It’s that time of year for my weekly college football rankings for the FBS level of play. Please forgive the delay by one week. Working MANY hours for my job at Hershey caused the delay, but I was still collecting data weekly.
For my weekly rankings, I use quantitative and qualitative categorical variables which provides a much improved and more accurate ranking system without subjective assessment and the use of the eye tests that the sports media “experts” use to rank and formulate opinions on ranking. I have been performing and collecting data to rank FBS college football prorgams for 10+ years. In addition to publishing my rankings in book format and web based blog posting for at least 5 years. You could say I have PLENTY of experience in ranking college football programs at the FBS level.
Since college football at the FBS level has reached the half mile pole of the season, there is plenty of information and data to make an accurate ranking assessment for this select group of 130 FBS members. I can determine that when comparing my rankings with the sports media “experts” both in televison, print or web based rankings that there is a big disparity when comparing my rankings to theirs. I believe that the sports media has fallen in love with the “bride” of the group and are looking through rosed colored glasses not seeing that their are other qualified “brides” in the room who should be ranked higher than the “bride” the sports media has fallen in love with. I have no problem looking at the ‘bride” in the room but I always look at all data points before making any selection to rank no matter how pretty or beautiful the “bride” is.
Comparing my Top 25 college football rankings versus the college football rankings by the “experts”, we both match with the group as a whole at 80%. Within that 80%, in we both agree upon, the majority of mine are ranked differently than the ranking “”experts”. This means we agree in ranking of 20 FBS programs within the Top 25. I have ranked 5 different FBS programs who have earned the opportunity to be ranked within this poll based upon qualitative and quatitative variables, not because they are a member of a “prestigious” Power 5 Conference. That is what we call a ranking bias to make sure that those higher ranked FBS teams within the Top 25 poll of “experts” give the illusion that those members are better than what they really are. This is how one specfic Power 5 Conference coaches rank their Top 25, to give the implied impression or magicians illusion that they are by perception better than others. This places into question the credibility and validity of the coach who ranks the college football Top 25.
The “bride” I am referring to is Alabama. The primary sports media experts from the Experts Sports Programming Network and one from Fox Sports are so enamoured by this “bride” that they cannot see past the obvious. Yes, Alabama is (6-0), yes they have won every game by 21+ points; yes Tua is gaining statistical accolades and how did they do that without being caught within the illusion of the trick. Of the 6 FBS Alabama has played; 5 have been played at HOME or possession of regional home field advantage versus Louisville in Orlando; 1 AWAY game but this away game was a conference game and required to play and finally Alabama still has to play the annual FCS BOWL game versus Mercer at HOME the week before the annual Auburn/Alabama game on Thanksgiving weekend. Heaven forbid if Alabama were to play a COMPETITIVE FBS Power 5 program, on the road, AT that Power 5 program to really TEST their “elitist” and “entitlement” of always being mollycoddled.
I know some of the sports media are only espousing what they are told, more specifically ESPN sports personalities and “experts” because ESPN possesses a $2.25 BILLION dollar note on promoting the SEC and needs to re-coup their investment. I believe Neil Peart wrote it best in lyrics within one of Rush’s studio released songs:
“Wheels within wheels in a spiral array
A pattern so grand and complex
Time after time, we lose sight of the way our causes can’t see their effects”
“In their own images, their world is fashioned
No wonder they don’t understand”
(Peart, 1980)
Maybe the sports media does not understand but is on their own mission of promotions based upon big money.
If you look at viable, quantitaive, qualitative and measureble data the numbers dont lie and you do understand the real pciture. I believe ESPN had a show named “Numbers Don’t Lie” where they would debate data and numbers. Alabama who is ranked Number 1 in all the subjective polls but possesses a ranking where important data has them ranked in the lower 50 percentile of the FBS group, in the lower 33 percentile of the FBS group and SECOND TO LAST in conference opponent credility based upon scheduled conference opponents combined conference records. Yes, Joel Kaltt from FOX Sports; Clemson should be ranked higher than Alabama, you just dont see it. Of those I have ranked in the Top 25, 19 of them have or will be playing FCS lower level competition to earn an extra victory. Published research performed by me and still continues to research, proves that all FBS programs win games scheduled with FCS programs by an average of 4+ possessions or more (meaning 28 points or more) versus FCS opponents and more specifically, the FBS programs win 90% of the time. When an FCS member wins versus an FBS member its ONLY by less than 5 points.
The rankings below are based upon the professional model theory with the addition to where all FBS programs have an equal, just, and fair opportunity to compete for the national championship within my 16 Team College Football Playoff field which is “inclusive” not “EXCLUSIVE” to conference favortism or bias. The current CFP and past BCS systems have biases and criterion built within the selction phase against Group of Five Confernece members or the Non-BCS group.
| TEAM | RECORD | OVRL OP | NC OP OVRL | CONF OP |
| 1 NOTRE DAME | (6-0) | (14-10) .544 (75) | (25-21) .543 (63) | (5-5) .500 (63) |
| 2 OHIO STATE | (6-0) | (31-34) .477 (108) | (6-11) .353 (118) | (8-14) .364 (126) |
| 3 CLEMSON | (6-0) | (39-19) .672 (12) | (11-4) .733 (19) | (6-14) .300 (127) |
| 4 GEORGIA | (6-0) | (38-25) .603 (42) | (8-10) .444 (93) | (11-13) .458 (96) |
| 5 ALABAMA | (6-0) | (34-28) .548 (72) | (7-9) .438 (98) | (6-15) .286 (129) |
| 6 CINCINNATI | (6-0) | (27-33) .450 (121) | (5-11) .313 (122) | (8-8) .500 (79) |
| 7 HAWAII | (6-1) | (30-35) .462 (117) | (9-13) .409 (107) | (5-7) .417 (117) |
| 8 WEST VIRGINIA | (5-0) | (37-24) .607 (41) | (7-3) .700 (28) | (11-14) .440 (100) |
| 9 NC STATE | (5-0) | (36-25) .590 (53) | (10-6) .625 (40) | (8-13) .381 (123) |
| 10 SOUTH FLORIDA | (5-0) | (32-26) .552 (70) | (8-10) .444 (94) | (8-8) .500 (72) |
| 11 CENTRAL FLORIDA | (5-0) | (32-29) .525 (84) | (7-9) .438 (99) | (8-9) .471 (90) |
| 12 COLORADO | (5-0) | (28-32) .467 (114) | (2-9) .182 (128) | (11-14) .440 (102) |
| 13 MICHIGAN | (5-1) | (39-27) .591 (52) | (12-6) .667 (32) | (11-12) .478 (84) |
| 14 OKLAHOMA | (5-1) | (36-30) .545 (73) | (6-10) .375 (111) | (12-13) .480 (83) |
| 15 LSU | (5-1) | (43-22) .662 (13) | (9-8) .529 (65) | (14-11) .560 (37) |
| 16 MIAMI FLA. | (5-1) | (37-22) .627 (28) | (11-5) .688 (29) | (9-10) .474 (87) |
| 17 KENTUCKY | (5-1) | (36-26) .581 (58) | (6-11) .353 (116) | (12-12) .500 (78) |
| 18 WASHINGTON | (5-1) | (35-26) .574 (61) | (7-5) .583 (53) | (9-14) .391 (122) |
| 19 WASHINGTON STATE | (5-1) | (33-27) .550 (71) | (2-9) .182 (127) | (13-11) .542 (43) |
| 20 TROY | (5-1) | (23-34) .404 (126) | (5-10) .333 (121) | (7-9) .438 (109) |
| 21 NORTH TEXAS | (5-1) | (22-39) .361 (128) | (5-12) .313 (123) | (7-9) .438 (110) |
| 22 BUFFALO | (5-1) | (22-39) .361 (129) | (7-10) .412 (106) | (4-11) .267 (130) |
| 23 FLORIDA | (5-1) | (36-21) .632 (27) | (5-7) .417 (104) | (12-12) .500 (75) |
| 24 PENN STATE | (4-1) | (40-25) .615 (37) | (7-9) .438 (97) | (13-9) .591 (21) |
| 25 TEXAS | (4-1) | (37-28) .569 (64) | (7-8) .467 (90) | (11-14) .440 (101) |
Honorable Mentioned: All are (4-1) Wisconsin, Duke, Iowa, San Diego State, Fresno State, Georgia Southern, UAB, Houston and Utah State.
GRID EXPLANATION: Team– FBS team and Rank; 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 Opponent Overall: 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 vrsus FBS programs ONLY; Conference Opponent: This is the cumulative record of games scheduled within their 2018 conference schedule versus their conference opponents ONLY.
I will be posting weekly rankings for the rest of the college FBS football season. The rankings are not subjetcive, they do have criterial aspects to them in how FBS programs are ranked. Many of you will wonder how many of the FBS programs will end the regular season with 0-losses. Published research performed by me proves that on avarage that only 2.54 FBS teams end the regular season with 0-lossess. We will see who remains standing at the end of the season.
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.
Peart, Neil (1979). “Natural Science” from Permanent Waves. Performed by Rush. Recorded at Le Studio in Quebec, Canada. Available on Record, Cassette Tape and CD. Mercury Label.