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

CFN Three-Year Program Ranking - 11 to 25

CollegeFootballNews.com
Posted Aug 18, 2007


CFN's 2007 Three-Year Program Rankings and Analysis ... Teams 11 through 25

Three Year Program Analysis

Teams 11 to 25

Quick Explanation of Scores
- Attendance: Home attendance average over the last three years divided by 10,000. Avg. Score: 4.32
- APR: The most recently released Academic Performance Rate. Avg. Score: 5.66
- Quality Wins: Wins over D-I teams that finished with a winning record. Avg. Score: 5.56
- Total Wins: Wins over D-I teams. Avg. Score: 17.13
- Players Drafted: Number of players drafted divided by two. Avg. Score: 5.85
- Conference Win %: Conference winning percentage times 10. Avg. Score: 5.00
- 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: 0.80
- 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: 1.22
-
Detailed Explanation of the Scoring System and Categories


11. Louisville

Score:
75.24
2006 Ranking:
18   2005 Ranking: 27
2004 Ranking:
43   2003 Ranking:
32

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
4.10 8 14 32 12 3.5 0 8.64 75.24

Program Analysis: Louisville is officially a superpower. Getting great players has not only helped the Draft Score, but it's led the way to 32 wins and an 86% clip in conference play (including the final season in Conference USA in 2004). The APR is solid, and it needs to be considering the average Attendance Score. The Elite wins came against West Virginia and Wake Forest last year, and over Boise State in the 2004 Liberty Bowl.


12. Florida State

Score:
70.04
2006 Ranking:
10   2005 Ranking: 8
2004 Ranking:
9    2003 Ranking:
2

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
8.20 9 22 23 12 2 1 5.83 70.04

Program Analysis: For supposedly being a program in decline, being just outside of the top ten isn't bad. However, FSU has won just 58% of its ACC games, an unacceptable number considering the history of the program under Bobby Bowden. The APR is terrific and the Draft Score is phenomenal, but the wins just haven't been there compared to the top schools. The Bad Loss last year at NC State will stick around for two more years.


13. Wisconsin

Score:
67.21
2006 Ranking:
15   2005 Ranking: 16
2004 Ranking:
39   2003 Ranking:
20

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
8.21 4 13 30 10 1 0 7.50 67.21

Program Analysis: With 30 wins in three years, a slew of drafted players, and an Elite Win over Auburn, Wisconsin has achieved its highest ranking yet. The down side is a lousy APR, considering this is one of the nation's best schools and with the way the athletic department has made such a big deal about recruiting "student athletes." A ten-win season would likely mean a spot in the top ten next year.


14. Boise State

Score:
68.12
2006 Ranking:
16   2005 Ranking: 13
2004 Ranking:
19   2003 Ranking:
30

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
3.04 7 5 31 13 1 0 9.58 68.12

Program Analysis: The 31 D-I wins are tied for fourth in the nation over the last three years. Winning 96% of the WAC games is a big boost, and now the Draft Score is starting to move up a bit. The Attendance Score will always be an issue, but the APR makes up for that. It could be tough to stay this high in the rankings next year when the 11-1 2004 season is off the books. Take a wild guess what the Elite Win was.


15. Miami

Score:
66.71
2006 Ranking:
5   2005 Ranking: 5
2004 Ranking:
1   2003 Ranking: 1

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
4.88 8 19 24 12 2.5 0 5.83 66.71

Program Analysis: The former number one program in the game for two years in a row, and in the top five for the last four years, there had to be a tumble after a mediocre 7-6 season and losing an 11-2 2003 campaign from the formula. The APR Score is surprisingly great, and the Draft Score is always going to be terrific, but the attendance, for an elite program, is always going to stink, and for Miami, winning 58% of conference games is unacceptable.


16. Tennessee

Score:
65.92
2006 Ranking:
13   2005 Ranking: 11
2004 Ranking:
5     2003 Ranking: 5

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
10.67 6 14 24 10 2 0 6.25 65.92

Program Analysis: As cranky as Tennessee fans might be over not being in the national title hunt in recent years, being this isn't a bad ranking. The Attendance Score is always going to give the team a nice base, and as always, there's plenty of NFL talent, but now the wins have to start coming. Winning 63% of SEC games isn't good enough for a team that wants to be among the elite.


17. Notre Dame

Score:
63.84
2006 Ranking:
19   2005 Ranking: 14
2004 Ranking:
14   2003 Ranking: 12

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
8.08 7 12 25 9 2 0 6.76 63.84

Program Analysis: Winning 19 games in the first two years under Charlie Weis, with two BCS appearances, has put Notre Dame among the elite, and the trend should only go up if the Irish can go better than 6-6, as it did in 2004, this year. Looking back on the Ty Willingham era, he turned out to be a better recruiter than he got credit for. Only 16 teams had more players drafted over the last three years.


18. Penn State

Score:
62.85
2006 Ranking:
27   2005 Ranking: 48
2004 Ranking:
34   2003 Ranking:
40

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
10.52 8 11 23 9 1 0 5.83 62.85

Program Analysis: Penn State is finally starting to get to the level its fans expect it to be. The monster Attendance, APR and Draft scores show what a model program this is, and now the wins are coming more and more with the 3-9 2003 season off the books. JoePa's team moved into the top 20 this year, and should flirt with the top ten next season when the 4-7 2004 season is wiped away from the formula.


19. Boston College

Score:
62.91
2006 Ranking:
21   2005 Ranking: 28
2004 Ranking:
55   2003 Ranking: 19

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
4.05 10 5 26 14 1 1 6.36 62.91

Program Analysis: With 26 wins, 14 Quality Wins, and a perfect APR Score, you could argue that Boston College is one of college football's model programs. The Draft Score seems sort of low, but that should change over the next few years with several players off this year's strong team certain to play at the next level. Tom O'Brien set a high standard, but don't be surprised if Jeff Jagodzinski keeps it rolling. The Bad Loss came last year against NC State.


20. California

Score:
61.49
2006 Ranking:
25   2005 Ranking: 20
2004 Ranking:
62   2003 Ranking: 74

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
6.29 7 12 26 9 0 0 7.20 61.49

Program Analysis: Slowly but surely, Cal is creeping up the rankings as Jeff Tedford's program gets better and better. Getting the talent into Berkeley has had a lot to do with it, as the Draft Score would suggest, and being among college football's premier academic institutions helps with the APR. Five of the team's nine losses over the last three years have come to Elite teams (two losses or fewer), while there was only one loss against a non-Quality team (Oregon State in 2005).


21. Iowa

Score:
58.89
2006 Ranking:
11   2005 Ranking: 7
2004 Ranking:
12  2003 Ranking:
36

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
7.05 8 10 21 10 2 0 5.83 58.89

Program Analysis: The ranking has dropped over the last three years, and it's only going to fall further next year when the 10-2 2004 season is out of the mix. The APR and Draft Scores are nice, but the Hawkeyes have only won 58% of their Big Ten games. The ten Quality Wins are impressive, and the Attendance Score is always going to be decent, but there need to be more wins to stay in the top 25.


22. Clemson

Score:
57.90
2006 Ranking:
24   2005 Ranking: 36
2004 Ranking:
25   2003 Ranking:
46

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
7.98 7 11 22 9 2 1 5.42 57.90

Program Analysis: Clemson can't quite get over the hump and be among the best of the best. A late collapse last year, losing four of the final five, was a big problem, but everything is in place to get into the top 20 next year. The Draft Score is good and the Attendance will always be solid the APR is strong, but surprisingly, the Tigers have only won 54% of ACC games. The Bad Loss came to Duke in 2004, and won't count next year, while the Elite Wins came against Wake Forest last year and at Miami in 2004.


23. Utah

Score:
57.75
2006 Ranking:
17   2005 Ranking: 22
2004 Ranking:
49   2003 Ranking: 66

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
4.30 8 9 26 7 1 0 6.96 57.75

Program Analysis: The periphery scores like the APR and Draft helped the Utes stay in the top 25. The Conference Winning % should probably be a bit higher, but the Attendance Score isn't going to budge and there aren't going to be many Elite Win chances. Unfortunately, the overall ranking will probably sink like a stone after losing the 12-0 2004 season in next year's formula.


24. West Virginia

Score:
57.72
2006 Ranking:
26   2005 Ranking: 33
2004 Ranking:
57   2003 Ranking: 59

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
5.72 4 4 27 9 2 0 8.00 57.72

Program Analysis: Doesn't it seem like the Mountaineers should be higher? With two straight 11-win seasons, you'd think they'd be in the top ten. The Draft Score is stunningly low, and there are only nine Quality Wins. The Elite Wins came against Rutgers last year and against Georgia in the 2006 Sugar Bowl. If 2007 is as good as expected, expect a spot in the top 15 next year.


25. Georgia Tech

Score:
55.13
2006 Ranking:
31   2005 Ranking: 49
2004 Ranking:
36   2003 Ranking: 23

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
4.97 7 5 21 10 3 0 6.67 55.13

Program Analysis: The Yellow Jackets have always been solid, and not they're among the best, creeping into the top 25 for the first time since 2003. The APR is good, the ten Quality Wins are great, and there are three Elite Wins to boost the overall stock. The Attendance Score will put a ceiling on how high the program can get without getting more wins and more drafted players. Both should come this year.

 

Related Stories
TYM: PSU Preseason Prep
 -by FightOnState.com  Aug 1, 2007
CFN Five-Year Program Ranking & Analysis
 -by CollegeFootballNews.com  Aug 23, 2011
Navy football: Ranking the 12 opponents
 -by GoMids.com  Jul 31, 2007