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.