The SMU Mustangs (5-0) are ranked number one in my 2019 college football, first weekly rankings. The SMU Mustangs are not only ranked in my weekly poll, but are ranked in the AP Poll at #23 and receiving votes from the USA Today Coaches Poll for the first time in over 30 years. The reason why I ranked SMU number one over the more prestigious Ohio State, Clemson, and the SEC are supported by statistical analysis which are quantitative and comparable versus other FBS football programs. MY rankings are not subjective based upon conference affiliation but are ranked based upon the professional model theory and concept, in which I have explained in my published book and research.
The Mustangs 2019 CFB schedule possesses NO FCS program, like 21 other FBS programs during the 2019 CFB season. In addition to not scheduling an FCS program this season, SMU also plays a balanced schedule, which means they play 2 traditional non conference games on the road at an FBS programs stadium. SMU, this season, are not like the well known SEC programs that DO NOT and RARELY play traditional non conference road games; such as Alabama, Auburn, and Florida to name a few. Furthermore, the SEC programs of Florida, Auburn and Alabama have either front loaded their schedule with FCS games; 2 for Florida or back loaded their schedule with an FCS game for both Alabama and Auburn whom play their FCS game the week before their traditional end of season rivalry. The interesting dichotomy is that those three SEC programs are ranked significantly higher than SMU in the AP and USA Today Polls. However, both polls of which are subjective with biases and vested interests for personal financial gains.
Many of you will question why I do not have any of the high profile programs ranked number one. My answers is, the data does not support them in being ranked number one. I rank based upon the professional model theory, in addition to other quantitative and qualitative statistical data which the sports media, ‘credible” ranking coaches do not examine. I rank based upon overall records, if the FBS program schedules and plays an FCS program, any scheduling advantages within their non-conference schedule by playing more home games, strength of schedule based upon their opponents overall records. These are measurable, quantitative and qualitative. If strength of schedule is a variable that the College Football Playoff Committee uses to assist in ranking and selecting their playoff teams, then why is there no negative effect with the variable within their schedule when playing more home games or an FCS program.
A breakdown of my first weeks 2019 rankings of CFB Top 25 determined that 8 of the 25 are representatives of the Group of Five Conferences at the FBS level of play. Of those 8 Group of Five FBS programs, 6 are representatives of the American Athletic Conference and Mountain West Conference. With both conferences placing 3 FBS programs in my CFB Top 25. Yes, Ohio State, Clemson and Alabama are ranked in my Top 25, but are ranked as Ohio State #2, Clemson #4 and Alabama #6. Ohio State currently possesses a better overall schedule than SMU, but SMU currently possesses a better non-conference schedule. All based upon combined overall records within both categorical variables. As for Clemson and Alabama, Clemson plays one or two less traditional non conference road games than SMU, plus schedule an FCS opponent. Alabama, scheduled 8 home games for the sixth year in a row and schedules an FCS program. If you consider the SEC as a whole; the SEC scheduled 15 FCS programs, scheduled 48 non conference HOME games out of their possible 56 non conference games. Of those 56 non conference games, 15 of those 56 are scheduled versus FCS opponents at home. That alone should diminish the SEC’s strength of schedule and credibility and should not receive ranking benefits.
Below are my weekly rankings and explanation grid for CFB within the 2019 season:
GRID: Ranked Team(Record)– indicates the rank of the FBS program and their current record; FCS– indicates that the ranked FBS program has scheduled or already played an FCS opponent; AG’s– indicates number of traditional non conference road games scheduled during the 2019 CFB season; OPP OVRL– indicates the combined records of that ranked FBS programs scheduled win loss records and percentage rate of the whole 2019 schedule and OPP NC– indicates the combined records of that ranked FBS programs scheduled win loss records and percentage rate for ONLY games scheduled versus and within their non conference schedule for 2019.
|TEAM (RECORD)||FCS||AG’S||OPP OVRL||OPP NC|
|1 SMU (5-0)||0||2||(30-22) .577||(10-9) .526|
|2 OHIO STATE (5-0)||0||0||(30-21) .588||(6-8) .429|
|3 WAKE FOREST (5-0)||1||1||(31-21) .596||(5-9) .357|
|4 CLEMSON (5-0)||1||1||(29-24) .547||(8-4) .667|
|5 AUBURN (5-0)||1||0||(36-31) .735||(8-4) .667|
|6 ALABAMA (5-0)||1||0||(28-23) .549||(6-6) .500|
|7 FLORDIA (5-0)||2||0||(27-17) .614||(5-4) .556|
|8 WISCONSIN (4-0)||0||1||(31-20) .608||(5-8) .385|
|9 IOWA (4-0)||0||1||(27-21) .563||(5-8) .385|
|10 MEMPHIS (4-0)||1||2||(26-20) .565||(5-8) .385|
|11 BOISE STATE (4-0)||1||2||(26-21) .553||(7-7) .500|
|12 APPALACHIAN ST (4-0)||1||2||(23-28) .451||(6-9) .400|
|13 LSU (4-0)||1||1||(33-17) .660||(7-5) .583|
|14 OKLAHOMA (4-0)||1||1||(29-19) .604||(3-7) .300|
|15 MINNESOTA (4-0)||1||1||(25-19) .568||(3-5) .375|
|16 GEORGIA (4-0)||1||1||(26-21) .553||(7-6) .538|
|17 PENN STATE (4-0)||1||0||(31-16) .660||(5-5) .500|
|18 BAYLOR (4-0)||1||0||(27-20) .574||(1-8) .111|
|19 MICHIGAN STATE (4-1)||0||0||(33-17) .660||(9-5) .643|
|20 LOUISIANA TECH (4-1)||1||3||(18-30) .375||(5-8) .385|
|21 OKLAHOMA STATE (4-1)||1||2||(29-16) .644||(3-5) .375|
|22 WYOMING (4-1)||1||2||(26-20) .565||(7-6) .538|
|23 CALIFORNIA (4-1)||1||2||(29-23) .558||(4-5) .444|
|24 CENTRAL FLORIDA (4-1)||1||2||(26-23) .531||(8-7) .533|
|25 HAWAII (4-1)||1||1||(27-17) .614||(8-5) .615|
Also receiving consideration: (4-1) Arizona State, (4-1) Washington, (4-1) Virginia, (4-1) Utah and (4-1) Louisiana Lafayette.
These rankings possess no subjective bias or vested interest for financial gains. Since I have published my book and research, I still believe that CFB at the highest level under the NCAA blue logo can possess an expanded playoff format which is inclusive for all FBS football programs. Every FBS football program should have a fair, equal and just opportunity to compete for $50 Million dollars, Gold Trophy, national recognition and prestige in being called National Champions of college football.
As always, please cite the source in APA/MLA format if you use any of my information. To the sports media in print, television or radio; I am available for interview to discuss my college rankings, college football content and more specifically the college football playoffs.