Fiu, Cirminiello, Mitchell on TV - Campus Insiders | Buy College Football Tickets

CFN 2006 Program Analysis - No. 100-119

CollegeFootballNews.com
Posted Aug 27, 2006


Three Year Program Analysis Teams 100 to 119  

2006 Program Rankings | 1 to 10 | 11 to 25 | 26-39 | 40-59 | 60-79 |  80-99 
Conf. Team Rankings | Conf. Category Rankings | Attendance | Bad Losses
Conference Winning % | Total Wins | Draft | APR | Elite Wins |
Quality Wins   

Quick Explanation of Scores
- Attendance: Home attendance average over the last three years divided by 10,000. Avg. Score: 4.35
- APR: The most recently released Academic Performance Rate. Avg. Score: 5.45
- Quality Wins: Wins over D-I teams that finished with a winning record. Avg. Score: 5.45
- Total Wins: Wins over D-I teams. Avg. Score: 17.02
- Players Drafted: Number of players drafted divided by two. Avg. Score: 2.95
- Conference Win %: Conference winning percentage times 10. Avg. Score: 4.97
- Elite Wins: Wins over D-I teams that finished with two losses or fewer, or on the road over teams that finished with three losses or fewer. Add an additional 0.5 for an Elite Win over a two-loss team on the road. Avg. Score: 0.82
- Bad Losses: Losses to teams that finished with four wins or fewer, or any loss to a non-D-I team. Subtract each loss from the overall total. Subtract an additional 0.5 for each bad loss at home. Avg. Score: 1.2

1
00. Arizona
Score:
17.97
2005 Ranking:
91   2004 Ranking: 88   2003 Ranking: 68

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
4.88 2 3 6 2 1 1.5 2.08 17.97

Program Analysis: Mike Stoops has yet to set the world on fire as he needs a big season to stop the program's slide further into the abyss. Arizona hasn't had a winning season since 1998 when it went 12-1, and it needs to start winning more Pac 10 games to get out of the 100s. The APR score shouldn't be so low. the Bad Loss came at home last season to Washington a week after blowing out unbeaten UCLA 52-14.


101 Illinois
Score:
17.83
2005 Ranking:
84   2004 Ranking: 64   2003 Ranking:
52

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
4.91 4 9 4 1 0 1 0.42 17.83

Program Analysis: That sound you heard was Illinois crashing. Simply put, Ron Zook has to get more wins out of this team. After winning the Big Ten title in 2001, the Illini have won an appalling four D-I games over the last three seasons. Considering Memorial Stadium holds almost 70,000 people, the Attendance Score is embarrassingly low. The APR could stand to be better considering the school's solid academic standing.


102. UL Lafayette
Score:
17.77
2005 Ranking:
105  2004 Ranking: 100   2003 Ranking:
114

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.77 2 3 11 0 0 4 5.50 17.77

Program Analysis: The Ragin' Cajuns made a little bit of a rise after their first winning season since 1995, and now it should make a huge leap as it enters 2006 as one of the Sun Belt's best teams. Expect the conference winning percentage to go up next year, and for ULL to make its first move out of the 100s.


103. Indiana
Score:
17.68
2005 Ranking:
103  2004 Ranking: 93   2003 Ranking:
89

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
3.43 6 2 7 2 0 3 1.25 17.68

Program Analysis: Terry Hoeppner believes he can make Indiana football relevant, but it'll be next to impossible to bust off the two-year rut at No. 103 without more conference wins. More fans in the stands would help, but getting wins over any and all mediocre teams the Hoosiers play will be a must to get up into the 90s. The lack of wins go hand in hand with the mere two players drafted from 2003 to 2005.


104. Vanderbilt
Score:
17.18
2005 Ranking:
107  2004 Ranking: 106   2003 Ranking: 94

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
3.09 8 3 6 0 0 3.5 2.08 17.18

Program Analysis: The Commodores have won nine games over the last three seasons, but only six came against D-I teams. Last year's shocking 5-6 season helped a little bit, but it wasn't nearly enough to move the overall score up much. The Conference Score will always be awful unless something shocking happens to the rest of the SEC, but the APR will always be strong.


105. Army
Score:
17.09
2005 Ranking:
115  2004 Ranking: 109   2003 Ranking: 105

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
3.12 9 0 5 2 0 3.5 1.47 17.09

Program Analysis: Slowly, Bobby Ross has his Black Knights moving up. The 0-13 2003 season won't count next year meaning the Conference Score will instantly improve by leaps and bounds in 2007. There won't ever be a Draft Score, but the APR helps things out in a big way.


106. Western Michigan
Score:
17.04
2005 Ranking:
100  2004 Ranking: 80   2003 Ranking:
67

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.79 1 1 10 2 0 2 3.75 17.04

Program Analysis: Head coach Bill Cubit made an immediate impact on the Broncos with a 7-4 season following up a 1-10 2004. It'll be a bit tougher this year to improve without top receiver targets Greg Jennings and Tony Scheffler, but the program is definitely on the rise. The Attendance and APR scores have to improve or there will be a hard ceiling on how high WMU can go.


107. Ohio
Score:
16.16
2005 Ranking:
109  2004 Ranking: 110   2003 Ranking:
88

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.66 6 0 8 0 0 2 2.50 16.16

Program Analysis: Frank Solich's first season wasn't bad, but it wasn't an improvement on the 2004 campaign. After hovering well into the 100s over the last few years, things could change in a big hurry next season when the awful 2-10 2003 campaign, and the two Bad Losses to Iowa State and Buffalo, won't count. The Bobcats have to start winning more MAC games.


108. MTSU
Score:
15.84
2005 Ranking:
104  2004 Ranking: 92   2003 Ranking:
83

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.30 1 1 13 1 0 5.5 4.55 15.84

Program Analysis: The Blue Raiders haven't been truly awful over the last few years, but they weren't good enough to keep former head coach Andy McCollum on the job. Rick Stockstill has to get the program to start winning more Sun Belt games, and he has to show his players where the classrooms are after a horrible APR. Four points of the Bad Loss score came from 2003 and won't count next year.


109. East Carolina
Score:
15.14
2005 Ranking:
95  2004 Ranking: 78   2003 Ranking: 58

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
3.22 3 1 8 0 0 2.5 2.92 15.14

Program Analysis: Skip Holtz stopped the halt in his first year on the job, and now he needs a great season to make a huge jump next year when the 1-11 2003 season won't count. The APR could stand to be better, but the conference winning percentage will go nowhere but up. A few Quality Wins, especially in Conference USA play, would do wonders for the overall score.


110. Kent State
Score:
14.84
2005 Ranking:
94  2004 Ranking: 94   2003 Ranking: 107

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.00 4 0 8 1 0 2.5 3.33 14.84

Program Analysis: A horrendous 1-10 season without a win over a D-I team caused a major fall, and things will only get worse unless the team wins at least five games this year. The offense only scored 40 points over the final five games against teams like Buffalo and Western Michigan; that can't happen again or the conference win percentage will go into the tank.


111. Eastern Michigan
Score:
14.28
2005 Ranking:
111  2004 Ranking: 116   2003 Ranking: 117

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.03 2 2 10 2 0 5.5 3.75 14.28

Program Analysis: It hasn't exactly been a meteoric rise, but EMU will take a second straight 111th spot after finishing dead last in the Program Rankings in 2003. Two straight four win seasons have helped, but there need to be more MAC wins.  The APR might stink, but there weren't any Bad Losses last season.


112. UL Monroe
Score:
13.85
2005 Ranking:
116  2004 Ranking: 113   2003 Ranking: 113

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.35 4 1 11 1 1 10 5.00 13.85

Program Analysis: The Indians, now the Warhawks, should quickly up from the land of the dregs as long as 2006 isn't a total disaster. The 2003 1-11 season, which contributed a whopping seven points to the Bad Loss score, gets taken off the books meaning ULM has the potential to quickly rise up into the 90s with a second straight decent year.


113. Utah State
Score:
13.84
2005 Ranking:
102  2004 Ranking: 97   2003 Ranking: 95

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.51 3 2 9 0 0 4 3.33 13.84

Program Analysis: If nothing else, the Aggies have been consistent with three wins in each of the last three seasons. Now there must be more WAC wins, especially over the lousy teams like last year's 2-9 Idaho squad. On the plus side, 2003 Bad Losses to New Mexico State and Idaho go away next year.


114. Idaho
Score:
12.64
2005 Ranking:
114  2004 Ranking: 114   2003 Ranking:
106

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.46 6 1 8 0 0 6.5 3.18 12.64

Program Analysis: Dennis Erickson can't do much worse than his predecessors. The Vandals' biggest issue was with Bad Losses thanks to defeats at UNLV, Washington and San Jose State last year killing the team's overall score. On the plus side, an awful 2-9 2003 season, with 2.5 of the Bad Loss score coming in losses to Eastern Washington and Montana, getting wiped away.


115. New Mexico State
Score:
11.25
2005 Ranking:
87  2004 Ranking: 86   2003 Ranking: 80

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.56 2 1 7 2 1.5 6.5 3.18 11.25

Program Analysis: An 0-12 season is going to drop you like a rock. A decent 5-6 season in 2004 saved the Aggies from falling further, but Hal Mumme had better come up with some victories in a big hurry or things will get uglier. The biggest problem were the Bad Losses with four points of the score coming last year with home losses to Utah State and Idaho stinging the most.


116. Florida International
Score:
7.83
2005 Ranking:
NA  2004 Ranking: NA   2003 Ranking:
NA

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.55 5 0 3 0 0 6 3.53 7.08

Program Analysis: FIU only gets two years of stats on the board, but was helped immensely by its solid early performances in Sun Belt play and a not-that-bad APR score. The Bad Losses, primarily defeats to D-IAA teams McNeese State, Georgia Southern and Western Kentucky in 2004, kept the program from getting out of the bottom five.


117. San Jose State
Score:
6.22
2005 Ranking:
110  2004 Ranking: 98   2003 Ranking: 90

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.14 1 2 5 0 0 4 2.08 6.22

Program Analysis: Dick Tomey appears to have things looking a bit better in his second year after closing out the 2003 season with two wins. Getting people to show up at Spartan Stadium will be an issue until the team puts more wins on the board. The APR Score shows how far the program has to go in the classroom, as well.


118. Temple
Score:
4.55
2005 Ranking:
113  2004 Ranking: 96   2003 Ranking:
102

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.78 1 3 2 0 0 2.5 0.77 4.55

Program Analysis: Saved by the Draft Score after sending Rian Wallace to the NFL in 2005 and Dan Klecko and Dave Yovanovits in 2003, Temple narrowly avoided the basement. The abysmal APR didn't do anything to help the pitiful win total beating Syracuse in 2004 and MTSU in 2003 (along with D-IAAs Florida A&M). It might take a major effort to avoid the 119th spot next year. 


119. Buffalo
Score:
4.18
2005 Ranking:
117 (out of 117)  2004 Ranking: 117   2003 Ranking: 116

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.02 1 0 4 0 0 3.5 1.67 4.18

Program Analysis: For the third straight year, Buffalo is at the bottom of the list. Four wins in three seasons makes it hard to move out of the cellar, but it's not just on the field that UB has a problem with the horrible APR score. New head coach Turner Gill has to get his players into the classroom, but the score will only go up with a few wins.