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 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 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 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.
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.