Sample 9-Game Conference Scheduling Format

With the future of college football changing as the days go forward, many conferences are making significant changes to their conference scheduling practices in the future. Many FBS conference, more specifically BCS conferences are changing to the 9 Game Conference scheduling format. However, there are no cross divisional scheduling practices or formats in place. Allowing the athletic directors to schedule who ever they want and how they want in the other division within the same conference. It would be more logical to design and implement a standardized, cross divisional, within conference scheduling grid. This standardized scheduling grid would significantly decrease the responsibilities of ALL athletic directors with the lobbying to within conference athletic directors, to schedule within cross divisional games. How would a large member BCS conference cross divisional schedule look, if there was a standardized scheduling grid?

I have examined scheduling practices for the past 5 years and it seems that certain BCS programs within high profile split division BCS conferences “DON’T” want to play specific programs within their own membership conference. You should not get the right to choose who you “DON’T” want to play in your respective member conference. It’s come to knowledge and expressed in various media outlets, more specifically the Southeastern Conference FBS football programs, do not want to play members in other divisions or not this year. Their hedonistic thoughts are to say “lets wait until they have a down year and then we will play them”. The idea that I have thought from an athletic directors point of view, that should be implemented, for a standardized scheduling grid for all split division FBS conferences. This type of system is simplistic, takes less thought and energy, plus it significantly decreases lobbying by athletic directors during athletic director meetings during scheduling time.

The standardized scheduling grid would still allow for competitive conference play, possibly maintain or create conference rivalries and increase the importance of each conference game. The rules for the standardized scheduling grid would be implemented as follows:

1. Once the 12 game regular season is complete for the competitive season and all regular conference games are complete, each division are already ranked in order by win-loss records within the division of that member conference. Start There.

2. The next season’s conference scheduling can be created by the final placement of each team within their division vs. the other division same placements. Divisional tie breakers can be determined by head to head games played against each divisional members.

3. Each team within the division plays each other, then the remaining number of conference games that need to be scheduled will be determined by final placement of Division A placements vs. remaining number of (X) games needed from Division B teams placements.

4. If you play the same cross divisional program in successive seasons, alternate the home and away scheduling format. The team that plays more HOME conference games in season A will play less HOME games in the next conference cross divisional scheduling season. This will place balance within the home field advantage topic and no one team will have a home field scheduling advantage like their are currently with the Non-Conference FBS scheduling practices.

For example, lets see the how the implementation of scheduling the cross divisional games, that should be required by rules, ethics, fairness, morals and not by lobbying.

Division A Team placement 1st schedules Division B teams placements of 1,2& 3

Division A Team placement 2nd schedules Division B teams placements of 1,2& 4

Division A Team placement 3rd schedules Division B teams placements of 1,3& 4

Division A Team placement 4th schedules Division B teams placements of 2,3& 4

Division A Team placement 5th, 6th & 7th schedules Division B teams placement 5,6& 7

Lets look at the Southeastern Conference and how their future 9-team conference schedule would look if this was implemented for the 2013 season.

GA: 6 games within division 3H/3A and then (H) ALA, (A) LSU and (H) TXAM

FLA: 6 games within the division 3H/3A and then (A) ALA, (H) LSU and (A) MSST

SC: 6 games within division 3H/3A and then (H) ALA, (A) MSST and (A) TXAM

VANDY: 6 games within division 3H/3A and then (H) TXAM, (H) MSST and (A) LSU

MZ: 6 games within division 3H/3A and then (A) MS, (H) ARK and (H) AU

TN: 6 games within division 3H/3a and then (H) MS, (A) ARK and (H) AU

KY: 6 games within division 3H/3A and then (A) MS, (H) ARK and (A) AU

I just significantly decreased scheduling issues and the time needed for athletic directors for the within conference, cross divisional scheduling practices. By implementing this format, this will allow athletic directors to focus on other issues within the athletic environment vs. email tag, lobbying, phone calls, talking with head coaches, phone tag, and saying “I DON’T WANT TO PLAY THEM THIS YEAR”. Schedule the games, play the members in your conference in which you voted in, in addition to stop running away and hiding with fear of losing.

Problem Solved…… And Yes…. I have a standardized scheduling format for a 9 game, 12 member and 2 division FBS conferences and a standardized scheduling format for a standardized cross conference scheduling format. You can find these formats like these in my book “College Football in the BCS Era, The Untold Truth: An Analysis of Factors that Supports the 16-Team Playoff Model”  available at Click on  the home page and then click on the front cover of the book. Purchase and read it before the 2013 FBS season starts.



Future BCS 4-Team Playoff Possesses Major Issues

Tuesday April 23, 2013; the BCS will unveil their future 4-team playoff mode, which will be implimented after the 2014 FBS season. Reading the early postings by sports writers from credible sports authorities indicates that the BCS and the NCAA are in agreement of going against their own principles and values. The next phase of the 4-team playoff format does possess major design issues and significant vested interest. Steps in the right direction, but not well thought out and against their morals and beliefs, all for the $$$. Again following the theory of Democritus and Almond.

In the early phases of this championship topic for the BCS, the NCAA and the BCS, both agreed in not wanting to extend the season past the current time in which it is now, ending on January 7 of the calendar year, or into the second semester of the academic year. Now, the future 4-team playoff will definitively extend into the next season and into the start of the 2nd semester of all major universities that compete at the FBS level of college football. Playing until January 12th of the calendar year, 5 days past the current date. That’s just one design flaw. The next design flaw, is the selection committee which could include 14-20 members, that will be chosen to select the 4-teams. Each member selected will still possess a vested interest objective/subjective thought to the committee party because of the large financial revenue that will be distributed. Even with this new expansion of 2 more FBS teams, this “exclusive” 4-team playoff group will significantly consist of the BCS programs and conferences members only group. The true facts have not yet been revealed by the BCS organization and Bill Hancock. Those will be revealed on Tuesday April 23, 2013. Seems to me that those with money are driving this train and making decisions based upon Democritus and Almond.

There is a new book available now, that addresses the college football playoff topic at, titled “College Football in the BCS Era, The Untold Truth: An Analysis of Factors that Supports the 16-Team Playoff Model”. This book examines many aspects of college football during the BCS Era and offers an “inclusive” approach to a college football playoff format. Maybe the BCS committee and Mr. Bill Hancock should read this book. The link below gets you to the book:

Something tells me, I might need to send him a copy with a personal letter…..


New Book: College Football In the BCS Era, The Untold Truth

This is the literary work in which I have been working on for the past 5 years, investigating college football on how they determine their “national champion” at the highest level of collage football, FBS/NCAA and the unethical use of the BCS system. To purchase the book you can go to and search for book by title or author name, Matthew Siggelow.  The link below will allow you to examine a  few pages in the book and purchase.

With college football starting up their spring practices and in about 3 months time, the 2013 college football season begins. I used an educational approach on this topic of  college football, which examined the historical evidence and facts.  This book tells the truth about college football at the NCAA and the FBS level of play, in the unethical way they determine  and crown a “national champion”.  The information inside this book examines historical evidence and looked at numerical data from 1996-2012, within the college football season. This is NOT an opinion based book, like others that have been published. This book is supported by peer reviewed journal articles associated within the topic, books written by credible doctoral professors, books written by credible sports authors and data driven to support the hypothesis and theory, which supports the 16-team playoff model. The book also examines the 16-team playoff model theory by using the professional model for sports, while adopting the ‘inclusive” aspect of athletics and sports. The book was written in a style that will allow all sports enthusiast and college football fans to read and understand. I did not write the book from a p or f  value of significance, in which the majority of all research is written. The significance is in the percentages, ratios and tables that make it simple to understand.

This book ANSWERED the toughest question in college football of; playoffs or current BCS system. The future 4-team playoff format that the NCAA is accepting and investigating, will still cause issues and complaints. It will never offer the Non-BCS programs an opportunity to compete for the national title. It’s time that college football at the FBS level for the NCAA, to possess a 16-team playoff format which allows all FBS programs a FAIR opportunity to win the National Championship like the rest of the 88 NCAA sponsored sports and championships. It’s time for much needed change in college football at the NCAA/FBS level of Play.

“The genie is now out of the bottle”

If you have any questions, please tweet me and follow me on twitter @cfbpoexpert

I look forward to reviews on my book.

Blatant Non-Conference Scheduling Practices by the SEC

Now that the SEC has won 7 straight BCS Titles, what does the future 2013 SEC non-conference schedule hold for the “supposed” best conference?  Does 7- straight titles entitle them to schedule an easier non-conference schedule or control it more in their favor? With the 2013 season almost 8 months away, the FBS schedules are out and almost finalized. The review of the 2013 SEC non-conference schedules indicate that the SEC once again, controls and manipulates their strategic position for the BCS championship game again. What many of you SEC supporters would say is “that we play in the  toughest conference and we have already won 7 titles in a row.” Well that is all perception and opinion based. The reality is that the SEC possesses the WORST non-conference scheduling practices in all of the FBS levels. The SEC possesses the HIGHEST home field advantage of all FBS conference at 79.8%, which is conclusive evidence supported by peer reviewed journal articles that supports home field advantage.

The 3-time, defending BCS champion, Alabama lightens their load again and will play all their 2013 non-conference games at HOME or within SEC supportive advantage country. Must be nice to play more home games and never play outside of the Southeastern part of the US, accept for 1-time a season if that. The review of the 2013 SEC non-conference schedules revealed that the SEC possesses an 80.4% non-conference home field advantage in the upcoming 2013 FBS season. The results revealed that the SEC has scheduled 45 HOME games versus 11 AWAY games in  the 2013 non-conference schedule. What a significant advantage to home field with every team and every FBS season. This has been an ongoing cognitive practice for the SEC since the inception of the BCS or Bowl Coalition.

The continued review of the 2013 SEC non-conference schedules indicates another hedonistic control over their non-conference schedule which strategically places them in position to compete for the BCS title year in and year out. Outside of what’s already stated, the review of the 2013 SEC non-conference schedule is this:

1 game West with Tennessee traveling to Oregon

9 games scheduled with the Sun Belt Conf.

8 games scheduled with the ACC

7 games scheduled with the CUSA

6 games scheduled with the MAC

3 games scheduled with the B12

2 games scheduled with the Big East and PAC 12

1 game each with the MWC, B10 and Independents(not Notre Dame)

15 games scheduled with FCS programs, none of which are becoming FBS members in the near future.

The SEC non-conference schedule is loaded with more NON-BCS games and at HOME versus traveling to those NON-BCS sites. The SEC fears losing and ruining their reputation and credibility. That’s why they control their non-conference schedule. Another significant advantage the SEC possesses is they prey on FCS programs early and late in the football season to pad their win totals. My take on playing FCS games is GO  play another FBS program, most likely away versus other FBS programs. Stop scheduling the more than significant win versus any FCS opponent. The SEC has manipulated the system in their favor for too many years which has led them to 7-straight BCS championships. What is more interesting  is that no one wants to report  or challenge this within the media.

The moral of this story is; if every FBS program scheduled the way the SEC does, then this would be a true hedonistic way to significantly increase your probability in playing for the BCS championship. Dear SEC: Schedule someone at the same level, play at their venue outside of the Southeastern US and not in a neutral site.


Final Edits on Book and Update

Since my last post on December 9, 2012; I have spent this time adding 2 chapters to the book, editing, making final edits and submitting paper work to the US Copyright Offices to protect this literary work and research. I can say at this point in time that the work is FINALLY complete after 5-years of exhaustive research and writing. I have already looked at self publishing and a marketing plan. As of this post, I am on the clock awaiting my certification from the copyright offices. If all goes as planned publication of the literary work could be end of March or first part of April.

I would like to ask of those who follow my posts through twitter or Facebook which size book would be most beneficial for reading:

A. 8 1/2 X 11

B. 5.5 X 8

Please feel free to twitter me at cfbpoexpert or comment on this post for your suggestion on book size.

Heisman Trophy Winners…

Are the Non-BCS student athletes not credible to be considered for the Heisman Trophy?  However, they are credible enough to recruit and offer student athlete scholarships to. At the NCAA level of amateur athletics within the FBS level for football, a large number of student-athletes are recruited and provided the opportunity to earn scholarships and compete for prestigious universities and colleges.  Thus, bringing the possibility of accolades, awards, wins, exposure and increase financial rewards to support the athletic department and institution. The more predominant offensive players are significantly selected for the candidacy for the prestigious Heisman Trophy yearly, with the rare defensive player earning the opportunity be considered as a candidate for the same trophy.

During the recent years there were slight increases of Non-BCS student-athletes considered as candidates to be finalists for voting; Kellen Moore (Boise State) Case Kennum (Houston), Andy Dalton (TCU), Colin Kaepernick (Nevada) and Nate Davis (Ball State) to name a few that were selected as finalists. However, the historic review of the 78-year presentation of the Heisman Trophy has been handed to significantly more BCS programs student athletes. Of the 78 presentations of the Heisman Trophy, 65 or 83.3% were BCS program student athletes. The remaining 13 Heisman Trophies were Non-BCS program student athletes. The last time a Non-BCS program student athlete received this prestigious award was 22-years ago to Ty Detmer from BYU in 1990 and the previous year in 1989 to Andre Ware from Houston. Prior to those two successive Non-BCS student athletes winning the Heisman, there was a longer drought for a Non-BCS winner. 25-years previous in 1963, Roger Staubach from Navy won the Heisman Trophy. If I am not mistaken those 3 Heisman winners led their teams to undefeated seasons prior their post season bowl games. Currently an undefeated Non-BCS team in a single season or consecutive seasons is still NOT enough to win the Heisman Trophy as a Non-BCS student athlete, recent cases in point that support this are Kellen Moore from Boise State and Case Kennum from Houston.

I am not stating that the previous winners did not earn the Heisman. There were some recent Non-BCS student athletes who should have earned the Heisman Trophy based upon the mission of the award, their individual performance, teams overall regular season record and national exposure that they brought to their institutions.  The review of the historic Heisman winners significantly indicates is that for ANY Non-BCS student athlete to receive the award they MUST significantly outperform ALL BCS student-athletes which receives significantly more television and newspaper media exposure. These Non-BCS student-athletes are credible enough to recruit and play at the top level of college football for the NCAA in the FBS, but not credible enough to be selected as the Heisman Trophy winner. Their important enough to their team to  lead them to wins, limited national media exposure, bowl games and more than significantly prosper at the next level of play.Without some of these Non-BCS program student athletes, we as a college football audience and media would NEVER be talking about their Non-BCS programs success such as; Boise State, Nevada, Utah, Houston, BYU and Louisiana Tech to name a few.  With length of time passing between Non-BCS winners fast approaching, when will the next Non-BCS student athlete receive the prestigious Heisman Trophy or will it never happen again.

FBS: The Field of 16

Do you ever wonder what college football would be like at the FBS level if there were a field of 16? Throughout the exhaustive research of college football at the FBS level, I was able to develop a FAIR, measurable and non-subjective criteria to determine who would make the field of 16 FBS playoffs. My system eliminates computer systems and human voters who possess vested interest and bias who can manipulate the rankings when large sums of money becomes the ultimate mission. The players and coaches are the ones who make the cognitive decisions on the field that ultimately creates their overall record and assists in determining their seeding spot if selected into the field of 16. There are also other measurable criteria that assists in seeding the field of 16 which I will not divulge at this moment and time. What I can say is that research and peer reviewed journal articles assisted in the thought process of designing the 16 team traditional playoff format. All I can say is some decisions are easy, some are challenging needing investigative analysis and some are very difficult to make.

NOTE: all games played as conference championship games were not taken into account due to the fact that ALL conferences do not possess a championship game, in addition to that only 10% of  the FBS plays a 13th game. The regular season ends after the 12th game of the season is complete. There were no favortism or bias into the seeding of these 16 FBS programs, the FBS programs earned these seeds.

This is how a traditional style bracketed playoff format could look like if the FBS/NCAA possessed a 16 team playoff.

1st Weekend of DECEMBER(higher ranked seeds Host and are Home)

#1 Notre Dame (12-0) vs #16 Clemson (10-2)

#8 Northern Illinois (11-1) vs. #9 Stanford (10-2)

#5 Florida (11-1) vs. #12 South Carolina (10-2)

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

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

#6 Alabama (10-2) vs.#11 Oklahoma (10-2)

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

#2 Kent State (11-1) vs. #15 San Jose State (10-2)

3rd weekend of DECEMBER(neutral sites)


ND, CLEM, NIU  and STAN-  2 winners play at New Mexico Bowl.

FLA, SC, GA and LSU- 2 winners play at Idaho Potato Bowl.


ORG, UTST, ALA and OU- 2 winners play at Poinsetta Bowl.

KST, BOIST, KENST, and SJST- 2 winners play at Beef O Brady Bowl.


POD A- final 2 remaining winners play at Orange Bowl.

POD B- final 2 remaining winner play at Rose Bowl.

JAN 7th

Championship Game with POD A  remaining winner vs POD B remaining winner at the Sugar Bowl.

Imagine the excitement, fans, media coverage and the revenue this would generate in regions across the country. The taxed based dollars would generate revenue and ALL playoff games would be SOLD OUT, no empty seats.

For those who are asking why my (10-2) team did not earn a seed, here is the best explanation without getting to deep. Both Texas A&M and Florida State only played 10 FBS games. FCS programs are in-eligible to play for the FBS championship. Yes, some seeded programs played 1 FCS program, so whats the difference? They won more games and the FCS game they played were used as analysis to assist in the seeding process with like records. Best suggestion, schedule FBS programs or only schedule 1 FCS program and/or schedule FCS programs that have made the FBS commitment in the coming years. Louisville’s Non-Conference schedule was not as credible with a combined record of (12-36). Nebrasks was the final decision on not making the field of 16. Nebraska possessed a stronger Non-Conference combined record of (18-18), but other FBS programs seeded earned a record versus those already seeded and played a tougher non-conference schedule based upon number of home and away games.

How does this playoff format change the bowl system, in reality it doesnt. The bowl games can still run congruent with this playoff format but with 76 Bowl eligible FBS teams this season, that leaves 60 FBS bowl eligible programs to be selected into the remaining bowls. My next post in the coming days will have the adjusted Bowl Games with the remaining eligible FBS teams trying to stay within the bowl contractual agreements as possible.

This is what college football could possess, just like the NCAA March Madness, but in December and Traditional New Years week. The purpose of this post was to make you look at college football differently. Yes, even during the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament selection, some teams do not understand why they were left out or how they are seeded the way they were. The difference is, THEY GO PLAY no matter what. They respect the system in use and earn the championship by playing out the tournament.

Please feel free to leave me quality question(s) on here, no rants or abuse will be tolerated or you can reach me through twitter at cfbpoexpert.

BCS: Notre Dame Secures Top spot in field of 16

Notre Dame concludes the 2012 FBS season with an incredible goal line stand to secure a (12-0) season to secure the top seed in this researched based 16 team playoff format. And finally, most impressively the BCS National Championship Game versus an opponent yet to be determined by the subjective voters and computers analysis. The difference between the “official” national championship game and my researched based playoff format is that all 124 FBS programs are considered for the 16 spots depending on their FINAL regular season record. Most importantly,each individual FBS program is considered pending that they are not on NCAA probation. With that said, if  (12-0)Ohio State were eligible then where would they be seeded if they possess the same record as Notre Dame? The answer to that question is that, Ohio State would be seeded #2. Since Ohio State is ineligible who will be seeded #2, that’s the mystery.

With the 2012 FBS season concluding next weekend with five conferences; the Big East, the Big 12, the Mountain West, the Sun Belt  and the Western Athletic finishing with conference games the seeds will not be released until early Sunday morning. I can offer this tidbit of information, the following are in the playoff format with seeds to be determined excluding Notre Dame who has earned the #1 seed.

  1. Notre Dame IND(12-0)
  2. Florida SEC(11-1)
  3. Kent State MAC(11-1)
  4. Oregon PAC 12(11-1)
  5. Northern Illinois MAC(11-1)
  6. Alabama SEC (11-1)
  7. Georgia SEC(11-1)

With 7 spots secured that leaves 9 spots with a possibility of 14 FBS teams to be examined for the remaining 9 spots. It does appear that 10-2 is the record to be achieved to be considered for the field of 16. Being 9-3 may not enough to get in when in some seasons it’s enough to be at least considered. Hopefully your (10-2) team will be selected and even not they will play in a prestigious bowl game.

BCS: 2 MAC FBS Teams Secure Playoff Spots

2 Non-BCS/FBS programs secure 2 of the 15 remaining playoff spots with victories today on the last weeks and final games of the FBS season. Both Northern Illinois and Kent State both ended the season with a 11 wins, which secures their spots.  Kent State ran off 10 wins in a row, while Northern Illinois ran off 11 wins in a row. Of the non-conference  victories that were earned by Kent State were at Army(IND) and at Rutgers(BE), while Northern Illinois earned wins versus at Army(IND) and home versus Kansas(B12). Northern Illinois almost finished the 2012 FBS season as one of the undefeated FBS programs, but lost the first game of the season to Iowa(B12) at Iowa(B12) 16-17.   The lone loss that is the only blemish on Kent State’s record was at Kentucky 14-47. Both of these FBS programs earned these 2 playoff spots with seeding placement to be determined upon the completion of the 2012 season and/or when all playoff eligible programs are being considered.

With 3 playoffs spots secured by Notre Dame, Kent State and Northern Illinois, that leaves the possibility of 34 FBS programs in the final weeks or final game to secure one of the remaining 13 spots with seeds to be determined. We will all be glued to our televisions this weekend to watch how the remaining games to be played turn out. There will be upsets I am sure,  as well as close games and blowouts. There will be more surprises in final 13 spots as well as who is seeded where.


BCS: Notre Dame secures spot in Playoff!!!

With the 2012 FBS college football season drawing to a close, Notre Dame has secured one of the hypothetical playoff spots in my field of 16 teams. Notre Dame’s seed position is yet to be determined. However, the 5 years of college football research in which was performed by myself, examined that from 1996 to the present, that any FBS team that earns 11+ victories are 100% guaranteed a seed within the field of 16. Since 1996, the largest number of 11-win FBS programs were 8, in 1998 and 2001. Lets not forget about Ohio State, if not placed on probation by the NCAA would have also secured a playoff spot like Notre Dame with seed to be determined. By playing by the rules, Ohio State or any FBS program could be playing for prestige, honor and national notoriety. This excludes the increases in media exposure, recruiting and financial gains by participating in additional games.

There are specific criterion that determines the field of 16 in my playoff format. Although hypothetical for now, the criteria possesses NO vested interest, NO human polls and NO computer calculations. The seed selection process is determined  by multiple variables that are determined within the current season and no hypothetical situations.

The remaining 15 spots in my playoff format are still up for grabs. However, as the 2012 season concludes, the current situation is as this for the remaining spots. I will not specifically name any FBS programs currently competing for the remaining seeds, until they have actually secured one of the 16 spots. Of the current (9) 10-win FBS teams, there is an 80% significance that they secure a spot within my field by earning their 11th win. By earning the 11th win, they are 100% guaranteed to secure a spot in the filed of 16, with seeding to be determined. There is still a chance that some or all of these (10) win FBS programs lose this week staying at (10) wins.  Of the current (13) 9- win FBS teams, they can become part of the (10) win with an 80% significance in securing one of the 16 playoff spots. By ending the season with 10 wins, the significance of securing one of the 16 playoff spots is significant.  By ending the season as a (9) win FBS  team, there is only a less than 9% significance in earning one of the 16 seeds.  The largest number of 10- win FBS teams were 10 in successive years, 2006 and 2007. However, in 2007 all (10) 2-loss FBS programs made the field of 16.  In 2007, of the (15) FBS teams with 2-losses (10) made the final field of 16. Does this mean that an FBS team currently with (8) wins looking for the 9th or even 10th are not being considered, No. They still have an “FAIR” opportunity to make the field of 16.

There are 2-weeks still left of the FBS football 2012 season, but many finish the regular season this coming weekend. Only the Big East, Big 12 and the Army/Navy game extends into the first weekend of December. Conference Championship games are not take into account when the selection process. I will not explain why for now.

You will surprised at who is being seeded where………..stay tune for more.

Follow me on twitter at cfbpoexpert  or continue to follow me here at