College football is the one of the most exciting amateur sports, that 37+ Million fans attend each year, during the last quarter of the calender year. There is excitement, great plays, upsets, and all performed by student athletes. The most challenging aspect of college football is rewarding those FBS programs the opportunity to be ranked within the college football polls as the best Top 25, at that moment in time, during that week. Those FBS programs who can sustain excellence with a high level of competition and attentional focus, will always be ranked with the better ranking. Wisconsin (11-0) from the Big 10 Conference has sustained their attentional focus and are still one (1) of only four (4) FBS programs with 0-losses this season. The key question is, can Wisconsin sustain that for one more week of their regular season and then receive one (1) of the four CFP playoff spots? In a field of 16 Wisconsin is already in even if they lost their last regualr season game to Minnesota.
For the past weeks from mid-October to this last part of rivalry weekend, there have been many upsets and great games played. This weekend coming will be the most entertaining weekend of all. There are at least 20+ games that will effect the rankings, the playoff picture, my field of 16, and how many 0-loss programs will remain. Wisconsin plays Minnesota on the road, Alabama plays Auburn on the road, Miami (Fla.) hosts Pittsburgh and Central Florida host South Florida. Who will remain standing at the end of the regular season with 0-losses. I believe that there will be 2 FBS programs ending the season at 0-losses.
Ranking teams, programs and individuals is not the easiest concept, but witholding a bias against or for each item you rank is key. Ranking should be based upon the current season’s work and how they accumulate their overall record in relationship to their overall schedule, non-conference schedule and conference schedule. Credibility is based upon how you perform against your schedule during the course of the season. All FBS programs that are associated or a member of a conference, each possesses has NO control over their conference schedule, but they do have COMPLETE control over their non-conference schedule. However, that non-conference schedule is developed with contracts signed years in advance with the pre-determination that the FBS program you are sheduling those non conference games minimally 2+ years in advance. All under the premise that the FBS program you scheudle will be successful, viable and competitive. If a FBS program schedules an FCS program (i.e. Mercer), your credibility should possess a negative effect. Research supports that when an FBS program schedules and plays an FCS program during the regular season at any point in time of that regular season and ALWAYS at home against the FCS program; FBS programs win 90+% of the time and by 4+ possessions or more (meaning by at least 28 Points or more), then that game should not count in your win total and held negatively against you. However, thew win and loss does count but not held in any negative aspect when subjectively assessing.
The review of this weeks rankings shows no changes in the Top 8 ranked placements from my previous week. The only aspects that does change within the weekly rankings are the data points and which data points I use to demonstarte a more descriptive ranking system with no bias. Here is this weeks rankings for college football at the FBS level.
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G |
| 1 | WISCONSIN (11-0) | (.500) 80 | (.481) 99 | (.361) 130 | (.449) 22 | 26 |
| 2 | ALABAMA (11-0) | (.576) 48 | (.562) 42 | (.393) 123 | (.556) 2 | 30 |
| 3 | MIAMI FLA. (10-0) | (.774) 2 | (.538) 67 | (.392) 124 | (.412) 33 | 22 |
| 4 | CENTRAL FLORIDA (10-0) | (.484) 87 | (.509) 84 | (.446) 101 | (.560) 18 | 18 |
| 5 | OKLAHOMA (10-1) | (.412) 109 | (.481) 100 | (.465) 92 | (.551) 3 | 18 |
| 6 | GEORGIA (10-1) | (.645) 22 | (.593) 19 | (.510) 56 | (.471) 13 | 24 |
| 7 | CLEMSON (10-1) | (.576) 49 | (.563) 40 | (.492) 74 | (.406) 38 | 28 |
| 8 | USC (10-2) | (.636) 24 | (.545) 59 | (.438) 106 | (.408) 37 | 21 |
| 9 | MEMPHIS (9-1) | (.500) 81 | (.487) 96 | (.464) 95 | (.490) 9 | 14 |
| 10 | SOUTH FLORIDA (9-1) | (.206) 129 | (.367) 130 | (.411) 119 | (.438) 25 | 24 |
| 11 | NOTRE DAME (9-2) | (.574) 56 | (.641) 3 | (.787) 1 | (.430) 27 | 19 |
| 12 | BOISE STATE (9-2) | (.591) 44 | (.541) 66 | (.544) 34 | (.452) 21 | 23 |
| 13 | OHIO STATE (9-2) | (.697) 10 | (.553) 55 | (.417) 114 | (.531) 4 | 22 |
| 14 | PENN STATE (9-2) | (.516) 73 | (.563) 41 | (.514) 55 | (.462) 19 | 29 |
| 15 | SAN DIEGO STATE (9-2) | (.667) 17 | (.467) 107 | (.421) 112 | (.400) 43 | 16 |
| 16 | TOLEDO (9-2) | (.452) 99 | (.479) 102 | (.518) 52 | (.503) 8 | 19 |
| 17 | WASHINGTON (9-2) | (.545) 59 | (.512) 81 | (.411) 115 | (.489) 10 | 25 |
| 18 | TCU (9-2) | (.455) 92 | (.504) 87 | (.479) 86 | (.384) 49 | 29 |
| 19 | AUBURN (9-2) | (.484) 88 | (.622) 10 | (.579) 16 | (.469) 15 | 26 |
| 20 | WASHINGTON STATE (9-2) | (.500) 82 | (.549) 56 | (.473) 88 | (.400) 44 | 27 |
| 21 | TROY (8-2) | (.545) 60 | (.404) 126 | (.442) 103 | (.344) 76 | 18 |
| 22 | OKLAHOMA STATE (8-3) | (.313) 122 | (.473) 105 | (.493) 73 | (.506) 7 | 20 |
| 23 | STANFORD (8-3) | (.613) 34 | (.564) 39 | (.479) 85 | (.446) 23 | 15 |
| 24 | NORTHEWESTERN (8-3) | (.273) 126 | (.477) 103 | (.458) 97 | (.347) 75 | 19 |
| 25 | MICHIGAN STATE (8-3) | (.576) 50 | (.583) 25 | (.500) 63 | (.292) 108 | 25 |
Honorable Mentioned: Michigan, Virginia Tech, Florida Atlantic, North Texas, Army, Northern Illinois, Ohio, Fresno State, LSU, Mississippi State and South Carolina all are (8-3).
Key: A-Rank Order; B- Team and Current Overall Record; C- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Non-Conference Schedule and Rank within that Categorical Variable; D- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Overall Regular Season Schedule and Rank within that Categorical Variable; E- Percentage Rate of the ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Conference Schedule and Rank, F- Percentage Rate of your Offensive Efficiency and Ranking within that Categorical Variable (described as: number of offensive and defensive possessions that results in points). G- Defensive Efficiency Rating (described as: number of times that your teams Defense were successful in possessing 3 consecutive stops against your opponent when they possessed the ball and stopped them from scoring (3 consecutive stops equals 1)).
As of this time of the current college football season there are 70 bowl eligible FBS programs with six (6) wins or more, and 18 more waiting in the wings with five (5) wins. At the four (4) win level and now with only two (2) opportunities to become bowl eligible; there are two (2) four (4) win FBS programs that can still earn bowl eligibility. There are only two (2) weeks remaining in the season; It’s going to be exciting, fun and heart breaking for some of these FBS programs.
If you plan on using any of my ideas, thoughts or rankings to disucss publically in print, web based media postings or on air debates either in television or radio; please adhere to the APA/MLA policies and procedures when citing sources.
My book “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Solutions” (Siggelow, 2016); is the published research, The book is available at lulu.com