Three Year Program
Analysis
Teams 100 to 119
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
100. Army
Score:
22.02
2006 Ranking: 105 2005 Ranking: 115
2004 Ranking: 109
2003 Ranking: 105
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
3.12 |
9 |
0 |
7 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
2.90 |
22.02 |
Program Analysis:
The Bobby Ross era never took off, and now it'll be up to new head
man Stan Brock to try to turn things around; or at least be as good
as Navy. The Black Knights simply haven't come up with many wins,
but the overall score could quickly go up with a nice season and
after the 2-9 2004 clunker is off the books.
101.
UCF
Score:
21.83
2006 Ranking: 95 2005 Ranking: 99
2004 Ranking: 84
2003 Ranking: 75
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
2.67 |
3 |
2 |
11 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
4.17 |
21.83 |
Program Analysis:
Watch out for UCF to rocket up the rankings
next year after the 0-11 2004 season gets wiped away. Not only will the
win total go up, but the Bad Loss score should go down as long as there
aren't any hiccups this year. George O'Leary should finally have the
players he needs to win, but now the program has to get back to a
Conference USA title-level like it was two years ago.
102. Vanderbilt
Score:
21.40
2006 Ranking: 104 2005 Ranking: 107
2004 Ranking: 106
2003 Ranking: 94
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
3.31 |
8 |
3 |
8 |
1 |
0 |
2.5 |
2.08 |
21.40 |
Program Analysis:
Even with all the big strides made over the last few years
under Bobby Johnson, Vandy is still struggling to get out of the 100s.
Only eight D-I wins makes it hard to make a lot of noise, and winning
just 20% of the conference games makes things worse. The APR will always
be there, and the drafted players will only go up, but the Bad Losses
have to stop and there simply must be more conference wins.
103. San Diego State
Score:
20.29
2006 Ranking: 87 2005 Ranking: 85
2004 Ranking: 85
2003 Ranking: 91
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
3.38 |
1 |
5 |
11 |
1 |
0 |
2.5 |
3.91 |
20.29 |
Program Analysis: A
strange program over the last few years, it always seems like it should
be on the verge of turning a major corner, and it hasn't happened yet.
Second-year head coach Chuck Long should have a much better offense, as
long as everyone stays healthy. The Attendance Score isn't bad, but the
APR is a joke. Last year's Bad Loss at home to Cal Poly will stick
around in the score for another two years.
104. UL Lafayette
Score:
19.05
2006 Ranking: 102 2005 Ranking: 105
2004 Ranking: 100
2003 Ranking: 114
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
1.78 |
2 |
1 |
13 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
4.76 |
19.05 |
Program Analysis:
Sort of a surprise here, UL Lafayette hasn't been that bad a team in Sun
Belt play. However, the low APR and bad attendance, and worse yet, four
Bad Losses, has kept the Ragin' Cajuns from getting out of the 100s.
After two straight six wins seasons, a third would probably get the job
done. This should be one of the Sun Belt's better teams this year, so a
huge jump could be there for the taking.
105. Tulane
Score:
18.37
2006 Ranking: 97 2005 Ranking: 76
2004 Ranking: 82
2003 Ranking: 82
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
1.87 |
5 |
2 |
9 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
2.50 |
18.37 |
Program Analysis:
All things considered, it's a positive that Tulane still has a
program to be ranked. The Hurricane Katrina 2005 season all but assured
a drop in the rankings that will take a while to bounceback from.
Another bad year will mean a further drop after the 5-6 2004 season
won't count anymore. Tulane is a magnificent school and should have a
much higher APR Score.
106. North Texas
Score:
18.31
2006 Ranking: 81 2005 Ranking: 62
2004 Ranking: 65
2003 Ranking: 85
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
1.58 |
3 |
0 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
3.5 |
5.24 |
18.31 |
Program Analysis:
Once the shining light of the Sun Belt, North Texas has sunk like a
stone after two straight miserable years. There's still a lot further
for the Mean Green to go if 2007 isn't strong, considering the 7-5 Sun
Belt title-winning 2005 is out of the mix next year. New head coach Todd
Dodge will make the offense more interesting, and it should make a
difference considering the lack of overall pop in the Sun Belt.
107. Illinois
Score:
17.00
2006 Ranking: 101 2005 Ranking: 84
2004 Ranking: 64
2003 Ranking: 52
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
4.66 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0.83 |
17.00 |
Program Analysis:
With the way Ron Zook has recruited, this needs to be the end of the
Illinois freefall. Going 2-22 in three years of Big Ten play has
signaled a bottoming out for the program, but there's a ton of upside
going into the next few years. The Attendance Score is an embarrassment
for a big-time Big Ten school, while the lack of drafted players hasn't
helped. Considering Illinois is a solid academic institution, the APR
needs to be better.
108. Mississippi State
Score:
16.60
2006 Ranking: 98 2005 Ranking: 92
2004 Ranking: 91
2003 Ranking:
60
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
4.43 |
4 |
4 |
7 |
1 |
0 |
3.5 |
1.67 |
16.60 |
Program Analysis:
Just four years ago, Mississippi State was
on the verge of respectability, and then .... crash. Seven D-I wins in
three years, along with a 4-20 SEC record, hasn't made the Sylvester
Croom area anything to get excited about. The ranking should move up
next year when the 3-8 2004 season, along with Bad Losses to Main and
Vanderbilt are off the books.
109. Kent State
Score:
15.97
2006 Ranking: 110 2005 Ranking: 94
2004 Ranking: 94
2003 Ranking: 107
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
1.22 |
4 |
1 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
3.5 |
3.75 |
15.97 |
Program Analysis: The
1-10 2005 campaign, with no wins over D- I teams, has kept the program
ranking in a standstill. This is a better team than the current ranking
might indicate, but with one more year of the 2005 season still on the
books, there won't be a whole bunch of movement unless 2007 is something
special. Doing more in MAC play would provide a big boost.
110. Idaho
Score:
14.59
2005 Ranking: 114 2005 Ranking: 114
2004 Ranking: 114
2003 Ranking:
106
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
1.54 |
6 |
0 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
3.04 |
12.59 |
Program Analysis:
Turnover in the
coaching staffs, with Nick Holt bolting for USC and Dennis Erickson
barely opening his bags before going to Arizona State, hasn't allowed
for much in the way of stability in Moscow. Under Robb Akey, the wins
should start to slowly come. First, the Vandals have to beat all the
teams they're supposed to; they can't afford any Bad Losses.
111. Eastern Michigan
Score:
13.98
2006 Ranking: 111 2005 Ranking: 111
2004 Ranking: 116
2003 Ranking:
117
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
1.14 |
2 |
1 |
9 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
3.33 |
13.98 |
Program Analysis:
It's been a hard go for Jeff Genyk and the Eagles. Getting any
consistency has been an issue, but watching Central Michigan and Western
Michigan become major MAC players has made the struggles even worse.
Even with all the problems and a 1-11 2006, this is the highest the
program has been in five years. The Eagles will likely need to come up
with a .500 season to not slide down next year.
112. San Jose State
Score:
13.59
2006 Ranking: 117 2005 Ranking: 110
2004 Ranking: 98
2003 Ranking: 90
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
1.26 |
1 |
2 |
11 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
3.33 |
13.59 |
Program Analysis: How
bad has San Jose State been? A 9-4 season with a bowl win only got the
Spartans from 117 to 111. No attendance, both in the stands and
apparently in the classroom, has been the downfall. A better APR Score
will do wonders, but a second straight good season, but erasing the 2-9
2004 season that had only one win over a D-I team, would be better..
113. New Mexico State
Score:
11.22
2006 Ranking: 115 2005 Ranking: 87
2004 Ranking: 86
2003 Ranking:
80
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
1.62 |
2 |
0 |
7 |
2 |
1 |
5 |
2.61 |
11.22 |
Program Analysis:
This might be as low as things get for a long, long time. Hal Mumme has
his passing game in place and ready to start outbombing the mediocre to
average teams, but the defense has to be far better in order to start
making any movement in the rankings. The Attendance and APR scores are
awful, so the wins have to start coming to move up.
114. Utah State
Score:
10.57
2006 Ranking: 113 2005 Ranking: 102
2004 Ranking: 97
2003 Ranking: 95
|
Attendance Score |
APR Score |
Draft |
Wins |
Quality Wins |
Elite Wins |
Bad Losses |
Conf. |
TOTAL |
|
1.39 |
3 |
0 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
2.17 |
10.57 |
Program Analysis:
Utah State
