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 EXPLANATION: Team– 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 EXPLANATION: Team– 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.