Last week, I ranked the SMU Mustangs from the American Athletic Conference number one, and the Ohio State Buckeyes were ranked number two. In my weekly rankings this week, they have switched placements. Both are still possessing (6-0) records, but the data indicates and presents the need for a change in my weekly ranked placements. Ohio State (6-0) beat (4-2) Michigan State at home, while the (6-0) SMU Mustangs needed overtime to beat (2-3) Tulsa at home. Their are other factors that assisted in the reasons why I have ranked SMU higher than the (6-0) Florida Gators. Those reasons are; Florida plays 4 extra home games, scheduled 2 FCS games this 2019 FBS season and their conference strength of schedule lacks significant credibility. More on this, later in the post below.
The most interesting comparison with my rankings in compared to the AMWAY USA Today Coaches Poll is that we differ in how we rank college football programs at the FBS level of play. What causes this difference is the perception and promotion of college football from different perspectives. For example, the Expert Sports Programming Network has a functioning, public and financial working relationship with the Schedule Easy Conference. For example, this week Alabama (6-0) is ranked number one in the polls and are scheduled to play (3-2) Texas A&M who are ranked #23 in the AMWAY Coaches poll. This is a perceived false sense of reality versus perception to make the SEC football conference more “credible” than what reality indicates. Texas A&M (3-2) are close to be in my Top 50. Perception is not always reality. This is just a ESPN making revenue off of a game that possesses no reality base significance. This is how the power brokers of college football, the College Football Playoff Executives, ESPN, CBS and those within the SEC which includes the commissioners, athletic directors and possibly the coaches who are capable of acting without values, morals and principles; all for the Democritus values in which they possess.
For the 2019 college football season, we are just about at the half mile pole of the current season. As of this past weekends results and outcomes, the data has determined and supports what my continuous research and published findings supports in reality. As of this point of the 2019 FBS season, there are 16; 0- loss programs which is on par from last year at this point when comparing seasons to seasons. This indicates that by the end of the regular we are on pace for the average number of 0-loss FBS programs to reach the historical average 2.54 FBS programs. So I will predict that there will be 2; 0-loss programs at the end of the regular season. Also, the results determined that as of this point of the 2019 FBS season, that there are 22; 1-loss programs. This is slightly higher than the number last year at this point of the season. The average number of 1-loss FBS programs should meet the historical average of 6.82. Guess this is something the Elias Sports Bureau knows, oh wait, maybe they do not.
Below I will post two types of 2019 FBS college football rankings. The first will be the weekly rankings of my Top 25 as I use categorical variables and other data to rank my FBS programs 1 through 25. The second will be an offensive efficiency ranking, ranking the Top 25 FBS programs based upon 5 other data points in which I collect. Each ranking grid will have an explanation format so that the reader can follow along with how I rank and how each categorical variable is used in assessment.
Below is the second weeks weekly rankings of the 2019 FBS college football season. There has been some movement and ranking changes within my rankings. This is due to the fact that we are entering the time of the season where FBS programs scheduled their bye weeks or off weeks. Yes these rankings will change as the middle of the FBS season plays out:
GRID: Ranked Team(Record)– indicates the rank of the FBS program and their current record; FCS– indicates that the ranked FBS program has scheduled or already played an FCS opponent; AG’s– indicates number of traditional non conference road games scheduled during the 2019 CFB season; OPP OVRL– indicates the combined records of each specific ranked FBS programs scheduled win loss records and percentage rate of the whole 2019 schedule; OPP NC OVRL– indicates the records of each specific ranked FBS programs scheduled non conference games versus FBS programs combined season total of win loss records and percentage rate for and within that FBS ranked programs non conference schedule for 2019, NC ONLY– indicates the records of each specific ranked FBS programs win loss record and percentage rate of those FBS teams they scheduled associated within their non conference schedule ONLY to assist in non conference credibility strength of schedule, and CONF– indicates the combined records of each specific ranked FBS programs conference schedule win loss records and percentage rate to assist in conference strength of schedule:
| RANK TEAM RECORD | FCS | AG | OVRL OPP | NC OP ONL | NC ONLY | CONF |
| 1 OHIO STATE (6-0) | 0 | 2 | (36-26) .581 | (6-9) .400 | (4-7) .364 | (12-11) .522 |
| 2 SMU (6-0) | 0 | 2 | (33-26) .559 | (10-11) .476 | (6-9) .400 | (5-6) .455 |
| 3 FLORIDA (6-0) | 2 | 0 | (30-21) .588 | (5-5) .500 | (3-2) .600 | (7-11) .389 |
| 4 WISCONSIN (5-0) | 1 | 1 | (38-26) .594 | (7-9) .438 | (3-7).300 | (12-11) .522 |
| 5 MEMPHIS (5-0) | 1 | 2 | (33-23) .589 | (6-10) .375 | (3-8) .273 | (7-4) .636 |
| 6 BOISE STATE (5-0) | 1 | 2 | (28-28) .500 | (7-8) .467 | (5-5) .500 | (6-7) .462 |
| 7 LSU (5-0) | 1 | 1 | (36-20) .643 | (8-6) .571 | (4-5) .444 | (11-8) .579 |
| 8 OKLAHOMA (5-0) | 1 | 1 | (32-24) .571 | (3-8) .273 | (2-5) .286 | (8-10) .444 |
| 9 WAKE FOREST (5-0) | 1 | 1 | (33-25) .569 | (6-11) .353 | (2-7) .222 | (10-7) .588 |
| 10 GEORGIA (5-0) | 1 | 1 | (32-26) .552 | (8-8) .500 | (7-5) .583 | (8-12) .400 |
| 11 MINNESOTA (5-0) | 1 | 1 | (30-25) 545 | (4-5) .444 | (3-4) .429 | (9-12) .429 |
| 12 CLEMSON (5-0) | 1 | 1 | (31-26) .544 | (7-8) .467 | (5-4) .555 | (8-10) .444 |
| 13 PENN STATE (5-0) | 1 | 0 | (37-22) .627 | (6-6) .500 | (5-3) .625 | (12-10) .545 |
| 14 BAYLOR (5-0) | 1 | 0 | (31-25) .554 | (2-9) .182 | (1-6) .143 | (8-10) .444 |
| 15 ALABAMA (5-0) | 1 | 0 | (30-27) .526 | (6-7) .462 | (5-5) .500 | (8-9) .471 |
| 16 AUBURN (5-1) | 1 | 0 | (42-14) .750 | (10-5) .667 | (6-5) .545 | (12-4) .750 |
| 17 APPALACHIAN ST (4-0) | 1 | 2 | (26-31) .456 | (7-9) .478 | (4-4) .500 | (5-6) .455 |
| 18 NOTRE DAME (4-1) | 0 | 2 | (37-24) .607 | (15-10) .600 | (10-6) .625 | (10-10) .500 |
| 19 CINCINNATI (4-1) | 0 | 2 | (34-30) .531 | (11-11) .500 | (6-8) .428 | (4-8) .333 |
| 20 MICHIGAN (4-1) | 0 | 0 | (42-20) .677 | (9-6) .600 | (7-6) .538 | (12-9) .571 |
| 21 TEXAS (4-1) | 0 | 1 | (40-23) .635 | (9-7) .563 | (6-5) .545 | (9-11) .450 |
| 22 IOWA (4-1) | 0 | 1 | (35-26) .574 | (7-8) .467 | (4-7) .364 | (10-12) .455 |
| 23 TULANE (4-1) | 1 | 2 | (37-20) .649 | (10-6) .533 | (7-3) .700 | (6-6) .500 |
| 24 WYOMING (4-1) | 1 | 2 | (30-26) .536 | (8-7) .533 | (6-6) .500 | (6-8) .429 |
| 25 OREGON (4-1) | 1 | 1 | (38-21) .644 | (8-3) .727 | (6-1) .857 | (12-11) .522 |
Also receiving ranking consideration: (4-1) Arizona, (4-1) Hawaii, (4-1) Virginia, (4-1) Arizona State, (4-1) Missouri, (4-1) Temple, (4-1) Utah, (4-1) Louisiana Lafayette, (4-1) San Diego State, (4-1) Louisiana Tech, (4-1) Tulane and (4-1) UAB.
Here is the argument I will hear, how can I rank Alabama 15th and SMU #2? My answer is, SMU scheduled 2 traditional non conference games away. Thus creating a risk reward by playing ON the ROAD at ANOTHER FBS opponents stadium site, they did not play in a neutral site and they DID NOT schedule an FCS game for the EASY win. Alabama, scheduled 4 EXTRA HOME games within their non conference schedule, HAS NOT played a traditional scheduled road game at another FBS programs stadium site since 2012 at Penn State, consistently schedules a SIGNIFICANT advantage within their schedule by playing more HOME games, more HOME games in succession which indicates a SIGNIFICANT advantage and the overall SEC non conference schedule is not as strong as everyone believes. Again the SEC takes limited risks in their non conference schedule, but gains all the accolades for taking limited risks by playing it safe at home within their non conference schedule. It’s not ONLY Alabama but all of the SEC excluding having SIGNIFICANT non conference advantages with more home games and more home games in succession. This EXCLUDES LSU!
Below is the second ranking grid which is based upon offensive efficiency and defensive efficiency of all FBS teams during the 2019 FBS college football season. I have performed this ranking for the past 5 FBS seasons and I only post the Top 25. This ranking is a subset of a group of categorical variables that assists in other aspects in ranking and assessing FBS teams ability to compare the validity against the Vegas spread and ESPN FPI Index.
GRID: Ranked Team(Record)– indicates the rank of the ranked FBS program and their current record; OFF EFF– indicates the number of offensive possessions each ranked FBS program possesses compared to the number of times that each ranked FBS program scores; either by touchdown, field goal or safety; 1P L– Number of times that each ranked FBS program has lost a game by game by 1 possession or less, which means 8 points or less; CFB W– Number of times each ranked FBS program had a come from behind win, which means winning the game on the last possession or in overtime; DEF 3– indicates the number of times each ranked FBS program defense held the opposition to not scoring in 3 successive possessions. Each 3 successive defensive stops of not being scored on equals 1 count; and GM CTR 3– indicates the number of times each ranked FBS program win was by a total of 3 possessions or more, which means by a total of 21 points or more:
| RANK TEAM RECORD | OFF EFF | 1P L | CFB W | DEF 3 | GM CTR 3 |
| 1 OKLAHOMA (5-0) | (61-41) .672 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 4 |
| 2 ALABAMA (5-0) | (62-40) .645 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 5 |
| 3 LSU (5-0) | (69-42) .609 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 4 |
| 4 GEORGIA (5-0) | (61-37) .607 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 4 |
| 5 OHIO STATE (6-0) | (81-46).568 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 6 |
| 6 WASHINGTON ST (3-2) | (62-35) .565 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 2 |
| 7 APPALACHIAN ST (4-1) | (50-28) .560 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 |
| 8 LOUISANA LAFAY (4-1) | (65-35) .538 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 1 |
| 9 PENN STATE (5-0) | (69-36) .522 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 4 |
| 10 OREGON STATE (2-3) | (54-28) .519 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 0 |
| 11 COAST CAROLINA (3-2) | (58-30) .517 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 2 |
| 12 WISCONSON (5-0) | (65-33).508 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 4 |
| 13 MEMPHIS (5-0) | (66-33) .500 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 2 |
| 14 TEXAS (4-1) | (64-32) .500 | 1 | 0 | 9 | 2 |
| 15 NOTRE DAME (4-1) | (62-31) .500 | 1 | 0 | 12 | 3 |
| 16 WASHINGTON (4-2) | (73-36) .493 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 3 |
| 17 IOWA STATE (3-2) | (63-31) .492 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 1 |
| 18 AIR FORCE (3-2) | (57-28) .491 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 1 |
| 19 SMU (6-0) | (90-44) .489 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 3 |
| 20 COLORADO (3-2) | (60-29) .483 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 1 |
| 21 UTAH (4-1) | (54-26) .481 | 1 | 0 | 9 | 2 |
| 22 NAVY (3-1) | (46-22) .478 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 2 |
| 23 TCU (3-2) | (72-34) .472 | 2 | 0 | 10 | 3 |
| 24 CENTRAL FLORIDA (4-2) | (88-41) .466 | 2 | 0 | 15 | 3 |
| 25 OKLAHOMA ST (4-2) | (87-40) .460 | 1 | 0 | 11 | 1 |
As you have read, my ranking system is not subjectively based but ranked by quantitative categorical variables which are capable of being analytically compared against each other when examining FBS program against FBS program. The rankings are very different than the subjective AMWAY USA Today Coaches Poll and the AP Poll which are subjective in value possessing no ranking credibility and no true ranking criteria in which each panel ranks. I would hope that the sports media of ESPN, the SEC, the CFP and the college football fans could embrace these rankings as possessing validity rather than trying to devalue the rankings as not legitimate. These rankings possess statistical analysis in which each FBS program earns, not given in a ranking.
These rankings possess no subjective bias or vested interest for financial gains. Since I have published my book and research, I still believe that CFB at the highest level under the NCAA blue logo can possess an expanded playoff format which is inclusive for all FBS football programs. Every FBS football program should have a fair, equal and just opportunity to compete for the $50+ Million dollars on the table, the Gold Trophy, national recognition and prestige in being called National Champions of college football at the FBS level of play.
As always, please cite the source in APA/MLA format if you use any of my information. To the sports media in print, television or radio; I am available for interview to discuss my college rankings, college football content and more specifically the college football playoffs. If you have any questions, comments or would like to discuss this further, reach out to me on twitter @cfbpoexpert or leave a comment in the comment section.