Week 7 CFB Rankings: Top 4 Stay The Same


As the college football season winds down in the last remaining week of the regular season, there are plenty of amazing games left that will possess a significant impact on the CFP4 Playoff and my well designed mock simulation of an expanded field of 16. It seems fitting that with the last week remaining in the regualr season there are still four (4) 0-loss programs left standing. Only three (3) of which are part of the bifurcated CFP4 system, with Central Florida still looking as impressive and consistent, but not receiving the earned credibility it has earned over the past two (2) seasons.

This coming weekend for college football is called “rivalry weekend”. The traditional games in which possess state and regional rights for the competing college football programs. All college football fans get excited about this coming weekend for college football because of what is at stake.These games have meaning, history, and high emotional impact. Who will survive and advance and keep their playoff hopes alive. As for my mock field of 16, I know that the four (4) 0-loss FBS programs have all secured berths and cannot be eliminated from the field of 16, based upon the professional model theory. That leaves twelve (12) open spots with six (6) 1-loss programs and nine (9) 2-loss programs battling for the remaining  twelve (12) spots. It will be an exciting final week. Let’s see who remains standing after next weekend.

For the past four weeks of my weekly college football rankings, the Top 4 have remained the same as a group and the Top 7 has remained the same group with one (1) position change between Ohio State and Oklahoma. I have also performed an analysis in comparing my Top 25 rankings versus the Top 25 rankings of the so called ranking “experts” based upon sustainability to keep their ranked position when comparing the subjective system to the professional model theory system. The early results have determined that my professional model theory system has a slight advantage in sustainabilty and success when compared to the subjective system.

Below are my college football Week 7 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 (11-0) (69-61) .531 (73) (14-14) .500 (90) (50-37) .575 (48) (12-18) .400 (125)
2 CLEMSON (11-0) (69-41) .627 (13) (8-2) .800 (18) (21-11) .656 (23) (26-33) .441 (115)
3 ALABAMA (11-0) (64-57) .529 (75) (7-4) .636 (56) (15-18) .455 (94) (21-34) .382 (129)
4 CENT. FLORIDA (10-0) (56-63) .471 (111) (4-7) .364 (120) (14-18) .438 (101) (25-31) .446 (112)
5 MICHIGAN (10-1) (75-57) .568 (36) (11-5) .688 (44) (22-11) .667 (20) (36-36) .500 (67)
6 OKLAHOMA (10-1) (68-62) .523 (80) (6-6) .500 (91) (17-16) .515 (73) (37-40) .481 (86)
7 OHIO STATE (10-1) (61-71) .462 (116) (4-6) .400 (112) (12-21) .364 (118) (31-41) .431 (118)
8 UTAH STATE (10-1) (50-72) .410 (127) (5-7) .417 (110) (15-18) .455 (96) (20-36) .357 (130)
9 WASHINGTON ST (10-1) (58-61) .487 (102) ((1-6) .143 (129) (6-16) .273 (127) (34-38) .472 (94)
10 GEORGIA (10-1) (73-48) .603 (20) (6-7) .462 (101) (28-16) .529 (65) (29-30) .492 (72)
11 BOISE STATE (9-2) (70-62) .530 (74) (8-6) .571 (69) (22-22) .500 (82) 30-26) .536 (32)
12 TROY (9-2) (57-62) .479 (107) (8-6) .571 (70) (17-15) .531 (64) (24-32) .429 (120)
13 BUFFALO (9-2) (51-69) .425 (124) (6-6) .500 (98) (17-16) .515 (78) (23-33) .411 (124)
14 FRESNO STATE (9-2) (56-66) .459 (117) (5-5) .500 (96) (14-19) .424 (104) (25-31) .446 (113)
15 UAB (9-2) (53-66) .438 (121) (7-5) .583 (67) (17-16) .515 (77) (25-31) .446 (111)
16 CINCINNATI (9-2) (56-63) .471 (112) (2-9) .182 (128) (15-18) .455 (95) (27-29) .482 (84)
17 LSU (9-2) (71-51) .582 (33) (6-6) .500 (86) (14-20) .412 (106) (30-27) .526 (39)
18 ARMY (9-2) (56-54) .509 (82) (10-13) .435 (107) (27-28) .491 (84) (17-18) .486 (79)
19 APPALACHIAN ST (8-2) (59-61) .492 (98) (5-5) .500 (94) (17-15) .53 (62) (25-31) .446 (109)
20 WEST VIRGINIA (8-2) (65-54) .546 (58) (6-1) .857 (12) (12-9) .571 (49) (34-38) .472 (91)
21 PENN STATE (8-3) (72-59) .550 (55) (4-7) .364 (118) (17-15) .531 (61) (35-37) .486 (75)
22 TEXAS (8-3) (65-65) .500 (87) (4-5) .444 (103) (12-21) .364 (117) (34-38) .472 (93)
23 UTAH (8-3) (68-52) .567 (38) (3-6) .333 (122) (13-9) .591 (41) (38-34) .528 (37)
24 SYRACUSE (8-3) (64-55) .538 (66) (11-5) .688 (45) (18-15) .545 (57) (28-31) .475 (89)
25 GA. SOUTHERN (8-3) (60-61) .496 (92) (6-6) .500 (93) (18-16) .529 (66) (26-30) .464 (101)

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 OKLAHOMA (10-1) (84-137) .613 13 (100) 5 (17)
2 ALABAMA (11-0) (86-143) .601 28 (2) 11 (1)
3 GEORGIA (10-1) (72-127) .567 17 (58) 6 (11)
4 UTAH STATE (10-1) (90-164) .549 23 (17) 7 (5)
5 CENTRAL FLORIDA (10-0) (68-129) .527 21 (25) 6 (9)
6 WASHINGTON STATE (10-1) (70-134) .522 17 (59) 4 (28)
7 OHIO (7-4) (71-139) .511 17 (60) 4 (29)
8 MICHIGAN (10-1) (68-135) .504 25 (10) 7 (4)
9 ARMY (9-2) (63-106) .500 14 (89) 3 (48)
10 MEMPHIS (7-4) (75-151) .497 19 (43) 4 (25)
11 WEST VIRGINIA (9-2) (64-129) .496 19 (44) 5 (15)
12 BOISE STATE (9-2) (65-132) .492 18 (50) 4 (26)
13 GEORGIA TECH (7-4) (62-126) .492 18 (51) 4 (27)
14 NC STATE (7-3) (58-118) .492 14 (90) 2 (76)
15 CLEMSON (11-0) (75-155) .484 33 (1) 8 (2)
16 OKLAHOMA STATE (7-4) (72-149) .483 18 (52) 3 (42)
17 MISSOURI (7-4) (69-144) .479 17 (61) 5 (16)
18 FLORIDA INTERN (8-3) (63-132) .477 16 (69) 4 (31)
19 MISSISSIPPI (5-6) (70-147) .476 10 (118) 2 (85)
20 APPLACHIAN STATE (8-2) (61-130) .469 25 (11) 6 (8)
21 HOUSTON (8-3) (79-170) .465 20 (37) 5 (14)
22 NORTH TEXAS (8-3) (70-152) .461 27 (4) 6 (6)
23 OHIO STATE (10-1) (72-158) .456 23 (18) 4 (21)
24 SOUTH CAROLINA (6-4) (54-119) .454 12 (107) 3 (53)
25 TEXAS TECH (5-6) (70-155) .452 17 (62) 3 (45)

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 head into the final week of college football’s regular season, there are 71 FBS programs that are bowl eligible. In addition to the final week being rivalry week, there are twenty-three (23) (5-6) FBS programs still competing for bowl eligibility. Based upon my research, there are plenty of bowl eligible programs and bowl games to accomodate the support of an expanded 16 team playoff format for college football at the highest FBS level. We are down to the last furlong of this college football season. Who will survive the last week?

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 6 CFB Rankings


Please forgive this is late. I was focusing on my first responders course for work and just could not get to posting and publishing my weekly rankings. I will provide the Week 6 CFB rankings, since I still collect the data and rank CFB programs even when I do get busy.

Here are the week 6 Top 25 CFB football rankings for all of the FBS level.

TEAM/RECORD OVRL OP NC ONLY NC OP OVRL CONF OP
1 NOTRE DAME (10-0) (62-57) .521 (81) (14-13) .519 (87) (44-35) .557 (52) (11-16) .407 (125)
2 CLEMSON (10-0) (63-37) .630 (11) (6-2) .750 (29) (18-11) .621 (32) (23-29) .442 (113)
3 ALABAMA (10-0) (57-53) .518 (84) (7-4) .636 (58) (13-17) .433 (102) (19-32) .373 (129)
4 CENTRAL FLORIDA (9-0) (50-58) .463 (114) (3-7) .300 (122) (12-17) .414 (106) (21-27) .438 (119)
5 MICHIGAN (9-1) (70-50) .583 (31) (10-5) .667 (47) (21-9) .700 (16) (32-30) .516 (56)
6 OHIO STATE (9-1) (58-62) .483 (102) (4-6) .400 (114) (11-19) .367 (118) (29-33) .468 (100)
7 OKLAHOMA (9-1) (62-56) .525 (77) (5-6) .455 (100) (15-15) .500 (82) (33-35) .485 (78)
8 UAB (9-1) (50-60) .455(119) (6-5) .545 (85) (16-14) .533 (64) (23-27) .460 (107)
9 BUFFALO (9-1) (45-66) .405 (127) (5-6) .455 (102) (15-15) .500 (83) (19-31) .380 (128)
10 UTAH STATE (9-1) (46-65) .414 (126) (5-7) .417 (112) (14-160 .467 (92) (18-31) .367 (130)
11 CINCINNATI (9-1) (49-59) .454 (120) (2-9) .182 (128) (12-18) .400 (112) (23-25) .479 (92)
12 WASHINGTON ST (9-1) (54-56) .491 (96) (1-6) .143 (129) (5-15) .250 (127) (31-34) .477 (93)
13 GEORGIA (9-1) (65-45) .591 (27) (6-5) .545 (78) (17-14) .548 (55) (27-29) .482 (83)
14 WEST VIRGINIA (8-1) (59-49) .546 (60) (6-1) .857 (13) (11-8) .579 (47) (29-34) .460 (106)
15 BOISE STATE (8-2) (63-57) .525 (79) (8-6) .571 (73) (19-21) .475 (89) (27-22) .551 (28)
16 SYRACUSE (8-2) (58-50) .537 (72) (10-5) .667 (50) (17-13) .567 (490 (24-28) .462 (103)
17 TROY (8-2) (52-56) .481 (104) (8-5) .615 (66) (15-14) .517 (70) (21-27) .438 (116)
18 FRESNO STATE (8-2) (50-61) .450 (121) (5-5) .500 (96) (12-18) .400 (109) (22-27) .449 (111)
19 LSU (8-2) (64-47) .577 (35) (6-5) .545 (79) (13-18) .419 (105) (29-26) .527 (45)
20ARMY (8-2) (52-49) .515 (85) (10-12) .455 (101) (24-26) .480 (88) (16-15) .516 (58)
21 APPALACHIAN ST (7-2) (53-56) .486 (100) (5-5) .500 ( 93) (15-14) .517 (71) (21-270 .438 (117)
22 NOR. ILLINOIS (7-3) (57-64) .471 (109) (9-4) .692 (45) (22-18) .550 (53) (27-210 .563 (24)
23PENN STATE (7-3) (67-52) .563 (47) (4-7) .364 (116) (15-14) .517 (72) (32-30) .516 (570
24 TEXAS (7-3) (62-56) .525 (78) (4-5) .444 (104) (13-17) .433 (104) (30-33) .476 (96)
25 MID TENNESSEE (7-3) (56-53) .514 (86) (7-10 .875 (11) (20-10) .667 (20) (25-24) .510 (59)

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 OKLAHOMA (9-1) (76-125) .608 13 (88) 5 (13)
2 ALABAMA (10-0) (78-132) .591 26 (2) 10 (1)
3 UTAH STATE (9-1) (83-153) .542 22 (13) 7 (5)
4 CENTRAL FLORIDA (9-0) (62-116) .534 19 (24) 5 (9)
5 GEORGIA (9-1) (62-116) .534 15 (69) 5 (11)
6 MEMPHIS (6-4) (71-137) .518 16 (55) 4 (20)
7 WEST VIRGINIA(8-1) (58-112) .518 18 (32) 5 (10)
8 WASHINGTON STATE (9-1) (60-119) .504 15 (70) 3 (39)
9 ARMY (8-2) (49-98) .500 13 (89) 3 (43)
10 CLEMSON (10-0) (70-141) .496 30 (1) 7 (2)
11 OHIO (6-4) (63-128) .492 15 (43) 3 (40)
12 MICHIGAN (9-1) (60-123) .488 24 (6) 7 (4)
13 OKLAHOMA STATE (6-4) (65-135) .487 17 (71) 3 (32)
14 SYRACUSE (8-2) (77-160) .481 23 (11) 4 (15)
15 BOISE STATE (8-2) (58-121) .479 15 (72) 3 (41)
16 GEORGIA TECH (6-4) (55-115) .478 16 (56) 4 (21)
17 MISSISSIPPI (5-5) (63-133) .474 9 (119) 2 (83)
18 TEXAS TECH (5-5) (68-144) .472 17 (44) 3 (33)
19 NC STATE (6-3) (50-107) .467 11 (107) 1 (104)
20 NORTH TEXAS (7-3) (63-135) .467 24 (7) 6 (7)
21 FLORIDA INTERN (7-3) (56-121) .463 15 (73) 4 (24)
22 HOUSTON (7-3) (71-155) .458 17 (45) 4 (19)
23 MISSOURI (6-4) (60-131) .458 14 (81) 4 (25)
24 APPLACHIAN STATE (7-2) (54-120) .450 23 (12) 5 (8)
25 OHIO STATE (9-1) (64-143) .448 22 (14) 4 (16)

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.

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.


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.