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 for 20% OFF. The link below should get direct to the page.


Georgia is my New #1 after UPSET Saturday

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

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

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

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

Here is this weeks rankings:

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

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

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

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

Washington St. Coach Leach Believes in 16 Team Playoff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MIke Leach Goes Off: Expand The College Football Playoff. Press Conference with Washington State Head Football Coach; Mike Leach. Vidoe posted on Posted by CBS Affiliate KREM2 in Washington on October 10, 2017.

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



Saban’s Wish, the P5 and Pandoras Box

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Bonesteel, Matt. (2017). “Nick Saban’s “far out” scheduling plan would be great for Alabama, less so for everyone else”. Washington Post. July 27, 2017. Retreived July 27, 2017 from the World Wide Web.

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

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

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

Alabama Stays #1 for Fourth Week

Alabama retains their #1 college football ranking within my ranking system for the fourth week in a row. Alabama (9-0) survived a scare from LSU, but the supposed “best” college football team struggels offensively. However, those CFB/FBS programs ranked below Alabama seem to outperform their opponents this past weekend by running up the scores to 50+ points to make a statement. The CFP committee possesses a challenge in ranking the college football programs 1 through 25. I did predict last week, that 0-loss Western Michigan woud be ranked no higher than 20th in the CFP poll. I was right, the CFP committee ranked Western Michigan 23rd. Wonder where the CFP committee will rank Western Michigan this week, 20th? I put more faith and confidence in (9-0) Western Michigan and have them ranked 4th this week. They have not lost, they have been consistant, earned their victoriesa dn their ranking within my poll.

So why can’t the CFP committee rank Western Michigan in the Top 4 of their weekly rankings? One reason is that the CFP protocol DOES NOT allow any Group of Five CFB/FBS member access to the $50 Million Dollars at stake but can be considered for a bowl game with some prestige to it and I do believe its comes with a $10 Million dollar payout. The birdesmaid gift for going 0-loss the whole season. The second reason is, if and only if the 0-loss Group of Five FBS/CFB programs is ranked higher than any remaining Power Five Conference Champion but ranked the Group of Five FBS/CFB program must be ranked no lower than 12th in the final rankings. That means for any Group of Five member to gain financial accolades, they must meet specific criterion which is subjective and manipulative based upon the very “inexperienced” CFP committee, coaches who vote with vested interest and a media bias. Pretty hard to swallow for a CFB/FBS/NCAA member institution to abide by even though they pay thier annual membership dues to participate in college athletics, but vehetmetly withheld from the $50 Million dollars on the table and that crystal football to be called National Champion.

As for this weeks rankings, many of the programs are taking a foothold on maintaining thier top 25 rank within my poll. The bottom part of the poll seems to be musical chairs. With three weeks remaining in the CFB season, those competing for my ficticious 16-team playoff spots are getting closer to securing spots. Within the next two weeks, some of the 16 spots will be secured but not finalaized. Facts about this weeks data and bowl eligibility:

48 CFB/FBS programs have secured or earned bowl eligibilty with 6-wins or greater.

24 CFB/FBS programs are 1-win away from earning bowl eligibility.

19 CFB/FBS programs are 2-wins away from bowl eligibility and need to win 2 of their last 3 or 4 games remaining to earn bowl eligibility.

Total number of CFB/FBS programs needed to participate in bowl games is 80.. will the bowls turn to (5-7) programs to complete the bowl season???

Now for this weeks rankings:


1 SEC ALABAMA (9-0) (49-32) 0.605 (16-17) 0.485
2 B10 MICHIGAN (9-0) (42-40) 0.512 (13-23) 0.361
3 ACC CLEMSON (9-0) (45-26) 0.634 (16-19) 0.457
4 MAC WESTERN MICHIGAN (9-0) (33-41) 0.446 (10-17) 0.370
5 P12 WASHINGTON (9-0) (32-40) 0.444 (10-21) 0.323
6 B10 OHIO STATE (8-1) (47-34) 0.580 (19-17) 0.528
7 MWC BOISE STATE (8-1) (41-40) 0.506 (15-12) 0.556
8 ACC LOUISVILLE (8-1) (38-34) 0.469 (14-24) 0.368
9 MWC SAN DIEGO STATE (8-1) (25-50) 0.333 (8-21) 0.276
10 B12 WEST VIRGINIA (7-1) (29-34) 0.460 (13-17) 0.433
11 SBC TROY (7-1) (29-34) 0.460 (7-13) 0.350
12 B10 PENN STATE (7-2) (52-30) 0.634 (21-15) 0.583
13 SEC AUBURN (7-2) (46-33) 0.582 (13-18) 0.419
14 B10 WISCONSIN (7-2) (47-34) 0.580 (21-15) 0.583
15 B10 NEBRASKA (7-2) (41-41) 0.500 (18-18) 0.500
16 B12 OKLAHOMA (7-2) (39-42) 0.481 (11-25) 0.306
17 SBC APPLACHIAN STATE (7-2) (38-42) 0.475 (9-15) 0.375
18 SEC TEXAS A&M (7-2) (42-29) 0.592 (20-14) 0.588
19 P12 COLORADO (7-2) (47-34) 0.580 (14-24) 0.368
20 MWC WYOMING (7-2) (40-32) 0.580 (11-15) 0.423
21 AAC HOUSTON (7-2) (38-33) 0.535 (15-17) 0.469
22 ACC NORTH CAROLINA (7-2) (38-34) 0.528 (15-18) 0.455
23 ACC VIRGINIA TECH (7-2) (37-35) 0.514 (12-20) 0.275
24 AAC SOUTH FLORIDA (7-2) (36-37) 0.493 (12-16) 0.429
25 B12 OKLAHOMA STATE (7-2) (35-36) 0.493 (13-21) 0.382


As the season concludes the rankings will stil remain the same but soon be transposed into playoff rankings. In the next two weeks, Alabama will add an FCS game to their total and any FCS games scheduled counts as a win or loss but does not count as part of your FBS schedule data. This means Alabama is more than likely not going to beable to retain their #1 rank in my poll.  I will explain more when that happens.

Please follow me on Twitter at cfbpoexpert

Comments, questions and debate welcomed by all. Let see how this final 3 weeks determine my field of 16.


Alabama Holds #1 Ranking for Now

This college football seson has seen it share of great games and surprises. Alabama stills holds onto the Number 1 ranking in my weekly poll. However, there were some position changes with GREAT FBS programs below Alabama, who could and CAN pose a challenge to Alabama. Alabama (8-0) travels to Baton Rouge this week to play (5-2) LSU. Do not be surpired if Aabama falls out of the small group of 0-loss programs after playing at LSU. This college fotball season has seen its share of upsets, surprises and great story lines.

With four weeks of college football left in the regular season schedule, excluding the traditional Army/Navy game, we are now down to five 0-loss teams left and still Western Michigan is not receiveing any credit in the weekly polls outside of mine. I rank the Western Michigan Broncos 4th in my poll. The published polls of the AMWAY Coaches Poll (a.k.a. USA Today Coaches Poll), and the AP Poll has Western Michiagn ranked 18th and 17th. When the CFP Polls are announced November 1st live on the “expert” sports channel, I bet Western Michigan is not ranked any higher than 20th. Just curious of those FIVE 0-loss programs left, who will remain standing at 0-losses? My bet is if Western Michigan is the ONLY remaining 0-loss FBS program standing at the end of the season, then the very in-experienced CFP committee won’t even give them a sniff or credibilty to compete for the “National Championship”, the $50 Million Dollars at stake and national acccolades for college football because of “CFP Protocol”. Can anyons say Sherman Act breach of anti-trust.

As of the completion of this past weekends games, 37 FBS programs have earned bowl eligibilty. with a group of 24 5-win FBS programs waiting in the wings within the coming two weeks to secure bowl eligibilty. If all 24 5-win programs win this week and or next, that makes the bowl eligible group total to be 61. Right behind that group of 5-win programs, is a group of 25 4-win programs who are working towards bowl eligibilty. If all 25 of those 4-win programs earn bowl eligibilty, then we have a group of 86 FBS programs eligible for post season bowls and not enough slots. My guess is, that someone gets left out.

As we get towards the end of the college football regular season, you will find that FBS programs will maintain thier rankings the majority of the time. Wyoming (6-2) makes my Top 25 rankings this week after pulling off a (30-28) win over Boise State, now (7-1). There were some other great games this past weekend, besides the Wyoming win over Boise State. If I were to select my field of 16 FBS teams for my mock playoff format, then my research and data holds true. The field would possess 11 Power Five Programs and 5 Group of Five Porgrams.

Here is this weeks weekly rankings:

1 SEC ALABAMA (8-0) (39-27) 0.591 (12-13) 0.480
2 B10 MICHIGAN (8-0) (32-33) 0.492 (8-17) 0.320
3 ACC CLEMSON (8-0) (37-18) 0.673 (11-14) 0.440
4 MAC WESTERN MICHIGAN (8-0) (27-32) 0.458 (9-10) 0.474
5 P12 WASHINGTON (8-0) (29-36) 0.446 (9-18) 0.333
6 B10 OHIO STATE (7-1) (35-29) 0.547 (12-13) 0.480
7 MWC BOISE STATE (7-1) (33-30) 0.524 (10-7) 0.588
8 ACC LOUISVILLE (7-1) (31-33) 0.484 (11-15) 0.423
9 B10 NEBRASKA (7-1) (29-36) 0.446 (10-15) 0.400
10 SEC TEXAS A&M (7-1) (33-23) 0.589 (14-11) 0.560
11 MWC SAN DIEGO STATE (7-1) (20-39) 0.339 (5-15) 0.250
12 AAC HOUSTON (7-2) (34-29) 0.540 (13-15) 0.464
13 AAC SOUTH FLORIDA (7-2) (32-33) 0.492 (11-14) 0.440
14 P12 UTAH (7-2) (31-34) 0.477 (13-18) 0.419
15 SEC FLORIDA (6-1) (26-31) 0.456 (9-16) 0.360
16 B12 WEST VIRGINIA (6-1) (25-23) 0.521 (11-9) 0.550
17 SBC TROY (6-1) (25-23) 0.521 (5-12) 0.294
18 B12 BAYLOR (6-1) (17-31) 0.354 (6-14) 0.300
19 B10 WISCONSIN (6-2) (41-23) 0.641 (16-9) 0.640
20 B10 PENN STATE (6-2) (43-23) 0.652 (15-10) 0.600
21 SEC AUBURN (6-2) (36-26) 0.581 (10-12) 0.455
22 B12 OKLAHOMA (6-2) (34-31) 0.523 (9-16) 0.36
23 SBC APPLACHIAN STATE (6-2) (32-32) 0.500 (8-9) 0.471
24 P12 COLORADO (6-2) (39-26) 0.600 (11-17) 0.393
25 MWC WYOMING (6-2) (33-24) 0.579 (8-9) 0.471

Please share, comments and questions on twitter at cbpoexpert

Let the last four weeks of college football be fun, crazy, exciting and full of surprises.

Alabama Retains #1 Ranking

With the college football season playing within the last half of the season, upsets will occur as well as FBS programs maintaining their ranking and dominance. The last half of the college football season always seems to be the most interesting part of the season, since anything can happen from this half way point forward. Alabama (8-0) retains my number 1 ranking in this weeks poll, but could relinquish it after this upcoming weekend games and results. Even thought Alabama has a bye week this week, those (7-0) programs that play this weekend will make that (8-0) group more interesting to rank and easier to compare data against each other. Western Michigan moves up this week to the second ranked spot in my polls, as the only other (8-0) FBS team. There are five (7-0) FBS programs ranked behind both Alabama and Western Michigan. We will see who maintains their 0-loss records and changes their ranking position after this weekends games.

The biggest surprise of the weekend was Ohio State losing to Penn State (24-21), which dropped Ohio State in my polls to being ranked 12th and Penn State enters my rankings at 23rd. Along the way there will be more surprises in store. Could those surpises be Alabama losing to LSU or Auburn. Could another suprprise be Western Michigan and Boise State both be the only remaining 0-loss programs left and vehemetly being denied opportuity to compete in ther CFP playoffs, the $50 Million Dollars on the table and the opportunity to be called “National Champion”. I guess we will see how the last half of the CFB season plays out.

This weeks rankings:

1 SEC ALABAMA (8-0) (34-25) 0.576 (11-11) 0.500
2 MAC WESTERN MICHIGAN (8-0) (27-26) 0.509 (9-7) 0.563
3 B10 MICHIGAN (7-0) (28-24) 0.538 (6-11) 0.353
4 MWC BOISE STATE (7-0) (25-26) 0.49 (5-6) 0.455
5 B10 NEBRASKA (7-0) (20-30) 0.4 (6-10) 0.375
6 ACC CLEMSON (7-0) (28-14) 0.667 (10-7) 0.588
7 P12 WASHINGTON (7-0) (20-32) 0.385 (3-14) 0.176
8 P12 UTAH (7-1) (20-31) 0.392 (7-15) 0.318
9 B12 WEST VIRGINIA (6-0) (17-19) 0.472 (5-7) 0.417
10 B12 BAYLOR (6-0) (11-24) 0.314 (3-9) 0.250
11 ACC LOUISVILLE (6-1) (28-23) 0.549 (9-9) 0.500
12 B10 OHIO STATE (6-1) (26-25) 0.510 (6-11) 0.353
13 SBC TROY (6-1) (22-21) 0.512 (4-11) 0.267
14 SEC TEXAS A&M (6-1) (29-16) 0.644 (12-10) 0.545
15 MAC TOLEDO (6-1) (14-31) 0.311 (4-8) 0.333
16 MWC SAN DIEGO STATE (6-1) (14-31) 0.311 (3-9) 0.250
17 P12 COLORADO (6-2) (34-24) 0.586 (8-15) 0.348
18 ACC NORTH CAROLINA (6-2) (27-22) 0.551 (9-9) 0.500
19 AAC HOUSTON (6-2) (27-22) 0.551 (9-10) 0.474
20 AAC SOUTH FLORIDA (6-2) (25-28) 0.472 (5-11) 0.313
21 SEC FLORIDA (5-1) (20-23) 0.465 (6-10) 0.375
22 AAC NAVY (5-1) (21-16) 0.568 (6-10) 0.375
23 B10 PENN STATE (5-2) (35-16) 0.686 (6-11) 0.353
24 B12 OKLAHOMA (5-2) (28-22) 0.560 (6-10) 0.375
25 SBC APPLACHIAN STATE (5-2) (27-24) 0.529 (5-14) 0.263


OPP W/L and %- Combined Overall Records of Opponents already played win-loss records and percentage rate

Conference W/L and %- Combined Conference Records of Conference Opponents already played win-loss records and percentage rate.

These results are as accurate and fair as you can get compared to the USA Today Coaches Poll, the AP Poll and the soon to be release CFP Committee Poll.

Questions and comments welcomed on twitter at cfbpoexpert

Alabama, Number 1 this week…

With the fourth poll in my 2016 CFB/FBS weekly rankings, Alabama has finally secured the Number 1 spot for now. Four polls, four new Number 1’s. Of the Number 1’s CFB/FBS programs I have ranked weekly, either have dropped from the Number 1 spot due to loss or Did Not Play (DNP). Both Louisville and Tennessee were dropped from the Number 1 ranked spot due to losses.  However, Michigan drops out of the Number 1 spot due to the fact that they were on a bye week and could not increase thier win total, but are still ranked fourth (4th).

There are valid arguments to be made for those CFB/FBS programs I have ranked 1 through 3, to be ranked at the top of my weekly poll. Clemson (ACC) and Western Michigan (MAC) could also be ranked Number 1 this week, but since they already played a FCS schools, I hold that against them in the rankings since FCS schools are not eligible to compete for the $50 Million dollars at stake on the table or are classified as an FBS school for football. It’s like the NY Yankees playing their farm club and receiving credit for automatic wins. Since Alabama does not play their FCS opponent until later, they will stay at Number 1 until that point or loses. However, Clemson possesses a better Opponent Win-Loss percentage and Conference Opponent Win-Loss percentage over both Alabama (SEC) and Western Michigan (MAC). So there are VALID and measurable variables to support Clemson being ranked Number 1 in my poll. With that said; Alabama, Clemson and Western Michigan all (7-0) could be ranked 1 through 3, in three different ways depending on the variables used.

Here is this weeks rankings.

1 SEC ALABAMA (7-0) (26-21) 0.553 (6-8) 0.429
2 ACC CLEMSON (7-0) (25-12) 0.676 (9-5) 0.643
3 MWC WESTERN MICHIGAN (7-0) (18-21) 0.462 (5-4) 0.556
4 B10 MICHIGAN (6-0) (21-18) 0.538 (3-7) 0.300
5 B10 OHIO STATE (6-0) (18-20) 0.474 (2-8) 0.200
6 MWC BOISE STATE (6-0) (16-21) 0.432 (3-6) 0.333
7 B10 NEBRASKA (6-0) (15-22) 0.405 (4-5) 0.444
8 SEC TEXAS A&M (6-0) (19-14) 0.576 (6-9) 0.400
9 P12 WASHINGTON (6-0) (18-22) 0.450 (2-9) 0.182
10 B12 BAYLOR (6-0) (8-23) 0.258 (2-8) 0.200
11 AAC HOUSTON (6-1) (20-16) 0.556 (5-7) 0.417
12 AAC SOUTH FLORIDA (6-1) (17-23) 0.425 (1-8) 0.111
13 P12 UTAH (6-1) (16-23) 0.410 (5-10) 0.333
14 B12 WEST VIRGINIA (5-0) (12-13) 0.480 (2-4) 0.333
15 ACC LOUISVILLE (5-1) (22-19) 0.537 (7-7) 0.500
16 SEC FLORIDA (5-1) (17-21) 0.447 (5-10) 0.333
17 SBC TROY (5-1) (18-15) 0.545 (4-5) 0.444
18 MAC TOLEDO (5-1) (13-21) 0.382 (2-4) 0.333
19 AAC MEMPHIS (5-1) (12-20) 0.375 (2-3) 0.400
20 MWC SAN DIEGO STATE (5-1) (10-22) 0.313 (2-4) 0.333
21 SEC TENNESSEEE (5-2) (34-11) 0.756 (13-4) 0.765
22 ACC FLORIDA STATE (5-2) (27-11) 0.711 (9-6) 0.600
23 SEC ARKANSAS (5-2) (26-12) 0.684 (9-2) 0.818
24 ACC NORTH CAROLINA (5-2) (24-15) 0.615 (7-6) 0.538
25 ACC PITTSBURGH (5-2) (21-17) 0.553 (5-5) 0.500

My rankings possesses more validity and credibility in ranking FBS programs 1 through 25 because I examine, evaluate and assess variables that the USA Today Coaches, the AP Press Voters, the “expert” ESPN media members and CFP committee fail to review or accept as valid rankings variables. These voters, media members and committee members use the eye test or vested interest to rank CFB/FBS programs 1 through 25. If you review my rankings this week, I have all FBS conferences ranked within my Top 25, except Conference USA (CUSA). I hold no bias or favortism, numbers and data do not lie.

Now the 2016 FBS season starts to get more interesting with many menaingful scheduled games to be played. We are now down to 11 (0) loss programs and 9 (1) loss FBS programs still standing in college football. At the half mile pole of the CFB/FBS 2016 season, I wonder what the next poll will show? Will we lose any more (0) loss teams and will more (1) loss teams become (2) loss teams. Let the remaining games of the 2016 FBS/CFB season be entertaining and un-predictable. I look forward to the outcomes of those games scheduled.

I take questions and comments on twitter at  @cfbpoexpert

Please share with your college football friends and family.


Week 3 Poll: Michigan Takes the Number 1 Spot

This 2016 college football season has seen some very interesting games and outcomes. Expectations of who were perceived as the best FBS teams when the pre season polls were released, but reality does rear its head as the season plays out. Last weeks Number 1; Tennessee fell to a very good Texas A&M team who could end up beating Alabama in a few weeks. There are surprises in this weesk Top 25 poll with the Washington Huskies, Western Michigan, Navy and Troy being in the Top 25. In the next few weeks I will add reasons and data points on why certain FBS programs are ranked the way I have ranked them.

Within two weeks, our 0-loss program numbers have dwindled down to just 11 now, from 23. Of those 11 remaining 0-loss programs, we could see only 1 zero loss program left standing at the end of the FBS season, prior to the bowl games and conference championship games. Who will that 1 program be, I have my thoughts but I will let the season play out.

Here my weekly Top 25 rankings for college football at the FBS level.

1      B10         MICHIGAN                     (6-0)
2      SEC        ALABAMA                       (6-0)
3      ACC        CLEMSON                      (6-0)
4      SEC        TEXAS A&M                   (6-0)
5      MAC       WESTERN MICHIGAN (6-0)
6      P12         WASHINGTON              (6-0)
7      B10         OHIO STATE                  (5-0)
8     MWC       BOISE STATE                 (5-0)
9     B10          NEBRASKA                    (5-0)
10   B12          BAYLOR                          (5-0)
11   SEC         TENNESSEEE                 (5-1)
12    AAC        HOUSTON                      (5-1)
13    ACC        WAKE FOREST              (5-1)
14    P12         ARIZONA STATE           (5-1)
15    AAC        SOUTH FLORIDA           (5-1)
16    P12         UTAH                              (5-1)
17    B12         WEST VIRGINIA            (4-0)
18    B10         WISCONSIN                   (4-1)
19    ACC        LOUISVILLE                   (4-1)
20   SEC         FLORIDA                          (4-1)
21   AAC         NAVY                               (4-1)
22   SBC         TROY                                (4-1)
23    ACC        VIRGINIA TECH              (4-1)
24    B10         MARYLAND                    (4-1)
25    ACC        NC STATE                       (4-1)

This Top 25 in which I have ranked, possesses no vested interest in who is ranked and or where they are ranked. My objetcive is to get it right and make sure those FBS programs who need to be ranked in the other public and published polls receive notoriety and due recognition for thier success. All FBS CFB programs are equal.

If you have any questions or comments please send them to me through twitter @cfbpoexpert

Please share this post with all your friends and college football fans across the country.

Tennessee Vols Number 1 in this weeks poll

There were some position movements within this next poll from the first poll last week. Last weeks number 1, Louisville Cardinals loss to Clemson Saturday, dropped out of the top spot in my poll. As the CFB season progresses there with many key match-ups on the remaining schedule, which of the remaining 16 0-loss FBS programs will remain at the end of the season. My prediction on that will be 2, 0-loss prorgams remaining at the end of the 2016 CFB season.

Many of you will wonder why I do not have Alabama ranked Number 1 in my poll. I use different variables which are measurable and accountable against your current season, in addition to what research proves on those specific variables. The media, coaches and CFP committee use their own variables which does posses vested interests in how they rank the FBS programs. I have no vested interests or a stake with the $50 Million Dollars, the trophy or the right to be called national champion at the FBS level. I possess a more Stuart Mills like approach.

Here is my Top 25 for Week 2 of the 2016 FBS season:

1     SEC       TENNESSEEE                     (5-0)
2     B10       MICHIGAN                          (5-0)
3     SEC      ALABAMA                            (5-0)
4     B10       NEBRASKA                         (5-0)
5     ACC      CLEMSON                           (5-0)
6     MAC     WESTERN MICHIGAN      (5-0)
7     AAC      HOUSTON                           (5-0)
8    SEC       TEXAS A&M                        (5-0)
9    P12        WASHINGTON                   (5-0)
10  B12        BAYLOR                              (5-0)
11   B10       OHIO STATE                      (4-0)
12   MWC   BOISE STATE                       (4-0)
13   ACC     MIAMI (FLA)                       (4-0)
14   B10       MARYLAND                        (4-0)
15   MWC   AIR FORCE                          (4-0)
16   B12      WEST VIRGINIA                 (4-0)
17   ACC      LOUISVILLE                        (4-1)
18   SEC      FLORIDA                              (4-1)
19   B10      WISCONSIN                         (4-1)
20  SBC      TROY                                     (4-1)
21  ACC      NORTH CAROLINA             (4-1)
23  MAC    EASTERN MICHIGAN         (4-1)
24  SEC     ARKANSAS                            (4-1)
25  ACC     WAKE FOREST                     (4-1)

As the CFB season concludes, I will explain how I rank and what variables I use to support a more accurate ranking of the CFB porgrams without subjective assessment from the Sports Media and Coaches who have vested interest.

If you have any questions or comments please send them to me on twitter @cfbpoexpert