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

CFN Three-Year Program Ranking - 60 to 79

CollegeFootballNews.com
Posted Jul 29, 2007


CFN's 2007 Three-Year Program Rankings and Analysis ... Teams 60 through 79

Three Year Program Analysis

Teams 60 to 79

Program Rankings
Scoring System  
1 to 10 | 11 to 25
26 to 39 | 40 to 59
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 


60. Central Michigan

Score:
36.50
2006 Ranking:
93   2005 Ranking: 108
2004 Ranking:
108  2003 Ranking:
102

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.75 3 5 19 6 0 2 6.25 36.50

Program Analysis: With a 35 spot jump, Central Michigan is the highest riser in the rankings. After years among the dregs, the Chippewas rocketed up with a 10-4 MAC title season and after losing the 3-9 2004 campaign. If the team is as good as expected, even with new head man Butch Jones taking over, the rise should be even higher. Both Bad Losses came in 2004, and the Conference Winning % should be even more impressive.


61. New Mexico

Score:
36.13
2006 Ranking:
55   2005 Ranking: 57
2004 Ranking:
68   2003 Ranking:
70

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
3.48 3 5 18 5 0 1.5 5.65 36.13

Program Analysis: Rocky Long has put together an extremely solid program with four bowl appearances in the last five years, but the ranking dropped after losing the 8-5 2003 season and with a horrible 17-6 home loss to Portland State last year dragging things down. The APR Score is lousy, but there were some good Quality Wins and a decent showing in Mountain West play.


62. Akron

Score:
35.76
2006 Ranking:
69   2005 Ranking: 78
2004 Ranking:
87   2003 Ranking:
87

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.43 6 3 18 3 0 0 5.83 35.76

Program Analysis: Akron cranked out three straight winning seasons before falling short with a 5-7 2006 campaign, but this is still one of the MAC's most solid programs. J.D. Brookhart is a top coach who's only a year removed from winning the MAC title. The Attendance and Draft Scores will always be an issue, and the APR isn't anything fantastic, so it's all about coming up with conference wins, and lots of them.


63. Connecticut

Score:
34.94
2006 Ranking:
59   2005 Ranking: 64
2004 Ranking:
90   2003 Ranking: 101

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
3.94 9 3 14 2 0 0 4.50 34.94

Program Analysis: The slight drop this year after losing the 9-3 2003 season is going to be a mega-plunge next year unless Randy Edsall can pull off a winning season. Everyone's going to class, which helps overcome the mere 14 D-I wins and just two victories over winning teams in three years. The 8-4 2004 season won't count next year, so UConn could be around the low 70s if Edsall can't turn things around.


64. Nevada

Score:
34.89
2006 Ranking:
67   2005 Ranking: 81
2004 Ranking:
79   2003 Ranking:
99

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.64 3 2 21 4 0 2 6.25 34.89

Program Analysis: Always solid under head coach Chris Ault, Nevada has been the forgotten team in a WAC with higher-profile programs like Boise State and Hawaii. 21 D-I wins is the most of any team in the bottom 67, .and is tied with Toledo for the most in the bottom 74. Unfortunately, low APR and Draft Scores don't help, and the Attendance Score is always going to put a cap on how high the program can get. Both Bad Losses came in 2004 and won't count next year.


65. Syracuse

Score:
34.52
2006 Ranking:
63   2005 Ranking: 60
2004 Ranking:
51   2003 Ranking:
41

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
3.82 9 7 11 4 1 0 2.50 34.82

Program Analysis: Syracuse is a program at a crossroads. Greg Robinson hasn't produced a winner as the once great team has only been able to come up with five D-I wins in his first two years, bottoming out with a 1-10 2005 in his first season. Winning 25% in the Big East for a program like this is embarrassing. The APR Score is a savior, but unless Robinson comes up with more wins, the attendance won't be there and neither will he.


66. Oklahoma State

Score:
34.75
2006 Ranking:
61   2005 Ranking: 46
2004 Ranking:
61  2003 Ranking: 7
8

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
4.42 4 6 16 4 0 0 3.33 34.75

Program Analysis: The drop was going to happen after losing the 9-4 Cotton Bowl season under Les Miles, but the future couldn't be brighter. Mike Gundy has put together a tremendous array of athletes that'll up the Draft Score and will certainly make the Conference Winning % look far better over the next few years. There's a ceiling on how high the program can go, considering it plays in the brutal Big 12 South and with an average Attendance Score.


67. Michigan State

Score:
34.74
2006 Ranking:
50   2005 Ranking: 54
2004 Ranking:
47   2003 Ranking: 49

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
7.32 3 10 14 3 1 1.5 2.92 34.74

Program Analysis: Considering the Attendance Score will always be great, and the Draft Score is always solid, Michigan State has a nice base to work from. Unfortunately, the wins just haven't been there, especially in Big Ten play cranking out just a 29% league winning percentage. Mark Dantonio will try to quickly shape things up after the John L. Smith debacle, but it'll take a little while.


68. Iowa State

Score:
34.73
2006 Ranking:
75   2005 Ranking: 71
2004 Ranking:
73   2003 Ranking: 51

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
4.48 6 3 15 5 0 1 3.75 34.73

Program Analysis: Somehow, Iowa State has been able move up despite a horrible 4-8 season with only three D-I wins, and a Bad Loss at Colorado that'll hang around for two more years. How? The 2-10 2003 season is out of the mix. New head coach Gene Chizik isn't likely to come up with miracles right away, and that'll be a problem considering the 7-5 Independence Bowl winning season of 2004 won't count here next year.


69. Washington State

Score:
34.52
2006 Ranking:
49   2005 Ranking: 23
2004 Ranking:
15   2003 Ranking:
39

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
3.32 6 6 14 5 0 0 3.20 34.52

Program Analysis: Washington State has been the epitome of Pac 10 mediocrity over the last three years, and the mega-drop in the rankings reflects it. The Attendance Score is always going to be an issue, and it's ranking below several mid-majors. Winning a mere 32% of Pac 10 games is the killer, along with the mere 14 D-I wins fir a team that can't seem to catch a break. The Cougars have lost seven games over the last two years by seven points or fewer.


70. South Florida

Score:
34.20
2006 Ranking:
74   2005 Ranking: 65
2004 Ranking:
59   2003 Ranking: 79

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
3.20 4 1 16 6 1 1.5 5.00 33.20

Program Analysis: This seems stunningly low, and this will probably be the last time the program is here for a while after losing a 4-7 2004 season with a bad home loss to Army off next year's rankings. The Attendance Score is hardly befitting a team that's competing with the best in the Big East, and the Draft Score seems too low. Wins, wins and more wins will make USF as strong in these rankings as it'll be on the field over the next few years.


71. Stanford

Score:
33.84
2006 Ranking:
64   2005 Ranking: 74
2004 Ranking:
52   2003 Ranking:
54

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
4.04 10 13 10 2 0 1.5 2.80 33.84

Program Analysis: Being smart helps. The perfect APR Score overcame the mere ten D-I wins and a 28% clip in Pac 10 play. The 1-11 nightmare of last year will keep the ranking down for the next few years, but the Draft Score should stay surprisingly high, as should the APR. The stunning 2005 Bad Loss to Cal-Davis will hang around for two more years.


72. Memphis

Score:
33.37
2006 Ranking:
38   2005 Ranking: 68
2004 Ranking:
71   2003 Ranking: 86

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
3.79 8 3 14 4 0 2.5 4.58 33.37

Program Analysis: One of the rankings' biggest crashers, Memphis lost its 9-3 2003 season from the equation and replaced it with a 2-10 2006 campaign that saw only one win over a D-I team and with a Bad Loss to UAB. The APR Score is terrific and the rest of the scores aren't all that bad. Now there has to be more Conference USA wins.


73. Houston

Score:
33.27
2006 Ranking:
84   2005 Ranking: 82
2004 Ranking:
89   2003 Ranking: 103

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.94 3 2 17 6 0 1.5 5.83 33.27

Program Analysis: Go 10-4 and win the Conference USA title; move up 20 spots. The Attendance Score is stunningly awful, and the .2004 Bad Loss to Rice kept the Cougars out of the 50s, but this is still a nice jump for a program that was trying to find its way for so long. Kevin Kolb is a Philadelphia Eagle, and there are other holes to be filled, but considering the 3-8 2004 season won't count towards next year's rankings, expect a further rise.


74. Kansas

Score:
33.13
2006 Ranking:
78   2005 Ranking: 88
2004 Ranking:
95   2003 Ranking:
98

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
4.30 2 1 15 8 0 0 3.33 33.13

Program Analysis: While the Mark Mangino era has hardly been impressive, the program has gotten better and better. Despite winning just 33% of its Big 12 games, and horribly APR and Draft Scores, eight Quality Wins helped the ranking move up. Things should only be better next year when the 4-7 2004 season is taken out of the equation.


75. Kansas State
Score:
32.54
2006 Ranking:
57   2005 Ranking: 32
2004 Ranking:
22   2003 Ranking: 11

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
4.70 4 5 14 4 0 0 3.33 32.54

Program Analysis: Considering the program was 11th just four years ago, this goes to show just how quickly things can change. Even with a bounceback year in Ron Prince's first season as head coach, KSU still plummeted after losing the 11-4 2003 season from the rankings. Ever since the shocking win over Oklahoma, the Wildcats have stunk in Big 12 play, winning just 33% of their games and with just 14 D-I wins overall.


76. Troy

Score:
31.22
2006 Ranking:
82   2005 Ranking: 96
2004 Ranking:
99   2003 Ranking: 104

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
2.05 4 1 17 3 0 2 6.67 31.22

Program Analysis: The highest of the Sun Belt teams, Troy's 2006 championship season helped boost the program to its best spot yet. The 7-5 2004 season goes away next year, but so does one of the Bad Losses. The Draft Score should probably go up, but the Trojans will only rise with more wins. If this team is as good as expected this year, that won't be a problem.


77. Bowling Green

Score:
30.97
2006 Ranking:
53   2005 Ranking: 50
2004 Ranking:
48   2003 Ranking: 72

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
1.64 4 2 18 3 0 2.5 5.83 30.97

Program Analysis: The fantastic 11-3 2003 season is out of the mix now, and that means a huge drop after a 4-8 2006. Things could get much worse with a 9-3 2004 season not counting next year. Making matters worse, the Bad Losses (at Temple and Miami University) both came last year, meaning 2.5 points will come off over the next two years. That's a difference of at least 15 spots.  


78. Colorado State

Score:
30.11
2006 Ranking:
60   2005 Ranking: 56
2004 Ranking:
53   2003 Ranking:
28

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
2.69 7 3 12 4 0 1 3.91 30.11

Program Analysis: From 28th four years ago down 50 spots, Colorado State continues its freefall despite a strong APR Score and three drafted players. A Bad Loss to San Diego State in the 2006 season finale will linger, but the 4-7 2004 season will be wiped away going into next year. Winning more in Mountain West play would do wonders, and this year's team should be the best in several years under head coach Sonny Lubick.


79. Ole Miss

Score:
30.05
2006 Ranking:
42   2005 Ranking: 45
2004 Ranking:
44   2003 Ranking: 43

Attendance Score APR Score Draft Wins Quality Wins Elite Wins Bad Losses Conf. TOTAL
5.55 9 6 9 2 0 1 2.50 30.05

Program Analysis: You knew this was coming. After three straight lousy years, and a rebuilding job being done be Ed Orgeron, Ole Miss was due for a tumble. The loss of the 10-3 Eli Manning-led 2003 season meant a massive drop in the rankings. Most of the scores are decent, including the APR, Attendance and Draft, but the wins and conference winning percentages bring everything down.