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

Week 4 of the CFP Predictions

I do believe I have the CFP committee figured out this time. Honest. Last week I was 96% correct in selecting the field of 25, missing out in USC and Oregeon. I was only correct on four (4) placement accuracies that only 16% for the accuracy rating and ten (10) we will call near misses. A near miss would be defined as having selected the right FBS team in the rankings or in the field but missing their accurate ranking by one placement. That makes my near miss accuracy rate then at 40%. It seems that I can select the same group as the CFP committee, but we have different criteria to rank the FBS programs in order when they win or lose.

I know the CFP committee has a tough job in this process with teams they thought would win but lose, and teams that are predicted to win by large amounts only win by one (1) possession or escape in overtime. With that said, this past week seven (7) FBS teams ranked in the CFP poll lost; Houston, LSU, Memphis, Ohio State, Oklahoma State, USC, Utah and Wisconsin. What this means is my research on rnking systems and experience comes into play here. What my intution and research tells me is that LSU, Memphis, USC and Wisconsin WILL drop from the CFP rankings. The other FBS programs that lost Ohio State and Oklahoma State will or should remain in the Top 10 or even the top 12. Utah will drop to the 20th ranking position, with Houston and TCU, they might hang on to stay in the last 2 spots of the CFP rankings.

With so many ranked FBS teams losing, I do believe that the CFP committee fails to recognize all the FBS members who are having great seasons this year.  However, the CFP committee only reviews those FBS programs from the Power 5 or the BCS conferences before ranking any of the Group of 5 or Non BCS programs when needing to complete the bottom half of the Top 25 rankings. For example from the Conference USA there are Marshall and Western Kentucky who are both (9-2) along with Louisana Tech and Southern Mississippi both at (8-3). From the Sun Belt Conference there is FCS newcomber to the FBS level Appalachian State at (8-2). From the Mountain West Conference there are Air Force and San Diego State both at (8-3). From the Mid American Conference Northern Illinois and Bowling Green both at (8-3). And finally BYU who is Independent at (8-3). This excludes the American Athletic Conference, since they have had a great season and representation already. That’s ten (10) Group of 5 FBS members how are not receiving an sniff from the CFP committee to at least rank them. However, the CFP committee must rank Power 5 FBS programs first if they are (8-3) or (9-2) over any Group of 5 FBS menber. That in itself is an un-written rule that the CFP committee or sports media wont mention. I will expand on this later and have expaned on it my book that will be re-released next year.

Now to my weekly CFP committee projections or predictions. Remember this is a prediction on how I believe that the very in-experienced CFP committee will rank the FBS programs one (1) through twenty-five (25) weekly.

CFP Projections in Rank Order:

CLEMSON	(11-0)
ALABAMA	(10-1)
NOTRE DAME	(10-1)
IOWA	(11-0)
OKLAHOMA	(10-1)
MICHIGAN STATE	(10-1)
FLORIDA	(10-1)
BAYLOR	(10-1)
OHIO STATE	(10-1)
OKLAHOMA STATE	(10-1)
STANFORD	(9-2)
MICHIGAN	(9-2)
FLORIDA STATE	(9-2)
NORTH CAROLINA	(10-1)
NAVY	(9-1)
NORTHWESTERN	(9-2)
MISSISSIPPI	(8-3)
UTAH	(8-3)
OREGON	(8-3)
TOLEDO	(9-1)
MISSISSIPPI STATE	(8-3)
UCLA	(8-3)
PITTSBURGH	(8-3)
HOUSTON	(10-1)
TCU	(9-2)

With one more true and final week of the college football season to go, this final week is going to be intense and amazing. There are scenarios I am rooting for this week. Those being Alabama losing to Auburn and Florida losing to Florida State. I am also rooting for all other FBS programs to win the games they need to, to stay above the SEC. Those loses by Alabama and Florida would mean that every SEC team would have two(2) losses or more and puts the committee in un-familiar territory. How do we have a playoff without an SEC team representing? That wil be the true test of the CFP committee and if they do select a two (2) loss SEC team for the playoffs, then there will be screaming shouting and lawsuits. WE shall see how this turns out.

Follow me on twitter at   cfbpoexpert

 

Week 3 of the CFP Predictions

The committee is getting more and more predictible by the week. Interesting that I can prepare a CFP Prediction Rankings in less time that the actual committee takes in deliberating how to rank the CFP Top 25. Last week in comparison to the CFP Top 25 and my predictions, again I was 96% accruate in selecting the pool of 25. I had Mississippi in the CFP Top 25 and the inexperienced committee selected Wisconsin. As for placement accruacy, I was 32% accurate. That’s up 400% from the first weeks rankings with many of the ranked FBS teams off by one spot. Either I had a ranked FBS team higher or lower by one position difference. Let’s see how I do this week in the prediction of the CFP Top 25.

The final weeks of the season are going to be crazy and more crazier as the final week approaches. FBS teams that you thought would win struggle and lose, fail to play to their potetnial and escape with a win or lose all together on last series by opponents. What will this week bring in college football? It seems with 2 or 3 games left in the season, depending on which FBS program and conference you are in, the excitement is just beginning. As for one of the higher ranked FBS programs in the CFP poll, they have a simple week this week. More specifically the Southeastern Conference (SEC) or who I call the Schedule Easy Conference. This week #2 rankes Alabama and in my rankings #11 Alabama scheduled an FCS game at HOME versus Charleston Southern. Research tells me that Alabama will win by 4+ posessions, meaning 28 points or more. But would it not be apprapoah if FCS Charleston Southern pulled the late season FCS upset over Alabama and put the crowning moments on the SEC’s chances of being selected as one of the four in the CFP playoffs. Oh wait, it would have to take more than that for the SEC to be left out of the field of four, since the chair of the CFP is SEC Athletic Director from Arkansas; Jeff Long. In addition to, the founding fathers of the BCS and CFP are all SEC related. Guess we will find out when Auburn and Florida State put a monkey wrench in to the whole process at the end of the season over Thanksgiving weekend, by giving Florida and Alabama their second loss and all SEC programs possessing at least 2-losses or more.

Now for my prediction on how the CFP Committee will rank the FBS prorgams one (1) through twenty-five (25) this week.

CFP PREDICITON RANKINGS

CLEMSON	(10-0)
ALABAMA	(9-1)
OHIO STATE	(10-0)
OKLAHOMA STATE	(10-0)
NOTRE DAME	(9-1)
IOWA	(10-0)
FLORIDA	(9-1)
OKLAHOMA	(9-1)
MICHIGAN	(8-2)
MICHIGAN STATE	(9-1)
TCU	(9-1)
NORTHWESTERN	(8-2)
BAYLOR	(8-1)
FLORIDA STATE	(8-2)
STANFORD	(8-2)
HOUSTON	(10-0)
UTAH	(8-2)
NORTH CAROLINA	(9-1)
LSU	(7-2)
WISCONSIN	(8-2)
NAVY	(8-1)
MEMPHIS	(8-2)
MISSISSIPPI	(7-3)
TOLEDO	(8-1)
MISSISSIPPI STATE	(7-3)

I do believe that I have probably increased my placement accuracy this week. I do believe I might have 50% or greater this week in placement accuracy. We shall see.

See the CFP Committees job is not that hard. I can do it without needing three (3) days to debate and argue. However, I woul rank differently as you can see by how I rank.

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

Week 2 of CFP Predictions

The CFP committee will release their College Football Rankings which has a direct effect on which four (4) FBS programs, oh mis-spoke, which four (4) Group of Five FBS programs will compete for the $50 Million Dollar prize at the end, plus being called National Champion for college football at the NCAA level. I am sorry Houston, even if you are the only 0-loss program left standing at the end of the FBS season before the committee makes thier FINAL selection, you will not be invited and biasly left out based upon your classification status in college football at the FBS level in the NCAA. Eventhough you pay the same memberhsip fee to the NCAA as the Group of Five, you are not part of the “Roman Empire”. If it were me making the selection, you would be the Number 1 seed in the final rankings. The committee released their first rankings last week and I was correct on 96% percent of the selected pool or field with 8% correct on accruate placements. I will work on improving my placement accurcy this week. I selected North Carolina in the pool of 25 and the committee selected Northwestern in the pool of 25.

Let’s move to week two (2) for the CFP selection committee and I will continue to make my predictions again with an adjustment to my CFP rankings. I do believe, I have the committee figured out. Intersting, I am not in the room and I can select and rank the CFP Top 25 in a matter of minutes not days. The first rankings were released with all great quality FBS college football programs and then by the following Saturday of college football we had seven (7) of the Top 25 lose. Nerves or did those teams lose to quality FBS programs under the sports quote “on any given day ,at any given time, anyone can beat anyone”. Well that holds true.

Here is my predictions, not my rankings, on how the CFP Top 25 will look tonight from the very in-experienced CFP committee.

CFP PREDICTION in rank order

CLEMSON	(9-0)
ALABAMA	(8-1)
OHIO STATE	(9-0)
OKLAHOMA STATE	(9-0)
NOTRE DAME	(8-1)
BAYLOR	(8-0)
IOWA	(9-0)
STANFORD	(8-1)
FLORIDA	(8-1)
UTAH	(8-1)
OKLAHOMA	(8-1)
LSU	(7-1)
MEMPHIS	(9-0)
TCU	(8-1)
MICHIGAN	(7-2)
MICHIGAN STATE	(8-1)
MISSISSIPPI STATE	(7-2)
NORTHWESTERN	(7-2)
TEMPLE	(8-1)
FLORIDA STATE	(7-2)
HOUSTON	(9-0)
UCLA	(7-2)
NORTH CAROLINA	(8-1)
MISSISSIPPI	(7-3)
NAVY	(7-1)

I gave my rankings some thought with this very sensitive ranking subject matter. Rather than rank this group, since $50 Million Dollars is on the line, national prestige and the trophy that comes with it. I used my athletic directors and coaches mind set to rank these teams differently. Why differently you may ask. I believe that with the pressure that comes with college athletics at this level, the money that is involved, very LIMITED access to $50 Million Dollars with 3.6% of the FBS pool being selected and the level of athletic competition; that other factors go into account for rankings. That’s why you see a 0-loss or 1-loss FBS programs lose after the first CFP ranking when you think they should not lose. The loss happens as we saw last weekend when seven (7) CFP Top 25 FBS programs lost due to the level of competition and what is on the line. Their rankings will be effected this week, that’s just common sense.

When a prestiguous program receives a high ranking in the CFP polls, attentional focus is affected, and the mind set changes based upon the number or rank associated with your ranking. That number association with your rank is a sports societal pressure. Something that the sports media has no direct relation to or comprehension skill to associate with in what it’s like to be being placed in that type of position with performance anxiety and attentional focus effected. The sports media can not even come close to what these student athletes are going through since we as a sports society place this pressure upon them. Then when the desired results do not occur the sports media places some negative affect on that program and athletes, questioning why they lost and how that will effect them in the CFP Rankings. So for me, if I were to rank the playoff eligble FBS programs I would rank them like so:

MY CFP RANKINGS, not in rank order:

BAYLOR	(8-0)
CLEMSON	(9-0)
HOUSTON	(9-0)
IOWA	(9-0)
OHIO STATE	(9-0)
OKLAHOMA STATE	(9-0)
ALABAMA	(8-1)
FLORIDA	(8-1)
LSU	(7-1)
MEMPHIS	(8-1)
MICHIGAN STATE	(8-1)
NAVY	(7-1)
NORTH CAROLINA	(8-1)
NOTRE DAME	(8-1)
OKLAHOMA	(8-1)
STANFORD	(8-1)
TCU	(8-1)
TEMPLE	(8-1)
TOLEDO	(7-1)
UTAH	(8-1)

This is my list in alphabetical order and by 0-loss and 1-loss order of FBS programs that I am considering for the four (4) CFP spots to compete for the $50 Million Dollar prize and to be called National Champion in college football at at the FBS level in the NCAA. This list places those teams on notice and does not rank them by order by hiearchal best to worst in which we as a sport society crave to have. We associate our teams by a rank in which they possess when the actual rankings by subjective systems and human voters possess NO true or valid ranking criteria in which to rank them. The rankings are opinion based not criteria based. As for the 2-loss FBS programs, I would say that you are on the watch list. I am well versed in knowing how the final numbers and statistical analysis correalte to final seaon records and how many 0-loss or 1-loss programs will remain at the end of the FBS season. So for this group of twenty (20) remaining 0-loss and 1-loss FBS teams, this is where the field of four (4) will derive from and my mock 16-team CFB playoff selection will derive from, unless we have a very small number of 0-loss and 1-loss programs.

Please comment and share this post.

If you read and post comments on other web based message boards, specifically sports media, please do not forget to use the APA/MLA citing format. What you post can be found out and thats plagarism.

Follow me on Twitter at    cfbpoexpert

Predicting the CFP’s 1st Poll

I am beating ESPN and the CFP Committee to the punch and predicting the CFP Rankings from 1 through 25 before they are actually released live at 7PM tonight.

Tonight on November 3rd, 2015 at 7PM the College Football Playoff Committee will release thier first CFP Rankings on ESPN, the Expert Sports Programming Network. I follow various twitter accounts that tweet about college football which includes television, radio, analysts and the “experts” at ESPN. Last week the CFP committee Chair, Jeff Long; the Athletic Director at Arkansas an SEC Conference member , The Football Four, and The USA Today Sports sent out a tweet promoting the CFP Top 25 to be released Tuesday November 3rd. I sent a tweet back to them saying that I bet I could predict with confidence who the committee will rank in order and be 90% accurate. I received a tweet back from Jeff Long or his twitter account saying “Go For It! Knock yourself out, have fun with it …Go on! My return tweet was “as Barney Stinson said (from the CBS show How I Met Your Mother) “Challenge Accepted”.

Challanege Accepted and Completed. Below is how I believe the CFP Committee will rank the Top 25 FBS college football programs for the first CFP poll. You need to remember that the first poll is not the actual final poll but a feel out poll to see which 25 FBS programs are being considered for the Final Four Spots.  This is thier “on thier radar poll”. They will leave some very good credible FBS teams out and off the list. From this list some will play themselves out, some will change thier rankings and some will play themselevs into the poll and fail to receive thier just due credit, also known as any 0-loss or 1-loss programs from the Group of 5.

Below is how I have predicted how the CFP Committee will rank the first Top 25 Poll.

Disclaimer: This is not how I believe I would rank the CFP Poll. This is a Prediction Model of the CFP Poll.

PREDICTION OF CFP POLL

OHIO STATE	(8-0)
BAYLOR	(7-0)
CLEMSON	(8-0)
LSU	(7-0)
TCU	(8-0)
MICHIGAN STATE	(8-0)
ALABAMA	(7-1)
FLORIDA	(7-1)
NOTRE DAME	(7-1)
STANFORD	(7-1)
IOWA	(8-0)
OKLAHOMA STATE	(8-0)
OKLAHOMA	(7-1)
UTAH	(7-1)
FLORIDA STATE	(7-1)
MEMPHIS	(8-0)
MICHIGAN	(7-1)
MISSISSIPPI	(7-2)
HOUSTON	(8-0)
TOLEDO	(7-0)
NORTH CAROLINA	(7-1)
UCLA	(6-2)
TEMPLE	(7-1)
MISSISSIPPI STATE	(6-2)
TEXAS A&M	(6-2)

I do believe that the committee has a very hard job to get this right at the end of the year. I also believe the committee does not look at all the variables that needs to be examined to rank more accurately each FBS team 1 through 25. Thier inexperience shows dramatically. What the public also need to rememeber is that there is $50 Million Dollars prize on the table, a trophy and title with national recognition on the line that is attached with this playoff format. This committee does possess vested interest and will do thier best to keep out any Power 5 FBS program out of the Final Four Spots.

If you have any questions about my rankings please contact me through twitter at    cfbpoexpert  or leave a comment on the page.

Book Update and New Release Time

To all the college football fans who would appreciate an expanded tournament style playoff bracket of more than 4 Power 5 FBS teams in the NCAA at the FBS level of college football. I authored and released a book in 2013 which is pictured on my webpage on the right side. I have taken on the subject matter again and that book although available now but not the one you should read. Proof reading what I wrote, I discovered that I left out some vital and pertinent information that is definatively needed to prove my point and support for a change for a 16-team playoff expanded format for college football at the FBS level of play in the NCAA. My research and playoff format allows all (128) and or future FBS programs an equal, fair and just opportunity to compete for the National Championship in college football at the FBS level of play in the NCAA and an opprtuinity to comepete for $50+ million dollars.

I have added 4 new chapters, added new tables, adjusted tables and data to support my findings, a secret chapter and changed the title. I am currently writing that secret chapter now which offers evidence and proof that certain rules have been broken and that those rules need to be brought to light. I am writing this book from a District Attorney’s positon who is trying a defendent on a first degree murder charge and I am that District Attorney with all the evidence and facts.

When you author a book and make any changes to that book, such as additional chapters or change in data, you need to re-apply for copyright protection and a new ISBN Library of Congress number. This does not mean that the book I authored already is not valid, just means that I am offering more supportive evidence and findings. You may ask why the long delay in re-release. When you work 70+ hours a week, you have time for a few pages here and there plus reflect on what you wrote.

My target time to be completed with this project from the writing sense is at the end of 2015, basically December 31, 2015. Once that is complete, I will proof read what I wrote again and then re-submit for copyright protection by the end of January 2016. Once I have obtained my new copyright, I will be looking for at least (20) volunteers to enter into a contractual agreement to read my book to offer thoughts and comments. The target date for consumer purchase will be on or just after July 1, 2016. Right before college football season starts up with the pre-season polls and conference media days.

The volunteers I am searching for are sports writers from across the country, atheltic directors outside of the FBS or FCS level of play, sports fans who possess an open mind  and passionate about college football when reading a topic of this magnitude, sports news casters who possess no ties to ESPN, FOX Sports, HLN Sports, NBC Sports, CNN Sports or any other major media sports outlet. As a volunteer you will enter into an agreetment that hold you to secrecy and not able to discuss the book and its contents until I officially release it to the general public. Specific details of being a volunteer to be the first to read my book will be released later when that time comes.

Could you be a volunteer? If you have any questions or would like to be considered as a volunteer to read my book before the general public please contact me either by:

email:     cfbpoexpert@gmail.com    or       Twitter:      cfbpoexpert

I look forward to your comments and the possibility of you being one of those (20) volunteers.

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:

CONFERENCE	W	L	PF	PA	FCS GL
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:

CONFERENCE	HOME GAMES	AWAY GAMES	PERCENTAGE
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.

References:

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 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.

Lastly

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