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 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 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 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 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.