I've taken the time to calculate total OOC records for each conference, along with head to head results in OOC games between conferences. 131/157 total OOC games have been played by my count, so the majority of the OOC games for the season are included in this data. The rankings directly below only include FCS vs FCS games (and leaves out games against FBS teams and non D1 teams).

Rankings by W%

1. Missouri Valley 19-4
2. United Athletic 16-9
3. Ivy League 10-6
4. MEAC 13-8
5. Southland 6-4
6. Big Sky 10-7
7. CAA 14-11
8. Patriot League 9-8
9. SoCon 10-11
10. Independants 4-5
11. Ohio Valley 8-14
12. SWAC 4-8
13. Pioneer League 5-18
14. Northeast 2-17

Below I've listed each conference's head to head record against all other conferences they faced.

Big Sky

MVFC 1-3

NEC 1-0

PFL 5-2

SL 2-1

SoCon 1-0

UAC 0-1

FBS 2-12

Non D1 2-0

CAA

Ind. 1-1

Ivy 3-2

MEAC 2-7

NEC 3-0

OVC 1-0

Patriot 1-0

PFL 1-0

SoCon 2-1

FBS 2-12

Non D1 2-0

Ind.

CAA 3-3

Ivy 0-1

NEC 1-0

UAC 0-1

FBS 0-2

Non D1 0-0

Ivy

CAA 2-3

Ind. 1-0

NEC 1-0

Patriot 6-3

MEAC

CAA 7-2

NEC 1-1

OVC 0-1

Patriot 1-2

SoCon 1-1

SWAC 3-1

FBS 0-7

Non D1 6-0

MVFC

Big Sky 3-1

NEC 5-0

OVC 5-2

PFL 5-0

SoCon 1-0

UAC 0-1

FBS 1-9

Non D1 1-0

NEC

Big Sky 0-1

CAA 0-3

Ind. 0-1

Ivy 0-1

MEAC 1-1

MVFC 0-5

OVC 0-1

Patriot 0-1

PFL 1-1

UAC 0-2

FBS 0-14

Non D1 4-2

OVC

CAA 0-1

MEAC 1-0

MVFC 2-5

NEC 1-0

PFL 1-0

SoCon 1-1

SWAC 1-2

UAC 1-5

FBS 0-10

Non D1 2-0

Patriot

CAA 0-1

Ivy 3-6

MEAC 2-1

NEC 1-0

PFL 1-0

SoCon 2-0

FBS 0-9

PFL

Big Sky 2-5

CAA 0-1

MVFC 0-5

NEC 1-1

OVC 0-1

Patriot 0-1

SoCon 1-2

SWAC 0-1

UAC 1-1

Non D1 12-3

SL

Big Sky 1-2

SoCon 0-1

SWAC 2-0

UAC 3-1

FBS 1-9

Non D1 5-1

SoCon

Big Sky 0-1

CAA 1-2

MEAC 1-1

MVFC 0-1

OVC 1-1

Patriot 0-2

PFL 2-1

SL 1-0

UAC 4-2

FBS 1-6

Non D1 2-0

SWAC

MEAC 1-3

OVC 2-1

PFL 1-0

SL 0-2

UAC 0-2

FBS 0-9

Non D1 15-1

UAC

Big Sky 1-0

Ind. 1-0

MVFC 1-0

NEC 2-0

OVC 5-1

PFL 1-1

SL 1-3

SoCon 2-4

SWAC 2-0

FBS 1-7

Non D1 1-0

The BCS system for rankings combined in equal parts the media poll, coaches poll, and multiple compuer rankings, which provides a good consolidated ranking. For computer rankings this post uses an average of the r/FCS sportsbook computer ratings, Massey ratings, Sagarin ratings, and my Massey/Colley composite.

RANK	TEAM	CHANGE	MEDIA	COACHES	COMPUTER	POINTS
1	South Dakota State	+1	#1	#1	#1	75
2	Montana	+1	#2	#3	#5	68
3	Stephen F Austin	-	#7	#4	#3	64
4	Tarleton State	+2	#3	#2	#10	63
5	Montana State	-4	#6	#6	#4	62
6	North Dakota	-1	#4	#7	#7	60
7	Youngstown State	-	#8	#9	#2	59
7	Lehigh	+1	#5	#5	#9	59
9	Austin Peay	-1	#9	#8	#8	53
10	South Dakota	+2	#10	#12	#6	50
11	Illinois State	-1	#12	#13	#11	42
12	Lamar	+2	#11	#10	#16	41
13	Northern Arizona	+3	#13	#14	#13	38
14	Tennessee Tech	-4	#15	#16	#14	33
15	Harvard	+4	#18	#19	#12	29
16	Idaho State	-4	#16	#17	#17	28
17	UC Davis	-	#14	#11		27
18	Mercer	+3	#20	#18	#15	25
19	Campbell	+5	#17	#20	#19	22
20	Richmond	+3	#19	#15		18
21	Colgate	+1	#23	#23	#21	11
22	SC State	-7	#21	#21		10
23	Southern Illinois	-3	#25		#18	9
24	Jackson State	+1	#22	#22		8
25	ETSU	NR	#24		#22	6

#Bracketology

These rankings can be used to create bracketology- the projected playoff bracket based on the current landscape of the FCS.

The bracket is available in image form in the comments.

The BCS system for rankings combined in equal parts the media poll, coaches poll, and multiple compuer rankings, which provides a good consolidated ranking. For computer rankings this post uses a composite of the r/FCS sportsbook computer ratings, Massey ratings, and Sagarin ratings.

RANK	TEAM	CHANGE	MEDIA	COACHES	COMPUTER	POINTS
1	Montana State	-	#1	#1	#2	74
2	South Dakota State	-	#2	#2	#1	73
3	Montana	+6	#3	#4	#8	63
3	Stephen F Austin	+2	#7	#5	#3	63
5	North Dakota	+1	#5	#7	#4	62
6	Tarleton State	-2	#4	#3	#10	61
7	Youngstown State	+5	#8	#10	#6	54
8	Lehigh	-1	#6	#6	#13	53
8	Austin Peay	+2	#11	#9	#5	53
10	Tennessee Tech	+1	#9	#8	#11	50
10	Illinois State	-7	#10	#11	#7	50
12	Idaho State	+2	#12	#14	#12	40
12	South Dakota	-4	#13	#16	#9	40
14	Lamar	+3	#14	#13	#16	35
15	SC State	-	#15	#12	#20	31
16	Northern Arizona	+2	#19	#19	#17	23
17	UC Davis	-4	#16	#15	#25	22
17	West Florida	+3	#17	#18	#21	22
19	Harvard	-	#20	#22	#15	21
20	Southern Illinois	+1	#21	#25	#14	18
21	Mercer	NR	#23	#21	#18	16
22	Colgate	NR	#22	#20	#22	14
23	Richmond	+2	#24	#17		11
24	Campbell	NR	#18	#24		10
25	Jackson State	NR	#25	#23	#24	6

#Bracketology

These rankings can be used to create bracketology- the projected playoff bracket based on the current landscape of the FCS.

The bracket is available in image form in the comments.

[If you just want to look at the chart, it's down in the comments]

The "Blue Bloods Chart" is used in various college sports to determine who the sport's blue bloods are. What a blue blood is isn't officially defined, but it's usually teams who've been consistently among the best in a sport over a long period, while also having some championship level success. A blue bloods chart has a program's total weeks ranked in the top 25 on the X axis, and total weeks ranked in the top 5 on the Y axis.

The FBS version of this chart is found here. The FBS blue bloods are identified as Alabama, Michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas, and USC (though Nebraska has been seriously slipping the last 15 years).

I've created a spreadsheet which has every FCS media poll going back to the beginning of the subdivision in 1978, which has allowed me to find the data needed to create a similar chart. The catch is that because many FCS teams have either left the subdivision, or have joined the subdivision at some point over the years, not every program has the same number of seasons in the FCS. For that reason, merely charting total weeks ranked can misrepresent the quality of a program.

So the chart that I've created and posted in the comments instead uses a program's % of weeks in the 25 and % of weeks in the top 5. I think this rate based method is a better representation of who the best programs have been. Because it's a rate stat, it needs a minimum sample size, which I've set at 150 weeks of FCS competition (around 12 seasons). That means many newer programs are not present here.

To answer the question of who the FCS blue bloods are, it's a bit complicated. The fact is, North Dakota State has been so so dominant on a level matched by no one else that putting them in a category with the other blue bloods isn't really fair. They should really be called a purple blood, or something. But for the purposes of this post, we'll throw them in with the others. When you look at the chart, the other top programs seperate themselves from the rest of the subdivision, but while Nevada is in that blue blood area of the chart, I would argue that they are not a blue blood because they never won a championship. The other schools in that part of the chart all have at least two championships.

So with all that in mind, the FCS blue bloods based on the chart are App State, Georgia Southern, Marshall, Montana, North Dakota State, and South Dakota State.

Obviously this is not the objective answer (there isn't one) but it is a fun discussion to have.

To me, the most obvious schools not present are James Madison, who were pretty dominant for a period and won two championships, and Youngstown State, who won 4 championships in the 90s. You could certainly argue in favor of them being blue bloods as well. I'd argue against JMU because being a blue blood is usually defined by relatively sustained excellence, but JMU spent their first ~20-25 years in the FCS being a peripheral power at best. I'd argue against Youngstown State because their peak was relatively short, and they've been good but not great throughout most of their history.

Thanks for sticking with me and reading- this was a fun project that took a while. Once again, the chart(s) and data are posted in the comments.

The BCS system for rankings combined in equal parts the media poll, coaches poll, and computer rankings, which provides a good consolidated ranking. This post uses the r/FCS sportsbook computer rankings.

RANK	TEAM	MEDIA	COACHES	COMPUTER	POINTS
1	Montana State	#1	#1	#1	75
2	South Dakota State	#2	#2	#2	72
3	Illinois State	#3	#4	#3	68
4	Tarleton State	#4	#3	#12	59
5	Stephen F Austin	#9	#6	#5	58
6	North Dakota	#7	#8	#8	55
7	Lehigh	#6	#7	#11	54
8	South Dakota	#8	#12	#6	52
9	Montana	#5	#4	#17	52
10	Austin Peay	#13	#11	#4	50
11	Tennessee Tech	#12	#10	#7	49
12	Youngstown State	#11	#13	#10	44
13	UC Davis	#10	#9	#16	43
14	Idaho State	#14	#16	#9	39
15	SC State	#16	#14	#14	34
16	Yale	#17	#18	#15	28
17	Lamar	#15	#15		22
18	Northern Arizona	#18	#17	#22	21
19	Harvard	#21	#25	#13	19
20	West Florida	#20	#20	#25	13
21	Southern Illinois	#24		#18	10
22	Rhode Island		#21	#21	10
23	Villanova	#23	#22		7
24	Dartmouth			#19	7
25	Richmond		#19		7

Bracketology

These rankings can be used to create bracketology- in other words, the projected bracket based on the current landscape of the FCS. Now that every team has played at least one game, I think it's a good point in the season to start looking at what the playoffs could look like, given what we know now.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1 Montana State* vs. [#16 Lamar vs. Northern Arizona]

#8 South Dakota vs. [#9 Montana vs. Harvard]

#5 Stephen F Austin* vs. [#12 Youngstown State vs. Villanova]

#4 Tarleton State* vs. [#13 UC Davis vs. Rhode Island*]

#3 Illinois State vs. [#14 Idaho State vs. St. Thomas*]

#6 North Dakota vs. [#11 Tennessee Tech* vs. Southern Illinois]

#7 Lehigh* vs. [#10 Austin Peay vs. Gardner Webb*]

#2 South Dakota State* vs. [#15 Yale* vs. Central Connecticut State*]

Last Four In: Northern Arizona, Harvard, Southern Illinois, Villanova

First Teams Out: Dartmouth, Richmond, Mercer

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Multiple Bids By Conference

Missouri Valley: 6

Big Sky: 5

Ivy League: 2

Patriot League: 2

UAC: 2

Southland: 2

The bracket is available in image form in the comments.