3 Weeks To Go….
With 3 weeks of the regular season college football left at the FBS level, many major match ups left. Who will survive? Multiple changes in the polls with many great match up left. This will cause many programs looking outside in when it comes to the playoff bids. Furthermore, the college football fan bases outside of the Southeastern Conference (SEC), along with the non supporters of ESPN and the CFP committee. Indicating that there is a CONSCIOUS bias for the SEC programs placed within the CFP TOP 25 of the “college football playoff rankings”. Proof that of the 25 Ranking spots, 10 are held by SEC programs. That’s 40% of the ranking positions from the SEC, which lacks the ability to play traditional away games versus the other Power Four Conferences’ and their members. This does not include that 10 of the 16 SEC programs or 63.5% are representing the SEC. The cumulative quantitative data does not support the rankings. This is just ESPN trying to promote and protect their financial vested interest of $5.5 BILLION dollars since 2014. There is published proof that historically proves from 1996, that the SEC possesses an 87% HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE within their non conference schedule. Furthermore, many of the TOP SEC programs possess a HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE of greater than 90% within their non conference schedule.
The Data of 2026 Win-Loss and Bowl Eligibility
As of this posting, there are 53 of the 138 FBS programs, or 38.4% are Bowl Eligible, able to compete in post season play. Of those 53 FBS programs, 2 remain at 0-losses with 3 games versus tough competition. published research proves and supports that since 1996, on average there are 2.54 FBS teams end the regular season at 0-losses. How will UCLA and UTAH end the 2026 season? I guess performing research and knowing your data, not relying on (artificial intelligence to find that answer) is the work of academics. There are 29 FBS programs needing 1 more Win to earn Bowl Eligibility. Followed by 24 FBS programs, needing 2 more Wins within their last 3 games to become Bowl Eligible. With 3 weeks remaining, this might be a stretch; 18 FBS teams need 3 Wins to become Bowl Eligible. Its not impossible but a challenge nonetheless. Since the CFP era from 2014, there are on average 83 FBS teams who earn Bowl Eligibility.
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:
| RANK | TEAM | RECORD | OVERALL | NON CONFERE | CONFERENCE |
| 1 PAC 12 | UCLA | (9-0) | (54-54 .500) | (10-17 .370) | (24-30 .444) |
| 2 BIG 12 | UTAH | (9-0) | (52-47 .525) | (7-11 .389) | (22-32 .407) |
| 3 IND/ACC | NOTRE DAME | (8-1) | (55-53 .509) | (29-25 .537) | (23-27 .460) |
| 4 ACC | MIAMI FL | (8-1) | (62-37 .626) | (12-6 .667) | (27-26 .509) |
| 5 BIG 10 | INDIANA | (8-1) | (54-45 .546) | (10-8 .552) | (23-31 .426) |
| 6 BIG 12 | TEXAS TECH | (8-1) | (54-46 .546) | (6-12 .333) | (25-29 .463) |
| 7 MWC | BOISE STATE | (8-1) | (46-44 .511) | (19-8 .704) | (15-20 .429) |
| 8 MWC | NEW MEXICO | (8-1) | (49-51 .490) | (12-15 .444) | (23-22 .511) |
| 9 ACC | WAKE FOREST | (8-1) | (49-49 .500) | (4-13 .235) | (29-28 .509) |
| 10 SEC | GEORGIA | (8-1) | (52-47 .525) | (5-13 .278) | (27-32 .458) |
| 11 CUSA | LIBERTY | (8-1) | (49-60 .400) | (14-14 .500) | (15-25 .375) |
| 12 SBC | JMS MADISON | (8-2) | (49-51 .490) | (16-11 .593) | (18-24 .429) |
| 13 BIG 10 | USC | (7-2) | (66-43 .606) | (16-12 .571) | (28-26 .519) |
| 14 SEC | TEXAS | (7-2) | (64-44 .530) | (18-9 .667) | (24-33 .421) |
| 15 BIG 12 | HOUSTON | (7-2) | (61-38 .616) | (10-8 .556) | (27-27 .500) |
| 16 BIG 12 | BYU | (7-2) | (59-40 .596) | (11-7 .611) | (27-27 .500) |
GRID 2:
| RANK | TEAM | HOME/AWAY | DEF SUCCESS | OFF EFFICIENT | DEFNSV STBLT |
| 1 | UCLA | (6-0)/(3-0) | 22 | (49-138 .355) | (479-1329 .362) |
| 2 | UTAH | (6-0)/(3-0) | 17 | (52-119 .437) | (458-1209 .379) |
| 3 | NOTRE DAME | (5-0)/(3-1) | 14 | (57-113 .504) | (501-1290 .388) |
| 4 | MIAMI FL | (4-0)/(4-1) | 12 | (56-102 .509) | (486-1239 .392) |
| 5 | INDIANA | (5-0)/(3-0) | 18 | (42-100 .420) | (480-1213 .396) |
| 6 | TEXAS TECH | (6-0)/(2-1) | 15 | (53-116 .457) | (505-1283 .394) |
| 7 | BOISE STATE | (4-0)/(4-1) | 8 | (50-97 .516) | (449-1157 .381) |
| 8 | NEW MEXICO | (4-0)/(4-1) | 20 | (49-119 .412) | (379-1228 .309) |
| 9 | WAKE FOREST | (4-1)/(4-0) | 21 | (62-105 .591) | (483-1246 .388) |
| 10 | GEORGIA | (5-1)/(3-0) | 19 | (57-122 .467) | (469-1269 .397) |
| 11 | LIBERTY | (4-0)/(4-1) | 17 | (51-117 .436) | (436-1288 .335) |
| 12 | JMS MADISON | (4-1)/(4-1) | 18 | (68-142 .479) | (444-1338 .332) |
| 13 | USC | (5-1)/(2-1) | 6 | (43-86 .500) | (523-1328 .378) |
| 14 | TEXAS | (5-1)/(2-1) | 17 | (48-120 .400) | (548-1328 .397) |
| 15 | HOUSTON | (5-0)/(2-2) | 10 | (52-105 .495) | (545-1316 .414) |
| 16 | BYU | (5-0)/(2-2) | 14 | (42-100 .420) | (517-1290 .401) |
ALSO CONSIDERED (7-2):ALABAMA, KENTUCKY, DUKE, SMU, TENNESSEE, ARIZONA, IOWA, NORTH TEXAS, MEMPHIS, LOUISIANA TECH, AIR FORCE, NORTH DAKOTA STATE, JACKSONVILLE STATE, TOLEDO AND OHIO.
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.