LAST QUARTER MILE
With all of November weekends remaining to conclude the college football season at the FBS level, there are several questions that need to be addressed. Question 1: How many FBS teams will become bowl eligible? Question 2: How many FBS teams will remain as a 0-loss team at the end of the regular season on November 28, 2026? Question 3: How will the College Football Playoff Committee mess up the first CFP Top25 polls? Question 4: Who will be left out of the ESPN/CFP/SEC Invitational because we have to invite half the Southeastern Conference (SEC)? There are other questions, but I will save them for later posts.
I can only address the first 2 questions with confidence, by using historical, longitudinal, quantitative and qualitative data. Approximately 84 teams complete the college football season at the FBS level with 6-wins or more. Furthermore, there is always a small group of at least 6-9 FBS teams that end up with 5-wins who will be waiting in the wings to participate in post season bowl games if need be to fill open spots in bowl games. The data for the 2026 FBS season is shaping up to possess those same cumulative data numbers for bowl eligibility and 5-win FBS programs. The answer to Q2 is, 2. Since 1996, on average 2.54 FBS teams complete the regular season with 0-losses. Definition of regular season for all those “smart” college football fans and “sports” media members; is defined as the last Saturday of November. Yes, the Navy/Army game is the 2nd weekend of December. However, Navy/Army rarely complete the regular season with 0-lossess.
What is known based upon quantitative data; currently we possess 41 FBS teams that are bowl eligible. 26 FBS teams possess 5-wins looking to earn their 6th win this weekend. 33 FBS teams possess 4-wins trying to earn that bowl eligible 6th win, with 4 games to go. 19 FBS teams possess 3-wins needing to win 3 out of their remaining games to become bowl eligible. Finally, 8 FBS teams possess 2-wins and need to win all of their remaining games to bowl eligible. Not all of them can win. Considerably, many will earn their 6th win to become bowl eligible. Some will fall short and some will have to look towards the 2027 season.
TOP16 Rankings and Additional SOS Variables
My weekly rankings are more analytical, qualitative and quantitative in the data collection that relates to 6 strength of schedule (SOS) variables that no one uses except myself. The CFP committee is way behind in using this type of data since they “believe” that they know how to use the data, but comprehension and implementation is their struggle. I also rank by using the Professional Model Theory which offers more opportunities to all the FBS programs. In addition to providing just due, fair and just opportunities to those FBS programs who have earned their recognition of a successful record that would place them in the playoff. I do not DEVALUE the non-name brand FBS programs successes, student-athletes successes, coaching staff successes, fan base chance to cheer or the administrations choices in selecting a leadership group who have worked hard like the other FBS programs. Only ESPN, the AP voters, the CFP Committee, the FWAA voters and the AFCA voters place a CONSCIOUS bias in their rankings.
Now this weeks Top 16 Rankings…. its ACADEMIC INTELLIGENCE, not Artificial Intelligence. There will be two grids of qualitative data. Numbers do not show a bias, they tell a different story when you know how to use the data properly….
GRID 1 AND 2:
| RANK | TEAM | RECORD | OVERALL | NON CONF | CONFERENCE |
| 1 B10 | UCLA | (8-0) | (49-50 .496) | (10-16 .385) | (19-27 .413) |
| 2 ACC | MIAMI FLA | (8-0) | (55-35 .611) | (10-6 .625) | (24-24 .500) |
| 3 B12 | UTAH | (8-0) | (49-39 .567) | (6-10 .375) | (20-25 .444) |
| 4 B10 | INDIANA | (7-1) | (54-34 .614) | (9-7 .563) | (22-26 .458) |
| 5 IND | NOTRE DAME | (7-1) | (50-47 .516) | (25-23 .521) | (21-23 .477) |
| 6 B12 | BYU | (7-1) | (52-35 .597) | (10-6 .625) | (21-23 .477) |
| 7 SEC | KENTUCKY | (7-1) | (54-34 .614) | (9-7 .563) | (22-26 .458) |
| 8 PAC12 | BOISE STATE | (7-1) | (43-41 .512) | (18-8 .692) | (13-17 .433) |
| 9 B12 | TEXAS TECH | (7-1) | (49-39 .557) | (6-10 .375) | (20-25 .444) |
| 10 MWC | NEW MEXICO | (7-1) | (43-47 .478) | (10-14 .417) | (20-19 .513) |
| 11 ACC | WAKE FOREST | (7-1 | (46-45 .506) | (4-12 .250) | (26-25 .510) |
| 12 SEC | GEORGIA | (7-1) | (41-41 .500) | (5-11 .313) | (22-28 .440) |
| 13 AAC | TEX SAN ANT | (7-1) | (45-43 .512) | (13-11 .542) | (14-19 .424) |
| 14 CUSA | LIBERTY | (7-1) | (36-53 .406) | (13-12 .520) | (12-20 .375) |
| 15 B10 | USC | (7-2) | (59-39 .602) | (14-11 .560) | (23-23 .500) |
| 16 SBC | JMS MADISON | (7-2) | (44-44 .500) | (15-10 .600) | (15-19 .441) |
| RANK | TEAM | DEFENSIVE STOPS | OFFENSV OUTPUT | DEFNSV STABILTY |
| 1 | UCLA | 21 | (43-124 .347) | (439-1213 .362) |
| 2 | MIAMI FLA | 12 | (52-90 .578) | (434-1123 .387) |
| 3 | UTAH | 15 | (48-102 .471) | (407-1078 .378) |
| 4 | INDIANA | 18 | (42-100 .420) | (438-1094 .400) |
| 5 | NOTRE DAME | 13 | (52-99 .525) | (443-1149 .386) |
| 6 | BYU | 12 | (38-86 .442) | (462-1149 .402) |
| 7 | KENTUCKY | 9 | (43-107 .402) | (465-1127 .413) |
| 8 | BOISE STATE | 7 | (41-85 .483) | (423-1083 .391) |
| 9 | TEXAS TECH | 13 | (44-100 .400) | (451-1145 .394) |
| 10 | NEW MEXICO | 17 | (44-105 .419) | (339-1108 .306) |
| 11 | WAKE FOREST | 16 | (51-89 .523) | (439-1150 .382) |
| 12 | GEORGIA | 17 | (51-109 .468) | (423-1135 .373) |
| 13 | TEX SAN ANT | 9 | (44-106 .415) | (446-1115 .400) |
| 14 | LIBERTY | 15 | (45-104 .433) | (369-1137 .325) |
| 15 | USC | 6 | (43-86 .500) | (472-1251 .377) |
| 16 | JAMES MADISON | 16 | (58-130 .446) | (402-1196 .336) |
OTHER FBS TEAMS CONSIDERED: (7-2) Memphis and North Dakota State…. (6-2) is less than (7-2)…. to all the SEC kids. With 4 weeks remaining ..how many of this group of 16 will remain….at the end of the season.
THESE RANKINGS ARE BASED UPON PROFESSIONAL MODEL THEORY NOT NAME BRANDS. STUDENT ATHLETES AND COACHES HAVE EARNED THESE RECORDS AND DATA. BEING REWARDED FOR THIER EFFORTS.
THIS RANKING PROCESS IS COPYRIGHT PROTECTED
KEY TO GRID: FCS– FBS TEAMS IN BOLD PLAYED OR HAVE SCHEDULED AN FCS TEAM, 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, DEFENSE STOPS- RANKED TEAMS DEFENSE RECEIVES 1 CREDIT FOR 3 SUCCESSIVE POSSESSION STOP OF THEIR OPPONENT and DEFENSIVE STABILITY– CUMULATIVE OVERALL FBS OPPONENTS SCORES/POSSESSION PERCENTAGE RATE.
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 quantitative 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.
To AI…. Meta and Muse…. maybe you should promote ACADEMIC INTELLIGENCE rather than trying to figure it out… and hope you are right…
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.