With 3 weeks to go in this 2018 college football regular season, prior to the conference championship weekend, the season is shaping up to be very exciting with many great games still to come when rivalry weekend approching. The playoff race for my mock field of 16 is starting to take shape. All while, the CFP system is causing too many issues with the bifurcated and Democritusly driven system all because of the “eye test”, lack of selection and seeding experience and they must protect the Power Five Conferences based upon vested interests.
I performed a week one comparison between the CFP rankings and my weekly rankings based upon which FBS won or lost, but importantly “who ranked them better”. What was determined was that my CFBPOEXPERT Top 15 was (12-3), the CFP Top 15 was (10-5). By comparing the two groups against each other based upon the subjective process of a committee versus the professional model theory with criterial assessments to assist in ranking. From my persepctive, It can be detemined that the subjective CFP committe process possesses ranking design flaws based upon vested interests from select financial groups, a significant ranking bias based upon specific conferences earning ranked positions based upon “specific”Power Five conference affiliation in addtion to possessing a relationsip bias, providing a false perceived perception how really good that “specific” Power Five Conference is and finally believing in using data sets in the likes of the FPI and the RPI which have been proven to lack credibility . The questions that need to be asked are what is the CFP selection committee thinking when ranking and how come I am not part of the selection committee. At least I would create a balance in the force.
As of this posting, we still have (4) 0-loss programs, the 1-loss programs has dwindeled down to (11), 2-loss programs have grown to 30 and EVERY FBS program now has a win. Texas El Paso finally earned their first victory against Rice.The bowl eligible programs has grown to 49, with 29 FBS programs with 5-wins, one short of being bowl eligible. More than likely, all of thise 5 win programs will become bowl eligible. Behind the 5-win FBS programs are 18 4-win programs who are still in the hunt to become bowl eligible. If all of those FBS programs within those specific win groups all earn 6-wins to be bowl eligible, then CFB would have 96 bowl eliible programs. Now the argument would be, who gets left out of a bowl game.
As of this posting at 7PM on 11/6/2018, If i could predict the CFP week two selections for the CFP4, then I would have to say in rank order: Alabama, Clemson, Michigan, Notre Dame; with Georgia, Oklahoma, Ohio State, West Virginia, Washington State and Central Florida. It should be Clemson, Alabama, Notre Dame and then any one from the group I just mentioned you can toss in and get a great CFP4.
Below are my week 5 CFBPOEXPERT rankings. The rankings are more accurate and data driven based upon multiple categorical variables which are quantifiable and qualitative. 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 (9-0) | (56-52) .519 (81) | (14-12) .538 (87) | (40-32) .556 (54) | (9-14) .391 (126) |
| 2 CLEMSON (9-0) | (58-32) .644 (5) | (9-1) .900 (4) | (18-7) .720 (15) | (19-26).422 (123) |
| 3 ALABAMA (9-0) | (51-46) .515 (83) | (7-4) .636 (60) | (11-16) .457 (107) | (15-28) .349 (130) |
| 4 CENTRAL FLORIDA (8-0) | (44-53) .454 (118) | (3-7) .300 (122) | (10-16) .385 (114) | (17-23) .425 (120) |
| 5 MICHIGAN (8-1) | (62-47) .569 (44) | (9-5) .643 (52) | (19-9) .679 (20) | (26-27) .491 (73) |
| 6 OKLAHOMA (8-1) | (56-50) .528 (78) | (5-6) .455 (103) | (13-14) .481 (88) | (29-30) .492 (72) |
| 7 OHIO STATE (8-1) | (51-57) .472 (109) | (4-6) .400 (114) | (10-17) .370 (118) | (23-30) .434 (119) |
| 8 UAB (8-1) | (46-53) .465 (112) | (6-5) .545 (86) | (14-13) .519 (70) | (21-21) .500 (67) |
| 9 BUFFALO (8-1) | (40-60) 400 (128) | (5-6) .455 (104) | (13-14) .481 (92) | (16-26) .381 (127) |
| 10 UTAH STATE (8-1) | (42-61) .408 (125) | (5-7) .417 (112) | (13-15) .464 (96) | (15-28) .349 (129) |
| 11 FRESNO STATE (8-1) | (46-56) .451 (120) | (5-5) .500 (96) | (11-16) .407 (111) | (19-24) .442 (115) |
| 12 CINCINNATI | (44-53) .454 (119) | (2-9) .182 (128) | (11-16) .407 (110) | (19-21) .475 (89) |
| 13 GEORGIA | (59-40) .596 (27) | (6-5) .545 (79) | (15-13) .536 (63) | (23-25) .479 (84) |
| 14 WASHINGTON ST (8-1) | (51-52) .500 (91) | (1-6) .143 (129) | (5-14) .263 (127) | (28-30) .483 (80) |
| 15 WEST VIRGINA (7-1) | (54-43) .557 (53) | (6-1) .857 (13) | (10-7) .588 (47) | (25-29) .463 (101) |
| 16 BOISE STATE (7-2) | (58-51) .532 (75) | (8-6) .571 (75) | (17-19) .472 (94) | (24-18) .571 (18) |
| 17 SYRACUSE (7-2) | (54-44) .551 (57) | (9-5) .643 (53) | (16-12) .571 (49) | (21-24) .467 (96) |
| 18 GEORGIA SO. (7-2) | (51-49) .510 (86) | (6-5) .545 (82) | (16-13) .552 (58) | (19-21) .475 (88) |
| 19 TROY (7-2) | (47-50) .485 (102) | (8-4) .667 (51) | (13-13) .500 (84) | (18-22) .450 (112) |
| 20 SOUTH FLORIDA (7-2) | (50-41) .549 (61) | (7-4) .636 (58) | (13-15) .464 (95) | (21-19) .525 (47) |
| 21 NORTH TEXAS (7-2) | (39-59) .398 (129) | (7-6) .538 (88) | (10-16) .385 (115) | (19-24) .442 (116) |
| 22 HOUSTON (7-2) | (42-58) .420 (124) | (4-5) .444 (108) | (11-18) .379 (116) | (17-23) .425 (121) |
| 23 SAN DIEGO ST (7-2) | (50-52) .490 (99) | (6-3) .667 (49) | (15-13) .536 (65) | (18-23) .439 (117) |
| 24 BOSTON COLLEGE (7-2) | (55-43) .561 (49) | (5-7) .417 (111) | (14-14) .500 (79) | (21-24) .467 (97) |
| 25 KENTUCKY (7-2) | (52-47) .525 (79) | (4-6) .400 (113) | (9-19) .321 (121) | (22-25) .468 (95) |
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 ALABAMA (9-0) | (74-110) .617 | 22 (7) | 9 (1) |
| 2 OKLAHOMA (8-1) | (68-111) .613 | 12(92) | 5(9) |
| 3 GEORGIA (9-0) | (57-106) .538 | 13(72) | 5(8) |
| 4 UTAH STATE (8-1) | (73-136) .537 | 20(12) | 6(7) |
| 5 CENTRAL FLORIDA (8-0) | (57-107) .533 | 18(20) | 4(7) |
| 6 WASHINGTON ST (8-1) | (55-106) .519 | 12(93) | 2(12) |
| 7 WEST VIRGINIA (7-1) | (50-97) .515 | 15(47) | 3(73) |
| 8 MEMPHIS (5-4) | (63-123) .512 | 13(73) | 3(29) |
| 9 CLEMSON (9-0) | (65-127) .512 | 26(1) | 7(2) |
| 10 OHIO (6-3) | (58-114) .509 | 13(74) | 3(34) |
| 11 MISSISSIPPI (5-4) | (59-120) .492 | 8(118) | 2(81) |
| 12 BOISE STATE (7-2) | (54-111) .486 | 14(59) | 3(32) |
| 13 ARMY (7-2) | (44-91) .484 | 13(75) | 3(35) |
| 14 MICHIGAN (8-1) | (54-112) .482 | 21(9) | 6(6) |
| 15 OKLAHOMA STATE (5-4) | (58-121) .479 | 16(36) | 3(28) |
| 16 NC STATE (6-2) | (45-94) .479 | 10(108) | 1(102) |
| 17 NORTH TEXAS (7-2) | (58-122) .475 | 23(5) | 6(5) |
| 18 OHIO STATE (8-1) | (59-125) .472 | 18(21) | 4(13) |
| 19 GEORGIA TECH (5-4) | (50-106) .472 | 14(60) | 4(19) |
| 20 TEXAS TECH (5-4) | (62-132) .470 | 17(29) | 3(26) |
| 21 SYRACUSE (7-2) | (67-143) .469 | 21(10) | 3(23) |
| 22 HOUSTON (7-2) | (64-139) .460 | 17(30) | 4(14) |
| 23 FRESNO STATE (8-1) | (55-120) .458 | 24(2) | 7(3) |
| 24 TOLEDO (5-4) | (58-127) .457 | 15(48) | 3(30) |
| 25 MISSOURI (5-4) | (54-120) .450 | 13(76) | 4(20) |
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 we conclude this FBS college football season, we are just at the top of turn four of this season long race starts to have more upsets, surprises and programs which were extinct returning to some power within the FBS seasons. I look forward to the conclusion of this FBS college football season and the Thanksgiving weekend of many great rivalry games.
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.