Congratulations to the Wisconsin Badgers (12-0) for ending the 2017 college football regular season as only one (1) of two (2) 0-loss programs and securing the number one ranking in my weekly coaches poll. For those who have asked why Wisconsin, first and foremost, they played twelve (12) FBS programs this season, did not schedule a FCS opponent and they scheduled and played an away game at BYU to play a regular season game. That means they LEFT the comfort of their home and home region to play another FBS opponent. With only two (2) 0-loss programs left at the end of the regular season, I guess this supports my research and findings in my book.
Also, congratulations to the Knights from Central Florida (11-0) for ending the regular season as the other 0-loss FBS program. The Knights had to make schedule maneuvers to accomodate for the start of the 2017 college football season, handled adversity with hurricanes that effected not only one (1) scheduled game, but two (2) scheduled games. This act of God, required Central Florida to re-schedule their confernece game with Memphis later in the season, which makes conference games a requirment to re-schedule over any other non-conference game. Central Florida dropped their FCS game with the Maine Bears to accomodate for the game with Memphis. However, UCF later scheduled Austin Peay, an FCS member. Any FBS team who can handle adversity, remain un-defeated, handle the act of God situation, not once, but twice and finally survive one of the best college football games of the season with South Florida. Central Florida in my book, EARNED the second ranking and a trip to the CFP.
I also believe that Central Florida should be under consideration for the College Football Playoff (CFP). However, I believe that the CFP Committee has specific protocol to follow and that protocol states, that NO Group of Five Conference FBS member is eligible to compete for the College Football Playoff and the National Championship. Eventhough, UFC and the Director of Athletics, Daniel J. White, makes sure that the UCF athletic programs abide by and are compliant with the NCAA Bylaws. The UCF Director of Athletics also, is required to meet NCAA Bylaw 20, then abide by NCAA Bylaw 3.1 thought 3.4. Then congruent with that, UCF must meet and abide by the Title IX rules and regulations which are also inclusive to the NCAA Bylaw 20. If college athletics is being operated under a “business like structure”, then college athletics and the Group of Five Conference Commissioners, Athletic Directors, their FBS programs, Coaches and Players should press the issue and ask for an improved playoff format which is more Utilitarianistic, under the Stuart MIll’s philosophy, which is more “inclusive” then exclusive. If the Group of Five does not see a change under that manner in which is “inclusive”, then they should ban together and file suit against the power brokers under the Sherman Act of 1890 which protects them. Once the Sherman Act of 1890 is started, then the Clayton Act of 1914 protects them in more ways that you can only imagine. I have investigated both and pubished a chapter within my book, with that chapter being called: Chapter 17: The Sherman Act vs. The NCAA and the Power Brokers.
However, its interesting that Central Florida MIGHT be able to compete for one of the New Year’s Day Six Bowl Games (NYDSBG). I call this the “bridesmaid prize”, because UCF needs to meet specific requirements to be considered for the “bridesmaid” prize. That means they need to beat Memphis in the American Athletic Conference Championship Game to just earn the “bridesmaid” prize. Eventhought UCF would be (12-0), they won’t be on the CFP committees radar. If UCF loses the AAC Championship Game, then UCF might not receive that (NYDSBG) bid. Might want to purchase and read my book. It’s time for an expanded playoff format.
I will now explain how my weekly rankings work. I rank based upon the professional model theory. This means that college athletics generates tripel digits of Millons of dollars annually in revenue, just like the professional levels of sports (i.e. the NFL, the NBA. the NHL, the MLB and the MLS). I do not use subjective assessments, the eye test or biasness to rank. I use dependent variables and categorical variable within those dependent varaibles to rank weekly. Each variable has a direct relationship and effect on the independent variable. I do not rank FBS programs based upon vested interest or that’s my favorite or that this team need to be ranked higher than this team because they are from this conference. Each FBS team earns their ranking based upon varaibles in which they create and results based. I also examine the non-confernce schedule as a major variable. By examining the non-conference schedule, I can assess and evaluate the non conference schedule based upon number of home games versus number of away games. If any FBS team plays more home games than away games within their non-conference schedule, then I can assess that that specific FBS team does not take ANY risks within their non-conference schedule. If any FBS teams plays more away games in their non-conference schedule and earns a credible record, then they will have a better ranked position over any FBS team who plays more home games in their non-conference schedule. I have read the various peer reviewed research and articles that examined home field advantage in relationship to schedule, more home games and how it impacts your overall record. NO RISK… NO REWARD. This is just part of how I rank each week of the college football season. There are three (3) chapters within my book that examined the research and I published other results that supports the already pubished peer reviewed research.
Here is this weeks, almost final rankings. There is one more week that needs to be completed before the final rankings. The Sun Belt Confernce FBS programs and Florida State each must play one more game before the FINAL rankings appear. This 2017 College Football FBS Season has been exciting and great for the 37+ MIllion college football fans to watch and enjoy. Many upsets appeared as the season wound down towards the end. Never use a crystal ball to see the future or make predictions, especially in a college athletics. Just let the games play out.
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H |
| 1 | WISCONSIN (12-0) | (.514) 75 (19-18) | (.476) 103 (69-76) | (.358) 129 (29-52) | (.452) 20 | 29 | 7 |
| 2 | CENTRAL FLORIDA (11-0) | (.471) 90 (16-18) | (.504) 85 (64-63) | (.453) 96 (29-35) | (.503) 2 | 20 | 8 |
| 3 | OKLAHOMA (11-1) | (.417) 103 (15-21) | (.479) 99 (69-75) | (.463) 94 (37-43) | (.564) 1 | 19 | 5 |
| 4 | GEORGIA (11-1) | (.618) 33 (21-13) | (.574) 27 (74-55) | (.438) 100 (28-36) | (.483) 11 | 26 | 8 |
| 5 | CLEMSON (11-1) | (.556) 58 (20-16) | (.562) 43 (73-57) | (.500) 92 (32-32) | (.409) 34 | 31 | 5 |
| 6 | ALABAMA (11-1) | (.600) 37 (21-14) | (.565) 36 (74-57) | (.406) 123 (26-38) | (.531) 3 | 31 | 6 |
| 7 | MIAMI (FLA) (10-1) | (.765) 2 (26-8) | (.539) 61 (69-59) | (.411) 120 (23-33) | (.391) 45 | 22 | 4 |
| 8 | MEMPHIS (10-1) | (.485) 85 (16-17) | (.476) 102 (60-66) | (.453) 97 (29-35) | (.513) 6 | 16 | 6 |
| 9 | USC (10-2) | (.583) 43 (21-15) | (.528) 70 (76-68) | (.493) 73 (35-36) | (.409) 35 | 21 | 2 |
| 10 | OHIO STATE (10-2) | (.686) 10 (24-11) | (.538) 62 (77-66) | (.407) 122 (33-48) | (.519 ) 5 | 24 | 8 |
| 11 | PENN STATE (10-2) | (.529) 68 (18-16) | (.557) 47 (78-62) | (.506) 59 (41-40) | (.481) 12 | 33 | 7 |
| 12 | SAN DIEGO STATE (10-2) | (.667) 15 (24-12) | (.474) 104 (63-70) | (.438) 105 (28-36) | (.401) 39 | 21 | 5 |
| 13 | TOLEDO (10-2) | (.429) 98 (15-20) | (.466) 110 (61-70) | (.500) 68 (32-32) | (.510) 7 | 21 | 5 |
| 14 | WASHINGTON (10-2) | (.542) 66 (13-11) | (.515) 80 (68-64) | (.420) 119 (34-47) | (.493) 10 | 28 | 8 |
| 15 | TCU (10-2) | (.458) 91 (11-13) | (.500) 89 (66-66) | (.475) 83 (38-47) | (.392) 44 | 32 | 4 |
| 16 | AUBURN (10-2) | (.500) 77 (17-17) | (.615) 7 (80-50) | (.563) 19 (36-28) | (.468) 16 | 28 | 7 |
| 17 | TROY (9-2) | (.583) 44 (21-15) | (.423) 122 (52-71) | (.448) 98 (26-32) | (.377) 55 | 21 | 5 |
| 18 | SOUTH FLORIDA (9-3) | (.222) 129 (8-28) | (.377) 130 (49-81) | (.422) 118 (27-37) | (.438) 22 | 27 | 5 |
| 19 | OKLAHOMA STATE (9-3) | (.314) 121 (11-24) | (.469) 109 (67-76) | (.488) 76 (39-41) | (.520) 4 | 23 | 5 |
| 20 | BOISE STATE (9-3) | (.583) 45 (28-20) | (.542) 60 (78-66) | (.547) 29 (35-29) | (.377) 54 | 24 | 4 |
| 21 | STANFORD (9-3) | (.588) 42 (20-14) | (.563) 39 (81-63) | (.494) 70 (40-41) | (.444) 21 | 16 | 2 |
| 22 | NOTRE DAME (9-3) | (.582) 52 (39-28) | (.641) 3 (91-51) | (.765) 1 (39-12) | (.420) 27 | 20 | 5 |
| 23 | NORTHWESTERN (9-3) | (.306) 123 (11-25) | (.486) 94 (70-74) | (.469) 86 (38-43) | (.349) 76 | 23 | 3 |
| 24 | MICHIGAN STATE (9-3) | (.528) 70 (19-17) | (.563) 41 (81-63) | (.494) 71 (40-41) | (.321) 94 | 27 | 2 |
| 25 | FLORIDA ATLANTIC (9-3) | (.686) 12 (24-11) | (.546) 54 (71-59) | (.492) 74 (31-32) | (.497) 9 | 19 | 5 |
ANY FBS team that is in BOLD is an FBS team that scheduled and played an FCS program during the course of the 2017 regular season.
Honorable Mentioned: All are (9-3); Virginia Tech, North Texas, Fresno State, Washington State, and LSU
Key: A-Rank Order; B- Team and Current Overall Record; C- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Non-Conference Schedule, Rank within that Categorical Variable and the Overall Record; D- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Overall Regular Season Schedule, Rank within that Categorical Variable and the Overall Record; E- Percentage Rate of the ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Conference Schedule, Rank within that Categorical Variable and Overall Record; F- Percentage Rate of your Offensive Efficiency and Ranking within that Categorical Variable (described as: number of offensive and defensive possessions that results in points); G- Defensive Efficiency Rating (described as: number of times that your teams Defense were successful in possessing 3 consecutive stops against your opponent when they possessed the ball and stopped them from scoring (3 consecutive stops equals 1)) and H- Game Control Categorical Variable based upon the three possession score outcome (described as: the end score result that possesses a 21 point differential in final score).
As of this time of the current college football season there are 80 bowl eligible FBS programs with six (6) wins or more, and 3 more waiting in the wings with five (5) wins. Those five (5) win programs are; New Mexico State, Louisiana Lafayette and Florida State. Each have one (1) more regular season game to complete this week. This means that there will be no need to assess any credible (5-7) FBS programs for any open bowl openings, even if there was an expanded playoff format of 8 or 16 FBS programs. If there were a need for any (5-7) FBS programs, these programs would be and should be considered for a bowl game based upon research and number of 1-possession losses. Those programs are: Eastern Michigan with six (6) 1-possession losses, and both Indiana and Tulane with four (4) 1-possession losses.
If you plan on using any of my ideas, thoughts or rankings to disucss publically in print, web based media postings or on air debates either in television or radio; please adhere to the APA/MLA policies and procedures when citing sources.
My book “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Solutions” (Siggelow, 2016); is the published research, The book is available at lulu.com