First 2018 Weekly College Football Ranking


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.


Alabama and Coach Saban, Magician and Pied Piper


First let me compliment Coach Saban on his coaching career with his ability to maintain the passion for coaching a sport at the highest level of college athletics, shaping the minds of young men and women and being a mentor for student athletes in which he has come in contact with for many years. I wish no harm or negative effects to Coach Saban, his family and career in college athletics. in August 2018, ESPN selected to air the time spent by Coach Saban with his recruits at his home and the Alabama training days to give you an inside look within Coach Saban and Alabama. I am in full support in what ESPN did with that segment.

With that said, it’s incumbent of me to offer you some information about Alabama football and Coach Saban in which the main stream media  won’t tell you or is afraid to examine about Coach Saban and his reign at Alabama. Fact, yes Coach Saban has won 4 BCS Titles and 2 CFP Titles, Coach Saban’s overall record at Alabama is (127-20), with some of those wins earned in bowl games. These are all facts that can not be argued against. However, ever wonder how Coach Saban and Alabama has possessed this type of success at the FBS level play at Alabama since (2007)? Is this magical run been perfomed by skill, luck, significant advantages in key areas of the sport or in other ways? Let me offer you a different perspective about the Alabama success and Coach Saban’s successes since (2007).

As the title of the posting says, “Magician and Pied Piper”, this best describes Coach Saban. I would best describe Coach Saban as the best magician of all within coaching college football. The most intersting dichotomy of this description is that the sports media “experts” do not even realize what Coach Saban has performed right under their very noses and eyes. Coach Saban did not use magical boxes, saw a lady in half, levitate, appear… disappear and re-appear, or smoke and mirrors. Coach Saban used mis-direction and card tricks to make sure that the sports media “experts” had their eyes and minds elsewhere while he pulled of the magicians trick. Interesting, I have been watching this trick unfold since (1996) with the SEC and once Coach Saban arrived at Alabama in (2007).

Here is what the sports media “experts” fail to recognize and report on about Coach Saban at Alabama, either because they have a financially invested interests into the SEC or lacks the congintive abilities to comprehend how the magician pulled off the trick. These are facts, just like a District Attorney performing and investigating a murder case. They gather facts, not follow hypothesis and theories with abillity to draw a conclusion with the evidence. Since Coach Saban’s hiring at Alabama, Alabama has scheduled (44) NCG’s during the BCS and CFP era’s. Of those (44) NCGs, (42) of them or 95.4% of them have been scheduled and played at home or regional home field advantage sites; such as Atlanta, Dallas or Orlando. There is the magic trick the media won’t speak of or report on. This means that in (11) college football season under the Saban era at Alabama, they have only played on the road for (2) traditional style NCG’s; at Duke in (2010) and at Penn State in (2011). This gives the ultimate illusion with relationship to their win loss records as better than any other FBS program. This data also includes that during the CFP era, Alabama has not played (1) NCG on the road AT another FBS/P5/G5 stadium site. Moreover, the sports media, gives high praise to the SEC and Alabama for how they have acheived their success, but won’t tell you how the magician pulled of the greatest trick and illusion to be as successful.

There, the trick and mirage like perception of Alabama, the SEC and Coach Saban has been revealed. Sure, check the data and historic schedules if you want, but let me save you your time. Do your best to determine if I am lying or not “truth” telling. Yes, the Alabama fans will say; ” we played in Atlanta”, ” we played in Dallas”, ” we played in Orlando”… ” those are road games”.  Yes, you are right, they are road games with regional home field advantage built into the perception in which YOU need to control to be successful. Is it that the reality of the matter becomes that the SEC, Alabama and Coach Saban are fearful of playing in other P5/G5 stadium sites outside of the region of the Southeast? I cannot prove this but, what the historical data and evidence tells us is that the implied impression, perception and reality of what has been scheduled offers conclusive evidence that the “fear of losing” or the “fear of losing that stranglehold on the money, title and prestige” would ruin their image to ESPN or other constituencies. I believe that if the SEC FBS football programs were required to play outside of their comfort zone of regional HFA, then they would not possess the successes in which they currently have now. However, we will never know because the SEC FBS football programs do not play West of College Station, TX; West of Columbia, MO; or North of Lexington, KY. The SEC fears the other P5 FBS programs in prestigious conferences.

Can you only imagine if Coach Meyer at Ohio State, Coach Kelly at Notre Dame, Coach Harbaugh at Michigan, Coach Peterson at Boise State and Washington, Coach Leach at Washington State, Coach Stoops at Oklahoma when he was there, Coach Alveraz, Coach Niumatolo at Navy, Coach Gundy at Oklahoma State, Coach Ferentz at Iowa, Coach Carey at Northern Illinois, Coach Solich at Ohio, Coach Shaw at Stanford and any other FBS P5/G5 head football coach outside of the SEC would say, if they could play 95% of their NCG’s at home and not be required to play road games or even be required to travel to the SEC region of the country to play SEC programs. I could speculate that these coaches could have won National Championships as well. You are aware that published peer reviewed research and published reasearch in book form proves and supports the home field advantage theory in relationship to a better overall won loss record and greater success.

Here is an interesting tidbit of information, proof shown that many SEC programs have qualified for the Men’s and Women’s basketball tournament, Men’s Baseball Tournament and Women’s Softball tournament in the 2017-2018 NCAA sports season. When these tournament brackets were narrowed down to a select group of regional play and the SEC programs were required to play in other regions of the country to qualify for the National Championship brackets, seems that the results indicate that the SEC CANT play away from home and be successful as they are at home. Fact is that the only way the SEC could have immediate representation into the Men’s 2018 College Baseball World Series or the Women’s 2018 College Softball World Series, is they had to place (2) SEC programs against each other in the regional round to secure and guarentee (2) World Series berths. The only way the SEC is successful is if they control their NCG schedule to be played at home and as often as possible. Again, a point of emphasis that supports the fear of losing or the stranglehold on the financial prize.

How does the Pied Piper assimilation to Coach Saban come into play, please let me explain in important detail. Everyone knows the story of the Pied Piper of Hamelin. Eventhought this is not about rats, the plague or an epidemic. This is about Coach Saban leading the sports media “experts” on the whatever Coach Saban say’s tour and they believe it. Believing every word in which Coach Saban speaks, as if it were his own thoughts or idea on how to make college football better and the subject of the playoff system. The sports media “experts” hang on his every word like he were the best thing since the inception of bacon. Just like the Pied Piper, leading them to a story line which will give them the lead, because the words came from Coach Saban.

The best example of the Pied Piper assimilation with Coach Saban, starts with his media tour at ESPN during the month of July on the 27th day in the year (2017). For the past few years Coach Saban takes his time off from his busy schedule to visit or invited by ESPN to discuss college football. On this said date, Coach Saban was a guest on a television show produced and televised by ESPN called the SC6 with Michael and Jamele. During this interview Coach Saban was asked pertient questions about issues that needed to be addressed with college football at the FBS level of play. One of the primary quesitons asked by Jamele was in direct relationship to a Power Five Conference Scheduling forma and the college football playoff. Below is a partial transcript from the interview given, by Jamele with Coach Saban aired on the SC6 which video was later posted on Youtube.com:

Jamele: Are there some other things that you’ve seen that make you wonder about the direction, in where college football is headed. That our particular source of passion and, even again, in frustration from you?

Saban: Well, I have a completely different perception, I wish that we would play all power five schools. There would be no playing any school from one double A (1-AA), that’s not in a power five conference. Just like in the NFL. You play all NFL teams. You don’t play three (3 ) teams from Canada or the Canadian League or whatever so you can get your record good enough so you can get your record good enough to go to a bowl game.  And I think there would be more fan interest, ah I think it would be better for TV, ah I think that you could lose more than one (1) game and still have the opportunity to get into the playoff. Umm, and maybe if that were the case, and we did that, people would not be so worried about winning six (6) games to go to a bowl game. And maybe we would expand the playoff, which would even create more interest. (Saban, 2017)

The dichotomy within this statement and repsonse by Coach Saban is that he does not atone the the words in which he speaks. Alabama, Coach Saban and the SEC DOES consistently schedule lower level programs such as the FCS to “get their records good enough to go to a bowl game’ (Saban ,2017). Please Coach Saban, do not try to use a wave of the magic wand to make yourself look better than you actually are. Another magicians trick exposed. The most interesting aspect about this interaction between Coach Saban with Jamele, is that whatever Coach Saban states in his comments, the sports media “experts” hang on his every word as if it were gold or a “genius’ like thought. Even Coach Saban believes that college football needs to have a standardized, universal, cross conference, cross divisional  and balanced scheduling format, in addition to expanding the collage football playoff. Heather Dinich, ESPN college football analyst “expert”, responds to Coach Saban’s comment about the subject matter.

Heather Dinich writes; “ Saban’s theory for CFP is “so far out” that nobody will listen to him.

Saban states(tied into the P5 schedule)  that if we are going to have bowl games just like we do in the NCAA basketball tournament-not by record but by some kind of power rating that gets you into a bowl game. If we did that, people would be less interested un maybe bowl games and more interested in expanding the playoff”

Saban states “ and whether you expand the playoff or have a system where it’s like now – we take the Top 12 teams and decide what bowl games they go to—just take them all.”

Saban states “ there would be more opportunity to play more teams in your league, as well as to have more games that people would be more interested in. We all play three (3) or four (4) games a year now that nobody’s really interested in.We’d have more games, more public interest, more fan interest, better TV.”

Saban suggests “ a 10-games SEC schedule, for example during the regular season.”

FSU Head  Coach Jimbo Fisher expressed similar thoughts on a non-conference schedule.

Fisher states “ There is not enough games interconference play to help judge how you’re rating each league.” (SC6, 2017)

This leads me to believe that if Coach Saban verbalizes any statement over the airwaves of radio or television, then Coach Saban must possess a genius like thought that the sports media “experts” run with it and believe that he must be right. Thus, the Pied Piper assimilation with Coach Saban. As recent as July 24, 2018; Coach Saban took his yearly trip to visit the Expert Sports Programming Network, and took time to visit the ESPN show “First Take”, hosted by Molly Qurim. During the visit on the set of First Take, Coach Saban was asked a few questions about the upcoming college football season and issues in which it possesses, in how they determine their national champion at the end of the season. Below is the transcription of those key segments with Coach Saban, Molly Qurim and the co hosts.

Partial transcript taken from a guest appearance of Alabama Head Football Coach Nick Saban.

Molly Qurim: (continuation from a previous comment and question about another college football team… then breaks into the question) But Coach I want to ask you this. I was listening to Harbaugh earlier today at the Big 10 Conference, and he was saying, at the media conference, and he was saying that he want to see the College Football Playoff expanded, beyond four teams. Where do you stand on that?

Coach Saban: Well I think there is good and bad in both. I think that one of the great things about college football is bowl games always gave a lot of teams, fans, programs an opportunity to get a lot of (in audible) of gratification at the end of the season, if you qualified for a bowl game. I think the more playoffs you have the less significance bowl games have. And I think that those two things eventually will have a hard time co-existing. So, I think you first have to set the priority of what’s more important, having more bowl games and a small playoff, or bigger playoff and no bowl games. I think that’s an issue that somebody needs to resolve. I do think that because the less significance of bowl games, more and more players will probably choose not to play, like we have started to see now. Umm, and I guess, if you have more playoffs and the games have more significance, maybe more players will play, I don’t know. (Saban, 2018)

Question from one of the guest host to Coach Nick Saban: I’ve read today that you are interested in expanding the SEC schedule from 8 games to 9 games, SEC notoriously tough. Why are you interested in that expansion?

Coach Saban: I think somebody needs to step up in college football and get ahead of, you know dwindling attendance, people not coming to games, too many games people are not interested in. Uh, I think every player in the SEC should play every team in the SEC in their career and right now we don’t do that since we expanded now to 14 teams and we only play 8 SEC games. I’ve been for that for a long time. I’m also for playing, every game as a power five game. So you play 10 games, 9, 10 games in the SEC and you play 2 other power five schools. So when people go to buy tickets and pay premium for all that. You know they are not seeing Division 2 schools, they’re seeing that they are playing 5 SEC schools and Oklahoma this year at home. I mean, I think that’s a good thing for college football, It’s a good thing. And everybody says we got to win 6 games to go to a bowl game. We’ll select people to go to a bowl game, if they could do the basketball tournament. It’s not based on record, it’s based on RPI, or you know schedule strength, and those types of things and do the same thing in football. So, I just think from a big picture fan stand point. You know playing a bunch of games that nobody is interested in, is not good for the game. Ah, Ah, it’s not good. And then our players, you know when you been playing SEC games they are not interested in playing somebody that does not matter. (Saban, 20

These are prime examples of what Coach Saban says to the media and they media “experts” hang on his every word as valid and possessing legitimacy. This is why I relate the Pied Piper reference of Coach Saban to the media. Coach Saban may have valid comments, however, someone has addressed, researched, investigated, published and protected the findings and alternative solution for an expanded playoff that would be inclusive to all FBS programs, congruent with the bowl system without eliminating any the bowl games and season. As per Coach Saban’s comment about the SEC playing a 9 or 10 game conference schedule. With the current membership numbers, the SEC can possess a 9 game conferenece schedule. However, with the current membership, the SEC CANNOT possess a 10 game conference schedule. I have already performed the scheduling grid and a 10 games SEC schedule does not work and cannot be implimented.

As per Coach Saban’s comments about playing a “Division 2” school within his current schedule, maybe he needs to know who is on his schedule and the classifications of those scheduled games before he espouses. During Coach Saban’s tenure at Alabama, he has scheduled and played a lower level classification but not Division 2. That lower level classification Alabama and the SEC plays are called FCS (Football Championship Subdivision) programs. The FCS are or were classified as Division 1-AA. As per Coach Saban’s comment about  wanting to play Oklahoma at home on his schedule or playing 10 SEC Conference games and 2 P5 (Power Five Conference) programs. Maybe Coach Saban should take his team to Oklahoma, or to Michigan, or to Palo Alto, or  to Pullman, or to Southern California or other FBS P5 program stadiums. That too has already been addressed, solved and can be implimented at the FBS level of college football now. What Coach Saban is asking of is an NFL like scheduling format. I call this a universal, balanced, cross conference, cross divisional and standardized scheduling format. This type of scheduling format and idea is clearly explained in detail in my published book titled “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts, Evidence and Solution”  (Siggelow, 2013 & 2016) located in Chapter 16, titled “Balanced Schedule: Possible or Impossible” (Siggelow, 2013 & 2016). This same subject was also published and researched previously in by the same author in the book titled “College Football in the BCS ERA, The Untold Truth: An Analysis of Factors that supports the 16-Team Playoff Model” (Siggelow, 2013) located in the Appendix portion of the literary work.

When Coach Saban speaks out, or claims that someone or someone within college football should address these issues, then I am not sure if they hear him or if someone outside of the college football arena has already investigated this issue. Let me be the first to acknowledge Coach Saban, that these issues have already been addressed, solved and published. Coach Saban and the President of Alabama Dr. Bell both received copies of my book and letters addressing possible copyright protection breach. What the mainstream sports media “experts” believe is that because there are titles attached to names such as; Sports Analysts, Sports Writers, Coaches, Director of Athletics or Commissioners is they must possess the cognitive abilities to address and provide a better solution to the problem of an expanded college football playoff or a standardized scheduling format. However, an academic, with a Master’s Degree in Athletic Administration, Sports Management, Kinesiology and Sports Studies with a research certification from the University of Miami of Florida has already published findings in realtionship to this subject matter and more. The dicotomy is that this academic who used a higher cognitive, problem solving skills set does not have a title attached to his name.

The irony in this post is telling the truth and being investigative enough to read and learn about what has been published or in print by peer reviewed educators. I believe that the character, Colonel Jessup from the movie A Few Good Men; sums it up the best to the sports media, fans and so called “experts” “You can’t handle the truth” (Sorkin, 1992). I believe that the sports media “experts” do not know how to handle the truth or read higher congnitive level thinking from educators, because it possibly challenges their belief system of athletics and college football. Maybe Matthew McConaughey who played lawyer, Jake Brigance, in the movie titled “A Time To Kill” stated it best  in his closing arguements “ I had a great summation all worked out, full of some sharp lawyering. But I’m not going to read it. I’m here to apologize. I am young and I am inexperienced. But you cannot hold Carl Lee Hailey responsible for my shortcomings. You see, in all this legal maneuvering something has gotten lost, and that something is the truth. Now it is incumbent upon us lawyers not to just talk about the truth, but to actually seek it, to find it, to live it” (Milchan and Grisham, 1996).

To draw a conclusion on this lengthy post, by providing the facts, evidence and truths against certain college football topics makes me knowledgeable almost expert like within the subject matter. However, since I do not possess a title to my name, i feel that many within social, television and print media feel that I am inadequate to address the problems within college football at the highest level and provide an improved alternative solution which is Utiliatarianistic. I get the sense that those within the media believe I possess a conspiracy theory and an agenda to derail the SEC. My agenda is to bring to light an improved and expanded college football playoff format, an improved college football ranking system, an improved scheduling format and an improved selection and seeding process which is inclusive for all FBS programs and not “exclusive” to a select group. Just becuase I use my brain to address and solve problems in college football and athletics does not make me different. It makes me a viable asset to someone in college athletics.

To the media, I am available for phone interviews or I can plan time to be an in studio guest to discuss these college football matters further and address any questions you may possess. To the media, do not be afraid to say you are wrong, or expand your horizons beyond the World Wide Web and what is being published. Those academics, like myself use the APA/MLA format to support our thoughts, theories, arguments and solutions.

in closing, if any of the sports media or mainstream college football fan reads, and wishes to share my posts; please remember where you read the information and always give credit where credit is due. Always use the APA/MLA citation format.

References

Entertainment Sports Programming Network (ESPN) (2018). First Take; Hosted by Molly Qurim. Found on the World Wide Web.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdrLpzlgraA. Topic Discussed: Alabama Coach Nick Saban Sees Good and Bad With Expanding the College Football Playoff. Airdate: July 24, 2018.

Entertainment Sports Programming Network (ESPN) (2017). SC6; Hosted by Michael Smith and Jemele Hill. Found on the World Wide Web. ESPN.com, http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=20165321.  Interviwer: Heather Dinich; ESPN Senior Sports Writer for College Football. Topic Discussed:Nick Saban envisions changing regular-season schedule, College Football Playoff Nick Saban Interview Transcription/theory of a P5 scheduling concept. Airdate: July 26, 2017.

Milchan, A. and Grisham, J. (1996). (Producers). Schumacher, J. (Director). Goldsmam, A. (Screenplay). [A Time To Kill] Motion Picture. Warner Brothers.

Siggelow, Matthew (2013 & 2016). College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Solutions. Lulu.com. Print.

Sorkin, A. (1992) (Screenplay). Reiner, R., Brown, D. & Scheinman, A. (Producers). Reiner, R. (Director). [A Few Good Men] Motion Picture. Castel Rock Entertainment.

 


Southeastern Conference Review… Let the Truth Be Told


In the words of Justin Hayward (1967) from the Moody Blues:

Cold hearted orb that rules the night

 Removes the colors from our sight

 Red is grey, and yellow, white

 But we decide which is right

And which is an illusion” 

(Hayward, 1967)

The Southeastern Conference (SEC) has pulled off the GREATEST magicians illusion trick ever from 1996 to the current FBS CFP college football season. Since the inception of the Bowl Coalition Alliance (BCA) into the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) and now in the infancy, young adolescent stages of the College Football Playoff (CFP); the commissioners past and present with stakeholders or power brokers with deep pockets have pulled of an illusion that not even the sports media “expert” cannot fathom to understand. The best slight of hand trick used on the sports media “experts” such as ESPN College Game Day host and crew, the ESPN college football analysts “experts” of Heather Dinich, Mr. Paul Finebaum, Chris Low; ESPN SEC blog writter, Mr. Bill Hancock; CFP Executive Director, NCAA President Dr. Mark Emmert and all those who served on the BCS or CFP selection committees; and they don’t even realize it.

Magicians will never tell you how their greatest illusions are performed, but we as an audience have to figure it out. Let me explain to you how this magicians trick was performed by the SEC. What you are about to read are statistical data FACTS. These are not fabrications, stretched truths, manuipulated numbers or un-checked historcal facts. The illusion of the SEC is to make sure that the perception or mis-direction of what is being perceived as the “best” college football conference, is all smoke and mirrors. Please allow me to explain.

Fact, yes during the BCS era the SEC won 8 National Championships, 7 of which were in a row. The illusion of the trick for winning so many BCS titles in a row was done by subjective assessments from the BCS computerized formulas, manipulation of ranking subjectively within the USA Today Coaches Poll, the Harris Interactive Poll and the media polls, and the most important part of the trick; NOT playing as many non conference games on the road compared to the rest of the BCS/Non-BCS programs. No Risk, and all the reward for not playing any other P5 or FBS program on the road. By significantly taking full advantage of your non conference schedules to make you look better than you really are, is the illusion. This is the smoke, mirrors and illusion of these magicians.

FACTS, during the BCS era as a conferencer group, the SEC possessed a home field advantage rate (HFAR) of 80%. That is the highest amongst all FBS conferences during the BCS era. Of the fourteen(14) SEC programs; seven (7) of them possessed a HFAR of greater than 81% or greater. The range of these seven (7) SEC programs HFAR range from 81.25% (Florida and Tennessee) to 90.77% (Alabama). The other SEC programs not mentioned are; Arkansas, Auburn, Georgia and LSU. By possessing this significant advantage in the HFA, then published research by other educators and myself, proved that with home field advantage, there is a direct relationship to a better or improved win-loss percentage and record. During the BCS era, the SEC scheduled (628) home games with (157) road games. Only Alabama and Auburn scheduled (6) road games during that (18) year stretch. This includes playing scheduled games in regional home field advantage sites where their SEC fans have greater advantage to attend creating a home field atmosphere. Thus, possesssing a more familiar environment to the players and coaches. This creates a significant advantage for the SEC.

During the BCS era, the SEC’s non-conference record was (631-153), with (124) of those wins versus FCS programs. Rather than schedule FBS games at other FBS sites, the SEC Democritusly schedules FCS opponents at the end of the regular season, right before rivalry week. The reason being is, if an SEC programs current record is (5) wins with (2) weeks to go, then they can earn or be given that sixth win to make them bowl eligibel prior to rivalry week. Thus, securing more financial means with bowl games they possess contractual alliances with. As the BCS era transitions into the CFP era, many of the major FBS P5 conferences are transitioning out of FCS contracts and scheduling (1) more conference game or other FBS quality level programs.

The SEC stayed the course and continued their non conference scheduling practices with significant home field advantages. During the CFP era, the SEC has scheduled (275) NCG’s. Of those (275) NCG’s, (228) or 82.9% are scheduled at home. Of those (228) NCG home games, (66) or 28.9% are scheduled versus FCS opponents at home. Those (228) home NCG’s by the SEC is the highest number of home NCG’s compared to any other FBS Conference. That is (42) more home games than the second highest P5 Conference the ACC. During the CFP era, the SEC has only scheduled, (47) away NCG’s. During the CFP era, the SEC win-loss record is  (177) wins with (41 losses). This gives the SEC a percentage success rate, excluding the 2018 FBS season, as (.812).

Of the (14) SEC programs, Alabama has YET to play a NCG on the road, at another FBS programs site, in their stadium. Alabama has scheduled (20) home NCG’s and (0) away NCG’s. Yes, many of you will argue, “well, we played in Atlanta, or Dallas or Orlando.” Or others will say, especially the sports media “experts” or the fans, ” Well we dont have to play them in their sites or travel to far, becuase we are the best and the best should have home field advantage. Or better yet, I heard this excuse while at the National Championship Game in Atlanta in January; “If we played roads games against other FBS programs Tuscaloosa would lose money and Alabama fans can’t go to those away games.”  All great excuses to control all aspects of the scheduling to avoid losing to quality P5 or FBS programs. What many of you fail to understand is that those sites are SEC home field regional advantages.

Examining the SEC programs NCG’s further, (10) of the (14) SEC programs possess a NCG home field advantage of 80% or greater during the CFP era. Of the remaining (13) SEC programs, excluding Alabama which was already dissected, (3) SEC programs have played (2) NCG’s away, (4) SEC programs have played (3) NCG’s away, (1) SEC program has played (4) NCG’s away,  (2) SEC programs have played (5) NCG’s away and (1) SEC program has played (6) NCG’s away. By controlling the NCG schedule, this allows the SEC to maintian this smoke and mirror like image of being the best, with less risk in the NCG schedule and all the reward at the end with greater opportunity to make them look better than they actually are. Do not forget, that during the 2018 FBS season the SEC has scheduled (15) FCS programs. Just more viable facts that supports that the SEC and their programs fear losing and playing against P5 or FBS programs on the road.

These facts and researched data points allows the ability for someone like myself, to paint a real picture of the SEC. Offering up arguments and the reality against the SEC to the CFP selection committee in which subjective assessments are made, when selecting and ranking the FBS programs for the opportunity to compete for the trophy, prestige and the $50 Million dollars on the table. The reality is the SEC is not the best college football conference of the FBS. Their image and perception is all done by smoke, mirrors and a magicians trick to make you believe they are the best, when in reality, they have manipulated the variables in their favor.

From my perspective,  the SEC is only champion of the region that spans from East of College Station Texas; to as Far Northwest in Fayetteville, Arkansas and Columbia, Missouri; as far North as Lexington, Kentucky, as far Northeast as Columbia, South Carolina and all places below that imaginary line. The ONLY SEC football program I have the utmost respect for is LSU; at least they are willing to take risks in their NCG schedule and play in Wisconsin, in South Bend and other hostile environments to prove themselves. Until Alabama and the remaining (12) SEC programs, excluding LSU, plays in Ann Arbor, in Columbus, in South Bend, in Madison, in Palo Alto, in Southern California, in Tempe, in Boise, in Pullman, in Seattle, in Eugene, in Lincoln, in Stillwater, in Norman, in Minneapolis, in Ames, in Iowa City, in Dekalb, in Provo, in Reno, in Blacksburg, in Morgantown, in Pittsburgh, in Lansing, in State College, and other FBS program stadium sites rather than schedule FCS opponents at the end of the year, then all the SEC is Champion of is it’s own region in the Southeast.

To draw a conclusion on this posting, the SEC will never release their stranglehold on which gives them the best strategic and Democritusly driven advantage to the prize, notoriety and prestige. Until someone stand up to the bullies of college football, and tells them NO we are not playing you there, you have an open invitation to come play here, then things wont change. Or, if there was a standardized, balanced, cross conference, cross divisional scheduling format, like the National Football League (NFL), that cannot be manipulated, then the bullies will still get there way. Time for a change and change is coming. It takes the right group of educated minds to address this issue and bring it ot the forefront. I have the research and data to support the change in college football scheduling and an expanded 16- team playoff which is inclusive to all FBS programs and not the group of 65.

When you read my postings and wish to comment on the airwaves of television or radio, in addition to in print on blog pages, news paper or on social media; please remember where you read it first and use the APA/MLA citation formats.

Next Post: Coach Saban and Alabama, Magician and Pied Piper.

Hayward, Justin (1967). Nights In White Satin. Released by The Moody Blues. Days of Future Past. Available on Cassette, CD and Record. Recorded at Decca Studios, West Hampstead, London, UK. Dream Record Label .Recorded May 9, 1967 through November 3, 1967.


The Group of Five Conferences and Independents Review


The Group of Five Conferences (G5) are like the Rodney Dangerfield of College Football at the FBS level. No matter how hard they try or end the season (13-0) or (12-0), they will NEVER receive any RESPECT and notoriety from the power brokers and sports media “experts” with entry into the CFP playoffs. The only prize the G5 are capable of earning at the end of the year is the Brides-Maid Prize with one entry into the New Years Day/Eve Six Bowl Games. Oh Wait, that’s IF and only IF any G5 FBS member MEETS SPECIFIC criteria established by the CFP Committee to determint their eligibilty and viability.

” It’s cold comfort to the ones without it   

    to know how they stuggle

   how there’s something about it” 

(Peart, 1987)

The Group of Five Conferences (G5); this group includes the American Athletic Conference (AAC),  Confernece USA (CUSA), the Mid-American Conference (MAC), the Mountain West Conference (MWC), the Sun Belt Conference (SBC) along with Independent programs of Army, BYU, Liberty, New Mexico State and UMASS. This is the group that is often forgotten about, never given just due credit and or receives the “bridesmaid prize” in the New Years Day Six bowl games. The mainstream sports media “experts” believe they are not good enough to compete for the $50 Million dollar prize on the table, plus the Gold Trophy and finally called National Champion of College Football with the notoriety that comes along with it. What the sports media “experts” probably do not know is that there are several G5 programs that should have competed for the National Championship for CFB at the FBS level. Those programs include but limited to; Boise State, Central Florida, Marshall, Tulane, Northern illinois, Western Michigan and few others.

So what is it that the subective media and the coaches who rank dont like about these valued G5 programs? They all follow the same NCAA Bylaws as the P5 programs, they also abide by the Title IX rules set forth by the governing bodies of college athetics, they meet NCAA Bylaw 20, they also make sure they meet NCAA Bylaw 3.1 through 3.7. Another intersting fact is that these FBS G5 members can compete for the other 15+ NCAA sponsored athletic sports championships at the end of their seasons, but only in college football at the FBS level are they vehemetly denied access to the National Championship. More on this subject matter in a later blog post. Lets disucss the G5 data and statistics compared to the P5 posting.

During the BCS era, the Non-BCS programs, now called the G5 Conferences and programs were at a non conference scheduling dis-advantage. They were required to travel to BCS or P5 programs sites or regional home field advantage sites to play scheduled games. That dis-advantage within the non conference schedule was prevelant during the BCS era of college football and is still a dis advantage to the G5 programs in the CFP era. Of the the 2458 NCG’s scheduled in the CFP era, the G5 scheduled 1300 NCG’s or or 52.8% were played either home or away. Of those 1300 NCG’s, 650 or 50% were equally scheduled both home and away. That is not where this NCG scheduling dis advantage takes place, the G5 scheduled 200 less games home games compared to the P5 or 23.6% less opportunity to play at home versus P5 opponents. It’s very RARE if a P5 FBS program plays a G5 program at the G5 home field site.

This indicates that the G5 FBS programs have a decreased chance or opportunity to gain financial dollars for home games compared to the G5 FBS programs. Within the research of NCG’s G5 programs are more than likes to only play 1 or maybe 2 home games during their non conference schedule. Of those 1 or 2 home NCGs, the G5 FBS programs are almost forced to schedule FCS opponents at home just to have a 5th or 6th home game. This indicates that the G5 programs possess not only home field dis-advantage in their NCG schedule, but financial strangle hold against the G5 FBS prorgams decreasing their financial growth and to increase tax based dollar and absorb the ripple effect from it.

Of the G5 Conferences and programs, only the AAC and the MWC possess a Non Conference schedule advantage of greater than 50% during the CFP era. The AAC possesses an Non Conference scheduling (NCS) percentage rate of 59% and the MWC Conference possesses a Non Conference scheduling percentage rate of 53.4% both during the CFP era. The remaining G5 Conferences all possess a NCS percentage rate between 43-48%. Of the 1300 NCG’s scheduled during the CFP era, the G5 possesses an overall win loss record of 450 wins and 568 losses at a percentage rate of (.442). This does not include the 2018 FBS college football season since this data was compiled before the start of the 2018 FBS season. This win loss percentage rate is reflective of being forced or required to play more road NCG’s during the regular season.

Of the 650 home NCG’s scheduled by G5 programs, 286 or 44% are scheduled at home versus FCS opponents. Of the 450 wins accrued by the P5 programs, 197 of them or 43% are earned against the lower football subdivision the FCS. This gives the perception to the subjective voters, sports media “experts” that the wins earned by G5 FBS members are not quality wins, becuase they did not play tougher competition. Even when the G5 programs do  schedule a NCG with a P5 member and win, the sports media “experts”, subjective voters or coaches do not give credit where credit is due when it occurs. They believe that any P5 loss to a G5 FBs program would be considered a fluke.

The key question is, what will it take for any G5 program to be taken seriously and considered to the College Football Playoff for the 4 teams? I believe that even if any G5 program played all their NCG’s on the road, won them all making them (4-0) , then played all their conference games on the road and won them all making them (8-0), win the conference championship on the road making them now (13-0), then the supposed “experts” of the CFP selction commitee would find a way to dis-credit the G5 program and say they did not earn the chance to play in the CFP 4-team playoff.

” There is unrest in the forest

  there is trouble with the trees

 for the maples want more sunlight

 and the oaks ignore their pleas”

(Peart, 1978)

What many of the sports media “experts” do not understand or fail to comprehend is that the G5 FBS programs have a tougher road to the CFP 4 team playoff becuase of credibity or viability concerns. Maybe if these so called sports media “experts” re-read paragraphs in this blog post, comprehended and read those vital areas of the NCAA Bylaws in which I stated, Title IX and then read about how the Sherman Act of 1890 plus the Clayton Act of 1914 all work congruent with each other, then these so called “experts” would be writting or preaching a different tune.

To conclude, to all P5 programs, be aware of those G5 programs who have nothing to lose but everything to gain by earning victories against the P5. They too play by the rules of college football all within the NCAA manual and bylaws.

All of this and more can be read in my book “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Solution” (Siggelow, 2013 & 2016), available at lulu.com. My book is researched based and can be applied to the CFP Era as well.

Remember please adhere to MLA/APA format if you plan on citing my blog page. Always give credit where credit is due, Just do not take my thoughts and claim them as your own.

Next post: The Southeastern Conference (SEC). What will be exposed in that blog post…..stay tune.

Peart, Neil. (1978). “The Trees”. Recorded by Rush. Hemispheres. Available on Cassette, CD and Record. Recorded at Rockfield Studios. South Wales UK. Anthem, Atlantic, Epic/Sony and Mercury. Released 7/1978.

Peart, Neil. (1987) “Mission”. Recorded by Rush. Hold Your Fire. Available on Cassette, CD and Record. Recorded at the Oxforshire; Ridge Farm Studios, Surrey. AIR Studios, Montserrat; and McClear Place, Toronto, Canada. Anthem, Atlantic, Epic/Sony, Mercury and Vertigo. Released 8/1987.

 

 


The Power Five Conferences and Notre Dame CFP Review


The college football season will begin in a few short days and the majority of the discussions across the airwaves will be dominated by the discussion of the Power Five Conferences (P5). The Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), the Big 10 Conference (B10), Big 12 Conference (B12), the Pacific 12 Conference (P12) and the Southeastern Conference (SEC) are the five conferences of the FBS level of college footbal in which are classified as the Power Five Conferences. The sports media “experts” will be openly discussing which P5 conference is the best within that classified group. Each P5 conference possesses their own distinctive small group of prestigious football members who have earned historic accolades and notoriety.

We are entering into fifth year of the College Football Playoff (CFP) format, in which ONLY P5 conference programs have competed for the money, prestige, notoriety and trophy. What the mainstream sports media will not tell you is how the P5 Conferneces and their members receive greater opportunities to compete for the previously mentioned. There is data that proves and supports that the power brokers of college football only want the “primary” name brand college football programs in the CFP. However, what does the data tell us about the P5 and their members?

The primary questions that needs to be addressed is, what the mainstream sports media “experts” fail to recognize or comprehend is that the majority of the P5 conference commissioners, athletic directors and coaches need to control their non conference schedule to strategically position themselves for greater viable recognition and rewards. Historically, during the BCS Era in college football at the FBS level, research and data significantly showed that both the BCS/P5 Conferences and programs possessed and still possess a significantly higher percentage rates in relationship to home field advantage within their non confernce schedule. With this advantage in home field advantage of playing more non conference games at home, there is a direct relationship to a significantly better win loss percentage rates. These non conference scheduling Democritusly driven habits, have not changed during the CFP Era of college football and there is indication that the data shows that those home field advantages within the P5 non confernece schedules continue to rise.

Prior to the start of the upcoming 2018 FBS college football season, the P5 conferences are scheduled to play 220 Non Conference Games (NCG’s) during the 2018 FBS season. Of those 220 NCG’s, 165 or 75% of the NCG’s are scheduled at home. Of those 165 home games for the P5, 48 or 29.1% are home games scheduled against lower level competition for the 2018 FBS college football season. That lower level of competition is within NCAA level of athletics but are classified as the FCS or Football Championship Subdivision. The break down of those 48 NCG’s versus the FCS programs per conference, determined that Southeastern Conference (SEC) scheduled the MOST FCS games at home with 15. With 6 of those 15 scheduled the second to the last week of the FBS season, to increase their chances of earning a bowl eligibility. The next highest FCS scheduling of games belongs to the ACC schedule 14 FCS games, all early in the FBS season. Followed by the PAC 12 with the scheduling of 9 FCS games, then the Big 12 scheduled 8 FCS games. Concluding the FCS scheduling with the Big 10 who only scheduled 2 FCS games. However, its interesting that the sports media “experts” will belittle the other 4 P5 conferences for their scheduling of the NCG’s, but will PRAISE the SEC for how they schedule their NCG’s.

Published researched performed by myself determined that historically when FBS programs scheduled FCS programs, the FBS programs on average, win by 4+ possessions or by at least 25 points or more during the BCS Era. During the current CFP Era, the P5 Conferences have increased their win average in points per game from 25 points to 29 points versus FCS opponents. Seems to me that there is NO current designed purpose for the FBS/P5 programs to schedule the FCS. This leaves the remaining 55 or 25% of their non conference games scheduled for the P5 conference programs on the road at other FBS programs sites.

This indicates that the majority of FBS/P5 programs play 3 home games and the rare 1 away game within their non conference schedule during the regular season. There is evidence that supports that several FBS/P5 programs schedule 3 or 4 home games and 0 away games within their non conference schedule during the regular season. More home games equals a better win loss record. Better win loss records equal greater opportunity to earn bowl bids and possibly secure a CFP bid or bids. This is how the P5 programs want to be perceived in reality. When in reality they hide behind fear. The fear of losing during the regular season, the fear of losing to a better opponent at the same level of classification, the fear of losing to the Group Of Five Conferences and their members, the fear to losing on the road, the fear of losing on the road to a P5 opponent and finally, the fear of losing the opportunity to compete for the CFP title.

Other statistical data that the sports media “experts” fail to recognize or just do not know about the P5 Conferences and their members possess a higher percentage rate in relationship to the category of playing more home games than away games. In addition to, possesing a higher win-loss percentage rate in relationship to their non confernece schedule. This has been a current and significant problem within college footbal within the NCAA level of athletics, but primarily at the FBS level of play and more specifically, within the P5 Conferences and their members. This was also conclusive and significant during the BCS era within the same level of play and classifications.

The research and data during the current CFP era shows that the P5 Conferences and their members have played and scheduled 1158 Non Conference games (NCG’s) from 2014 through the current 2018 FBS season. Of those 1158 NCG’s, 850 or 73.4% are scheduled as home games and or home regional site games. A home regional site game is a game played within a region closer to your home stadium. For example, Alabama, playing in Atlanta versus an opponent. Where as that opponent in which Alabama schedules travels a greater distance to play this scheduled game. Is there a problem in which Alabama cannot travel to that opponents region of the country? The reminaing 308 NCG’s for the P5 Conferences and programs were played on the road. This indicates that the P5 conferences and their members only play or schedule 26.6% of their games on the road versus FBS members.

Of those 1158 NCG’s for the P5, the P5 have recorded an overall record of 703 wins and 205 losses. This indicates that the win loss percentage rate is 75.8% in relationship to the NCG’s for the P5 for NCG’s played. The win loss totals have not been accounted for for the 2018 FBS season. Of those 703 wins, 90 or 12.8% of them are wins versus a lower level classification of college football the FCS. Rather than schedule FBS level classified NCAA footbal programs on the road, P5 group would rather schedule a game versus the lower level FCS for an automatic win and to increase their statistics and image. This is what the sports media “experts” will not tell you or fail to report on. There in NO need for this type of scheduling format and advanatge within college footbal at the FBS level.

I believe, can prove and demonstrate that the need for a standardized and balance scheduling format for the non conference scheduling aspect of games needs to be addressed.Thus, that style of a balanced scheduling format can exist and be more effective and efficient for college football at the FBS level. Interesting that a hgh profile head football coach named Nick Saban, from Alabama made comments similiar to what I just said two sentences ago. More intersting, that same idea, thought or comment Coach Saban said the previous two years on his visits to ESPN, have already been published and copyright protected by myself. I also have served notice to Coach Saban at Alabama and Alabama President; Dr. Bell that they are treading on thin ice and in jeapordy of copyright infringements.

The implementation of a standardized and balanced schedule is what the P5 conferences and power brokers do not want or are resistant to. It can not be proven with 100% with confidence, but if a P5 program losses to another FBS program on the road, they fear not being part of the CFP. To eliminate this fear and implement the type of scheduling in the previous statement, then at the FBS level of play they need to implement an expanded playoff format to 16 FBS programs which is inclusive, not “exclusive”. An expanded 16 team playoff format can be inpleimented into college football at the FBS level, published research proves it. This idea and more has been published and copyright protected since (2013) and then re-published and copyright protected in (2016) within specific chapters in my book.

If and when you read my blog page thank you for reading. If you plan on disucssing or using any of my ideas, thoughts or rankings to discuss 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. Always give credit where credit is due.

The book “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Solution” (Siggelow, 2016) is available at Lulu.com for 20% OFF. The link below should direct you to the page.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/matthew-j-siggelow/college-football-in-the-bcs-era-the-untold-truth-facts-evidence-and-solution/paperback/product-22978392.html

Next Post; The Group of Five Conferences and Independents Review


The 2018 College Football Season


Over the past 25+ days, the college football media has been a buzz, talking about who will make the playoffs, who will win the Heisman, which coach is on the hot seat, plus many more senstaive subjects in which they believe they are “experts” in. With that said, lets start posting.

In less 4 days, the FBS college football season will be starting. Which means during the last week of July and the first three weeks of August 2018, the sports media “experts” have been in a frenzy providing their feedback and analysis to the upcoming 2018 FBS College Football season. Articles within the subject matter of college football, more specifically of the FBS nature, will be published in various formats; from print within the major newspapers, to magazines, to web based publishing and Youtube videos. However, the most often used avenue to discuss college football will be across the radio and television air waves. I will be listening and reading along, like the rest of the 37+ MIllion college football fans and audience. My objective is to listen and read each word carefully in which they speak of, or write of, in an effort to catch them speaking or writing about non truths and then correcting them or offering the actual facts.

What will more than likely happen with these sports media “experts”, is they will only paint the picture that they believe that you to hear. This is called mind manipulation, without supportive information to back up the words in which they speak. The major sports media such as Experts Sports Programming Network, will spend countless hours discussing, promoting and playing video of how great the Southeastern Conference (SEC) is, their “dominance” in college football. They will discuss and show how wonderful Coach Saban is, create rankings and  then use a seasonal Football Prediction Indicator (FPI) of how the college football season will play out. ESPN has the market covered in the “crystal ball” methods of predictions. The majority of the time, ESPN fails to follow through on their predictions. In fact, there are many truths and facts that ESPN wont tell you about the SEC all due to the fact that ESPN holds a $2.25 Billion dollar investment into the SEC.

During the course of the 2018 college football season on my blog page, I won’t give you predictions of who will beat who and or, I wont give you predictions of who will be in the CFP playoffs before the season is completed. However, what i will provide for you is a seasonal ranking system which is researched based, and proven to be more accurate than the current rnaking systems in use. I do not use subjectivity in my ranking system, I use numerical data points which paints a much clearer picture. I examine and use multiple variables that the sports “experts” either are clearly un-aware of or lack the understanding how a multivariate ranking system can be efficient and more accurate. My college football season rankings do not start until the completion of the fourth week of the season. This means late September for my first rankings to be published. I will offer a ranking system weekly in a grid like format, offering explanation of the categories used to rank college fooball at the FBS level one(1) through twenty-five(25), plus the honorable mentioned. And finally, conclude with an expanded 16-team playoff for college football at the FBS level which is inclusive to all FBS programs, not exclusive. All FBS programs in college football are eligible to compete in my fictional, mock 16-team playoff field.

During the FBS college football season, I will be posting articles that will explore, dissect, investigate and offer the truths about each specific FBS conference and programs and both the Power Five Conferences and Group of Five Conferences as a whole. Truths that even the mainstream sports media “experts” either do not know, know and dont care to examine or better need to be given or spoon fed the information to open their eyes more on how Democritusly driven the CFP committee and the power brokers are in the CFP playoff system. A CFP system which is still bifurcated in the culmination of the end of the season for college football. A CFP playoff system that offers a prize of $50+ Millions dollars, the gold trophy and the prestige of being called “National Champion” for one (1) of sixty-five (65) FBS programs within the group of Power Confernece programs and includes Notre Dame.

The information I will provide for the college football audience is all reserched based, truthful and will be supported by MLA/APA citations to give credit when credit is due. Something that the sports media fails to understand, comprehend or even use. I believe that the sports media does not even know how to cite properly to support their comments or their beliefs.

I will address any questions you the college football audience may have in relationship to my postings and or findings. If you recite or use any of my information across the airwaves via television, radio or print, please follow the APA/MLA citation rules and give credit where credit is due.

Next Post: The Power Five Conference Review for 2018.

Book: College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Solution (Siggelow, 2013 & 2016). Available on Lulu.com. Get your copy now, by clicking the link in the upper right and corner.


College Football Playoff Expansion, but How Far to Expand


College football is one of the most presitgious amateur sports which possesses one of the largest fan bases of 37+ million fans,who either follow, watch or attend games during the course of the season. The problem with college football is in how they determine their national championship and how long it takes to start the process. The BCS system in (1998) was dependent on a computerized system to determine the best two (2) CFB programs and this process lasted too long. By the (2014) college football season, a new playoff format was being implemented due to the disgust from fans and media that the 2-team playoff was not right and there was a need for expansion. The next expansion for a college football playoff format was to expand to 4-teams, which was and is the next logical move. However, eventhough the CFP4 system is still in its infancy stages, there are a few primary issues with this CFP4 system.

A. The delayed start of the college football playoff does not start until New Year’s Weekend or day. Yes, the delayed start allows for injuries to heal and academic finals to be taken. However, the delayed start takes away form any momentum teams had at the end fo November or beginning of December. Its very hard to maintain performance standards when you stop playing for 25+ days. This type of delayed start is bad for the sport, fans and players. This is like telling the Men’s NCAA Basketball Tournament to start 3-weeks after the field of 68 are announced.

B. The next factor that effects the CFP4 is the validation and credibility of the selction committee members and the power brokers who control the process of selection and seeding. The committee members themselves should possess no direct relationship to the process and have no need to excuse themselves from the process. All thoughts and ideas, either good or bad, need to be heard from all committee members with no vested interest towards the final process. Time to select a committee that has possesses no external influences, vested interests and adheres to the selection process.

c. The most interesting factor that effects the CFP4 is that the protocol in the selection process changes year to year and that the power brokers and primary power broker; Mr. Bill Hancock; should have no influence or conference affiliation to the process. The selection process needs to be crystal clear and adhered to at the end of the final discussion without waverying from the process to accommodate those conferences with in which they are affiliated with either as alumni or have represented. Let’s call this the Hancock Process and the relationship with the Southeastern Confernence.

D. The most interesting factor that effects the CFP4 is that all FBS programs do not have just and equal opportunity to compete for the multi-million dollars on the table at a minimum of $50+ Million, the gold statue and the notoriety and prestige of being called “National Champion”. There have been several FBS programs during the BCS system and CFP system in which earned 0-loss or 1-loss final season records and have been left out of the playoff format. This has occured on both sides of the label/classification aisle of BCS/Power 5 Conference or Non-BCS/Group of Five Conferences. This suggests a time for expansion for the college football playoff to either eight (8) or sixteen (16) FBS programs.

These are just a few arguments against the CFP4 system and there are more.

Now that we have watched a a few seasons of the CFP4 playoffs, there is more controversy being disucssed to the disdain of how the CFP4 is being executed by the process and protocol. As this college football season concluded days ago and the National Championship Game in Atlanta possessed two FBS programs from the same conference, the media and fans would like to see expansion of the playoff in the future to the next phase of eight (8) FBS members. There have been many media member such as; Joel Klatt, Nick Wright and Danny Kannel, all three are sports media members from FOX Sports. All three (3) I believe were employed at one time in the past by ESPN.

I have reviewed, read and or listened to all three of their ideas of expanding the college football playoff to eight (8) FBS programs. All of which have posted their ideas/thoughts via the FOX Sports Facbook webpage. All three (3) ideas are similar in design and style. Each of these sports media members suggest taking each conference championship winner from each of the Power Five Conferences, and three (3) at large bids with one of those at-large bids being reserved for one (1) Group of Five Conference member. One of the three (3) media members, I believe it was Nick Wright that made one adjustment to the eight-team playoff theory pertaining to the three (3) at-large bids. He believes that you only invite a Group of Five Conference programs, if and only if, that G5 program ends the season at 0-losses or basically un-defeated.

What Nick Wright is asking of any of the (65) G5 FBS programs, student atheltes and coaching staff is an elitist, perfectionist and euphoric type situtation, that any blemish, loss, close loss or close win by any G5 FBS program automatically eliminates them from the playoff format. The next arguement against Nick Wright’s idea is if any G5 FBS program does complete the season with 0-loss, he will argue that their schedule strength was to weak or did not schedule a or a couple of quality opponnents to be considered for his eight (8) team playoff. There is always some form of scrutiny that the G5 FBS programs must succumb to be be viable and or credible enough to considered for a playoff spot.

What these three (3) sports media members do not realize, this includes a large group of media members and college football fans across the United States, is that there are rules, bylaws and laws in place that protects the G5 programs. I think the next step for a college football playoff format would be to jump to 16 teams. However. logic dictates that eight (8) is the next step. If an eight-team CFB playoff format is the next phase, then that phase needs to be implemented soon. Once the eight-team CFB Playoff is implemented, then the G5 FBS Conferences and Programs MUST have representation no matter if that G5 FBS program is the only 1-loss or 0-loss G5 program left. The G5 group of coaches, student athletes, and administration have more than earned the right to compete for the title of National Champion, the money that comes along with it, in addition to the notoriety and prestige; It’s time to break the “good ole boys network” either by process or legal action.

There is already published, copywritten and well researched material that supports that college football at the FBS level, can support and inplement a 16-team playoff format. This 16-team playoff does not extend the season any further than it does now and stays within the written bylaws of starting the college football season. The time is now to start the discussion and full presentation of an expanded playoff format to the college presidents, administrators, athletic directors, and coaches. I am available for presentaion.

If you plan on using any of my ideas, thoughts or rankings to discuss 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.

The book “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Solution” (Siggelow, 2016) is available at Lulu.com for 20% OFF. The link below should get direct to the page.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/matthew-j-siggelow/college-football-in-the-bcs-era-the-untold-truth-facts-evidence-and-solution/paperback/product-22978392.html

 


Final 2017 MOCK CFB Playoff Pairings For Field Of 16


The 2017 College Football season has come to it’s regular season conclusion, all except for the Army/Navy game this weekend. When the college football season draws to a conclusion, this sport possesses a post season events like none other to end the calendar year. They call it bowl season and the College Football Playoffs. This is reletively a new tradition that was started in (1996) with a two team playoff format called the BCS. That was suppose to be the “best” way to determine college football’s national champion. However, after a 12-year run, it was determined that the BCS system was a bifurcated system and many were calling for expanding the playoffs. The decision to only select two FBS teams to compete became tougher, because other FBS programs with similar or better records were left out and did not know the reason why. The BCS system ran its course, which allowed the power brokers of college fooball, Mike Slive, Bill Hancock, ESPN and a few other big name college football commissioners; decided to expand the college football playoff to four teams. Let’s expand to four teams and guess what, lets have a committee of “experts” select the four teams, develop criteria, change the criteria, not sure which criteria to use, have committee members who need to be excused from the selection process due to the fact that they are related to a member on the football team or represent that school.

This is where we are now in its early stages, a four team college football playoff (CFP) and after 4 years of this new tradition, the fans are ready for expansion and the “sports media experts” are already talking about expanding the playoffs as a topic, but with no real crystal clear cognitive thoughts on how to explain their reasoning. Becuase they believe they are the “experts” with a platform and voice with microphone or television camera, makes them more knowledgeable then someone with a degree, authored a book, performed research and already investigated the expanded the college football playoff concept. I believe that college football at the FBS level of play, under the NCAA blue logo and allows all FBS members a fair, equal and just opportunity to compete for the $50 MIllions dollars at stake, the gold statue and the notoriety that comes along with winning the national championship and being called a “National Champion” in college football at the highets level.

For the past 10+ years now I have performed a MOCK selection and seeding my field of 16 for college football at the FBS level. I started with the 1996 college football season, and continues to seed and select the current and future college football season. The reason why, is to prove that an expanded playof format can be implimented at this level of college athletics. If I can demonstrate that an expanded playoff format can be implimented based upon research, selection and seeding based upon criteria, then this would provide me with strategic positioning. I developed a ranking and selection system which is based upon the current season, many categorical variables, examines the current scheduled season and developed criterion on how each FBS teams should be ranked. I possess no biases and I treat each FBS team as equals. All playing under the same rules. For those who are going to ask, how do you rank, seed and select for your MOCK field of 16?  I use the professional model theory to rank, seed and select my field of 16. I have been performimg MOCK playoff fields since (2007). Yes, it can be done ranking 1 through 130 FBS teams with not worrying about conference affiliation or member name. Each FBS team is ranked by the criterion in which I developed. My system is more accurate and provides a better playoff picture allowing more FBS programs a playoff opportunity without eliminating any bowl games.

From what my research has discovered, is that every 0-loss team and 1-loss team at the end of the regular season would make the field of 16. All 2-loss programs have an 83% success rate of making my mock field of 16. Yes, it is possible for a 3-loss team to make my field of 16 but only at a 38% chance. That means, that during the course of the college football season, that any FBS team does not have to worry about losing 1 game or requiring them to complete the season with no losses in any games. My expanded playoff format of 16 would significantly decreases emotional and mental pressure from both coaches and players to end the season at 0-losses and placing the fate of their playoff hopes in the hands of a subjective, Democritusly driven and biofurcated system. A loss is a loss. A win is a win. There are no bad losses or good losses. No need to split hairs and try to scrutinze or provide an answer to the reason. No need for a committee to select or seed. All the players and coaches would have full comprehension of how the playoff system, format and selection process works.

I will now present my 2017 MOCK playoff field for college football at the FBS level of play, under the NCAA blue logo. ALL FBS teams are eligible to compete under my research, system and theory. The ONLY way an FBS football program is not eligible to compete for my playoff format is if they are UNDER NCAA violations and or sanctions, which automatically eliminates them from competing in post season.

ALL GAMES BELOW start on the First WEEKEND of December and SEEDS 1 THROUGH 8 RECEIVE Home field advantage becaused they earned it based upon data and records earned.

A B C D
16 WASHINGTON (10-2) 1 WISCONSIN (12-0) 80321 $9.5 MIL
9 USC (10-2) 8 MEMPHIS (10-1) 62380 $7.7 MIL
12 SAN DIEGO STATE (10-2) 5 CLEMSON (11-1) 81500 $9.6 MIL
13 TOLEDO (10-2) 4 GEORGIA (11-1) 92746 $10.5 MIL
14 TROY (10-2) 3 OKLAHOMA (11-1) 86112 $10.1 MIL
11 PENN STATE (10-2) 6 ALABAMA (11-1) 101821 $11.6 MIL
10 OHIO STATE (10-2) 7 MIAMI FLA (10-2) 65326 $8.0  MIL
15 AUBURN (10-2) 2 CENTRAL FLORIDA (11-0) 45323 $6.0 MIL

Last Team Out: TCU (10-2)

The breakdown per conference relationship: American Athletic Conference 2, Atlantic Coast Conference 2, Big 10 Conference 3, Big 12 Conference 1, Southeastern Conference 3, Pac 12 Conference 2, Mountain West Conference 1, Mid American Conference 1, Sun Belt Conference 1, Not represented: Conference USA and the Independents. With this format their will be plenty of represnetation, just not the Power Five Conferences.

Estimated revenue possibly generated from these 8 playoff games: $72+ Million Dollars, exlcuding any advertising dollars and television dollars.

GRID EXPLANATION: A- Visiting Team and Record; B- Home Team and Record, (NOTE: I DO NOT COUNT CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP GAMES, explanation below); C- Stadium Seating Capacty of the HOME TEAM and D- Estimated Revenue possibly generated by Ticket Sales, Concessions, Parking, Souvenirs and Tax Based Dollars and Ripple effect by these games in that specific area or region of the country that effects businesses.

Conference championship games are only an extra game to help determine who the conference champion is and not automatically scheduled. The conference championship games are earned, not entitled. If my expanded playoff format were to be implimented, then the conference championship games would be replaced by the first round of 16, on the first weekend of December. The second week of December is scheduled for Acadmics Final week. Student Athletes need time to take their final exams to remain eligible as student athletes for the second semester and the bowl season. The winners of the first round of 16 games will move forward to play in first set of bowl games on the third weekend of December when bowl season starts.

Winner of Seed 16 and 1 will play Winner of Seed 8 and 9

Winner of Seed 12 and 5 will play Winner of Seed 13 and 4

Winner of Seed 14 and 3 plays Winner of 11 and 6

Winner of Seed 10 and 7 plays the Winner of Seed 15 and 2

This creates four more games and use of the four early bowl games to add more revenue and more excitement. Keep the bowl game names and game dates in tact but move the bowl game sites to another location to increase seating capcacity. This would create an exponential influx of revenue, advertising dollars and significantly improve the beginning of bowl season with games that possess meaning and purpose. Each of these Quarter-Final Games would more than likely sellout, generate more revenue and fan interest. You do realize that there are 37+ Million college football fans across America.

Once these four games are decided then the four winners advance to the Semi Final Bowl Games and Championship Game which are already in place and sites already established. With this playoff format, the college football season DOES NOT start any earlier than scheduled within the rules and bylaws of the NCAA guidelines and DOES NOT end any later than the college football season that ends now. NO DRASTIC changes.

I believe that the exponential financial growth from an expanded playoff format such as the one I developed, would generate in upwards of $250 MIllion Dollars over the course of the college football playoff format. This is all hypothetical because the power brokers fear a playoff expansion due to the fact they want to control every part of the system.

In conclusion, the playoff system we have now for college football may be better. However, with that said, the committee has a tough job in selecting and seeding four FBS college football teams and making it right. Furthermore, the criterion in which they are to use is always ever changing. There is no one specific criterial process in which they follow. It’s very sad for those FBS programs within the Group of Five Conferences to work so hard, achieve greatness and sometimes end with 0-losses. All to find out that they will NEVER compete for the $50 Million Dollar prize, the gold statue and the notoriety that comes with being called “national champion”. It’s time to seriously think about expanding the playoffs for college footbal and increasing  the number to 8 then 16. Either way 8 and 16 work.

If you plan on using any of my ideas, thoughts or rankings to discuss 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

 


Wisconsin Ends 2017 FBS Season #1


Congratulations to the Wisconsin Badgers (12-0) for ending the 2017 college football regular season as only one (1) of two (2) 0-loss programs and securing the number one ranking in my weekly coaches poll. For those who have asked why Wisconsin, first and foremost, they played twelve (12) FBS programs this season, did not schedule a FCS opponent and they scheduled and played an away game at BYU to play a regular season game. That means they LEFT the comfort of their home and home region to play another FBS opponent. With only two (2) 0-loss programs left at the end of the regular season, I guess this supports my research and findings in my book.

Also, congratulations to the Knights from Central Florida (11-0) for ending the regular season as the other 0-loss FBS program. The Knights had to make schedule maneuvers to accomodate for the start of the 2017 college football season, handled adversity with hurricanes that effected not only one (1) scheduled game, but two (2) scheduled games. This act of God, required Central Florida to re-schedule their confernece game with Memphis later in the season, which makes conference games a requirment to re-schedule over any other non-conference game. Central Florida dropped their FCS game with the Maine Bears to accomodate for the game with Memphis. However, UCF later scheduled Austin Peay, an FCS member. Any FBS team who can handle adversity, remain un-defeated, handle the act of God situation, not once, but twice and finally survive one of the best college football games of the season with South Florida. Central Florida in my book, EARNED the second ranking and a trip to the CFP.

I also believe that Central Florida should be under consideration for the College Football Playoff (CFP). However, I believe that the CFP Committee has specific protocol to follow and that protocol states, that NO Group of Five Conference FBS member is eligible to compete for the College Football Playoff and the National Championship. Eventhough, UFC and the Director of Athletics, Daniel J. White, makes sure that the UCF athletic programs abide by and are compliant with the NCAA Bylaws. The UCF Director of Athletics also, is required to meet NCAA Bylaw 20, then abide by NCAA Bylaw 3.1 thought 3.4. Then congruent with that, UCF must meet and abide by the Title IX rules and regulations which are also inclusive to the NCAA Bylaw 20. If college athletics is being operated under a “business like structure”, then college athletics and the Group of Five Conference Commissioners, Athletic Directors, their FBS programs, Coaches and Players should press the issue and ask for an improved playoff format which is more Utilitarianistic, under the Stuart MIll’s philosophy, which is more “inclusive” then exclusive. If the Group of Five does not see a change under that manner in which is “inclusive”, then they should ban together and file suit against the power brokers under the Sherman Act of 1890 which protects them. Once the Sherman Act of 1890 is started, then the Clayton Act of 1914 protects them in more ways that you can only imagine. I have investigated both and pubished a chapter within my book, with that chapter being called: Chapter 17: The Sherman Act vs. The NCAA and the Power Brokers.

However, its interesting that Central Florida MIGHT be able to compete for one of the New Year’s Day Six Bowl Games (NYDSBG). I call this the “bridesmaid prize”, because UCF needs to meet specific requirements to be considered for the “bridesmaid” prize. That means they need to beat Memphis in the American Athletic Conference Championship Game to just earn the “bridesmaid” prize. Eventhought UCF would be (12-0), they won’t be on the CFP committees radar. If UCF loses the AAC Championship Game, then UCF might not receive that (NYDSBG) bid.  Might want to purchase and read my book. It’s time for an expanded playoff format.

I will now explain how my weekly rankings work. I rank based upon the professional model theory. This means that college athletics generates tripel digits of Millons of dollars annually in revenue, just like the professional levels of sports (i.e. the NFL, the NBA. the NHL, the MLB and the MLS). I do not use subjective assessments, the eye test or biasness to rank. I use dependent variables and categorical variable within those dependent varaibles to rank weekly.  Each variable has a direct relationship and effect on the independent variable. I do not rank FBS programs based upon vested interest or that’s my favorite or that this team need to be ranked higher than this team because they are from this conference. Each FBS team earns their ranking based upon varaibles in which they create and results based. I also examine the non-confernce schedule as a major variable. By examining the non-conference schedule, I can assess and evaluate the non conference schedule based upon number of home games versus number of away games. If any FBS team plays more home games than away games within their non-conference schedule, then I can assess that that specific FBS team does not take ANY risks within their non-conference schedule. If any FBS teams plays more away games in their non-conference schedule and earns a credible record, then they will have a better ranked position over any FBS team who plays more home games in their non-conference schedule. I have read the various peer reviewed research and articles that examined home field advantage in relationship to schedule, more home games and how it impacts your overall record.  NO RISK… NO REWARD. This is just part of how I rank each week of the college football season. There are three (3) chapters within my book that examined the research and I published other results that supports the already pubished peer reviewed research.

Here is this weeks, almost final rankings.  There is one more week that needs to be completed before the final rankings. The Sun Belt Confernce FBS programs and Florida State each must play one more game before the FINAL rankings appear. This 2017 College Football FBS Season has been exciting and great for the 37+ MIllion college football fans to watch and enjoy. Many upsets appeared as the season wound down towards the end. Never use a crystal ball to see the future or make predictions, especially in a college athletics. Just let the games play out.

A B C D E F G H
1 WISCONSIN (12-0) (.514) 75 (19-18) (.476) 103 (69-76) (.358) 129 (29-52) (.452) 20 29 7
2 CENTRAL FLORIDA (11-0) (.471) 90 (16-18) (.504) 85 (64-63) (.453) 96 (29-35) (.503) 2 20 8
3 OKLAHOMA (11-1) (.417) 103  (15-21) (.479) 99 (69-75) (.463) 94 (37-43) (.564) 1 19 5
4 GEORGIA (11-1) (.618) 33 (21-13) (.574) 27 (74-55) (.438) 100 (28-36) (.483) 11 26 8
5 CLEMSON (11-1) (.556) 58 (20-16) (.562) 43 (73-57) (.500) 92 (32-32) (.409) 34 31 5
6 ALABAMA (11-1) (.600) 37 (21-14) (.565) 36 (74-57) (.406) 123 (26-38) (.531) 3 31 6
7 MIAMI (FLA) (10-1) (.765) 2 (26-8) (.539) 61 (69-59) (.411) 120 (23-33) (.391) 45 22 4
8 MEMPHIS (10-1) (.485) 85 (16-17) (.476) 102 (60-66) (.453) 97 (29-35) (.513) 6 16 6
9 USC (10-2) (.583) 43 (21-15) (.528) 70 (76-68) (.493) 73 (35-36) (.409) 35 21 2
10 OHIO STATE (10-2) (.686) 10 (24-11) (.538) 62 (77-66) (.407) 122 (33-48) (.519 ) 5 24 8
11 PENN STATE (10-2) (.529) 68 (18-16) (.557) 47 (78-62) (.506) 59 (41-40) (.481) 12 33 7
12 SAN DIEGO STATE (10-2) (.667) 15 (24-12) (.474) 104 (63-70) (.438) 105 (28-36) (.401) 39 21 5
13 TOLEDO (10-2) (.429) 98 (15-20) (.466) 110 (61-70) (.500) 68 (32-32) (.510) 7 21 5
14 WASHINGTON (10-2) (.542) 66 (13-11) (.515) 80 (68-64) (.420) 119 (34-47) (.493) 10 28 8
15 TCU (10-2) (.458) 91 (11-13) (.500) 89 (66-66) (.475) 83 (38-47) (.392) 44 32 4
16 AUBURN (10-2) (.500) 77 (17-17) (.615) 7 (80-50) (.563) 19 (36-28) (.468) 16 28 7
17 TROY (9-2) (.583) 44 (21-15) (.423) 122 (52-71) (.448) 98 (26-32) (.377) 55 21 5
18 SOUTH FLORIDA (9-3) (.222) 129 (8-28) (.377) 130 (49-81) (.422) 118 (27-37) (.438) 22 27 5
19 OKLAHOMA STATE (9-3) (.314) 121 (11-24) (.469) 109 (67-76) (.488) 76 (39-41) (.520) 4 23 5
20 BOISE STATE (9-3) (.583) 45 (28-20) (.542) 60 (78-66) (.547) 29 (35-29) (.377) 54 24 4
21 STANFORD (9-3) (.588) 42 (20-14) (.563) 39 (81-63) (.494) 70 (40-41) (.444) 21 16 2
22 NOTRE DAME (9-3) (.582) 52 (39-28) (.641) 3 (91-51) (.765) 1 (39-12) (.420) 27 20 5
23 NORTHWESTERN (9-3) (.306) 123 (11-25) (.486) 94 (70-74) (.469) 86 (38-43) (.349) 76 23 3
24 MICHIGAN STATE (9-3) (.528) 70 (19-17) (.563) 41 (81-63) (.494) 71 (40-41) (.321) 94 27 2
25 FLORIDA ATLANTIC (9-3) (.686) 12 (24-11) (.546) 54 (71-59) (.492) 74 (31-32) (.497) 9 19 5

ANY FBS team that is in BOLD is an FBS team that scheduled and played an FCS program during the course of the 2017 regular season.

Honorable Mentioned: All are (9-3); Virginia Tech, North Texas, Fresno State, Washington State, and LSU

Key: A-Rank Order; B- Team and Current Overall Record; C- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Non-Conference Schedule, Rank within that Categorical Variable and the Overall Record; D- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Overall Regular Season Schedule, Rank within that Categorical Variable and the Overall Record; E- Percentage Rate of the ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Conference Schedule, Rank within that Categorical Variable and Overall Record; 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)) and H- Game Control Categorical Variable based upon the three possession score outcome (described as: the end score result that possesses a 21 point differential in final score).

As of this time of the current college football season there are 80 bowl eligible FBS programs with six (6) wins or more, and 3 more waiting in the wings with five (5) wins. Those five (5) win programs are; New Mexico State, Louisiana Lafayette and Florida State. Each have one (1) more regular season game to complete this week. This means that there will be no need to assess any credible (5-7) FBS programs for any open bowl openings, even if there was an expanded playoff format of 8 or 16 FBS programs. If there were a need for any (5-7) FBS programs, these programs would be and should be considered for a bowl game based upon research and number of 1-possession losses. Those programs are: Eastern Michigan with six (6) 1-possession losses, and both Indiana and Tulane with four (4) 1-possession losses.

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


College Football Playoff Field of 16 Mock 2107.4


This is the fourth installment of my MOCK college football playoff field of 16 for the FBS level of play. If only the power brokers of college football could be more open minded to assess and evaluate, how this expanded playoff format would be more beneficial to the the fans of college football and the exponential potential in generating more revenue, then college football would truly possess a real “National Champion”.

If you have followed along with my MOCK field of 16 as I have posted them throughout the course of this FBS season, you can admire the changes from week to week, in how the games have become more interesting as the season winds down. I believe that this type of playoff format would make for better entertainment, excitement and causes confusion amongst the television media on which game to show to the fans who cannot be in attendance. All 8 of these games would make for great television, viewership and media attention.

At this current time ONLY USC at (10-2) is in the clubhouse and has at least secured one (1) of the sixteen (16) seeds within my expanded playoff format for college football. USC’s actual seed placement cannot be determined until the regular season of college football is completed and at least all playoff possibilities are eliminated. This last week of college football is going to be very interesting, exciting and possible upsets.

This is how the field of 16 would be seeded if the season were to have concluded this past weekend and the playoffs starting this following weekend:

16 SEED TOLEDO (9-2) AT 1 SEED WISCONSIN (11-0)

9 SEED MEMPHIS (9-1) AT 8 SEED USC (10-2)

12 BOISE STATE (9-2) AT 5 SEED OKLAHOMA (10-1)

13 SEED OHIO STATE (9-2) AT 4 SEED CENTRAL FLORIDA (10-0)

14 SEED PENN STATE (9-2) AT 3 SEED MIAMI FLA. (9-0)

11 SEED NOTRE DAME (9-2) AT 6 SEED GEORGIA (10-1)

10 SEED SOUTH FLORIDA (9-1) AT 7 SEED CLEMSON (10-1)

15 SEED SAN DIEGO STATE (9-2) AT 2 SEED ALABAMA (11-0)

If you examine the playoff pairings; of these 8 games, everyone has potential for excitement and upset potential. Six (6) of the games would have 6 FBS programs traveling some distance to play the games. However, in today’s scheduling of regualr season games; I don’t think traveling would a problem. With an average of 37+ Million fans that attend collge football games annually, I believe each of these games would be SOLD OUT. Can you imagine how much fun, excitement and media coverage the first weekend of December would be for college football with so much at stake.

The breakdown for this field of 16 based upon conference affiliation, numbers per conference, Power Five Conference and Group of Five Conference is; 10 FBS programs from the Power Five Conferences and 6 FBS programs from the Group of Five Conferences. This is a great demonstration of how balance and parity appears during the college football season. ALL Power Five Conferences would possess representation into this field of 16. Is that not what the power brokers want. The opportunity to be part of the playoffs and not left out because of subectivity. Within this playoff mode and pairings, only the Sun Belt Conference would not be represented in this grouping of playoff caliber programs from the Group of Five Conferences. I believe that ALL the Group of Five Conference programs want is the OPPORTUNITY to compete in the playoffs, compete for the $50 Million dollars on the table, the gold statue and the notoriety which comes along with being called ” National Champion”.

As for the breakdown for each conference;  the Power Five Conference breakdown is led by The Big 10, who would possess 3 seeds, the ACC and the SEC would each hold 2 seeds and concluding with the Pac 12 and the Big 12 with 1 representation. Notre Dame would be the only Independent program represented in the playoffs. In addition to those 10 FBS programs, the Group of Five Conferences would be represneted with 3 FBS programs from the American Athletic Conference (AAC), 2 FBS program from the Mountain West Conference (MWC) and 1 from the Mid-American Conference (MAC).

At the conclusion of this weeks games, I willhopefully have enough data and information to publish the final pairings of my MOCK field of 16 for college football. In addition to the final posting, I will even post how the playoffs would be played out in the month long tournament.

If you plan in using any of my ideas, thoughts or ranking 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