Ohio State remains No.1

It’s mid-October and we are about at the half-mile pole for college football with the cream slowly rising to the top, others gaining ground and some slipping into the pack. Of the field of (128) FBS programs, there are NO Secretariat’s in this group. Ohio State remains number 1 in both of my polls. Michigan State is a close second but actually stole a victory to stay at (7-0) and with pace with Ohio State. The Big 10 has established thier dominance this year but that can change as we head into the last half of the college football season. Utah, Temple and Toledo all exchange places as they settle in behind the leaders in the third through fifth positions.

The college football season has had many great games and non-historic FBS programs earning success this season, but not receiving the media credit coverage from print, radio and televised media that they deserve. Congratulations to Memphis at (6-0) from the American Athletic Conference(AAC), a Non Power 5 or Non BCS conference member.  Memphis started out being ranked in my polls at 10th and 11th, then 8th and 11th, last week 10th and 12th and this week 8th and 10th. Memphis has been consistant all season long, but no real mention in the media until now.

Yesterday, Memphis earns a program and conferene credibilty win against SEC member Mississippi. If I recall, was not Mississippi now (4-2), ranked in the top 10 in the preseason polls by the so-called experts and sports media.The only credit Mississippi has to thier credit is the win against Alabama. And NOW ESPN’s Mike and Mike and other college football shows in the sports media in print, radio and television are now showing slight interest. Seems that Memphis deserves more credit that what the media are offering. This also includes Toledo, Temple, Navy, Houston and Utah; they too deserve more media coverage. Oh wait, Toledo, Memphis, Houston, Navy and Temple are not Power 5 Conference members and are left on the back burner. Interesting that they pay the same NCAA and conference membership fees like the Power 5 conferences, compete on the same field of play as them but have to wait to receive media credibilty. That’s like the Kansas City Royals who have won the AL Central and hoping to play in thier second consecutive World Series. Interesting analogy is that the New York Yankees make the most money for MLB but finsihed behind Kansas City this season. Guess who is playing for the possibility to play in the World Series, not the Yankess. The Royals players and coaches EARNED that spot these past two seasons, not given to them. Maybe the sports media should immediately recognize when non-primary or Non-Power 5 FBS college programs are doing better than thier crystal ball expectations and predictions from the media and give them thier just due credit.

And now to this weeks rankings. There have been a few changes with FBS teams moving up, some moving down. As of the half mile pole of the FBS college football season there are (14) 0-loss and (15) 1-loss programs left in FBS colege football. From the 0-loss group; (12) are from the BCS/Power 5 Conferences and (4) are from the Non-BCS/Non-Power 5 conferences. Those (4) are Houston, Memphis and Temple all from the American Athletic Conference(AAC) and Toledo from the Mid-Amercian Conference(MAC). We know that only (1) from the AAC could emerge as the only 0-loss FBS program and still no media coverage. Below are the current rankings based upon my research and assessment on how college football should be ranked; not by popularity, confernece affiliation labels by the sports media mean nothing to me or which FBS progam generates the most revenue dollars is a non factor. Finally, congratulation to Appalachian State from the Sun Belt Conference (SBC) for cracking my Top 25. I hope they continue their success and end up at (11-1). We shall see.

Group 1 Rankings: Professional Model Theory

TOLEDO (6-0) ↑ 3
UTAH (6-0) ↑ 1
TEMPLE (6-0) ↓ 2
IOWA (7-0) ↑ 1
TCU (7-0) ↑ 1
MEMPHIS (6-0) ↑ 2
LSU (6-0) ↑ 5
CLEMSON (6-0) ↑ 2
BAYLOR (6-0) ↓ 1
HOUSTON (6-0) ↑ 2
NOTRE DAME (6-1) ↑ 3
MARSHALL (6-1) ↑ 6
FLORIDA (6-1) ↓ 15
ALABAMA (6-1) ↑ 9
OKLAHOMA (5-1) ↑ 7
STANFORD (5-1) ↑ 6
CALIFORNIA (5-1) ↑ 3
PITTSBURGH (5-1) ↑ 2
DUKE (5-1) ↓ 2

Group 2: Professional Model Theory, plus one more categorical varaible

UTAH (6-0) ↑ 1
TEMPLE (6-0) ↑ 1
TOLEDO (6-0) ↑ 1
IOWA (7-0) ↑ 1
TCU (7-0) ↑ 1
LSU (6-0) ↑ 5
CLEMSON (6-0) ↑ 1
MEMPHIS (6-0) ↑ 2
BAYLOR (6-0) ↑ 3
HOUSTON (6-0) ↑ 1
FLORIDA (6-1) ↓ 12
ALABAMA (6-1) ↑ 11
NOTRE DAME (6-1) ↑ 2
MARSHALL (6-1) ↑ 6
STANFORD (5-1) ↑ 7
OKLAHOMA (5-1) ↑ 6
TEXAS A&M (5-1) ↓ 12
PITTSBURGH (5-1) ↑ 2

The remaining last half mile of this college football season is going to get very interesting with upsets, great games. close games and a wire finish in the last 2-weeks of the season. Some that are ranked in my Top 25, are more than likely not going to be there in the last poll.

If there was a 16-team playoff format based upon my research findings and my book; the group of (29) FBS programs with 0-losses and 1-losses are 100% guarenteed a spot in the field of 16 when the final season completes itself. That means at the end of the FBS season, any 0-loss or 1-loss FBS program are guaranteed a spot in my field of 16. The group of (22) FBS programs with 2-losses have an 83% chance of making the field of 16. We shall see how the last half mile plays out.

If you have any questions or comments about my rankings, please feel free to send comments to me and follow me on twitter  @cfbpoexpert

Ohio State Remains No. 1 Michigan State and Florida change spots

Week three (3) of my college football polls have been interesting to compute, analyze and watch the many changes in positions occur as I collect the numerous amounts of data. Not much has really changed in the top spot of both of my two (2) polls. Ohio State (6-0) still remains as the number one (1) college football program in both polls. The next two (2) spots changed from the previous week with Michigan State and Florida battling it out for the ranking of 2nd and 3rd. In addition to Temple and Utah holding on to the 4th and 5th spots in Group 1. In the Group 2 rankings Michigan State and Florida change spots as well as Temple and Utah. There are many newly ranked FBS teams which I knew would make the rankings once the season started to get deeper into the college football season. As you read through my Top 25 rankings there have been some position changes both up and down.

As of this week in the 2015 college football season we are now down to (16) 0-loss programs and (20) 1-loss programs. This is due to the fact that the college football season is heading into conference play and conference play gets very competitive for all conferences, not just the Power 5 or BCS conferences. What my rankings offer is that all 128 FBS programs have an EQUAL opportunity to be ranked, not just the Power 5 or BCS conferences and schools.

This weeks rankings have every conference representation all except the Sun Belt Conference (SBC). The closests SBC member is Appalachian State at (4-1), which is in its second season as an FBS member and ranked number 32 out of 128. They have an outside chance to make my Top 25 and possibly make my field of 16 if they remain as a 1-loss FBS team. Here are my week six (6) college football Top 25 rankings in both groups. Group 1 is based upon the professional model theory and Group 2 is the professional model theory plus one additional categorical variable.

Group 1

TEMPLE (5-0)
UTAH (5-0)
TOLEDO (5-0) ↑ 1
IOWA (6-0) ↑ 4
TCU (6-0) ↑ 4
MEMPHIS (5-0) ↓ 2
BAYLOR (5-0) ↑ 9
CLEMSON (5-0) ↑ 3
TEXAS A&M (5-0) ↓ 3
LSU (5-0) ↑ 2
HOUSTON (5-0) ↑ 3
NOTRE DAME (5-1) ↑ 5
MICHIGAN (5-1) ↑ 6
PENN STATE (5-1) ↑ 7
OHIO (5-1) ↑ 8
DUKE (5-1) ↑ 9
MARSHALL (5-1) ↑ 10
BOISE STATE (5-1) ↑ 11
CALIFORNIA (5-1) ↑ 12
UCLA (4-1)

Group 2

FLORIDA (6-0) ↓ 1
UTAH (5-0) ↑ 1
TEMPLE (5-0) ↓ 1
TOLEDO (5-0) ↑ 1
IOWA (6-0) ↑ 3
TCU (6-0) ↑ 4
CLEMSON (5-0) ↑ 5
TEXAS A&M (5-0) ↓ 2
MEMPHIS (5-0) ↓ 1
LSU (5-0) ↑ 3
HOUSTON (5-0) ↑ 4
BAYLOR (5-0) ↑ 4
MICHIGAN (5-1) ↑ 9
PENN STATE (5-1) ↑ 8
NOTRE DAME (5-1) ↑ 7
CALIFORNIA (5-1) ↓ 4
OHIO (5-1) ↑ 3
DUKE (5-1) ↑ 2
MARSHALL (5-1) ↑ 1
UCLA (4-1)

I look forward to observing and anayizing how the remaining weeks of college football at the FBS season plays out. You might be surprized at how I believe the outcome will turn out.

As for an FBS statistical analysis of the FCS scheudling. As of the completion of week six (6) of the FBS season here are the results:

FBS programs are (90-9)  this 2015 FBS season with a win-loss percentage rate of (.909). Of those 90 wins by the FBS programs 74 have been won by 3 or more possessions. The FBS has outscored the FCS programs by a combined total number of 3041 points. The winning margin of victory by the FBS programs over the FCSprograms is consistent with and supprts my research by more than 4+ possessions at 30.7 points per game. The FBS programs are scoring on average 45.2 points per game, while the FCS programs are scoring on average of 14.5 points per game. There are 7 FBS/FCS scheduled games left in the 2015 FBS season; 4 for the SEC, 2 for the Independents and 1 for the ACC. Lets see how much further the statistical analysis gaps change and grow for the FBS programs between the FCs programs.

If you have any questions or comments about my rankings, please feel free to send comments to me  and follow me on twitter  @cfbpoexpert

CFB Top 25 Rankings.. Changes and Scares

Week 5 of college football produced some changes, surprises, and FBS programs that the sports media experts probably did not know would still be part of the 0-loss group. The Clemson/Notre Dame, Michigan State/Purdue and Ohio State/Indiana were great games and even close to being upsets.There are other great games that were played on college football Saturday.These just came to mind as I was preparing this post.

As of this week in CFB we currently have (20) 0-loss programs and (26) 1-loss programs. Next week we should see a 1-loss FBS program(s) reach my Top 25. As the CFB season progresses the rankings will start to almost look identical with some position differneces which are closely related to one another based upon the data and analysis used to determine the rankings. This means qauntifiable data and the professional model theory offer a true validity to reality in ranking CFB FBS programs. The human subjective polls and the (5) computer models are easily manipulated and lck quantifiable variables that were either left out of the mathematical equation on purpose or failed to think of those negative variables.

I did receive some feedback of both positive and negative on my first rankings. I thank you for the comments. I have made some slight changes in how the rankings will be posted, since many of you view web pages via your cell phone. However, this page is best viewed on your laptop or desktop screen.

How to review the rankings of both groups. FBS teams will be listed left (1) through (25), current overall record and postion difference from the previous week in which I ranked the FBS programs (1) through (25). The Next Five group are the FBS programs just out of the Top 25. Group 1 are my rankings based upon the professional model theory and Group 2 are ranked using the professional model theory, plus one more quantifiable variable.

Group 1

OHIO STATE (5-0) ↑ 1
FLORIDA (5-0) ↑ 3
TEMPLE (4-0) ↑ 3
UTAH (4-0) ↓1
OKLAHOMA (4-0) ↑ 2
TOLEDO (4-0) ↑ 2
MEMPHIS (5-0) ↑ 2
TEXAS A&M (5-0) ↑ 5
IOWA (5-0) ↑ 7
TCU (5-0) ↑ 2
CALIFORNIA (5-0) ↑ 6
CLEMSON (4-0) ↑ 6
LSU (4-0) ↑ 5
NAVY (4-0) ↑ 4
HOUSTON (4-0) ↑ 2
BAYLOR (4-0) ↑ 1
UCLA (4-1)

Group 2

OHIO STATE (5-0) ↑ 2
TEMPLE (4-0) ↑ 5
UTAH (4-0) ↓ 4
OKLAHOMA (4-0) ↑ 1
TOLEDO (4-0) ↑ 2
TEXAS A&M (5-0) ↑ 6
IOWA (5-0) ↑ 8
TCU (5-0) ↑ 2
CALIFORNIA (5-0) ↑ 6
CLEMSON (4-0) ↑ 6
LSU (4-0) ↑ 5
NAVY (4-0) ↑ 4
HOUSTON (4-0) ↑ 2
BAYLOR (4-0) ↑ 1
UCLA (4-1)

As the CFB season progresses, the overall records will become more equal based upon total number of games played. From this group of 46, which will dwindle down to a group of 16 and will make up my playoff field of 16. Its too early to tell who will make the group of 16, let alone how the experts can verbalize who are the 4-teams in the College Football Playoff. I do not have a crystal ball like the sports media experts.

These rankings possess no bias or favortism towards any of the (128) FBS programs that compete in college football at the NCAA level. These ranking are researched based and quantifiable categorical variable related. Please offer any and all feedback to me in which group you like most based upon what you see through this website or send me comment on twitter.

Do share these rankings with your college football fans, friends and any sports media members you may know. I will post these rankings every week and now will make every effort to publish ra these rankings by 12 Noon on the following Sunday after college football Saturday.

Follow me on Twitter at      cfbpoexpert


College Football FBS Top 25 Rankings

The college football season is now 4-weeks into the 2015 FBS NCAA season and now its time for a true and more accurate Top 25 rankings. From this point of the season until the last regular season games, I will post two (2) Top 25 rankings with the next five (5) ranked. These Top 25 rankings are based upon criteria based research in which the rankings should be competed. The rankings should not based upon conference affiliation, which coach is voting for whom and no manipulation of the ranking to keep specific FBS programs out of a ranke spot or give more credit than due to other FBS programs. To me the rankings are earned by the players and coaches on the field in relationship to the criteria I have developed. The current Amway USA Today College Football Top 25 are all opinion based and lack no true validity to the rankings. Ranking Group 1 is based upon the professional model thoery. Ranking Group 2 is based the professional model theory and other data.

The FBS season is only 4 weeks old these rankings will significantly change over remainder of the collefe football season. As of this date, FBS level of college football possesses (29) 0-loss programs and (27) 1-loss programs, From this group of (56) will come my field of 16. Here are my Top 25 rankings for this college football season.

Group 1

NOTRE DAME                                (4-0)
OHIO STATE                                 (4-0)
UCLA                                             (4-0)
UTAH                                             (4-0)
MICHIGAN STATE                          (4-0)
FLORIDA                                       (4-0)
TEMPLE                                         (3-0)
OKLAHOMA                                    (3-0)
TOLEDO                                         (3-0)
MEMPHIS                                       (4-0)
NORTH CAROLINA STATE             (4-0)
NORTHWESTERN                          (4-0)
INDIANA                                         (4-0)
TCU                                               (4-0)
TEXAS A&M                                   (4-0)
MISSISSIPPI                                 (4-0)
GEORGIA                                     (4-0)
IOWA                                            (4-0)
CALIFORNIA                                 (4-0)
OKLAHOMA STATE                       (4-0)
MIAMI (FLA)                                 (3-0)
LSU                                              (3-0)
BAYLOR                                       (3-0)
FLORIDA STATE                          (3-0)
NAVY                                           (3-0)

Group 2

UTAH                                          (4-0)
FLORIDA                                     (4-0)
OHIO STATE                               (4-0)
UCLA                                           (4-0)
MICHIGAN STATE                       (4-0)
NOTRE DAME                             (4-0)
OKLAHOMA                                 (3-0)
TEMPLE                                      (3-0)
TOLEDO                                      (3-0)
NORTHWESTERN                        (4-0)
MEMPHIS                                   (4-0)
INDIANA                                     (4-0)
TCU                                           (4-0)
TEXAS A&M                                (4-0)
MISSISSIPPI                              (4-0)
GEORGIA                                   (4-0)
IOWA                                          (4-0)
CALIFORNIA                               (4-0)
OKLAHOMA STATE                    (4-0)
LSU                                           (3-0)
BAYLOR                                    (3-0)
WEST VIRGINIA                        (3-0)
NAVY                                        (3-0)
FLORIDA STATE                      (3-0)

These rankings possess no bias or favortism towards any of the (128) FBS programs that compete in college football at that level. These ranking are researched based and quantifiable categorical variable related. Please offer any and all feedback to me in which group you like most based upon what you see through this website or send me comment on twitter.

Do share these rankings with your college football fans, friends and any sports media members you may know. I will post these rankings every week and now will make sure that the rankings are out by 12 Noon on the following Sunday after college football Saturday.

Follow me on Twitter at      cfbpoexpert


2015 CFB FCS and Non Conference Scheduling

As we have entered the (2015) College Football(CFB) season, there are certain facts and evidence in the scheudling practices in college football at the FBS level that the mainstream media (i.e. ESPN, FOX Sports, USA Today Sports and others) members will not discuss, investigate or even discuss on the airwaves or in print. Every CFB season, the media starts to discuss game schedules, both conference, non-conference and FCS scheduling. Let me offer you the statistical information from the (2015) FBS season associated with the FCS scheduling, non-conference scheduling, current results and data.

Since the (2015) CFB season is only 2-weeks in, the majority of the games have been non-conference based and FCS based. This (2015) FBS season there are 107 scheduled FCS games scheduled versus the FBS programs. Some of those FBS programs have scheduled 2 FCS games this season: Army, Boston College, North Carolina and Wake Forest. Those 4 FBS programs could have scheduled each other, eliminated the FCS games and are regionally located to each other. The current results of FCS scheduling after 2-weeks of FBS play shows that the FBS record is currently (65-5) against the FCS programs with a win-loss percentage of .929%. The FBS programs are outscoring the FCS programs by an average of 32.3 points or 4+ possessions. The FBS programs have scored 45.9 PPG compared to the FCS scoring only 13.6 PPG.  In addition to the current overall record, win-loss percentage and points per game (PPG), the FBS programs have totaled up 3173 points while only allowing 953 points. Taking that data one step further, of those 70 games scheduled by the FBS versus the FCS, the FBS has outscored the FCS programs by 3+ possessions or more 53 times this season. A possession is equal to a team possessing the ball and the oucome being scoring a touchdown with the extra point. This indicates and suggest that there is a significant need for scheduling changes at the FBS level of play in the NCAA.

What is the benefit of scheduling FCS games if research supports the argument against scheduling FCS programs and the results are conclusive to the research performed? Research performed by me, in my self published book in (2013), I wrote a chapter dedicated to the FCS scheduling practices from (1996) thorugh (2013) and reported that the FBS programs win 91.9% or .919 percent of the time and on an average of 3.5+ possesions or 25 PPG. There is no benefit to the FBS programs except to pad statistics and provide a mirage or euphoric effect on the subjective voters minds, a very in-experienced college football committee and fans to put their chests out and say “look who we played and how we beat them by that amount.”

The table below shows the current standings and data for each FBS conference versus the FCS programs after 2-weeks of the (2015) FBS season:

AAC (American) 6 1 314 99 3
ACC (Atlantic) 15 0 744 113 4
B10 (Big 10) 5 0 202 75 0
B12 (Big 12) 7 1 371 156 0
CUSA (conference USA) 6 0 298 71 3
IND (independent) 0 1 35 34 2
MAC (Mid-Atlantic) 6 0 258 106 3
MWC (Mountain West) 8 1 364 99 3
P12 (Pacific 12) 5 1 261 108 2
SBC (Sun Belt) 4 0 189 63 6
SEC (Southeastern) 3 0 137 26 9

These results indicate that the SEC still possesses a large amount of FCS scheduled games left to significantly show that they FEAR scheduling competitve FBS non-conference games during the FBS season or even schedule FBS non-conference games on the road. The majority of the remaining FCS games are scheduled in the up coming weeks. However, there is one exception to the last FCS scheduled contest. For you SEC fans, Alabama has scheduled Charleston Southern the week before Alabama plays their annual rivalry game versus Auburn. This shows and indicates that Alabama is even afraid to schedule a credible FBS non-conference opponent that week but would rather schedule an automatic win, pad thier statistics and increase thier mirage like credibilty to the media, fans, subjective voters and the in-experienced college football playoff committee in hopes to be selected for one of the four playoff spots.

The FCS scheduling practices do need to change and will be changing in the future among FBS conferences and programs. Besides examining the FCS schedule for (2015), I also examined and analyzed the non-conference scheduling data. In the same book I authored and self published, I wrote and dedicated a chapter to the non-conference scheduling practices at the FBS level of play in the NCAA from (1996) through (2013). The current (2015) FBS non-conference scheduling practices are no different, in addition to supports the findings in the research that I performed and wrote about in my self published book.

The results of the (2015) FBS non-conference scheduling practices are conclusive to the historical data and results in which were previously examined about the consistent and prominent issues that specific FBS conferences, more specifically the BCS or Power 5 conferences possess. The results of the (2015) FBS non-conference scheduling data determined that the SEC significantly increased thier home field advantage practices associated with the non-conference scheduling during the FBS schedule. The SEC has a non-conference scheduling home field advantage for the (2015) FBS season of 85.6%. That means 8 or 9 games out of 10 games accociated with the non-conference schedule are scheudled at home. This is the highest percentage rate among the FBS conferences this (2015) season and almost a full 5% increase since the (2013) FBS season. Thus providing another significant advantage in home field scheduling, another mirage to the subjective voters and the very in-experienced college football playoff committee to determine who should be ranked higher than whom. The next closets FBS conference with a non-conference home field advantage is the Big 10 at 75.0%. Almost 10 full percentage points less than the SEC and compariable to thier historical non-conference scheduling practices.

The table below shows in rank order the results the current data for the (2015) non-conference scheduling practices for the FBS conferences:

SEC (Southeastern) 48 8 0.857
B10 (Big 10) 42 14 0.75
B12 (Big 12) 21 9 0.7
P12 (Pacific 12) 24 12 0.667
ACC (Atlantic) 37 19 0.661
AAC (American) 28 20 0.583
IND (Independent) 20 16 0.556
MWC (Mountain West) 26 22 0.542
MAC (Mid-American) 27 24 0.529
CUSA (Conference USA) 23 29 0.442
SBC (Sun Belt) 19 25 0.432


What would the NFL owners say if the New England Patriots told the rest of the league to jump in the lake, all of our non-divisional games are going to be played at home except 1. And the primary argument is we make the most money for the NFL and we won the Super Bowl. The owners and Commissioner Roger Goodell would probably tell owner Robert Kraft some choice words and vote it down. Seems the SEC can schedule their non-confernce games anyway they want with a significant advantage with NO repercussions associated with subjective polls and rankings or being discussed about in the media. The SEC possesses this roman and peasant like image, with the SEC being the Romans and the rest of the FBS being peasants. I examined the non-conference scheduling data further and discovered that the SEC has 7 of the 14 programs possessing 4 extra home games in thier non-conference schedule with 0 away games in their non-conference schedule this FBS season. Those 7 SEC programs are: Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi State and Tennessee. Compared to the rest of the 114 FBS programs there are only 5 FBS who do not play any away game in thier non-conference schedule this (2015) FBS season. Those FBS prorgams are: Arizona State, Boston College, North Carolina, Toledo and West Virginia.  This is supportive evidence that proves that the SEC takes full advantage and makes the conscious decisions in college football about scheduling, but college athletic is a business with no balance in scheduling.

The comments that will come from the SEC fan base and media supporters will be Alabama played Wisconsin on thre road. The fun fact is Alabama only travled 600+ miles to Dallas and Wisconsin traveled 1000+ miles to Dallas. Serious question to the SEC staff, media and major media members. Take the media money (i.e. ESPN) and Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones offer to have the use of ATT Stadium as the site for the begining of the FBS season off the table. I believe and do know that Camp Randall and the hotels and business in and around Madison could handle the influx of tax based dollars in Madison, Wisconsin. So my question is: Why can’t Alabama travel to Madison, Wisconsin and play at Wisconsin?  Or in (2014) was traveling to Ann Arbor, Michigan to far for Alabama? Or is it that the those Big 10 stadiums hold more than or close too 100,000-plus fans and the SEC does not know how to play in front of that many people. Or is it that the SEC primary constiuencies fear losing there and would lose thier strangle hold on the college football hiearchy and could lose credibilty by losing in Madison or Ann Arbor. Thats the answer.

If I were an athletic director at one of those FBS schools outside of the SEC, I would ask or dictate to the SEC for a Home and Home series, no neutral sites. Or if its a one game scenario, you come here. I an not traveling to you, even possibly beat you in your stadium and receive no credibility in ranking from your coaches in the polls or credibilty from the media. Pack your bags and travel needs and come to my home stadium. I know I would sell out the seats in my stadium, increase tax based dollars in my community and maybe draw ESPN College Game Day to my campus. The rest of the FBS programs need to stop catering to the SEC, this is college football sponsored by the NCAA. The SEC and thier power brokers do not make the rules.

To the sports media and college football fan base, these are the facts from the data that was collected, examined and analyzed. If you want to debate or refute my data and statistical information, please try. I accept all arguments from the media and fan base, but I argue and debate with facts and evidence, not emotions or what you believe.

To the sports media in print, radio, television and web based writers, please do not forget to use the APA/MLA method when siting your souces if you decide to openly talk about, write about or discuss on air where you read the information. If you have any questions pertaining to this posting please contact me.

Follow me on twitter at:     cfbpoexpert

Email me at:     cfbpoexpert@gmail.com

Final Note: I am re-editing, adding 4 new chapters updating statistical data, adding more tables and data, read more peer reviewed articles to support my arguments and writing my book again. I will be re-publishing in the immediate future.


The USA Today Sports. (2015). Special Edition: College Football. FBS Schedules. Pg. 56-58. A USA Today Publication, Gannett Co. Inc.

Siggelow, M. (2013). College Football in the BCS Era: The Untold Truth. self published at Lulu.com.


The Real College Football Playoff: 2014 Field of 16

The 2014 NCAA/FBS Field of 16 is ready to be announced and WAY before the “SIGNIFICANTLY INEXPERIENCED” CFP committee who are using variables to select with no true criteria, changing their minds on head to head, using a variable of “game control” which possesses no peer reviewed research to be used as a variable of objective matter with credibility. I have also caught the CFP committee chair contradicting himself every week while being interviewed on ESPN every Tuesday for the past 5+ weeks.

I will post 2 ways that the NCAA/FBS field of 16 could resemble. When you review the pairings, I have my own criteria which is researched based, objective, subjective and I possess no bias against any FBS team. I do not possess any agenda nor do I use a made up variable which is not peer reviewed supported. Seeds are earned based upon the professional model theory and how the FBS programs schedule. This would be the first round of games held first weekend of December. Pairings are shown in the traditional 16 team bracket format. The better seeded team, meaning the lower the seed #, you host the first round game.

The only games that have playoff seeding implications are Kansas State vs. Baylor and TCU vs. Iowa State.

IF Kansas State Wins, Baylor Losses and TCU wins

#1 Florida State (12-0) vs. #16 Wisconsin (10-2)

#8 Arizona (10-2) vs. #9 Boise State (10-2)

#5 TCU (11-1) vs. #12 Georgia Tech (10-2)

#4 Marshall (11-1) vs. #13 Kansas State (10-2)

#3 Oregon (11-1) vs. # 14 Baylor (10-2)

#6 Alabama (11-1) vs. #11 Northern Illinois (10-2)

#7 Michigan State (10-2) vs. #10 Colorado State (10-2)

#2 Ohio State (11-1) vs. Mississippi State (10-2)

Missouri (10-2) last team out.


IF Kansas State Losses, Baylor Wins and TCU wins

#1 Florida State (12-0) vs. #16 Missouri (10-2)

#8 Michigan State (10-2) vs. Arizona (10-2)

#5 Baylor (11-1) vs. #12 Northern Illinois (10-2)

#4 Marshall (11-1) vs. #13 Georgia Tech (10-2)

#3 Oregon (11-1) vs. #14 Mississippi State (10-2)

#6 TCU (11-1) vs. #11 Colorado State (10-2)

#7 Alabama (11-1) vs. #10 Boise State (10-2)

#2 Ohio State (11-1) vs. #15 Wisconsin (10-2)

Kansas State (9-3) out.

If you have any questions pertaining to my seeds and how I seeded the field of 16. Please contact me via twitter @cfbpoexpert  I look forward to your comments, questions and if you would like to interview me for a segment on college football on your sports radio talk show contact me using the same handle or email cfbpoexpert@gmail.com

On a side note: I have been updating my book statistically,adding more tables, adding 4 new chapters and making some adjustments to the chapters. The target release date is planned for March 2015.

2013 College Football Field of 16 (Fiction), Could be the Future

With the conclusion of the 2013 FBS/NCAA college football season complete, now is the time to announce the fictional field of 16 based upon my research and findings. I know many of you will have issues with how I seeded the field of 16, but please remember the professional model theory, which I used as a basis to seed the field of 16. On a side note, I have been asked by twitter followers; if the 4 team playoff were to start this season, which 4 teams do I think would make the field? After reviewing the pool of FBS/NCAA teams that I believe would be considered and to narrow that field down to just four, my (4) teams would be in no seed order: Florida State, Ohio State, Northern Illinois and Auburn. Teams on the outside looking in: Michigan State, Stanford, Central Florida and Alabama; maybe in that order. That’s just my opinion.

Now to the field of 16. First off remember I do not include conference championship games as part of the regular season. The regular season ends after 12 games. Only 12.8% of the FBS/NCAA football programs compete in a 13th game, those primarily being conference championship games along with Hawaii usually invites an FBS program out at the end of the season for a 13th game in December. What a 13th game on your FBS schedule prior to final exam week a weekend or couple of days in Hawaii. SIGN ME UP!!!. Since ALL of the FBS/NCAA programs do not play or schedule a contractually obligated 13th regular season game or ALL conferences possess a conference championship; then those 13th games cannot be factored in. Conference championship games are earned, not scheduled. For those SEC fans and 30+ Million college football fans, ask yourself this, when the 2013 FBS/NCAA football season schedules were announced, finalized, published, viewable on the World Wide Web in late spring or early summer of 2013; look at the end of your teams or various teams schedule? Someone please tell me or show me who scheduled, meaning those teams have a contractual obligation to play, not forecasting, the conference championship game and whose schedule shows which bowl game they are going to participate in? What many of you fail to comprehend is the conference championship game and bowl games are earned extra games, not automatically scheduled. In addition to that previous comment, MANY college football fans, audience, sports reporters and the Expert Sports Programming network fail to comprehend is that the BCS computerized system accounts for the 13th game for those who played a 13th game but possess a negative factor or accountability to those NCAA/FBS programs who do not play a 13th game to counteract the data and not skew the numbers. If I remember my math and statistical analysis from my Master class, uneven data when comparing 2 teams or a group of teams and data makes for a non-interpretive information.13 does not equal 12, a.k.a conference championship games being the 13th game and the regular season ending with a 12th game.

Yes, there were some great, exciting and upset conference championship games yesterday from what I could view, while I was on break at work yesterday during my 16 hours, but I cannot factor those results into my fictional field of 16 based upon research and historical factors. And now for the selection, seeds and where the big games will be played.

Better seeded teams host 1st round games because they EARNED it, after that its all neutral bowl game sites.

GROUP A (First Round) 1st weekend in December

#1 Northern Illinois (12-0) vs. #16 Oregon (10-2)-winner advances to the New Mexico Bowl

#8 Auburn (11-1) vs. #9 Alabama (11-1) (Rematch 1)-winner advances to New Mexico Bowl

#5 Louisville (11-1) vs. #12 Oklahoma State (10-2)-winner advances to Idaho Potato Bowl

#4 Central Florida (11-1) vs. #13 South Carolina (10-2) (Rematch 2)-winner advances to Idaho Potato Bowl


#3 Florida State (12-0) vs. #14 Ball State (10-2)-winner advances to Poinsetta Bowl

#6 Missouri (11-1) vs. #11 Fresno State (10-1)-winner advances to Poinsetta Bowl

#7 Michigan State (11-1) vs. #10 Baylor (11-1)-winner advances Beef O Brady Bowl

#2 Ohio State (12-0) vs. #15 Stanford (10-2)-winner advances to Beef O Brady Bowl

Second week of December off for final exam week.

Round 2 Bowl Games played 3rd weekend of December like they are usually.

Group A

Winner from #1 and #16 vs. Winner from #8 and #9 in the New Mexico Bowl- winner advances to the Rose Bowl

Winner from #5 and #12 vs. Winner from #4 and #13 in the Idaho Potato Bowl- winner advances to the Rose Bowl

Group B

Winner from #3 and #14 vs. winner from #6 and #11 in the Poinsetta Bowl- winner advances to the Fiesta Bowl

Winner from #7 and #10 vs. winner from #2 and #15 in the Beef O Brady Bowl- winner advances to Fiesta Bowl

Rose Bowl and Fiesta Bowl played on the same day on New Years Day.

NCAA/FBS College Football Championship Game played 7 days later in the Orange Bowl with the 2 remaining programs.

If you break down my brackets this is how the data looks:

13 NCAA/BCS/AQ programs were selected and 3 NCAA/NON-BCS/NON-AQ programs were selected. All 125 FBS/NCAA programs have an equal opportunity to make the field of 16, with the exception of those FBS/NCAA programs placed on probation by the NCAA for rules violations and completion of their investigation.

ALL 0-loss and 1-loss teams made the field and only (35) of the (8) 2-loss teams were selected and the remaining (3) were considered but on the outside looking in (Clemson, Duke and Arizona State). Sounds familiar, better get use to it next year.

Conference representation and well balanced.

SEC received 4: Auburn, Alabama, Missouri and South Carolina

Big 10 received 2: Ohio State and Michigan State

Big 12 received 2: Baylor and Oklahoma State

PAC 12 received 2: Stanford and Oregon

American received 2: Central Florida and Louisville

MAC received 2: Northern Illinois and Ball State

ACC received 1: Florida State

Mountain West received 1: Fresno State

8 of the 10 conference were represented. Only the Sun Belt and Conference USA were not selected. Closets teams from those (2) conferences to be considered were Rice at (9-3) and Louisiana Lafayette at (8-4).

Imagine if this were true……..and reality…..the fun we would have watching college football for 5+ weeks.

Please be respectful of my selections, because this time next year, you the fans and the college football audience are relying on an very in-experienced group of 13 to select 3.1% of the field and some programs will be on the outside looking in. I respect that many of you may have issue with, dislike, difference of opinions on the how I seeded the field of 16, remember this is FICTIONAL, based upon my experience of reviewing thousands upon thousands of data points. At least I am fair and honest with my selection and on one paid me $$, called me on the phone, sent me an email to consider or lobby for their FBS/NCAA program over another. This is totally un-biased. This could be a possibility in the future for college football. I could also sense that all of you would agree that this is a great field of 16 and the FBS teams I left on the outside looking in you would agree with. This type of college football playoff format would  more than make college football in December and through the New Year, VERY enjoyable to watch and root for some great games and or even rematches. I did a selection process in only hours today, in which the future college football playoff committee will take days to complete, debate and publish. I even published this before ESPN could have their selection show.

If you have any questions or would like to pick who would advance, please tweet me @cfbpoexpert or leave a comment.






The What If Game…..

With the 2013 college football season coming to a close and many key games left to decide who should play for the national championship, what would happen if the crystal ball I look into came to fruition. Since college football only play 12 regular season games and only 10% of the college football FBS program only play a 13th game then my playoff brackets are starting to take shape. Currently(12-0) Northern Illinois is in the club house as then leader and only 0-loss FBS program. As I shake my crystal ball this is what I think about. Not predictions, but the what if game from what I would like to see happen. Shakes my crystal ball and this is what I see…..

First in the SEC:

Alabama(11-0) loses to (10-1) Auburn. Thus making the SEC with no 0-loss teams and Alabama’s dreams of a 3-peat dissolved.Not playing in championship game is a requirement, if I recall eliminates you from final game consideration. Alabama falls to (11-1) and Auburn moves to (11-1), eliminating Alabama’s chance to compete in the SEC final game. Missouri (10-1) loses to Texas A&M (8-3). Missouri falls to (10-2) and Texas A&M moves to (9-3). South Carolina (9-2) beats Clemson (10-1). South Carolina moves to (10-2) and Clemson falls to (10-2).  This sets up the (10-2) South Carolina and (11-1) Auburn for the SEC final game. South Carolina beats Auburn in final game making South Carolina (11-2) and Auburn (11-2). This makes the SEC a mediocre conference, not the toughest and the 7 championship run stopped.

Second the ACC

Florida State (11-0) loses to Florida (4-7) in the battle for the state of Florida. Now that’s an upset. Florida State falls to (11-1) and Florida moves to (5-7) to save their season. That makes no 0-loss teams in the ACC. The ACC Coastal Division winner most likely Duke (10-2), pulls off the upset in the ACC final game by upsetting Florida State making Florida State and Duke both (11-2). We add two more FBS/BCS programs to the pool of 2-loss teams.

Third the Big 10

Ohio State (11-0) loses to Michigan (7-4) in the final game of the season. Ohio State falls to (11-1) and plays in the Big 10 final game. Ohio State’s loss makes them the last 0-loss team in the BCS/FBS level to lose. Michigan State (10-1) loses to Minnesota (8-3) in the final game. Michigan State falls to (10-2) and will play (11-1) Ohio State for the Big 10 final game. Michigan State beats Ohio State in the final game, making Michigan State (11-2) and Ohio State (11-2).Ohio State, just like the SEC and Alabama, plays a Democritus style schedule fearing traveling to play out of their region.

Fourth the Big 12

Baylor (10-1) loses to Texas (8-3) in the final game. Baylor falls to (10-2). Oklahoma State (10-1) loses to Oklahoma (9-2). Oklahoma State falls to (10-2) and Oklahoma moves to (10-2). This makes the Big 12 still competitive but not worthy of playing in the final championship game. The Baylor mystic and run was great for college football, someone else to talk about besides the SEC.

Fifth the American Conference

Central Florida (9-1) wins their remaining two games versus South Florida and SMU, making Central Florida (11-1). Louisville (10-1) loses to Cincinnati (9-2) to make both Cincinnati and Louisville (10-2). The American Conference would then possess (1) of the (2) remaining 1-loss programs at FBS/NCAA football. Remember this is the conference that will lose its automatic bid to a MAJOR BOWL game during the New Year’s Day Bowl games run in the 2014 season. This is due to the fact that they are adding NON-BCS/NON-AQ programs to their conference. Interesting these 125 college football FBS/NCAA programs all compete at the same level, but they are segregated based upon athletic budgets and money.


Northern Illinois wins the MAC final game versus Bowling Green or Buffalo, making Northern Illinois (13-0). Fresno State wins their remaining games with San Jose State and wins the Mountain West Conference final game versus Utah State or Boise State. Fresno State wins the final game in the Mountain West and moves to (12-0). Two NON-BCS/NON-AQ/NCAA/FBS programs remain un-defeated and both should be playing for the national championship. However, the powers that be keep both out of the final game and only reward one of them for a BSC bowl game. How pathetic of a system college football has, reward those with money and notoriety, and leave those who earned a very credible record out of earning more money, increased exposure and national attention.

This leaves both Northern Illinois and Fresno State as the last 2 0-loss programs, Central Florida and Alabama the only 1-loss teams. So who gets into the final game? What will the future playoff committee do then? What experience does this committee have in making the right decision and not a decision based upon name recognition to put a name brand in the championship game over those student athletes and coaches from non-high profile levels. It’s an easy decision from my perspective… both 0-loss programs make the final game. Let the wins speak for themselves and not individuals whose pockets are endlessly lined with lots of money to significantly influence the decision.

Anyone else feel the same way? I guess my crystal ball can have some hope as I watch the last 2 weeks of the college football season.

Have a safe and enjoyable Thanksgiving Holiday….


FCS Still Leaves Credible Programs Out Of Field… Take Note FBS Playoff Committee

On November 24, 2013; the FCS Committee released the 24 team field for their annual NCAA FCS Football National Championship. I reviewed and examined the field of 24 and found that, like the NCAA Men’s and Women’s March Madness brackets, some credible programs are left scratching their head, after reading a recent and un-authored blog post from ncaafootball.com called “In the Huddle: Nothing Simple about the FCS Selection”, posted on November 24, 2013. The one interesting point made in the article by Head Coach Dino Babers from (11-1) Eastern Illinois, who received a 1st round BYE summed it up the best “Subjective, Objective, Computers, the Eye Test, it still comes down to winning games” (NCAAFootball.com, 2013). If winning and your overall record is the most important aspect to measure who makes the field, then why must we have this complicated subjective, bias and manipulated BCS system to determine which programs are given a significant advantage and the opportunity, not truly earned the opportunity, to compete for the NCAA/FBS Mens Football National Championship.

Of the 24 berths for the FCS programs; 9 are Conference Winners and the remaining 15 are at-large berths, selected by a committee. Yes, 15 at large berths not 4 like the future College Football Playoff system in 2014. After reviewing the brackets and analyzing the berths, who made it, who earned a 1st round bye and who was left on the outside looking in. As I examined the FCS brackets, I looked for the FCS program with the least credible record. The purpose of that was to expand the list of at large berths of teams who should have been examined, evaluated, assessed to make the field. Furman (7-5), who finished tied for 1st in the Southland Conference was selected to participate. That means every FCS program that was not selected with a (7-5) record or better has a legitimate argument on why they were left out. 24 FCS programs met or exceeded that requirement and are scratching their head why. Remember what Coach Babers said ” still comes down to winning games”.

Of the pool of additional at large FCS programs that should have been reviewed and possibly selected, 7 of the 24, or 29.1% equaled the Furman (7-5) record. 5 of the 24, or 20.8% possessed a record of (7-4) minus 1 game which could have either made their record (8-4) or (7-5) as Furman. The additional 12 of the 24 or 50% of the field possessed a win-loss record better than (7-5) Furman but were left out of this playoff tournament and scratching their heads. We meet the criteria based upon what Coach Babers said but we are left out, that does not make sense. More interesting fact is the IVY League was left out of the whole playoff tournament. (8-2) Princeton and (9-1) Harvard left out. I wonder what the committee was thinking. The remaining list of FCS programs that were left out of this playoff field were: (10-2) Mercer(Pioneer Conf.), (10-3) Charleston Southern(Big South), (9-3) Alcorn State (SWAC), (3) (8-4) FBS programs Liberty(Big South), Youngstown State(Missouri Valley), Chattanooga (Southland) and (4) (8-3) FBS programs Lehigh(Patriot), San Diego and Marist(Pioneer), and Jackson State(SWAC). Count them, 12 FCS programs with better records than (7-5) Furman and left out. Based upon Coach Baber’s comment, Mercer and Charleston Southern need a full explanation, followed by Alcorn State. 10 win and 9 win seasons and they are on the outside looking in.

I know the selection committee has a tough job of seeding and then selecting the at large berths. The most interesting fact is of the 126 FCS programs 24 or 19% of the pool is selected. Of that pool, 48 or 38.1%  were eligible for examination, assessment and possible selection. Something I examined in my book “College Football In the BCS Era, The Untold Truth: An Analysis of Factors that Supports the 16 Team Playoff Model” was a larger field creates a better pool of programs to select from and seed. The future College Football Playoff Committee starting in 2014 will be only selecting 3.1% of the field or 4 FBS programs. I cannot wait until the large group of FBS programs that are on the outside looking in start lobbying and saying, ” we have the same record or better than team X, how were we left out”?  How is this committee going to determine what variables to use and analyze. Their committee responsibility just got harder. If the FCS Committee has trouble selecting and seeding 24 FCS programs and still leaving credible programs on the outside looking in, how will this new FBS Playoff Committee handle the selection process. That is the $50+ Million dollar decision they signed up for, nominated for or were told they were on the committee.

My hat goes off to the FCS committee who takes on the tough task but at least fair process in selecting and seeding the 24 FCS programs. I think what makes this FCS selection and seeding process so simple or easier is, there is not $50+ Million dollars in the balance in the selection process. Just the prestige, honor and recognition of being called NCAA FCS Men’s Football National Champions. Take note FBS Playoff Committee.. your tasks and responsibilities has more layers to it than peeling an onion.


Source: unauthored (2013). “In the FCS Huddle: Nothing Simple About FCS Playoff Selection”. Viewed on the ncaafootball.com website. November 24, 2013.

Follow me on Twittter:cfbpoexpert





College Football Playoff Committee Meets

In today’s, November 12, 2013; USA Today Sports page, they published an article written by USA Today sports writer; George Schroeder. The article titled “Playoff Committee Forms Its First Huddle” (Schroeder, 2013), opening comment in bold print by the author “Members focus on defining role for 2014 launch” (Schroeder, 2013). This was the first time the committee were to meet with all its members in the same place, same time to discuss several topics. Interesting missing from the committee due to other obligations were Mr. Arching Manning and Sen. Tom Osbourne. The committee meets or schedules to meet for the first time and they ALL cannot be present. First decision already and there is a fumble and a turnover. This is a responsibility in which you were selected, not elected and you all cannot make the first meeting. I can only see how future committee meetings will go from this point forward. You’re responsibility is to make a $50+ million dollar decision and you ALL can’t agree on meeting for the first time to make this committee show some credibility to the commitment to the importance of being part of the selected group.

Another interesting point, to prove that the bias will still be associated with this committee, Mr. Bill Hancock, Commissioner of the BCS, is already making his presence felt along with his influence to the members of the committee, by being part of this process and photo opportunity. He was not selected to be part of this committee when the committee was announced a few weeks ago, then what is his motivation and purpose for being there? We all know what it is. From my perspective, if this committee is to receive credibility then people like Mr. Bill Hancock, Mr. Mike Slive and any other influential people who can use their higher centers of influence to dial up a committee member and make direct suggestions on who they would like to see in the 4-team playoff, should remain silent and distant. See, Mr. Bill Hancock already has a direct line, like the Bat Phone with Commissioner Gordon and Batman, to the committee chairperson; Mr. Jeff Long. Mr. Jeff Long is the Athletic Director for the University of Arkansas. See the direct relationship, bias, influence and higher centers of influence already at work and we have not even started the first selection process. There are more moral and ethical issues associated with this playoff committee than you can count on one hand.

As I have said before in a previous posting/publishing, the committee is being asked to make a $50+ million dollar decision knowing they must select 3.1% of the field of NCAA/FBS football programs. Not only is the financial implication important, but their are members who are part of this committee who have never been part of an NCAA Men’s or Women’s selection committee but have not been following college football like a real administrator does or a sports fan, but were selected based upon name sake to provide the committee with name credibility, but possesses limited experience in selection committee process for team participation in one of the most visible playoff formats, outside of the March Madness for Men’s and Women’s College Basketball. The article continues on with Condoleezza Rice being quoted saying “I think it’s impossible, having been appointed to the committee, not viewing football games differently” (Schroeder, 2013). Mrs. Rice was also was quoted as saying “I try to watch more games- which in my case is almost impossible, since I already watch a lot of football” (Schroeder, 2013). With all due respect to Mrs. Rice, how many football games have you watched as a fan and how many have you watched to analyze not just the game but the season over many seasons? Watching football games as a fan is significantly much different when you need to make a multi-million dollar decision debating that cyclical triad or being persuaded by those committee members who have more football experience than you. You then become like one of the rats who follow the Pied Piper. Your thoughts and opinions become null and void at that point in time.

This is not like throwing darts at a dart board and hoping you hit a bulls eye. You and the selected committee are making a $50+ Million Dollar decision that impacts not just 4 programs, but those programs who can also say “we should be part of that 4-team playoff”, “why were we left out”. Those teams left out will want answers, many 1-loss programs, possibly 2-loss programs and more specifically the Non-BCS/Non-AQ/NCAA/FBS member programs. This committee has made a decision to be part of this committee without examining the ethical and moral implications that this responsibility comes with. I hope that this committee can provide real answers and not have to take “back pedaling” or “deflection” classes when dealing with tough questions when being questions about the first field of 4. With college football being the most visible sport at the start of the school year, returning back to school, always in the media’s forefront and scrutiny, 35+ million fans attend games on a yearly basis and MANY millions more watch and follow college football; then this committee is under a large microscope to get it right the first time. Hard to do when you must select 3.1% of the field, $50+ Million Dollars in the balance and many higher centers of influence possessing direct lines of communication to this group of committee members.

The committee will be examining what factors to use as measurable criteria to determine their selection process. Schroeder wrote in his article that  “this committee will be expected to consider factors including conference championships, strength of schedule, head-to-head competition, common opponents and the effects of injuries” (Schroeder, 2013). Interesting factors to examine if you have never really examined, analyzed, assessed or cognitively understand the significance that not just those dependent variables play, but other dependent variables that impact the independent variable. In English, every variable within the college football season must be examined pertaining to the selection process on the college football 4-team playoff. Let me point out some interesting facts about the factors that are listed and published in this article. Conference championships, not ALL FBS conferences possess them. Conference championships only significantly help, the Big 10, Pac 12, ACC, and the SEC. Yes, the MAC, Conference USA and the Mountain West conferences possess conference championships, but theirs possess limited importance and significance to making this 4-team field. The Non-BCS/Non-AQ conferences are already behind the 8-ball as it is, why create a measurable criteria that eliminates a specific group? Strength of schedule, that is such an open ended number of variables, where do I start. You cannot truly significantly determine whose schedule is stronger than the others. The variables are like concentric circles over lapping with more bad variables than good.

The one valid and key question I possess within this variable of the strength of schedule is, how do you as a committee view FBS programs who schedule FCS programs, the viability of those FCS programs who do not compete for the FBS championship, but play for embarrassment and the financial payday it comes with by playing those FBS programs? Before you start providing me with examples of Appalachian State and North Dakota State, published research in which I performed in my book states that FBS teams win 89.6% of those games versus FCS programs as of the 2012 FBS season (Siggelow, 2013). Also, FBS programs significantly outscore the FCS programs by 4+ possessions or 28.1 points (Siggelow,2013). That’s only looking at the final results from scheduling games versus FCS programs and not how many FBS programs or conference schedule and how they schedule FCS programs. Common opponents and head to head competition is a good measurable criteria but still has many factors associated with it. The factor of injuries is not a viable factor when determining a teams capability. Injuries are part of the sport or game and they occur and happen. Unless the committee has a magical crystal ball, like the sports analysts do when predicting game outcomes on the weekend, then using injuries as a factor is not a factor to examine. You cannot predict how a team will play with or without key players. Each game and play are distinctively different.

This committee has a tough task in front of them, knowing this is a $50+ million dollar decision and many of them have no business being part of this committee, that’s just my opinion. I have more experience, knowledge and education to be part of this committee, strongly based upon research, examination and analyzing 25,000+ data points from 1996 to the present when selecting my fictional field of 16 for my college football playoffs. As the years progress, we know where this college football playoff is headed. It’s headed towards a more traditional playoff format of 16. It’s only a matter of time.

I only speak of the truth as Sgt. Joe Friday said “Only the facts ma’am.. only the facts”.

Follow me on twitter: @cfbpoexpert

Schroeder, George. Playoff Committee Forms Its First Huddle: Members focus on defining role for 2014 launch. USA Today Sports. November 12, 2013. Page 3C.

Siggelow, Matthew. (2013). College Football In BCS Era, The Untold Truth: An Analysis of Factors that Supports the 16-Team Playoff Model. Lulu.com, self published Matthew Siggelow.