. . .

The Wisconsin Badgers are (6-0) and one of four 0-loss FBS football programs from the Big 10 and the Badgers are ranked number one in my college football weekly rankings. Examining my college football FBS rankings further, all four 0-loss FBS football programs from the Big 10 are ranked ; #1, #3, #8 and #9. They have earned it. Furthermore, these four 0-loss programs from the Big 10 are 33% of the 0-loss FBS programs group. NO other conference can promote that, NOT EVEN the Southeastern Conference. The Southeastern Conference 0-loss programs are ranked respectively with LSU at #5 and Alabama at #10.

If you examine both of the conferences and FBS programs, Wisconsin DID NOT schedule a FCS program and does play a traditional non conference road game. This also includes Ohio State, but the Buckeyes play NO traditional non conference road games. With Penn State and Minnesota, both scheduled an FCS program but Minnesota scheduled a traditional non conference road game. Where as, Penn State played all three of their non conference games at home. Any home field advantage within your non conference schedule by playing more games than away games is a no risk, no reward ranking. Thus the Southeastern Conference DOES not deserve an advantage in ranking when they possess the no risk, no reward non conference scheduling. Since the transition from the BCS era of college football and into the inception of the CFP era, the BIG10 has SIGNIFICANTLY decreased their FCS scheduling. In addition to that scheduling change, the BIG10 has and will be taking strides to schedule more FBS opponents on the road in a traditional non conference settings.

When comparing the BIG 10 0-loss programs to the SEC 0-loss programs within the same criteria, both LSU and Alabama DID schedule an FCS program. However, at least LSU scheduled a traditional non conference road game versus an FBS program. Alabama on the other hand, has not scheduled a traditional non conference road game since 2012 at Penn State. This seems to go un-noticed by the CFP committee, ESPN, the sports media in print, television, radio and the World Wide Web. Furthermore, Alabama receives a favored ranking position every year and have not really earned the ranked position in which they are ranked by the coaches and media. Both ranking groups FAIL to see how the SEC and their football programs take SIGNIFICANT advantages within their no conference schedule.

The most interesting documented research and findings is that the SEC as a group have consistently and SIGNIFICANTLY increased their scheduling of FCS programs, but never receives any negative affect from that type of scheduling. In addition to increasing FCS scheduling within the SEC, the SEC SIGNIFICANTLY takes advantage of their non conference schedule scheduling more home games and only playing eight traditional non conference road games. This and of itself is a SIGNIFICANT scheduling advantage that supports and proved that the SEC fears scheduling traditional non conference road games versus highly competitive FBS programs, Group of Five Conference programs or Power Five Conference programs, in fear of losing its stranglehold of being called ” the so called “BEST” college football conference.” This is another aspect and finding that the main stream sports media, especially ESPN wont tell you. Since, ESPN paid for a $2.25 Billion dollar investment into the SEC, they need to protect that investment.

The comparison of remaining strength of schedules between all six of those FBS programs from the Big 10 and SEC will offer a different perspective then what the media will not tell you. The examination of the remaining schedules for these six FBS programs determined that Penn State possesses the highest and toughest strength of schedule remaining. Furthermore, the Big 10 possesses a stronger strength of schedule with the remaining scheduled games. The results in rank order are as follows; Penn State (26-11, .702), Wisconsin (24-13 .648), Ohio State (22-13 .628), Alabama (18-12 .600), LSU (22-15 .594) and Minnesota (19-14 .575). With the remaining schedules for these six, ALABAMA STILL a FCS game scheduled right before Auburn. The most important question that needs to be answers is; Why are Alabama and LSU #1 and #2 in the USA Today AMWAY Coaches Poll? Oh wait, ESPN and certain coaches have to rank in a way to make sure the rankings are manipulated and skewed in favor of the SEC. I guess we will see what happens as the last half mile of the college football FBS season unravels.

As we have reached the half mile pole of the college football FBS season, this is what we know. There are only 12; 0-loss FBS programs remaining. We will narrow it down to at least 2 0-loss FBS programs at the end of the regular season. There are 18; 1-loss programs and 28 2-loss programs. Of those 58 FBS programs, all 58 should be bowl eligible. There are still 3 FBS programs that have not earned a win as of yet. Which of these three; Akron, New Mexico State or Rice, will earn their first victory? I hope all three earn a victory.

Below are both types of 2019 FBS college football rankings. The first will be the weekly rankings of my Top 25 as I use categorical variables and other data to rank my FBS programs 1 through 25. Statistics and data does not lie. The second will be an offensive efficiency ranking, ranking the Top 25 FBS programs based upon 5 other data points in which I collect. In this posting, I will only post 3 categories. Each ranking grid will have an explanation format so that the reader can follow along with how I rank and how each categorical variable is used in assessment.

Below is the second weeks weekly rankings of the 2019 FBS college football season. There has been some movement and ranking changes within my rankings. This is due to the fact that we are entering the time of the season where FBS programs scheduled their bye weeks or off weeks. Yes these rankings will change as the middle of the FBS season plays out:

GRID: Ranked Team(Record)– indicates the rank of the FBS program and their current record; OPP OVRL– indicates the combined records of each specific ranked FBS programs scheduled win loss records and percentage rate of the whole 2019 schedule;  OPP NC OVRL– indicates the records of each specific ranked FBS programs scheduled non conference games versus FBS programs combined season total of win loss records and percentage rate for and within that FBS ranked programs non conference schedule for 2019, NC ONLY– indicates the records of each specific ranked FBS programs win loss record and percentage rate of those FBS teams they scheduled associated within their non conference schedule ONLY to assist in non conference credibility strength of schedule, and CONF– indicates the combined records of each specific ranked FBS programs conference schedule win loss records and percentage rate to assist in conference strength of schedule:

1 WISCONSIN (6-0)(44-30) .595(10-9) .526(5-7) .417(15-15) .500
2 SMU (6-0)(39-31) .557(10-13) .435(6-9) .400(8-9) .471
3 OHIO STATE (6-0)(41-32) .562(7-11) .389(4-7) .364(16-15) .516
4 BOISE STATE (6-0)(32-34) .465(8-10) .444(5-6) .445(8-11) .421
5 LSU (6-0) (38-27) .585(9-7) .563(4-5) .444(12-13) .480
6 OKLAHOMA (6-0)(35-29) .547(3-9) .333(2-5) .286(11-14) .440
7 CLEMSON (6-0)(34-32) .515(8-10) .444(5-4) .556(10-14) .417
8 MINNESOTA (6-0)(33-31) .516(4-6) .400(3-4) .429(12-17) .414
9 PENN STATE (6-0)(41-26) .612(6-6) .500(5-3) .526(16-14) .533
10 ALABAMA (6-0)(35-32) .522(8-8) .500(4-8) .333(11-13) .458
11 BAYLOR (6-0)(34-30) .531(2-10) .167(1-6) .143(11-14) .440
12 FLORIDA (6-1) (36-34) .600(6-6) .500(3-2) .600(12-12) .500
13 APPALACHIAN ST (5-0)(29-35) .453(8-10) .444(4-4) .500(7-9) .438
14 NOTRE DAME (43-28) .606(17-13) .567(10-6) .625(13-10) .565
15 CINCINNATI (5-1) (37-35) .514(12-12) .500(6-8 .429(5-12) .294
16 MICHIGAN (5-1) (46-27) .630(10-8) .552(7-7) .500(15-14) .517
17 LOUISIANA TECH (5-1) (27-39) .409(7-12) .368(4-7) .364(8-11) .421
18 TULANE (5-1) (40-25) 615(11-7) 611(7-4) .636(8-10) .444
19 MEMPHIS (5-1) (39-26) .600(7-11) .389(3-8) .273(11-6) .647
20 SAN DIEGO STATE (5-1) (27-39) .409(3-16) .158(2-11) .154(7-10) .412
21 UAB (5-1) (22-43) .338(3-15) .167(2-9) .182(9-7) .563
22 ORGEON (5-1) (41-26) .612(9-3) .750(6-1) .857(14-15) .483
23 WAKE FOREST(5-1) (37-28) .569(6-11) .353(2-7) .222(14-10) .583
24 GEORGIA (5-1) (37-30) .552(9-9) .500(7-5) .583(12-14) .462
25 ARIZONA STATE (5-1) (37-30) .552(7-6) .538(3-4) .429(13-14) .481

Others under consideration: Missouri (5-1), Auburn (5-1), Temple (5-1) and Utah (5-1).

Below is the second ranking grid which is based upon offensive efficiency and defensive efficiency of all FBS teams during the 2019 FBS college football season. I have performed this ranking for the past 5 FBS seasons and I only post the Top 25. This ranking is a subset of a group of categorical variables that assists in other aspects in ranking and assessing FBS teams ability to compare the validity against the Vegas spread and ESPN FPI Index.

GRID: Ranked Team(Record)– indicates the rank of the ranked FBS program and their current record;  OFF EFF– indicates the number of offensive possessions each ranked FBS program possesses compared to the number of times that each ranked FBS program scores; either by touchdown, field goal or safety; DEF 3– indicates the number of times each ranked FBS program defense held the opposition to not scoring in 3 successive possessions. Each 3 successive defensive stops of not being scored on equals 1 count; and GM CTR 3– indicates the number of times each ranked FBS program win was by a total of 3 possessions or more, which means by a total of 21 points or more:

1 ALABAMA (6-0)(74-48) .649125
2 OKLAHOMA (6-0)(73-47) .644114
3 LSU (6-0)(80-48) .600154
4 OHIO STATE (6-0)(81-46) .568186
5 WASHINGTON STATE (3-3) (73-41) .56272
6 GEORGIA (5-1)(75-40) .533164
7 AIR FORCE (4-2) (66-34) .515101
8 UTAH (5-1) (66-34) .515123
9 APPLACHIAN STATE (5-1) (61-31) .50871
10 NOTRE  DAME (5-1)(73-37) .507132
11 WISCONSIN (6-0)(77-39) .506195
12 WASHINGTON (5-2)(89-45) .506114
13 IOWA STATE (4-2) (75-37) .49382
14 COASTAL CAROLINA (3-3)(69-34) .49382
15 SMU (6-0) (90-44) .48993
16 MISSOURI (5-1) (82-40) .488182
17 TEXAS (4-2) (76-37) .487102
18 PENN STATE (6-0) (81-38) .481184
19 LOU-LAFAYETTE (4-2)(75-36) .48081
20 NAVY (4-1) (61-29) .47593
21 TCU (3-2) (72-34) .472103
22 CENTRAL FLORIDA (4-2) (88-41) .466153
23 MEMPHIS (5-1) (80-37) .463102
24 OKLAHOMA STATE (4-2)(87-40) .460111
25 TULANE (5-1) (78-35) .449133

The data and statistics do not lie. It does however provide a different perspective on how the reality of each FBS football team can be evaluated with an improved understanding. The subjective assessment in which coaches vote and rank are dependent on their credibility to rank efficiently without possessing a bias. Proving that no matter what your conference affiliation is, who your coaching friends are or what constituencies have financially backed you. Rankings are not meant to be miss leading but possess a true reality to how programs are performing against each other, at the same level of play and by the same rules.

Maybe Justin Hayward wrote it and said it best at the end of the song ” Nights In White Satin”; ” Cold Hearterd Orb That Rules The Night, Removes The Colors From Our Sight, Red Is Grey and Yellow White, But We Decide Which Is Right and Which Is An Illusion (Hayward, 1969). This best describes the college football rankings and the Southeastern Conference.

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. If you have any questions, comments or would like to discuss this further, reach out to me on twitter @cfbpoexpert or leave a comment in the comment section.


Hayward, Justin (1969). Nights In White Satin. From the Album ” Days Of Future Passed” . Available on Record, CD and Tape. Performed by The Moody Blues with the London Festival Orchestra. Produced in Decca Studios, West Hempsted UK. Printed on Darem Label.

University of Wisconsin Mascot Image. ” Bucky the Badger”. Retreived from the World Wide Web using Google on October 16, 2019. Used only for the sole purpose of the post.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.