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

CFN 2006 Program Analysis – No. 80-99

CollegeFootballNews.com
Posted Aug 27, 2006


Three Year Program Analysis Teams 80 to 99  

2006 Program Rankings | 1 to 10 | 11 to 25 | 26-39 | 40-59 | 60-79 |  100-119
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

80. UTEP

Score:
30.64
2005 Ranking:
106   2004 Ranking: 115   2003 Ranking:
92

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
3.64 5 2 15 4 1 4 5.00 30.64

Program Analysis: Near the basement a few years ago, UTEP rockets up the rankings finishing just outside of the 70s after a second straight 8-4 season. Things will get even better in the 2007 rankings with Mike Price's club expected to be in for a big season and with the 2-11 2003, along with all four points of the current Bad Loss score, getting knocked out of the formula. How much better have things gotten under Price? The Miners' attendance went up from an average of 20,009 fans per game in 2003 to 47,899 last year.    


81. North Texas
Score:
28.45
2005 Ranking:
62  2004 Ranking: 65   2003 Ranking:
85

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.68 3 1 18 0 0 2 7.27 28.45

Program Analysis: It's amazing what a 2-9 season does to a Program Ranking. North Texas loses the 8-5 2002 season and has to come up with a big 2006 with the 9-4 2003 campaign getting wiped out of the mix next year. The Attendance and Draft Scores will always be an issue, so it's all about wins, wins and more wins. 


82. Troy
Score:
28.27
2005 Ranking:
96  2004 Ranking: 99   2003 Ranking:
104

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
2.06 4 3 14 2 0 1 5.71 28.27

Program Analysis: Troy moved up several spots despite a lousy 4-7 season with only three wins over D-I teams. Last year's wins came over Cal Poly, North Texas, FIU and Florida Atlantic. That's not exactly building on the Silicon Valley Bowl appearance season of 2004. Sneaking out of the 80s is possible if the Trojans challenge for the Sun Belt title in 2006. 


83. Washington
Score:
27.28
2005 Ranking:
61  2004 Ranking: 26   2003 Ranking:
14

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
6.70 6 6 9 3 0 2.5 2.08 27.28

Program Analysis: With just three wins over the last two seasons, life hasn't been fun for Dawg fans. Has the program finally bottomed out? Maybe not. Ranked 14th just three years ago, things could get far worse in 2007 when the 6-6 season of 2003 doesn't count. The Attendance Score helps and the APR isn't all that bad, but the program needs more NFL caliber layers to up the ranking both in wins and Draft Score.


84. Houston
Score:
26.52
2005 Ranking:
82  2004 Ranking: 89   2003 Ranking:
103

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.93 3 3 15 2 0 1.5 4.58 26.52

Program Analysis: Even with two bowl appearances in the last three seasons, Houston can't break out of the mediocre 80s. Close losses were the problem last season with three coming by five points or fewer. The APR and Attendance Scores are an issue putting a cap on how high the program can go, but more wins, especially in Conference USA play, would make up for the other issues.


85. Ball State
Score:
25.85
2005 Ranking:
86  2004 Ranking: 81   2003 Ranking:
76

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.40 7 3 9 4 0 1 3.75 25.65

Program Analysis: This is stunningly high for a team with nine wins over D-I teams in three years, but the Quality Wins, highlighted by back-to-back victories over Northern Illinois and Akron last year. turned out to be a huge help. The APR is nice and high, but there will be a tumble overall next year if there aren't more MAC wins.


86. Wyoming
Score:
25.44
2005 Ranking:
89  2004 Ranking: 112   2003 Ranking:
115

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.76 6 1 13 1 0 0 3.18 25.44

Program Analysis: The Cowboys didn't build on the strong 2004 season with a 4-7 thud, but things are still far better than they were a few years ago. While the team's fans might be rabid, there aren't enough of them with the attendance starting to get better averaging close to 5,000 more per game than in 2003. More wins over Quality teams would be nice.


87. San Diego State
Score:
24.75
2005 Ranking:
85  2004 Ranking: 85   2003 Ranking:
91

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
3.16 1 5 12 2 0 0 4.09 24.75

Program Analysis: Mediocre over the last few season, the Aztecs need a few more wins to start making a big move. New head coach Chuck Long has to get the program to make more noise in Mountain West play, and he has to get his players in the classroom after earning the lowest possible APR score.


88. Arkansas State
Score:
24.71
2005 Ranking:
97  2004 Ranking: 111   2003 Ranking:
111

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.71 6 1 11 2 0 2 5.50 24.71

Program Analysis: Winning the 2005 Sun Belt title led to the huge jump up this year even after losing a strong 6-7 2002 season. The Attendance and Draft scores won't ever be through the roof, but the wins, especially in conference play, will always help. Avoiding the Bad Losses is vital.


89. Baylor
Score:
23.98
2005 Ranking:
93  2004 Ranking: 96   2003 Ranking:
100

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
3.31 7 2 8 3 0 0 1.67 23.98

Program Analysis: The program is creeping to respectability under Guy Morriss coming off its best season since 1995. Years of lousy play in the Big 12 keeps the overall score down, but more wins should be on the way over the next few years, at least in non-conference play. A big key has been avoiding the Bad Losses going 4-0 against the truly lousy.    


90. Rice
Score:
23.88
2005 Ranking:
93  2004 Ranking: 96   2003 Ranking: 10
0

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.55 9 2 9 1 0 1 3.33 23.88

Program Analysis: Amazingly, Rice went up in the Rankings after a 1-10 season. Don't expect the trend to continue with five of those wins coming in 2002. As you'd expect from a great academic institution like Rice, the APR is high, but that won't be enough to offset the lack of wins and lousy attendance.


91. Kentucky
Score:
20.99
2005 Ranking:
80  2004 Ranking: 83   2003 Ranking: 77

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
6.33 7 4 7 0 0 3 1.67 20.99

Program Analysis: The Wildcats dropped like a rock with the 7-5 2002 season not counting anymore. Rich Brooks' team has to come up with more SEC wins with only four in conference play over the last three years. Two were against Vanderbilt and two were against Mississippi State ... whoopee. The Attendance and APR scores are relatively good.


92. Florida Atlantic
Score:
20.94
2005 Ranking:
NA  2004 Ranking: NA   2003 Ranking: NA

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.15 4 0 7 3 0 0 5.79 20.94

Program Analysis: The Owls have a fantastic debut in the Program Rankings thanks to several factors. First, there are only two years counting here. Second, the terrific, shocking 9-3 2004 season with wins over teams like Hawaii, Troy and North Texas did wonders. Finally, there weren't any Bad Losses. FAU went 5-0 against DI-AA teams. The Conference Winning Percentage score takes into account the 2004 season counting every game since FAU wasn't officially in the Sun Belt.


93. Central Michigan
Score:
20.24
2005 Ranking:
108  2004 Ranking: 108   2003 Ranking:
102

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.49 3 2 10 3 0 2 3.75 20.24

Program Analysis: The future looks bright coming off the program's first winning season since 1998. The wins will have to keep coming to offset the low Attendance and APR scores. More MAC wins will certainly help, but more wins over decent teams would do wonders to finally get out of the bottom 20.


94. Duke
Score:
19.75
2005 Ranking:
98  2004 Ranking: 105   2003 Ranking:
108

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
2.00 10 1 4 2 0 0 1.25 19.75

Program Analysis: Thank you APR score. Four D-I wins in three years and the predictably bad conference score were saved by the school's great academic performance. Unfortunately, if 2006 is as tough a year as it's predicted to be, the Blue Devils will take a huge tumble with three of those four wins coming in 2003.


95. UCF
Score:
19.39
2005 Ranking:
99  2004 Ranking: 84   2003 Ranking:
75

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
2.29 3 5 10 2 0 4 3.60 19.39

Program Analysis: This is a relatively impressive ranking considering the 0-11 2004 season and the 7-5 2002 season didn't count towards the rankings. The rebound season of last year certainly helped, and now there has to be even more wins in Conference USA play and more people in the stands. .


96. UNLV
Score:
19.07
2005 Ranking:
83   2004 Ranking: 77   2003 Ranking: 71

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
2.25 3 3 10 3 0 2.5 1.82 19.07

Program Analysis: The nose-diving program should start to pull up under Mike Sanford. The awful conference winning percentages is the biggest problem as the Rebels have to start doing more in Mountain West play to get out of the 90s. 2006 had better be strong with the 6-6 2003 season not counting in next year's rankings.


97. Tulane
Score:
18.51
2005 Ranking:
76  2004 Ranking: 82   2003 Ranking:
82

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
2.09 5 3 9 2 1 5 2.92 18.51

Program Analysis: The Green Wave took a huge tumble after replacing the 8-5 2002 season with last year's 2-9 campaign. Obviously all the outside circumstances made it next to impossible to even play in 2005 closing out with eight straight losses. For a school as good as Tulane, the APR is surprisingly low. Predictably, the attendance score took a dip after playing all the games on the road, but the designated home games still counted here.


98. Mississippi State
Score:
18.30
2005 Ranking:
92   2004 Ranking: 91   2003 Ranking:
60

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
4.64 4 5 7 2 0 3.5 1.67 18.30

Program Analysis: Sylvester Croom hasn't exactly taken the SEC by storm, but he still needs time to turn things around. The woeful conference winning percentage over the last three years hurts, and it might not get appreciably better right away with the SEC looking as strong as ever. It's simple for MSU; win and move up.


99. SMU
Score:
18.21
2005 Ranking:
112  2004 Ranking: 103   2003 Ranking:
97

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.79 7 1 8 2 1 5 2.92 18.21

Program Analysis: The Mustangs are slowly moving back up and should rocket higher next year when the 0-12 2003 season goes away in next year's rankings. A three-game winning streak to close out last season did wonders for the win total and conference winning percentage, but there needs to be more Conference USA victories this year. The high APR offsets the low attendance score.