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.

 

Sources

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

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

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

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


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:

 

RANK CONF TEAM RECORD OPP W/L OPP % CONF W/L CONF %
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:

RANK CONF TEAM RECORD OPP W/L OPP % CONF W/L CONF %
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:

RANK CONF TEAM RECORD OPP W/L OPP % CONF W/L CONF %
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

KEY:

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.

RANK CONF TEAM RECORD OPP W/L OPP % CONF W/L CONF %
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)
22  CUSA  SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI   (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


The First Top 25 Rankings for the 2016 FBS Season


With the NCAA College Football 2016 FBS season underway with 4-weeks in, we now can start to formulate and assess the first weekly rankings based upon many variables. The varaible I use to rank my Top 25 starts with wins-losses, looks at the non-conference scheduling practices, was an FCS game already played and the current overall record of the opponents already played.

Here are some interesting facts that are current about this 2016 FBS season. As of right now there are 27 zero (0) loss programs, and 28 one (1) loss programs. its hard to rank one through twenty five, but using the measurable variables that I do. I have made some adustments to my ranking and assessment system. This weeks rankings are as follows with no favortism or subjectve bias. Since it’s early in the 2016 FBS season, I will rank (1) through (27).

First Weekly Rankings 9/25/2016:

1      ACC          LOUISVILLE                          (4-0)
2      SEC          TENNESSEEE                       (4-0)
3      B10           MICHIGAN                           (4-0)
4      B10           WISCONSIN                         (4-0)
5      B10           NEBRASKA                           (4-0)
6      SEC           ALABAMA                            (4-0)
7      MAC         WESTERN MICHIGAN        (4-0)
8      ACC          CLEMSON                            (4-0)
9      ACC          WAKE FOREST                    (4-0)
10    AAC          HOUSTON                            (4-0)
11     P12          ARIZONA STATE                 (4-0)
12     B12          BAYLOR                                (4-0)
13     P12          UTAH                                     (4-0)
14     SEC          TEXAS A&M                         (4-0)
15     P12           WASHINGTON                    (4-0)
16     MWC        BOISE STATE                       (3-0)
17     B10           OHIO STATE                        (3-0)
18     P12           STANFORD                          (3-0)
19     AAC          NAVY                                     (3-0)
20     ACC          MIAMI (FLA)                         (3-0)
21      B10          MARYLAND                          (3-0)
22     MWC        SAN DIEGO STATE               (3-0)
23     MAC         TOLEDO                                (3-0)
24      AAC         MEMPHIS                             (3-0)
25      MWC        AIR FORCE                           (3-0)
26      B10          MINNESOTA                         (3-0)
27      B12          WEST VIRGINIA                   (3-0)

How this ranking breaksdown is; (6) Big 10, (4) ACC,  (4) PAC 12, (3) AAC, (3) PAC 12, (3) MWC, (3) SEC (2) Big 12,  and (2) MAC. So far well balanced. To answer the “experts” questions of which conference is the best conference, the rankings tell the tale. Numbers and data do not lie.

These 2016 CFB FBS rankings will appear weekly. Please share these rankings with any media personnel you may know or yoru college football friends.

IF you have any questions or comments please forward them to me through twitter @cfbpoexpert

 

 


2015 Field of 16 for College Football


During the coursse of my research of 8 years, I have been selecting a mock expanded college football playoff bracket which includes a field of 16. I have selected and seeded the mock field of 16 from the 1996 thourgh 2015 FBS seasons. The criteria I used is based on the professional model theory, plus other categorical variables which are quantitative, measureable and eye tests is omitted. The eye test is purely subjective and possesses no true validity in ranking criteria. This group of 16 FBS programs has earned their spots. The seeding process is based upon multiple variables plus the professional model theory. There is no one in the room with me when I seed and select. Biases are set aside and each of these FBS teams that are ranked at this level are given fair, just and equal consideration. That’s the way it should be.

Remember the criteria I use is that those FBS teams seeded one (1) through eight (8) host the first round games in their stadiums and ome sites. They earned their home field advantage playoff game. This field of sixteen (16) is comprised of thirteen (13) Power 5 members and three (3) Group of 5 members.  This system offers ALL 128 FBS members opportunity to compete for the FBS NCAA National Championship. The current and past system is not fair to all 128 FBS members.

#1 Clemson (12-0) vs. #16 Oklahoma State (10-2)

#8 North Carolina (11-1) vs. #9 Stanford (11-1)

#5 Ohio State (11-1) vs. #12 Temple (10-2)

#4 Michigan State (11-1) vs #13 Western Kentucky (10-2)

#3 Oklahoma (11-1) vs #14 Northweester (10-2)

#6 Houston (11-1) vs. #11 Florida (10-2)

#7 Alabama (11-1) vs. #10 Notre Dame (10-2)

#2 Iowa (12-0) vs. #15 Florida State (10-2)

Seeding Explanations:

#1 Clemson (12-0) overall, (67-64) vs. scheduled opponents combined records (2-0) vs. ranked in Top 16, (0-0) vs. seeded above them, 1 FCS Game and 1 Away Non Conf. Games.

#2 Iowa (12-0) overall,  (57-75) vs. scheduled opponents combined records, (1-0) vs. ranked T16, (0-0) vs. seeded above them, 1 FCS Game and 1 Away Non Conf. Games.

#3 Oklahoma (11-1) overall,  (76-64) vs. scheduled opponents combined records, (3-0) vs. ranked in T16,  (0-0) vs. seeded above them, 0 FCS Game, and 1 Away Non Conf. Games.

#4 Michigan State (11-1) overall, (70-61) vs. scheduled opponents combined  records,  (1-0) vs. ranked in T16, (0-0) vs. seeded above them, 0 FCS Game, and  1 Away Non Conf Games.

#5 Ohio State (11-1) overall, (73-71) vs. scheduled opponents combined records, (0-1) vs. ranked in T16, (0-1) vs. seeded above them, 0 FCS Game and 1 Away Non-Conf. Games.

#6 Houston (11-1) overall, (56-74) vs. scheduled opponents combined  records, (1-0) vs. ranked in T16, (0-0) vs. seeded above them, 1 FCS Game and 1 Away Non Conf. Games.

#7 Alabama (11-1) overall (81-50) vs. scheduled oppenets combined records, (0-0) vs. ranked in T16, (0-0) vs.seeded above them, 1 FCS Game and 0 Away Non Conf. Games.(neutral site game DOES NOT COUNT)

#8 North Carolina (11-1) overall, (54-66) vs. scheduled opponents combined records, (0-0) vs. ranked in T16, (0-0) vs. seeded above them, 2 FCS Games and 0 Away Non Conf. Games.

#9 Stanford (10-2) overall, (70-63) vs. scheduled opponents combined records, (1-1) vs. ranked in T16, (0-0) vs. seeded above them, 0 FCS Game and 1 Away Non-Conf. Games.

#10 Notre Dame (10-2) overall, (77-65) vs. scheduled opponents combined records, (1-2) vs ranked in T16, (0-2) vs. seeded above them, 0 FCS Game, and 2 Away Non-Conf. Games.

#11 Florida (10-2) overall, (76-66) vs. scheduled opponents combined records, (0-1) vs. ranked in T16, (0-1) vs.seeded above them, 0 FCS Game, and 0 Away Non-Conf. Games.

#12 Temple (10-2) overall, (62-82) vs. scheduled opponents combined records, (0-1) vs. ranked in T16, (0-1) vs. seeded above them, o FCS Game, and 2 Away Non-Conf. Games.

#13 Western Kentucky (10-2) overall, (64-79) vs. scheduled opponents combined records, (0-0) vs. ranked in T16, (0-0) vs. seeded above them, 0 FCS Game and 3 Away Non-Conf. Games.

#14 Northwestern (10-2) overall, (74-58) vs. scheduled opponents combined records, (0-1) vs. ranked in T16, (0-1) vs. seeded above them, 1 FCS Game and 1 Away Non-Conf. Game.

#15 Florida State (10-2)overall, (68-64) vs. scheduled opponents combined records, (1-1) vs. ranked in T16, (1-1) vs. seeded above them, 1 FCS Game and 1 Away Non-Conf. Game.

#16 Oklahoma State (10-2) overall, (68-64) vs. scheduled oppenents combined records, (0-1) vs. ranked in T16, (0-1) vs. seeded above them, 1 FCS Game and 1 Away Non-Conf. Game.

Those who were evaluated but missed the cut in order:

Appalachian State (10-2) overall, (61-72) vs. scheduled opponents combined records, (0-1) vs. ranked in T16, (0-1) vs.  seeded above them, 1 FCS Game and 2 Away Non-Conf. Games.

Navy (10-2) overall, (70-61) vs. scheduled opponents combined records, (0-2) vs. ranked in T16, (0-2) vs. seeded above them, 1 FCS Game and 1 Away Non-Conf. Game.

TCU (10-2) overall, (65-67) vs. scheduled opponents combined records, (0-2) vs. ranked in T16, (0-2) vs. seeded above them, 1 FCS Game and 1 Away Non-Conf. Game.

Toledo (9-2) overall, (60-72) vs. scheduled opponents combined records, (0-0) vs ranked in T16,(0-0) vs. seeded above them, 0 FCS Game and 0 Away Non-Conf. Game.

Key:

Overall Record- Final record after the regular season is completed. Conference Championship Games DO NOT COUNT. Only 10.6% of the FBS pool play a 13th game to be evaluated by.

VS. Scheduled Opponents- The combined records of the scheduled games on thier FBS Schedule minus (-) any FCS game. FCS program records DO NOT COUNT. FCS is not eligible for the FBS playoffs.

VS. Ranked in Top 16- The record versus those FBS programs ranked in my Top 16.

VS. Seeded Above Them- The record versus those FBS teams already seeded in my field of 16 above your seeded position.

FCS Games- Number of FCS games scheduled during the regular season. These games count overall but held against the FBS program since they should be scheduling FBS programs.

Away Non-Conference Games-Number of Non-Conference Games that were scheduled during the regular season, excluding neutral site games since their is regional home field advantage. The greater the number of Away games scheduled, the greater the risk and reward if you win on the road away from home.

It’s interesting that it takes a committee of twelve (12) to select what they beleive is the best four (4) and I can select a field of sixteen (16) which is fair, just and offers all 128 FBS programs equal opportunity to compete for the national championship. Thus making the statement of being called a true national champion for college football and the financial revenue that comes with that prestiguous honor. You don’t need a committee, your don’t need subjectivity and the Power Brokers and their conference members don’t need to have total access to the $50 Million dollar prize.

To the sports media, If you use any of my postings for your own in comments within your publishings or articles or posts, this includes use of radio and television broadcast’ please use the APA/MLA format and cite the the source.

If you have any comments or questions, please contact me here or through twitter at     cfbpoexpert.com

 


2015 FBS vs FCS Results


There are many questions that arise from the college football fans and media, when college football programs from the FBS level schedule FCS programs. The FCS is the next division down in classification at the NCAA level of college athletics from the FBS level for college football. Do you ever wonder why FBS programs schedule FCS programs?  Then in return, receive credibility for a lopsided victory that posseses a 90%+ chance of winning versus lower level classification competition. Credibilty means adding an automatic win to the win column, increasing statistical data to personal athletic particpation, an increased credibility ranking within the subjective polls and the CFP committee. What is the purpose of scheduling these types of games? Is it money? An easy win? Or is it fear of scheduling a competitve FBS opponent that could result in a loss and possess a negative effect on ranking while competing for bowl eligibility or more importantly excluded from the CFP four-team playoff. Written below is statistcial information and explains the FBS scheduling FCS debate, that ESPN and thier weak reporting staff fails to report or wish not to investigate. The data is accurate, factual and paints he picture. Care to debate the results?

In my book “College Football in the BCS Era,The Untold Truth: Analysis of Facts that Supports the 16-Team Playoff Model”, I authored and dedicated a chapter  specifically on the FBS/FCS scheduling from 1996 through 2013. Within this chapter, I clearly explained and defined the statistical evidence that supports that the FBS/FCS scheduling serves no purpose. What the statistical evidence reports is that on average, the FBS teams will win 89.8% of the time and win by 4-plus possessions or more. A possession is considered as scoring a touchdown and the extra point. During the 2015 FBS season, the results have not changed at all, in fact the win loss success rate went up almost one (1) full percentatge point to 90.6%. The FBS win-loss record versus the FCS was (96-10) this 2015 FBS season. Of those (96) wins by FBS programs, (76) were lopsided wins by 3 possessions or more. Which means the FBS programs won by equal too or greater than 21 points in the game. The total points scored this 2015 FBS season for the FBS programs against the FCS totaled (4807), with a scoring points per game average of (45.3) per game. The total points scored this 2015 FBS season by the FCS programs totaled (1548), with a scoring points per game average of (14.6) per game. The average scoring difference per game between the FBS and FCS was (30.7) points per game. That is a significant increase of (5.3) points more per game by the FBS over the FCS, in comparison to the research I already performed with the historical point difference from 1996 through 2013. Again, I ask what is the purpose of playing or scheduling these games if there is NO negative effect against FBS programs either ranked or un-ranked during the course of the FBS college football season.

The table below shows the win-loss records, total points scored and against with scoring average for each FBS Conference this 2015 FBS season.

CONF    W    L   PF  AVE    PA  AVE
AAC    7    3   412  41.2   167  16.7
ACC    19    0   917  48.3   172  9.05
B10    5    0   202  40.4   75  15
B12    7    1   371  46.4   156  19.5
CUSA    9    1   416  41.6   175  17.5
IND    2    1   126  42   57  19
MAC    9    0   397  44.1   149  16.6
MWC    11    1   543  45.3   134  11.2
P12    7    1   386  48.3   121  15.1
SBC    9    1   472  47.2   179  17.9
SEC    11    1   565  47.1   163  13.6

A note about this data and table: Toledo and LSU scheduled FCS games but did not play them this season. They could have played each other. Hmmm an intersting thought.

Here is an intersting thought. For example that best exemplaifies the lack of consistency between the subjective polls and the very inexperienced CFP committee. When Alabama played last week versus FCS Charleston Southern at home and wins, but failed to not drop in the subjective rankings or the CFP poll. However, Notre Dame plays FBS opponent Boston College on the road and wins but drops 2 spots in the CFP rankings but in the AP and Coaches Polls they climb one (1) spot. Seems there is a discrepency within consistancey in how to rank week to week and what the EXACT criteria is for the CFP committee in how to rank. Ranking criteria changes week to week wirth the CFP committee. So which or who is right? Give credit and increased ranking to a FBS program that we know is going to win versus a lower classification opponent, but decrease the credibility of an FBS program with a win versus a same level classification on the road. Seems that the CFP committee lacks a true criterial ranking process, lacks education knowledge on how to rank properly and giving credit when credit is earned not given. The CFP committee may have titles attached to thier names such as Athletic Director, Head Coach, Liuetenant, General, Executive Director of NCAA, State Senator, University Professor, Secretary of State, Commissioner of a Conference, or Writer of a newspaper; they all have an egenda on who the four (4) FBS teams will be to compete for $50+ million dollars. That egenda is selecting the right four FBS programs who have earned the spot for the CFP playoff, giving all 128 FBS programs fair, equal and just due diligence in ranking  and not ranking based upon conference affiliation or categorical assignment of Power 5 or Group of 5. All 128 FBS prorams are classified as FBS for a reason, compete under the same NCAA logo, rules and pay the same membership fees as everyone else.  The committee lacks the proper knowledge of how FCS scheudling has NO negative effect in rankings. The committee need to know all metircs to determine which are the best FBS programs not pick and choose the metrics they want to use.

Time for the CFP committee to either educate up or in need of a new CFP committee that will use all metics in the selction process.

To the sports media, If you use any of my postings for your own in comments within your publishings or articles or posts, this includes use of radio and television broadcast’ please use the APA/MLA format and cite the the source.

If you have any comments or questions, please contact me here or through twitter at     cfbpoexpert.com