Set Up of Comprehension, Evidence and Examples
The human subjective ranking systems for college football at the FBS level of play are broken, bifurcated, in addition to possessing CONSCIOUS BIAS towards the Southeastern Conference (SEC) members. The primary purpose and credibility of the human ranking polls are based upon the credibility, comprehension and trustworthiness of the individuals who are participating in the subjective ranking systems. There are 4 human subjective ranking systems; those being the Associated Press (AP), The American Football Coaches Association (AFCA); formerly known as the USA Today Coaches Poll, The Football Writers Association of America (FWAA) and the College Football Playoff Committee (CFP); are all using their cognitive abilities and experiences to properly rank without BIAS, their respective Top25 or Top16 FBS rankings. During the 2026 college football season each of these human polls, except the CFP starts rankings immediately with pre-season and weekly rankings. There are claims not from me specifically, but the college football fans that notice the positive ranking CONSCIOUS BIAS towards the SEC. SEC teams are losing and not playing well, but the human voters are not ranking the SEC programs and their members in a decreased ranked position after a loss. Published research suggest and indicates that since 1996 though the 2013 FBS seasons, that any loss by an FBS team to another FBS team, no matter where the game was played; receives a negative decreased ranking of 7.8 decreased ranked positions from the previous week. The SEC are receiving significantly less of a decreased ranking position after a loss. The SEC are either receiving a negative decreased rank of 0 to 4 decreased ranked positions after a loss. Placing them in a strategic ranked position with increased perception of being “better” when they really are not.
The problem is that the human voters are more apt to rank based upon biases due to the fact that they want to only see name brand programs from name brand conference be successful. The best example I use is the New York Yankees from Major League Baseball (MLB) makes the most money for MLB. If the NY Yankees were to earn a record of (7-2) to start the season, but the Tampa Bay Devil Rays were to earn a (9-0) record to start the season and both are in the same division. Under the PMT, Tampa Bay should be in first place and the NY Yankees would be minimum 2nd place, barring any of the other AL East teams were not (8-1). However, under the AP, AFCA, FWAA and CFP subjective process, they would rank the Yankees first because of their brand name and money making abilities for MLB. Explain to me where that makes sense in any sports win-loss business model. Only in the minds of the subjective ranking individuals and ESPN.
Alabama lost to Georgia 20-17 this past weekend, at home. Alabama was then ranked in the next weekly polls with NO negative decreased ranked position within the AP poll, the AFCA poll and the FWAA poll. This supports a CONSCIOUS ranking BIAS, when other FBS programs from other FBS conference receive the common negative decreased rankings within these polls. This is all ESPN driven and CONSCIOUS BIAS to those who rank FBS teams week to week with these polls. All due to the fact the human subjective voters are wanting to protect the name brand programs for the ranking “credibility” for future match ups. Furthermore, this is one of the reasons why we need subjective ranking criterion and or a PMT ranking process.
WEEK 3 PROFESSIONAL MODEL TOP16 RANKINGS
Ranking based upon the PMT theory derives from the establishment of strength of schedule variables, in addition to using several negative variables that effects subjective rankings. These are variables that the human subjective ranking groups do not either understand, aware of, or comprehend. I select my college football Top16 rankings based upon the PMT and examining the negative variables.
Listed below is my WEEK 3 RANKINGS. Sorry SEC, only 4 of you made it not all of you. There are other FBS programs, from other FBS conferences with independents; that compete for the National Championship too. Furthermore, these FBS programs also travel outside of their region to play other FBS programs in traditional non-conference away games.
| RANK | TEAM | RECORD | FCS | OVERALL | CONF. | NON CNF | OFFENSE | DEFENSE |
| 1 | N DAME | (6-0) | NO | 35-29 .547 | 10-13 .435 | 19-13 .594 | 42-79 .532 | 11 |
| 2 | INDIANA | (6-0) | YES | 40-25 .625 | 13-12 .520 | 6-6 .500 | 32-57 .561 | 12 |
| 3 | GEORGIA | (6-0) | YES | 36-26 .581 | 12-17 .414 | 4-7 .364 | 42-82 .512 | 13 |
| 4 | J MADSN | (6-0) | YES | 30-32 .484 | 5-8 .385 | 10-8 .554 | 43-84 .512 | 11 |
| 5 | USC | (6-1) | NO | 43-25 .536 | 11-13 .458 | 11-7 .611 | 36-64 .563 | 6 |
| 6 | UCLA | (5-0) | NO | 37-32 .536 | 10-15 .400 | 7-10 .412 | 31-85 .365 | 13 |
| 7 | BYU | (5-0) | YES | 39-20 .661 | 10-11 .476 | 8-3 .727 | 24-50 .480 | 9 |
| 8 | MIAMI FL | (5-0) | YES | 40-22 .645 | 12-14 .462 | 9-3 .750 | 32-53 .604 | 10 |
| 9 | TX TECH | (5-0) | YES | 37-22 .627 | 9-12 .429 | 5-6 .455 | 23-58 .397 | 9 |
| 10 | UTAH | (5-0) | YES | 35-26 .574 | 9-14 .391 | 4-8 .333 | 33-64 .516 | 11 |
| 11 | OHIO ST | (5-1) | NO | 44-25 .658 | 12-13 .480 | 7-10 .412 | 40-75 .533 | 13 |
| 12 | ALABAM | (5-1) | YES | 42-21 .667 | 15-16 .484 | 6-5 .545 | 42-82 .512 | 8 |
| 13 | MISSOUR | (5-1) | YES | 40-21 .667 | 16-13 .552 | 5-5 .500 | 37-87 .425 | 13 |
| 14 | KENTUC | (5-1) | YES | 42-23 .646 | 13-17 .433 | 7-5 .583 | 34-83 .410 | 7 |
| 15 | HOUSTON | (5-1) | YES | 39-20 .661 | 9-11 .450 | 6-6 .500 | 39-72 .542 | 8 |
| 16 | PITTSBRG | (5-1) | YES | 33-28 .541 | 11-14 .440 | 6-6 .500 | 34-81 .420 | 16 |
KEY TO GRID: FCS– INDICATES THEY HAVE OR WILL PLAY A FCS OPPONENT, OVERALL– CUMULATIVE WIN-LOSS RECORDS OF EACH FBS TEAM ON THE RANKED TEAMS SCHEDULE, CONF– CUMUALTIVE WIN-LOSS CONFERENCE RECORDS OF EACH FBS TEAM ON THE RANKED TEAMS SCHEDULE, NON CONF– CUMULATIVE OVERALL WIN LOSS RECORDS OF EACH FBS NON CONFERENCE OPPONENT ON THE RANKED TEAMS SCHEDULE, OFFENSE- NUMBER OF TIMES SCORED VERSUS TOTAL POSSESSIONS FOR EACH RANKED FBS TEAM, and DEFENSE- RANKED TEAMS DEFENSE RECEIVES 1 CREDIT FOR 3 SUCCESSIVE POSSESSION STOP OF THEIR OPPONENT.
Conclusion….
To all those who think I am not ranking right because you believe I possess a bias against the SEC. Well, I do not rank based upon bias. I rank based upon what the data returns per each FBS program. NO MATTER the conference or program name. I believe that all FBS teams have the fair, just and equal opportunity to compete for the national championship. I have faith and belief that my rankings are more accurate than the human subjective rankings.
If you read my post, then decide to recite or share what I posted, always use MLA/APA citations. Giving credit to the author and their hard work
Follow me on X/Twitter: @cfbpoexpert on BLUESKY: cfbpoexpert.bsky.social
Please leave a comment if you wish.
All Information is protected by © Copyrights and Intellectual Property Rights.