Three Year Program
Analysis
Teams 26 to 39
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
26. TCU
Score:
54.17
2006 Ranking: 23 2005 Ranking: 25
2004 Ranking: 27
2003 Ranking:
34
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
3.09 |
8 |
6 |
26 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
7.08 |
54.17 |
Program Analysis:
It seems like TCU should be higher, but there was the clunker of a
2004 season bringing things down. When that doesn't count towards
next year's rankings, and this year's expected big season does, the
Horned Frogs should rocket up to around the top 10. The APR is
tremendous and the Draft Score will go up, as will the Conference
Winning % and Quality Wins. Most importantly, there should be well
over 30 D-I wins in next year's rankings.
27.
Virginia
Score:
54.01
2006 Ranking: 22 2005 Ranking: 18
2004 Ranking: 33
2003 Ranking:
33
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
6.01 |
8 |
14 |
20 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
5.00 |
54.01 |
Program Analysis:
Being smart helps. The good APR
overcomes winning just half of ACC games, but most impressive is the
Draft Score with the most players taken from the non-top 25 teams, and
11th overall. Unfortunately, the talent hasn't necessarily translated
into enough victories, even with a solid eight Quality Wins. It'll
take a big season to prevent a drop, with an 8-4 2004 season off the
books next year.
28. Nebraska
Score:
52.42
2006 Ranking: 28 2005 Ranking: 35
2004 Ranking: 16
2003 Ranking:
9
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
8.01 |
6 |
12 |
19 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
5.42 |
52.42 |
Program Analysis:
Nebraska might not be back to being Nebraska, but head coach Bill
Callahan appears to have the pieces in place for the best passing attack
in the school's history. While that's not saying much, it'll be a shock
if the Huskers aren't in the top 25 next year. The Attendance Score will
be stead forever, the Draft Score is great, but only winning 54% of Big
12 games isn't going to cut it around Lincoln.
29. UCLA
Score:
52.32
2006 Ranking: 35 2005 Ranking: 44
2004 Ranking: 42
2003 Ranking: 42
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
6.32 |
4 |
8 |
23 |
9 |
1 |
1 |
6.00 |
52.32 |
Program Analysis:
UCLA might still play second-fiddle to USC, but the program has done
well under Karl Dorrell and appears ready to make a huge leap. The APR,
for a school as good as UCLA, should probably be better, and there
should be more Quality Wins. Basically, the numbers across the board are
solid, and they all add up. The Elite win came over the Trojans last
year, and the Bad Loss came to Arizona in 2005.
30. Alabama
Score:
49.58
2006 Ranking: 32 2005 Ranking: 30
2004 Ranking: 24
2003 Ranking: 21
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
8.50 |
4 |
12 |
21 |
6 |
1 |
1.5 |
4.58 |
49.58 |
Program Analysis:
The 4-9 2003 season was off the books, and
Bama only moved up a few spots thanks to a Bad Loss at home to
Mississippi State last year. That needs to change under Nick Saban, and
at the very least, along with beating Auburn, the SEC performances have
to better after only winning 46% of conference games. The Draft Score
is good, but the APR is lousy. Of course, it's all about wins for Saban.
31.
Texas Tech
Score:
49.41
2006 Ranking: 29 2005 Ranking: 21
2004 Ranking: 40
2003 Ranking:
53
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
5.16 |
5 |
7 |
22 |
7 |
1.5 |
1 |
6.25 |
49.41 |
Program Analysis: A
consistently solid program over the last five years, Texas Tech took a
little bit of a dip, but not much. Winning 63% in the Big 12,
considering the Red Raiders play in the South, is impressive, as was the
Elite Win over California in 2004. Unfortunately, that won't count in
next year's rankings, while the Bad Loss to Colorado will stick for the
next two years. On an interesting note, for as good as the team has been
in recent years, there hasn't been a ten-win season since 1976.
32.
Texas A&M
Score:
48.59
2006 Ranking: 54 2005 Ranking: 41
2004 Ranking: 50
2003 Ranking: 29
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
7.67 |
4 |
5 |
19 |
9 |
1 |
0 |
5.42 |
48.59 |
Program Analysis:
After years of mediocrity in the rankings, the Aggies finally moved up
within range of the top 25 after losing the 4-8 2003 season and gaining
last year's nice 9-4 campaign. The Attendance Score is great, but the
Draft Score is stunningly average for a program of this size. As good as
things have looked lately, winning 54% of Big 12 games isn't what Aggie
fans had in mind when Dennis Franchione was hired.
33. BYU
Score:
47.80
2006 Ranking: 65 2005 Ranking: 72
2004 Ranking: 56
2003 Ranking:
45
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
5.91 |
5 |
5 |
21 |
6 |
1.5 |
1.5 |
7.39 |
47.80 |
Program Analysis:
Bronco Mendenhall has brought BYU back
after years of mediocrity after the fall out from the end of the Gary
Crowton era. The APR is strong, remembering that many players go off on
Church missions and take a while to graduate, and the 74% winning clip
in Mountain West play is terrific. The Elite win came at TCU last year,
while the Bad Loss came at home to UNLV in 2004. Expect a spot in the
top 25 next year.
34.
Navy
Score:
47.54
2006 Ranking: 51 2005 Ranking: 75
2004 Ranking: 101
2003 Ranking:
109
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
3.25 |
10 |
0 |
24 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
7.30 |
47.54 |
Program Analysis:
The Draft Score won't register anything and
there will rarely be an Elite Win, but Navy has been able to crank out
24 D-I wins over the last three years and, as always, has a perfect APR.
Head coach Paul Johnson has created something special, and it should all
continue with, arguably, the best offensive backfield the program has
had in decades.
35.
Maryland
Score:
47.50
2006 Ranking: 33 2005 Ranking: 19
2004 Ranking: 13
2003 Ranking:
18
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
5.42 |
7 |
7 |
18 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
4.58 |
47.50 |
Program Analysis: The
Terps achieved a lofty status under Ralph Friedgen for a few years,
dropped last year, and took a further dip this season despite a strong
9-4 season. Losing the 10-3 2003 campaign from the mix caused the drop,
but the talent is there for a big year and moving back up. First,
Maryland has to win more ACC games after coming up with just 46% in ACC
play over the last three years.
36.
South Carolina
Score:
46.36
2006 Ranking: 56 2005 Ranking: 58
2004 Ranking: 45
2003 Ranking:
37
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
7.86 |
3 |
7 |
20 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
5.00 |
46.36 |
Program Analysis:
Considering South Carolina is one of the SEC's best academic
institutions, the APR Score is surprisingly bad. The good Attendance
Score, and 20 wins, helped the Gamecocks move up, but the only way
they'll get higher is with more wins in SEC play. Now that Steve
Spurrier has his recruits in place, the sky's the limit.
37.
Arizona State
Score:
45.65
2006 Ranking: 48 2005 Ranking: 47
2004 Ranking: 67
2003 Ranking: 55
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
5.95 |
2 |
7 |
22 |
7 |
1 |
1 |
5.20 |
45.65 |
Program Analysis:
Interestingly enough, ASU is the highest, by far, that it's been in the
five years since these rankings have been created, yet it was the end of
the Dirk Koetter era with Dennis Erickson coming in. Winning 52% of Pac
10 games doesn't cut it, but the rest of the scores are just good enough
to be in range of the top 25. The Elite Win came over
Iowa in 2004, and won't be part of next year's rankings, but neither
will that year's Bad Loss to Arizona.
38. Oregon State
Score:
45.58
2006 Ranking: 56 2005 Ranking: 58
2004 Ranking: 45
2003 Ranking:
37
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
3.98 |
3 |
7 |
20 |
9 |
2 |
1.5 |
5.60 |
45.58 |
Program Analysis:
With a 10-4 2006, Oregon State got a boost up to its highest ranking
since 2003. While the schedule is tough this year, the team is among the
best in recent years and should help keep the ranking high. The Elite
Wins (USC and Hawaii last year) offset the Bad Loss to Arizona in 2005.
The APR Score is lousy, and the Attendance score isn't special, but the
Beavers should be in the top 30 next year, barring a disappointment.
39. Southern Miss
Score:
45.53
2006 Ranking: 30 2005 Ranking: 40
2004 Ranking: 46
2003 Ranking:
43
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
2.86 |
9 |
2 |
21 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
6.67 |
45.53 |
Program Analysis:
Continued greatness in Conference USA play, and a wonderful APR, keeps
Southern Miss high, but the overall ranking slipped after losing a 9-4
2003 season. Considering the success, the Draft Score is low, and there
aren't a lot of Quality Wins, but head coach Jeff Bower has a power that
should keep rolling this year.
