How the college football season is now starting to get very interesting as the FBS teams and CFP members . The group of 0-loss programs are slowly decreasing to a number which supports published research with only 2 or 3 FBS teams left at the end of the regular season with 0-losses. In addition to the groups of 2-loss, 1-loss and 0-loss programs are all on a collision course to play against each which will assist in determining who will make the bifurcated and Democritusly driven College Football Playoff (CFP). This also assists me in starting to review all FBS program for my mock field of an expanded college football playoff format of 16 FBS teams where all FBS programs are eligible to compete..
This is the day that the CFP committee will announce their CFP Top 25 rankings with all vested interests for all Power Five Conference (P5) programs with little dis-regard to the Group of Five (G5) programs. The committee will come out and vehemetly keep Central Florida (UCF) and other credible G5 programs out of the CFP playoffs, no matter if they are the ONLY remaining 0-loss program left. The CFP committee will find ways to keep them from the CFP4 and only give one of the G5 programs, if and only if that G5 program meets specific criteria, to compete for the “bridesmaid” prize to compete for one spot in the New Years Day Six Bowl Games. Interesting that the G5 programs all abide by NCAA Bylaw 3.1 thourgh 3.7, then meets NCAA Bylaw 20 and then follow the remaining NCAA Bylaw between 3.1 and 20. Then these G5 programs must abide by Title IX rules and regulations to be considered a FBS member. Then you wonder why the CFP, like the BCS is a bifurcated system and is only accessible for the “good ole boys” network of the P5 Conferences and their members. All ruled by, you know whom.
Here is my prediction on the how the CFP will vote, I already tweeted (@cfbpoexpert) it out (at 545PM on 10/30/18) directy to the CFP Executive Director and UCF Football and the Director of Athletics at UCF Mr. Danny White. Its sad how the CFP system which was suppose to be better still possesses design flaws, selection flaws and criterial flaws. For my CFP prediction its will be in rank order: Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame and LSU. UCF will be either ranked 9 or 10. If you look at my data and research it offers a different, more purposeful system which is Utilitarinistic and under the professional model theory.
Week 4 CFBPOEXPERT Top 25 Rankings. 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 (8-0) | (52-45) .536 (70) | (14-11) .560 (76) | (37-28) .569 (52) | (8-11) .421 (118) |
| 2 CLEMSON (8-0) | (52-28) .650 (8) | (8-1) .889 (6) | (16-6) .727 (13) | (14-23) .378 (124) |
| 3 ALABAMA (8-0) | (46-43) .517 (82) | (7-4) .636 (56) | (10-14) .417 (103) | (13-25) .342 (130) |
| 4 CENTRAL FLORIDA (7-0) | (39-47) .453 (118) | (3-7) .333 (121) | (8-15) .348 (117) | (14-18) .438 (117) |
| 5 MICHIGAN (7-1) | (57-41) .582 (43) | (8-5) .615 (65) | (17-8) .680 (24) | (23-23) .500 (68) |
| 6 OHIO STATE (7-1) | (46-51) .474 (110) | (4-6) .400 (111) | (8-16) .333 (120) | (20-25) .444 (114) |
| 7 OKLAHOMA (7-1) | (50-44) .532 (75) | (5-6) .455 (101) | (11-13) .458 (96) | (24-25) .490 (75) |
| 8 UAB (7-1) | (42-47) .472 (112) | (6-5) .545 (86) | (13-11) .542 (62) | (18-19) .486 (86) |
| 9 GA. SOUTHERN (7-1) | (43-46) .483 (106) | (5-5) .500 (93) | (13-13) .500 (77) | (14-16) .467 (103) |
| 10 BUFFALO (7-1) | (35-54) .393 (129) | (5-6) .455 (103) | (12-12) .500 (78) | (12-22) .353 (128) |
| 11 UTAH STATE (7-1) | (38-55) .409 (126) | (4-7) .364 (117) | (11-14) .440 (99) | (13-24) .351 (129) |
| 12 CINCINNATI (7-1) | (40-46) .465 (114) | (2-9) .182 (128) | (10-14) .417 (108) | (16-16) .500 (73) |
| 13 FRESNO STATE (7-1) | (42-50) .457 (116) | (5-5) .500 (96) | (10-14) .417 (105) | (16-20) .444 (113) |
| 14 HOUSTON (7-1) | (37-52) .416 (125) | (4-5) .444 (106) | (10-16) .385 (114) | (13-19) .406 (121) |
| 15 SOUTH FLORIDA (7-1) | (43-37) .538 (69) | (7-4) .636 (54) | (10-15) .400 (111) | (17-15) .531 (42) |
| 16 KENTUCKY (7-1) | (46-43) .517 (83) | (4-6) .400 (110) | (8-17) .320 (123) | (19-23) .452 (110) |
| 17 WASHINGTON ST (7-1) | (46-45) .505 (92) | (1-6) .143 (129) | (4-13) .235 (128) | (24-25) .490 (76) |
| 18 GEORGIA (7-1) | (52-37) .584 (42) | (6-5) .545 (81) | (12-13) .480 (86) | (20-22) .476 (92) |
| 19 LSU (7-1) | (55-35) .611 (21) | (6-4) .600 (70) | (12-13) .480 (84) | (22-19) .537 (36) |
| 20 WEST VIRGINIA (6-1) | (48-38) .558 (59) | (5-1) .833 (15) | (8-7) .533 (63) | (21-24) .467 (101) |
| 21 NORTH TEXAS (7-2) | (34-55) .382 (130) | (7-6) .538 (87) | (9-15) .375 (115) | (15-22) .405 (122) |
| 22 BOISE STATE (6-2) | (53-46) .535 (71) | (8-6) .571 (75) | (16-16) .500 (76) | (19-17) .528 (48) |
| 23 PENN STATE (6-2) | (53-43) .552 (61) | (4-7) .364 (116) | (10-13) .435 (101) | (23-22) .511 (60) |
| 24 TEXAS (6-2) | (50-44) .532 (76) | (4-5) .444 (104) | (10-14) .417 (107) | (21-24) .467 (104) |
| 25 LOUISIANA TECH (6-2) | (39-50) .438 (122) | (6-3) .667 (48) | (14-10) .583 (50) | (13-22) .371 (126) |
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 a new ranking criteria I have collected for the past 5 FBS seasons which 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 (8-0) | (69-108) .639 | 19 (8) | 8 (1) |
| 2 OKLAHOMA (7-1) | (61-97) .629 | 11 (79) | 5 (9) |
| 3 UTAH STATE (7-1) | (65-122) .533 | 18 (11) | 5 (6) |
| 4 CENTRAL FLORIDA (7-0) | (49-92) .533 | 17 (17) | 4 (10) |
| 5 WASHINGTON STATE (7-1) | (51-96) .531 | 11 (80) | 2 (62) |
| 6 GEORGIA (7-1) | (51-98) .520 | 12 (63) | 5 (8) |
| 7 BOISE STATE (6-2) | (51-100) .510 | 13 (53) | 3 (29) |
| 8 MEMPHIS (4-4) | (54-107) .505 | 12 (64) | 3 (30) |
| 9 OHIO (5-3) | (49-98) .500 | 9 (105) | 2 (72) |
| 10 OHIO STATE (7-1) | (53-109) .486 | 16 (29) | 4 (13) |
| 11 OKLAHOMA STATE (5-3) | (53-109) .486 | 14 (42) | 3 (26) |
| 12 MICHIGAN (7-1) | (58-99) .485 | 18 (12) | 5 (7) |
| 13 CLEMSON (8-0) | (54-112) .482 | 24 (1) | 6 (2) |
| 14 MISSISSIPPI (5-3) | (51-106) .481 | 8 (110) | 2 (73) |
| 15 SYRACUSE (6-2) | (60-126) .476 | 18 (13) | 3 (22) |
| 16 HOUSTON (7-1) | (59-124) .476 | 17 (18) | 4 (11) |
| 17 NORTH TEXAS (7-1) | (58-122) .475 | 23 (2) | 6 (3) |
| 18 FLORIDA INTERN (6-2) | (45-96) .469 | 11 (81) | 3 (34) |
| 19 GEORGIA TECH (4-4) | (44-94) .468 | 12 (65) | 4 (17) |
| 20 WEST VIRGINIA (6-1) | (33-71) .465 | 11 (82) | 3 (35) |
| 21 APPLACHIAN STATE (5-2) | (44-95) .463 | 17 (19) | 4 (12) |
| 22 PENN STATE (6-2) | (55-119) .462 | 21 (4) | 3 (19) |
| 23 TEXAS TECH (4-4) | (54-118) .458 | 17 (20) | 3 (23) |
| 24 TOLEDO (4-4) | (51-112) .455 | 12 (66) | 2 (59) |
| 25 COASTAL CAROLINA (5-3) | (35-77) .455 | 7 (119) | 2 (77) |
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.
As of this posting, there are 38 bowl eligible FBS programs, 24 FBS programs with 5-wins and on the cusp of bowl eligibilty and 27 4-win FBS programs still with a viable opportunity to secure a bowl bid. There are (4) 0-loss FBS programs left standing and (1) FBS program still seeking their first win. With four weeks left in the college football season, there will be some suprises and major upsets still to be played out. That’s a given.
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.