Week 5 CFB Rankings and NO Changes at Top 4


With 3 weeks to go in this 2018 college football regular season, prior to the conference championship weekend,  the season is shaping up to be very exciting with many great games still to come when rivalry weekend approching. The playoff race for my mock field of 16 is starting to take shape. All while, the CFP system is causing too many issues with the bifurcated and Democritusly driven system all because of the “eye test”, lack of selection and seeding experience and they must protect the Power Five Conferences based upon vested interests.

I performed a week one comparison between the CFP rankings and my weekly rankings based upon which FBS won or lost, but importantly “who ranked them better”. What was determined was that my CFBPOEXPERT Top 15 was (12-3), the CFP Top 15 was (10-5). By comparing the two groups against each other based upon the subjective process of a committee versus the professional model theory with criterial assessments to assist in ranking. From my persepctive, It can be detemined that the subjective CFP committe process possesses ranking design flaws based upon vested interests from select financial groups, a significant ranking bias based upon specific conferences earning ranked positions based upon “specific”Power Five conference affiliation in addtion to possessing a relationsip bias, providing a false perceived perception how really good that “specific” Power Five Conference is and finally believing in using data sets in the likes of the FPI and the RPI which have been proven to lack credibility . The questions that need to be asked are what is the CFP selection committee thinking when ranking and how come I am not part of the selection committee. At least I would create a balance in the force.

As of this posting, we still have (4) 0-loss programs, the 1-loss programs has dwindeled down to (11), 2-loss programs have grown to 30 and EVERY FBS program now has a win. Texas El Paso finally earned their first victory against Rice.The  bowl eligible programs has grown to 49, with 29 FBS programs with 5-wins, one short of being bowl eligible. More than likely, all of thise 5 win programs will become bowl eligible. Behind the 5-win FBS programs are 18 4-win programs who are still in the hunt to become bowl eligible. If all of those FBS programs within those specific win groups all earn 6-wins to be bowl eligible, then CFB would have 96 bowl eliible programs. Now the argument would be, who gets left out of a bowl game.

As of this posting at 7PM on 11/6/2018, If i could predict the CFP week two selections for the CFP4, then I would have to say in rank order: Alabama, Clemson, Michigan, Notre Dame; with Georgia, Oklahoma, Ohio State, West Virginia, Washington State and Central Florida. It should be Clemson, Alabama, Notre Dame and then any one from the group I just mentioned you can toss in and get a great CFP4.

Below are my week 5 CFBPOEXPERT rankings. The rankings are more accurate and data driven based upon multiple categorical variables which are quantifiable and qualitative.  Please be aware that the grid might be off center within the blog post page. I have tried my best to make sure it fits to page for best viewing. The statistics and data are collected and evaluated during every week of the college football season.

TEAM/RECORD OVRL OP NC ONLY NC OP OVRL CONF OP
1 NOTRE DAME (9-0) (56-52) .519 (81) (14-12) .538 (87) (40-32) .556 (54) (9-14) .391 (126)
2 CLEMSON (9-0) (58-32) .644 (5) (9-1) .900 (4) (18-7) .720 (15) (19-26).422 (123)
3 ALABAMA (9-0) (51-46) .515 (83) (7-4) .636 (60) (11-16) .457 (107) (15-28) .349 (130)
4 CENTRAL FLORIDA (8-0) (44-53) .454 (118) (3-7) .300 (122) (10-16) .385 (114) (17-23) .425 (120)
5 MICHIGAN (8-1) (62-47) .569 (44) (9-5) .643 (52) (19-9) .679 (20) (26-27) .491 (73)
6 OKLAHOMA (8-1) (56-50) .528 (78) (5-6) .455 (103) (13-14) .481 (88) (29-30) .492 (72)
7 OHIO STATE (8-1) (51-57) .472 (109) (4-6) .400 (114) (10-17) .370 (118) (23-30) .434 (119)
8 UAB (8-1) (46-53) .465 (112) (6-5) .545 (86) (14-13) .519 (70) (21-21) .500 (67)
9 BUFFALO (8-1) (40-60) 400 (128) (5-6) .455 (104) (13-14) .481 (92) (16-26) .381 (127)
10 UTAH STATE (8-1) (42-61) .408 (125) (5-7) .417 (112) (13-15) .464 (96) (15-28) .349 (129)
11 FRESNO STATE (8-1) (46-56) .451 (120) (5-5) .500 (96) (11-16) .407 (111) (19-24) .442 (115)
12 CINCINNATI (44-53) .454 (119) (2-9) .182 (128) (11-16) .407 (110) (19-21) .475 (89)
13 GEORGIA (59-40) .596 (27) (6-5) .545 (79) (15-13) .536 (63) (23-25) .479 (84)
14 WASHINGTON ST (8-1) (51-52) .500 (91) (1-6) .143 (129) (5-14) .263 (127) (28-30) .483 (80)
15 WEST VIRGINA (7-1) (54-43) .557 (53) (6-1) .857 (13) (10-7) .588 (47) (25-29) .463 (101)
16 BOISE STATE (7-2) (58-51) .532 (75) (8-6) .571 (75) (17-19) .472 (94) (24-18) .571 (18)
17 SYRACUSE (7-2) (54-44) .551 (57) (9-5) .643 (53) (16-12) .571  (49) (21-24) .467 (96)
18 GEORGIA SO. (7-2) (51-49) .510 (86) (6-5) .545 (82) (16-13) .552 (58) (19-21) .475 (88)
19 TROY (7-2) (47-50) .485 (102) (8-4) .667 (51) (13-13) .500 (84) (18-22) .450 (112)
20 SOUTH FLORIDA (7-2) (50-41) .549 (61) (7-4) .636 (58) (13-15) .464 (95) (21-19) .525 (47)
21 NORTH TEXAS (7-2) (39-59) .398 (129) (7-6) .538 (88) (10-16) .385 (115) (19-24) .442 (116)
22 HOUSTON (7-2) (42-58) .420 (124) (4-5) .444 (108) (11-18) .379 (116) (17-23) .425 (121)
23 SAN DIEGO ST (7-2) (50-52) .490 (99) (6-3) .667 (49) (15-13) .536 (65) (18-23) .439 (117)
24 BOSTON COLLEGE (7-2) (55-43) .561 (49) (5-7) .417 (111) (14-14) .500 (79) (21-24) .467 (97)
25 KENTUCKY (7-2) (52-47) .525 (79) (4-6) .400 (113) (9-19) .321 (121) (22-25) .468 (95)

GRID EXPLANATIONTeam– FBS team, Record and Rank; Non Conference Overall Opponent– This is the cumulative combined overall records, percentage rate and rank of the ranked FBS teams non conference scheduled opponents records within their 2018 FBS season Overall Opponent– This is the cumulative record, percentage rate and rank within that categorical variable for that ranked FBS teams combined opponents record within their 2018 FBS football schedule versus FBS programs ONLY; Non Conference Only: This is the cumulative record, percentage rate and rank within this categorical variable for that ranked FBS teams combined records associated within their 2018 Non Conference scheduled games versus FBS programs ONLY; Conference Opponent: This is the cumulative record of games scheduled within their 2018 conference schedule versus their conference opponents ONLY and their rank amongst the group of FBS programs.

Below is my new ranking system which is criterial based, in which I have collected for the past 5 FBS seasons, previous to this 2018 FBS season. This ranking criteria examines FBS Offensive Efficiency and Defensive Effectiveness. These categories are quantitative, qualitative and measurable with no subective basis. These are EARNED statistical data points and ranked positions which shows efficency and effectiveness. This is the first time I have ever posted these data points in relationship to FBS prorgams. This TOP 25 is ranked in order based upon offensive efficiency percentage rates and defensive data points.

TEAM/RECORD OFF EFF DEF 3 PS GM CTRL
1 ALABAMA (9-0) (74-110) .617 22 (7) 9 (1)
2 OKLAHOMA (8-1) (68-111) .613 12(92) 5(9)
3 GEORGIA (9-0) (57-106) .538 13(72) 5(8)
4 UTAH STATE (8-1) (73-136) .537 20(12) 6(7)
5 CENTRAL FLORIDA (8-0) (57-107) .533 18(20) 4(7)
6 WASHINGTON ST (8-1) (55-106) .519 12(93) 2(12)
7 WEST VIRGINIA (7-1) (50-97) .515 15(47) 3(73)
8 MEMPHIS (5-4) (63-123) .512 13(73) 3(29)
9 CLEMSON (9-0) (65-127) .512 26(1) 7(2)
10 OHIO (6-3) (58-114) .509 13(74) 3(34)
11 MISSISSIPPI (5-4) (59-120) .492 8(118) 2(81)
12 BOISE STATE (7-2) (54-111) .486 14(59) 3(32)
13 ARMY (7-2) (44-91) .484 13(75) 3(35)
14 MICHIGAN (8-1) (54-112) .482 21(9) 6(6)
15 OKLAHOMA STATE (5-4) (58-121) .479 16(36) 3(28)
16 NC STATE (6-2) (45-94) .479 10(108) 1(102)
17 NORTH TEXAS (7-2) (58-122) .475 23(5) 6(5)
18 OHIO STATE (8-1) (59-125) .472 18(21) 4(13)
19 GEORGIA TECH (5-4) (50-106) .472 14(60) 4(19)
20 TEXAS TECH (5-4) (62-132) .470 17(29) 3(26)
21 SYRACUSE (7-2) (67-143) .469 21(10) 3(23)
22 HOUSTON (7-2) (64-139) .460 17(30) 4(14)
23 FRESNO STATE (8-1) (55-120) .458 24(2) 7(3)
24 TOLEDO (5-4) (58-127) .457 15(48) 3(30)
25 MISSOURI (5-4) (54-120) .450 13(76) 4(20)

GRID EXPLANATIONTeam– FBS team, Record and Rank; Offensive Efficiency- This is the cumulative total of number of offensive possessions during the FBS 2018 season, total number of scoring drives, and total number of offensive possessions. This does includes any scoring that the defense earned in relationship to interception touchdowns, punt return touchdowns, kickoff touchdowns and safeties in which resulted in a score. Defensive 3 Possession Stops- This categorical variable is the ability of the FBS team defense to stop their opponent in 3 SUCCESSIVE possessions WITHOUT their opponent scoring any points. Each 3 SUCCESSFUL defensive possession stops equals 1. The number in parenthesies is the that FBS team rank within the whole group of FBS teams to allow for comparison. Game Control- This is acategorical variable which is determined by the ranked FBS teams ability to win games based upon final outcomes by winning by 21 points or 3 possessions or more.

As we conclude this FBS college football season, we are just at the top of turn four of this season long race starts to have more upsets, surprises and programs which were extinct returning to some power within the FBS seasons. I look forward to the conclusion of this FBS college football season and the Thanksgiving weekend of many great rivalry games.

If you have any questions, please reach out to me via twitter @cfbpoexpert and I will reply as quick as I can.

Always rememeber if you use, say or verbalize anything from my posts, please adhere to MLA/APA rules and cite your source.


Week 4 CFB Rankings and The CFP Thoughts


How the college football season is now starting to get very interesting as the FBS teams and CFP members . The group of 0-loss programs are slowly decreasing to a number which supports published research with only 2 or 3 FBS teams left at the end of the regular season with 0-losses. In addition to the groups of 2-loss, 1-loss and 0-loss programs are all on a collision course to play against each which will assist in determining who will make the bifurcated and Democritusly driven College Football Playoff (CFP). This also assists me in starting to review all FBS program for my mock field of an expanded college football playoff format of 16 FBS teams where all FBS programs are eligible to compete..

This is the day that the CFP committee will announce their CFP Top 25 rankings with all vested interests for all Power Five Conference (P5) programs with little dis-regard to the Group of Five (G5) programs. The committee will come out and vehemetly keep Central Florida (UCF) and other credible G5 programs out of the CFP playoffs, no matter if they are the ONLY remaining 0-loss program left. The CFP committee will find ways to keep them from the CFP4 and only give one of the G5 programs, if and only if that G5 program meets specific criteria, to compete for the “bridesmaid” prize to compete for one spot in the New Years Day Six Bowl Games. Interesting that the G5 programs all abide by NCAA Bylaw 3.1 thourgh 3.7, then meets NCAA Bylaw 20 and then follow the remaining NCAA Bylaw between 3.1 and 20. Then these G5 programs must abide by Title IX rules and regulations to be considered a FBS member. Then you wonder why the CFP, like the BCS is a bifurcated system and is only accessible for the “good ole boys” network of the P5 Conferences and their members. All ruled by, you know whom.

Here is my prediction on the how the CFP will vote, I already tweeted (@cfbpoexpert) it out (at 545PM on 10/30/18) directy to the CFP Executive Director and UCF Football and the Director of Athletics at UCF Mr. Danny White. Its sad how the CFP system which was suppose to be better still possesses design flaws, selection flaws and criterial flaws. For my CFP prediction its will be in rank order: Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame and LSU. UCF will be either ranked 9 or 10. If you look at my data and research it offers a different, more purposeful system which is Utilitarinistic and under the professional model theory.

Week 4 CFBPOEXPERT Top 25 Rankings. Please be aware that the grid might be off center within the blog post page. I have tried my best to make sure it fits to page for best viewing. The statistics and data are collected and evaluated during every week of the college football season.

TEAM/RECORD OVRL OP NC ONLY NC OP OVRL CONF OP
1 NOTRE DAME (8-0) (52-45) .536 (70) (14-11) .560 (76) (37-28) .569 (52) (8-11) .421 (118)
2 CLEMSON (8-0) (52-28) .650 (8) (8-1) .889 (6) (16-6) .727 (13) (14-23) .378 (124)
3 ALABAMA (8-0) (46-43) .517 (82) (7-4) .636 (56) (10-14) .417 (103) (13-25) .342 (130)
4 CENTRAL FLORIDA (7-0) (39-47) .453 (118) (3-7) .333 (121) (8-15) .348 (117) (14-18) .438 (117)
5 MICHIGAN (7-1) (57-41) .582 (43) (8-5) .615 (65) (17-8) .680 (24) (23-23) .500 (68)
6 OHIO STATE (7-1) (46-51) .474 (110) (4-6) .400 (111) (8-16) .333 (120) (20-25) .444 (114)
7 OKLAHOMA (7-1) (50-44) .532 (75) (5-6) .455 (101) (11-13) .458 (96) (24-25) .490 (75)
8 UAB (7-1) (42-47) .472 (112) (6-5) .545 (86) (13-11) .542 (62) (18-19) .486 (86)
9 GA. SOUTHERN (7-1) (43-46) .483 (106) (5-5) .500 (93) (13-13) .500 (77) (14-16) .467 (103)
10 BUFFALO (7-1) (35-54) .393 (129) (5-6) .455 (103) (12-12) .500 (78) (12-22) .353 (128)
11 UTAH STATE (7-1) (38-55) .409 (126) (4-7) .364 (117) (11-14) .440 (99) (13-24) .351 (129)
12 CINCINNATI (7-1) (40-46) .465 (114) (2-9) .182 (128) (10-14) .417 (108) (16-16) .500 (73)
13 FRESNO STATE (7-1) (42-50) .457 (116) (5-5) .500 (96) (10-14) .417 (105) (16-20) .444 (113)
14 HOUSTON (7-1) (37-52) .416 (125) (4-5) .444 (106) (10-16) .385 (114) (13-19) .406 (121)
15 SOUTH FLORIDA (7-1) (43-37) .538 (69) (7-4) .636 (54) (10-15) .400 (111) (17-15) .531 (42)
16 KENTUCKY (7-1) (46-43) .517 (83) (4-6) .400 (110) (8-17) .320 (123) (19-23) .452 (110)
17 WASHINGTON ST (7-1) (46-45) .505 (92) (1-6) .143 (129) (4-13) .235 (128) (24-25) .490 (76)
18 GEORGIA (7-1) (52-37) .584 (42) (6-5) .545 (81) (12-13) .480 (86) (20-22) .476 (92)
19 LSU (7-1) (55-35) .611 (21) (6-4) .600 (70) (12-13) .480 (84) (22-19) .537 (36)
20 WEST VIRGINIA (6-1) (48-38) .558 (59) (5-1) .833 (15) (8-7) .533 (63) (21-24) .467 (101)
21 NORTH TEXAS (7-2) (34-55) .382 (130) (7-6) .538 (87) (9-15) .375 (115) (15-22) .405 (122)
22 BOISE STATE (6-2) (53-46) .535 (71) (8-6) .571 (75) (16-16) .500 (76) (19-17) .528 (48)
23 PENN STATE (6-2) (53-43) .552 (61) (4-7) .364 (116) (10-13) .435 (101) (23-22) .511 (60)
24 TEXAS (6-2) (50-44) .532 (76) (4-5) .444 (104) (10-14) .417 (107) (21-24) .467 (104)
25 LOUISIANA TECH (6-2) (39-50) .438 (122) (6-3) .667 (48) (14-10) .583 (50) (13-22) .371 (126)

 

GRID EXPLANATIONTeam– FBS team, Record and Rank; Non Conference Overall Opponent– This is the cumulative combined overall records, percentage rate and rank of the ranked FBS teams non conference scheduled opponents records within their 2018 FBS season Overall Opponent– This is the cumulative record, percentage rate and rank within that categorical variable for that ranked FBS teams combined opponents record within their 2018 FBS football schedule versus FBS programs ONLY; Non Conference Only: This is the cumulative record, percentage rate and rank within this categorical variable for that ranked FBS teams combined records associated within their 2018 Non Conference scheduled games versus FBS programs ONLY; Conference Opponent: This is the cumulative record of games scheduled within their 2018 conference schedule versus their conference opponents ONLY and their rank amongst the group of FBS programs.

Below is a new ranking criteria I have collected for the past 5 FBS seasons which examines FBS Offensive Efficiency and Defensive Effectiveness. These categories are quantitative, qualitative and measurable with no subective basis. These are EARNED statistical data points and ranked positions which shows efficency and effectiveness. This is the first time I have ever posted these data points in relationship to FBS prorgams. This TOP 25 is ranked in order based upon offensive efficiency percentage rates and defensive data points.

TEAM/RECORD OFF EFF DEF 3 PS GM CTRL
1 ALABAMA (8-0) (69-108) .639 19 (8) 8 (1)
2 OKLAHOMA (7-1) (61-97) .629 11 (79) 5 (9)
3 UTAH STATE (7-1) (65-122) .533 18 (11) 5 (6)
4 CENTRAL FLORIDA (7-0) (49-92) .533 17 (17) 4 (10)
5 WASHINGTON STATE (7-1) (51-96) .531 11 (80) 2 (62)
6 GEORGIA (7-1) (51-98) .520 12 (63) 5 (8)
7 BOISE STATE (6-2) (51-100) .510 13 (53) 3 (29)
8 MEMPHIS (4-4) (54-107) .505 12 (64) 3 (30)
9 OHIO (5-3) (49-98) .500 9 (105) 2 (72)
10 OHIO STATE (7-1) (53-109) .486 16 (29) 4 (13)
11 OKLAHOMA STATE (5-3) (53-109) .486 14 (42) 3 (26)
12 MICHIGAN (7-1) (58-99) .485 18 (12) 5 (7)
13 CLEMSON (8-0) (54-112) .482 24 (1) 6 (2)
14 MISSISSIPPI (5-3) (51-106) .481 8 (110) 2 (73)
15 SYRACUSE (6-2) (60-126) .476 18 (13) 3 (22)
16 HOUSTON (7-1) (59-124) .476 17 (18) 4 (11)
17 NORTH TEXAS (7-1) (58-122) .475 23 (2) 6 (3)
18 FLORIDA INTERN (6-2) (45-96) .469 11 (81) 3 (34)
19 GEORGIA TECH (4-4) (44-94) .468 12 (65) 4 (17)
20 WEST VIRGINIA (6-1) (33-71) .465 11 (82) 3 (35)
21 APPLACHIAN STATE (5-2) (44-95) .463 17 (19) 4 (12)
22 PENN STATE (6-2) (55-119) .462 21 (4) 3 (19)
23 TEXAS TECH (4-4) (54-118) .458 17 (20) 3 (23)
24 TOLEDO (4-4) (51-112) .455 12 (66) 2 (59)
25 COASTAL CAROLINA (5-3) (35-77) .455 7 (119) 2 (77)

GRID EXPLANATIONTeam– FBS team, Record and Rank; Offensive Efficiency- This is the cumulative total of number of offensive possessions during the FBS 2018 season, total number of scoring drives, and total number of offensive possessions. This does includes any scoring that the defense earned in relationship to interception touchdowns, punt return touchdowns, kickoff touchdowns and safeties in which resulted in a score. Defensive 3 Possession Stops- This categorical variable is the ability of the FBS team defense to stop their opponent in 3 SUCCESSIVE possessions WITHOUT their opponent scoring any points. Each 3 SUCCESSFUL defensive possession stops equals 1. The number in parenthesies is the that FBS team rank within the whole group of FBS teams to allow for comparison. Game Control- This is acategorical variable which is determined by the ranked FBS teams ability to win games based upon final outcomes by winning by 21 points or 3 possessions or more.

As of this posting, there are 38 bowl eligible FBS programs, 24 FBS programs with 5-wins and on the cusp of bowl eligibilty and 27 4-win FBS programs still with a viable opportunity to secure a bowl bid.  There are (4) 0-loss FBS programs left standing and (1) FBS program still seeking their first win. With four weeks left in the college football season, there will be some suprises and major upsets still to be played out. That’s a given.

If you have any questions, please reach out to me via twitter @cfbpoexpert and I will reply as quick as I can.

Always rememeber if you use, say or verbalize anything from my posts, please adhere to MLA/APA rules and cite your source.


Alabama is Ranked Number 1 in Week 3 CFB Rankings


My third week of college football FBS rankings finds Alabama (8-0) ranked number one. The only reason Alabama is ranked number one is due to the fact that I rank based upon the professional model theory. They are the only (8-0) team listed. There are four other FBS programs that possess an overall record of (7-0) and those programs being; Clemson, Central Florida, Notre Dame and South Florida. Which of these five 0-loss programs will end the season with 0-losses. Research says that only 2 will remain standing at the end of the regular season. Alabama has a bye week approching this coming weekend and more than likely wont be ranked number one after this weeks games are played. Many of the sports media experts believe that Alabama is the clear choice of being ranked number one, being head and shoulders above the rest of the group of FBS programs. If you look at qualitative and quantitative data other than the ESPN FPI or the Sagarin ranking system, both of which possess design flaws, you will observe that Alabama is not the best FBS program of the group. Alabama possesses measurable data points that keeps them in the bottom 50% of the group of FBS programs in 3 out of 4 quantitaive and qualitative variables which are measurable and compariable against other FBS programs.

A review of my college football FBS TOP 25 shows that of the 25 FBS members; 10 of the 25 ranked FBS members are from the Group of Five Conferences. Those 10 Group of Five FBS members have earned their rank. All FBS members are ranked based upon the professional model theory and they earned the ranking for this week. Of the 25 ranked FBS members; 5 posssess 0-losses, and 18 possess 1-loss. I believe that the sports media experts rank by the eye test and only know how to appreciate and or rank the Power Five Conference members. However with that said, are you aware that the CFP like the BCS system is still a bifurcated system. Even though the college football playoff system has increased by 2 more playoff teams. The CFP system ONLY allows the Power Five Conference Members and Notre Dame to compete for the right to be called “national champion” at the end of the season. Can we say Anti Trust Lawsuit around the corner.

When you read and review my rankings for college football at the FBS level of play, I ranked based upon what research has proven, that the professional model theory is the most efficient and effective way. This ranking style is inclusive for all and the best way to rank college football programs. In addition to my rankings, I also use quantitative and quaitaitive data which produces results to select and seed my expanded college football playoff group of 16 FBS teams and the end of the regular season. ALL FBS teams are eligible for and should be eligible to be called national champion of college football. However, the power brokers of the CFP and the past BCS system only want the “name brand” programs to compete for the prestigious title.

Below are my weekly rankings for college football at the FBS level during the 2018 college football season. The rankings were determined prior to any college football games played during the week of October 22, 2018 and the blog posting date. Rankings of FBS teams are in rank order, in relationship to ranking within the Top 25  based upon the professional model theory, head to head mathc ups, non-conference scheduling advantages or dis advantages and other measurable variables. Even the Boston Red Sox and Los Angelas Dodgers struggled versus certain MLB teams within their leagues or divisions during the 2018 MLB season, and or  failed to put up great statistical numbers against certain MLB programs. However, the most interesting dichotomy is they finished the season with the two-best win-loss records and both are competing for the opportunity to be called World Series Champion of Major Leauge Baseball. Even the Florida Marlins who struggels with attendance numbers and fails to produce large financial revenue dollars for the MLB could compete for the right to be called  World Series Champions. If the Marlins finished the season with the an overall win-loss record that qualifies them for one of the five playoff spots within their respective leauge, the Marlins could have competed in MLB playoffs and earned their opportunty to be called World Series Champion in the MLB. Just food for thought.

Week 3 CFBPOEXPERT Top 25 Rankings. Please be aware that the grid might be off center within the blog post page. I have tried my best to make sure it fits to page for best viewing.

TEAM/RECORD OVRL OP NC ONLY NC OP OVRL CONF OP
1 ALABAMA (8-0) (44-37) .543 (70) (7-4) .636 (46) (9-12) .429 (103) (12-21) .364 (127)
2 NOTRE DAME (7-0) (47-39) .547 (66) (14-11) .560 (66) (33-25) .569 (56) (7-9) .438 (118)
3 CLEMSON (7-0) (46-24) .657 (10) (6-1) .857 (11) (13-6) .684 (23) (10-18) .357 (128)
4 SOUTH FLORIDA (7-0) (38-35) .521 (84) (6-8) .429 (102) (8-14) .364 (116) (14-14) .500 (70)
5 CENTRAL FLORIDA (7-0) (37-41) .474 (111) (3-7) .300 (121) (7-13) .350 (118) (13-16) .448 (109)
6 MICHIGAN (7-1) (51-37) .580 (48) (6-5) .545 (69) (16-6) .727 (14) (19-21) .474 (82)
7 OHIO STATE (7-1) (39-46) .448 (120) (4-6) .400 (109) (6-12) .333 (120) (16-23) .410 (123)
8 LSU (7-1) (52-30) .634 (15) (6-4) .600 (57) (11-11) .500 (71) (20-16) .556 (28)
9 BUFFALO (7-1) (31-52) .373 (130) (6-8) .429 (106) (11-12) .478 (85) (9-21) .300 (130)
10 TEXAS (6-1) (44-38) .537 (73) (4-5) .444 (96) (9-12) .429 (104) (16-20) .444 (113)
11 OKLAHOMA (6-1) (45-37) .549 (65) (6-8) .429 (103) (10-11) .476 (86) (17-19) .472 (89)
12 UAB (6-1) (36-43) .456 (115) (6-5) .545 (71) (11-10) .524 (69) (14-16) .467 (94)
13 GA. SOUTHERN (6-1) (38-41) .481 (107) (6-12) .481 (119) (11-12) .478 (83) (12-14) .462 (103)
14 UTAH STATE (6-1) (34-48) .415 (125) (8-10) .444 (99) (10-12) .455 (97) (10-19) .345 (129)
15 CINCINNATI (6-1) (38-41) .481 (106) (2-9) .182 (127) (9-13) .409 (107) (15-14) .517 (61)
16 HOUSTON (6-1) (35-46) .432 (123) (4-5) .444 (95) (9-14) .391 (111) (12-16) .429 (122)
17 FRESNO STATE (6-1) (36-45) .444 (122) (5-5) .500 (82) (8-13) .381 (115) (12-16) .429 (121)
18 SAN DIEGO STATE (6-1) (41-40) .506 (93) (6-2) .750 (26) (12-10) .545 (62) (13-15) .464 (95)
19 KENTUCKY (6-1) (41-37) .526 (80) (4-6) .400 (113) (7-15) .318 (122) (15-19) .441 (114)
20 IOWA (6-1) (40-37) .519 (85) (1-4) .200 (126) (7-6) .538 (64) (17-22) .436 (119)
21 GEORGIA (6-1) (46-34) .575 (58) (5-9) .357 (117) (9-13) .409 (106) (17-19) .472 (90)
22 FLORIDA (6-1) (43-29) .597 (33) (3-3) .500 (87) (7-8) .467 (90) (16-19) .457 (106)
23 WASHINGTON ST (6-1) (40-40) .500 (94) (1-6) .143 (129) (2-13) .133 (128) (20-20) .500 (71)
24 WEST. MICHIGAN (6-2) (37-46) .446 (121) (6-4) .600 (55) (14-8) .636 (37) (14-17) .452 (107)
25 WASHINTON (6-2) (45-33) .577 (53) (7-3) .700 (34) (9-6) .600 (43) (17-20) .459 (104)

GRID EXPLANATIONTeam– FBS team, Record and Rank; Non Conference Overall Opponent– This is the cumulative combined overall records, percentage rate and rank of the ranked FBS teams non conference scheduled opponents records within their 2018 FBS season Overall Opponent– This is the cumulative record, percentage rate and rank within that categorical variable for that ranked FBS teams combined opponents record within their 2018 FBS football schedule versus FBS programs ONLY; Non Conference Only: This is the cumulative record, percentage rate and rank within this categorical variable for that ranked FBS teams combined records associated within their 2018 Non Conference scheduled games versus FBS programs ONLY; Conference Opponent: This is the cumulative record of games scheduled within their 2018 conference schedule versus their conference opponents ONLY and their rank amongst the group of FBS programs.

Below is a new ranking criteria I have collected for the past 5 FBS seasons which examines FBS Offensive Efficiency and Defensive Effectiveness. These categories are quantitative, qualitative and measurable with no subective basis. These are EARNED statistical data points and ranked positions which shows efficency and effectiveness. This is the first time I have ever posted these data points in relationship to FBS prorgams. This TOP 25 is ranked in order based upon offensive efficiency percentage rates and defensive data points.

TEAM/RECORD OFF EFF DEF 3 PS GM CTRL
1 ALABAMA (8-0) (69-108) .639 19 (4) 8 (1)
2 OKLAHOMA (6-1) (52-86) .605 10 (80) 4 (14)
3 CENTRAL FLORIDA (7-0) (49-92) .533 17 (13) 4 (8)
4 GEORGIA (6-1) (44-84) .529 12 (52) 5 (7)
5 UTAH STATE (6-1) (54-104) .519 15 (26) 4 (11)
6 WASHINGTON STATE (6-1) (44-85) .518 11 (63) 2 (56)
7 APPALACHIAN STATE (5-1) (42-83) .506 16 (17) 4 (9)
8 MEMPHIS (4-4) (54-107) .505 12 (53) 3 (22)
9 OKLAHOMA STATE (4-3) (47-96) .490 12 (54) 3 (23)
10 OREGON (5-2) (43-88) .489 10 (81) 2 (62)
11 OHIO STATE (7-1) (53-109) .486 16 (18) 4 (10)
12 MICHIGAN(7-1) (48-99) .485 18 (9) 5 (5)
13 MISSOURI (4-3) (46-95) .484 8 (105) 3 (33)
14 BOISE STATE (5-2) (43-89) .483 12 (55) 3 (24)
15 OHIO (4-3) (41-85) .482 17 (113) 1 (103)
16 MISSISSIPPI (5-3) (51-106) .481 8 (106) 2 (68)
17 TEXAS TECH (5-2) (49-102) .480 15 (27) 3 (21)
18 ARMY (5-2) (34-72) .472 11 (62) 3 (26)
19 FLORIDA INTERN (5-2) (40-85) .471 10 (82) 2 (63)
20 CLEMSON (7-0) (45-96) .469 21 (1) 5 (2)
21 SYRACUSE (5-2) (52-111) .468 17 (14) 3 (18)
22 HOUSTON (6-1) (51-109) .468 16 (19) 3 (19)
23 WEST VIRGINIA (5-1) (33-71) .465 11 (65) 3 (27)
24 NORTH TEXAS (6-2) (51-110) .464 20 (3) 5 (3)
25 PURDUE (4-3) (42-92) .457 13 (39) 2 (48)

GRID EXPLANATIONTeam– FBS team, Record and Rank; Offensive Efficiency- This is the cumulative total of number of offensive possessions during the FBS 2018 season, total number of scoring drives, and total number of offensive possessions. This does includes any scoring that the defense earned in relationship to interception touchdowns, punt return touchdowns, kickoff touchdowns and safeties in which resulted in a score. Defensive 3 Possession Stops- This categorical variable is the ability of the FBS team defense to stop their opponent in 3 SUCCESSIVE possessions WITHOUT their opponent scoring any points. Each 3 SUCCESSFUL defensive possession stops equals 1. The number in parenthesies is the that FBS team rank within the whole group of FBS teams to allow for comparison. Game Control- This is acategorical variable which is determined by the ranked FBS teams ability to win games based upon final outcomes by winning by 21 points or 3 possessions or more

The breakdown of the FBS group of the current 2018 FBS season already possesses; 27 Bowl Eligible FBS programs, 24 FBS programs who have the opportunity to become bowl eligible this coming week with 5-wins, 25 FBS programs with 4-wins that can take one step closer to becoming bowl eligible and Nebraska earned a win last week taking them out of the 0-win group. That leaves 2 FBS programs, Texas El Paso and San Jose State with 0-wins. Which of these two will earn their first win, first.

If you have any questions, please reach out to me via twitter @cfbpoexpert and I will reply as quick as I can.

Always rememeber if you use, say or verbalize anything from my posts, please adhere to MLA/APA rules and cite your source.


Week 2: CFB/FBS Top 25


Sorry this is a late update, trying to catch up on things here at home and work.

This is week 2 of my college football FBS weekly rankings of the TOP 25. I am also including a new ranking list which shows the Top 25 FBS programs being ranked on offensive efficiency and defensive effectiveness.

As of this ranking college football at the FBS level possesses 8 FBS with 0-losses, 21 FBS programs with 1-loss, and 3 FBS with 0-wins.

My weekly rankings are not based upon  subjectivity, but rankings are based upon the professional model theory in ranked by win-loss records in addition to using other categorical variables to develop a more improved ranked group of FBS programs 1 through 25. I examine variables that the sports media lacks a cognitive understanding and or does not know how to use. The sports media “experts” use the eye test, the Expert Sports Programming Network FPI system and Jeff Sagarin’s RPI system which both have been proven to have major design flaws when calculating and ranking college football FBS programs.

Below is my week two’s college football FBS TOP 25 Rankings with explantion of ranking categories. Please forgive for the non-alignment in this ranking chart. Since I added a 5th column, it wont align properly. I hope you can understand the purpose of this ranking chart.

WEEK TWO

TEAM/RECORD OVRL OP NC ONLY NC OP OVRL CONF OP
1 NOTRE DAME (7-0) (29-23) .558 (56) (14-11) .560 (68) (42-34) .553 (65) (6-6) .500 (67)
2 OHIO STATE (7-0) (6-12) .333 (119) (4-6) .400 (107) (35-40) .467 (113) (12-18) .400 (124)
3 ALABAMA (7-0) (8-11) .421 (102) (7-4) .636 (47) (39-33) .542 (71) (10-18) .357 (128)
4 CLEMSON (6-0) (12-6) .667 (28) (7-1) .875 (12) (43-210 .672 (8) (8-15) .348 (129)
5 SOUTH FLORIDA (6-0) (8-12) .400 (108) (6-7) .462 (94) (35-29) .547 (69) (11-10) .524 (51)
6 CENTRAL FLORIDA (6-0) (7-11) .389 (110) (3-7) .300 (121) (34-34) .500 (99) (10-12) .455 (101)
7 CINCINNATI (6-0) (7-12) .368 (115) (2-8) .200 (127) (32-36) .471 (111) (11-10) .524 (55)
8 MICHIGAN (6-1) (14-6) .700 (22) (7-5) .583 (62) (45-32) .584 (49) (15-16) .484 (80)
9 TEXAS (6-1) (9-9) .500 (74) (4-4) .500 (81) (42-33) .560 (62) (14-18) .438 (110)
10 LSU (6-1) (10-10) .500 (75) (6-4) .600 (58) (48-27) .640 (16) (18-14) .563 (32)
11 GEORGIA (6-1) (8-12) .400 (109) (5-8) .385 (113) (41-31) .569 (59) (14-17) .452 (102)
12 NORTH TEXAS (6-1) (6-13) .316 (121) (5-8) .385 (114) (25-44) .362 (129) (9-13) .409 (121)
13 BUFFALO (6-1) (8-11) .421 (103) (5-8) .385 (112) (26-46) .361 (130) (6-17) .361 (130)
14 FLORIDA (6-1) (6-7) .462 (94) (3-3) .500 ((83) (39-25) .609 (34) (14-16) .467 (98)
15 NC STATE (5-0) (11-7) .611 (45) (5-4) .556 (69) (39-28) .582 (51) (10-14) .417 (117)
16 HAWAII (6-2) (11-15) .423 (100) (9-10) .474 (89) (36-41) .468 (112) (9-10) .474 (94)
17 OKLAHOMA (5-1) (8-10) .444 (98) (5-8) .385 (111) (42-34) .553 (66) 916-17) .485 (78)
18 WEST VIRGINIA (5-1) (8-3) .727 (16) (5-1) .833 (13) (42-27) .609 (35) (15-17) .469 (96)
19 DUKE (5-1) (15-5) .750 (9) (8-4) .667 (38) (40-29) .580 (53) (14-10) .583 (19)
20 IOWA (5-1) (7-6) .538 (59) (1-4) .200 (126) (35-33) .515 (88) (12-18) .400 (123)
21 SAN DIEGO STATE (5-1) (10-9) .526 (63) (6-2) .750 (27) (35-35) .500 (97) (9-11) .400 (105)
22 UAB (5-1) (10-9) .526 (64) (5-5) .500 (80) (32-37) .464 (114) (11-11) .500 (74)
23 GA SOUTHERN (5-1) (10-10) .500 (76) (6-10) .375 (115) (33-37) .471 (110) (9-12) .429 (116)
24 UTAH STATE (5-1) (10-10) .500 (77) (8-9) .471 (90) (32-40) .444 (122) (8-13) .381 (126)
25 FRESNO STATE (5-1) (7-11) .389 (111) (5-5) .500 (85) (32-38) .456 (117) (9-11) .450 (107)

GRID EXPLANATIONTeam– FBS team, Record and Rank; Non Conference Overall Opponent– This is the cumulative combined overall records, percentage rate and rank of the ranked FBS teams non conference scheduled opponents records within their 2018 FBS season Overall Opponent– This is the cumulative record, percentage rate and rank within that categorical variable for that ranked FBS teams combined opponents record within their 2018 FBS football schedule versus FBS programs ONLY; Non Conference Only: This is the cumulative record, percentage rate and rank within this categorical variable for that ranked FBS teams combined records associated within their 2018 Non Conference scheduled games versus FBS programs ONLY; Conference Opponent: This is the cumulative record of games scheduled within their 2018 conference schedule versus their conference opponents ONLY.

Below is a new ranking criteria I have collected for the past 5 FBS seasons which examines FBS Offensive Efficiency and Defensive Effectiveness. These categoris are quantitative, qualitative and measurable with no subective basis. These are EARNED statistical data points which shows efficency and effectiveness. This is the first time I have ever posted these data points in relationship to FBS prorgams. This TOP 25 is ranked in order based upon offensive efficiency percentage rate.

WEEK TWO

TEAM/RECORD OFF EFF DEF 3 PS GM CTRL
1 ALABAMA (7-0) (60-94) .638 18 (3) 7
2 OKLAHOMA (5-1) (44-72) .611 9 (75) 3
3 UTAH STATE (5-1) (50-88) .568 12 (32) 4
4 APPLACHIAN STATE (4-1) (37-69) .536 13 (24) 4
5 MICHIGAN (6-1) (45-84) .536 15 (12) 5
6 WASHINGTON STATE (5-1) (39-74) .527 10 (39) 2
7 GEORGIA (6-1) (44-84) .524 12 (33) 5
8 MEMPHIS (4-3) (48-92) .522 12 (34) 3
9 NC STATE (5-0) (28-54) .519 8 (91) 2
10 OHIO STATE (7-0) (49-95) .516 16 (8) 4
11 CENTRAL FLORIDA (6-0) (40-78) .513 14 (16) 4
12 MISSISSIPPI (5-2) (47-93) .505 6 (112) 2
13 OREGON (5-1) (39-78) .500 9 (76) 2
14 HAWAII (6-2) (47-95) .495 8 (92) 1
15 SYRACUSE (4-2) (45-91) .495 14 (17) 3
16 NORTH TEXAS (6-1) (48-98) .490 19 (2) 5
17 OKLAHOMA STATE (4-3) (47-96) .490 12 (35) 3
18 COASTAL CAROLINA (3-3) (31-65) .477 5 (120) 2
19 ARMY (4-2) (29-61) .475 10 (60) 3
20 TEXAS TECH (4-2) (41-87) .471 12 (36) 2
21 TOLEDO (3-3) (39-83) .470 9 (77) 1
22 LOU-LAFAYETTE (3-3) (31-66) .470 5 (121) 2
23 WEST VIRGINIA (5-1) (33-71) .465 11 (46) 3
24 LSU (6-1) (42-91) .462 13 (25) 2
25 HOUSTON (5-1) (44-96) .458 14 (18) 3

GRID EXPLANATIONTeam– FBS team, Record and Rank; Offensive Efficiency- This is the cumulative total of number of offensive possessions during the FBS 2018 season, total number of scoring drives, and total number of offensive possessions. This does includes any scoring that the defense has done in relationship to interception touchdown, punt return touchdowns, kickoff touchdown and safeties in which resulted in a score. Defensive 3 Possession Stops- This categorical variable is the ability of the FBS team defense to stop their opponent in 3 SUCCESSIVE possessions WITHOUT their opponent scoring any points. Each 3 SUCCESSFUL defensive possession stops equals 1. The number in parenthesies is the that FBS team rank within the whole group of FBS teams to allow for comparison. Game Control- This is acategorical variable which is determined by the ranked FBS teams ability to win games based upon final outcomes by winning by 21 points or 3 possessions or more.

If you have any questions, please reach out to me via twitter @cfbpoexpert and I will reply as quick as I can.

Always rememeber if you use, say or verbalize anything from my posts, please adhere to MLA/APA rules and cite your source.


First 2018 Weekly College Football Ranking


It’s that time of year for my weekly college football rankings for the FBS level of play. Please forgive the delay by one week. Working MANY hours for my job at Hershey caused the delay, but I was still collecting data weekly.

For my weekly rankings, I use quantitative and qualitative categorical variables which provides a much improved and more accurate ranking system without subjective assessment and the use of the eye tests that the  sports media “experts” use to rank and formulate opinions on ranking. I have been performing and collecting data to rank FBS college football prorgams for 10+ years. In addition to publishing my rankings in book format and web based blog posting for at least 5 years. You could say I have PLENTY of experience in ranking college football programs at the FBS level.

Since college football at the FBS level has reached the half mile pole of the season, there is plenty of information and data to make an accurate ranking assessment for this select group of 130 FBS members. I can determine that when comparing my rankings with the sports media “experts” both in televison, print or web based rankings that there is a big disparity when comparing my rankings to theirs. I believe that the sports media has fallen in love with the “bride” of the group and are looking through rosed colored glasses not seeing that their are other qualified “brides” in the room who should be ranked higher than the “bride” the sports media has fallen in love with. I have no problem looking at the ‘bride” in the room but I always look at all data points before making any selection to rank no matter how pretty or beautiful the “bride” is.

Comparing my Top 25 college football rankings versus the college football rankings by the “experts”, we both match with the group as a whole at 80%. Within that 80%, in we both agree upon, the majority of mine are ranked differently than the ranking “”experts”. This means we agree in ranking of 20 FBS programs within the Top 25. I have ranked 5 different FBS programs who have earned the opportunity to be ranked within this poll based upon qualitative and quatitative variables, not because they are a member of a “prestigious” Power 5 Conference. That is what we call a ranking bias to make sure that those higher ranked FBS teams within the Top 25 poll of “experts” give the illusion that those members are better than what they really are. This is how one specfic Power 5 Conference coaches rank their Top 25, to give the implied impression or magicians illusion that they are by perception better than others. This places into question the credibility and validity of the coach who ranks the college football Top 25.

The “bride” I am referring to is Alabama. The primary sports media experts from the Experts Sports Programming Network and one from Fox Sports are so enamoured by this “bride” that they cannot see past the obvious. Yes, Alabama is (6-0), yes they have won every game by 21+ points; yes Tua is gaining statistical accolades and how did they do that without being caught within the illusion of the trick. Of the 6 FBS Alabama has played; 5 have been played at HOME or possession of regional home field advantage versus Louisville in Orlando; 1 AWAY game but this away game was a conference game and required to play and finally Alabama still has to play the annual FCS BOWL game versus Mercer at HOME the week before the annual Auburn/Alabama game on Thanksgiving weekend. Heaven forbid if Alabama were to play a COMPETITIVE FBS Power 5 program, on the road, AT that Power 5 program to really TEST their “elitist” and “entitlement” of always being mollycoddled.

I know some of the sports media are only espousing what they are told, more specifically ESPN sports personalities and “experts” because ESPN possesses a $2.25 BILLION dollar note on promoting the SEC and needs to re-coup their investment. I believe Neil Peart wrote it best in lyrics within one of Rush’s studio released songs:

“Wheels within wheels in a spiral array

A pattern so grand and complex

Time after time, we lose sight of the way our causes can’t see their effects”

“In their own images, their world is fashioned

No wonder they don’t understand”

(Peart, 1980)

Maybe the sports media does not understand but is on their own mission of promotions based upon big money.

If you look at viable, quantitaive, qualitative and measureble data the numbers dont lie and you do understand the real pciture. I believe ESPN had a show named “Numbers Don’t Lie”  where they would debate data and numbers. Alabama who is ranked Number 1 in all the subjective polls but possesses a ranking where important data has them ranked in the lower 50 percentile of the FBS group, in the lower 33 percentile of the FBS group and SECOND TO LAST in conference opponent credility based upon scheduled conference opponents combined conference records. Yes, Joel Kaltt from FOX Sports; Clemson should be ranked higher than Alabama, you just dont see it. Of those I have ranked in the Top 25, 19 of them have or will be playing FCS lower level competition to earn an extra victory. Published research performed by me and still continues to research, proves that all FBS programs win games scheduled with FCS programs by an average of 4+ possessions or more (meaning 28 points or more) versus FCS opponents and more specifically, the FBS programs win 90% of the time. When an FCS member wins versus an FBS member its ONLY by less than 5 points.

The rankings below are based upon the professional model theory with the addition to where all FBS programs have an equal, just, and fair opportunity to compete for the national championship within my 16 Team College Football Playoff field which is “inclusive” not “EXCLUSIVE” to conference favortism or bias. The current CFP and past BCS systems have biases and criterion built within the selction phase against Group of Five Confernece members or the Non-BCS group.

 

TEAM RECORD OVRL OP NC OP OVRL CONF OP
1 NOTRE DAME (6-0) (14-10) .544 (75) (25-21) .543 (63) (5-5) .500 (63)
2 OHIO STATE (6-0) (31-34) .477 (108) (6-11) .353 (118) (8-14) .364 (126)
3 CLEMSON (6-0) (39-19) .672 (12) (11-4) .733 (19) (6-14) .300 (127)
4 GEORGIA (6-0) (38-25) .603 (42) (8-10) .444 (93) (11-13) .458 (96)
5 ALABAMA (6-0) (34-28) .548 (72) (7-9) .438 (98) (6-15) .286 (129)
6 CINCINNATI (6-0) (27-33) .450 (121) (5-11) .313 (122) (8-8) .500 (79)
7 HAWAII (6-1) (30-35) .462 (117) (9-13) .409 (107) (5-7) .417 (117)
8 WEST VIRGINIA (5-0) (37-24) .607 (41) (7-3) .700 (28) (11-14) .440 (100)
9 NC STATE (5-0) (36-25) .590 (53) (10-6) .625 (40) (8-13) .381 (123)
10 SOUTH FLORIDA (5-0) (32-26) .552 (70) (8-10) .444 (94) (8-8) .500 (72)
11 CENTRAL FLORIDA (5-0) (32-29) .525 (84) (7-9) .438  (99) (8-9) .471 (90)
12 COLORADO (5-0) (28-32) .467 (114) (2-9) .182 (128) (11-14) .440 (102)
13 MICHIGAN (5-1) (39-27) .591 (52) (12-6) .667 (32) (11-12) .478 (84)
14 OKLAHOMA (5-1) (36-30) .545 (73) (6-10) .375 (111) (12-13) .480 (83)
15 LSU (5-1) (43-22) .662 (13) (9-8) .529 (65) (14-11) .560 (37)
16 MIAMI FLA. (5-1) (37-22) .627 (28) (11-5) .688 (29) (9-10) .474 (87)
17 KENTUCKY (5-1) (36-26) .581 (58) (6-11) .353 (116) (12-12) .500 (78)
18 WASHINGTON (5-1) (35-26) .574 (61) (7-5) .583 (53) (9-14) .391 (122)
19 WASHINGTON STATE (5-1) (33-27) .550 (71) (2-9) .182 (127) (13-11) .542 (43)
20 TROY (5-1) (23-34) .404 (126) (5-10) .333 (121) (7-9) .438 (109)
21 NORTH TEXAS (5-1) (22-39) .361 (128) (5-12) .313 (123) (7-9) .438 (110)
22 BUFFALO (5-1) (22-39) .361 (129) (7-10) .412 (106) (4-11) .267 (130)
23 FLORIDA (5-1) (36-21) .632 (27) (5-7) .417 (104) (12-12) .500 (75)
24 PENN STATE (4-1) (40-25) .615 (37) (7-9) .438 (97) (13-9) .591 (21)
25 TEXAS (4-1) (37-28) .569 (64) (7-8) .467 (90) (11-14) .440 (101)

Honorable Mentioned:  All are (4-1) Wisconsin, Duke, Iowa, San Diego State, Fresno State, Georgia Southern, UAB, Houston and Utah State.

GRID EXPLANATION: Team– FBS team and Rank; Overall Opponent– This is the cumulative record, percentage rate and rank within that categorical variable for that ranked FBS teams combined opponents record within their 2018 FBS football schedule versus FBS programs ONLY; Non Conference Opponent Overall: This is the cumulative record, percentage rate and rank within this categorical variable for that ranked FBS teams combined records associated within their 2018 Non Conference scheduled games vrsus FBS programs ONLY; Conference Opponent: This is the cumulative record of games scheduled within their 2018 conference schedule versus their conference opponents ONLY.

I will be posting weekly rankings for the rest of the college FBS football season. The rankings are not subjetcive, they do have criterial aspects to them in how FBS programs are ranked. Many of you will wonder how many of the FBS programs will end the regular season with 0-losses. Published research performed by me proves that on avarage that only 2.54 FBS teams end the regular season with 0-lossess. We will see who remains standing at the end of the season.

If you have any questions, please reach out to me via twitter @cfbpoexpert and I will reply as quick as I can.

Always rememeber if you use, say or verbalize anything from my posts, please adhere to MLA/APA rules and cite your source.

 

Peart, Neil (1979). “Natural Science” from Permanent Waves. Performed by Rush. Recorded at Le Studio in Quebec, Canada. Available on Record, Cassette Tape and CD. Mercury Label.


Wisconsin Ends 2017 FBS Season #1


Congratulations to the Wisconsin Badgers (12-0) for ending the 2017 college football regular season as only one (1) of two (2) 0-loss programs and securing the number one ranking in my weekly coaches poll. For those who have asked why Wisconsin, first and foremost, they played twelve (12) FBS programs this season, did not schedule a FCS opponent and they scheduled and played an away game at BYU to play a regular season game. That means they LEFT the comfort of their home and home region to play another FBS opponent. With only two (2) 0-loss programs left at the end of the regular season, I guess this supports my research and findings in my book.

Also, congratulations to the Knights from Central Florida (11-0) for ending the regular season as the other 0-loss FBS program. The Knights had to make schedule maneuvers to accomodate for the start of the 2017 college football season, handled adversity with hurricanes that effected not only one (1) scheduled game, but two (2) scheduled games. This act of God, required Central Florida to re-schedule their confernece game with Memphis later in the season, which makes conference games a requirment to re-schedule over any other non-conference game. Central Florida dropped their FCS game with the Maine Bears to accomodate for the game with Memphis. However, UCF later scheduled Austin Peay, an FCS member. Any FBS team who can handle adversity, remain un-defeated, handle the act of God situation, not once, but twice and finally survive one of the best college football games of the season with South Florida. Central Florida in my book, EARNED the second ranking and a trip to the CFP.

I also believe that Central Florida should be under consideration for the College Football Playoff (CFP). However, I believe that the CFP Committee has specific protocol to follow and that protocol states, that NO Group of Five Conference FBS member is eligible to compete for the College Football Playoff and the National Championship. Eventhough, UFC and the Director of Athletics, Daniel J. White, makes sure that the UCF athletic programs abide by and are compliant with the NCAA Bylaws. The UCF Director of Athletics also, is required to meet NCAA Bylaw 20, then abide by NCAA Bylaw 3.1 thought 3.4. Then congruent with that, UCF must meet and abide by the Title IX rules and regulations which are also inclusive to the NCAA Bylaw 20. If college athletics is being operated under a “business like structure”, then college athletics and the Group of Five Conference Commissioners, Athletic Directors, their FBS programs, Coaches and Players should press the issue and ask for an improved playoff format which is more Utilitarianistic, under the Stuart MIll’s philosophy, which is more “inclusive” then exclusive. If the Group of Five does not see a change under that manner in which is “inclusive”, then they should ban together and file suit against the power brokers under the Sherman Act of 1890 which protects them. Once the Sherman Act of 1890 is started, then the Clayton Act of 1914 protects them in more ways that you can only imagine. I have investigated both and pubished a chapter within my book, with that chapter being called: Chapter 17: The Sherman Act vs. The NCAA and the Power Brokers.

However, its interesting that Central Florida MIGHT be able to compete for one of the New Year’s Day Six Bowl Games (NYDSBG). I call this the “bridesmaid prize”, because UCF needs to meet specific requirements to be considered for the “bridesmaid” prize. That means they need to beat Memphis in the American Athletic Conference Championship Game to just earn the “bridesmaid” prize. Eventhought UCF would be (12-0), they won’t be on the CFP committees radar. If UCF loses the AAC Championship Game, then UCF might not receive that (NYDSBG) bid.  Might want to purchase and read my book. It’s time for an expanded playoff format.

I will now explain how my weekly rankings work. I rank based upon the professional model theory. This means that college athletics generates tripel digits of Millons of dollars annually in revenue, just like the professional levels of sports (i.e. the NFL, the NBA. the NHL, the MLB and the MLS). I do not use subjective assessments, the eye test or biasness to rank. I use dependent variables and categorical variable within those dependent varaibles to rank weekly.  Each variable has a direct relationship and effect on the independent variable. I do not rank FBS programs based upon vested interest or that’s my favorite or that this team need to be ranked higher than this team because they are from this conference. Each FBS team earns their ranking based upon varaibles in which they create and results based. I also examine the non-confernce schedule as a major variable. By examining the non-conference schedule, I can assess and evaluate the non conference schedule based upon number of home games versus number of away games. If any FBS team plays more home games than away games within their non-conference schedule, then I can assess that that specific FBS team does not take ANY risks within their non-conference schedule. If any FBS teams plays more away games in their non-conference schedule and earns a credible record, then they will have a better ranked position over any FBS team who plays more home games in their non-conference schedule. I have read the various peer reviewed research and articles that examined home field advantage in relationship to schedule, more home games and how it impacts your overall record.  NO RISK… NO REWARD. This is just part of how I rank each week of the college football season. There are three (3) chapters within my book that examined the research and I published other results that supports the already pubished peer reviewed research.

Here is this weeks, almost final rankings.  There is one more week that needs to be completed before the final rankings. The Sun Belt Confernce FBS programs and Florida State each must play one more game before the FINAL rankings appear. This 2017 College Football FBS Season has been exciting and great for the 37+ MIllion college football fans to watch and enjoy. Many upsets appeared as the season wound down towards the end. Never use a crystal ball to see the future or make predictions, especially in a college athletics. Just let the games play out.

A B C D E F G H
1 WISCONSIN (12-0) (.514) 75 (19-18) (.476) 103 (69-76) (.358) 129 (29-52) (.452) 20 29 7
2 CENTRAL FLORIDA (11-0) (.471) 90 (16-18) (.504) 85 (64-63) (.453) 96 (29-35) (.503) 2 20 8
3 OKLAHOMA (11-1) (.417) 103  (15-21) (.479) 99 (69-75) (.463) 94 (37-43) (.564) 1 19 5
4 GEORGIA (11-1) (.618) 33 (21-13) (.574) 27 (74-55) (.438) 100 (28-36) (.483) 11 26 8
5 CLEMSON (11-1) (.556) 58 (20-16) (.562) 43 (73-57) (.500) 92 (32-32) (.409) 34 31 5
6 ALABAMA (11-1) (.600) 37 (21-14) (.565) 36 (74-57) (.406) 123 (26-38) (.531) 3 31 6
7 MIAMI (FLA) (10-1) (.765) 2 (26-8) (.539) 61 (69-59) (.411) 120 (23-33) (.391) 45 22 4
8 MEMPHIS (10-1) (.485) 85 (16-17) (.476) 102 (60-66) (.453) 97 (29-35) (.513) 6 16 6
9 USC (10-2) (.583) 43 (21-15) (.528) 70 (76-68) (.493) 73 (35-36) (.409) 35 21 2
10 OHIO STATE (10-2) (.686) 10 (24-11) (.538) 62 (77-66) (.407) 122 (33-48) (.519 ) 5 24 8
11 PENN STATE (10-2) (.529) 68 (18-16) (.557) 47 (78-62) (.506) 59 (41-40) (.481) 12 33 7
12 SAN DIEGO STATE (10-2) (.667) 15 (24-12) (.474) 104 (63-70) (.438) 105 (28-36) (.401) 39 21 5
13 TOLEDO (10-2) (.429) 98 (15-20) (.466) 110 (61-70) (.500) 68 (32-32) (.510) 7 21 5
14 WASHINGTON (10-2) (.542) 66 (13-11) (.515) 80 (68-64) (.420) 119 (34-47) (.493) 10 28 8
15 TCU (10-2) (.458) 91 (11-13) (.500) 89 (66-66) (.475) 83 (38-47) (.392) 44 32 4
16 AUBURN (10-2) (.500) 77 (17-17) (.615) 7 (80-50) (.563) 19 (36-28) (.468) 16 28 7
17 TROY (9-2) (.583) 44 (21-15) (.423) 122 (52-71) (.448) 98 (26-32) (.377) 55 21 5
18 SOUTH FLORIDA (9-3) (.222) 129 (8-28) (.377) 130 (49-81) (.422) 118 (27-37) (.438) 22 27 5
19 OKLAHOMA STATE (9-3) (.314) 121 (11-24) (.469) 109 (67-76) (.488) 76 (39-41) (.520) 4 23 5
20 BOISE STATE (9-3) (.583) 45 (28-20) (.542) 60 (78-66) (.547) 29 (35-29) (.377) 54 24 4
21 STANFORD (9-3) (.588) 42 (20-14) (.563) 39 (81-63) (.494) 70 (40-41) (.444) 21 16 2
22 NOTRE DAME (9-3) (.582) 52 (39-28) (.641) 3 (91-51) (.765) 1 (39-12) (.420) 27 20 5
23 NORTHWESTERN (9-3) (.306) 123 (11-25) (.486) 94 (70-74) (.469) 86 (38-43) (.349) 76 23 3
24 MICHIGAN STATE (9-3) (.528) 70 (19-17) (.563) 41 (81-63) (.494) 71 (40-41) (.321) 94 27 2
25 FLORIDA ATLANTIC (9-3) (.686) 12 (24-11) (.546) 54 (71-59) (.492) 74 (31-32) (.497) 9 19 5

ANY FBS team that is in BOLD is an FBS team that scheduled and played an FCS program during the course of the 2017 regular season.

Honorable Mentioned: All are (9-3); Virginia Tech, North Texas, Fresno State, Washington State, and LSU

Key: A-Rank Order; B- Team and Current Overall Record; C- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Non-Conference Schedule, Rank within that Categorical Variable and the Overall Record; D- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Overall Regular Season Schedule, Rank within that Categorical Variable and the Overall Record; E- Percentage Rate of the ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Conference Schedule, Rank within that Categorical Variable and Overall Record; F- Percentage Rate of your Offensive Efficiency and Ranking within that Categorical Variable (described as: number of offensive and defensive possessions that results in points); G- Defensive Efficiency Rating (described as: number of times that your teams Defense were successful in possessing 3 consecutive stops against your opponent when they possessed the ball and stopped them from scoring (3 consecutive stops equals 1)) and H- Game Control Categorical Variable based upon the three possession score outcome (described as: the end score result that possesses a 21 point differential in final score).

As of this time of the current college football season there are 80 bowl eligible FBS programs with six (6) wins or more, and 3 more waiting in the wings with five (5) wins. Those five (5) win programs are; New Mexico State, Louisiana Lafayette and Florida State. Each have one (1) more regular season game to complete this week. This means that there will be no need to assess any credible (5-7) FBS programs for any open bowl openings, even if there was an expanded playoff format of 8 or 16 FBS programs. If there were a need for any (5-7) FBS programs, these programs would be and should be considered for a bowl game based upon research and number of 1-possession losses. Those programs are: Eastern Michigan with six (6) 1-possession losses, and both Indiana and Tulane with four (4) 1-possession losses.

If you plan on using any of my ideas, thoughts or rankings to disucss publically in print, web based media postings or on air debates either in television or radio; please adhere to the APA/MLA policies and procedures when citing sources.

My book “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Solutions” (Siggelow, 2016); is the published research, The book is available at lulu.com


Wisconsin Still Number #1


College football is the one of the most exciting amateur sports, that 37+ Million fans attend each year, during the last quarter of the calender year. There is excitement, great plays, upsets, and all performed by student athletes. The most challenging aspect of college football is rewarding those FBS programs the opportunity to be ranked within the college football polls as the best Top 25, at that moment in time, during that week. Those FBS programs who can sustain excellence with a high level of competition and attentional focus, will always be ranked with the better ranking. Wisconsin (11-0) from the Big 10 Conference has sustained their attentional focus and are still one (1) of only four (4) FBS programs with 0-losses this season. The key question is, can Wisconsin sustain that for one more week of their regular season and then receive one (1) of the four CFP playoff spots? In a field of 16 Wisconsin is already in even if they lost their last regualr season game to Minnesota.

For the past weeks from mid-October to this last part of rivalry weekend, there have been many upsets and great games played. This weekend coming will be the most entertaining weekend of all. There are at least 20+ games that will effect the rankings, the playoff picture, my field of 16, and how many 0-loss programs will remain. Wisconsin plays Minnesota on the road, Alabama plays Auburn on the road, Miami (Fla.) hosts Pittsburgh and Central Florida host South Florida. Who will remain standing at the end of the regular season with 0-losses. I believe that there will be 2 FBS programs ending the season at 0-losses.

Ranking teams, programs and individuals is not the easiest concept, but witholding a bias against or for each item you rank is key. Ranking should be based upon the current season’s work and how they accumulate their overall record in relationship to their overall schedule, non-conference schedule and conference schedule. Credibility is based upon how you perform against your schedule during the course of the season. All FBS programs that are associated or a member of a conference, each possesses has NO control over their conference schedule, but they do have COMPLETE control over their non-conference schedule. However, that non-conference schedule is developed with contracts signed years in advance with the pre-determination that the FBS program you are sheduling those non conference games minimally 2+ years in advance. All under the premise that the FBS program you scheudle will be successful, viable and competitive. If a FBS program schedules an FCS program (i.e. Mercer), your credibility should possess a negative effect. Research supports that when an FBS program schedules and plays an FCS program during the regular season at any point in time of that regular season and ALWAYS at home against the FCS program; FBS programs win 90+% of the time and by 4+ possessions or more (meaning by at least 28 Points or more), then that game should not count in your win total and held negatively against you. However, thew win and loss does count but not held in any negative aspect when subjectively assessing.

The review of this weeks rankings shows no changes in the Top 8 ranked placements from my previous week. The only aspects that does change within the weekly rankings are the data points and which data points I use to demonstarte a more descriptive ranking system with no bias. Here is this weeks rankings for college football at the FBS level.

 

A B C D E F G
1 WISCONSIN (11-0) (.500) 80 (.481) 99 (.361) 130 (.449) 22 26
2 ALABAMA (11-0) (.576) 48 (.562) 42 (.393) 123 (.556) 2 30
3 MIAMI FLA. (10-0) (.774) 2 (.538) 67 (.392) 124 (.412) 33 22
4 CENTRAL FLORIDA (10-0) (.484) 87 (.509) 84 (.446) 101 (.560) 18 18
5 OKLAHOMA (10-1) (.412) 109 (.481) 100 (.465) 92 (.551) 3 18
6 GEORGIA (10-1) (.645) 22 (.593) 19 (.510) 56 (.471) 13 24
7 CLEMSON (10-1) (.576) 49 (.563) 40 (.492) 74 (.406) 38 28
8 USC (10-2) (.636) 24 (.545) 59 (.438) 106 (.408) 37 21
9 MEMPHIS (9-1) (.500) 81 (.487) 96 (.464) 95 (.490) 9 14
10 SOUTH FLORIDA (9-1) (.206) 129 (.367) 130 (.411) 119 (.438) 25 24
11 NOTRE DAME (9-2) (.574) 56 (.641) 3 (.787) 1 (.430) 27 19
12 BOISE STATE (9-2) (.591) 44 (.541) 66 (.544) 34 (.452) 21 23
13 OHIO STATE (9-2) (.697) 10 (.553) 55 (.417) 114 (.531) 4 22
14 PENN STATE (9-2) (.516) 73 (.563) 41 (.514) 55 (.462) 19 29
15 SAN DIEGO STATE (9-2) (.667) 17 (.467) 107 (.421) 112 (.400) 43 16
16 TOLEDO (9-2) (.452) 99 (.479) 102 (.518) 52 (.503) 8 19
17 WASHINGTON (9-2) (.545) 59 (.512) 81 (.411) 115 (.489) 10 25
18 TCU (9-2) (.455) 92 (.504) 87 (.479) 86 (.384) 49 29
19 AUBURN (9-2) (.484) 88 (.622) 10 (.579) 16 (.469) 15 26
20 WASHINGTON STATE (9-2) (.500) 82 (.549) 56 (.473) 88 (.400) 44 27
21 TROY (8-2) (.545) 60 (.404) 126 (.442) 103 (.344) 76 18
22 OKLAHOMA STATE (8-3) (.313) 122 (.473) 105 (.493) 73 (.506) 7 20
23 STANFORD (8-3) (.613) 34 (.564) 39 (.479) 85 (.446) 23 15
24 NORTHEWESTERN (8-3) (.273) 126 (.477) 103 (.458) 97 (.347) 75 19
25 MICHIGAN STATE (8-3) (.576) 50 (.583) 25 (.500) 63 (.292) 108 25

Honorable Mentioned: Michigan, Virginia Tech, Florida Atlantic, North Texas, Army, Northern Illinois, Ohio, Fresno State, LSU, Mississippi State and South Carolina all are (8-3).

Key: A-Rank Order; B- Team and Current Overall Record; C- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Non-Conference Schedule and Rank within that Categorical Variable; D- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Overall Regular Season Schedule and Rank within that Categorical Variable; E- Percentage Rate of the ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Conference Schedule and Rank, F- Percentage Rate of your Offensive Efficiency and Ranking within that Categorical Variable (described as: number of offensive and defensive possessions that results in points). G- Defensive Efficiency Rating (described as: number of times that your teams Defense were successful in possessing 3 consecutive stops against your opponent when they possessed the ball and stopped them from scoring (3 consecutive stops equals 1)).

As of this time of the current college football season there are 70 bowl eligible FBS programs with six (6) wins or more, and 18 more waiting in the wings with five (5) wins. At the four (4) win level and now with only two (2) opportunities to become bowl eligible; there are two (2) four (4) win FBS programs that can still earn bowl eligibility. There are only two (2) weeks remaining in the season; It’s going to be exciting, fun and heart breaking for some of these FBS programs.

If you plan on using any of my ideas, thoughts or rankings to disucss publically in print, web based media postings or on air debates either in television or radio; please adhere to the APA/MLA policies and procedures when citing sources.

My book “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Solutions” (Siggelow, 2016); is the published research, The book is available at lulu.com


Wisconsin Remains #1 As The Unexpected Continues


From the Big 10 Conference, Wisconsin remains number one in my weekly poll for the fourth week in a row. Looking below Wisconsin in my college football poll, it seems there is constant movement of musical chairs being played as the college football season winds down in the home stretch. The upsets and unexpected outcomes of college football keeps happening. What many media members fail to understand is towards the end of the college football season, normalcy does not exist, but the unexpected seems to rear its ugly head. This causes a shake up with everyones polls, rankings, confidence levels, cognitive thoughts and the facing of the reality of how college football changes on a week to week basis. These types of changes are great for the sport of college football and those fans who enjoy the games, in addition to the possibility of expanding the playoffs.

With three (3) weeks remaining in the college football season, their are only four (4) 0-loss programs remaining. Of those 0-loss programs, Central Florida from the American Athletic Conference (AAC) is not receiving the credit or just due ranking either in the coaches poll or CFP polls, for their successful season in which they have earned, not given. I am the only one who ranks Central Florida in the Top Five (5). Central Florida ranks first in Offensive Efficiency with my rating system in which I designed and created. Central Florida’s Offensive Efficiency Rating (OER) is at (.580). This means Central Florida’s scoring efficiency is based upon number of total game possessions both offensively and defensively, and turning those possession into points, at 58% of the time. Moreover, Central Florida ranks in the Top Half of all FBS programs in cumulative records within their non-conference scheduled opponents at a rate of (.536). I guess the CFP committee does not use all data points to give credit in ranking, where credit is due.

As we head into the final stretch run of college football, there are still MANY great games to be played with many more upsets to come. Here is my weekly Top Twenty-Five rankings:

A B C D E F
1 WISCONSIN (10-0) (.484) 86 (.488) 98 (.365) 128 (.467) 14
2 ALABAMA (10-0) (.533) 66 (.555) 54 (.388) 125 (.558) 3
3 MIAMI FLA. (9-0) (.750) 5 (.528) 70 (.400) 120 (.405) 41
4 CENTRAL FLORIDA (9-0) (.536) 64 (.533) 69 (.460) 92 (.580) 1
5 OKLAHOMA (9-1) (.387) 113 (.479) 103 (.468) 86 (.561) 2
6 GEORGIA (9-1) (.655) 22 (.593) 22 (.426) 111 (.464) 16
7 CLEMSON (9-1) (.567) 52 (.556) 53 (.491) 79 (.373) 61
8 USC (9-2) (.633) 25 (.557) 50 (.455) 99 (.415) 38
9 WASHINGTON STATE (9-2) (.500) 77 (.554) 55 (.470) 85 (.400) 42
10 MEMPHIS (8-1) (.536) 65 (.505) 88 (.460) 93 (.469) 13
11 SOUTH FLORIDA (8-1) (.194) 129 (.367) 130 (.408) 117 (.447) 24
12 OKLAHOMA STATE (8-2) (.345) 119 (.479) 105 (.484) 81 (.514) 6
13 NOTRE DAME (8-2) (.564) 57 (.639) 3 (.786) 1 (.426) 30
14 BOISE STATE (8-2) (.619) 33 (.553) 56 (.551) 29 (.427) 29
15 MICHIGAN (8-2) (.345) 118 (.538) 67 (.524) 49 (.353) 70
16 OHIO STATE (8-2) (.700) 12 (.567) 40 (.429) 108 (.530) 5
17 PENN STATE (8-2) (.517) 73 (.573) 36 (.524) 48 (.447) 23
18 SAN DIEGO STATE (8-2) (.633) 26 (.459) 108 (.429) 109 (.393) 47
19 ARMY (8-2) (.484) 87 (.418) 123 (.392) 124 (.444) 25
20 TOLEDO (8-2) (.464) 94 (.481) 102 (.521) 53 (.477) 10
21 OHIO (8-2) (.267) 125 (.382) 129 (.458) 98 (.475) 11
22 WASHINGTON (8-2) (.550) 58 (.518) 80 (.409) 116 (.479) 8
23 TCU (8-2) (.500) 78 (.518) 79 (.487) 79 (.381) 57
24 TROY (8-2) (.533) 67 (.394) 126 (.422) 114 (.344) 77
25 AUBURN (8-2) (.464) 95 (.604) 14 (.560) 24 (.474) 12

Key: A-Rank Order; B- Team and Current Overall Record; C- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Non-Conference Schedule and Rank within that Categorical Variable; D- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Overall Regular Season Schedule and Rank within that Categorical Variable; E- Percentage Rate of the ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Conference Schedule and Rank; and F- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Offensive Efficiency and Rank within that Categorical Variable.

As of this time of the current college football season there are 59 bowl eligible FBS programs with six (6) wins or more, and 21 more waiting in the wings with five (5) wins. There are three (3) weeks remaining in the season; there are plenty of opportunities for the 21 four (4) win FBS programs to earn bowl eligibility. Time is running out on some. Who will earn those bowl bids? How many FBS programs will become bowl eligible? We will find out soon.

If you plan in reciting any of my ideas, thoughts or rankings to disucss publically in print, web based media postings or on air debates either in television or radio; please adhere to the APA/MLA polocies and procedures when citing sources.

My book “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Solutions” (Siggelow, 2016); is the published research, The book is available at lulu.com


Wisconsin Remains #1 in Weekly Poll


Even thought the primary ranking groups of the; CFP Committee, the Amway Coaches Poll, and the AP Media Poll weekly college football rankings, do not have Wisconsin ranked as Number 1, I do. It was said, on an ESPN late night radio show from the Freddie and Fitz show, and I will be paraphasing from Ian Fitzimmons based out of the ESPN-Dallas area and when a caller from Arizona commented about the College Football Playoff ranking of the Top 4. The callers question was “why not just rank the 0-loss programs as the top four seeds because they are un-defeated”. Ian Fitzsimmons commented to the caller ” we are not handing out participation trophies here, its about selecting the best four football programs” (Fitzsimmons, 2017). Interesting that Wisconsin football team is a 0-loss program and on the outside looking in for the College Football Playoff. I have them ranked number one in my polls th the last few weeks over the popular 0-loss programs of Georgia and Alabama.

What the sports media “experts” and the CFP Committee, fail to understand is that numbers and data do not lie. The sports media can manipulate the image in what we see and do their best to forget about the numbers and data. I am purely opposite, I use the professional model theory to support my rankings and other variables to account for why and how I rank one (1) through twenty-five (25). Ranking programs is more than just an eye test, and media promotion of what they believe is the best college football programs. Games are played by the players, coaches coach the game, each make cognitive decisions to make the best play and each effort by both coaches and players is only measured by play outcomes both good or bad. The ranking numbers by the media possesses vested interest, where as I rank based upon specific data points, not vested interest. Ranked positions are earned not given. The rankings should not be based upon who you are, which conference you represent or who the sports media supports.

There are so many more great games to be played during the remaining 3+ weeks of the college football season. With many more upsets to occur and more great finishes to watch as the top teams go head to head to create more controversy of who will make the publicized playoffs. I believe we are at the “top of turn four” of the college football season. Its going to be an exciting, remaining, last few weeks as many will root for the upsets and more great games. Here are my weekly rankings for college football.

A B C D E
1 WISCONSIN (9-0) (.448) 95 (.482) 100 (.352) 129
2 GEORGIA (9-0) (.654) 3 (.598) 21 (.413) 117
3 ALABAMA (9-0) (.556) 56 (.566) 46 (.395) 123
4 MIAMI FLA. (8-0) (.840) 1 (.568) 44 (.436) 105
5 CENTRAL FLORIDA (8-0) (.560) 55 (.552) 59 (.477) 84
6 NOTRE DAME (8-1) (.540) 67 (.626) 1 (.784) 1
7 OKLAHOMA (8-1) (.357) 117 (.477) 102 (.472) 94
8 TOLEDO (8-1) (.423) 102 (.469) 104 (.525) 47
9 CLEMSON (8-1) (.556) 57 (.557) 54 (.489) 76
10 TCU (8-1) (.556) 58 (.525) 77 (.472) 93
11 WASHINGTON (8-1) (.556) 59 (.524) 79 (.407) 120
12 MEMPHIS (8-1) (.500) 78 (.495) 96 (.455) 98
13 SOUTH FLORIDA (8-1) (.179) 129 (.360) 130 (.395) 124
14 USC (8-2) (.630) 27 (.559) 52 (.448) 100
15 SAN DIEGO STATE (8-2) (.630) 28 (.460) 111 (.419) 114
16 WASHINGTON STATE (8-2) (.444) 97 (.553) 57 (.475) 92
17 BOISE STATE (7-2) (.605) 43 (.549) 63 (.545) 38
18 OKLAHOMA STATE (8-2) (.333) 118 (.481) 101 (.491) 74
19 MICHIGAN STATE (7-2) (.630) 29 (.602) 20 (.481) 82
20 MICHIGAN (7-2) (.385) 113 (.551) 61 (.519) 52
21 OHIO STATE (7-2) (.704) 2 (.583) 32 (.444) 101
22 PENN STATE (7-2) (.538) 68 (.590) 27 (.537) 42
23 ARMY (7-2) (.464) 90 (.404) 124 (.380) 127
24 TROY (7-2) (.556) 60 (.400) 125 (.421) 113
25 OHIO (7-2) (.259) 127 (.384) 129 (.475) 91

Honorable Mentioned: Mississippi State, Auburn and Virginia Tech all are (7-2).

Key: A-Rank Order; B- Team and Current Overall Record; C- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Non-Conference Schedule and Rank within that Categorical Variable; D- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Overall Regular Season Schedule and Rank within that Categorical Variable; E- Percentage Rate of the ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Conference Schedule and Rank.

As of this time of the current college football season there are 50 bowl eligible FBS programs wth six (6) wins or more, and 21 more waiting in the wings with five (5) wins. At the four (4) win level and only 3 or 4 opportunities to become bowl eligible. There are three (3) + weeks remaining in the season; It’s going to be exciting, fun and heart breaking.

If you plan on using any of my ideas, thoughts or rankings to disucss publically in print, web based media postings or on air debates either in television or radio; please adhere to the APA/MLA policies and procedures when citing sources.

My book “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Solutions” (Siggelow, 2016); is the published research, The book is available at lulu.com

Coleman, Freddie and Ian Fitzsimmons (2017). ESPN Radio. Evening Time Slot. “Discussing the current college football playoff rankings, taking listener calls and questions.”. Talk Radio. ESPN-Bristol and ESPN- Dallas. ESPN Studios.


Wisconsin and Big Ten Takes Over #1 Rank


Wisconsin (8-0) takes over the number one ranked spot within my weekly college football rankings. The reason why Wisconsin (8-0) is ranked number one and not Georgia or Alabama ranked number one is due to the fact that Wisconsin and the BIG 10 have made SIGNIFICANT strides to eliminating scheduling the FCS games and scheduling more road games at FBS site venues. Fact; The BIG 10 only scheduled three (3) FCS games this year but, the Southeastern Conference scheduled every SEC program with an FCS game. The most interesing fact is that Alabama is scheduled to play FCS Mercer the week before Alabama plays Auburn on Thanksgiving Weekend. This fact, not theory, decreases the SEC credibility within their non conference schedule as a whole. Published research states that FBS programs who schedule FCS programs, win 90% of the time, and by at least 4+ possessions. That 4+ possessions means by at least 28 points. This inidcate that easy wins versus lower level classification outside of the FBS level earns no credibility even if you are a 0-loss program. The other factor that gives Wisconsin the number one ranked position within my poll is they played or will play a non-conference game on the road at an FBS opponents stadium site. Thus playing games on the road within your non-conference schedule means you are taking a RISK playing in an un-comfortable setting. Alabama is playing no FBS programs on the road at THEIR stadium site.To tie all of this together, Wisconsin scheduled 12 FBS programs and the SEC only schedules 11 FBS programs. FACTS are FACTS to the reality of the situation, you cannot change the evidence of the findings and data.

What a great college football season this has been turning out to be. Upsets, surprises and more as we continue through “Amen’s Corner” of the college football season. Hats off to Iowa State for pulling the third consecutive win over a marquee named opponent and increasing the record of Iowa State to (6-2) overall and (4-1) within the Big 12 Conference. Iowa State is tied atop the conference with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and TCU. Iowa State is bowl eligible with this win and success can only continue for this Cyclone program. With four (4) weeks remaining, there are still more upsets and surprises in store.

Ohio State (7-1) pulls off the comback victory over Penn State (7-1), to redeem last years loss and to decrease the number of 0-loss programs remaining within the FBS level of play. Heading into this week’s college football schedule there now stands only five (5) 0-loss programs; Wisconsin, Georgia, Alabama, Miami (Fla.) and Central Florida. I wonder who will be the next 0-loss program to fall? With four (4) week’s remaining of the college football season, my intuition tells me that there will be only two (2) 0-loss programs left standing at the end of the regular season. Not sure which two (2). I am not like the sports media “experts” from ESPN or FOX Sports that use a crystal ball to predict outcomes of the college football season, predicts final season records and predicts who will win each week. I let the games play out and analyze the data to determine how to rank.

This weeks college football schedule has MANY interesting marquee games that will effect the rankings. First game of importance is (7-1) Oklahoma and (7-1) Oklahoma State. This will cause seperation within the Big 12 and move a 1-loss team to the 2-loss team group. Other Games of interest are: (8-0) Georgia playing (6-2) South Carolina, (8-0) Alabama playing (6-2) LSU, (7-0) Miami (Fla.) playing (7-1) Virginia Tech, (7-1) Notre Dame playing (5-3) Wake Forest, (7-1) Penn State playing (6-2) Michigan State, (7-1) Toledo playing (6-2) Northern Illinois and on a short week on Thursday Night, (7-1) Clemson playing (6-2) North Carolina State, (7-2) USC playing (6-2) Arizona, (7-2) Washington State playing (6-2) Stanford, (6-2, and Marshall playing (5-3) Florida Atlanitc. Wonder which game ESPN College Game Day will attend. This one is obvious, ESPN CGD will set set up shop for the Alabama/LSU match up.

Below are my rankings for college football at the FBS level for the 2017 season:

A B C D E F
1 WISCONSIN (8-0) (.423) 105 (.480) 103 (.333) 128 (.458) 19
2 GEORGIA (8-0) (.696) 14 (.605) 18 (.415) 116 (.476) 13
3 ALABAMA (8-0) (.542) 66 (.545) 62 (.385) 122 (.598) 2
4 MIAMI FLA. (7-0) (.826) 1 (.568) 49 (.441) 106 (.404) 46
5 CENTRAL FLORIDA (7-0) (.591) 46 (.565) 52 (.472) 90 (.629) 1
6 NOTRE DAME (7-1) (.543) 65 (.639) 7 (.839) 1 (.447) 24
7 OKLAHOMA STATE (7-1) (.360) 118 (.485) 99 (.467) 98 (.517) 7
8 OKLAHOMA (7-1) (.400) 110 (.495) 96 (.467) 97 (.553) 3
9 OHIO STATE (7-1) (.667) 18 (.583) 34 (.444) 104 (.552) 4
10 PENN STATE (7-1) (.520) 72 (.583) 36 (.533) 42 (.463) 16
11 TOLEDO (7-1) (.435) 100 (.466) 107 (.515) 53 (.523) 6
12 CLEMSON (7-1) (.583) 51 (.591) 29 (.525) 52 (.364) 60
13 TCU (7-1) (.563) 56 (.534) 71 (.467) 96 (.414) 41
14 WASHINGTON (7-1) (.500) 77 (.522) 80 (.400) 118 (.490) 9
15 MEMPHIS (7-1) (.478) 89 (.512) 85 (.500) 70 (.461) 17
16 VIRGINIA TECH (7-1) (.375) 115 (.511) 87 (.488) 78 (.421) 34
17 SOUTH FLORIDA (7-1) (.200) 129 (.360) 130 (.371) 124 (.430) 31
18 USC (7-2) (.667) 19 (.570) 42 (.449) 102 (.403) 48
19 SAN DIEGO STATE (7-2) (.667) 20 (.472) 105 (.432) 111 (.360) 64
20 WASHINGTON STATE (7-2) (.438) 99 (.565) 51 (.480) 87 (.405) 45
21 BOISE STATE (7-2) (.588) 48 (.545) 63 (.553) 32 (.381) 54
22 MARSHALL (7-2) (.406) 109 (.463) 109 (.514) 56 (.356) 68
23 STANDFORD (7-2) (.652) 24 (.574) 44 (.449) 103 (.463) 15
24 MICHIGAN STATE (7-2) (.583) 52 (.604) 19 (.489) 72 (.314) 93
25 MICHIGAN (7-2) (.391) 113 (.568) 48 (.533) 43 (.339) 73

Honorable Mentioned: All are (6-2): Army, Northern Illinois, Ohio, Troy, SMU, North Carolina State, Iowa State, Arizona, Auburn, Kentucky, Mississippi State, South Carolina, and LSU.

Key: A-Rank Order; B- Team and Current Overall Record; C- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Non-Conference Schedule and Rank within that Categorical Variable; D- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Overall Regular Season Schedule and Rank within that Categorical Variable; E- Percentage Rate of the ranked teams Opponents Cumulative Record from their Conference Schedule and Rank; and F- Percentage Rate of ranked teams Offensive Efficiency and Rank within that Categorical Variable.

As of this time of the current college football season there are 39 bowl eligible FBS programs wth six (6) wins or more, and 25 more waiting in the wings with five (5) wins. There are four (4) weeks remaining in the season; there are plenty of opportunities for the 19 four (4) win FBS programs to earn bowl eligibility.

If you plan in using any of my ideas, thoughts or ranking to disucss publically in print, web based media postings or on air debates either in television or radio; please adhere to the APA/MLA polocies and procedures when citing sources.

My book “College Football In The BCS Era The Untold Truth Facts Evidence and Solutions” (Siggelow, 2016); is the published research, The book is available at lulu.com