With three-quarters of the college football season completed, we have seen a few FBS programs try to make themselves dominant in the eyes of voters, coaches who rank and soon the College Football Playoff (CFP) Committee. The (8-0) Ohio State Buckeyes from the Big 10, earns the top spot in my college football rankings this week. The Buckeyes are one of nine 0-loss FBS programs who are trying to remain 0-losses at the end of the season. With only four regular season FBS games to be played, the Buckeyes still have a few touch tests ahead of them. The remaining schedule for the Buckeyes consists of; Home vs. Maryland, at Rutgers, Home vs. Penn State and concludes with the traditional end of the season rivalry at Michigan. A key note to remember is that the Buckeyes still undefeated, DID NOT schedule an FCS team this season.
As we take steps closer to the end of the regular college football season, the CFP will soon release their rankings and how they view who the “best” teams are to compete for the college football “National Championship” at the FBS level. However, has the CFP committee, the sports media members, coaches who vote and rank for the AMWAY USA Today Coaches poll; taken a deep dive on the remaining 0-loss programs. This means how does each 0-loss program rank against the group of 0-loss programs. I use a different ranking system than the “experts” but my rankings are based upon the categorical variables which provides a greater statistical analysis to assist in my rankings and soon the selection process for my mock field of an expanded college football playoff field of 16 FBS programs versus the 4 that the CFP possesses.
Below is a grid that I have prepared to assist in examination of the remaining 0-loss FBS college football programs. The results determined that my number one ranked team; Ohio State at (8-0) does not possess the best statistical analysis and data to support the number one ranking. The results determined as of this point of the college football FBS season, the Penn State Nittany Lions (8-0) should be ranked number one. However since Penn State did play an FCS team this 2019 FBS season, they are ranked in the bottom third of the remaining 0-loss FBS programs. I am a firm believer of; if you are an FBS program, then you have no business scheduling or playing an FCS member school, since they do not compete for the FBS title or play in any prestigious bowl games. Published research in my book, in addition to continues research within the specific topic of FBS vs. FCS proves that FBS programs win 90% of the time by an average of 4-plus possessions or more. This relates to FBS programs outscoring FCS programs by at least 28 points per game.
GRID: Ranked Team(Record)– indicates the rank of the FBS program and their current record; 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 NCOVRL– 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:
| TEAM RECORD | OVRL | NC OP | NC ONLY | CONF |
| OHIO STATE (8-0) | (51-44) .537 (3) | (11-13) .458 (5) | (5-7) .417(6) | (20-25) .444 (4) |
| SMU (8-0) | (48-45) .516 (4) | (13-17) .433 (7) | (6-4) .400 (7) | (14-19) .424 (7) |
| LSU (8-0) | (49-36) .576 (2) | (13-9) .591 (1) | (5-5) .500 (3) | (19-20) .487 (2) |
| MINNESOTA (8-0) | (43-42) .506 (6) | (7-7) .500 (3) | (4-4) .500 (3) | (18-27) .400 (9) |
| CLEMSON (8-0) | (43-42) .506 (6) | (11-13) .458 (5) | (5-4) .556 (2) | (16-21) .432 (5) |
| PENN STATE (8-0) | (54-34) .614 (1) | (9-7) .563 (2) | (5-3) .625 (1) | (24-21) .533 (1) |
| ALABAMA (8-0) | (42-47) .472 (8) | (9-10) .474 (4) | (4-8) .333 (8) | 17-23) .425 (6) |
| APPALACHIAN STATE (7-0) | (37-45) .451 (9) | (10-14) .417 (8) | (4-4) .500 (3) | (11-15) .423 (8) |
| BAYLOR (7-0) | (43-41) .512 (5) | (3-12) .200 (9) | (1-6) .143 (9) | (19-23) .452 (8) |
The (number) within the parenthesis, after the percentage rate, is the rank order of that 0-loss FBS program within each specific variable against each 0-loss FBS program.
What I cannot comprehend and digest, is how are the coaches who vote and rank, the sports media members who are the “experts” and other college football analysts keep ranking the Alabama Crimson Tide (8-0) as their number one ranked FBS program within the USA Today Coaches Poll or the AP Poll. Do they not know that this data is available to them to assist in their ability to rank better and with fair assessments to all FBS programs. Alabama is not the best FBS team, they have just manipulated the variables and perception in their favor.
Now for my fifth weekly FBS college football rankings. There are some shake ups and surprises. I know many of you do not understand how I determine my rankings but a few of you appreciate and like my weekly rankings. With all the research and data analysis in which is performed, I have a clear understanding how college football should rank in a more professional like manner.
GRID: Ranked Team(Record)– indicates the rank of the FBS program and their current record; 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 NCOVRL– 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 | OVRL | NC OP | NC ONLY | CONF |
| 1 OHIO STATE (8-0) | (51-44) .537 (74) | (11-13) .458 (84) | (5-7) .417 (107) | (20-25) .444 (104) |
| 2 SMU (8-0) | (48-45) .516 (87) | (13-17) .433 (96) | (6-4) .400 (111) | (14-19) .424 (115) |
| 3 LSU (8-0) | (49-36) .576 (41) | (13-9) .591 (43) | (5-5) .500 (78) | (19-20) .487 (82) |
| 4 MINNESOTA (8-0) | (43-42) .506 (96) | (7-7) .500 (73) | (4-4) .500 (80) | (18-27) .400 (122) |
| 5 CLEMSON (8-0) | (43-42) .506 (95) | (11-13) .458 (86) | (5-4) .556 (67) | (16-21) .432 (111) |
| 6 PENN STATE (8-0) | (54-34) .614 (22) | (9-7) .563 (47) | (5-3) .625 (47) | (24-21) .533 (38) |
| 7 ALABAMA (8-0) | (42-47) .472 (116) | (9-10) .474 (80) | (4-8) .333 (120) | 17-23) .425 (113) |
| 8 APPALCHIAN STATE (7-0) | (37-45) .451 (122) | (10-14) .417 (102) | (4-4) .500 (83) | (11-15) .423 (117) |
| 9 BAYLOR (7-0) | (43-41) .512 (90) | (3-12) .200 (128) | (1-6) .143 (130) | (19-23) .452 (100) |
| 10 LOUISNANA TECH (7-1) | (35-50) .412 (127) | (8-16) .333 (117) | (4-7) .364 (116) | (15-18) .455 (99) |
| 11 MEMPHIS (7-1) | (46-39) .541 (63) | (7-16) .304 (120) | (3-8) .273 (124) | (18-14) .563 (23) |
| 12 SAN DIEGO STATE (7-1) | (37-48) .435 (25) | (6-17) .261 (126) | (2-11) .154 (129) | (13-18) .419 (120) |
| 13 OREGON (7-1) | (47-40) .540 (68) | (10-6) .625 (33) | (6-1) .857 (9) | (19-26) .422 (118) |
| 14 OKLAHOMA (7-1) | (46-38) .548 (59) | (6-10) .375 (109) | (2-5) .286 (123) | (19-22) .463 (95) |
| 15 UTAH (7-1) | (42-44) .488 (110) | (6-9) .400 (105) | (3-6) .333 (121) | (19-25) .432 (112) |
| 16 FLORIDA (7-1) | (45-33) .577 (40) | (8-8) .500 (69) | (3-2) .600 (52) | (19-19) .500 (72) |
| 17 WISCONSIN (6-2) | (55-41) .573 (45) | (12-13) .480 (77) | (5-7) .417 (106) | (23-22) .511 (65) |
| 18 IOWA (6-2) | (53-42) .558 (56) | (12-12) .500 (71) | (4-7) .364 (115) | (21-24) .467 (94) |
| 19 MICHIGAN (6-2) | (58-37) .611 (26) | (11-12) .478 (78) | (7-8) .467 (90) | (25-20) .556 (29) |
| 20 AIR FORCE (6-2) | (45-39) .536 (76) | (12-11) .52 (61) | (6-5) .545 (70) | (15-15) .500 (74) |
| 21 CENTRAL FLORIDA (6-2) | (44-43) .506 (101) | (14-10) .583 (46) | (6-4) .600(51) | (10-21) .323 (127) |
| 22 WYOMING (6-2) | (43-42) .506 (97) | (9-14) .391 (107) | (6-6) .500 (85) | (17-16) .515 (56) |
| 23 GEORGIA STATE (6-2) | (38-45) .458 (119) | (11-14) .440 (89) | (5-8) .385 (112) | (12-15) .444 (105) |
| 24 AUBURN (6-2) | (57-30) .655 (4) | (15-9) .625 (28) | (6-5) .545 (69) | (22-16) .579 (15) |
| 25 INDIANA (6-2) | (44-43) .506 (102) | (6-10) .375 (110) | (3-5) .375 (113) | (20-25) .444 (106) |
The (number) within the parenthesis, after the percentage rate, is the rank order of each Top 25 ranked FBS team within each specific variable against each ranked and or non ranked FBS program.
As of this posting, there are currently (9) 0-loss FBS programs remaining, (14) 1-loss FBS programs, (32) Bowl Eligible FBS programs, (40) 5-win FBS programs working towards bowl eligibility and (3) 0-win FBS programs still searching for their first win. We will see how the remainder of the FBS season plays out, How many will remain 0-loss and will all (3) 0-win FBS programs at least earn their first win.
The data and statistics do not lie. It does however provide a different perspective on how the reality of each FBS football team can be evaluated with an improved understanding. The subjective assessment in which coaches vote and rank are dependent on their credibility to rank efficiently without possessing a bias. Proving that no matter what your conference affiliation is, who your coaching friends are or what constituencies have financially backed you. Rankings are not meant to be miss leading but possess a true reality to how programs are performing against each other, at the same level of play and by the same rules.
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. I am also available for interview to discuss my perspective on college football and my research into expanding the playoffs for college football.