Three Year Program
Analysis
Teams 40 to 59
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
40. Missouri
Score:
45.21
2006 Ranking: 47 2005 Ranking: 63
2004 Ranking: 72
2003 Ranking: 93
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
5.63 |
5 |
6 |
19 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
4.58 |
45.21 |
Program Analysis: The
steady climb up the rankings should continue as Gary Pinkel has his best
team yet. The Tigers need to get over the 50% mark in Big 12 play, and
there need to be more Quality Wins and more players drafted, but
overall, the score is solid. If the team is as good as expected, getting
into the low 20s next year is possible.
41. Fresno State
Score:
44.67
2006 Ranking: 34 2005 Ranking: 43
2004 Ranking: 32
2003 Ranking:
26
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
3.92 |
7 |
9 |
19 |
5 |
0 |
1 |
6.25 |
44.67 |
Program Analysis: The
Bulldogs slipped a bit after an awful 4-8 season, bottoming out by a
horrible, horrible loss to Utah State, but the program has been solid
over the last three years, especially in WAC play. The APR is great and
the Draft Score is surprising, but there have only been five Quality
Wins. Pat Hill hasn't been able to get the program over the hump, but he
has a good team coming into 2007.
42.
Rutgers
Score:
43.51
2006 Ranking: 77 2005 Ranking: 101
2004 Ranking: 107
2003 Ranking:
112
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
3.51 |
9 |
3 |
20 |
6 |
1 |
2.5 |
5.00 |
43.51 |
Program Analysis:
112th in the rankings just four years ago, now Rutgers is poised and
ready to shoot up and be among the elite. The APR score is terrific, the
Draft Score will go way up, and the Attendance, along with the wins,
will continue to improve. Things will only get better after the Bad Loss
to New Hampshire is out of the mix next year. Keeping Greg Schiano
around ensures Rutgers will be a player for a long time.
43.
Arkansas
Score:
42.86
2006 Ranking: 46 2005 Ranking: 26
2004 Ranking: 18
2003 Ranking:
27
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
6.86 |
7 |
5 |
17 |
3 |
1.5 |
0 |
5.00 |
42.86 |
Program Analysis:
Arkansas won the SEC West and cranked out a 10-4 season and went down?!
Nine of the wins were over D-I teams, the same amount as there were in
2003, which don't count in this year's rankings. Interestingly enough,
the Hogs only have three wins over teams that finished with winning
records, and all three came last year. There were four Quality Wins in
2003.
44. Oregon
Score:
42.83
2006 Ranking: 41 2005 Ranking: 53
2004 Ranking: 21
2003 Ranking: 15
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
5.83 |
2 |
9 |
20 |
6 |
0 |
1.5 |
6.00 |
42.83 |
Program Analysis: The
national perception of Oregon is probably better than the reality, at
least recently, after being 15th in 2003. Oh sure, the Ducks were
terrific in 2005 with a 10-2 season, and started off hot last year going
7-2, but a four-game losing streak to end the year hurts. The APR Score
is awful, but the Draft Score is solid. The Bad Loss came at home to
Indiana in the 2004 opener.
45. Hawaii
Score:
42.79
2006 Ranking: 68 2005 Ranking: 52
2004 Ranking: 37
2003 Ranking:
57
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
3.54 |
2 |
8 |
23 |
5 |
0 |
1 |
6.25 |
42.79 |
Program Analysis: The
scariest offense in college football should keep on roaring with most of
the key parts back this year, and the ranking should only go up and up
and up. The 2004 Bad Loss to Rice will go off the books next year, but
so will the 8-5 season. Getting eight wins won't be a problem this year,
and there should be an improvement in the Draft Score. The APR has to be
better.
46. Wake Forest
Score:
42.24
2006 Ranking: 71 2005 Ranking: 66
2004 Ranking: 58
2003 Ranking:
69
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
3.07 |
9 |
4 |
17 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
4.17 |
42.24 |
Program Analysis:
4-7, 4-7, and then boom ... 11-3 and ACC champions. With one of the most
unlikely championship runs in recent history, Wake Forest rocketed up
the rankings with the program's best season ever. As you'd expect, the
APR is excellent, but the Attendance Score is always going to be average
and the Conference Winning % is still going to be an issue unless 2008
is strong.
47. Northern Illinois
Score:
41.83
2006 Ranking: 45 2005 Ranking: 51
2004 Ranking: 54
2003 Ranking: 64
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
2.33 |
2 |
2 |
20 |
8 |
1 |
0 |
7.50 |
41.83 |
Program Analysis: The
10-2 2003 season didn't count towards this year's rankings, but NIU went
up despite an awful APR, two drafted players, and little in the way of
attendance. Winning 75% of MAC games, and 20 D-I wins overall with eight
Quality Wins makes up for the other mediocre scores. Can head coach Joe
Novak keep up the momentum? Probably not this year.
48. Colorado
Score:
40.90
2006 Ranking: 37 2005 Ranking: 38
2004 Ranking: 23
2003 Ranking:
22
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
4.81 |
7 |
6 |
17 |
6 |
0 |
1.5 |
4.58 |
40.90 |
Program Analysis: So
that's what a 2-10 season can do to a program. Forgetting that Colorado
played in two straight Big 12 title games, last year's disaster,
complete with an all-timer of a Bad Loss to Montana State to kick off
the Dan Hawkins era, meant a quick tumble down. The Draft Score should
probably be better, but that's nitpicking. It's all about wins, and now
Colorado needs a lot more of them to get back among the upper tiers.
49.
Northwestern
Score:
40.46
2006 Ranking: 44 2005 Ranking: 69
2004 Ranking: 75
2003 Ranking: 63
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
2.96 |
9 |
6 |
17 |
5 |
0 |
1.5 |
5.00 |
40.46 |
Program Analysis: Pat
Fitzgerald has been able to get through the impossible situation that
was last year, and now the Wildcats appear to be ready to be good enough
to fight for a bowl bid. The APR Score, as expected, is great, but the
real surprise is the 50% clip in Big Ten play. The home Bad Loss to New
Hampshire will stick around for the next two years.
50. Toledo
Score:
39.87
2006 Ranking: 36 2005 Ranking: 29
2004 Ranking: 35
2003 Ranking:
25
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
2.21 |
1 |
2 |
21 |
7 |
1 |
0 |
6.67 |
39.87 |
Program Analysis:
The ranking took a big of a tumble after
losing the 8-4 2003 season and replacing it with a 5-7 2006, but it's
still relatively strong thanks to 21 D-I wins, tied with Nevada for the
most outside of the top 45. Most stunning is the lowest of the low APR,
that along with the Draft and Attendance Scores, offset the seven
Quality Wins.
51. Tulsa
Score:
39.87
2006 Ranking: 62 2005 Ranking: 90
2004 Ranking: 104
2003 Ranking:
110
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
2.04 |
5 |
2 |
19 |
8 |
0 |
1 |
5.83 |
39.87 |
Program Analysis:
Talk about getting the hot coaches, Steve Kragthorpe made Tulsa a
Conference USA player, and now Todd Graham, after a stunning season at
Rice, should keep the momentum rolling. The ranking went way up this
year despite losing the 8-5 2003 season from the equation, but the Bad
Loss to SMU, along with a 4-8 season, won't count next year.
52.
NC State
Score:
39.86
2006 Ranking: 40 2005 Ranking: 37
2004 Ranking: 31
2003 Ranking: 35
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
5.52 |
6 |
12 |
12 |
7 |
1 |
1 |
3.33 |
39.86 |
Program Analysis:
Surprisingly, the ranking didn't take a big dip despite a horrible 3-9
season with only two wins over D-I teams and a Bad Loss to North
Carolina. Making the ranking even more puzzling was the loss of the 8-5
2003 season that finished with a Tangerine Bowl win over Kansas. New
head man Tom O'Brien should give the program a steady hand, but he has a
ton of pressure on his shoulders to simply live up to Boston College's
standards.
53.
UTEP
Score:
39.72
2006 Ranking: 80 2005 Ranking:
106
2004 Ranking: 115
2003 Ranking:
92
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
4.39 |
5 |
4 |
19 |
4 |
1 |
1.5 |
5.83 |
39.72 |
Program Analysis:
While UTEP has been a perennial Conference USA disappointment under head
coach Mike Price, it's done a decent job of cranking out wins and
managed to make a huge jump after losing the 2-11 2003 season from the
equation. Late season collapses aside, the Miners have managed to be
decent in Conference USA play, overcoming any great scores across the
board. The Bad Loss came in last year's season finale against Memphis,
and will stick for the next two years.
54.
Purdue
Score:
39.07
2006 Ranking: 43 2005 Ranking: 34
2004 Ranking: 38
2003 Ranking: 61
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
6.07 |
3 |
8 |
19 |
2 |
