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

CFP Playoff Field of 16 Mock 2017.3

This is the third installment of my MOCK college football playoff field of 16 for the FBS level of play. If only the power brokers of college football could see how this expanded playoff format would be more beneficial to the the fans of college football, then we woudl truly possess a real “National Champion”.

If you have followed along with my MOCK field of 16 as I have posted them throughout the course of this FBS season, you can admire the changes from week to week, in how the games have become more interesting as the season winds down. I believe that this type of playoff format would make for better entertainment and causes confusion amongst the television media on which game to show to the fans who cannot be in attendance. All 8 of these games would make for great television, viewership and media attention.

This is how the field of 16 would be seeded if the season were to have concluded this past weekend and the playoffs starting this following weekend:

16 SEED OHIO STATE (8-2) AT 1 SEED WISCONSIN (10-0)

9 SEED WASHINGTON STATE (9-2) AT 8 SEED USC (9-2)

12 SEED OKLAHOMA STATE (8-2) ST 5 SEED OKLAHOMA (9-1)

13 SEED NOTRE DAME (8-2) AT 4 SEED CENTRAL FLORIDA (9-0)

14 SEED BOISE STATE (8-2) AT 3 SEED MIAMI FLA. (9-0)

11 SEED SOUTH FLORIDA (8-1) AT 6 SEED GEORGIA (9-1)

10 SEED MEMPHIS AT 7 SEED CLEMSON (9-1)

15 SEED MICHIGAN AT 2 SEED ALABAMA (10-0)

If you examine the playoff pairings; of these 8 games, 3 of the games would be conference bragging rights or rematches between top programs. Three (3) of the games would have 3 FBS programs traveling some distance to play the games. However, in today’s scheduling of regualr season games; I don’t think traveling would a problem. With an average of 37+ Million fans that attend collge football games annually, I believe each of these games would be SOLD OUT. Can you imagine how much fun, excitement and media coverage the first weekend of December would be for college football with so much at stake.

The breakdown for the field of 16 based upon conference affiliation, numbers per conference, Power Five Conference and Group of Five Conference is; 12 FBS programs from the Power Five Conferences and 5 FBS programs from the Group of Five Conferences. ALL Power Five Connferences would possess representation into this field of 16. Is that not what the power brokers want. The opportunity to be part of the playoffs and not left out because of subectivity. The remaining 4 playoff spots would be secured by the Group of Five Conferences. I believe that ALL the Group of Five Conference programs want is the OPPORTUNITY to compete in the playoffs, compete for the $50 Million dollars on the table, the gold statue and the notoriety which comes along with being called ” National Champion”.

As for the breakdown for each conference;  the Power Five Conference breakdown is led by The Big 10, who would possess 3 seeds, the ACC, the Big 12, the Pac 12 and the SEC would each hold 2 seeds. Notre Dame would be the only Independent program represented in the playoffs. In addition to those 12 FBS programs, the Group of Five Conferences would be represneted with 3 FBS programs from the American Athletic Conference (AAC) and 1 FBS program from the Mountain West Conference (MWC).

In about two (2) weeks, I will publish the final pairings of my MOCK field of 16 for college football. In addition to the final posting I will even post how the playoffs would be played out in the month long tournament.

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 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.

CFP Playoffs Field of 16 Mock 2017.2

How the games that are played during the regular season can change the field of 16 in a matter of moments. If you think last weeks field of 16 had some great games, this weeks field of 16 has even better games and rematches. This mock field of 16 for a future college football playoff format,  is what the media won’t speak about yet, but internally want this more than ever. I believe that their are a group of college football coaches at the FBS level who would embrace the college football playoff being expanded. Their thoughts are concurrent with mine. However, my research in my book supports and proves that an expanded field of 16 can be implimented into the FBS level of college football, under the NCAA blue logo, allowing all FBS football programs equal, fair and just opportunity to compete for the National Championship and exponentially generate more revenue for the college athletics.

Here is the second edition of the Mock 2017.2 Field of 16:

Seed 16 Washington State (8-2) at Seed 1 Wisconsin (9-0)

Seed 9 Clemson (8-1) at Seed 8 Toledo (8-1)

Seed 12 Memphis (8-1) at Seed 5 Central Florida (8-0)

Seed 13 South Florida (8-1) at Seed 4 Miami (Fla.) (8-0)

Seed 14 USC (8-2) at Seed 3 Alabama (9-0)

Seed 11 Washington at Seed 6 Notre Dame (8-1)

Seed 10 TCU (8-1) at Seed 7 Oklahoma (8-1)

Seed 15 San Diego State at Seed 2 Georgia (9-0)

This field is well represented by ALL Power Five Conference, Independents and three (3) of the Group of Five Conferenes. The Pac 12 and AAC earned three (3) berths, the SEC, ACC, and the Big 12 earned two (2) berths, and the Big 10, the MAC, the MWC and Notre Dame earned one (1) berth. This is what could be and possibly will be in the future. Please rememebr, each week this will change until the FINAL FIELD of 16.

Each week prior to the final Mock 2017 Field of 16 for college football I will post a new bracket. Once any FBS program earns at least a berth into my Field of 16, but not the exact seeding placement; I will place them in BOLD.  This will notify anyone who reads this blog post that, that FBS program has earned a berth to my field of 16.

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

CFP Brackets Released, Field Of 16

If college football possessed an expanded playoff format which included all FBS programs equal and just opportunity to compete for; the $50 Million Dollars at stake, the crystal football trophy and the right to earn and be called a “National Champion”, what would that bracket reveal? Since published  research supports that an expanded college football play can be implimented with a field of 16 FBS programs, then what would the early version of playoff pairings look like.

Here is the MOCK version at this stage of the college football season with the field of 16:

16 Seed Virginia Tech (7-1) at  1 seed Wisconsin (8-0)

9 Seed Ohio State (7-1) at 8 Seed Oklahoma (7-1)

12 Seed Clemson (7-1) at 5 Seed Central Florida (7-0)

13 Seed TCU (7-1) at 4 Seed Miami (Fla) (7-0)

14 Seed Washington (7-1) at 3 Seed Alabama (8-0)

10 Seed Penn State (7-0) at 7 Seed Oklahoma State (7-1)

11 Seed Toledo (7-1) at 6 Seed Notre Dame (7-1)

15 Seed Memphis (7-1) at 2 Seed Georgia (8-0)

The breakdown of this field indicates that 13 FBS programs are from the Power 5 Conferences and 3 FBS programs are from the Group of 5 Conferences. Taking the break down even further, ALL P5 Conferences would have representation within this expanded playoff format; 3 each from the Big 12, Big 10 and ACC, 2 each from the AAC and SEC and 1 representation from the PAC12, Independents, and MAC. This style of an expanded playoff format allows all FBS programs from ALL of the FBS Conferences and Independents, an equal and fair opportunity to compete for the National Championship. All the Group of Five Conference FBS members and the 3 Independent FBS members want, is an opporunity to compete for what’s at stake at the end of the college football season. Just like the other 87 NCAA sponsored Championship Events, all FBS schools are considered to compete for the National Championship. It is only the NCAA ponsored sport of Football, in which ONLY the FBS members from the Group of Five Conferences are NOT considered. The current CFP system and the previous BCS system are based upon an exclusive club membership based upon sports media lable status and not who has earned the right to compete for the “National Championship”.

The CFP committee has a tough time narrowing the field to the four FBS teams they believe should be part of the playoff. Expansion to 16 FBS teams makes it fair for all FBS programs within college football. Time for a change.

As the remaining weeks play out within this 2017 FBS college football season, this MOCK expanded playoff seedings will change.

 

 

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

Alabama Takes Over #1 Ranking

With the ever changing suprises and close calls in college football this season, the rankings will continually change week to week. Alabama (8-0) takes over the number one ranked position this week in my weekly polls. Alabama (8-0) is on a bye week this coming week and could possibly lose their number one ranking in my next poll if any of the grouping of (7-0) FBS programs; Wisconsin, Penn State, Georgia, TCU and South Florida win this coming weekend.

College football is starting on the back half of the season and we could call this “Amen’s Corner” time in college football. The “Amen’s Corner” of the college football season starts with each game, each possession, the outcomes of other games and hoping for other highly ranked FBS football programs to stumble. If you are one of the eight (8) remaining 0-loss programs, your objective is to remain on course, do not look to far ahead, and maintain attentional focus at the highest level of competition and performance. There are still many games yet to be played, some surprising upsest still on the table to be served and some un-expected FBS programs earning better win-loss records that even the “experts” did not foresee happening. I guess the crystal ball that they are using must be broken.

Here is my next weekly rankings and how I rank the FBS programs in the Top 25:

A B C D E F
1 ALABAMA (8-0) (.619) 38 (.582) 41 (.394) 118 (.598) 1
2 WISCONSIN (7-0) (.391) 111 (.465) 107 (.278) 129 (.482) 10
3 PENN STATE (7-0) (.455) 91 (.560) 55 (.500) 68 (.468) 16
4 GEORGIA (7-0) (.750) 3 (.618) 19 (.400) 116 (.478) 13
5 TCU (7-0) (.500) 77 (.519) 82 (.444) 101 (.459) 21
6 SOUTH FLORIDA (7-0) (.182) 129 (.358) 130 (.375) 124 (.457) 24
7 WASHINGTON STATE (7-0) (.400) 108 (.549) 64 (.439) 106 (.416) 42
8 MIAMI FLA. (6-0) (.800) 3 (.577) 45 (.464) 93 (.455) 26
9 CENTRAL FLORIDA (6-0) (.579) 47 (.564) 52 (.455) 98 (.584) 2
10 NOTRE DAME (6-1) (.524) 72 (.636) 10 (.852) 1 (.455) 25
11 OKLAHOMA STATE (6-1) (.348) 118 (.488) 96 (.472) 90 (.533) 6
12 MARSHALL (6-1) (.419) 102 (.466) 105 (.517) 56 (.368) 61
13 OKLAHOMA (6-1) (.429) 100 (.512) 89 (.472) 89 (.561) 4
14 OHIO STATE (6-1) (.636) 29 (.588) 39 (.444) 99 (.571) 3
15 MICHIGAN STATE (6-1) (.565) 55 (.605) 27 (.472) 86 (.297) 103
16 TOLEDO (6-1) (.409) 104 (.458) 108 (.517) 57 (.516) 7
17 WASHINGTON (6-1) (.571) 49 (.556) 59 (.415) 113 (.477) 14
18 NC STATE (6-1) (.810) 1 (.568) 49 (.378) 123 (.438) 32
19 CLEMSON (6-1) (.565) 56 (.600) 30 (.529) 73 (.376) 58
20 MEMPHIS (6-1) (.500) 78 (.519) 83 (.500) 73 (.446) 30
21 VIRGINIA TECH (6-1) (.409) 103 (.525) 79 (.486) 79 (.436) 33
22 SAN DIEGO STATE (6-2) (.667) 18 (.468) 104 (.419) 112 (.364) 62
23 COLORADO STATE (6-2) (.565) 57 (.451) 114 (.400) 117 (.469) 17
24 ARMY (6-2) (.524) 73 (.425) 120 (.390) 119 (.458) 23
25 OHIO (6-2) (.238) 127 (.361) 129 (.433) 107 (.474) 15

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 moment, there are 28 Bowl Eligible FBS Programs and 21 waiting in the wings FBS programs currently with 5-wins heading into this week who can earn bowl eligibility. If we examine the bottom of the rankings, there are 3 FBS programs still searching for their first win; Baylor, Georgia Southern and Texas El Paso. Who will get their first win and avoid going (0-12).

These rankings are based upon research and possessing no bias to how each college football team has been ranked. With 6 weeks to go within the college football season, I wonder how it will play out. Many surprizes still in store for this college football season. The college football season is heading onto turn three and starting to take shape

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 cources.

Georgia is my New #1 after UPSET Saturday

Georgia (7-0) is the newly ranked number one FBS team in my third weekly college football ranking poll. At this point in time of the college football season, Georgia is statistically better than any other (7-0) FBS teams in multiple categories,  in which I use to assist in ranking weekly. However, as the season winds down and progresses forward, anything can happen with many great remaining scheduled games left to be played in many conferences.  Within my rankings, there are still many of the ranked FBS programs that have not had a bye week yet. With at least six weeks to go in the college football season, ANYTHING can happen.

With the season just past the half way point, there are eight (8) 0-loss programs left and of those eight remaining programs, only two will compete against each other in the regular season. Those two programs are Central Florida and South Florida. Both will meet at the end of the regualr season in the American Athletic Conference. The other remaining 0-loss programs wont possibly meet until the conference championship games and that’s if they remain at 0-losses. In addition to those 0-loss programs, there are still 18, 1-loss programs. There is plenty of college football left in the remaining part of the schedule in the upcoming weeks. NO ONE really knows how the season will play out, not even the “experts” of college football. Trust me there are still many great games left on the schedule and UPSETS are going to occur. Just let the season play out before you start making guesses into who will be in the playoff picture.

The one primary problem with the sports media “experts” from ESPN and FOX is that every week before and after college football games are played, they believe they are entitled to select which four (4) FBS teams will compete for the CFP. The funny thing is they change their minds weekly and sometimes daily just trying to be right. I say at this point of the season, pick four and stick with it. Your job is not to play “Carnac The Wonderful” and always guess what will happen. Maybe guessing wrong should effect their employment status when they find it difficut in selecting between vanilla or choclate ice cream.

For this weeks rankings, I am only going to post the Top 25 in rank order, with team names and overall records. I will return to posting the important statistical data next week. I have the updated data. However, it’s interesting that between the AP voters and the Coaches Poll that they never match or use the same data I do. I have no vested interests in who is ranked where, just need to rank each FBS program with a fair ranking. All of which takes knowing what data points to use in evaluations.

Here is this weeks rankings:

A B
1 GEORGIA (7-0)
2 ALABAMA (7-0)
3 WISCONSIN (6-0)
4 PENN STATE (6-0)
5 TCU (6-0)
6 SOUTH FLORIDA(6-0)
7 USC (6-1)
8 OHIO STATE (6-1)
9 SAN DIEGO STATE (6-1)
10 NC STATE (6-1)
11 CLEMSON (6-1)
12 WASHINGTON STATE (6-1)
13 MIAMI (FLA)(5-0)
14 CENTRAL FLORIDA (5-0)
15 OKLAHOMA STATE (5-1)
16 MARSHALL (5-1)
17 NAVY (5-1)
18 OKLAHOMA (5-1)
19 MICHIGAN STATE (5-1)
20 NOTRE DAME (5-1)
21 MICHIGAN (5-1)
22 TOLEDO (5-1)
23 MEMPHIS (5-1)
24 KENTUCKY (5-1)
25 VIRGINIA (5-1)

Honorable Mentioned: Virginia Tech (5-1), Stanford (5-2), Army (5-2), Ohio (5-2), Colorado State (5-2), Auburn (5-2), LSU (5-2), South Carolina (5-2) and Texas A&M (5-2).

There are many SEC programs at (5-2), but its the programs from one specific division within the conference. This will change as the weeks play out.

Please do not forget to use the APA/MLA method if you use any of this copyrighted material. Always give credit when credit is due.

Washington St. Coach Leach Believes in 16 Team Playoff

Coach MIke Leach, the Washington State Head Football Coach, went on an extended highly cognitive discussion during his weekly press conference about how an expanded playoff format can be implemented at the FBS level of play. One of Coach Leach’s first comments during his press conference states that “I think 64 teams for a playoff, but minimum 16 teams for a playoff in college football” (Leach 2017). Coach Leach believes that 16 teams could “settle alot of these issues” (Leach, 2017).  This is what I have been saying since (2007) when I started my Master’s degree with the investigating of the un-ethical manner, in which college football settles and determines their  “National Champion” both in the BCS system and CFP system. I concur and support what Coach Leach expressed in support of major changes within a Democritus playoff system that not only selects 3% of FBS programs to compete for the “National Championship”, but also only selects those “elitists” programs that are classified from the Power Five Conferences and Notre Dame; to compete for the $50 Million dollars at stake, the crystal trophy, in addition to the prestige and notoriety that comes along with being called “National Champions” of college football.

It’s interesting that educationally sound published research since (2013) and again in (2016) within a literary work, already investigated this subject matter. However, I give credit to Coach Leach for possessing a higher cognitive thought process and critical thinking skills, like myself, to openingly discuss and bring this highly sensative subject matter to the forefront. In turn, what Coach Leach spoke of during his press conference not only VALIDATES my research, but offers support that change needs to be made in the direction of a more Utilitarianistic way in addressing the college football playoff subect matter, by implementing the Stuart Mills philosophy. Within my most recent publishing of research titled; “College Football In The BCS Era The UntoldTruth Facts Evidence and Solutions” clearly outlines and explains how a 16-team playoff format at the FBS level of play could be implemented. In addition to the implementation of the playoff format, I also developed a fair assessment system to assist in the selection and seeding process to determine which 16 FBS programs earned the right  to compete for the for the “National Championship” based upon specific categorical variables to assist in rank order and seed selection. Thus, eliminating the need for a committee who would possess bias or vested interest in seeding the field of 16.

Even Coach Leach states it best, “If the levels below us; such as states within the United States of America where high school football is followed by many, i.e. Texas, California, Florida;  NCAA Division 3, NCAA Division 2, NCAA Division 1-AA (also known as FCS) and the higher level above us, the National Football Leauge can possess an expanded playoff, then why can’t we (meaning the FBS level of play)” (Leach, 2017). However, convincing the power brokers of college football at the FBS level of play, known as Dr. Mark Emmert; President of the NCAA, the NCAA Competition Committee, Bowl Committees, Mr. Bill Hancock, Mr. MIke Slive, the current CFP Committee Chair Mr. Kirby Hocutt; Director of Athletics at Texas Tech, all Conference Commissioners from all FBS College Football Conferences, all the college and university Presidents, Athletic Directors and Head Football Coaches from the AFCA; need to attend a presentation specifically in this subject matter. If a well respected head football coach at the highest level of college football can cognitively see the expanded playoff process, then why cant the power brokers?

I believe that since I performed and published all the research to address this topic of expanding the college football playoff to 16 FBS teams, then I should be the one who performs the presentation to the names and groups mentioned in the above paragraph. For those who do not know, It took me 10+ years to develop and investigate the implementation of this 16-team playoff format and other topics which directly correlate to college football at the FBS level with the expanded playoff format. I read 30+ published peer reviewed journal articles, from doctoral professors, Ph. D. students and those with a Master level of education. Each peer reviewed article were chosen to directly possess subject matter associated to specific categotical variables, within the dependent variables which possesses a direcct relationship to the independent variable. In addition to reading peer reviewed journal articles, I also read 15+ published literary works (books) associated with athletic administration, sports management, college football related subject matter and books written about other playoff concepts. All of these books were written by Doctoral professors of Sports Management and Athletic Administration, and or written by sports writers who investigated the BCS and other playoff ideas. I combined all that written, published, copyrighted material and added the collection of 25,000+ numerical data points to support and address any questions in the development of my 16 team playoff format. However, the review of data and reading did not stop there, I performed other research to assist in anaylzing other variables that possessed a direct effect on the Democritusly driven BCS system and still Democritusly driven CFP system.

In closing, If well known college football coaches who have spoken about the need for change at the FBS level of college football in how they determine their “National Champion” and the need for a standardized, universal, cross conference, cross divisional scheduling format, with the elimination of scheduling FCS programs; then that within itself VALIDATES and supports the research I performed, published and copyrighted in my literary work (book).

Again, Thank You Coach Mike Leach for disucssing the expanded playoff format subject with your local media.

NOTE: if you decide to use any of this written, published and copyrighted material, please be cognizant of using the APA/MLA citation methods, citing your source.

MIke Leach Goes Off: Expand The College Football Playoff. Press Conference with Washington State Head Football Coach; Mike Leach. Vidoe posted on Youtube.com. Posted by CBS Affiliate KREM2 in Washington on October 10, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_nuMEtwUW4.

M. S. Ed. Athletic Administration, Sports Management, Kinesiology and Sports Studies from the State of New York at The College at Brockport.

CITI/IRB Research Certified from the University of Miami at Florida