-10 .875 (11) (20-10) .667 (20) (25-24) .510 (59)

GRID EXPLANATIONTeam– FBS team, Record and Rank; Non Conference Overall Opponent– This is the cumulative combined overall records, percentage rate and rank of the ranked FBS teams non conference scheduled opponents records within their 2018 FBS season Overall Opponent– This is the cumulative record, percentage rate and rank within that categorical variable for that ranked FBS teams combined opponents record within their 2018 FBS football schedule versus FBS programs ONLY; Non Conference Only: This is the cumulative record, percentage rate and rank within this categorical variable for that ranked FBS teams combined records associated within their 2018 Non Conference scheduled games versus FBS programs ONLY; Conference Opponent: This is the cumulative record of games scheduled within their 2018 conference schedule versus their conference opponents ONLY and their rank amongst the group of FBS programs.

Below is my new ranking system which is criterial based, in which I have collected for the past 5 FBS seasons, previous to this 2018 FBS season. This ranking criteria examines FBS Offensive Efficiency and Defensive Effectiveness. These categories are quantitative, qualitative and measurable with no subective basis. These are EARNED statistical data points and ranked positions which shows efficency and effectiveness. This is the first time I have ever posted these data points in relationship to FBS prorgams. This TOP 25 is ranked in order based upon offensive efficiency percentage rates and defensive data points.

TEAM/RECORD OFF EFF DEF 3 PS GM CTRL
1 OKLAHOMA (9-1) (76-125) .608 13 (88) 5 (13)
2 ALABAMA (10-0) (78-132) .591 26 (2) 10 (1)
3 UTAH STATE (9-1) (83-153) .542 22 (13) 7 (5)
4 CENTRAL FLORIDA (9-0) (62-116) .534 19 (24) 5 (9)
5 GEORGIA (9-1) (62-116) .534 15 (69) 5 (11)
6 MEMPHIS (6-4) (71-137) .518 16 (55) 4 (20)
7 WEST VIRGINIA(8-1) (58-112) .518 18 (32) 5 (10)
8 WASHINGTON STATE (9-1) (60-119) .504 15 (70) 3 (39)
9 ARMY (8-2) (49-98) .500 13 (89) 3 (43)
10 CLEMSON (10-0) (70-141) .496 30 (1) 7 (2)
11 OHIO (6-4) (63-128) .492 15 (43) 3 (40)
12 MICHIGAN (9-1) (60-123) .488 24 (6) 7 (4)
13 OKLAHOMA STATE (6-4) (65-135) .487 17 (71) 3 (32)
14 SYRACUSE (8-2) (77-160) .481 23 (11) 4 (15)
15 BOISE STATE (8-2) (58-121) .479 15 (72) 3 (41)
16 GEORGIA TECH (6-4) (55-115) .478 16 (56) 4 (21)
17 MISSISSIPPI (5-5) (63-133) .474 9 (119) 2 (83)
18 TEXAS TECH (5-5) (68-144) .472 17 (44) 3 (33)
19 NC STATE (6-3) (50-107) .467 11 (107) 1 (104)
20 NORTH TEXAS (7-3) (63-135) .467 24 (7) 6 (7)
21 FLORIDA INTERN (7-3) (56-121) .463 15 (73) 4 (24)
22 HOUSTON (7-3) (71-155) .458 17 (45) 4 (19)
23 MISSOURI (6-4) (60-131) .458 14 (81) 4 (25)
24 APPLACHIAN STATE (7-2) (54-120) .450 23 (12) 5 (8)
25 OHIO STATE (9-1) (64-143) .448 22 (14) 4 (16)

GRID EXPLANATIONTeam– FBS team, Record and Rank; Offensive Efficiency- This is the cumulative total of number of offensive possessions during the FBS 2018 season, total number of scoring drives, and total number of offensive possessions. This does includes any scoring that the defense earned in relationship to interception touchdowns, punt return touchdowns, kickoff touchdowns and safeties in which resulted in a score. Defensive 3 Possession Stops- This categorical variable is the ability of the FBS team defense to stop their opponent in 3 SUCCESSIVE possessions WITHOUT their opponent scoring any points. Each 3 SUCCESSFUL defensive possession stops equals 1. The number in parenthesies is the that FBS team rank within the whole group of FBS teams to allow for comparison. Game Control- This is acategorical variable which is determined by the ranked FBS teams ability to win games based upon final outcomes by winning by 21 points or 3 possessions or more.

If you have any questions, please reach out to me via twitter @cfbpoexpert and I will reply as quick as I can.

Always rememeber if you use, say or verbalize anything from my posts, please adhere to MLA/APA rules and cite your source.

Clemson vs. Alabama Debate

I have been asked to support my reasoning why I have been ranking Clemson above Alabama all year long. My explanation is very simple. It’s all in the data. The “eye test” in which the CFP committee uses, is just a subjective process of what you perceive is reality. Perception is always not reality and reality is not always perception. The difference between reality and perception is in how we view both and use our own cognitive thought process to determine which is real. In sports, the use of highly technical savy Football Predictor Indicators, e.g. ESPN’s FPI, which can be proven as lacking significant evidence as valid and cannot support a 95% efficiency rating as sucessful, based upon prediction percentages in relationship to final outcomes in game results in which they apply these FPI ratings to. The Sagarin Rating system is another analytical rating system that the CFP committee also uses to create thier rankings. This Sagarin system has also been proven by other analytics that the Sagarin system left out qualitative and quantitative variables that need to provide a better rating. Thus both the FPI and Sagarin systems are not valid.

As I answer this question, I use variables to assist in guiding me to a much improved ranking system associated with the professional model theory with criterial assessments to rank. The variables in which I examine and use for my rankings include but not lmiited to; Non-Conference Schedules, FCS Scheduling, Home Field Advantages or Dis-Advantages within the FBS Schedule, Conference Credibility in relationship to Home Field Advantages within the groups Non-Conference Schedule, Number of Away games played, Wins on the road during the Non Conference Games, Number of Home or Away Games in succession to detemine success and advantages plus many more to list. Then I use all those variable and use the Professional Model Theory to rank based upon win loss records, just like the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL and MLS. As you can see, there is plenty of data to examone to make a much improved ranking system for college football at the FBS level.

The way I examined the Clemson/Alabama debate is simply this. The data graph below depicts the current 2018 FBS college football season with accurate statistics prior to the November 11, 2018 scheduled games. Please refer to the chart below.

CLEMSON CATEGORY ALABAMA
(9-0) RECORD (9-0)
YES FCS GAME YES
1 NON CONF AWAY 0
3 NON CONF HOME 4
(6-2) .750 NON CONF RECORD (7-4) .636
TXAM NON CONF SCHED LOU
SC LA LAF
GA STHRN ARK ST
(17-9) .654 NC OPP RECORD (11-16) .407
(58-32) .644 OVRL OPP SCHD REC (51-48) .515
(19-26) .422 CONF OPP SCHD REC (15-28) .349
(65-127) .512 OFF EFFICIENCY (74-120) .617
26 DEF EFF STOPS 22
7 GAME CONTROL 9
BC (7-2) A REM. SCHEDULE MSST (6-3) H
DUKE (6-3) H FCS H
SC (5-3) H AUB (6-3) H

GRIDRECORD- Current FBS Record during the 2018 FBS College Football Season; FCS Game– Was and Is there a scheduled games versus an FCS Opponent (FCS is Football Championship Division; which means they are the NEXT level down in football classification, not holding FBS status but all their other NCAA sponsored sports play at the Division 1 levels and meets Title IX Requirments). Non Conf Away- Was and or Is their a TRADITIONAL Non Conference Away games scheduled at that FBS programs stadium site during the FBS 2018 College Football season. Non Conf Home– Was and or Is their a TRADITIONAL Non Conference Away games scheduled at that FBS programs stadium site during the FBS 2018 College Football season. Non Conf Record– Combined record of that FBS teams Non Conference scheduled opponents Non Conference record ONLY. Non Conf Sched– That FBS teams schedule non conference games versus those FBS opponents in the 2018 season. NC OPP Record– Combined overall records of that FBS teams scheduled non conference opponents in the 2018 season. OVRL OPP SCHED REC– That FBS teams combined records of all FBS teams scheduled during their 2018 FBS season schedule. CONF OPP SCHED REC- That FBS teams combined records of that FBS teams conference scheduled opponents in the 2018 FBS season. OFF EFFICIENCY- This is the cumulative total of number of offensive possessions during the FBS 2018 season, total number of scoring drives, and total number of offensive possessions. This does includes any scoring that the defense earned in relationship to interception touchdowns, punt return touchdowns, kickoff touchdowns and safeties in which resulted in a score. Defensive 3 Possession Stops– This categorical variable is the ability of the FBS team defense to stop their opponent in 3 SUCCESSIVE possessions WITHOUT their opponent scoring any points. Each 3 SUCCESSFUL defensive possession stops equals 1. The number in parenthesies is the that FBS team rank within the whole group of FBS teams to allow for comparison. Game Control– This is acategorical variable which is determined by the ranked FBS teams ability to win games based upon final outcomes by winning by 21 points or 3 possessions or more. REM SCHEDULE–  Remaining Scheduled Games versus FBS and FCS programs and their current opponents records.

To support my data and reasons, please let me explain. The case for Clemson’s rank higher than Alabama is well supported by Clemson playing Texas A&M in College Station, winning and winning on the road. Clemson possesses a higher win loss percentage rate within their Non Conference Schedule compared to Alabama. Clemson scheduled non conference games with FBS opponents that are successful this 2018 FBS season. Where as, Alabama cannot use the excuse of playing a poor non conference schedule as a defense to their mirage like success. The Alabama non conference schedule is significantly weaker than Clemson. Clemson possesses a better defensive stop rate than Alabama versus statistically tougher FBS competition. Offensively, Alabama may be ranked higher than Clemson in offensive efficiency, but Alabama has not really played statistically tough FBS competition. Furtehrmore,  Alabama has played a significantly less competitive schedule overall which is supported by the weaker SEC conference scheduled opponents and weaker non conference scheduled opponents success versus other non conference FBS programs.

To conclude, Alabama possesses a lighter remaining schedule with 3 Home games still left to play in better weather climate. In addition to that, Alabama plays a FCS program at the end of the regualr season prior to the annual rivalry game versus Auburn. My prediction, Alabama wins 48-7 versus The Citadel. published research supports this and Alabama will receive praise for the win veruss the FCS program. Clemson still has to play 3 ACC opponents with all 3 FBS ACC opponents combined records being (18-8) and on the road to Boston College in the COLDER weather. This means Clemsons strength of schedule is statistically better than Alabama’s.

To the media experts of the Experts Sports Programming Network and the CFP selection committee; YOU fail to see the other data which supports that Clemson by a few lengths should be ranked higher than Alabama. However, the Experts Sports Programming network is deep in LOVE with the “bride” and cannot see past that. This is called subjective bias. Until Clemson loses, I will ALWAYS rank CLEMSON higher than Alabama.

If you have any questions, please reach out to me via twitter @cfbpoexpert and I will reply as quick as I can.

Always rememeber if you use, say or verbalize anything from my posts, please adhere to MLA/APA rules and cite your source.

 

Week 5 CFB Rankings and NO Changes at Top 4

With 3 weeks to go in this 2018 college football regular season, prior to the conference championship weekend,  the season is shaping up to be very exciting with many great games still to come when rivalry weekend approching. The playoff race for my mock field of 16 is starting to take shape. All while, the CFP system is causing too many issues with the bifurcated and Democritusly driven system all because of the “eye test”, lack of selection and seeding experience and they must protect the Power Five Conferences based upon vested interests.

I performed a week one comparison between the CFP rankings and my weekly rankings based upon which FBS won or lost, but importantly “who ranked them better”. What was determined was that my CFBPOEXPERT Top 15 was (12-3), the CFP Top 15 was (10-5). By comparing the two groups against each other based upon the subjective process of a committee versus the professional model theory with criterial assessments to assist in ranking. From my persepctive, It can be detemined that the subjective CFP committe process possesses ranking design flaws based upon vested interests from select financial groups, a significant ranking bias based upon specific conferences earning ranked positions based upon “specific”Power Five conference affiliation in addtion to possessing a relationsip bias, providing a false perceived perception how really good that “specific” Power Five Conference is and finally believing in using data sets in the likes of the FPI and the RPI which have been proven to lack credibility . The questions that need to be asked are what is the CFP selection committee thinking when ranking and how come I am not part of the selection committee. At least I would create a balance in the force.

As of this posting, we still have (4) 0-loss programs, the 1-loss programs has dwindeled down to (11), 2-loss programs have grown to 30 and EVERY FBS program now has a win. Texas El Paso finally earned their first victory against Rice.The  bowl eligible programs has grown to 49, with 29 FBS programs with 5-wins, one short of being bowl eligible. More than likely, all of thise 5 win programs will become bowl eligible. Behind the 5-win FBS programs are 18 4-win programs who are still in the hunt to become bowl eligible. If all of those FBS programs within those specific win groups all earn 6-wins to be bowl eligible, then CFB would have 96 bowl eliible programs. Now the argument would be, who gets left out of a bowl game.

As of this posting at 7PM on 11/6/2018, If i could predict the CFP week two selections for the CFP4, then I would have to say in rank order: Alabama, Clemson, Michigan, Notre Dame; with Georgia, Oklahoma, Ohio State, West Virginia, Washington State and Central Florida. It should be Clemson, Alabama, Notre Dame and then any one from the group I just mentioned you can toss in and get a great CFP4.

Below are my week 5 CFBPOEXPERT rankings. The rankings are more accurate and data driven based upon multiple categorical variables which are quantifiable and qualitative.  Please be aware that the grid might be off center within the blog post page. I have tried my best to make sure it fits to page for best viewing. The statistics and data are collected and evaluated during every week of the college football season.

TEAM/RECORD OVRL OP NC ONLY NC OP OVRL CONF OP
1 NOTRE DAME (9-0) (56-52) .519 (81) (14-12) .538 (87) (40-32) .556 (54) (9-14) .391 (126)
2 CLEMSON (9-0) (58-32) .644 (5) (9-1) .900 (4) (18-7) .720 (15) (19-26).422 (123)
3 ALABAMA (9-0) (51-46) .515 (83) (7-4) .636 (60) (11-16) .457 (107) (15-28) .349 (130)
4 CENTRAL FLORIDA (8-0) (44-53) .454 (118) (3-7) .300 (122) (10-16) .385 (114) (17-23) .425 (120)
5 MICHIGAN (8-1) (62-47) .569 (44) (9-5) .643 (52) (19-9) .679 (20) (26-27) .491 (73)
6 OKLAHOMA (8-1) (56-50) .528 (78) (5-6) .455 (103) (13-14) .481 (88) (29-30) .492 (72)
7 OHIO STATE (8-1) (51-57) .472 (109) (4-6) .400 (114) (10-17) .370 (118) (23-30) .434 (119)
8 UAB (8-1) (46-53) .465 (112) (6-5) .545 (86) (14-13) .519 (70) (21-21) .500 (67)
9 BUFFALO (8-1) (40-60) 400 (128) (5-6) .455 (104) (13-14) .481 (92) (16-26) .381 (127)
10 UTAH STATE (8-1) (42-61) .408 (125) (5-7) .417 (112) (13-15) .464 (96) (15-28) .349 (129)
11 FRESNO STATE (8-1) (46-56) .451 (120) (5-5) .500 (96) (11-16) .407 (111) (19-24) .442 (115)
12 CINCINNATI (44-53) .454 (119) (2-9) .182 (128) (11-16) .407 (110) (19-21) .475 (89)
13 GEORGIA (59-40) .596 (27) (6-5) .545 (79) (15-13) .536 (63) (23-25) .479 (84)
14 WASHINGTON ST (8-1) (51-52) .500 (91) (1-6) .143 (129) (5-14) .263 (127) (28-30) .483 (80)
15 WEST VIRGINA (7-1) (54-43) .557 (53) (6-1) .857 (13) (10-7) .588 (47) (25-29) .463 (101)
16 BOISE STATE (7-2) (58-51) .532 (75) (8-6) .571 (75) (17-19) .472 (94) (24-18) .571 (18)
17 SYRACUSE (7-2) (54-44) .551 (57) (9-5) .643 (53) (16-12) .571  (49) (21-24) .467 (96)
18 GEORGIA SO. (7-2) (51-49) .510 (86) (6-5) .545 (82) (16-13) .552 (58) (19-21) .475 (88)
19 TROY (7-2) (47-50) .485 (102) (8-4) .667 (51) (13-13) .500 (84) (18-22) .450 (112)
20 SOUTH FLORIDA (7-2) (50-41) .549 (61) (7-4) .636 (58) (13-15) .464 (95) (21-19) .525 (47)
21 NORTH TEXAS (7-2) (39-59) .398 (129) (7-6) .538 (88) (10-16) .385 (115) (19-24) .442 (116)
22 HOUSTON (7-2) (42-58) .420 (124) (4-5) .444 (108) (11-18) .379 (116) (17-23) .425 (121)
23 SAN DIEGO ST (7-2) (50-52) .490 (99) (6-3) .667 (49) (15-13) .536 (65) (18-23) .439 (117)
24 BOSTON COLLEGE (7-2) (55-43) .561 (49) (5-7) .417 (111) (14-14) .500 (79) (21-24) .467 (97)
25 KENTUCKY (7-2) (52-47) .525 (79) (4-6) .400 (113) (9-19) .321 (121) (22-25) .468 (95)

GRID EXPLANATIONTeam– FBS team, Record and Rank; Non Conference Overall Opponent– This is the cumulative combined overall records, percentage rate and rank of the ranked FBS teams non conference scheduled opponents records within their 2018 FBS season Overall Opponent– This is the cumulative record, percentage rate and rank within that categorical variable for that ranked FBS teams combined opponents record within their 2018 FBS football schedule versus FBS programs ONLY; Non Conference Only: This is the cumulative record, percentage rate and rank within this categorical variable for that ranked FBS teams combined records associated within their 2018 Non Conference scheduled games versus FBS programs ONLY; Conference Opponent: This is the cumulative record of games scheduled within their 2018 conference schedule versus their conference opponents ONLY and their rank amongst the group of FBS programs.

Below is my new ranking system which is criterial based, in which I have collected for the past 5 FBS seasons, previous to this 2018 FBS season. This ranking criteria examines FBS Offensive Efficiency and Defensive Effectiveness. These categories are quantitative, qualitative and measurable with no subective basis. These are EARNED statistical data points and ranked positions which shows efficency and effectiveness. This is the first time I have ever posted these data points in relationship to FBS prorgams. This TOP 25 is ranked in order based upon offensive efficiency percentage rates and defensive data points.

TEAM/RECORD OFF EFF DEF 3 PS GM CTRL
1 ALABAMA (9-0) (74-110) .617 22 (7) 9 (1)
2 OKLAHOMA (8-1) (68-111) .613 12(92) 5(9)
3 GEORGIA (9-0) (57-106) .538 13(72) 5(8)
4 UTAH STATE (8-1) (73-136) .537 20(12) 6(7)
5 CENTRAL FLORIDA (8-0) (57-107) .533 18(20) 4(7)
6 WASHINGTON ST (8-1) (55-106) .519 12(93) 2(12)
7 WEST VIRGINIA (7-1) (50-97) .515 15(47) 3(73)
8 MEMPHIS (5-4) (63-123) .512 13(73) 3(29)
9 CLEMSON (9-0) (65-127) .512 26(1) 7(2)
10 OHIO (6-3) (58-114) .509 13(74) 3(34)
11 MISSISSIPPI (5-4) (59-120) .492 8(118) 2(81)
12 BOISE STATE (7-2) (54-111) .486 14(59) 3(32)
13 ARMY (7-2) (44-91) .484 13(75) 3(35)
14 MICHIGAN (8-1) (54-112) .482 21(9) 6(6)
15 OKLAHOMA STATE (5-4) (58-121) .479 16(36) 3(28)
16 NC STATE (6-2) (45-94) .479 10(108) 1(102)
17 NORTH TEXAS (7-2) (58-122) .475 23(5) 6(5)
18 OHIO STATE (8-1) (59-125) .472 18(21) 4(13)
19 GEORGIA TECH (5-4) (50-106) .472 14(60) 4(19)
20 TEXAS TECH (5-4) (62-132) .470 17(29) 3(26)
21 SYRACUSE (7-2) (67-143) .469 21(10) 3(23)
22 HOUSTON (7-2) (64-139) .460 17(30) 4(14)
23 FRESNO STATE (8-1) (55-120) .458 24(2) 7(3)
24 TOLEDO (5-4) (58-127) .457 15(48) 3(30)
25 MISSOURI (5-4) (54-120) .450 13(76) 4(20)

GRID EXPLANATIONTeam– FBS team, Record and Rank; Offensive Efficiency- This is the cumulative total of number of offensive possessions during the FBS 2018 season, total number of scoring drives, and total number of offensive possessions. This does includes any scoring that the defense earned in relationship to interception touchdowns, punt return touchdowns, kickoff touchdowns and safeties in which resulted in a score. Defensive 3 Possession Stops- This categorical variable is the ability of the FBS team defense to stop their opponent in 3 SUCCESSIVE possessions WITHOUT their opponent scoring any points. Each 3 SUCCESSFUL defensive possession stops equals 1. The number in parenthesies is the that FBS team rank within the whole group of FBS teams to allow for comparison. Game Control- This is acategorical variable which is determined by the ranked FBS teams ability to win games based upon final outcomes by winning by 21 points or 3 possessions or more.

As we conclude this FBS college football season, we are just at the top of turn four of this season long race starts to have more upsets, surprises and programs which were extinct returning to some power within the FBS seasons. I look forward to the conclusion of this FBS college football season and the Thanksgiving weekend of many great rivalry games.

If you have any questions, please reach out to me via twitter @cfbpoexpert and I will reply as quick as I can.

Always rememeber if you use, say or verbalize anything from my posts, please adhere to MLA/APA rules and cite your source.

Week 4 CFB Rankings and The CFP Thoughts

How the college football season is now starting to get very interesting as the FBS teams and CFP members . The group of 0-loss programs are slowly decreasing to a number which supports published research with only 2 or 3 FBS teams left at the end of the regular season with 0-losses. In addition to the groups of 2-loss, 1-loss and 0-loss programs are all on a collision course to play against each which will assist in determining who will make the bifurcated and Democritusly driven College Football Playoff (CFP). This also assists me in starting to review all FBS program for my mock field of an expanded college football playoff format of 16 FBS teams where all FBS programs are eligible to compete..

This is the day that the CFP committee will announce their CFP Top 25 rankings with all vested interests for all Power Five Conference (P5) programs with little dis-regard to the Group of Five (G5) programs. The committee will come out and vehemetly keep Central Florida (UCF) and other credible G5 programs out of the CFP playoffs, no matter if they are the ONLY remaining 0-loss program left. The CFP committee will find ways to keep them from the CFP4 and only give one of the G5 programs, if and only if that G5 program meets specific criteria, to compete for the “bridesmaid” prize to compete for one spot in the New Years Day Six Bowl Games. Interesting that the G5 programs all abide by NCAA Bylaw 3.1 thourgh 3.7, then meets NCAA Bylaw 20 and then follow the remaining NCAA Bylaw between 3.1 and 20. Then these G5 programs must abide by Title IX rules and regulations to be considered a FBS member. Then you wonder why the CFP, like the BCS is a bifurcated system and is only accessible for the “good ole boys” network of the P5 Conferences and their members. All ruled by, you know whom.

Here is my prediction on the how the CFP will vote, I already tweeted (@cfbpoexpert) it out (at 545PM on 10/30/18) directy to the CFP Executive Director and UCF Football and the Director of Athletics at UCF Mr. Danny White. Its sad how the CFP system which was suppose to be better still possesses design flaws, selection flaws and criterial flaws. For my CFP prediction its will be in rank order: Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame and LSU. UCF will be either ranked 9 or 10. If you look at my data and research it offers a different, more purposeful system which is Utilitarinistic and under the professional model theory.

Week 4 CFBPOEXPERT Top 25 Rankings. Please be aware that the grid might be off center within the blog post page. I have tried my best to make sure it fits to page for best viewing. The statistics and data are collected and evaluated during every week of the college football season.

TEAM/RECORD OVRL OP NC ONLY NC OP OVRL CONF OP
1 NOTRE DAME (8-0) (52-45) .536 (70) (14-11) .560 (76) (37-28) .569 (52) (8-11) .421 (118)
2 CLEMSON (8-0) (52-28) .650 (8) (8-1) .889 (6) (16-6) .727 (13) (14-23) .378 (124)
3 ALABAMA (8-0) (46-43) .517 (82) (7-4) .636 (56) (10-14) .417 (103) (13-25) .342 (130)
4 CENTRAL FLORIDA (7-0) (39-47) .453 (118) (3-7) .333 (121) (8-15) .348 (117) (14-18) .438 (117)
5 MICHIGAN (7-1) (57-41) .582 (43) (8-5) .615 (65) (17-8) .680 (24) (23-23) .500 (68)
6 OHIO STATE (7-1) (46-51) .474 (110) (4-6) .400 (111) (8-16) .333 (120) (20-25) .444 (114)
7 OKLAHOMA (7-1) (50-44) .532 (75) (5-6) .455 (101) (11-13) .458 (96) (24-25) .490 (75)
8 UAB (7-1) (42-47) .472 (112) (6-5) .545 (86) (13-11) .542 (62) (18-19) .486 (86)
9 GA. SOUTHERN (7-1) (43-46) .483 (106) (5-5) .500 (93) (13-13) .500 (77) (14-16) .467 (103)
10 BUFFALO (7-1) (35-54) .393 (129) (5-6) .455 (103) (12-12) .500 (78) (12-22) .353 (128)
11 UTAH STATE (7-1) (38-55) .409 (126) (4-7) .364 (117) (11-14) .440 (99) (13-24) .351 (129)
12 CINCINNATI (7-1) (40-46) .465 (114) (2-9) .182 (128) (10-14) .417 (108) (16-16) .500 (73)
13 FRESNO STATE (7-1) (42-50) .457 (116) (5-5) .500 (96) (10-14) .417 (105) (16-20) .444 (113)
14 HOUSTON (7-1) (37-52) .416 (125) (4-5) .444 (106) (10-16) .385 (114) (13-19) .406 (121)
15 SOUTH FLORIDA (7-1) (43-37) .538 (69) (7-4) .636 (54) (10-15) .400 (111) (17-15) .531 (42)
16 KENTUCKY (7-1) (46-43) .517 (83) (4-6) .400 (110) (8-17) .320 (123) (19-23) .452 (110)
17 WASHINGTON ST (7-1) (46-45) .505 (92) (1-6) .143 (129) (4-13) .235 (128) (24-25) .490 (76)
18 GEORGIA (7-1) (52-37) .584 (42) (6-5) .545 (81) (12-13) .480 (86) (20-22) .476 (92)
19 LSU (7-1) (55-35) .611 (21) (6-4) .600 (70) (12-13) .480 (84) (22-19) .537 (36)
20 WEST VIRGINIA (6-1) (48-38) .558 (59) (5-1) .833 (15) (8-7) .533 (63) (21-24) .467 (101)
21 NORTH TEXAS (7-2) (34-55) .382 (130) (7-6) .538 (87) (9-15) .375 (115) (15-22) .405 (122)
22 BOISE STATE (6-2) (53-46) .535 (71) (8-6) .571 (75) (16-16) .500 (76) (19-17) .528 (48)
23 PENN STATE (6-2) (53-43) .552 (61) (4-7) .364 (116) (10-13) .435 (101) (23-22) .511 (60)
24 TEXAS (6-2) (50-44) .532 (76) (4-5) .444 (104) (10-14) .417 (107) (21-24) .467 (104)
25 LOUISIANA TECH (6-2) (39-50) .438 (122) (6-3) .667 (48) (14-10) .583 (50) (13-22) .371 (126)

 

GRID EXPLANATIONTeam– FBS team, Record and Rank; Non Conference Overall Opponent– This is the cumulative combined overall records, percentage rate and rank of the ranked FBS teams non conference scheduled opponents records within their 2018 FBS season Overall Opponent– This is the cumulative record, percentage rate and rank within that categorical variable for that ranked FBS teams combined opponents record within their 2018 FBS football schedule versus FBS programs ONLY; Non Conference Only: This is the cumulative record, percentage rate and rank within this categorical variable for that ranked FBS teams combined records associated within their 2018 Non Conference scheduled games versus FBS programs ONLY; Conference Opponent: This is the cumulative record of games scheduled within their 2018 conference schedule versus their conference opponents ONLY and their rank amongst the group of FBS programs.

Below is a new ranking criteria I have collected for the past 5 FBS seasons which examines FBS Offensive Efficiency and Defensive Effectiveness. These categories are quantitative, qualitative and measurable with no subective basis. These are EARNED statistical data points and ranked positions which shows efficency and effectiveness. This is the first time I have ever posted these data points in relationship to FBS prorgams. This TOP 25 is ranked in order based upon offensive efficiency percentage rates and defensive data points.

TEAM/RECORD OFF EFF DEF 3 PS GM CTRL
1 ALABAMA (8-0) (69-108) .639 19 (8) 8 (1)
2 OKLAHOMA (7-1) (61-97) .629 11 (79) 5 (9)
3 UTAH STATE (7-1) (65-122) .533 18 (11) 5 (6)
4 CENTRAL FLORIDA (7-0) (49-92) .533 17 (17) 4 (10)
5 WASHINGTON STATE (7-1) (51-96) .531 11 (80) 2 (62)
6 GEORGIA (7-1) (51-98) .520 12 (63) 5 (8)
7 BOISE STATE (6-2) (51-100) .510 13 (53) 3 (29)
8 MEMPHIS (4-4) (54-107) .505 12 (64) 3 (30)
9 OHIO (5-3) (49-98) .500 9 (105) 2 (72)
10 OHIO STATE (7-1) (53-109) .486 16 (29) 4 (13)
11 OKLAHOMA STATE (5-3) (53-109) .486 14 (42) 3 (26)
12 MICHIGAN (7-1) (58-99) .485 18 (12) 5 (7)
13 CLEMSON (8-0) (54-112) .482 24 (1) 6 (2)
14 MISSISSIPPI (5-3) (51-106) .481 8 (110) 2 (73)
15 SYRACUSE (6-2) (60-126) .476 18 (13) 3 (22)
16 HOUSTON (7-1) (59-124) .476 17 (18) 4 (11)
17 NORTH TEXAS (7-1) (58-122) .475 23 (2) 6 (3)
18 FLORIDA INTERN (6-2) (45-96) .469 11 (81) 3 (34)
19 GEORGIA TECH (4-4) (44-94) .468 12 (65) 4 (17)
20 WEST VIRGINIA (6-1) (33-71) .465 11 (82) 3 (35)
21 APPLACHIAN STATE (5-2) (44-95) .463 17 (19) 4 (12)
22 PENN STATE (6-2) (55-119) .462 21 (4) 3 (19)
23 TEXAS TECH (4-4) (54-118) .458 17 (20) 3 (23)
24 TOLEDO (4-4) (51-112) .455 12 (66) 2 (59)
25 COASTAL CAROLINA (5-3) (35-77) .455 7 (119) 2 (77)

GRID EXPLANATIONTeam– FBS team, Record and Rank; Offensive Efficiency- This is the cumulative total of number of offensive possessions during the FBS 2018 season, total number of scoring drives, and total number of offensive possessions. This does includes any scoring that the defense earned in relationship to interception touchdowns, punt return touchdowns, kickoff touchdowns and safeties in which resulted in a score. Defensive 3 Possession Stops- This categorical variable is the ability of the FBS team defense to stop their opponent in 3 SUCCESSIVE possessions WITHOUT their opponent scoring any points. Each 3 SUCCESSFUL defensive possession stops equals 1. The number in parenthesies is the that FBS team rank within the whole group of FBS teams to allow for comparison. Game Control- This is acategorical variable which is determined by the ranked FBS teams ability to win games based upon final outcomes by winning by 21 points or 3 possessions or more.

As of this posting, there are 38 bowl eligible FBS programs, 24 FBS programs with 5-wins and on the cusp of bowl eligibilty and 27 4-win FBS programs still with a viable opportunity to secure a bowl bid.  There are (4) 0-loss FBS programs left standing and (1) FBS program still seeking their first win. With four weeks left in the college football season, there will be some suprises and major upsets still to be played out. That’s a given.

If you have any questions, please reach out to me via twitter @cfbpoexpert and I will reply as quick as I can.

Always rememeber if you use, say or verbalize anything from my posts, please adhere to MLA/APA rules and cite your source.

Alabama is Ranked Number 1 in Week 3 CFB Rankings

My third week of college football FBS rankings finds Alabama (8-0) ranked number one. The only reason Alabama is ranked number one is due to the fact that I rank based upon the professional model theory. They are the only (8-0) team listed. There are four other FBS programs that possess an overall record of (7-0) and those programs being; Clemson, Central Florida, Notre Dame and South Florida. Which of these five 0-loss programs will end the season with 0-losses. Research says that only 2 will remain standing at the end of the regular season. Alabama has a bye week approching this coming weekend and more than likely wont be ranked number one after this weeks games are played. Many of the sports media experts believe that Alabama is the clear choice of being ranked number one, being head and shoulders above the rest of the group of FBS programs. If you look at qualitative and quantitative data other than the ESPN FPI or the Sagarin ranking system, both of which possess design flaws, you will observe that Alabama is not the best FBS program of the group. Alabama possesses measurable data points that keeps them in the bottom 50% of the group of FBS programs in 3 out of 4 quantitaive and qualitative variables which are measurable and compariable against other FBS programs.

A review of my college football FBS TOP 25 shows that of the 25 FBS members; 10 of the 25 ranked FBS members are from the Group of Five Conferences. Those 10 Group of Five FBS members have earned their rank. All FBS members are ranked based upon the professional model theory and they earned the ranking for this week. Of the 25 ranked FBS members; 5 posssess 0-losses, and 18 possess 1-loss. I believe that the sports media experts rank by the eye test and only know how to appreciate and or rank the Power Five Conference members. However with that said, are you aware that the CFP like the BCS system is still a bifurcated system. Even though the college football playoff system has increased by 2 more playoff teams. The CFP system ONLY allows the Power Five Conference Members and Notre Dame to compete for the right to be called “national champion” at the end of the season. Can we say Anti Trust Lawsuit around the corner.

When you read and review my rankings for college football at the FBS level of play, I ranked based upon what research has proven, that the professional model theory is the most efficient and effective way. This ranking style is inclusive for all and the best way to rank college football programs. In addition to my rankings, I also use quantitative and quaitaitive data which produces results to select and seed my expanded college football playoff group of 16 FBS teams and the end of the regular season. ALL FBS teams are eligible for and should be eligible to be called national champion of college football. However, the power brokers of the CFP and the past BCS system only want the “name brand” programs to compete for the prestigious title.

Below are my weekly rankings for college football at the FBS level during the 2018 college football season. The rankings were determined prior to any college football games played during the week of October 22, 2018 and the blog posting date. Rankings of FBS teams are in rank order, in relationship to ranking within the Top 25  based upon the professional model theory, head to head mathc ups, non-conference scheduling advantages or dis advantages and other measurable variables. Even the Boston Red Sox and Los Angelas Dodgers struggled versus certain MLB teams within their leagues or divisions during the 2018 MLB season, and or  failed to put up great statistical numbers against certain MLB programs. However, the most interesting dichotomy is they finished the season with the two-best win-loss records and both are competing for the opportunity to be called World Series Champion of Major Leauge Baseball. Even the Florida Marlins who struggels with attendance numbers and fails to produce large financial revenue dollars for the MLB could compete for the right to be called  World Series Champions. If the Marlins finished the season with the an overall win-loss record that qualifies them for one of the five playoff spots within their respective leauge, the Marlins could have competed in MLB playoffs and earned their opportunty to be called World Series Champion in the MLB. Just food for thought.

Week 3 CFBPOEXPERT Top 25 Rankings. Please be aware that the grid might be off center within the blog post page. I have tried my best to make sure it fits to page for best viewing.

TEAM/RECORD OVRL OP NC ONLY NC OP OVRL CONF OP
1 ALABAMA (8-0) (44-37) .543 (70) (7-4) .636 (46) (9-12) .429 (103) (12-21) .364 (127)
2 NOTRE DAME (7-0) (47-39) .547 (66) (14-11) .560 (66) (33-25) .569 (56) (7-9) .438 (118)
3 CLEMSON (7-0) (46-24) .657 (10) (6-1) .857 (11) (13-6) .684 (23) (10-18) .357 (128)
4 SOUTH FLORIDA (7-0) (38-35) .521 (84) (6-8) .429 (102) (8-14) .364 (116) (14-14) .500 (70)
5 CENTRAL FLORIDA (7-0) (37-41) .474 (111) (3-7) .300 (121) (7-13) .350 (118) (13-16) .448 (109)
6 MICHIGAN (7-1) (51-37) .580 (48) (6-5) .545 (69) (16-6) .727 (14) (19-21) .474 (82)
7 OHIO STATE (7-1) (39-46) .448 (120) (4-6) .400 (109) (6-12) .333 (120) (16-23) .410 (123)
8 LSU (7-1) (52-30) .634 (15) (6-4) .600 (57) (11-11) .500 (71) (20-16) .556 (28)
9 BUFFALO (7-1) (31-52) .373 (130) (6-8) .429 (106) (11-12) .478 (85) (9-21) .300 (130)
10 TEXAS (6-1) (44-38) .537 (73) (4-5) .444 (96) (9-12) .429 (104) (16-20) .444 (113)
11 OKLAHOMA (6-1) (45-37) .549 (65) (6-8) .429 (103) (10-11) .476 (86) (17-19) .472 (89)
12 UAB (6-1) (36-43) .456 (115) (6-5) .545 (71) (11-10) .524 (69) (14-16) .467 (94)
13 GA. SOUTHERN (6-1) (38-41) .481 (107) (6-12) .481 (119) (11-12) .478 (83) (12-14) .462 (103)
14 UTAH STATE (6-1) (34-48) .415 (125) (8-10) .444 (99) (10-12) .455 (97) (10-19) .345 (129)
15 CINCINNATI (6-1) (38-41) .481 (106) (2-9) .182 (127) (9-13) .409 (107) (15-14) .517 (61)
16 HOUSTON (6-1) (35-46) .432 (123) (4-5) .444 (95) (9-14) .391 (111) (12-16) .429 (122)
17 FRESNO STATE (6-1) (36-45) .444 (122) (5-5) .500 (82) (8-13) .381 (115) (12-16) .429 (121)
18 SAN DIEGO STATE (6-1) (41-40) .506 (93) (6-2) .750 (26) (12-10) .545 (62) (13-15) .464 (95)
19 KENTUCKY (6-1) (41-37) .526 (80) (4-6) .400 (113) (7-15) .318 (122) (15-19) .441 (114)
20 IOWA (6-1) (40-37) .519 (85) (1-4) .200 (126) (7-6) .538 (64) (17-22) .436 (119)
21 GEORGIA (6-1) (46-34) .575 (58) (5-9) .357 (117) (9-13) .409 (106) (17-19) .472 (90)
22 FLORIDA (6-1) (43-29) .597 (33) (3-3) .500 (87) (7-8) .467 (90) (16-19) .457 (106)
23 WASHINGTON ST (6-1) (40-40) .500 (94) (1-6) .143 (129) (2-13) .133 (128) (20-20) .500 (71)
24 WEST. MICHIGAN (6-2) (37-46) .446 (121) (6-4) .600 (55) (14-8) .636 (37) (14-17) .452 (107)
25 WASHINTON (6-2) (45-33) .577 (53) (7-3) .700 (34) (9-6) .600 (43) (17-20) .459 (104)

GRID EXPLANATIONTeam– FBS team, Record and Rank; Non Conference Overall Opponent– This is the cumulative combined overall records, percentage rate and rank of the ranked FBS teams non conference scheduled opponents records within their 2018 FBS season Overall Opponent– This is the cumulative record, percentage rate and rank within that categorical variable for that ranked FBS teams combined opponents record within their 2018 FBS football schedule versus FBS programs ONLY; Non Conference Only: This is the cumulative record, percentage rate and rank within this categorical variable for that ranked FBS teams combined records associated within their 2018 Non Conference scheduled games versus FBS programs ONLY; Conference Opponent: This is the cumulative record of games scheduled within their 2018 conference schedule versus their conference opponents ONLY and their rank amongst the group of FBS programs.

Below is a new ranking criteria I have collected for the past 5 FBS seasons which examines FBS Offensive Efficiency and Defensive Effectiveness. These categories are quantitative, qualitative and measurable with no subective basis. These are EARNED statistical data points and ranked positions which shows efficency and effectiveness. This is the first time I have ever posted these data points in relationship to FBS prorgams. This TOP 25 is ranked in order based upon offensive efficiency percentage rates and defensive data points.

TEAM/RECORD OFF EFF DEF 3 PS GM CTRL
1 ALABAMA (8-0) (69-108) .639 19 (4) 8 (1)
2 OKLAHOMA (6-1) (52-86) .605 10 (80) 4 (14)
3 CENTRAL FLORIDA (7-0) (49-92) .533 17 (13) 4 (8)
4 GEORGIA (6-1) (44-84) .529 12 (52) 5 (7)
5 UTAH STATE (6-1) (54-104) .519 15 (26) 4 (11)
6 WASHINGTON STATE (6-1) (44-85) .518 11 (63) 2 (56)
7 APPALACHIAN STATE (5-1) (42-83) .506 16 (17) 4 (9)
8 MEMPHIS (4-4) (54-107) .505 12 (53) 3 (22)
9 OKLAHOMA STATE (4-3) (47-96) .490 12 (54) 3 (23)
10 OREGON (5-2) (43-88) .489 10 (81) 2 (62)
11 OHIO STATE (7-1) (53-109) .486 16 (18) 4 (10)
12 MICHIGAN(7-1) (48-99) .485 18 (9) 5 (5)
13 MISSOURI (4-3) (46-95) .484 8 (105) 3 (33)
14 BOISE STATE (5-2) (43-89) .483 12 (55) 3 (24)
15 OHIO (4-3) (41-85) .482 17 (113) 1 (103)
16 MISSISSIPPI (5-3) (51-106) .481 8 (106) 2 (68)
17 TEXAS TECH (5-2) (49-102) .480 15 (27) 3 (21)
18 ARMY (5-2) (34-72) .472 11 (62) 3 (26)
19 FLORIDA INTERN (5-2) (40-85) .471 10 (82) 2 (63)
20 CLEMSON (7-0) (45-96) .469 21 (1) 5 (2)
21 SYRACUSE (5-2) (52-111) .468 17 (14) 3 (18)
22 HOUSTON (6-1) (51-109) .468 16 (19) 3 (19)
23 WEST VIRGINIA (5-1) (33-71) .465 11 (65) 3 (27)
24 NORTH TEXAS (6-2) (51-110) .464 20 (3) 5 (3)
25 PURDUE (4-3) (42-92) .457 13 (39) 2 (48)

GRID EXPLANATIONTeam– FBS team, Record and Rank; Offensive Efficiency- This is the cumulative total of number of offensive possessions during the FBS 2018 season, total number of scoring drives, and total number of offensive possessions. This does includes any scoring that the defense earned in relationship to interception touchdowns, punt return touchdowns, kickoff touchdowns and safeties in which resulted in a score. Defensive 3 Possession Stops- This categorical variable is the ability of the FBS team defense to stop their opponent in 3 SUCCESSIVE possessions WITHOUT their opponent scoring any points. Each 3 SUCCESSFUL defensive possession stops equals 1. The number in parenthesies is the that FBS team rank within the whole group of FBS teams to allow for comparison. Game Control- This is acategorical variable which is determined by the ranked FBS teams ability to win games based upon final outcomes by winning by 21 points or 3 possessions or more

The breakdown of the FBS group of the current 2018 FBS season already possesses; 27 Bowl Eligible FBS programs, 24 FBS programs who have the opportunity to become bowl eligible this coming week with 5-wins, 25 FBS programs with 4-wins that can take one step closer to becoming bowl eligible and Nebraska earned a win last week taking them out of the 0-win group. That leaves 2 FBS programs, Texas El Paso and San Jose State with 0-wins. Which of these two will earn their first win, first.

If you have any questions, please reach out to me via twitter @cfbpoexpert and I will reply as quick as I can.

Always rememeber if you use, say or verbalize anything from my posts, please adhere to MLA/APA rules and cite your source.

Week 2: CFB/FBS Top 25

Sorry this is a late update, trying to catch up on things here at home and work.

This is week 2 of my college football FBS weekly rankings of the TOP 25. I am also including a new ranking list which shows the Top 25 FBS programs being ranked on offensive efficiency and defensive effectiveness.

As of this ranking college football at the FBS level possesses 8 FBS with 0-losses, 21 FBS programs with 1-loss, and 3 FBS with 0-wins.

My weekly rankings are not based upon  subjectivity, but rankings are based upon the professional model theory in ranked by win-loss records in addition to using other categorical variables to develop a more improved ranked group of FBS programs 1 through 25. I examine variables that the sports media lacks a cognitive understanding and or does not know how to use. The sports media “experts” use the eye test, the Expert Sports Programming Network FPI system and Jeff Sagarin’s RPI system which both have been proven to have major design flaws when calculating and ranking college football FBS programs.

Below is my week two’s college football FBS TOP 25 Rankings with explantion of ranking categories. Please forgive for the non-alignment in this ranking chart. Since I added a 5th column, it wont align properly. I hope you can understand the purpose of this ranking chart.

WEEK TWO

TEAM/RECORD OVRL OP NC ONLY NC OP OVRL CONF OP
1 NOTRE DAME (7-0) (29-23) .558 (56) (14-11) .560 (68) (42-34) .553 (65) (6-6) .500 (67)
2 OHIO STATE (7-0) (6-12) .333 (119) (4-6) .400 (107) (35-40) .467 (113) (12-18) .400 (124)
3 ALABAMA (7-0) (8-11) .421 (102) (7-4) .636 (47) (39-33) .542 (71) (10-18) .357 (128)
4 CLEMSON (6-0) (12-6) .667 (28) (7-1) .875 (12) (43-210 .672 (8) (8-15) .348 (129)
5 SOUTH FLORIDA (6-0) (8-12) .400 (108) (6-7) .462 (94) (35-29) .547 (69) (11-10) .524 (51)
6 CENTRAL FLORIDA (6-0) (7-11) .389 (110) (3-7) .300 (121) (34-34) .500 (99) (10-12) .455 (101)
7 CINCINNATI (6-0) (7-12) .368 (115) (2-8) .200 (127) (32-36) .471 (111) (11-10) .524 (55)
8 MICHIGAN (6-1) (14-6) .700 (22) (7-5) .583 (62) (45-32) .584 (49) (15-16) .484 (80)
9 TEXAS (6-1) (9-9) .500 (74) (4-4) .500 (81) (42-33) .560 (62) (14-18) .438 (110)
10 LSU (6-1) (10-10) .500 (75) (6-4) .600 (58) (48-27) .640 (16) (18-14) .563 (32)
11 GEORGIA (6-1) (8-12) .400 (109) (5-8) .385 (113) (41-31) .569 (59) (14-17) .452 (102)
12 NORTH TEXAS (6-1) (6-13) .316 (121) (5-8) .385 (114) (25-44) .362 (129) (9-13) .409 (121)
13 BUFFALO (6-1) (8-11) .421 (103) (5-8) .385 (112) (26-46) .361 (130) (6-17) .361 (130)
14 FLORIDA (6-1) (6-7) .462 (94) (3-3) .500 ((83) (39-25) .609 (34) (14-16) .467 (98)
15 NC STATE (5-0) (11-7) .611 (45) (5-4) .556 (69) (39-28) .582 (51) (10-14) .417 (117)
16 HAWAII (6-2) (11-15) .423 (100) (9-10) .474 (89) (36-41) .468 (112) (9-10) .474 (94)
17 OKLAHOMA (5-1) (8-10) .444 (98) (5-8) .385 (111) (42-34) .553 (66) 916-17) .485 (78)
18 WEST VIRGINIA (5-1) (8-3) .727 (16) (5-1) .833 (13) (42-27) .609 (35) (15-17) .469 (96)
19 DUKE (5-1) (15-5) .750 (9) (8-4) .667 (38) (40-29) .580 (53) (14-10) .583 (19)
20 IOWA (5-1) (7-6) .538 (59) (1-4) .200 (126) (35-33) .515 (88) (12-18) .400 (123)
21 SAN DIEGO STATE (5-1) (10-9) .526 (63) (6-2) .750 (27) (35-35) .500 (97) (9-11) .400 (105)
22 UAB (5-1) (10-9) .526 (64) (5-5) .500 (80) (32-37) .464 (114) (11-11) .500 (74)
23 GA SOUTHERN (5-1) (10-10) .500 (76) (6-10) .375 (115) (33-37) .471 (110) (9-12) .429 (116)
24 UTAH STATE (5-1) (10-10) .500 (77) (8-9) .471 (90) (32-40) .444 (122) (8-13) .381 (126)
25 FRESNO STATE (5-1) (7-11) .389 (111) (5-5) .500 (85) (32-38) .456 (117) (9-11) .450 (107)

GRID EXPLANATIONTeam– FBS team, Record and Rank; Non Conference Overall Opponent– This is the cumulative combined overall records, percentage rate and rank of the ranked FBS teams non conference scheduled opponents records within their 2018 FBS season Overall Opponent– This is the cumulative record, percentage rate and rank within that categorical variable for that ranked FBS teams combined opponents record within their 2018 FBS football schedule versus FBS programs ONLY; Non Conference Only: This is the cumulative record, percentage rate and rank within this categorical variable for that ranked FBS teams combined records associated within their 2018 Non Conference scheduled games versus FBS programs ONLY; Conference Opponent: This is the cumulative record of games scheduled within their 2018 conference schedule versus their conference opponents ONLY.

Below is a new ranking criteria I have collected for the past 5 FBS seasons which examines FBS Offensive Efficiency and Defensive Effectiveness. These categoris are quantitative, qualitative and measurable with no subective basis. These are EARNED statistical data points which shows efficency and effectiveness. This is the first time I have ever posted these data points in relationship to FBS prorgams. This TOP 25 is ranked in order based upon offensive efficiency percentage rate.

WEEK TWO

TEAM/RECORD OFF EFF DEF 3 PS GM CTRL
1 ALABAMA (7-0) (60-94) .638 18 (3) 7
2 OKLAHOMA (5-1) (44-72) .611 9 (75) 3
3 UTAH STATE (5-1) (50-88) .568 12 (32) 4
4 APPLACHIAN STATE (4-1) (37-69) .536 13 (24) 4
5 MICHIGAN (6-1) (45-84) .536 15 (12) 5
6 WASHINGTON STATE (5-1) (39-74) .527 10 (39) 2
7 GEORGIA (6-1) (44-84) .524 12 (33) 5
8 MEMPHIS (4-3) (48-92) .522 12 (34) 3
9 NC STATE (5-0) (28-54) .519 8 (91) 2
10 OHIO STATE (7-0) (49-95) .516 16 (8) 4
11 CENTRAL FLORIDA (6-0) (40-78) .513 14 (16) 4
12 MISSISSIPPI (5-2) (47-93) .505 6 (112) 2
13 OREGON (5-1) (39-78) .500 9 (76) 2
14 HAWAII (6-2) (47-95) .495 8 (92) 1
15 SYRACUSE (4-2) (45-91) .495 14 (17) 3
16 NORTH TEXAS (6-1) (48-98) .490 19 (2) 5
17 OKLAHOMA STATE (4-3) (47-96) .490 12 (35) 3
18 COASTAL CAROLINA (3-3) (31-65) .477 5 (120) 2
19 ARMY (4-2) (29-61) .475 10 (60) 3
20 TEXAS TECH (4-2) (41-87) .471 12 (36) 2
21 TOLEDO (3-3) (39-83) .470 9 (77) 1
22 LOU-LAFAYETTE (3-3) (31-66) .470 5 (121) 2
23 WEST VIRGINIA (5-1) (33-71) .465 11 (46) 3
24 LSU (6-1) (42-91) .462 13 (25) 2
25 HOUSTON (5-1) (44-96) .458 14 (18) 3

GRID EXPLANATIONTeam– FBS team, Record and Rank; Offensive Efficiency- This is the cumulative total of number of offensive possessions during the FBS 2018 season, total number of scoring drives, and total number of offensive possessions. This does includes any scoring that the defense has done in relationship to interception touchdown, punt return touchdowns, kickoff touchdown and safeties in which resulted in a score. Defensive 3 Possession Stops- This categorical variable is the ability of the FBS team defense to stop their opponent in 3 SUCCESSIVE possessions WITHOUT their opponent scoring any points. Each 3 SUCCESSFUL defensive possession stops equals 1. The number in parenthesies is the that FBS team rank within the whole group of FBS teams to allow for comparison. Game Control- This is acategorical variable which is determined by the ranked FBS teams ability to win games based upon final outcomes by winning by 21 points or 3 possessions or more.

If you have any questions, please reach out to me via twitter @cfbpoexpert and I will reply as quick as I can.

Always rememeber if you use, say or verbalize anything from my posts, please adhere to MLA/APA rules and cite your source.

First 2018 Weekly College Football Ranking

It’s that time of year for my weekly college football rankings for the FBS level of play. Please forgive the delay by one week. Working MANY hours for my job at Hershey caused the delay, but I was still collecting data weekly.

For my weekly rankings, I use quantitative and qualitative categorical variables which provides a much improved and more accurate ranking system without subjective assessment and the use of the eye tests that the  sports media “experts” use to rank and formulate opinions on ranking. I have been performing and collecting data to rank FBS college football prorgams for 10+ years. In addition to publishing my rankings in book format and web based blog posting for at least 5 years. You could say I have PLENTY of experience in ranking college football programs at the FBS level.

Since college football at the FBS level has reached the half mile pole of the season, there is plenty of information and data to make an accurate ranking assessment for this select group of 130 FBS members. I can determine that when comparing my rankings with the sports media “experts” both in televison, print or web based rankings that there is a big disparity when comparing my rankings to theirs. I believe that the sports media has fallen in love with the “bride” of the group and are looking through rosed colored glasses not seeing that their are other qualified “brides” in the room who should be ranked higher than the “bride” the sports media has fallen in love with. I have no problem looking at the ‘bride” in the room but I always look at all data points before making any selection to rank no matter how pretty or beautiful the “bride” is.

Comparing my Top 25 college football rankings versus the college football rankings by the “experts”, we both match with the group as a whole at 80%. Within that 80%, in we both agree upon, the majority of mine are ranked differently than the ranking “”experts”. This means we agree in ranking of 20 FBS programs within the Top 25. I have ranked 5 different FBS programs who have earned the opportunity to be ranked within this poll based upon qualitative and quatitative variables, not because they are a member of a “prestigious” Power 5 Conference. That is what we call a ranking bias to make sure that those higher ranked FBS teams within the Top 25 poll of “experts” give the illusion that those members are better than what they really are. This is how one specfic Power 5 Conference coaches rank their Top 25, to give the implied impression or magicians illusion that they are by perception better than others. This places into question the credibility and validity of the coach who ranks the college football Top 25.

The “bride” I am referring to is Alabama. The primary sports media experts from the Experts Sports Programming Network and one from Fox Sports are so enamoured by this “bride” that they cannot see past the obvious. Yes, Alabama is (6-0), yes they have won every game by 21+ points; yes Tua is gaining statistical accolades and how did they do that without being caught within the illusion of the trick. Of the 6 FBS Alabama has played; 5 have been played at HOME or possession of regional home field advantage versus Louisville in Orlando; 1 AWAY game but this away game was a conference game and required to play and finally Alabama still has to play the annual FCS BOWL game versus Mercer at HOME the week before the annual Auburn/Alabama game on Thanksgiving weekend. Heaven forbid if Alabama were to play a COMPETITIVE FBS Power 5 program, on the road, AT that Power 5 program to really TEST their “elitist” and “entitlement” of always being mollycoddled.

I know some of the sports media are only espousing what they are told, more specifically ESPN sports personalities and “experts” because ESPN possesses a $2.25 BILLION dollar note on promoting the SEC and needs to re-coup their investment. I believe Neil Peart wrote it best in lyrics within one of Rush’s studio released songs:

“Wheels within wheels in a spiral array

A pattern so grand and complex

Time after time, we lose sight of the way our causes can’t see their effects”

“In their own images, their world is fashioned

No wonder they don’t understand”

(Peart, 1980)

Maybe the sports media does not understand but is on their own mission of promotions based upon big money.

If you look at viable, quantitaive, qualitative and measureble data the numbers dont lie and you do understand the real pciture. I believe ESPN had a show named “Numbers Don’t Lie”  where they would debate data and numbers. Alabama who is ranked Number 1 in all the subjective polls but possesses a ranking where important data has them ranked in the lower 50 percentile of the FBS group, in the lower 33 percentile of the FBS group and SECOND TO LAST in conference opponent credility based upon scheduled conference opponents combined conference records. Yes, Joel Kaltt from FOX Sports; Clemson should be ranked higher than Alabama, you just dont see it. Of those I have ranked in the Top 25, 19 of them have or will be playing FCS lower level competition to earn an extra victory. Published research performed by me and still continues to research, proves that all FBS programs win games scheduled with FCS programs by an average of 4+ possessions or more (meaning 28 points or more) versus FCS opponents and more specifically, the FBS programs win 90% of the time. When an FCS member wins versus an FBS member its ONLY by less than 5 points.

The rankings below are based upon the professional model theory with the addition to where all FBS programs have an equal, just, and fair opportunity to compete for the national championship within my 16 Team College Football Playoff field which is “inclusive” not “EXCLUSIVE” to conference favortism or bias. The current CFP and past BCS systems have biases and criterion built within the selction phase against Group of Five Confernece members or the Non-BCS group.

 

TEAM RECORD OVRL OP NC OP OVRL CONF OP
1 NOTRE DAME (6-0) (14-10) .544 (75) (25-21) .543 (63) (5-5) .500 (63)
2 OHIO STATE (6-0) (31-34) .477 (108) (6-11) .353 (118) (8-14) .364 (126)
3 CLEMSON (6-0) (39-19) .672 (12) (11-4) .733 (19) (6-14) .300 (127)
4 GEORGIA (6-0) (38-25) .603 (42) (8-10) .444 (93) (11-13) .458 (96)
5 ALABAMA (6-0) (34-28) .548 (72) (7-9) .438 (98) (6-15) .286 (129)
6 CINCINNATI (6-0) (27-33) .450 (121) (5-11) .313 (122) (8-8) .500 (79)
7 HAWAII (6-1) (30-35) .462 (117) (9-13) .409 (107) (5-7) .417 (117)
8 WEST VIRGINIA (5-0) (37-24) .607 (41) (7-3) .700 (28) (11-14) .440 (100)
9 NC STATE (5-0) (36-25) .590 (53) (10-6) .625 (40) (8-13) .381 (123)
10 SOUTH FLORIDA (5-0) (32-26) .552 (70) (8-10) .444 (94) (8-8) .500 (72)
11 CENTRAL FLORIDA (5-0) (32-29) .525 (84) (7-9) .438  (99) (8-9) .471 (90)
12 COLORADO (5-0) (28-32) .467 (114) (2-9) .182 (128) (11-14) .440 (102)
13 MICHIGAN (5-1) (39-27) .591 (52) (12-6) .667 (32) (11-12) .478 (84)
14 OKLAHOMA (5-1) (36-30) .545 (73) (6-10) .375 (111) (12-13) .480 (83)
15 LSU (5-1) (43-22) .662 (13) (9-8) .529 (65) (14-11) .560 (37)
16 MIAMI FLA. (5-1) (37-22) .627 (28) (11-5) .688 (29) (9-10) .474 (87)
17 KENTUCKY (5-1) (36-26) .581 (58) (6-11) .353 (116) (12-12) .500 (78)
18 WASHINGTON (5-1) (35-26) .574 (61) (7-5) .583 (53) (9-14) .391 (122)
19 WASHINGTON STATE (5-1) (33-27) .550 (71) (2-9) .182 (127) (13-11) .542 (43)
20 TROY (5-1) (23-34) .404 (126) (5-10) .333 (121) (7-9) .438 (109)
21 NORTH TEXAS (5-1) (22-39) .361 (128) (5-12) .313 (123) (7-9) .438 (110)
22 BUFFALO (5-1) (22-39) .361 (129) (7-10) .412 (106) (4-11) .267 (130)
23 FLORIDA (5-1) (36-21) .632 (27) (5-7) .417 (104) (12-12) .500 (75)
24 PENN STATE (4-1) (40-25) .615 (37) (7-9) .438 (97) (13-9) .591 (21)
25 TEXAS (4-1) (37-28) .569 (64) (7-8) .467 (90) (11-14) .440 (101)

Honorable Mentioned:  All are (4-1) Wisconsin, Duke, Iowa, San Diego State, Fresno State, Georgia Southern, UAB, Houston and Utah State.

GRID EXPLANATION: Team– FBS team and Rank; Overall Opponent– This is the cumulative record, percentage rate and rank within that categorical variable for that ranked FBS teams combined opponents record within their 2018 FBS football schedule versus FBS programs ONLY; Non Conference Opponent Overall: This is the cumulative record, percentage rate and rank within this categorical variable for that ranked FBS teams combined records associated within their 2018 Non Conference scheduled games vrsus FBS programs ONLY; Conference Opponent: This is the cumulative record of games scheduled within their 2018 conference schedule versus their conference opponents ONLY.

I will be posting weekly rankings for the rest of the college FBS football season. The rankings are not subjetcive, they do have criterial aspects to them in how FBS programs are ranked. Many of you will wonder how many of the FBS programs will end the regular season with 0-losses. Published research performed by me proves that on avarage that only 2.54 FBS teams end the regular season with 0-lossess. We will see who remains standing at the end of the season.

If you have any questions, please reach out to me via twitter @cfbpoexpert and I will reply as quick as I can.

Always rememeber if you use, say or verbalize anything from my posts, please adhere to MLA/APA rules and cite your source.

 

Peart, Neil (1979). “Natural Science” from Permanent Waves. Performed by Rush. Recorded at Le Studio in Quebec, Canada. Available on Record, Cassette Tape and CD. Mercury Label.

Alabama and Coach Saban, Magician and Pied Piper

First let me compliment Coach Saban on his coaching career with his ability to maintain the passion for coaching a sport at the highest level of college athletics, shaping the minds of young men and women and being a mentor for student athletes in which he has come in contact with for many years. I wish no harm or negative effects to Coach Saban, his family and career in college athletics. in August 2018, ESPN selected to air the time spent by Coach Saban with his recruits at his home and the Alabama training days to give you an inside look within Coach Saban and Alabama. I am in full support in what ESPN did with that segment.

With that said, it’s incumbent of me to offer you some information about Alabama football and Coach Saban in which the main stream media  won’t tell you or is afraid to examine about Coach Saban and his reign at Alabama. Fact, yes Coach Saban has won 4 BCS Titles and 2 CFP Titles, Coach Saban’s overall record at Alabama is (127-20), with some of those wins earned in bowl games. These are all facts that can not be argued against. However, ever wonder how Coach Saban and Alabama has possessed this type of success at the FBS level play at Alabama since (2007)? Is this magical run been perfomed by skill, luck, significant advantages in key areas of the sport or in other ways? Let me offer you a different perspective about the Alabama success and Coach Saban’s successes since (2007).

As the title of the posting says, “Magician and Pied Piper”, this best describes Coach Saban. I would best describe Coach Saban as the best magician of all within coaching college football. The most intersting dichotomy of this description is that the sports media “experts” do not even realize what Coach Saban has performed right under their very noses and eyes. Coach Saban did not use magical boxes, saw a lady in half, levitate, appear… disappear and re-appear, or smoke and mirrors. Coach Saban used mis-direction and card tricks to make sure that the sports media “experts” had their eyes and minds elsewhere while he pulled of the magicians trick. Interesting, I have been watching this trick unfold since (1996) with the SEC and once Coach Saban arrived at Alabama in (2007).

Here is what the sports media “experts” fail to recognize and report on about Coach Saban at Alabama, either because they have a financially invested interests into the SEC or lacks the congintive abilities to comprehend how the magician pulled off the trick. These are facts, just like a District Attorney performing and investigating a murder case. They gather facts, not follow hypothesis and theories with abillity to draw a conclusion with the evidence. Since Coach Saban’s hiring at Alabama, Alabama has scheduled (44) NCG’s during the BCS and CFP era’s. Of those (44) NCGs, (42) of them or 95.4% of them have been scheduled and played at home or regional home field advantage sites; such as Atlanta, Dallas or Orlando. There is the magic trick the media won’t speak of or report on. This means that in (11) college football season under the Saban era at Alabama, they have only played on the road for (2) traditional style NCG’s; at Duke in (2010) and at Penn State in (2011). This gives the ultimate illusion with relationship to their win loss records as better than any other FBS program. This data also includes that during the CFP era, Alabama has not played (1) NCG on the road AT another FBS/P5/G5 stadium site. Moreover, the sports media, gives high praise to the SEC and Alabama for how they have acheived their success, but won’t tell you how the magician pulled of the greatest trick and illusion to be as successful.

There, the trick and mirage like perception of Alabama, the SEC and Coach Saban has been revealed. Sure, check the data and historic schedules if you want, but let me save you your time. Do your best to determine if I am lying or not “truth” telling. Yes, the Alabama fans will say; ” we played in Atlanta”, ” we played in Dallas”, ” we played in Orlando”… ” those are road games”.  Yes, you are right, they are road games with regional home field advantage built into the perception in which YOU need to control to be successful. Is it that the reality of the matter becomes that the SEC, Alabama and Coach Saban are fearful of playing in other P5/G5 stadium sites outside of the region of the Southeast? I cannot prove this but, what the historical data and evidence tells us is that the implied impression, perception and reality of what has been scheduled offers conclusive evidence that the “fear of losing” or the “fear of losing that stranglehold on the money, title and prestige” would ruin their image to ESPN or other constituencies. I believe that if the SEC FBS football programs were required to play outside of their comfort zone of regional HFA, then they would not possess the successes in which they currently have now. However, we will never know because the SEC FBS football programs do not play West of College Station, TX; West of Columbia, MO; or North of Lexington, KY. The SEC fears the other P5 FBS programs in prestigious conferences.

Can you only imagine if Coach Meyer at Ohio State, Coach Kelly at Notre Dame, Coach Harbaugh at Michigan, Coach Peterson at Boise State and Washington, Coach Leach at Washington State, Coach Stoops at Oklahoma when he was there, Coach Alveraz, Coach Niumatolo at Navy, Coach Gundy at Oklahoma State, Coach Ferentz at Iowa, Coach Carey at Northern Illinois, Coach Solich at Ohio, Coach Shaw at Stanford and any other FBS P5/G5 head football coach outside of the SEC would say, if they could play 95% of their NCG’s at home and not be required to play road games or even be required to travel to the SEC region of the country to play SEC programs. I could speculate that these coaches could have won National Championships as well. You are aware that published peer reviewed research and published reasearch in book form proves and supports the home field advantage theory in relationship to a better overall won loss record and greater success.

Here is an interesting tidbit of information, proof shown that many SEC programs have qualified for the Men’s and Women’s basketball tournament, Men’s Baseball Tournament and Women’s Softball tournament in the 2017-2018 NCAA sports season. When these tournament brackets were narrowed down to a select group of regional play and the SEC programs were required to play in other regions of the country to qualify for the National Championship brackets, seems that the results indicate that the SEC CANT play away from home and be successful as they are at home. Fact is that the only way the SEC could have immediate representation into the Men’s 2018 College Baseball World Series or the Women’s 2018 College Softball World Series, is they had to place (2) SEC programs against each other in the regional round to secure and guarentee (2) World Series berths. The only way the SEC is successful is if they control their NCG schedule to be played at home and as often as possible. Again, a point of emphasis that supports the fear of losing or the stranglehold on the financial prize.

How does the Pied Piper assimilation to Coach Saban come into play, please let me explain in important detail. Everyone knows the story of the Pied Piper of Hamelin. Eventhought this is not about rats, the plague or an epidemic. This is about Coach Saban leading the sports media “experts” on the whatever Coach Saban say’s tour and they believe it. Believing every word in which Coach Saban speaks, as if it were his own thoughts or idea on how to make college football better and the subject of the playoff system. The sports media “experts” hang on his every word like he were the best thing since the inception of bacon. Just like the Pied Piper, leading them to a story line which will give them the lead, because the words came from Coach Saban.

The best example of the Pied Piper assimilation with Coach Saban, starts with his media tour at ESPN during the month of July on the 27th day in the year (2017). For the past few years Coach Saban takes his time off from his busy schedule to visit or invited by ESPN to discuss college football. On this said date, Coach Saban was a guest on a television show produced and televised by ESPN called the SC6 with Michael and Jamele. During this interview Coach Saban was asked pertient questions about issues that needed to be addressed with college football at the FBS level of play. One of the primary quesitons asked by Jamele was in direct relationship to a Power Five Conference Scheduling forma and the college football playoff. Below is a partial transcript from the interview given, by Jamele with Coach Saban aired on the SC6 which video was later posted on Youtube.com:

Jamele: Are there some other things that you’ve seen that make you wonder about the direction, in where college football is headed. That our particular source of passion and, even again, in frustration from you?

Saban: Well, I have a completely different perception, I wish that we would play all power five schools. There would be no playing any school from one double A (1-AA), that’s not in a power five conference. Just like in the NFL. You play all NFL teams. You don’t play three (3 ) teams from Canada or the Canadian League or whatever so you can get your record good enough so you can get your record good enough to go to a bowl game.  And I think there would be more fan interest, ah I think it would be better for TV, ah I think that you could lose more than one (1) game and still have the opportunity to get into the playoff. Umm, and maybe if that were the case, and we did that, people would not be so worried about winning six (6) games to go to a bowl game. And maybe we would expand the playoff, which would even create more interest. (Saban, 2017)

The dichotomy within this statement and repsonse by Coach Saban is that he does not atone the the words in which he speaks. Alabama, Coach Saban and the SEC DOES consistently schedule lower level programs such as the FCS to “get their records good enough to go to a bowl game’ (Saban ,2017). Please Coach Saban, do not try to use a wave of the magic wand to make yourself look better than you actually are. Another magicians trick exposed. The most interesting aspect about this interaction between Coach Saban with Jamele, is that whatever Coach Saban states in his comments, the sports media “experts” hang on his every word as if it were gold or a “genius’ like thought. Even Coach Saban believes that college football needs to have a standardized, universal, cross conference, cross divisional  and balanced scheduling format, in addition to expanding the collage football playoff. Heather Dinich, ESPN college football analyst “expert”, responds to Coach Saban’s comment about the subject matter.

Heather Dinich writes; “ Saban’s theory for CFP is “so far out” that nobody will listen to him.

Saban states(tied into the P5 schedule)  that if we are going to have bowl games just like we do in the NCAA basketball tournament-not by record but by some kind of power rating that gets you into a bowl game. If we did that, people would be less interested un maybe bowl games and more interested in expanding the playoff”

Saban states “ and whether you expand the playoff or have a system where it’s like now – we take the Top 12 teams and decide what bowl games they go to—just take them all.”

Saban states “ there would be more opportunity to play more teams in your league, as well as to have more games that people would be more interested in. We all play three (3) or four (4) games a year now that nobody’s really interested in.We’d have more games, more public interest, more fan interest, better TV.”

Saban suggests “ a 10-games SEC schedule, for example during the regular season.”

FSU Head  Coach Jimbo Fisher expressed similar thoughts on a non-conference schedule.

Fisher states “ There is not enough games interconference play to help judge how you’re rating each league.” (SC6, 2017)

This leads me to believe that if Coach Saban verbalizes any statement over the airwaves of radio or television, then Coach Saban must possess a genius like thought that the sports media “experts” run with it and believe that he must be right. Thus, the Pied Piper assimilation with Coach Saban. As recent as July 24, 2018; Coach Saban took his yearly trip to visit the Expert Sports Programming Network, and took time to visit the ESPN show “First Take”, hosted by Molly Qurim. During the visit on the set of First Take, Coach Saban was asked a few questions about the upcoming college football season and issues in which it possesses, in how they determine their national champion at the end of the season. Below is the transcription of those key segments with Coach Saban, Molly Qurim and the co hosts.

Partial transcript taken from a guest appearance of Alabama Head Football Coach Nick Saban.

Molly Qurim: (continuation from a previous comment and question about another college football team… then breaks into the question) But Coach I want to ask you this. I was listening to Harbaugh earlier today at the Big 10 Conference, and he was saying, at the media conference, and he was saying that he want to see the College Football Playoff expanded, beyond four teams. Where do you stand on that?

Coach Saban: Well I think there is good and bad in both. I think that one of the great things about college football is bowl games always gave a lot of teams, fans, programs an opportunity to get a lot of (in audible) of gratification at the end of the season, if you qualified for a bowl game. I think the more playoffs you have the less significance bowl games have. And I think that those two things eventually will have a hard time co-existing. So, I think you first have to set the priority of what’s more important, having more bowl games and a small playoff, or bigger playoff and no bowl games. I think that’s an issue that somebody needs to resolve. I do think that because the less significance of bowl games, more and more players will probably choose not to play, like we have started to see now. Umm, and I guess, if you have more playoffs and the games have more significance, maybe more players will play, I don’t know. (Saban, 2018)

Question from one of the guest host to Coach Nick Saban: I’ve read today that you are interested in expanding the SEC schedule from 8 games to 9 games, SEC notoriously tough. Why are you interested in that expansion?

Coach Saban: I think somebody needs to step up in college football and get ahead of, you know dwindling attendance, people not coming to games, too many games people are not interested in. Uh, I think every player in the SEC should play every team in the SEC in their career and right now we don’t do that since we expanded now to 14 teams and we only play 8 SEC games. I’ve been for that for a long time. I’m also for playing, every game as a power five game. So you play 10 games, 9, 10 games in the SEC and you play 2 other power five schools. So when people go to buy tickets and pay premium for all that. You know they are not seeing Division 2 schools, they’re seeing that they are playing 5 SEC schools and Oklahoma this year at home. I mean, I think that’s a good thing for college football, It’s a good thing. And everybody says we got to win 6 games to go to a bowl game. We’ll select people to go to a bowl game, if they could do the basketball tournament. It’s not based on record, it’s based on RPI, or you know schedule strength, and those types of things and do the same thing in football. So, I just think from a big picture fan stand point. You know playing a bunch of games that nobody is interested in, is not good for the game. Ah, Ah, it’s not good. And then our players, you know when you been playing SEC games they are not interested in playing somebody that does not matter. (Saban, 20

These are prime examples of what Coach Saban says to the media and they media “experts” hang on his every word as valid and possessing legitimacy. This is why I relate the Pied Piper reference of Coach Saban to the media. Coach Saban may have valid comments, however, someone has addressed, researched, investigated, published and protected the findings and alternative solution for an expanded playoff that would be inclusive to all FBS programs, congruent with the bowl system without eliminating any the bowl games and season. As per Coach Saban’s comment about the SEC playing a 9 or 10 game conference schedule. With the current membership numbers, the SEC can possess a 9 game conferenece schedule. However, with the current membership, the SEC CANNOT possess a 10 game conference schedule. I have already performed the scheduling grid and a 10 games SEC schedule does not work and cannot be implimented.

As per Coach Saban’s comments about playing a “Division 2” school within his current schedule, maybe he needs to know who is on his schedule and the classifications of those scheduled games before he espouses. During Coach Saban’s tenure at Alabama, he has scheduled and played a lower level classification but not Division 2. That lower level classification Alabama and the SEC plays are called FCS (Football Championship Subdivision) programs. The FCS are or were classified as Division 1-AA. As per Coach Saban’s comment about  wanting to play Oklahoma at home on his schedule or playing 10 SEC Conference games and 2 P5 (Power Five Conference) programs. Maybe Coach Saban should take his team to Oklahoma, or to Michigan, or to Palo Alto, or  to Pullman, or to Southern California or other FBS P5 program stadiums. That too has already been addressed, solved and can be implimented at the FBS level of college football now. What Coach Saban is asking of is an NFL like scheduling format. I call this a universal, balanced, cross conference, cross divisional and standardized scheduling format. This type of scheduling format and idea is clearly explained in detail in my published book titled “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts, Evidence and Solution”  (Siggelow, 2013 & 2016) located in Chapter 16, titled “Balanced Schedule: Possible or Impossible” (Siggelow, 2013 & 2016). This same subject was also published and researched previously in by the same author in the book titled “College Football in the BCS ERA, The Untold Truth: An Analysis of Factors that supports the 16-Team Playoff Model” (Siggelow, 2013) located in the Appendix portion of the literary work.

When Coach Saban speaks out, or claims that someone or someone within college football should address these issues, then I am not sure if they hear him or if someone outside of the college football arena has already investigated this issue. Let me be the first to acknowledge Coach Saban, that these issues have already been addressed, solved and published. Coach Saban and the President of Alabama Dr. Bell both received copies of my book and letters addressing possible copyright protection breach. What the mainstream sports media “experts” believe is that because there are titles attached to names such as; Sports Analysts, Sports Writers, Coaches, Director of Athletics or Commissioners is they must possess the cognitive abilities to address and provide a better solution to the problem of an expanded college football playoff or a standardized scheduling format. However, an academic, with a Master’s Degree in Athletic Administration, Sports Management, Kinesiology and Sports Studies with a research certification from the University of Miami of Florida has already published findings in realtionship to this subject matter and more. The dicotomy is that this academic who used a higher cognitive, problem solving skills set does not have a title attached to his name.

The irony in this post is telling the truth and being investigative enough to read and learn about what has been published or in print by peer reviewed educators. I believe that the character, Colonel Jessup from the movie A Few Good Men; sums it up the best to the sports media, fans and so called “experts” “You can’t handle the truth” (Sorkin, 1992). I believe that the sports media “experts” do not know how to handle the truth or read higher congnitive level thinking from educators, because it possibly challenges their belief system of athletics and college football. Maybe Matthew McConaughey who played lawyer, Jake Brigance, in the movie titled “A Time To Kill” stated it best  in his closing arguements “ I had a great summation all worked out, full of some sharp lawyering. But I’m not going to read it. I’m here to apologize. I am young and I am inexperienced. But you cannot hold Carl Lee Hailey responsible for my shortcomings. You see, in all this legal maneuvering something has gotten lost, and that something is the truth. Now it is incumbent upon us lawyers not to just talk about the truth, but to actually seek it, to find it, to live it” (Milchan and Grisham, 1996).

To draw a conclusion on this lengthy post, by providing the facts, evidence and truths against certain college football topics makes me knowledgeable almost expert like within the subject matter. However, since I do not possess a title to my name, i feel that many within social, television and print media feel that I am inadequate to address the problems within college football at the highest level and provide an improved alternative solution which is Utiliatarianistic. I get the sense that those within the media believe I possess a conspiracy theory and an agenda to derail the SEC. My agenda is to bring to light an improved and expanded college football playoff format, an improved college football ranking system, an improved scheduling format and an improved selection and seeding process which is inclusive for all FBS programs and not “exclusive” to a select group. Just becuase I use my brain to address and solve problems in college football and athletics does not make me different. It makes me a viable asset to someone in college athletics.

To the media, I am available for phone interviews or I can plan time to be an in studio guest to discuss these college football matters further and address any questions you may possess. To the media, do not be afraid to say you are wrong, or expand your horizons beyond the World Wide Web and what is being published. Those academics, like myself use the APA/MLA format to support our thoughts, theories, arguments and solutions.

in closing, if any of the sports media or mainstream college football fan reads, and wishes to share my posts; please remember where you read the information and always give credit where credit is due. Always use the APA/MLA citation format.

References

Entertainment Sports Programming Network (ESPN) (2018). First Take; Hosted by Molly Qurim. Found on the World Wide Web.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdrLpzlgraA. Topic Discussed: Alabama Coach Nick Saban Sees Good and Bad With Expanding the College Football Playoff. Airdate: July 24, 2018.

Entertainment Sports Programming Network (ESPN) (2017). SC6; Hosted by Michael Smith and Jemele Hill. Found on the World Wide Web. ESPN.com, http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=20165321.  Interviwer: Heather Dinich; ESPN Senior Sports Writer for College Football. Topic Discussed:Nick Saban envisions changing regular-season schedule, College Football Playoff Nick Saban Interview Transcription/theory of a P5 scheduling concept. Airdate: July 26, 2017.

Milchan, A. and Grisham, J. (1996). (Producers). Schumacher, J. (Director). Goldsmam, A. (Screenplay). [A Time To Kill] Motion Picture. Warner Brothers.

Siggelow, Matthew (2013 & 2016). College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Solutions. Lulu.com. Print.

Sorkin, A. (1992) (Screenplay). Reiner, R., Brown, D. & Scheinman, A. (Producers). Reiner, R. (Director). [A Few Good Men] Motion Picture. Castel Rock Entertainment.