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.

 

Southeastern Conference Review… Let the Truth Be Told

In the words of Justin Hayward (1967) from the Moody Blues:

Cold hearted orb that rules the night

 Removes the colors from our sight

 Red is grey, and yellow, white

 But we decide which is right

And which is an illusion” 

(Hayward, 1967)

The Southeastern Conference (SEC) has pulled off the GREATEST magicians illusion trick ever from 1996 to the current FBS CFP college football season. Since the inception of the Bowl Coalition Alliance (BCA) into the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) and now in the infancy, young adolescent stages of the College Football Playoff (CFP); the commissioners past and present with stakeholders or power brokers with deep pockets have pulled of an illusion that not even the sports media “expert” cannot fathom to understand. The best slight of hand trick used on the sports media “experts” such as ESPN College Game Day host and crew, the ESPN college football analysts “experts” of Heather Dinich, Mr. Paul Finebaum, Chris Low; ESPN SEC blog writter, Mr. Bill Hancock; CFP Executive Director, NCAA President Dr. Mark Emmert and all those who served on the BCS or CFP selection committees; and they don’t even realize it.

Magicians will never tell you how their greatest illusions are performed, but we as an audience have to figure it out. Let me explain to you how this magicians trick was performed by the SEC. What you are about to read are statistical data FACTS. These are not fabrications, stretched truths, manuipulated numbers or un-checked historcal facts. The illusion of the SEC is to make sure that the perception or mis-direction of what is being perceived as the “best” college football conference, is all smoke and mirrors. Please allow me to explain.

Fact, yes during the BCS era the SEC won 8 National Championships, 7 of which were in a row. The illusion of the trick for winning so many BCS titles in a row was done by subjective assessments from the BCS computerized formulas, manipulation of ranking subjectively within the USA Today Coaches Poll, the Harris Interactive Poll and the media polls, and the most important part of the trick; NOT playing as many non conference games on the road compared to the rest of the BCS/Non-BCS programs. No Risk, and all the reward for not playing any other P5 or FBS program on the road. By significantly taking full advantage of your non conference schedules to make you look better than you really are, is the illusion. This is the smoke, mirrors and illusion of these magicians.

FACTS, during the BCS era as a conferencer group, the SEC possessed a home field advantage rate (HFAR) of 80%. That is the highest amongst all FBS conferences during the BCS era. Of the fourteen(14) SEC programs; seven (7) of them possessed a HFAR of greater than 81% or greater. The range of these seven (7) SEC programs HFAR range from 81.25% (Florida and Tennessee) to 90.77% (Alabama). The other SEC programs not mentioned are; Arkansas, Auburn, Georgia and LSU. By possessing this significant advantage in the HFA, then published research by other educators and myself, proved that with home field advantage, there is a direct relationship to a better or improved win-loss percentage and record. During the BCS era, the SEC scheduled (628) home games with (157) road games. Only Alabama and Auburn scheduled (6) road games during that (18) year stretch. This includes playing scheduled games in regional home field advantage sites where their SEC fans have greater advantage to attend creating a home field atmosphere. Thus, possesssing a more familiar environment to the players and coaches. This creates a significant advantage for the SEC.

During the BCS era, the SEC’s non-conference record was (631-153), with (124) of those wins versus FCS programs. Rather than schedule FBS games at other FBS sites, the SEC Democritusly schedules FCS opponents at the end of the regular season, right before rivalry week. The reason being is, if an SEC programs current record is (5) wins with (2) weeks to go, then they can earn or be given that sixth win to make them bowl eligibel prior to rivalry week. Thus, securing more financial means with bowl games they possess contractual alliances with. As the BCS era transitions into the CFP era, many of the major FBS P5 conferences are transitioning out of FCS contracts and scheduling (1) more conference game or other FBS quality level programs.

The SEC stayed the course and continued their non conference scheduling practices with significant home field advantages. During the CFP era, the SEC has scheduled (275) NCG’s. Of those (275) NCG’s, (228) or 82.9% are scheduled at home. Of those (228) NCG home games, (66) or 28.9% are scheduled versus FCS opponents at home. Those (228) home NCG’s by the SEC is the highest number of home NCG’s compared to any other FBS Conference. That is (42) more home games than the second highest P5 Conference the ACC. During the CFP era, the SEC has only scheduled, (47) away NCG’s. During the CFP era, the SEC win-loss record is  (177) wins with (41 losses). This gives the SEC a percentage success rate, excluding the 2018 FBS season, as (.812).

Of the (14) SEC programs, Alabama has YET to play a NCG on the road, at another FBS programs site, in their stadium. Alabama has scheduled (20) home NCG’s and (0) away NCG’s. Yes, many of you will argue, “well, we played in Atlanta, or Dallas or Orlando.” Or others will say, especially the sports media “experts” or the fans, ” Well we dont have to play them in their sites or travel to far, becuase we are the best and the best should have home field advantage. Or better yet, I heard this excuse while at the National Championship Game in Atlanta in January; “If we played roads games against other FBS programs Tuscaloosa would lose money and Alabama fans can’t go to those away games.”  All great excuses to control all aspects of the scheduling to avoid losing to quality P5 or FBS programs. What many of you fail to understand is that those sites are SEC home field regional advantages.

Examining the SEC programs NCG’s further, (10) of the (14) SEC programs possess a NCG home field advantage of 80% or greater during the CFP era. Of the remaining (13) SEC programs, excluding Alabama which was already dissected, (3) SEC programs have played (2) NCG’s away, (4) SEC programs have played (3) NCG’s away, (1) SEC program has played (4) NCG’s away,  (2) SEC programs have played (5) NCG’s away and (1) SEC program has played (6) NCG’s away. By controlling the NCG schedule, this allows the SEC to maintian this smoke and mirror like image of being the best, with less risk in the NCG schedule and all the reward at the end with greater opportunity to make them look better than they actually are. Do not forget, that during the 2018 FBS season the SEC has scheduled (15) FCS programs. Just more viable facts that supports that the SEC and their programs fear losing and playing against P5 or FBS programs on the road.

These facts and researched data points allows the ability for someone like myself, to paint a real picture of the SEC. Offering up arguments and the reality against the SEC to the CFP selection committee in which subjective assessments are made, when selecting and ranking the FBS programs for the opportunity to compete for the trophy, prestige and the $50 Million dollars on the table. The reality is the SEC is not the best college football conference of the FBS. Their image and perception is all done by smoke, mirrors and a magicians trick to make you believe they are the best, when in reality, they have manipulated the variables in their favor.

From my perspective,  the SEC is only champion of the region that spans from East of College Station Texas; to as Far Northwest in Fayetteville, Arkansas and Columbia, Missouri; as far North as Lexington, Kentucky, as far Northeast as Columbia, South Carolina and all places below that imaginary line. The ONLY SEC football program I have the utmost respect for is LSU; at least they are willing to take risks in their NCG schedule and play in Wisconsin, in South Bend and other hostile environments to prove themselves. Until Alabama and the remaining (12) SEC programs, excluding LSU, plays in Ann Arbor, in Columbus, in South Bend, in Madison, in Palo Alto, in Southern California, in Tempe, in Boise, in Pullman, in Seattle, in Eugene, in Lincoln, in Stillwater, in Norman, in Minneapolis, in Ames, in Iowa City, in Dekalb, in Provo, in Reno, in Blacksburg, in Morgantown, in Pittsburgh, in Lansing, in State College, and other FBS program stadium sites rather than schedule FCS opponents at the end of the year, then all the SEC is Champion of is it’s own region in the Southeast.

To draw a conclusion on this posting, the SEC will never release their stranglehold on which gives them the best strategic and Democritusly driven advantage to the prize, notoriety and prestige. Until someone stand up to the bullies of college football, and tells them NO we are not playing you there, you have an open invitation to come play here, then things wont change. Or, if there was a standardized, balanced, cross conference, cross divisional scheduling format, like the National Football League (NFL), that cannot be manipulated, then the bullies will still get there way. Time for a change and change is coming. It takes the right group of educated minds to address this issue and bring it ot the forefront. I have the research and data to support the change in college football scheduling and an expanded 16- team playoff which is inclusive to all FBS programs and not the group of 65.

When you read my postings and wish to comment on the airwaves of television or radio, in addition to in print on blog pages, news paper or on social media; please remember where you read it first and use the APA/MLA citation formats.

Next Post: Coach Saban and Alabama, Magician and Pied Piper.

Hayward, Justin (1967). Nights In White Satin. Released by The Moody Blues. Days of Future Past. Available on Cassette, CD and Record. Recorded at Decca Studios, West Hampstead, London, UK. Dream Record Label .Recorded May 9, 1967 through November 3, 1967.

The Group of Five Conferences and Independents Review

The Group of Five Conferences (G5) are like the Rodney Dangerfield of College Football at the FBS level. No matter how hard they try or end the season (13-0) or (12-0), they will NEVER receive any RESPECT and notoriety from the power brokers and sports media “experts” with entry into the CFP playoffs. The only prize the G5 are capable of earning at the end of the year is the Brides-Maid Prize with one entry into the New Years Day/Eve Six Bowl Games. Oh Wait, that’s IF and only IF any G5 FBS member MEETS SPECIFIC criteria established by the CFP Committee to determint their eligibilty and viability.

” It’s cold comfort to the ones without it   

    to know how they stuggle

   how there’s something about it” 

(Peart, 1987)

The Group of Five Conferences (G5); this group includes the American Athletic Conference (AAC),  Confernece USA (CUSA), the Mid-American Conference (MAC), the Mountain West Conference (MWC), the Sun Belt Conference (SBC) along with Independent programs of Army, BYU, Liberty, New Mexico State and UMASS. This is the group that is often forgotten about, never given just due credit and or receives the “bridesmaid prize” in the New Years Day Six bowl games. The mainstream sports media “experts” believe they are not good enough to compete for the $50 Million dollar prize on the table, plus the Gold Trophy and finally called National Champion of College Football with the notoriety that comes along with it. What the sports media “experts” probably do not know is that there are several G5 programs that should have competed for the National Championship for CFB at the FBS level. Those programs include but limited to; Boise State, Central Florida, Marshall, Tulane, Northern illinois, Western Michigan and few others.

So what is it that the subective media and the coaches who rank dont like about these valued G5 programs? They all follow the same NCAA Bylaws as the P5 programs, they also abide by the Title IX rules set forth by the governing bodies of college athetics, they meet NCAA Bylaw 20, they also make sure they meet NCAA Bylaw 3.1 through 3.7. Another intersting fact is that these FBS G5 members can compete for the other 15+ NCAA sponsored athletic sports championships at the end of their seasons, but only in college football at the FBS level are they vehemetly denied access to the National Championship. More on this subject matter in a later blog post. Lets disucss the G5 data and statistics compared to the P5 posting.

During the BCS era, the Non-BCS programs, now called the G5 Conferences and programs were at a non conference scheduling dis-advantage. They were required to travel to BCS or P5 programs sites or regional home field advantage sites to play scheduled games. That dis-advantage within the non conference schedule was prevelant during the BCS era of college football and is still a dis advantage to the G5 programs in the CFP era. Of the the 2458 NCG’s scheduled in the CFP era, the G5 scheduled 1300 NCG’s or or 52.8% were played either home or away. Of those 1300 NCG’s, 650 or 50% were equally scheduled both home and away. That is not where this NCG scheduling dis advantage takes place, the G5 scheduled 200 less games home games compared to the P5 or 23.6% less opportunity to play at home versus P5 opponents. It’s very RARE if a P5 FBS program plays a G5 program at the G5 home field site.

This indicates that the G5 FBS programs have a decreased chance or opportunity to gain financial dollars for home games compared to the G5 FBS programs. Within the research of NCG’s G5 programs are more than likes to only play 1 or maybe 2 home games during their non conference schedule. Of those 1 or 2 home NCGs, the G5 FBS programs are almost forced to schedule FCS opponents at home just to have a 5th or 6th home game. This indicates that the G5 programs possess not only home field dis-advantage in their NCG schedule, but financial strangle hold against the G5 FBS prorgams decreasing their financial growth and to increase tax based dollar and absorb the ripple effect from it.

Of the G5 Conferences and programs, only the AAC and the MWC possess a Non Conference schedule advantage of greater than 50% during the CFP era. The AAC possesses an Non Conference scheduling (NCS) percentage rate of 59% and the MWC Conference possesses a Non Conference scheduling percentage rate of 53.4% both during the CFP era. The remaining G5 Conferences all possess a NCS percentage rate between 43-48%. Of the 1300 NCG’s scheduled during the CFP era, the G5 possesses an overall win loss record of 450 wins and 568 losses at a percentage rate of (.442). This does not include the 2018 FBS college football season since this data was compiled before the start of the 2018 FBS season. This win loss percentage rate is reflective of being forced or required to play more road NCG’s during the regular season.

Of the 650 home NCG’s scheduled by G5 programs, 286 or 44% are scheduled at home versus FCS opponents. Of the 450 wins accrued by the P5 programs, 197 of them or 43% are earned against the lower football subdivision the FCS. This gives the perception to the subjective voters, sports media “experts” that the wins earned by G5 FBS members are not quality wins, becuase they did not play tougher competition. Even when the G5 programs do  schedule a NCG with a P5 member and win, the sports media “experts”, subjective voters or coaches do not give credit where credit is due when it occurs. They believe that any P5 loss to a G5 FBs program would be considered a fluke.

The key question is, what will it take for any G5 program to be taken seriously and considered to the College Football Playoff for the 4 teams? I believe that even if any G5 program played all their NCG’s on the road, won them all making them (4-0) , then played all their conference games on the road and won them all making them (8-0), win the conference championship on the road making them now (13-0), then the supposed “experts” of the CFP selction commitee would find a way to dis-credit the G5 program and say they did not earn the chance to play in the CFP 4-team playoff.

” There is unrest in the forest

  there is trouble with the trees

 for the maples want more sunlight

 and the oaks ignore their pleas”

(Peart, 1978)

What many of the sports media “experts” do not understand or fail to comprehend is that the G5 FBS programs have a tougher road to the CFP 4 team playoff becuase of credibity or viability concerns. Maybe if these so called sports media “experts” re-read paragraphs in this blog post, comprehended and read those vital areas of the NCAA Bylaws in which I stated, Title IX and then read about how the Sherman Act of 1890 plus the Clayton Act of 1914 all work congruent with each other, then these so called “experts” would be writting or preaching a different tune.

To conclude, to all P5 programs, be aware of those G5 programs who have nothing to lose but everything to gain by earning victories against the P5. They too play by the rules of college football all within the NCAA manual and bylaws.

All of this and more can be read in my book “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Solution” (Siggelow, 2013 & 2016), available at lulu.com. My book is researched based and can be applied to the CFP Era as well.

Remember please adhere to MLA/APA format if you plan on citing my blog page. Always give credit where credit is due, Just do not take my thoughts and claim them as your own.

Next post: The Southeastern Conference (SEC). What will be exposed in that blog post…..stay tune.

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

Peart, Neil. (1987) “Mission”. Recorded by Rush. Hold Your Fire. Available on Cassette, CD and Record. Recorded at the Oxforshire; Ridge Farm Studios, Surrey. AIR Studios, Montserrat; and McClear Place, Toronto, Canada. Anthem, Atlantic, Epic/Sony, Mercury and Vertigo. Released 8/1987.

 

 

The Power Five Conferences and Notre Dame CFP Review

The college football season will begin in a few short days and the majority of the discussions across the airwaves will be dominated by the discussion of the Power Five Conferences (P5). The Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), the Big 10 Conference (B10), Big 12 Conference (B12), the Pacific 12 Conference (P12) and the Southeastern Conference (SEC) are the five conferences of the FBS level of college footbal in which are classified as the Power Five Conferences. The sports media “experts” will be openly discussing which P5 conference is the best within that classified group. Each P5 conference possesses their own distinctive small group of prestigious football members who have earned historic accolades and notoriety.

We are entering into fifth year of the College Football Playoff (CFP) format, in which ONLY P5 conference programs have competed for the money, prestige, notoriety and trophy. What the mainstream sports media will not tell you is how the P5 Conferneces and their members receive greater opportunities to compete for the previously mentioned. There is data that proves and supports that the power brokers of college football only want the “primary” name brand college football programs in the CFP. However, what does the data tell us about the P5 and their members?

The primary questions that needs to be addressed is, what the mainstream sports media “experts” fail to recognize or comprehend is that the majority of the P5 conference commissioners, athletic directors and coaches need to control their non conference schedule to strategically position themselves for greater viable recognition and rewards. Historically, during the BCS Era in college football at the FBS level, research and data significantly showed that both the BCS/P5 Conferences and programs possessed and still possess a significantly higher percentage rates in relationship to home field advantage within their non confernce schedule. With this advantage in home field advantage of playing more non conference games at home, there is a direct relationship to a significantly better win loss percentage rates. These non conference scheduling Democritusly driven habits, have not changed during the CFP Era of college football and there is indication that the data shows that those home field advantages within the P5 non confernece schedules continue to rise.

Prior to the start of the upcoming 2018 FBS college football season, the P5 conferences are scheduled to play 220 Non Conference Games (NCG’s) during the 2018 FBS season. Of those 220 NCG’s, 165 or 75% of the NCG’s are scheduled at home. Of those 165 home games for the P5, 48 or 29.1% are home games scheduled against lower level competition for the 2018 FBS college football season. That lower level of competition is within NCAA level of athletics but are classified as the FCS or Football Championship Subdivision. The break down of those 48 NCG’s versus the FCS programs per conference, determined that Southeastern Conference (SEC) scheduled the MOST FCS games at home with 15. With 6 of those 15 scheduled the second to the last week of the FBS season, to increase their chances of earning a bowl eligibility. The next highest FCS scheduling of games belongs to the ACC schedule 14 FCS games, all early in the FBS season. Followed by the PAC 12 with the scheduling of 9 FCS games, then the Big 12 scheduled 8 FCS games. Concluding the FCS scheduling with the Big 10 who only scheduled 2 FCS games. However, its interesting that the sports media “experts” will belittle the other 4 P5 conferences for their scheduling of the NCG’s, but will PRAISE the SEC for how they schedule their NCG’s.

Published researched performed by myself determined that historically when FBS programs scheduled FCS programs, the FBS programs on average, win by 4+ possessions or by at least 25 points or more during the BCS Era. During the current CFP Era, the P5 Conferences have increased their win average in points per game from 25 points to 29 points versus FCS opponents. Seems to me that there is NO current designed purpose for the FBS/P5 programs to schedule the FCS. This leaves the remaining 55 or 25% of their non conference games scheduled for the P5 conference programs on the road at other FBS programs sites.

This indicates that the majority of FBS/P5 programs play 3 home games and the rare 1 away game within their non conference schedule during the regular season. There is evidence that supports that several FBS/P5 programs schedule 3 or 4 home games and 0 away games within their non conference schedule during the regular season. More home games equals a better win loss record. Better win loss records equal greater opportunity to earn bowl bids and possibly secure a CFP bid or bids. This is how the P5 programs want to be perceived in reality. When in reality they hide behind fear. The fear of losing during the regular season, the fear of losing to a better opponent at the same level of classification, the fear of losing to the Group Of Five Conferences and their members, the fear to losing on the road, the fear of losing on the road to a P5 opponent and finally, the fear of losing the opportunity to compete for the CFP title.

Other statistical data that the sports media “experts” fail to recognize or just do not know about the P5 Conferences and their members possess a higher percentage rate in relationship to the category of playing more home games than away games. In addition to, possesing a higher win-loss percentage rate in relationship to their non confernece schedule. This has been a current and significant problem within college footbal within the NCAA level of athletics, but primarily at the FBS level of play and more specifically, within the P5 Conferences and their members. This was also conclusive and significant during the BCS era within the same level of play and classifications.

The research and data during the current CFP era shows that the P5 Conferences and their members have played and scheduled 1158 Non Conference games (NCG’s) from 2014 through the current 2018 FBS season. Of those 1158 NCG’s, 850 or 73.4% are scheduled as home games and or home regional site games. A home regional site game is a game played within a region closer to your home stadium. For example, Alabama, playing in Atlanta versus an opponent. Where as that opponent in which Alabama schedules travels a greater distance to play this scheduled game. Is there a problem in which Alabama cannot travel to that opponents region of the country? The reminaing 308 NCG’s for the P5 Conferences and programs were played on the road. This indicates that the P5 conferences and their members only play or schedule 26.6% of their games on the road versus FBS members.

Of those 1158 NCG’s for the P5, the P5 have recorded an overall record of 703 wins and 205 losses. This indicates that the win loss percentage rate is 75.8% in relationship to the NCG’s for the P5 for NCG’s played. The win loss totals have not been accounted for for the 2018 FBS season. Of those 703 wins, 90 or 12.8% of them are wins versus a lower level classification of college football the FCS. Rather than schedule FBS level classified NCAA footbal programs on the road, P5 group would rather schedule a game versus the lower level FCS for an automatic win and to increase their statistics and image. This is what the sports media “experts” will not tell you or fail to report on. There in NO need for this type of scheduling format and advanatge within college footbal at the FBS level.

I believe, can prove and demonstrate that the need for a standardized and balance scheduling format for the non conference scheduling aspect of games needs to be addressed.Thus, that style of a balanced scheduling format can exist and be more effective and efficient for college football at the FBS level. Interesting that a hgh profile head football coach named Nick Saban, from Alabama made comments similiar to what I just said two sentences ago. More intersting, that same idea, thought or comment Coach Saban said the previous two years on his visits to ESPN, have already been published and copyright protected by myself. I also have served notice to Coach Saban at Alabama and Alabama President; Dr. Bell that they are treading on thin ice and in jeapordy of copyright infringements.

The implementation of a standardized and balanced schedule is what the P5 conferences and power brokers do not want or are resistant to. It can not be proven with 100% with confidence, but if a P5 program losses to another FBS program on the road, they fear not being part of the CFP. To eliminate this fear and implement the type of scheduling in the previous statement, then at the FBS level of play they need to implement an expanded playoff format to 16 FBS programs which is inclusive, not “exclusive”. An expanded 16 team playoff format can be inpleimented into college football at the FBS level, published research proves it. This idea and more has been published and copyright protected since (2013) and then re-published and copyright protected in (2016) within specific chapters in my book.

If and when you read my blog page thank you for reading. If you plan on disucssing or using any of my ideas, thoughts or rankings to discuss publically in print, web based media postings or on air debates either in television or radio; please adhere to the APA/MLA policies and procedures when citing sources. Always give credit where credit is due.

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

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

Next Post; The Group of Five Conferences and Independents Review