Three Year Program
Analysis
Teams 80 to 99
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
80. Arkansas State
Score:
29.93
2006 Ranking: 88 2005 Ranking: 97
2004 Ranking: 111
2003 Ranking:
111
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
1.72 |
6 |
1 |
14 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
5.71 |
29.93 |
Program Analysis:
Playing well in Sun Belt play has
helped the Indians, but a strong APR Score has also proved to be a
huge plus. Potentially, the ranking should go way up next year after
a 3-8 2004 season, along with a Bad Loss to Idaho goes away. A
winning 2007 season should mean a shot at the 60s.
81. Marshall
Score:
29.27
2006 Ranking: 72 2005 Ranking: 39
2004 Ranking: 30
2003 Ranking:
19
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
2.62 |
6 |
3 |
13 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
5.65 |
29.77 |
Program Analysis:
What a difference a few years can make. The dangerous team no one wanted
to face is now just another non-BCS league team. From 19th in 2003 to
82nd in just four years, the Herd needs to start winning again to move
back up. That's basically it. The program always got past the Attendance
Score with wins and wins and more wins. Things will only get worse if
2007 isn't a winning season.
82. Ohio
Score:
29.69
2006 Ranking: 107 2005 Ranking: 109
2004 Ranking: 110
2003 Ranking:
88
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
1.69 |
6 |
0 |
15 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
5.00 |
29.69 |
Program Analysis:
Mired among
the bottom feeders for years, Ohio cranked out a wonderful season with a
berth in the MAC title game. The eight D-I wins it took to get there
made the Bobcats one of the high risers in the rankings. Now the success
on the field under Frank Solich has to continue to stay this high or
move up, with a low Attendance Score and non-existent Draft Score to put
a ceiling on things.
83. Wyoming
Score:
29.22
2006 Ranking: 86 2005 Ranking: 89
2004 Ranking: 112
2003 Ranking:
115
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
1.87 |
5 |
2 |
16 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
4.35 |
29.22 |
Program Analysis:
Considering the program hasn't exactly set
the Mountain West on fire, it's still impressive how it has steadily
moved up in each of the last four years. The Attendance Score stinks,
but the APR isn't awful and 16 D-I wins certainly helps. Losing the 2-10
2002 season was the big reason for this year's climb, and next year
should be even better after losing the 4-8 2003 campaign.
84. Air Force
Score: 28.65
2006 Ranking: 70 2005 Ranking: 67
2004 Ranking: 66
2003 Ranking: 62
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
3.74 |
9 |
0 |
12 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
3.91 |
28.65 |
Program Analysis:
The Fisher DeBerry era is now over, and Troy
Calhoun will try to resurrect a program that's won fewer than 40% of its
conference games over the last three years. The APR Score is always
going to be good, but the overall D-I wins just aren't there, and the
bad losses to UNLV and San Diego State last year will be an anchor for
the next two years.
85. Kentucky
Score:
28.49
2006 Ranking: 91 2005 Ranking: 80
2004 Ranking: 83
2003 Ranking: 77
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
6.07 |
7 |
1 |
11 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
2.92 |
28.49 |
Program Analysis: The
Rich Brooks era appeared to be on the verge of coming to an undignified
close, and then the program ripped off an 8-5 season, complete with a
bowl win over Clemson, to turn things around. Andre Woodson, Keenan
Burton and the rest of the offense should help to boost things even
higher next year when the 2-9 2004 season if off the books. The Draft
Score will most certainly go up to join the solid Attendance and APR
Scores.
86. Louisiana Tech
Score:
25.44
2006 Ranking: 73 2005 Ranking: 73
2004 Ranking: 74
2003 Ranking:
81
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
1.62 |
3 |
2 |
15 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
5.00 |
27.62 |
Program Analysis:
Surprisingly not that bad considering the
teams ranked lower, Louisiana Tech has been a decent WAC player over the
years. And then things went south with a 3-10 season meaning a coaching
change, and now Derek Dooley has to crank out more wins, more people
have to show up, and the APR Score needs to improve.
87. Arizona
Score:
26.52
2006 Ranking: 100 2005 Ranking: 91
2004 Ranking: 88 2003 Ranking:
68
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
5.32 |
2 |
5 |
9 |
5 |
2 |
1.5 |
3.20 |
26.52 |
Program Analysis: The
Bob Stoops era hasn't exactly set the world on fire. While the team has
shown so much promise, with a blowout win in 2005 over UCLA and a nice
victory over BYU last year for Elite Wins, there have still just been
nine D-I wins in three years while winning just 32% of Pac 10 games. The
APR Score is abysmal.
88. SMU
Score:
27.31
2006 Ranking: 99 2005 Ranking: 112
2004 Ranking: 103
2003 Ranking: 97
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
1.73 |
7 |
1 |
13 |
3 |
1 |
3.5 |
4.58 |
27.31 |
Program Analysis:
Losing the 0-12 2003 season boosted the Mustangs up in the rankings, but
there will likely be a new coaching staff in play for 2008 if Phil
Bennett can't bring the program's first winning season since 1997.
Keeping the Mustangs from making a bigger jump are the Bad Losses,
losing to North Texas last year, Tulane in 2005 and Rice in 2004. With
QB Justin Willis leading the way, things should improve.
89.
UAB
Score:
27.29
2006 Ranking: 76 2005 Ranking: 70
2004 Ranking: 76
2003 Ranking:
73
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
2.13 |
2 |
1 |
14 |
6 |
0 |
1.5 |
4.17 |
27.29 |
Program Analysis:
This won't be the end of UAB's slide. In a rebuilding season in the
first year under Neil Callaway, UAB will struggle and should have a hard
time breaking out of the Conference USA basement. That'll mean a drop in
conference winning percentage, wins, and Quality Wins. Next year, the
7-5 2004 season is gone from the rankings, but the home Bad Loss to
Mississippi State will stick for two more years.
90. Rice
Score:
27.10
2006 Ranking: 90 2005 Ranking: 79
2004 Ranking: 70
2003 Ranking: 84
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
1.35 |
9 |
0 |
11 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
3.75 |
27.10 |
Program Analysis:
David Bailiff will try to keep the momentum going from a great
one-and-done year from Todd Graham, before he left for Tulsa. One of
college football's premier academic institutions, the APR Score is
always going to be a big help, but the Attendance Score will always be
average. Getting more Conference USA wins will be what boosts the
program up.
91.
Ball State
Score:
26.99
2006 Ranking: 85 2005 Ranking: 86
2004 Ranking: 81
2003 Ranking: 76
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
1.41 |
7 |
3 |
11 |
3 |
0 |
1.5 |
4.58 |
26.99 |
Program Analysis: The
2-9 2004 season will go away next year, but the Bad Loss at home to
North Dakota State last year will stick for a long while. With star QB
Nate Davis leading the offense, the Cardinals should be among the MAC's
most dangerous teams over the next few years. But first, just getting
the first winning season since 1996 would be nice.
92.
Baylor
Score:
26.55
2006 Ranking: 89 2005 Ranking: 93
2004 Ranking: 96
2003 Ranking:
100
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
3.55 |
7 |
4 |
9 |
4 |
0 |
1.5 |
2.50 |
26.55 |
Program Analysis:
Baylor might not be a laughing stock anymore thanks to Guy Morriss, but
it's not like the overall results have been that great. In fact, the
rating dropped back into the 90s. A bad home loss to Army last year will
tag the program for the next three years, and the Conference Score will
always be mediocre unless the Bears come up with a miraculous season or
two.
93.
East Carolina
Score:
24.95
2006 Ranking: 109 2005 Ranking: 95
2004 Ranking: 78
2003 Ranking: 58
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
3.36 |
3 |
2 |
14 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
4.58 |
24.95 |
Program Analysis: ECU
is a high-riser under Skip Holts, with a chance to quickly get back into
the land of the mediocre with a good 2007 season. Losing the 1-10 2003
season was a big help, and next year the loss of the 2-9 2004 season
will help even more, barring a disaster. Unfortunately, last year's Bad
Loss to UAB will hang around for a while.
94. Indiana
Score:
23.45
2006 Ranking: 103 2005 Ranking: 103
2004 Ranking: 93
2003 Ranking: 89
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
3.37 |
6 |
3 |
11 |
3 |
0 |
3.5 |
2.08 |
23.45 |
Program Analysis:
Terry Hoeppner was turning things around before his tragic passing.
Mired down among the lower tier for the last four years, there's a
chance for a little movement if the 2007 Hoosiers can win more than four
games. It'll help to lose two Bad Losses from the 3-8 2004 season, but
the bad, bad home loss to Southern Illinois last year will bring the
ranking down for the next few years.
95. Western Michigan
Score:
23.37
2006 Ranking: 106 2005 Ranking: 100
2004 Ranking: 80
2003 Ranking: 67
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
1.78 |
1 |
2 |
14 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
4.58 |
23.37 |
Program Analysis:
This will be the lowest WMU is for a while. After hanging around the
100s with the lowest of the low, the rise has been slow. Next year, the
1-10 2004 season will be off the books and a shot at getting into the
mid-70s is possible with a nice season. The two Bad Losses (at Illinois
and at Ball State) will also go away. Now if everyone could just start
studying more to get the APR up.
96. Washington
Score:
23.32
2006 Ranking: 83 2005 Ranking: 61
2004 Ranking: 26
2003 Ranking: 14
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
6.22 |
6 |
5 |
8 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
1.60 |
23.32 |
Program Analysis: The
collapse of the former superpower continues. The Huskies have come up
with a mere eight D-I wins over the last three years in the worst
stretch since 1947-1949. The decent Attendance and the APR scores help, and
2008 should be better when the 1-10 2004 season doesn't factor in, but
this is still an embarrassing low point. The worst stat? UW has won just
16% of its league games in the last three years.
97.
UL Monroe
Score:
23.16
2006 Ranking: 112 2005 Ranking: 116
2004 Ranking: 113
2003 Ranking: 113
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
1.45 |
4 |
2 |
13 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
5.71 |
23.16 |
Program Analysis: It
seems like ULM should be lower, but the 13 wins is a help and losing the
1-11 2003 season is a major boost. The Warhawks have been good in
conference play, meaning there's a floor to how bad things can get
unless 2007 turns into a total disaster. The Attendance Score will
always be an issue, so doing more in the classroom to get the APR up is
a must.
98. Middle Tennessee
Score:
22.98
2006 Ranking: 108 2005 Ranking: 104
2004 Ranking: 92
2003 Ranking:
83
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
1.58 |
1 |
0 |
15 |
1 |
0 |
1.5 |
5.91 |
22.98 |
Program Analysis:
Middle Tennessee has been among the better Sun Belt teams over the last
three years, but no one's getting drafted and no one appears to be going
to class. The Bad Loss to North Texas two years ago will still bring the
score down next year, but this year's team is good enough to win the Sun
Belt title for a jump near the 80s.
99. Florida Atlantic
Score:
22.33
2006 Ranking: 92 2005 Ranking: NA
2004 Ranking: NA
2003 Ranking: NA
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
1.05 |
4 |
0 |
10 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
4.29 |
22.33 |
Program Analysis:
Doing well early on in Sun Belt play has helped the young D-I program
from being among the bottom of the bottom, but the biggest help has been
the lack of Bad Losses. 2007 had better be strong with the stunning 9-3
campaign of 2004 to be out of the formula next year, even though four of
the wins were over D-I teams. Howard Schnellenberger has an interesting
team coming back that could be the sleeper for the Sun Belt title.