Wisconsin and Big Ten Takes Over #1 Rank

Wisconsin (8-0) takes over the number one ranked spot within my weekly college football rankings. The reason why Wisconsin (8-0) is ranked number one and not Georgia or Alabama ranked number one is due to the fact that Wisconsin and the BIG 10 have made SIGNIFICANT strides to eliminating scheduling the FCS games and scheduling more road games at FBS site venues. Fact; The BIG 10 only scheduled three (3) FCS games this year but, the Southeastern Conference scheduled every SEC program with an FCS game. The most interesing fact is that Alabama is scheduled to play FCS Mercer the week before Alabama plays Auburn on Thanksgiving Weekend. This fact, not theory, decreases the SEC credibility within their non conference schedule as a whole. Published research states that FBS programs who schedule FCS programs, win 90% of the time, and by at least 4+ possessions. That 4+ possessions means by at least 28 points. This inidcate that easy wins versus lower level classification outside of the FBS level earns no credibility even if you are a 0-loss program. The other factor that gives Wisconsin the number one ranked position within my poll is they played or will play a non-conference game on the road at an FBS opponents stadium site. Thus playing games on the road within your non-conference schedule means you are taking a RISK playing in an un-comfortable setting. Alabama is playing no FBS programs on the road at THEIR stadium site.To tie all of this together, Wisconsin scheduled 12 FBS programs and the SEC only schedules 11 FBS programs. FACTS are FACTS to the reality of the situation, you cannot change the evidence of the findings and data.

What a great college football season this has been turning out to be. Upsets, surprises and more as we continue through “Amen’s Corner” of the college football season. Hats off to Iowa State for pulling the third consecutive win over a marquee named opponent and increasing the record of Iowa State to (6-2) overall and (4-1) within the Big 12 Conference. Iowa State is tied atop the conference with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and TCU. Iowa State is bowl eligible with this win and success can only continue for this Cyclone program. With four (4) weeks remaining, there are still more upsets and surprises in store.

Ohio State (7-1) pulls off the comback victory over Penn State (7-1), to redeem last years loss and to decrease the number of 0-loss programs remaining within the FBS level of play. Heading into this week’s college football schedule there now stands only five (5) 0-loss programs; Wisconsin, Georgia, Alabama, Miami (Fla.) and Central Florida. I wonder who will be the next 0-loss program to fall? With four (4) week’s remaining of the college football season, my intuition tells me that there will be only two (2) 0-loss programs left standing at the end of the regular season. Not sure which two (2). I am not like the sports media “experts” from ESPN or FOX Sports that use a crystal ball to predict outcomes of the college football season, predicts final season records and predicts who will win each week. I let the games play out and analyze the data to determine how to rank.

This weeks college football schedule has MANY interesting marquee games that will effect the rankings. First game of importance is (7-1) Oklahoma and (7-1) Oklahoma State. This will cause seperation within the Big 12 and move a 1-loss team to the 2-loss team group. Other Games of interest are: (8-0) Georgia playing (6-2) South Carolina, (8-0) Alabama playing (6-2) LSU, (7-0) Miami (Fla.) playing (7-1) Virginia Tech, (7-1) Notre Dame playing (5-3) Wake Forest, (7-1) Penn State playing (6-2) Michigan State, (7-1) Toledo playing (6-2) Northern Illinois and on a short week on Thursday Night, (7-1) Clemson playing (6-2) North Carolina State, (7-2) USC playing (6-2) Arizona, (7-2) Washington State playing (6-2) Stanford, (6-2, and Marshall playing (5-3) Florida Atlanitc. Wonder which game ESPN College Game Day will attend. This one is obvious, ESPN CGD will set set up shop for the Alabama/LSU match up.

Below are my rankings for college football at the FBS level for the 2017 season:

1 WISCONSIN (8-0) (.423) 105 (.480) 103 (.333) 128 (.458) 19
2 GEORGIA (8-0) (.696) 14 (.605) 18 (.415) 116 (.476) 13
3 ALABAMA (8-0) (.542) 66 (.545) 62 (.385) 122 (.598) 2
4 MIAMI FLA. (7-0) (.826) 1 (.568) 49 (.441) 106 (.404) 46
5 CENTRAL FLORIDA (7-0) (.591) 46 (.565) 52 (.472) 90 (.629) 1
6 NOTRE DAME (7-1) (.543) 65 (.639) 7 (.839) 1 (.447) 24
7 OKLAHOMA STATE (7-1) (.360) 118 (.485) 99 (.467) 98 (.517) 7
8 OKLAHOMA (7-1) (.400) 110 (.495) 96 (.467) 97 (.553) 3
9 OHIO STATE (7-1) (.667) 18 (.583) 34 (.444) 104 (.552) 4
10 PENN STATE (7-1) (.520) 72 (.583) 36 (.533) 42 (.463) 16
11 TOLEDO (7-1) (.435) 100 (.466) 107 (.515) 53 (.523) 6
12 CLEMSON (7-1) (.583) 51 (.591) 29 (.525) 52 (.364) 60
13 TCU (7-1) (.563) 56 (.534) 71 (.467) 96 (.414) 41
14 WASHINGTON (7-1) (.500) 77 (.522) 80 (.400) 118 (.490) 9
15 MEMPHIS (7-1) (.478) 89 (.512) 85 (.500) 70 (.461) 17
16 VIRGINIA TECH (7-1) (.375) 115 (.511) 87 (.488) 78 (.421) 34
17 SOUTH FLORIDA (7-1) (.200) 129 (.360) 130 (.371) 124 (.430) 31
18 USC (7-2) (.667) 19 (.570) 42 (.449) 102 (.403) 48
19 SAN DIEGO STATE (7-2) (.667) 20 (.472) 105 (.432) 111 (.360) 64
20 WASHINGTON STATE (7-2) (.438) 99 (.565) 51 (.480) 87 (.405) 45
21 BOISE STATE (7-2) (.588) 48 (.545) 63 (.553) 32 (.381) 54
22 MARSHALL (7-2) (.406) 109 (.463) 109 (.514) 56 (.356) 68
23 STANDFORD (7-2) (.652) 24 (.574) 44 (.449) 103 (.463) 15
24 MICHIGAN STATE (7-2) (.583) 52 (.604) 19 (.489) 72 (.314) 93
25 MICHIGAN (7-2) (.391) 113 (.568) 48 (.533) 43 (.339) 73

Honorable Mentioned: All are (6-2): Army, Northern Illinois, Ohio, Troy, SMU, North Carolina State, Iowa State, Arizona, Auburn, Kentucky, Mississippi State, South Carolina, 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 and Rank within that Categorical Variable; D- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Overall Regular Season Schedule and Rank within that Categorical Variable; E- Percentage Rate of the ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Conference Schedule and Rank; and F- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Offensive Efficiency and Rank within that Categorical Variable.

As of this time of the current college football season there are 39 bowl eligible FBS programs wth six (6) wins or more, and 25 more waiting in the wings with five (5) wins. There are four (4) weeks remaining in the season; there are plenty of opportunities for the 19 four (4) win FBS programs to earn bowl eligibility.

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 polocies 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

Alabama Takes Over #1 Ranking

With the ever changing suprises and close calls in college football this season, the rankings will continually change week to week. Alabama (8-0) takes over the number one ranked position this week in my weekly polls. Alabama (8-0) is on a bye week this coming week and could possibly lose their number one ranking in my next poll if any of the grouping of (7-0) FBS programs; Wisconsin, Penn State, Georgia, TCU and South Florida win this coming weekend.

College football is starting on the back half of the season and we could call this “Amen’s Corner” time in college football. The “Amen’s Corner” of the college football season starts with each game, each possession, the outcomes of other games and hoping for other highly ranked FBS football programs to stumble. If you are one of the eight (8) remaining 0-loss programs, your objective is to remain on course, do not look to far ahead, and maintain attentional focus at the highest level of competition and performance. There are still many games yet to be played, some surprising upsest still on the table to be served and some un-expected FBS programs earning better win-loss records that even the “experts” did not foresee happening. I guess the crystal ball that they are using must be broken.

Here is my next weekly rankings and how I rank the FBS programs in the Top 25:

1 ALABAMA (8-0) (.619) 38 (.582) 41 (.394) 118 (.598) 1
2 WISCONSIN (7-0) (.391) 111 (.465) 107 (.278) 129 (.482) 10
3 PENN STATE (7-0) (.455) 91 (.560) 55 (.500) 68 (.468) 16
4 GEORGIA (7-0) (.750) 3 (.618) 19 (.400) 116 (.478) 13
5 TCU (7-0) (.500) 77 (.519) 82 (.444) 101 (.459) 21
6 SOUTH FLORIDA (7-0) (.182) 129 (.358) 130 (.375) 124 (.457) 24
7 WASHINGTON STATE (7-0) (.400) 108 (.549) 64 (.439) 106 (.416) 42
8 MIAMI FLA. (6-0) (.800) 3 (.577) 45 (.464) 93 (.455) 26
9 CENTRAL FLORIDA (6-0) (.579) 47 (.564) 52 (.455) 98 (.584) 2
10 NOTRE DAME (6-1) (.524) 72 (.636) 10 (.852) 1 (.455) 25
11 OKLAHOMA STATE (6-1) (.348) 118 (.488) 96 (.472) 90 (.533) 6
12 MARSHALL (6-1) (.419) 102 (.466) 105 (.517) 56 (.368) 61
13 OKLAHOMA (6-1) (.429) 100 (.512) 89 (.472) 89 (.561) 4
14 OHIO STATE (6-1) (.636) 29 (.588) 39 (.444) 99 (.571) 3
15 MICHIGAN STATE (6-1) (.565) 55 (.605) 27 (.472) 86 (.297) 103
16 TOLEDO (6-1) (.409) 104 (.458) 108 (.517) 57 (.516) 7
17 WASHINGTON (6-1) (.571) 49 (.556) 59 (.415) 113 (.477) 14
18 NC STATE (6-1) (.810) 1 (.568) 49 (.378) 123 (.438) 32
19 CLEMSON (6-1) (.565) 56 (.600) 30 (.529) 73 (.376) 58
20 MEMPHIS (6-1) (.500) 78 (.519) 83 (.500) 73 (.446) 30
21 VIRGINIA TECH (6-1) (.409) 103 (.525) 79 (.486) 79 (.436) 33
22 SAN DIEGO STATE (6-2) (.667) 18 (.468) 104 (.419) 112 (.364) 62
23 COLORADO STATE (6-2) (.565) 57 (.451) 114 (.400) 117 (.469) 17
24 ARMY (6-2) (.524) 73 (.425) 120 (.390) 119 (.458) 23
25 OHIO (6-2) (.238) 127 (.361) 129 (.433) 107 (.474) 15

Key: A-Rank Order; B- Team and Current Overall Record; C- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Non-Conference Schedule and Rank within that Categorical Variable; D- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Overall Regular Season Schedule and Rank within that Categorical Variable; E- Percentage Rate of the ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Conference Schedule and Rank; and F- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Offensive Efficiency and Rank within that Categorical Variable.

As of this moment, there are 28 Bowl Eligible FBS Programs and 21 waiting in the wings FBS programs currently with 5-wins heading into this week who can earn bowl eligibility. If we examine the bottom of the rankings, there are 3 FBS programs still searching for their first win; Baylor, Georgia Southern and Texas El Paso. Who will get their first win and avoid going (0-12).

These rankings are based upon research and possessing no bias to how each college football team has been ranked. With 6 weeks to go within the college football season, I wonder how it will play out. Many surprizes still in store for this college football season. The college football season is heading onto turn three and starting to take shape

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 polocies and procedures when citing cources.

Georgia is my New #1 after UPSET Saturday

Georgia (7-0) is the newly ranked number one FBS team in my third weekly college football ranking poll. At this point in time of the college football season, Georgia is statistically better than any other (7-0) FBS teams in multiple categories,  in which I use to assist in ranking weekly. However, as the season winds down and progresses forward, anything can happen with many great remaining scheduled games left to be played in many conferences.  Within my rankings, there are still many of the ranked FBS programs that have not had a bye week yet. With at least six weeks to go in the college football season, ANYTHING can happen.

With the season just past the half way point, there are eight (8) 0-loss programs left and of those eight remaining programs, only two will compete against each other in the regular season. Those two programs are Central Florida and South Florida. Both will meet at the end of the regualr season in the American Athletic Conference. The other remaining 0-loss programs wont possibly meet until the conference championship games and that’s if they remain at 0-losses. In addition to those 0-loss programs, there are still 18, 1-loss programs. There is plenty of college football left in the remaining part of the schedule in the upcoming weeks. NO ONE really knows how the season will play out, not even the “experts” of college football. Trust me there are still many great games left on the schedule and UPSETS are going to occur. Just let the season play out before you start making guesses into who will be in the playoff picture.

The one primary problem with the sports media “experts” from ESPN and FOX is that every week before and after college football games are played, they believe they are entitled to select which four (4) FBS teams will compete for the CFP. The funny thing is they change their minds weekly and sometimes daily just trying to be right. I say at this point of the season, pick four and stick with it. Your job is not to play “Carnac The Wonderful” and always guess what will happen. Maybe guessing wrong should effect their employment status when they find it difficut in selecting between vanilla or choclate ice cream.

For this weeks rankings, I am only going to post the Top 25 in rank order, with team names and overall records. I will return to posting the important statistical data next week. I have the updated data. However, it’s interesting that between the AP voters and the Coaches Poll that they never match or use the same data I do. I have no vested interests in who is ranked where, just need to rank each FBS program with a fair ranking. All of which takes knowing what data points to use in evaluations.

Here is this weeks rankings:

1 GEORGIA (7-0)
2 ALABAMA (7-0)
4 PENN STATE (6-0)
5 TCU (6-0)
7 USC (6-1)
8 OHIO STATE (6-1)
10 NC STATE (6-1)
11 CLEMSON (6-1)
13 MIAMI (FLA)(5-0)
16 MARSHALL (5-1)
17 NAVY (5-1)
18 OKLAHOMA (5-1)
20 NOTRE DAME (5-1)
21 MICHIGAN (5-1)
22 TOLEDO (5-1)
23 MEMPHIS (5-1)
24 KENTUCKY (5-1)
25 VIRGINIA (5-1)

Honorable Mentioned: Virginia Tech (5-1), Stanford (5-2), Army (5-2), Ohio (5-2), Colorado State (5-2), Auburn (5-2), LSU (5-2), South Carolina (5-2) and Texas A&M (5-2).

There are many SEC programs at (5-2), but its the programs from one specific division within the conference. This will change as the weeks play out.

Please do not forget to use the APA/MLA method if you use any of this copyrighted material. Always give credit when credit is due.

Washington St. Coach Leach Believes in 16 Team Playoff

Coach MIke Leach, the Washington State Head Football Coach, went on an extended highly cognitive discussion during his weekly press conference about how an expanded playoff format can be implemented at the FBS level of play. One of Coach Leach’s first comments during his press conference states that “I think 64 teams for a playoff, but minimum 16 teams for a playoff in college football” (Leach 2017). Coach Leach believes that 16 teams could “settle alot of these issues” (Leach, 2017).  This is what I have been saying since (2007) when I started my Master’s degree with the investigating of the un-ethical manner, in which college football settles and determines their  “National Champion” both in the BCS system and CFP system. I concur and support what Coach Leach expressed in support of major changes within a Democritus playoff system that not only selects 3% of FBS programs to compete for the “National Championship”, but also only selects those “elitists” programs that are classified from the Power Five Conferences and Notre Dame; to compete for the $50 Million dollars at stake, the crystal trophy, in addition to the prestige and notoriety that comes along with being called “National Champions” of college football.

It’s interesting that educationally sound published research since (2013) and again in (2016) within a literary work, already investigated this subject matter. However, I give credit to Coach Leach for possessing a higher cognitive thought process and critical thinking skills, like myself, to openingly discuss and bring this highly sensative subject matter to the forefront. In turn, what Coach Leach spoke of during his press conference not only VALIDATES my research, but offers support that change needs to be made in the direction of a more Utilitarianistic way in addressing the college football playoff subect matter, by implementing the Stuart Mills philosophy. Within my most recent publishing of research titled; “College Football In The BCS Era The UntoldTruth Facts Evidence and Solutions” clearly outlines and explains how a 16-team playoff format at the FBS level of play could be implemented. In addition to the implementation of the playoff format, I also developed a fair assessment system to assist in the selection and seeding process to determine which 16 FBS programs earned the right  to compete for the for the “National Championship” based upon specific categorical variables to assist in rank order and seed selection. Thus, eliminating the need for a committee who would possess bias or vested interest in seeding the field of 16.

Even Coach Leach states it best, “If the levels below us; such as states within the United States of America where high school football is followed by many, i.e. Texas, California, Florida;  NCAA Division 3, NCAA Division 2, NCAA Division 1-AA (also known as FCS) and the higher level above us, the National Football Leauge can possess an expanded playoff, then why can’t we (meaning the FBS level of play)” (Leach, 2017). However, convincing the power brokers of college football at the FBS level of play, known as Dr. Mark Emmert; President of the NCAA, the NCAA Competition Committee, Bowl Committees, Mr. Bill Hancock, Mr. MIke Slive, the current CFP Committee Chair Mr. Kirby Hocutt; Director of Athletics at Texas Tech, all Conference Commissioners from all FBS College Football Conferences, all the college and university Presidents, Athletic Directors and Head Football Coaches from the AFCA; need to attend a presentation specifically in this subject matter. If a well respected head football coach at the highest level of college football can cognitively see the expanded playoff process, then why cant the power brokers?

I believe that since I performed and published all the research to address this topic of expanding the college football playoff to 16 FBS teams, then I should be the one who performs the presentation to the names and groups mentioned in the above paragraph. For those who do not know, It took me 10+ years to develop and investigate the implementation of this 16-team playoff format and other topics which directly correlate to college football at the FBS level with the expanded playoff format. I read 30+ published peer reviewed journal articles, from doctoral professors, Ph. D. students and those with a Master level of education. Each peer reviewed article were chosen to directly possess subject matter associated to specific categotical variables, within the dependent variables which possesses a direcct relationship to the independent variable. In addition to reading peer reviewed journal articles, I also read 15+ published literary works (books) associated with athletic administration, sports management, college football related subject matter and books written about other playoff concepts. All of these books were written by Doctoral professors of Sports Management and Athletic Administration, and or written by sports writers who investigated the BCS and other playoff ideas. I combined all that written, published, copyrighted material and added the collection of 25,000+ numerical data points to support and address any questions in the development of my 16 team playoff format. However, the review of data and reading did not stop there, I performed other research to assist in anaylzing other variables that possessed a direct effect on the Democritusly driven BCS system and still Democritusly driven CFP system.

In closing, If well known college football coaches who have spoken about the need for change at the FBS level of college football in how they determine their “National Champion” and the need for a standardized, universal, cross conference, cross divisional scheduling format, with the elimination of scheduling FCS programs; then that within itself VALIDATES and supports the research I performed, published and copyrighted in my literary work (book).

Again, Thank You Coach Mike Leach for disucssing the expanded playoff format subject with your local media.

NOTE: if you decide to use any of this written, published and copyrighted material, please be cognizant of using the APA/MLA citation methods, citing your source.

MIke Leach Goes Off: Expand The College Football Playoff. Press Conference with Washington State Head Football Coach; Mike Leach. Vidoe posted on Youtube.com. Posted by CBS Affiliate KREM2 in Washington on October 10, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_nuMEtwUW4.

M. S. Ed. Athletic Administration, Sports Management, Kinesiology and Sports Studies from the State of New York at The College at Brockport.

CITI/IRB Research Certified from the University of Miami at Florida



Penn State Remains Number 1 in Poll

For the second week in a row, Penn State remains number one (1) in my weekly college football poll. Penn State has proven itself thus far, at this point of the season to retain their number one (1) ranking within my poll. Penn State are scheduled on a bye week for this weeek and their number  one (1) will be in jeopardy if any of the (6-0) ranked teams wins the seventh (7th) game. This does not mean that Penn State cannot re-capture their number one (1) status once all the bye weeks have been played out. Please remmeber I rank based upon the use of the professional model theory in which I rank CFB programs 1 through 25, thought out the course of the season.

As the college football season is just about reaching the half way point, there remains many questions that cannot receive answers until the end of the college football regualr season. However, the sports media who are the “experts”, claim they possess the answers to all things that are going to happen within college football. For example, how many so called sports media “experts” used their crystal ball to predict Iowa State to beat Oklahoma this past weekend? Or, how many sports media “experts” predicted that Michigan State would beat Michigan in Ann Arbor? My guess, probably not one of them. It should behoove these sports media “experts” to stop predicting and just analyze once the game is complete.

This week’s rankings will be no different than last weeks based upon what variables I used. However, I have removed two categories and added two new categories. Within my rankings, I have provided statistical analysis in percentage rates, (i.e. numerical data), and then attached a rank order number within that specific categorical variable to assist in evaluation and comprehension for any debate like questions. As the college football season moves forward, there will be considerably less number of same data numbers in percentage rates to avoid the comments of, same percentage rate but different ranking positions.

Before I post my college football Top 25 from this past weekends results, I am curious how the “experienced” and “expert-like” CFP committee will handle end of the season situations such as this: Miami (Fla.) ends the season (11-0), because they lost one game due to an act of God at the beginning of the season? There is nothing published with the selection protocol that REQUIRES that the SEC must be represented in the CFP 4-Team Playoff. The world wont stop if the SEC DOES NOT make the 4-Team Playoff. What happens if Central Florida ends the season at (11-0) and is the only remaining 0-loss program left standing? Does the committee tell Central Florida, Congratulations you have won the bridesmaid prize and cant compete for the $50 Million dollars on the table, the opportunity to compete for the national championship or the four team playoff? These are just some of the tough questions the committee probably has not even thought of, but I have.

And now to the the second rankings:

1 PENN STATE (6-0) (.438)94 (.571)62 (.476)83 (.463)24 (22)1
2 GEORGIA(6-0) (.733)11 (.644)20 (.440)20 (.442)34 (17)3
3 SAN DIEGO STATE(6-0) (.563)57 (.417)121 (.353)121 (.429)40 (10)49
4 WASHINGTON(6-0) (.400)105 (.557)71 (.400)112 (.533)6 (16)5
5 CLEMSON(6-0) (.556)64 (.597)44 (.476)82 (.395)57 (17)4
6 WASHINGTON STATE(6-0) (.364)116 (.587)50 (.444)92 (.500)9 (16)6
7 ALABAMA(6-0) (.533)72 (.576)57 (.350)122 (.581)3 (15)8
8 NAVY(5-0) (.565)56 (.576)58 (.471)84 (.483)13 (6)94
9 WISCONSIN(5-0) (.389)108 (.523)87 (.350)125 (.485)12 (14)11
10 TCU(5-0) (.545)69 (.554)73 (.444)94 (.465)23 (10)47
11 SOUTH FLORIDA(5-0) (.167)129 (.361)129 (.389)116 (.456)29 (14)12
12 USC(5-1) (.706)17 (.612)39 (.417)108 (.425)42 (12)27
13 NOTRE DAME(5-1) (.563)58 (.662)13 (.889)1 (.448)33 (12)25
14 OHIO STATE(5-1) (.625)34 (.625)27 (.524)56 (.537)5 (15)9
15 NC STATE(5-1) (.765)8 (.571)59 (.348)126 (.459)26 (6)95
16 AUBURN (5-1) (.600)42 (.627)25 (.476)81 (.450)32 (15)10
17 KENTUCKY(5-1) (.563)59 (.576)56 (.375)118 (.397)54 (13)18
18 VIRGINIA TECH (5-1) (.375)111 (.542)77 (.500)70 (.412)48 (19)2
19 MIAMI (FLA) (4-0) (.733)12 (.586)51 (.467)86 (.471)19 (8)68
20 CENTRAL FLORIDA (4-0) (.643)31 (.586)52 (.526)52 (.608)1 (5)111
21 HOUSTON (4-1) (.524)78 (.569)63 (.526)53 (.338)82 (12)33
22 MARSHALL (4-1) (.417)101 (.448)111 (.500)76 (.344)80 (11)42
23 MICHIGAN STATE (4-1) (.556)65 (.621)30 (.429)100 (.281)109 (13)23
24 OKLAHOMA (4-1) (.471)87 (.548)74 (.500)69 (559)4 (7)83
25 MICHIGAN(4-1) (.375)112 (.619)32 (.600)23 (.347)78 (12)32

Key: A-Rank Order; B- Team and Current Overall Record; C- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Non-Conference Schedule and Rank within that Categorical Variable; D- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Regular Season Schedule and Rank within that Categorical Variable; E- Percentage Rate of the ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Conference Schedule and Rank; F- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Offensive Efficiency and Rank within that Categorical Variable; and G- Defensive Data Rating based upon that ranked teams ability to string together three Consecutive(3) Successful Defensive Possession Stops(such as a Turnover,  aPunt,  a Turnover on Downs, a Defensive Intercpetion, a Fumble Recovery and or a Defensive Score) within scheduled games. (Three Consecutive Defensive Stops equals 1 Point).

These rankings are based upon research and possessing no bias to how each college football team has been ranked. With 8+ weeks to go within the college football season, I wonder how it will play out. Many surprizes still in store for this college football season. Stay tuned and watch to see what upsets occur as the season concluded.

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 polocies and procedures when citing cources.


Penn State #1 in First 2017 CFB Poll

With the (2017) College Football FBS season a quarter of the way complete, its time to start posting my weekly rankings. My weekly rankings are first and foremost posses no bias or favortism. However, are determined based upon statistical analysis, overall records, schedules, scheduled games versus FCS or not, and other statistical data to support the rankings.

What I do not possess, is the crystal ball style of predictons, like the major sports media “experts” from ESPN and FOX. I do not possess any confidence in the ESPN FPI (Football Predictor Indicator) system, because it possesses no merit in accuracy or ability to possess some form of confidence in the use of the system. It seems that every week the sports media of ESPN and FOX keep changing their minds on who will win the current week, who the Top 4 should be in the CFP (College Football Playoff) and ranking their Top 10 with no true analyitical support, but possessing a bias and favortism. The most interesting aspect of their flip/flop mind changes is it changes each week. From a certified researchers position, we never make predictions without evidence and data to support our questions. Finally, we never predict who will be in th playoffs until all data has been collected which provieds us with enough information to support our rankings and playoff teams.

Within my rankings, I will offer other statistical data that NONE of the ESPN and FOX sports media “experts” collect or even use to support their rankings or cognitive thoughts in debates or in open discussions on set. These sports media members debate or discuss based upon passions or the eye test, not really examining specific data points which should assist in their thoughts. Within my rankings, you may observe many data points which are equal in ranking but ranked differently, its early. Those data points will change as the season progresses week to week.


1 PENN STATE (5-0) NO FCS 3X H 121 (.273) 73(.566) 67(.500) 19(.478)
2 GEORGIA(5-0) FCS BAL 36(.636) 25(.647) 97(.421) 50(.409)
3 SAN DIEGO STATE(5-0) FCS BAL 70(.545) 25(.607) 123(.333) 56(.400)
4 WASHINGTON(5-0) FCS 1X H 119(.286) 124(.392) 123(.333) 5(.548)
5 CLEMSON(5-0) FCS 2X H 56(.583) 42(.615) 63(.500) 46(.412)
6 SOUTH FLORIDA(5-0) FCS 2X H 126(.231) 128(.347) 127(.273) 29(.456)
7 WASHINGTON STATE(5-0) FCS 2X H 123(.250) 54(.596) 79(.471) 12(.507)
8 ALABAMA(5-0) FCS 3X H 113(.250) 50(.600) 112(.357) 1(.633)
9 MICHIGAN(4-0) NO FCS 1X H 78(.500) 31(.635) 46(.538) 53(.404)
10 OKLAHOMA(4-0) NO FCS 1X H 98(.417) 86(.529) 89(.444) 3(.571)
11 NAVY(4-0) NO FCS BAL 91(.467) 74(.558) 114(.333) 35(.438)
12 WISCONSIN(4-0) NO FCS 1X H 114(.333) 75(.558) 115(.333) 18(.481)
13 TCU(4-0) FCS 1X H 65(.571) 58(.587) 86(.444) 11(.528)
14 UTAH(4-0) FCS 1X H 130(.222) 47(.611) 29(.588) 28(.459)
15 OKLAHOMA STATE(4-1) NO FCS 1X A 124(.250) 97(.490) 69(.500) 2(.587)
16 NOTRE DAME(4-1) NO FCS 2X H 25(.667) 16(.673) 1(.917) 22(.471)
17 USC(4-1) NO FCS 1X H 71(.545) 44(.614) 106(.375) 47(.412)
18 OHIO STATE(4-1) NO FCS 3X H 37(.636) 24(.648) 60(.500) 9(.530)
19 OREGON(4-1) FCS 1X H 79(.500) 28(.642) 61(.500) 30(.456)
20 LOUISVILLE(4-1) FCS BAL 81(.500) 69(.569) 80(.467) 15(.500)
21 OHIO(4-1) FCS BAL 127(.231) 129(.346) 96(.429) 14(.500)
22 WAKE  FOREST(4-1) FCS 1X A 57(.583) 18(.660) 18(.625) 39(.431)
23 TROY(4-1) FCS BAL 95(.455) 130(.326) 130(.200) 92(.317)
24 NC STATE(4-1) FCS 2X H 13(.727) 51(.596) 107(.375) 33(.440)
25 KENTUCKY(4-1) FCS 2X H 21(.700) 41(.620) 103(.389) 77(.354)

KEY: A- Rank, B-Team and Record, C- FCS Game or Not, D-  Number of Extra or Less Home Games or Balanced Schedule, E- Rank and Percentage Rate of Overall Non-Conference Opponents Cumulative Records, F- Rank and Percentage Rate of Overall Cumulative Records of Scheduled Oppenents Records, G- Rank and Percentage Rate of Overall Cumulative Records of Scheduled Conference Opponents Records, and H- Offensive Rating Efficiency (Number of Times Scored divided by Number of Total Possessions).

Honorable Mentions: Auburn (4-1), Virginia Tech (4-1), Texas A&M (4-1), Duke (4-1), SMU (4-1), Central Florida (3-0), Texas San Antonio (3-0) and Miami (Fla.) (3-0).

As I post my next set of rankings, Columns C and D will be omitted. The rest of the colums will be included.

If you have any questions please feel free to ask or contact me on twitter at cfbpoexpert  If you want to recite and verbalize what you have read on my posting, please follow MLA/APA format and cite your sources by stating where you read the posting.

As the college football season continues, the rankings will be shaken up, there will be more surprises that even the sports media “experts” from ESPN or FOX can’t even predict. No matter what type of crystal ball they possess.

Best of Luck to all FBS programs competing this 2017 season.


Saban’s Wish, the P5 and Pandoras Box

During the recent college football media days for all of the Power Five (5) Conferences, the head coaches of each program receives the opportunity to speak with the sports media about the upcoming season and address any questions the sports media might want answered before the start of the (2017) college football season. The most interesting comment from a FBS football coach came from none other than Coach Nick Saban, from Alabama, respresenting the Southeastern Conference (SEC).

The comment , in which I heard, was aired on ESPN Radio and many ESPN sports media shows either on television or the radio. The ESPN Radio show in which I heard the comment was on the Freddie and Fitz Show on ESPN Radio stations braodcast across the country, between the time frame of (1130PM-1145PM) on Wednesday, July 26, 2017. I also searched the World Wide Web to support these comments from Coach Saban and found a published news article either on line  and/or in print from the Washington Post dated July 27, 2017; Titled “Nick Saban’s “far out” scheduling plan would be great for Alabama, less so for everyone else”, authored and published by Matt Bonesteel ( Bonesteel, 2017).

Coach Nick Saban was participating in the annual magical mystery tour of college football coaches for ESPN, as ESPN begins to promote the upcoming college football season of 2017, by interviewing as many high profile coaches in Bristol, Connecticut. During Saban’s tour, Saban pitched the “so far out” idea that would seem to guarantee both an increase in competitive regular season college football games and an expansion of the College Football Playoff, two noble goals. (Bonesteel, 2017). Saban is using his Democritus, righteousness philospophy and entitlement beliefs, to promote the far out idea so that all Power Five (5) Conferences should only play Power Five (5) Conferences. Saban’s comments were “We should play all teams in the Power 5 conferences,” he said. “If we did that, then if we were going to have bowl games, we should do the bowl games just like we do in the NCAA basketball tournament — not by record but by some kind of power rating that gets you in a bowl game. If we did that, people would be a little less interested in maybe bowl games and more interested in expanding the playoff.” (Bonesteel, 2017). With all due respect Coach Saban, please offer us your cognitive thoughts on what variables to use for the power rating system.

Saban’s argument for the change in his and possibly the SEC’s Democritus mindset is that their belief is that the current use of the mimimum win total of six (6) to become bowl eligible causes scheduling advantages to those who schedule the Group of Five (5) or FCS programs are not worthy of their wins. Coach Saban you are clear violation of your own words. Saban also believes that by scheduling only Power Five (5) programs and a 10-game in within confernce schedule, plus 2- non-conference scheduled games versus Power Five (5) programs; that it will improve financial dollars, increase excitement and possibly increase the number of entrants into the next college football playoff format. Coach Saban, since you brough up the 10-game conference schedule have you performed the scheduling rubric to make happen? Im going to hypothesize that you have not put this cognitive thought to paper with ability to address any questions that may be asked of you in how this system works.

From the way I see this chess match move by Saban and the SEC, their Democritus objective is to significantly improve their stronghold and stranglehold on the top financial prize of college football and the elimination of, Democritusly control of and stranglehold on the Group of Five Conferences and their programs, including the Independent FBS programs. The power brokers of college football, more specificially the SEC want to eliminate the Group Of Five’s (5) ability to increase their marketability, increase their recruiting of student athletes, and ultimately and significantly diminsh their abilty to increase financial stability under the NCAA blue logo and athletic competition at the FBS level of college football.

Bonesteel (2017) concludes his article by punching holes, like swiss chees, into Coach Saban’s idea. Bonesteel (2017) reconfirms how the historical schedules of Coach Saban at Alabama when competing against various FCS programs multiple times. Then Bonesteel (2017) serves up to Coach Saban which FCS program, Mercer, is scheudled for “the SEC’s annual late-November FCS siesta weekend” prior to rivalry weekend versus Auburn in the last week of the college football season on Thanksgiving weekend. Bonesteel (2017) states that ” Saban could snap his fingers and take those games off the Tide’s schedule, but doesn’t.” That’s the righteousness position that Coach Saban takes in addition to the SEC. Both believe that they can suggest any type of change to the rules, scheduling, selection process and or bowl process; and will use any leverage they can to persuade others within their conference or level of competition to join their crusade.

Coach Saban and the SEC both forget that when they verbally start their crusades for change, they open up Pandora’s Box. Let’s open Pandora’s Box and read what is inside the box. With this change Coach Saban and the SEC, you failed to remember or read your NCAA Bylaws of (2017-2018), more specifically the membership chapter. NCAA Constitution Article 3, Chapter 3, disuccess Membership including Bylaws that you need to read are; Bylaw 3.1, Bylaw 3.3, Bylaw 3.3.4, and Bylaw 3.7 (NCAA, 2017). After you read that Coach Saban, then move to the NCAA Constitution Article 20, that discussess FBS requirements for NCAA programs to earn and maintaint their FBS status. From there Coach Saban, read the rest of the NCAA Bylaws that pertain to eligibility, recruitment and academic compliance. All of which are followed by those FBS members under the blue NCAA logo.

After you read that Coach Saban, you need to understand how Title IX possesses a direct relationship with the NCAA and FBS status requirements. Since, college athletics are being operated in a business-like manner in today’s society by generating triple digit millions of dollars and revenue, then Coach Saban you need to understand how the Sherman Act of 1890 protects the Group of Five (5) Conferences and programs, then in addition to your readings read the Clayton Act of 1914 as well. While you are reading that Coach Saban,  you failed to forget about the Notre Dame Factor. Coach Saban please explain to Notre Dame why they won’t be part of the Power Five (5) scheduling since they are not officially part of a Power Five (5) Conference for FBS football.

I believe what Coach Saban is refering to is that he would like to see implemented, a standardized, universal, cross conference, cross divisional and balanced scheduling rotation format like the National Football League (NFL). Interesting his thoughts might be in the right place but that research has already been performed, copyrighted and published. Published and available for sale is “College Football In the BCS Era The Untold Truth Fact Evidence and Solution” authored by Matthew J. Siggelow M.S.E. The research within the book, Chapter 16 titled “Balanced Scheduling: Possible or Impossible”, examined the many dependent variables on the independent variable that affect what Coach Saban is thinking about. What that published and copyrighted research did determine is that college football at the FBS level could possess and implement a standardized, universal, cross conference, cross divisional and balanced schedule by scheduling all 131 FBS programs and conferences within a 12-game schedule with NO home field advantages of more than 2 home games successively and has the capability to eliminate the scheduling of any FCS programs. However, within that format the research did adhere to and maintained as many rivalry FBS games already scheduled and implemented other historical rivalry games already not being played.

If Coach Saban wants this implemented, please ask and I am more than willing to act as the scheduling czar that the NCAA and FBS football scheduling needs. I just hope that Coach Saban and the rest of the SEC are OK with a games scheduled in late November at Wisconsin, or at Michigan, or at Minnesota, or at Michigan State, or at Ohio State, or at Stanford, or at USC, or at Washington, or at Nebraska, or at Iowa and the list can go on and on. Once they give up control of the scheduling to a shceduling czar, you go where you are scheduled. No more so called “neutral site” games with regional home field advantages. With this type of scheudling format; the SEC programs, the power brokers of FBS football, the SEC Athletic Administrators and the SEC Conference Commissioner will have to agree and abide by this type of scheduling. The SEC would then not be allowed to control their Non-Conference schedule, like they do now. We all could agree that the SEC and coaches won’t budge on their traditional within conference games, scheduled on specific weeks within the calander, during the college football season. Heaven forbid if they let that happen.

To support the righteouness, entitlement, Democritus, and historical SEC scheduling further; from (1996-2013), the SEC holds a 79.9% home field advantage in thieir non conference scheduling. Examining those data points further, Coach Saban you and your Alabama teams holds the highest percentage associated with home field advantage at 90.7% within your non conference scheduling advantage. In addition to Alabama possesssing the highest percentage rate for home field advantage within their non-confernce schedule, there are four (4) other SEC programs that rank in the Top 6; with Auburn at 90.6%, Arkansas at 89.1%, LSU at 84.6% and Florida at 82.8%. What many fail to perceive, even the sports media is that this significant hoime field advantage within the SEC’s non conference schedule is currently in use during the early infancy stages of the College Football Playoff (CFP) Era. Those statistics are increasy yearly by (.1)% yearly. Do you really think and believe that the rest of the Power Five (5) Conferences and programs are just going to submit to your demands of always scheduling non-conference games with Alabama and the SEC at the SEC home stadium venues. The remaining FBS Power Five (5) programs and conferences will say NO, to that move.

What Coach Saban and the SEC fails to comprehend is that college athletics although business like and operating in a business fashion, draws many fans, 37+ million to be axact annually, generates a plethora of sponsorship dollars, donations from booster dollars, and plenty of sports media coverage. College athletics needs to be operated and lead by someone who possesses a Utiliatrianistic style under the Stuart Mills philosophy and definatively possesses business experience. What the SEC and Coach Saban significantly fail to comprehend, is that college athletics is about offering opportunities for ALL student athletes and coaching staffs to compete and earn national championship in ALL NCAA sponsored sports, except for FBS football under the NCAA logo.

In conclusion, conference affiliation or Power Five (5) Conference status should not give you exclusivity, entitlement, or the righteousness to the highest prize on the table of $50+ millions of dollars and the opportunity to be called National Champion in which all FBS members adhere to and follows the bylaws of the NCAA and FBS eligibility status. All FBS programs should be allowed to compete for that prize and recognition. That prize and recognition is not just for the elitest in college football at the FBS level.

To Coach Saban and the SEC, better be careful what you wish for.



Bonesteel, Matt. (2017). “Nick Saban’s “far out” scheduling plan would be great for Alabama, less so for everyone else”. Washington Post. July 27, 2017. Retreived July 27, 2017 from the World Wide Web. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/07/27/nick-sabans-far-out-scheduling-plan-would-be-great-for-alabama-less-so-for-everyone-else/?utm_term=.84061979fd60

Coleman, Freddie (Host)and Fitzsimmons, Ian (Host) (July 26, 2017). Freddie and Fitz Radio Show. Monday through Friday. (Saban thoughts on P5 Scheduling). Bristol, CT. and Dallas, TX. ESPN.

Siggelow, Matthew J. (2016). College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Fact Evidence and Solution. Lulu Publishing. Self Publishing. 490 Pages.

2017-2018 NCAA Division 1 Manual (2017). Text Prepared By: NCAA Academic and Membership Affairs Staff. Production By: NCAA Academic and Membership Affairs Staff. Produced by the NCAA. Indianapolis, Indiana. NCAA.org. 428 pages.


What an exciting year for College Football. So many great games this 2016 FBS season and so many FBS programs either surprised us, let us down, under performed than expected by the oh so “credible” ESPN FPI system and the experts pre-season analysis and predictions. So, let’s have REALITY tell us how this should work and play out, not “crystal ball” predictions like the sports media use my subjective vested interest in seeding and selecting.

Reality…. Means this really happened the FPI didnt predict it or was right all the time: Oklahoma beats West Virginia, Washington beats Standford, USC beats Washington, Stanford beats USC, Clemson beats Louisville, Penn State beats Ohio State, Ohio State beats Michigan, Michigan beats Penn State, Ohio State beats Oklahoma, Wisconsin beats Nebraska, Michigan beats Colorado, Colorado beats Stanford, Alabama beats USC and many more. Within that last sentence are “cyclical triads”, something the CFP committee does not comprehend or knows how to handle this scenario. If reality were to come into play and use the professional model theory of seeding and selecting, then this is how my “MOCK” 16 team playoff seeding and selection would look like, with crystal clear explanations. I use research and data to determine my seedings and selction, and take into consideration to those who deserve and earned the opportunity to be part of this championship drive process, the $50+ Million dollars on the table, prestige, national accolades, and the earned right to be called National Champion.

This is contingent on Navy beating Army.

#1 Seed Western Michigan (12-0) MAC CHAMP, (54-77) combined overall OPP record, (27-37) combined CONF overall OPP record, played a balance scheudle of 6/6, played 2 NON CONF road games, FCS game, and played on off nights during the course of the season to accomodate ESPN’s $$$. (Western Michigan should be in the CFP 4, but protocols vehemently denies them access)

#2 Seed Alabama (12-0) SEC CHAMP, (76-55), (30-34), FCS game LATE in the season, played 4 more EXTRA Home games in the NON CONF schedule, played in the premier time slots and never had to really change customary behavior patterns on games played and times. All games on TV.

#3 Seed Ohio State (11-1), (84-59), (41-40), played 1 NON CONF game on the road AT OKLAHOMA and WON, NO FCS game, played in the best FBS CONF this year in the Big 10, plus was (3-1) record vs. other teams ranked in my top 16, W vs. Michigan Wvs. Oklahoma, W vs. Wisconsin, L vs. Penn State.

#4 Seed Clemson (11-1) ACC CHAMP, (79-52), (33-31), played 1 NON CONF game on the road AT AUBURN and WON, played and W vs. Louisville.

#5 Seed Washington (11-1) PAC 12 CHAMP, (66-64), (36-45), (1-1) record vs. those seeded CFB teams. W vs Stanford, L vs. USC

#6 Seed Michigan (11-1), (81-64), (39-42), (3-1) record vs. those seeded CFB teams, W vs Penn State, W vs. Wisconsin, W vs.Colorado, L vs Ohio State, NO FCS game, played in best CFB CONF this year the Big 10.

#7 seed Penn State (10-2) Big 10 CHAMP, (77-67), (35-46), (1-1) record vs. those seeded CFB teams, W vs. Ohio State, L vs. Michigan, NO FCS game, played in best CFB CONF this year the Big 10.

#8 Seed Oklahoma (10-2), Big 12 CHAMP, (78-66), (36-45), (1-1) record vs. those seeded CFB teams, W vs. West Virginia, L vs. Ohio State, NO FCS game.

#9 Seed Boise State (10-2), (75-70), (32-32), NO FCS game, W vs Washington State.

#10 Seed Wisconsin (10-2), (76-67), (41-40), NO FCS game, (0-2) record vs. those seeded CFB teams, L vs. Ohio State, L vs. Michigan.

#11 Seed Colorado (10-2), (80-64), (35-46),  (1-2) record vs. those seeded CFB teams, W vs. Standford, L vs. Michigan, L vs. USC.

#12 Seed South Florida (10-2), (65-66), (29-35), (1-0) record vs. those seeded CFB teams, W vs. Navy.

#13 Seed Navy (10-2), (70-56), (29-35), (0-1) vs. those seeded CFB teams, L vs. South Florida.

#14 Seed West Virginia (10-2), (66-66), (29-35), (0-1) vs. those seeded CFB teams, L vs Oklahoma, NO FCS game.

#15 Seed USC (9-3), (78-66), (37-44), (2-2) vs. those seeded CFB teams, W vs. Washington, W vs. Colorado, L vs. Alabama, L vs. Stanford, NO FCS game.

#16 Seed Stanford (9-3), (73-71), (41-40), (1-2) vs. those seeded CFB teams, W vs USC, L vs. Washington, L vs. Colorado, NO FCS game.


Playoff seedings and the remaining schedule of tournament:

1st Weekend of December

#1 (12-0) Western Michigan Hosting #16 (9-3) Stanford

#8 (10-2) Oklahoma Hosting #9 (10-2) Boise State

#5 (11-1) Washington Hosting # #12 (10-2) South Florida

#4 (11-1) Clemson Hosting #13 (10-2) Navy

#3 (11-1) Ohio State Hosting #14 (10-2 ) West Virginia

#6  (11-1) Michigan Hosting # 11 (10-2) Colorado

#7 (10-2) Penn State Hosting #10 (10-2) Wisconsin

#2 (12-0) Alabama Hosting #15 (9-3) USC

3rd weekend of Decemeber; Satruday Decemer 17: First Four Bowl Games (Quaterfinals)

Camelia Bowl  (2) Winners from the games of  #1 and #16 vs. #8 and #9

Cure Bowl  (2) Winners from the games of  #5 and #12 vs. #4 and #13

New Mexico Bowl (2) Winners from the games of #3 and #14 vs. #6 and #11

New Orleans Bowl (2) Winners from the games of #7 and #10 vs. #2 and #15

Semifinal Games: January 1 New Years Day (both games played on this date)

Semifinal Game 1: Fiesta Bowl: Camelia Bowl Winner vs. Cure Bowl Winner

Semifinal Game 2: Sugar Bowl: New Mexico Bowl Winner vs. New Orleans Bowl Winner

Championship Game: January 9

Championship Game: Sugar Bowl: Last two left…..

If you have any questions about this “MOCK” field of 16, please contact me, share this link and more.

Please follow me on twitter at cfbpoexpert. If you read and talk about my posting, please remember to site the source and give proper APA/MLA citings.

The Final Poll Rankings Say Alabama #1 and WMU #2

The final poll prior to the release of my “mock” field of 16 team playoff format shows that (12-0) Alabama remains #1 and (12-0) Western Michigan remains #2. This does not indcate that this how they will be seeded in my field of 16. During my review of the “mock” field of 16 teams for my expanded playoff format, 5 have been officially seeded, with 11 spots remaining to seed. With one OFFICIAL week of college football left with conference championship games and scheduled games in the BIG 12 and Sun Belt Conference, there could be some changes within my field of 16 with games remaining and FBS programs who are in the clubhouse at (9-3) could sneak in to my field of 16.

Scheduled games of importance are; Oklahoma vs. Oklahoma State, Navy vs. Army, West Virginia vs. Baylor, Troy vs. Georgia Southern, and a few more. An Oklahoma State win vs. Oklahoma could put (9-3) USC in my mock 16 team playoff seedings, as they are just on the outside looking in for my field of 16. Both South Alabama and Louisiana-Lafayette couls still earn bowl eligibility if they win this Saturday to earn their 6th win. Both of those wins would make a total of bowl eligible programs at 78, with 11 to 13 FBS programs with (5-7) records to be reviewed for any open bowl slots to be filled.

There was some minor changes in this weeks polls with ranked programs from last weeks rankings. Within my weekly rankings this week, there are 5 Big 10 programs and 1 SEC program ranked. This tells me that the best FBS conference this season belongs to the Big 10 this season. When you read the rankings , please be aware of the extra data points in how they are used to make an assessment. Not a subjective assessment, but a quantitative assessment to assist in ranking and seeding. And now for this weeks rankings.

1 SEC ALABAMA (12-0) (76-55) 0.580 (30-34) 0.469
2 MAC WESTERN MICHIGAN (12-0) (54-77) 0.412 (27-37) 0.422
3 B10 OHIO STATE (11-1) (84-59) 0.587 (41-40) 0.506
4 ACC CLEMSON (11-1) (79-52) 0.603 (33-31) 0.516
5 P12 WASHINGTON (11-1) (66-64) 0.508 (36-45) 0.444
6 B10 MICHIGAN (10-2) (81-64) 0.559 (39-42) 0.481
7 B10 WISCONSIN (10-2) (76-66) 0.535 (41-40) 0.506
8 B10 PENN STATE (10-2) (77-67) 0.535 (35-46) 0.432
9 MWC BOISE STATE (10-2) (74-70) 0.514 (32-32) 0.500
10 P12 COLORADO (10-2) (80-64) 0.556 (41-49) 0.456
11 AAC SOUTH FLORIDA (10-2) (65-66) 0.496 (29-35) 0.453
12 B12 OKLAHOMA (9-2) (67-60) 0.528 (27-41) 0.397
13 AAC NAVY (9-2) (64-56) 0.533 (29-35) 0.453
14 B12 WEST VIRGINIA (9-2) (58-58) 0.500 (33-35) 0.458
15 B12 OKLAHOMA STATE (9-2) (57-59) 0.491 (27-41) 0.397
16 SBC TROY (9-2) (54-60) 0.474 (24-26) 0.48
17 P12 USC (9-3) (78-66) 0.542 (37-44) 0.457
18 B10 NEBRASKA (9-3) (74-70) 0.514 (41-40) 0.506
19 P12 STANFORD (9-3) (72-71) 0.503 (41-40) 0.506
20 SBC APPLACHIAN STATE (9-3) (67-69) 0.493 (24-32) 0.429
21 ACC LOUISVILLE (9-3) (71-73) 0.493 (24-20) 0.375
22 ACC FLORIDA STATE (9-3) (84-47) 0.641 (34-30) 0.531
23 AAC HOUSTON (9-3) (68-61) 0.527 (28-36) 0.438
24 CUSA WESTERN KENTUCKY (9-3) (67-65) 0.508 (31-33) 0.484
25 MWC AIR FORCE (9-3) (65-65) 0.500 (31-33) 0.484

Next week, I will post my weekly rankings and the “mock” fictional 16 team playoff brackets in what could be in the future of college football.

Follow me on Twitter at cfbpoexpert



Alabama #1 in Rankings, but #2 In Mock 16 Team Playoff Rank

Alabama remains the #1 ranked FBS program in my weekly rankings, but is seeded #2 in my early MOCK/Fictional 16 Team Playoff Model. The Broncos from Western Michigan are ranked and seeeded opposite of Alabama at #2 and #1. The first order of business, is can both Alabama and Western Michigan remain the only 0-loss programs left standing after the 12regular season game schedule is complete? Research supports and states that on average there are (2.62) 0-loss programs per each FBS season. We have one week remaining in the FBS regular season. Alabama (11-0) hosts (8-3) Auburn, while (11-0) Western Michigan host (9-2) Toledo. Both games are not easy games to win as Alabama and Western Michigan look to stay un-defeated. We shall see which one of these two stay at 0-loss or who falls into the 1-loss group.

Weekly rankings and seeding criteria are different in relationship to how each assigned ranking and seeded number is applied to each FBS program. The playoff seeding rank is a quantifiable process based upon research and multiple quantifiable variables which are standardized and used for all FBS programs. This weeks Playoff (PO) seeded positions are not 100% accurate, but a quick look at where the seeding of the mock field of 16 would be seeded. Preliminary seedings indicates some great first round games. Looking quickly at the games we would possibly have are ; Alabama hosting Houston, Western Michigan hosting Oklahoma State, Boise State hosting South Florida, Ohio State hosting Colorado, Michigan hosting Nebraska, Clemson hosting Wisconsin, Washington hosting Louisville and Penn State hosting Oklahoma. I can guarentee you all of those games would be exciting and SOLD OUT.

Currently, 65 FBS programs are bowl eligible with another 18 FBS programs still eligible to become bowl eligible with 5-wins and 1 or 2 games remaining on the FBS season. If all 18 eligible FBS programs win their last games then, the total number of bowl eligible FBS programs would be at 83 and no need for any (5-7) program to be considered for any open bowl spots. The last week of college football will be entertaining to watch all weekend long, starting with 3 MAC games on Tuesday night and concluding with UMass and Hawaii on Saturday.

On to this weeks rankings:

1 SEC ALABAMA (11-0) (63-46) 0.578 (22-27) 0.449 2
2 MAC WESTERN MICHIGAN (11-0) (42-68) 0.382 (18-31) 0.367 1
3 B10 OHIO STATE (10-1) (67-54) 0.554 (28-34) 0.452 4
4 B10 MICHIGAN (10-1) (63-59) 0.516 (25-37) 0.403 5
5 MWC BOISE STATE (10-1) (58-63) 0.479 (25-26) 0.490 3
6 ACC CLEMSON (10-1) (67-42) 0.615 (30-29) 0.508 6
7 P12 WASHINGTON (10-1) (52-56) 0.481 (26-40) 0.394 7
8 B10 PENN STATE (9-2) (68-53) 0.562 (30-33) 0.476 8
9 B10 WISCONSIN (9-2) (64-56) 0.533 (33-31) 0.516 11
10 B12 OKLAHOMA (9-2) (62-55) 0.530 (23-37) 0.383 9
11 B10 NEBRASKA (9-2) (61-60) 0.504 (30-34) 0.469 12
12 ACC LOUISVILLE (9-2) (60-61) 0.496 (22-36) 0.379 10
13 P12 COLORADO (9-2) (67-54) 0.554 (34-41) 0.453 13
14 AAC HOUSTON (9-2) (57-51) 0.528 (20-29) 0.408 15
15 AAC SOUTH FLORIDA (9-2) (54-55) 0.495 (22-27) 0.449 14
16 B12 OKLAHOMA STATE (9-2) (52-54) 0.491 (23-37) 0.383 16
17 MWC SAN DIEGO STATE (9-2) (41-69) 0.373 (18-33) 0.353
18 SEC FLORIDA (8-2) (55-50) 0.524 (24-34) 0.414
19 AAC NAVY (8-2) (54-45) 0.545 (22-26) 0.458
20 B12 WEST VIRGINIA (8-2) (50-47) 0.515 (28-26) 0.519
21 SBC TROY (8-2) (48-47) 0.505 (22-16) 0.579
22 P12 USC (8-3) (68-53) 0.562 (33-40) 0.452
23 P12 STANFORD (8-3) (62-58) 0.517 (36-37) 0.493
24 SBC APPLACHIAN STATE (8-3) (59-58) 0.504 (19-26) 0.422
25 SEC TENNESSEEE (8-3) (72-37) 0.661 (29-24) 0.547



Record- Team Overall Win Loss Seasonal Record

OPP W/L Record- The Combined Overal W/L Record of ALL Scheduled FBS programs that you played to this point in the season.

OPP %- The W/L Percentage Rate of the combined OPP W/L Records.

CONF W/L Record- The Combined Overall W/L Record of Scheduled FBS Conference Opponents ONLY, already played to this poing in the season.

PO Seed- Current Mock Playoff Seeding in my ficticious 16-Team Playoff Format. This seed number is not accurate or solidified until the completion of the 12-Games FBS season is complete.


If you have any questions, please contact me via twitter @cfbpoexpert