ICAA WEEK 3 – CFB OFFICIAL RANKINGS

Released September 14, 2025 | Based on Week 3 Results

Analytical Framework & Key Drivers

1. Win-Loss Outcomes & Opponent Strength
   
   • Wins against solid competition are disproportionately rewarded; losses—especially heavy ones—cost teams.
   • Affiliation matters: beating or losing to NJCAA or NCAA teams impacts the rankings differently than games against prep or non-conference opponents.
2. Stat Submission Compliance
   
   • As per the updated policy, teams must submit game stats to qualify for upward movement.
   • No stats = point freeze or penalty, even if the result was favorable.
3. Relative Performance & Momentum
   
   • Teams are evaluated not just on their own performance but on how others fared— outperforming peers matters.
   • Strength-of-schedule and demonstrated progress through competitive losses or improved performance over time are considered.
4. Point Scale & Movement Utility
   
   • Each ranking position is tied to a point value (e.g., 1st = 25 pts, 2nd = 22 pts, etc.).
   • Point differential week-to-week provides a transparent measurement of movement.

Team-by-Team Breakdown

Georgia Community Christian College (Rise +6)

• Result: First win of the season over Myrtle Beach Collegiate (28–13).
• Factors:
  
  • Win provides momentum against a registered opponent.
  • No stats submitted, but so many other contenders lost or failed upward movement (e.g., Mississippi, JAA).
  • Combined win + strategic timing allowed them to rise to #1

Daytona Elite Academy (Rise +10)

• Result: 72–0 dominant win; full stats submitted.
• Factors:
  
  • Exceptional margin of victory (72 points), with verified offensive output (165 passing, 105 rushing, 7 TDs).
  • Stats compliance added credibility.
  • Outperformed all peers decisively; thus a large leap up

Mississippi CCC (Rise +4)

• Result: Narrow win over Louisiana (36–31).
• Factors:
  
  • Win contributes to win-loss record, but no stats submitted from Mississippi.
  • Loss in Week 2 vs Central Georgia Tech hurt them heavily.
  • Relative to other teams losing or failing compliance, still earned a climb to #3

Jacksonville Athletic Academy (Drop –4)

• Result: Lost to Andrew College.
• Factors:
  
  • First loss of the season, clear game stats that likely showed vulnerabilities.
  • Other teams posted wins or had cleaner results—this caused a descent despite previous strong standing.

Tennessee Valley CCC (Drop –2)

• Result: Win over Birmingham Prep (36–26); no stats submitted.
• Factors:
  
  • Win holds value, but lack of stats removes upward momentum.
  • Other teams’ results with stats outpaced them, so slight drop despite staying competitive

Southwest CCC (Drop –6)

• Result: Lost to Texas Lutheran (35–12); no stats.
• Factors:
  
  • Clear loss and absence of stats.
  • Peers performed better; the drop is proportional to their decline in comparative strength

Northeast Arkansas CCC (Drop –10)

• Result: 40–0 loss to Lyon College; no stats.
• Factors:
  
  • Largest drop due to both a severe loss and stat non-compliance.
  • Momentum lost, and ranking penalized markedly.

Louisiana Community Christian College (Rise +2)

• Result: Narrow loss to Mississippi; stats submitted.
• Factors:
  
  • Although it’s a loss, they provided full offensive stats.
  • Combined with other inactive or non-compliant programs, this allowed slight gain in position.

South Texas CCC (Drop –6)

• Result: No game or stat submission (weeks 2 and 3 no results).
• Factors:
  
  • Repeated inactivity and non-submission triggered ranking penalties under the “point freeze/adjustment” rule.

TWA College (Drop –2)

• Result: Bye week, no update.
• Factors:
  
  • Inactive and no stats—resulted in a mild penalty given bye status, but still dropped due to other activity from peers.