In Response to Tony Barnhart’s CFB Playoff Questions


In the immortal words of Barney Stinson; character played by Neil Patrick Harris on the CBS television show “How I Met Your Mother”, “challenge accepted”. (Bays, 2005-2014). In your post titled ” So you want an 8-team playoff? Answer these questions first” (Barnhart, 2018), published and posted on the world wide web page TMG Sports, you asked for anyone to address and answer your questions in reference to expanding the College Football Playoff (CFP) from the current 4-team playoff to an 8-team format. Within your published post, you not only asked five (5) primary questions, but also asked thirteen (13) secondary questions within the primary questions. So, which questions do you want answered, the primary or secondary? How about I address, explain and answer all.

I believe what you are searching for within your line of questions are simplified answers, which only takes a breif sentence or two to respond. What you are really asking for is for someone to address a multivariate problem which not only needs qualitative and quantitative answers, precise and sysynch responses with no loop holes in the answer, but historical information to support those answer. In the words of Neil Peart, world reknown percussionist and lyrisist for the group Rush; this is what the initial response is:

” 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”

(Peart, 1980)

I think you need to know Mr. Barnhart, I already have addressed, researched, and examined this very subject matter about college football possessing the ability to implement an expanded playoff format of at least 16 FBS programs and or 8 FBS programs. I published and copyright protected my findings, results and research in a book titled “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Solutions” (Siggelow, 2013 & 2016). I have spent 10+ years of continuous research and still continues to research and examine this subject which more than needs an improved solution which allows all FBS programs equal, just and fair opportuniity to compete for the National Championship in college football at the FBS level. My published, copyright protected, reasearch proves, shows and explains in detail, that college football at the FBS level, can support and implement an expanded playoff format of 8 FBS programs or 16 FBS programs, without any adaptation to the season itself. I even developed a selection and seeding process and system that needs no committee to use any subjective assessment to determine who are viable and deserving programs to compete for the National Championship in college football at the FBS level. I am more of an expert on this subject matter than the experts themselves. I am more than capable of addressing your question with responses as an academic and expert researcher within the college football subject.

Mr. Barnhart your questions you are asking to be addressed are “wheels within wheels, with a pattern so grand and complex that you lose sight of the way the cause can’t see the effect.” (Peart, 1980).

Let me start my by addressing your line of questions in the order in which you have asked. The first question you asked is “How do you select eight teams?” (Barnhart, 2018) Followed by the next question “Do you still use a selection committee?”

Lets start at the beginning. The first question you should asked Mr. Barnhart is; can an expanded playoff format for college football at the FBS level under the NCAA logo be sustainable and viable for the overall sport of college football without ruining the integrity of the season, sports, traditions and rivalries throughout the course of the regular season?

The answer is yes. Within the rules and bylaws of the NCAA, there is enough calender time to schedule 12 regular season games, implement either an 8-team CFB playoff and or a 16-team CFB playoff. This includes maintaining all traditional rivalry games already scheduled, implementing a NFL type scheduling format which is balanced, cross divisional, cross conference and no scheduling of lower NCAA classification progams; a.k.a. the FCS programs.

The selection process of which you speak or question for whatever number of teams college football decides to select to participate for a college football playoff, must possess a hierarchial and criterion based selection process. All of which must be quantifiable and qualitative to make the selction and seeding process almost fool proof. This eliminates subjective assessment by any human committee members who possess vested interest based upon conference or FBS team relationships. The emphasis must be put in the criteria requirments in which each FBS program meets to be considered as a playoff team. By leaving the subjective assessment out of the selection process you get a fair playoff system in which FBS teams earned the right to be part of the playoffs.

Your second question Mr. Barnhart; ” If you don’t want a selection committee because it’s too political, do you just give each of the Power Five conferences an automatic bid?” (Barnhart, 2018). Automatic bids should not be given to the Power Five Conference (P5). Just like you mentioned ” what do you do with a Northwestern (8-5) or a Pittsburgh (7-6)” (Barnhart,2018). I can easily flip the script and say what do you do with a (10-2) Alabama, Georgia, Vanderbilt or others. Bids to the expanded playoff should be earned not given a right to. Just like I explaned previously above, yes selection committees can be political with vested interest and seeding bias due to the fact that there is a LARGE sum of money on the table, not including being called “national champion”, hoisting the gold trophy and rings that come with the notoriety of winning the college football national campionship. A selection commmittee is only as credible as their ability to be respected on their ranking abiities to be fair, just and un-biased. What I am agreeing with is that ANY conference champion with 0-losses or 1-loss should ALWAYS be part of the playoffs. No matter which conference they are associated with.

Its a very interesting dichotomy that you place value on a conferenece championship, pending on which conference you promote and or who that conference champion is. You speak highly of the certain programs  from specific conferences, such as the SEC, but fail to see the underlying factors and variables that assists in their successes. Moreover, you cirticize and chastize other conference winners and devalue their success because of their team name and or the conference in which they are a member of. Within my published research in book format, I researched and incorporated the professional model theory in selecting and seeding my mock field of 16 FBS programs, which is inclusive to all FBS programs and not exclusive to a group of 66.

Your third question Mr. Barnhart, “Do you eliminate conference championship games?” (Barnhart, 2018). Conference championships are basically designed for financial purpose with naming rights and or pride entitlement rights as being called “Conference Champion.” The answer to your question is, Yes you can eliminate conference championship weekend, but if and only if the CFB playoff expands to 16 teams. If the next CFB playoff move is to go to 8 CFB/FBS programs then you can still keep and implement conference championships and use those games with some value to seeding and selecting for the CFB CFP8 playoff group. Once you expand the CFB playoff to 16, then you MUST eliminate the conference championship weekends. In my publish research and book “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Solution” (Siggelow, 2013 & 2016), I used the field of 16 for expanding the playoff for CFB to prove that in can be implemented and executed without extending the CFB season or changing the NCAA rules and bylaws which CFB must adhere to, to complete the season in a timely manner.

Implementation of an and or my expanded 16 team CFB playoff model:

Within my field of 16, I eliminated conference championship weekend and replaced it with the first round games. The first round games are played at the higher seeds home field stadium sites and on the first weekend of December. All first round games must be completed by and around 7PM Pacific Standard Time. I followed and adhered to the tournament format or brackets of 16, with understanding that every student athlete, coach, athletic director and fan knows how a tournament bracket of 16 looks and formatted. The second week of December is dedicated to student athlete final exam week. That means all CFB student athletes should have the opportunity to study, take and compelete their final exams, if applicable, without scheduled practice. Once the student athletes complete their final exams, then supervised practice can commense.  I added this in as an academic reason for student athlete finals and injury restoration if needed.

The third weekend of December starts bowl season for college football, I determined through research that this is the prefect time to start the Quarter Final games for the remaining eight FBS programs. Since the early bowl games stuggle with attendance and financial contributions, why not incorporate the first four bowl games; the Las Vegas Bowl, The R+L Carriers Bowl (New Orleans), The New Mexico Bowl, and The AutoNation Cure Bowl (Orlando) and or The Raycom Media Camellia Bowl. By incorporarting  these four bowl games as the quarter final games you WILL SIGNIFICANTLY increase attendance, increase advertising revenue dollars, and make these four bowl games possess relevancy and prestige. The FBS programs that are already scheduled for these four bowl games can be inserted into other prestiguous bowl games with increased lucritive bowl names and payouts.

The fourth week of December will be another scheduled week off for the reamining four FBS programs. Again, another opporutnity to heal injuries, rest, prepare for the Semi-Final game and possibly visit family and friends. The Semi Final games can still be played during the same time, using the same bowl games to market the final four and not change anything witin the scheduled bowl week calander of games. The National Championship game can still be played using the same format as they currently use now. This means there would be no changes with the current uses of the Semi-Final and Championship games processes, stadium sites and planning.

By implementing my 16 team playoff format, CFB will SIGNIFICANTLY increase revenue dollars by a minimum of $150-200 Million dollars without advertising dollars and other tax based dollars. Let alone increase media coverage and fan attendance to these early games. Can you imagine how that much revenue can assist in college athletics in all areas and all FBS programs. Even if the next CFB playoff phase is to move to eight FBS programs, then you can still possess conference championship games and playoff using the early four bowl games as well. There is NO significant purpose to possess a home field advantage at this point of the calender year.

Your comment about “The CFP is not a governing body but an association of 11 conferences and Notre Dame. There is no commissioner (although that would be a very good idea)” (Barnhart, 2018). it’s very interesting in how you made that statement. If the CFP is not a governing body, then why are their requirements to the selction process? Futhermore, why is this “governing body” only allowing access to the 67 FBS members? Moreover, how did this governing body or the sports media allow to seperate the 130 FBS members based upon a classification and or labelment of BCS/P5 and Non-BCS/G5 to create a segregated group. The most interesting dichotomy of this governing body is that this bifircated and Democritusly driven system places $50 Million dollars on the table, presents a gold trophy, presents rings to the champion and the last remaining BCS/P5 program left gets to call themselves “National Champion.” What many fail to comprehend is that the CFP, Executive Director and Committee operating with a bifurcated and Democritusly driven system needs to step aside before lawsuits arise. The ultimate conclusion is that college football DOES need a commissioner that possesses no vested interests and no bias. That commissioner must operate with integrity and using the Stuart Mills Utilitarianistic desire to make sure that CFB and that all FBS programs are given fair, just and equal opportunity for the money on the table, the gold trophy, the rings and to be called “National Champion” of CFB.

Your fourth question Mr. Barnhart ” What about the Group of Five? ” (Barnhart, 2018).

I will address your fourth question with response:

” There is unrest in the forest, there is trouble with the trees”

” For the maples want more sunlight, but the oaks ignore their pleas”

(Peart, 1978)

The facts are, college athletics is and will always be operating in a business manner, generating 9-digit revenue dollars before the decimal point and draws 37+ million college football fans on an annual basis. So my concern is, why is this CFP only for a select group of FBS programs. When in fact; all 130 FBS programs operate under the NCAA blue logo, abide by all NCAA Bylaw, operate under Title IX rules and regulations, must meet NCAA Bylaw 20 to obtain the FBS classification standards under the NCAA rules, monitor student athlete academic achievements and eligibility requirements, in addition too maintaining 88 NCAA Championship sports.

The primary question; why is it that the ONLY NCAA sponsored sport of college football, at the FBS level, in which the FBS schools are labeled or classified as Non-BCS or the Group of Five (G5) are prohibited and vehemetly denied access to the CFP playoff. However, the G5 FBS programs are only eligible for the “bridesmaid” prize of one of the New Year’s Day Bowl Six games. Moreover, that G5 FBS group is only eligible IF and ONLY IF they meet “certain and specific selection requirments based upon a subjective process within a committee with Democritus principles.” The answer to your question is why not the Group of Five (G5) they are MORE than credible to participate for the $50 million dollars on the table, the gold trophy, plus the rings and the notoerity of being called “National Champion”.

Maybe Mr. Barnhart you could use a reminder or mental refresher of the historical successes of the Non-BCS/P5 FBS programs from 1996 to the present, prior to any bowl games or conference championship games were played. (1996): Army (10-1), Wyoming (10-1) and BYU (10-1); (1997): Air Force (10-2); (1998): Tulane (11-0), Marshall (10-1), Miami (OH) (10-1) and Air Force (10-1); (1999): Marshall (11-0); (2000): Toledo (10-1); (2001): BYU (12-1), Fresno State (11-2), Louisville (10-2) and Marshall (10-2); (2002): Boise State (11-1); (2003): Miami (OH) (11-1), Boise State (12-1) and Bowling Green (10-2); (2004): Utah (11-0) and Louisville (10-1); (2005): TCU (10-1); (2006): Boise State (12-0) and Louisville (11-1); (2007): Hawaii (12-0), BYU (10-2) and Boise State (10-2); (2008): Ball State (12-0)and  Boise State (12-0); (2009): Cincinnati (12-0) and Boise State (12-0); (2010): Nevada (12-1), Boise State (11-1); (2011): Boise State (11-1) and Houston (12-0); (2012): Northern Illinois (11-1) and Kent State (11-1); (2013): Northern Illinois (12-0), Louisville (11-1), Central Florida (11-1) and Fresno State (10-1); (2014): Marshall (11-1); (2015): Houston (11-1); (2016): Western Michigan (12-0); (2017): Central Florida (11-0) and Memphis (10-1);  and (2018): Central Florida (11-0).

This historical and collective group of FBS programs which you, other sports media members and the executive committee and director of the CFP call Non-BCS and G5 throughout the course of the BCA,BCS and now CFP era’s, are more than viable to have at least earned the opportunity to compete for the “National Champion” of college football at the FBS level of play. Moreover, its very interesting that a small group of 13 people who are selected as CFP commmittee members are allowed to make a subjective selection of four FBS programs to compete for the “National Championship” of college football, but the committee always finds a way to eliminate the Non-BCS/G5 programs from that final group of four for the CFP. Is it possible that the CFP and thinks like this:

” The trouble with the maples, and they quite convinced they’re right”

” They say the oaks are just to lofty, and grab up all the light”

” But if the oaks can’t help their feelings, if they like the way they’re made”

” And they wonder why the maples, can’t be happy in their shade”

(Peart, 1978)

To conclude this question in which you asked Mr. Barnhart, it should not matter what classification these FBS programs are. What does matter is that each of the 130 FBS programs possesses student athletes which were recruited to compete at the highest level of FBS football, under the NCAA blue logo. Each student athlete receives the same scholarship opportunities, plays on the same field size, same number of game time required allotted minutes to play the game, same number of games and so on. However, when its time to hand out playoff spots there is a subjective system which micrscopically find ways to eliminate or make it more than impossible for the selection committee to select a G5 program for the CFP playoff. The current selection process indicate that there is a need for a change in expanding the playoff numbers for college football. That change can either be made by a group decision to be more utilitarinianistic and adopt the Sturat Mills model or maybe by a higher power that can enforce those changes and implement other a required change in how college football determines their national champion. This means there needs to be a commissioner who can oversee the new playoff process and design the qualitative and quantitaive requirements to be playoff eligible.

” There is trouble in the forest, and the creatures all have fled”

” As the maples scream ‘oppression! and the oaks, just shake their heads”

(Peart, 1978)

This brings us to your last question Mr. Barnhart, “Where/when are you going to play the quarterfinals?” (Barnhart, 2018). I already gave a detailed explanation on how the playoff system can be implemented in a previous question above. I am more concerned about these questions and comment; “Well, let’s take Alabama. Final exams in Tuscaloosa are Dec. 10-14. Do players get exempt from final exams in order to concentrate on the game? Do they go through their regular exam schedule, squeeze in football preparations and then play football on Saturday? Do you play the game a week later or a week earlier? Do you move final exams to accommodate the playoffs? By the way, Fall Commencement at Alabama is Dec. 15. Do you move graduation day for a football game?” (Barnhart, 2018).

My first reaction is why do we have to accomodate Alabama and when THEY take their final exams. It should be about ALL student athletes academic successes. Making sure they are prepared for final exams when the opportunity arises. Within my research and expanded playoff format, which I already explained, gives a detailed description of a final exam week placed within the playoff system. The playoff is not always about the SEC or ALABAMA. The system needs to be accomodating to all. Your question about Fall Commencement, is a weak arugument. Tell me Mr. Barnhart, how many student athletes and or students actually participate in Fall Commencment. Many would rather participate in the Spring end of the academic calendar commencement with friends to enjoy the graduation experience. So the Fall Commencement argument possesses no validity to the playoff format. I think if it came down to commencement or playing in a playoff game; I would believe without a doubt that the student athletes would plan, prepare for a National Championship run over graduation. Graduation comes around often, but playing for a National Championship comes rarely.

To draw a conclusion on this lengthy post in which I addressed your multiple questions; the CFP and previous BCS systems have been proven to be a bifurcated and Democritus systems. Only serving the FBS brands which gives them the best perception as being the best. In time, either sooner than later someone is going to use the hatchet, axe and saw on the power brokers of college football and ban together and force change.

” So the maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights”

” The oaks are just too greedy, we will make them give us light”

” Now there’s no more oak oppression, for they passed a noble law”

” And the trees are all kept equal, by hatchet, axe and saw”

(Peart, 1978)

Ultimately this college football playoff expanding or not to expand all comes down to money, and possessing a power broker stance which monopolizes a playoff system. The next playoff system should be fair, with integrity; which provides a Utilitarianistic approach in determining a national champion in collgee football at the FBS level, under the NCAA logo. Paraphrasing song lyrics which best fits this situation and scenario in how the power brokers control and monopolize the CFP system:

” Big money pull a million strings”
” Big money hold the prize”
” Big money weave a mighty web”
” Big money draw the flies”

” Sometimes pushing people around”
” Sometimes pulling out the rug”
” Sometimes pushing all the buttons”
” Sometimes pulling out the plug ”
” It’s the power and the glory”
” It’s a war in paradise”
” A Cinderella story”
” On a tumble of the dice”

” Big money make a million dreams”
” Big money spin big deals”
” Big money make a mighty head”
” Big money spin big wheels”

” Sometimes building ivory towers”
” Sometimes knocking castles down”
” Sometimes building you a stairway”
” Lock you underground”
” It’s that old-time religion”
” It’s the kingdom they would rule”
” It’s the fool on television”
” Getting paid to play the fool”

” Big money make mistakes”
” Big money got a heavy hand”
” Big money take control”
” Big money got a mean streak”
” Big money got no soul”

(Peart, 1985)

I can hypothesize that the power brokers do not care about the group, just protecting their own vested interests for the “Big Money”. The playoffs for college football will expand. Not sure when and how it will expand. But rest assured that “Big Money”  and the power brokers will take care of themselves first before the group.

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.

REFERENCES

Barnhart, Tony (2018). ” So You Want an 8-Team Playoff? Answer These Questions First”. Published on the World Wide Web: TMG College Sports: For More Than The Score. Retrieved from the World Wide Web website; https://collegesportsmaven.io/tmg/tony-barnhart/so-you-want-an-8-team-playoff-answer-these-questions-first-s5ntVLLHKUSWeF8QD6N4Dw/. Retreived on December 8, 2018.

Bays, Carter (Excutive Producer). ” How I Met Your Mother” (Television Series: 2005-2014). Character Catch Phrase “Challenge Accepted”. Character Barney Stinson. Played by Neil Patrick Harris, Actor. Los Angelas, CA. Columbia Broadcasting Company. CBS.

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

Peart, Neil (1979). “Natural Science”. Recorded by Rush. Permanent Waves. Available on CD, Cassette and Record. Recorded at Le Studios. South Wales UK. Anthem, Atlantic, Epic/Sony, and Mercury. Released 1/1980.

Peart, Neil (1985). “Big Money”. Recorded by Rush. Power Windows. Available on CD, Cassette and Record. Recorded at The Oxfordshire; Sarm East Studios, Angel Studios and Abbey Road Studios, London; AIR Studios. Montserrat. Anthem, Atlantic, Epic/Sony, Mercury and Vertigo. Released 10/1985.

Siggelow, Matthew J. M.S.Ed. (2013 & 2016). “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Solution”. Avaliable at lulu.com. Self Published Research and Copyright Protected.

 


Clemson vs. Alabama Debate


I have been asked to support my reasoning why I have been ranking Clemson above Alabama all year long. My explanation is very simple. It’s all in the data. The “eye test” in which the CFP committee uses, is just a subjective process of what you perceive is reality. Perception is always not reality and reality is not always perception. The difference between reality and perception is in how we view both and use our own cognitive thought process to determine which is real. In sports, the use of highly technical savy Football Predictor Indicators, e.g. ESPN’s FPI, which can be proven as lacking significant evidence as valid and cannot support a 95% efficiency rating as sucessful, based upon prediction percentages in relationship to final outcomes in game results in which they apply these FPI ratings to. The Sagarin Rating system is another analytical rating system that the CFP committee also uses to create thier rankings. This Sagarin system has also been proven by other analytics that the Sagarin system left out qualitative and quantitative variables that need to provide a better rating. Thus both the FPI and Sagarin systems are not valid.

As I answer this question, I use variables to assist in guiding me to a much improved ranking system associated with the professional model theory with criterial assessments to rank. The variables in which I examine and use for my rankings include but not lmiited to; Non-Conference Schedules, FCS Scheduling, Home Field Advantages or Dis-Advantages within the FBS Schedule, Conference Credibility in relationship to Home Field Advantages within the groups Non-Conference Schedule, Number of Away games played, Wins on the road during the Non Conference Games, Number of Home or Away Games in succession to detemine success and advantages plus many more to list. Then I use all those variable and use the Professional Model Theory to rank based upon win loss records, just like the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL and MLS. As you can see, there is plenty of data to examone to make a much improved ranking system for college football at the FBS level.

The way I examined the Clemson/Alabama debate is simply this. The data graph below depicts the current 2018 FBS college football season with accurate statistics prior to the November 11, 2018 scheduled games. Please refer to the chart below.

CLEMSON CATEGORY ALABAMA
(9-0) RECORD (9-0)
YES FCS GAME YES
1 NON CONF AWAY 0
3 NON CONF HOME 4
(6-2) .750 NON CONF RECORD (7-4) .636
TXAM NON CONF SCHED LOU
SC LA LAF
GA STHRN ARK ST
(17-9) .654 NC OPP RECORD (11-16) .407
(58-32) .644 OVRL OPP SCHD REC (51-48) .515
(19-26) .422 CONF OPP SCHD REC (15-28) .349
(65-127) .512 OFF EFFICIENCY (74-120) .617
26 DEF EFF STOPS 22
7 GAME CONTROL 9
BC (7-2) A REM. SCHEDULE MSST (6-3) H
DUKE (6-3) H FCS H
SC (5-3) H AUB (6-3) H

GRIDRECORD- Current FBS Record during the 2018 FBS College Football Season; FCS Game– Was and Is there a scheduled games versus an FCS Opponent (FCS is Football Championship Division; which means they are the NEXT level down in football classification, not holding FBS status but all their other NCAA sponsored sports play at the Division 1 levels and meets Title IX Requirments). Non Conf Away- Was and or Is their a TRADITIONAL Non Conference Away games scheduled at that FBS programs stadium site during the FBS 2018 College Football season. Non Conf Home– Was and or Is their a TRADITIONAL Non Conference Away games scheduled at that FBS programs stadium site during the FBS 2018 College Football season. Non Conf Record– Combined record of that FBS teams Non Conference scheduled opponents Non Conference record ONLY. Non Conf Sched– That FBS teams schedule non conference games versus those FBS opponents in the 2018 season. NC OPP Record– Combined overall records of that FBS teams scheduled non conference opponents in the 2018 season. OVRL OPP SCHED REC– That FBS teams combined records of all FBS teams scheduled during their 2018 FBS season schedule. CONF OPP SCHED REC- That FBS teams combined records of that FBS teams conference scheduled opponents in the 2018 FBS season. OFF EFFICIENCY- This is the cumulative total of number of offensive possessions during the FBS 2018 season, total number of scoring drives, and total number of offensive possessions. This does includes any scoring that the defense earned in relationship to interception touchdowns, punt return touchdowns, kickoff touchdowns and safeties in which resulted in a score. Defensive 3 Possession Stops– This categorical variable is the ability of the FBS team defense to stop their opponent in 3 SUCCESSIVE possessions WITHOUT their opponent scoring any points. Each 3 SUCCESSFUL defensive possession stops equals 1. The number in parenthesies is the that FBS team rank within the whole group of FBS teams to allow for comparison. Game Control– This is acategorical variable which is determined by the ranked FBS teams ability to win games based upon final outcomes by winning by 21 points or 3 possessions or more. REM SCHEDULE–  Remaining Scheduled Games versus FBS and FCS programs and their current opponents records.

To support my data and reasons, please let me explain. The case for Clemson’s rank higher than Alabama is well supported by Clemson playing Texas A&M in College Station, winning and winning on the road. Clemson possesses a higher win loss percentage rate within their Non Conference Schedule compared to Alabama. Clemson scheduled non conference games with FBS opponents that are successful this 2018 FBS season. Where as, Alabama cannot use the excuse of playing a poor non conference schedule as a defense to their mirage like success. The Alabama non conference schedule is significantly weaker than Clemson. Clemson possesses a better defensive stop rate than Alabama versus statistically tougher FBS competition. Offensively, Alabama may be ranked higher than Clemson in offensive efficiency, but Alabama has not really played statistically tough FBS competition. Furtehrmore,  Alabama has played a significantly less competitive schedule overall which is supported by the weaker SEC conference scheduled opponents and weaker non conference scheduled opponents success versus other non conference FBS programs.

To conclude, Alabama possesses a lighter remaining schedule with 3 Home games still left to play in better weather climate. In addition to that, Alabama plays a FCS program at the end of the regualr season prior to the annual rivalry game versus Auburn. My prediction, Alabama wins 48-7 versus The Citadel. published research supports this and Alabama will receive praise for the win veruss the FCS program. Clemson still has to play 3 ACC opponents with all 3 FBS ACC opponents combined records being (18-8) and on the road to Boston College in the COLDER weather. This means Clemsons strength of schedule is statistically better than Alabama’s.

To the media experts of the Experts Sports Programming Network and the CFP selection committee; YOU fail to see the other data which supports that Clemson by a few lengths should be ranked higher than Alabama. However, the Experts Sports Programming network is deep in LOVE with the “bride” and cannot see past that. This is called subjective bias. Until Clemson loses, I will ALWAYS rank CLEMSON higher than Alabama.

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.

 


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

 


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:

A B
1 GEORGIA (7-0)
2 ALABAMA (7-0)
3 WISCONSIN (6-0)
4 PENN STATE (6-0)
5 TCU (6-0)
6 SOUTH FLORIDA(6-0)
7 USC (6-1)
8 OHIO STATE (6-1)
9 SAN DIEGO STATE (6-1)
10 NC STATE (6-1)
11 CLEMSON (6-1)
12 WASHINGTON STATE (6-1)
13 MIAMI (FLA)(5-0)
14 CENTRAL FLORIDA (5-0)
15 OKLAHOMA STATE (5-1)
16 MARSHALL (5-1)
17 NAVY (5-1)
18 OKLAHOMA (5-1)
19 MICHIGAN STATE (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