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

2010 CFN 5-Year Program Rankings - 21 to 40
Auburn WR Darvin Adams
Auburn WR Darvin Adams
CollegeFootballNews.com
Posted Aug 24, 2010


CFN's 2010 Five-Year Program Rankings and Analysis ... Teams 21 through 40


Preview 2010 - No. 21 to 40

CFN Five-Year Program Analysis


2010 CFN Five-Year Program Analysis
- Bottom 20 | No. 81 to 100 | No. 61 to 80
- No. 41 to 60 | No. 21 to 40 | No. 11 to 20
- No. 10 Alabama | No. 9 Penn St | No. 8 Virginia Tech
- No. 7 Georgia | No. 6 LSU | No. 5 Oklahoma
- No. 4 Ohio State | No. 3 Texas | No. 2 Florida | No. 1 USC

- Expert Football Predictions from ATS Consultants - Absolutely Free.
- Get Tickets For Your Team, Any Game

Every new coach realistically needs five years to make a program his. He doesn't always get that much time, often being asked to turn things around right away. Five years allow a coach to go through an entire recruiting cycle, get comfortable in the position, and implement everything he'd like to do. With that in mind, we have created our CFN Five-Year Program Analysis (it used to be three years, but we supersized it) highlighting off-the-field factors like the Academic Progress Report (do the players go to class) and the players drafted by the NFL (a huge selling point to recruits), to attendance (it pays the bills) and wins, wins, wins. On-field success ends up being all that matters, so that's where the focus lies. One note, the totals for each team might not add up because we have listed the total number of wins and losses for the categories, while the Bad Wins and Losses and Elite Wins and Losses might be scored differently (two home losses against 3-9 teams would be scored as a 3).

Quick Explanation of Scores
- Attendance: Home attendance average over the last five years divided by 10,000. Avg. Score: 4.37
- APR: The most recently released Academic Performance Rate. 90th to 100th percentile (best) gets a 10, 1st to 10th percentile (worst) gets a 1 Avg. Score: 5.84
- Quality Wins: Wins over FBS teams that finished with a winning record. Avg. Score: 9.62
- Total Wins: Wins over FBS teams. Avg. Score: 29.25
- Players Drafted: Number of players drafted. Avg. Score: 9.62
- Conference Win %: Conference winning percentage times 10. Avg. Score: 4.96
- Elite Win Score: Wins over FBS teams that finished with two losses or fewer, or on the road, at a neutral site, or in a bowl 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. Number: 1.25
- Bad Loss Score: Losses to teams that finished with three wins or fewer or any loss to a non-FBS team. Subtract each loss from the overall total. Subtract an additional 0.5 for each Bad Loss at home. Avg. Number: 2.03
- Elite Losses: Losses to teams that finished with two wins or fewer. Take 0.25 of the number. Avg. Number: 5.02
- Bad Wins: Wins over teams that finished with three wins or fewer or any win to a non-FBS team Avg. Number: 10.83

- Detailed Explanation of the Scoring System and Categories

40. East Carolina

2010 Total Score: 66.91
2009 Ranking: 59
Attendance Score: 3.91
APR Score: 5
Draft: 7
FBS Wins: 37
Quality Wins: 12
Elite Wins: 2
Bad Losses: 2
Elite Losses: 3
Bad Wins: 9
Conf. Score: 7.00
Program Analysis: The Pirates lost Skip Holtz, but Ruffin McNeill will quickly become a popular head coach as long as he keeps the production going for a program that was 109th in 2006. The scores are solid across the board with nothing that stands out (the 12 Quality Wins are the fewest of anyone in the top 40), but ECU football has simply been strong in all areas. However, winning 70% of Conference USA games has been a huge help.

39. Central Michigan

2010 Total Score: 67.68
2009 Ranking: 61
Attendance Score: 1.97
APR Score: 5
Draft: 5
FBS Wins: 42
Quality Wins: 13
Elite Wins: 0
Bad Losses: 22.5
Elite Losses: 3
Bad Wins: 13
Conf. Score: 8.21
Program Analysis: Not always talked about when it comes to the top non-BCS programs, CMU checkes in as the fifth-ranked team outside of the BCS conferences after moving up from 108th in 2005 to 61st last year to this lofty spot. The Attedance Score is by far the worst among anyone in the top 60, but the 42 FBS are the most of anyone outside of the top 22. Winning 82% of MAC games over the last five years is the biggest plus, while the 13 Quality Wins are impressive.

38. Pitt

2010 Total Score: 68.82
2009 Ranking: 47
Attendance Score: 4.39
APR Score: 7
Draft: 14
FBS Wins: 31
Quality Wins: 15
Elite Wins: 1
Bad Losses: 1.5
Elite Losses: 5
Bad Wins: 7
Conf. Score: 5.43
Program Analysis: The Panthers haven’t been able to get over the hump and win a Big East title under Dave Wannstedt, but he has created a bit of an NFL factory with several excellent players flowing through the program, and there have been plenty of positives across the board to boost up the ranking into the 30s for the first time since 2006. The 31 FBS wins are tied for the fewest of anyone in the top 47, and winning 54% of conference games isn’t anything special, but the program will keep on going up and up as long as it plays up to its capabilities.

37. Wake Forest

2010 Total Score: 69.90
2009 Ranking: 38
Attendance Score: 3.15
APR Score: 8
Draft: 12
FBS Wins: 35
Quality Wins: 15
Elite Wins: 0
Bad Losses: 0
Elite Losses: 1
Bad Wins: 9
Conf. Score: 4.75
Program Analysis: This might seem a little bit high considering the team was a bit of a disappointment last year, but the ranking should get better before it gets any worse with the 11-3 2006 season still counting for the next few years, and the 4-7 2005 season off the books next year. The APR Score is always going to be fantastic and the Draft is surprisingly great, but winning fewer than half of ACC games is a problem and the 35 FBS wins aren’t enough to move any higher.

36. South Carolina

2010 Total Score: 70.55
2009 Ranking: 39
Attendance Score: 7.80
APR Score: 5
Draft: 14
FBS Wins: 31
Quality Wins: 14
Elite Wins: 1.5
Bad Losses: 0
Elite Losses: 7
Bad Wins: 8
Conf. Score: 4.50
Program Analysis: The 45% Conference Score is the worst among anyone in the top 40, and the APR is mediocre, but the Attendance Score is always fantastic and the rest of the numbers are good. As average as the Gamecocks have been at times, the Steve Spurrier era is the best run of any in the school’s history, and this is the highest the program has been ranked since we started doing this eight years ago.

35. UCLA

2010 Total Score: 71.86
2009 Ranking: 37
Attendance Score: 6.86
APR Score: 7
Draft: 10
FBS Wins: 34
Quality Wins: 15
Elite Wins: 2
Bad Losses: 2.5
Elite Losses: 4
Bad Wins: 6
Conf. Score: 5.00
Program Analysis: The Bruins haven’t been able to make a big move up into the 20s since these rankings were started, but simply being able to stay at this level is a plus considering the team hasn’t exactly rocked over the last few years. Winning just half of Pac 10 games is a problem, but the APR is decent and the rest of the numbers are good considering all the recent problems. The 2.5 Bad Loss Score is a problem and 2010 has to be a huge year with the 10-2 2005 season not counting in next year’s formula.

34. Texas Tech

2010 Total Score: 73.15
2009 Ranking: 29
Attendance Score: 5.15
APR Score: 5
Draft: 9
FBS Wins: 39
Quality Wins: 15
Elite Wins: 1
Bad Losses: 1
Elite Losses: 6
Bad Wins: 14
Conf. Score: 6.50
Program Analysis: It seems like Texas Tech should be higher considering all the success, most notably in 2008, under Mike Leach, but the ranking actually dropped a bit. The Draft Score is low and the APR isn’t great, but winning 65% of Big 12 games is a help and the one big win over Texas a few years back helps the cause. Tommy Tuberville has a lot of work to do to keep the recent success going, but as long as he can keep the program winning most of the conference battles, all will be fine.

33. Rutgers

2010 Total Score: 75.40
2009 Ranking: 42
Attendance Score: 4.19
APR Score: 10
Draft: 13
FBS Wins: 37
Quality Wins: 15
Elite Wins: 1
Bad Losses: 1
Elite Losses: 4
Bad Wins: 16
Conf. Score: 5.71
Program Analysis: Rutgers hasn’t exactly capitalized on all the success of the 11-2 2006 season, but it’s always important to remember just how far the program has come under Greg Schiano. Ranked 112th in 2003 and 107th in 2004, the team is as high up as ever as the mediocre to bad years keep falling off the books. The Draft Score is getting better, the APR is perfect, and the 37 FBS wins are impressive. Now there must be even more Big East wins and the Attendance Score could stand to be better.

32. Notre Dame

2010 Total Score: 75.98
2009 Ranking: 28
Attendance Score: 8.08
APR Score: 10
Draft: 19
FBS Wins: 35
Quality Wins: 10
Elite Wins: 0
Bad Losses: 1.5
Elite Losses: 7
Bad Wins: 10
Conf. Score: 5.65
Program Analysis: And to think, the Irish were ranked 12th in 2003. The APR is perfect, the Attendance Score, as always, is outstanding, and the 35 wins are decent, but the number that stands out is the zero next to the Elite Wins category. Winning on a regular basis is demanded in South Bend, but the key is always to beat the biggest of big boys and be considered among the nation’s elite teams. Unless Brian Kelly can get things turned around right away, the ranking will quickly drop as the 9-3 2005 season and the 10-3 2006 will be out of the equation in the next few years.

31. Oregon State

2010 Total Score: 77.85
2009 Ranking: 31
Attendance Score: 4.23
APR Score: 6
Draft: 14
FBS Wins: 36
Quality Wins: 17
Elite Wins: 3
Bad Losses: 1.5
Elite Losses: 7
Bad Wins: 8
Conf. Score: 6.36
Program Analysis: Oregon State always flies under the radar and never gets a lot of respect, but under head coach Mike Riley the results are there year after year. The 17 Quality Wins are the most of anyone outside of the top 30, while winning 64% of Pac 10 games is really, really nice. The Attendance Score will always be a bit of a problem and the APR could stand to be higher, but everything else is great.

30. Florida State

2010 Total Score: 77.85
2009 Ranking: 18
Attendance Score: 7.92
APR Score: 3
Draft: 20
FBS Wins: 34
Quality Wins: 17
Elite Wins: 3.5
Bad Losses: 1
Elite Losses: 4
Bad Wins: 10
Conf. Score: 5.25
Program Analysis: If we did an article in 2000 and said Florida State would be ranked 30th in the 2010 rankings, we’d have been crushed under the weight of all the e-mails from Seminole fans. FSU was ranked No. 2 in the 2003 CFN Program Rankings and was in the top ten for years. And then came the slide, and now the superpower of superpowers is an also-ran having won just 53% of its ACC games over the last five years. The Draft Score is never a problem and the Attendance Score is always good, but the APR is a disaster and there’s a mere 17 Quality Wins for a program that used to feast on good teams.

29. Miami

2010 Total Score: 78.74
2009 Ranking: 21
Attendance Score: 4.49
APR Score: 9
Draft: 22
FBS Wins: 34
Quality Wins: 16
Elite Wins: 1.5
Bad Losses: 0
Elite Losses: 3
Bad Wins: 12
Conf. Score: 5.00
Program Analysis: Miami was No. 1 in the 2003 and 2004 rankings, and was No. 5 in 2005 and 2006. And then came the big slide down into mediocrity. The Miami Hurricanes, Da U., has won a mere half of their ACC games over the last five seasons and has a mere 16 Quality Wins over that span. The great APR makes up for the always lousy Attendance Score, and the Draft Score is always solid, but the wins have to start coming to make a move back up the charts.

28. Michigan

2010 Total Score: 79.72
2009 Ranking: 10
Attendance Score: 10.97
APR Score: 4
Draft: 21
FBS Wins: 34
Quality Wins: 15
Elite Wins: 3
Bad Losses: 4
Elite Losses: 9
Bad Wins: 5
Conf. Score: 5.25
Program Analysis: Always a fixture in the top ten since the rankings began, Michigan takes a freefall out of one of the elite spots. Unless Rich Rodriguez can work some magic, the slide won’t stop here with the 11-2 2006 season coming out of the equation in two seasons. The Attendance Score is always going to be a savior and the overall wins are strong, but winning just 53% of Big Ten games is unaccepatable and the APR Score is embarrassing for the self-proclaimed Leaders and Best.

27. California

2010 Total Score: 80.36
2009 Ranking: 19
Attendance Score: 6.18
APR Score: 9
Draft: 19
FBS Wins: 39
Quality Wins: 14
Elite Wins: 0
Bad Losses: 1
Elite Losses: 5
Bad Wins: 13
Conf. Score: 5.68
Program Analysis: Jeff Tedford continues to crank out good team after good team, but there isn’t a lot of greatness to help boost the program among the elite. The APR is fantastic and the Draft Score is impressive, but winning 57% of Pac 10 games is a problem and the 14 Quality Wins are the fewest of anyone in the top 31. One big season would push the Bears back into the top 20, where they were hovering around since 2005.

26. Iowa

2010 Total Score: 80.54
2009 Ranking: 24
Attendance Score: 7.04
APR Score: 6
Draft: 18
FBS Wins: 35
Quality Wins: 15
Elite Wins: 5.5
Bad Losses: 1
Elite Losses: 5
Bad Wins: 11
Conf. Score: 5.50
Program Analysis: This is probably going to be the lowest the Hawkeyes will be for a while with the 7-5 2005 season not counting next year and the 6-7 2006 campaign soon to be out of the equation. Kirk Ferentz has his program back among the Big Ten elite again, and the big wins have shown it with the highest Elite Win Score of anyone outside of the top four programs. The Conference Score will quickly go up next year, and while the program might not be No. 7 in the next few years, like it was in 2005, getting close to the top ten is a possibility.

25. Cincinnati

2010 Total Score: 82.60
2009 Ranking: 35
Attendance Score: 2.78
APR Score: 7
Draft: 13
FBS Wins: 40
Quality Wins: 19
Elite Wins: 2
Bad Losses: 0
Elite Losses: 8
Bad Wins: 13
Conf. Score: 6.57
Program Analysis: Brian Kelly took what Mark Dantonio started and made the program rock, coming within an eyelash of playing for the 2009 national title. This might be the lowest UC is at for a long, long time if new head man Butch Jones can come up with a winning season. The 4-7 2005 campaign won’t count in next year’s rankings, and even with that lousy year the 40 FBS wins are still impressive. The APR helps overcome the lousy Attendance Score and the Conference Win Score will only get better starting next season.

24. Nebraska

2010 Total Score: 82.61
2009 Ranking: 33
Attendance Score: 8.36
APR Score: 7
Draft: 17
FBS Wins: 38
Quality Wins: 15
Elite Wins: 0
Bad Losses: 0
Elite Losses: 8
Bad Wins: 8
Conf. Score: 5.75
Program Analysis: Zero. That’s how many Elite Wins the mighty Nebraska Cornhuskers have come up with over the last five years, and the 15 Quality Wins are tied for the lowest among the top 26 teams. The Bill Callahan era will still be a part of the ranking for the next few years, and the 5-7 2007 campaign isn’t going to be a plus, but Bo Pelini has things pointing up. For a program that was ranked in the top ten in 2003, it might get back among the elite very soon.

23. Clemson

2010 Total Score: 83.12
2009 Ranking: 27
Attendance Score: 7.87
APR Score: 8
Draft: 19
FBS Wins: 37
Quality Wins: 17
Elite Wins: 1
Bad Losses: 1
Elite Losses: 2
Bad Wins: 11
Conf. Score: 6.00
Program Analysis: The Tigers are higher than they’ve been since the rankings were created, and the potential is there to do more with the Attenance and APR Scores providing a nice base and the 60% rate of winning in ACC play has been a great help. More wins are a must to move up, and it could be tough to do more with the rest of the conference improving, but there’s a chance to get into the top 20 if head coach Dabo Swinney can get his team back to the ACC Championship game.

22. BYU

2010 Total Score: 83.48
2009 Ranking: 32
Attendance Score: 6.23
APR Score: 5
Draft: 6
FBS Wins: 46
Quality Wins: 16
Elite Wins: 1.5
Bad Losses: 0
Elite Losses: 4
Bad Wins: 15
Conf. Score: 8.50
Program Analysis: Bronco Mendenhall has restored the roar to the mighty program, and the ranking is about to go through the roof. The 5-6 2004 season didn’t count this year and the ranking moved up into the 20s, and next year the 6-6 2005 campaign won’t be a part of the formula. Even with the mediocre season five years ago, the Cougars have still won 85% of their Mountain West games and the 46 FCS victories are the most of anyone outside of the top 13. However, the Draft Score is the lowest of any team in the top 38.

21. Auburn

2010 Total Score: 84.26
2009 Ranking: 9
Attendance Score: 8.51
APR Score: 4
Draft: 19
FBS Wins: 38
Quality Wins: 16
Elite Wins: 4
Bad Losses: 0
Elite Losses: 5
Bad Wins: 11
Conf. Score: 5.75
Program Analysis: The 13-0 2004 season didn’t count in this year’s ranking, so the tumble well out of the top ten is hardly a shocker. The is the lowest the program has been in several years, and now it’s up to Gene Chizik to try to restore the luster even though the rest of the SEC West has gotten better. The low APR didn’t help halt the slide, and winning 58% of SEC games was hardly acceptable after so much success. Things might get worse next year when the 9-3 2005 season is out of the equation.