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

CFN Three-Year Program Ranking - 40 to 59

CollegeFootballNews.com
Posted Aug 17, 2007


CFN's 2007 Three-Year Program Rankings and Analysis ... Teams 40 through 59

Three Year Program Analysis

Teams 40 to 59

Program Rankings
Scoring System  
1 to 10 | 11 to 25
26 to 39 | 60 to 79
80 to 99 | 100 to 119
By Category
APR | Attendance

Bad Losses
Best Leagues
By Conference
Conf. Win %
Draft
| Elite Wins
Quality Wins
| D-I Wins

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: 6
4

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: 6
3

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 0 0 5.00 39.07

Program Analysis: This seems surprisingly low, losing the 9-3 2003 season didn't help, but it goes to show how average Purdue has been. It's won half it's Big Ten games, has won 19 D-I games, only has two wins over teams that finished with winning records, and has no really big wins. The APR is awful for a Big Ten school.


55. Cincinnati

Score:
38.64
2006 Ranking:
79  2005 Ranking: 59
2004 Ranking:
63  2003 Ranking:
56

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
2.14 5 5 17 7 1 1 5.00 38.64

Program Analysis: Quality Wins, Quality Wins, Quality Wins. With seven of them, Cincinnati has been able to overcome a lousy Attendance Score and an average conference winning percentage. The Elite Win over Rutgers last year will stick around for the next two years, while the Bad Loss to Army will be out of the equation next season. Under new head coach Brian Kelly, the program should only get better.


56. Pitt

Score:
38.17
2006 Ranking:
39  2005 Ranking: 31
2004 Ranking:
41  2003 Ranking:
48

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
4.17 7 6 16 3 0 0 5.00 38.17

Program Analysis: Pitt has hardly made a dent in the Big East over the last few years, but it's won half its games and has avoided the Bad Losses. The Big East title year of 2004 gets wiped away next year, so 2007 needs to be big to avoid a further slide. With only three Quality Wins, Pitt hasn't beaten many good teams, and it hasn't gotten the fans to come out in a pro city. The APR Score is impressive.


57. Minnesota

Score:
37.13
2006 Ranking:
52  2005 Ranking: 55
2004 Ranking:
60  2003 Ranking:
65

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
4.96 4 6 18 4 0 1 4.17 37.13

Program Analysis: Had Texas Tech PK Alex Trlica missed his long late field goal attempt in the Insight Bowl, Glen Mason would likely still be the head coach. Instead, it's Tim Brewster in to try to take the program to another level. With more wins should come more fans at a place that should never have fewer than 50,000 in the stands. The 2004 Bad Loss to Indiana won't count next year.


58. Miami University

Score:
36.87
2006 Ranking:
20   2005 Ranking: 24
2004 Ranking:
28  2003 Ranking: 61

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.54 9 3 16 3 0 0 5.83 36.87

Program Analysis: It's a surprise the huge tumble wasn't worse. In the 20s over the last three years, MU lost the Ben Roethlisberger-led 13-1 2003 season from the rankings and replaced it with a 2-10 2006 collapse meaning the second biggest drop in the rankings (thank you, Ole Miss). Expect a bounceback season on the field, but the ranking won't get back up to its former lofty status. The wonderful APR Score helps offset the Attendance Score.


59. North Carolina

Score:
36.68
2006 Ranking:
66  2005 Ranking: 77
2004 Ranking:
69  2003 Ranking:
47

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
5.10 7 4 12 6 0 0 4.58 36.68

Program Analysis: Somehow, North Carolina went 3-9 with just two D-I wins and took a big leap up. It helps to lose the 2-10 2003 season from the formula, but it also helps to have a decent Attendance Score and a great APR. Oddly enough, the Tar Heels are tied with NC State for the fewest number of D-! wins (12) among the top 65. While this year should be rough, new head coach Butch Davis should quickly turn things around.