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

CFN Three-Year Program Ranking - 80 to 99

CollegeFootballNews.com
Posted Aug 17, 2007


CFN's 2007 Three-Year Program Rankings and Analysis ... Teams 80 through 99

Three Year Program Analysis

Teams 80 to 99

Program Rankings
Scoring System  
1 to 10 | 11 to 25
26 to 39 | 40 to 59
60 to 79 | 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

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: 9
7

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.