MAC

College Football Conferences: Who Will Play In 2020, Who Won’t? The Best Guess Is …

After a crazy few days for college football, what’s the status of each of the conferences. Who’ll play this season, and who won’t?

After a crazy few days for college football, what’s the status of each of the conferences. Who’ll play this season, and who won’t?

So, you want to know whether or not your college football conference is playing this fall?

Get in line. This thing is changing by the tweet after the world went bonkers over the last 72 hours.

On Saturday morning the MAC was done, on Sunday evening the entire season was supposedly going to be shut down, and on Monday morning the Dan Patrick Show was telling everyone the Big Ten and Pac-12 were tapping out.

And then everyone got mad.

[jwplayer ty6hfzeT]

Trevor Lawrence let the world to know that college football players want to play college football, college football coaches let the world know that they like college football, and as predictable as Ohio State over Michigan in late November, the president took a sledgehammer to a delicately nuanced situation and politicized it.

The Big Ten pumped the brakes, the rest of the conferences wanted nothing to do with the pounding the B1G was taking, and now there’s supposedly still a chance of a fall football season in some form.

The talk ranged from spring ball in 2021 – total silliness thrown out there to cushion the blow of no 2020 season – to the utter nonsense of Ohio State and Nebraska chirping about finding other places to play. (You’re out of your freaking mind if you think the Big Ten will let the Buckeyes or Huskers play one down in any other league. Two words: TV contracts. Non-conference games, though …)

On a far more serious note, college football fans are about to become heart experts as they learn about the nightmare of a possible COVID-19 side effect called myocarditis.

So now what?

This will be updated on the fly as much as possible, but for now, here’s the best guess on the go-no-go launch status of each conference. All the percentage guesses are based on their apparent respective desires to play or not play if allowed the choice.

ACC

It’s been strangely silent, other than the movement kicked off by Trevor Lawrence.

This is one of the more interesting situations because of the Notre Dame factor. The league has a unique opportunity to have the Irish all to itself for a season, and as long as they’re happy, the league will be happy.

There might be a concern about the status of the other four Power Five conferences, but according to Dennis Dodd of CBSSports.com, the ACC will “absolutely” play in 2020.

Best Guess Status For 2020: 80% will play

American Athletic Conference

The AAC has the same problem the other Group of Five conferences are dealing with: they’re losing their key revenue-making non-conference dates.

After announcing on August 5th a plan to play eight conference games, the news went back-and-forth throughout Monday. It’s still not a sure thing, but …

The AAC is continuing to move forward with a 2020 fall season after athletic directors met tonight to discuss potential scenarios, sources tell @SINow.

Presidents meet tomorrow, where there is not expected to be a vote, barring significant movement from the Power 5 level.

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) August 11, 2020

Best Guess Status For 2020: 70% will play

Big Ten

The Detroit Free Press went with the story on Monday morning that the Big Ten season was going to be cancelled, but that was before the final be-all-end-all-or-not vote happened.

The Big Ten presidents reportedly were 12-2 – Nebraska and Iowa the outliers – to cancel.

The pushback was swift and strong, with Ohio State, Michigan, and Nebraska the most vocal, at least among fans, coaches and players.

There’s a meeting at 10:30 am ET to make a decision on what to do next.

From all the rumors, news, and opinions flying around, it seems like 1) the medical evaluators don’t think the Big Ten can pull this off, which means 2) the presidents don’t think they can pull this off, which means either 3) the league has a PR disaster coming by cancelling the 2020 season, or 4) the presidents will look like they caved to the pressure of football if they decide to go forward with a campaign.

Oh yeah, and commissioner Kevin Warren is talking about playing in the spring. February football in Minneapolis and East Lansing – yippee.

One key note. The Big Ten is currently scheduled to start its season in early September. while others are expected to start several weeks later. So …

Best Guess Status For 2020: 70% cancel, 30% delay, with a lean towards kicking the can down the road by suggesting a late September start.

NEXT: Big 12, Conference USA, Independents, MAC, Mountain West, Pac-12, SEC, Sun Belt

Pages: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3

Big Ten Cancels Fall Season. What’s Next For College Football?

The Big Ten has canceled its 2020 football season due to concerns over the coronavirus. What’s next for college football?

The Big Ten has canceled its 2020 football season due to concerns over the coronavirus. What’s next for college football?

The Big Ten is going to do it. It’s going to cancel its 2020 college football season.

[jwplayer CKtYFVZx]

It was rumored to happen for the last few weeks, and now it’s actually happening the Big Ten is cancelling college football for the 2020 fall.

Sources: Big Ten cancels football season; no games for Michigan, Michigan State in 2020 https://t.co/ir96jXjCE1 via @freep @reporterdavidj @ByChrisThomas

— Chris Solari (@chrissolari) August 10, 2020

The details of what’s next are still sketchy, but commissioner Kevin Warren has been hinting at the idea of a spring football season. Forgetting that it would mean two college football seasons in ten months, and that college football in Minneapolis and Madison would be delightful in February, there aren’t any details yet on how that might work.

This all started rolling over the weekend with reports of a meeting among conference presidents about the viability of a college football season, and then Monday morning the Dan Patrick Show went with the story that the Big Ten was going to shut things down.

According to Dan's source, 12 of the 14 Presidents from the Big 10 have voted against having a Fall College Football season. Iowa and Nebraska were the two that have been pushing to play.

— Dan Patrick Show (@dpshow) August 10, 2020

In the end, it was just too much. The Big Ten types have been hinting from the start that they didn’t believe they could safely make it all work. There were liability concerns, player safety issues, the lack of revenue from no fans in the stands, and then when it finally came time to practice and get it all going, the college presidents couldn’t make it work.

Oh yeah, and don’t forget the player movement side of things. Squashing the demands and the voices of players isn’t a bad thing for those who run the higher-levels of college athletics.

The Big Ten just gave the whole #WeWantToPlay movement one giant, “bless your heart.”

And now, very predictably, college football gets politicized. What could possibly go wrong?

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) has drafted a letter that he plans to send to Big Ten presidents, identifying reasons why he believes college football should be played.@SINow obtained a copy.

Sasse is a former university president. pic.twitter.com/xrpRjiWREf

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) August 10, 2020

What’s next for college football coming in a moment …

[protected-iframe id=”361699434b6d70baf15f631ed2408ac1-97672683-92922408″ info=”https://www.googletagservices.com/tag/js/gpt.js” ]

MAC Cancels Football Season. What Does It Mean For The Rest Of College Football?

The MAC has canceled its 2020 football season due to concerns over the coronavirus. What’s next for college football?

The MAC has canceled its 2020 football season due to concerns over the coronavirus. What’s next for college football?

The MAC becomes the first conference to cancel the college football season, at least for the fall.

[jwplayer muPr0F4N]

The MAC announced on Saturday that it’s cancelling/postponing all fall sports due to the COVD-19 concerns. There’s a thought the league will try to play in the spring, but that’s not a huge part of the discussion at the moment.

pic.twitter.com/GJZqGpQBMr

— #MACtion (@MACSports) August 8, 2020

The MAC had several issues go against them. The main issue was the concern over keeping the players safe, and part of that came with the cost and the resources to adequately test as needed. The other big problem was the Big Ten’s decision to go to a conference-only schedule.

11 MAC games vs. the Big Ten were affected by the scheduling change. In all, the MAC was expected to lose the paychecks from as many as 21 non-conference games. Every conference is different, but the lost revenue side of those games was devastating.

It might be a bit of a cynical overstatement to say that the MAC would still have fall football if the non-conference games weren’t cancelled, but that certainly – at the very least – tipped the scales. Combine the lost revenue with the massive health concerns, and there was a “what are we doing here?” aspect to the MAC”s decision.

There’s the idea that the MAC will play in the spring. In a perfect world, the rest of college football is able to play and figure out how to do this, and the MAC has the spotlight to itself and gets back some of the lost revenue – and does it all safely – through March and April.

And now all eyes turn to the Power Five conferences. Remember, every conference is different, every conference has a different power structure, and every conference has a different revenue stream for football to work off of. However …

Source: Big Ten presidents are meeting today. All options are on the table. There's some presidential momentum for canceling the fall football season. It's unknown if there's enough support to make that decision today.

— Pete Thamel (@PeteThamel) August 8, 2020

Watch out for the Big Ten. Its season has been hanging by a thread for the last several weeks, and while there seemed to be hope after a schedule was announced, the training camps have changed the dynamic. Many teams aren’t practicing full out over concerns for player safety.

Basically, college football doesn’t have a plan. It didn’t create a real plan over the last four months, it didn’t get creative in figuring out whether or not players could play safely, and the sport kicked the can down the road as far as it can go. Now the season is here, and now the sport is realizing how hard it is to ethically and practically play college football. With that said …

No, the college football season isn’t done yet. Even if the Big Ten decides to follow the MAC’s lead, no matter what the optics, the SEC, ACC and Big 12 will still likely do everything humanly possible to play. However, it’ll be a bad, bad look if other conferences try to push things to the spring and everyone else doesn’t follow suit.

So let’s say the other conferences do play. Get ready for the transfer portal to be loaded with top MAC players. Buffalo RBs Jaret Patterson and Kevin Marks, UB DE Malcolm Koonce and LB James Patterson, Toledo RB Bryant Koback, Western Michigan defensive front seven stars Treshaun Hayward and Ali Fayad, and Miami University OT Tommy Doyle are Power Five starters if they choose to leave.

Through all of this, just remember, this will go by in a hurry. There will be college football again, even if it’s not everywhere for right now.

[protected-iframe id=”361699434b6d70baf15f631ed2408ac1-97672683-92922408″ info=”https://www.googletagservices.com/tag/js/gpt.js” ]

MAC Rankings: 2020 CFN Five Year College Football Program Analysis

In the 2020 CFN Five-Year College Football Program Analysis, where do all the MAC teams rank?

In the 2020 CFN Five-Year College Football Program Analysis, where do all the MAC teams rank?

It’s our annual look at where all the college football programs rank with a five-year snapshot looking at attendance, players drafted, APR, and wins, wins, wins.

How do all of the MAC college football programs stack up over the last five seasons?

Which college football programs are doing the best jobs overall, which once have all the advantages, and most of all, who’s winning?

How are the rankings determined? Click here for all of the category descriptions.

[jwplayer zttcjcuk]

Contact @ColFootballNews & @PeteFiutak

12 Kent State 22.52

2020 National Ranking: 125
2019 National Ranking: 130
2018 National Ranking: 125
2017 National Ranking: 106

11 Ball State 25.76

2020 National Ranking: 120
2019 National Ranking: 119
2018 National Ranking: 111
2017 National Ranking: 89

– 2020 CFN Five Year Program Analysis: Rankings 1-130

10 Akron 30.75

2020 National Ranking: 112
2019 National Ranking: 106
2018 National Ranking: 99
2017 National Ranking: 115

9 Bowling Green 30.98

2020 National Ranking: 111
2019 National Ranking: 103
2018 National Ranking: 78
2017 National Ranking: 60

8 Eastern Michigan 36.64

2020 National Ranking: 104
2019 National Ranking: 114
2018 National Ranking: 122
2017 National Ranking: 124

7 Central Michigan 41.48

2020 National Ranking: 99
2019 National Ranking: 95
2018 National Ranking: 85
2017 National Ranking: 88

6 Miami Univ. 41.97

2020 National Ranking: 98
2019 National Ranking: 111
2018 National Ranking: 120
2017 National Ranking: 120

5 Buffalo 44.12

2020 National Ranking: 95
2019 National Ranking: 99
2018 National Ranking: 107
2017 National Ranking: 110

4 Northern Illinois 52.71

2020 National Ranking: 78
2019 National Ranking: 60
2018 National Ranking: 57
2017 National Ranking: 45

3 Ohio 60.06

2020 National Ranking: 60
2019 National Ranking: 69
2018 National Ranking: 69
2017 National Ranking: 67

[lawrence-related id=516307]

2 Toledo 68.78

2020 National Ranking: 48
2019 National Ranking: 38
2018 National Ranking: 41
2017 National Ranking: 42

1 Western Michigan 69.95

2020 National Ranking: 47
2019 National Ranking: 53
2018 National Ranking: 60
2017 National Ranking: 71

– CFN Program Analysis Ranking Categories

[protected-iframe id=”361699434b6d70baf15f631ed2408ac1-97672683-92922408″ info=”https://www.googletagservices.com/tag/js/gpt.js” ]

2020 CFN Five Year Program Analysis: College Football Rankings 1-130

All 130 college football programs are ranked in wins, attendance, draft and more in the 2020 CFN Five-Year Program Analysis

All 130 college football programs are ranked in wins, attendance, draft and more in the 2020 CFN Five-Year Program Analysis

Which college football programs are doing the best jobs overall, which once have all the advantages, and most of all, who’s winning?

At the end of the day, if your college football program wins a lot of games, everything else works out from the attendance, the draft picks, and the money that all follows from all of the success.

Created over two decades ago, the CFN Five-Year Program Analysis takes a look at several different factors to rank all 130 programs from all of the difference aspects.

When we first did this, Miami owned the 1990s. Florida and Nebraska had their say for a while, USC took over, and now you know who the big boys are.

How are the rankings determined? Click here for all of the category descriptions and all of the team-by-team rankings.

[jwplayer zttcjcuk]

Contact @ColFootballNews & @PeteFiutak

2019 5-Year Program Analysis Rankings
Top 10 | 11-25 | 26-50 | 51-75 | 76-100 | 101-130
Ranking Categories Explained

130 UTEP

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 9.48
2019 Ranking: 126
2018 Ranking: 123
2017 Ranking: 117
Biggest Positive: 4 players drafted
Biggest Negative: 8 FBS wins
Analysis: Years of struggles have led to this. UTEP won just eight games over FBS teams over the last five years, and all eight of them were bad wins – wins over FCS teams or teams that finished with three wins or fewer.
– CFN UTEP 2020 Team Preview

129 Texas State

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 15.04
2019 Ranking: 124
2018 Ranking: 118
2017 Ranking: 114
Biggest Positive: 2 Quality Wins
Biggest Negative: 2.5 Bad Win Score
Analysis: When you only win eight games over FBS teams and you have a Bad Win Score of 2.5, that’s not good. The Bobcats haven’t won enough, the attendance has struggled, and the APR isn’t good.
– CFN Texas State 2020 Team Preview

128 UMass

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 15.25
2019 Ranking: 129
2018 Ranking: 130
2017 Ranking: 130
Biggest Positive: 5 players drafted
Biggest Negative: 1.12 Attendance Score
Analysis: It’s been tough being an independent. The team doesn’t win enough, the 11.5 Bad Loss score stinks, and there’s not enough of a home attendance to make anything work. The dismal APR score adds insult to injury.
– CFN UMass 2020 Team Preview

127 Kansas

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 16.46
2019 Ranking: 128
2018 Ranking: 127
2017 Ranking: 123
Biggest Positive: 2.66 Attendance Score
Biggest Negative: 6 FBS wins
Analysis: Boston College and Texas Tech last season, Central Michigan, Rutgers and TCU in 2018, Texas in 2015. Those are the six wins over FBS wins in the last five seasons. That’s it. There’s nothing else positive – including the attendance – across the board.
– CFN Kansas 2020 Team Preview

126 Rice

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 17.62
2019 Ranking: 117
2018 Ranking: 95
2017 Ranking: 78
Biggest Positive: 9.816 APR Score
Biggest Negative: 0 Quality Wins
Analysis: It’s been a simple issue – the football team doesn’t win enough football games. The Owls have won just 11 over FBS programs in the last five years, and none of them came against teams that finished with a winning record. The players rock in the classroom, though.
– CFN Rice 2020 Team Preview

125 Kent State

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 22.52
2019 Ranking: 130
2018 Ranking: 125
2017 Ranking: 106
Biggest Positive: 9.74 APR Score
Biggest Negative: 1.25 Attendance Score
Analysis: The program finally knows what it’s like to win a little bit after going bowling last season, but it still needs to do a whole lot more to move up. The Attendance Score is a huge problem, and winning just 28% of all MAC games doesn’t help.
– CFN Kent State 2020 Team Preview

124 Coastal Carolina

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 23.18
2019 Ranking: 125
2018 Ranking: 128
2017 Ranking: 127
Biggest Positive: 9.69 APR Score
Biggest Negative: 1.16 Attendance Score
Analysis: There aren’t enough wins overall – it only had three years of stats in the mix – but the APR is good and there was enough success packed in the three seasons to start moving up a bit.
– CFN Coastal Carolina 2020 Team Preview

123 UConn

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 24.48
2019 Ranking: 121
2018 Ranking: 117
2017 Ranking: 105
Biggest Positive: 1 Elite Win
Biggest Negative: 9.762 APR Score
Analysis: UConn 20, Houston 17. The Huskies handed the Cougars their only loss of 2015, and that Elite Win is a huge help to the overall cause. Five players were drafted, and the APR Score is great, but there have to be more wins. Fast.
– CFN UConn 2020 Team Preview

122 UNLV

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 24.89
2019 Ranking: 122
2018 Ranking: 114
2017 Ranking: 118
Biggest Positive: 16 FBS Wins
Biggest Negative: 8 Bad Loss Score
Analysis: The 16 FBS wins are the most by anyone ranked lower than 115th, but the real boost comes from the eight wins over teams that finished with winning records. That’s a problem, though – the program has been good enough to be able to beat a few nice teams to expect more than this overall.
– CFN UNLV 2020 Team Preview

121 San Jose State

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 25.56
2019 Ranking: 120
2018 Ranking: 109
2017 Ranking: 75
Biggest Positive: 6 Draft Score
Biggest Negative: 1.49 Attendance Score
Analysis: Things started to get better last season with a few more wins, but they weren’t enough to come up with any sort of a boost. The Spartans are getting better, but the attendance is always going to be a problem, and winning more Mountain West games is a must.
– CFN San Jose State 2020 Team Preview

120 Ball State

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 25.76
2019 Ranking: 119
2018 Ranking: 111
2017 Ranking: 89
Biggest Positive: Put it this way. 13 FBS wins are the most by anyone in the bottom eight. That’s about as nice a thing as can be said for a Cardinal program that struggled, but might just turn a corner with a strong team being built up.
Biggest Negative: 0.95 Attendance Score
Analysis: Put it this way … the 13 FBS wins
– CFN Ball State 2020 Team Preview

119 Liberty

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 26.03
2019 Ranking: 123
2018 Ranking: 126
2017 Ranking: Not Ranked
Biggest Positive: 56% winning %
Biggest Negative: 9.488 APR Score
Analysis: The Flames have only been in the FBS world for two years, so there aren’t enough bulk win stats to push out of the ranking doldrums. However, the program is starting to win, it went to a bowl, and it should start to make some noise with a few more decent campaigns.
– CFN Liberty 2020 Team Preview

118 New Mexico State

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 26.33
2019 Ranking: 118
2018 Ranking: 121
2017 Ranking: 128
Biggest Positive: 9 Bad Wins
Biggest Negative: 29% winning percentage
Analysis: It’s been rough for New Mexico State to bust through – even with a winning season and a bowl victory a few years ago – without any one category that’s any good. When you “only” have nine bad wins, and that’s a plus, there’s a problem.
– CFN New Mexico State 2020 Team Preview

117 Charlotte

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 26.37
2019 Ranking: 127
2018 Ranking: 129
2017 Ranking: 129
Biggest Positive: 15 FBS Wins
Biggest Negative: 1.29 Attendance Score
Analysis: This is still a new program that’s getting stronger and stronger, coming off a trip to a bowl game. The fan base – at least the attendance – is still going to need time to build, but the trend is moving up overall.
– CFN Charlotte 2020 Team Preview

116 Rutgers

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 27.83
2019 Ranking: 109
2018 Ranking: 100
2017 Ranking: 84
Biggest Positive: 9.736 APR Score
Biggest Negative: 10 FBS Wins
Analysis: The program just doesn’t win football games. The Scarlet Knights have won fewer than 10% of their conference games, and ten FBS wins are miniscule. The saving stats are the APR and the attendance – 40,000 people a game is okay no matter how it works.
– CFN Rutgers 2020 Team Preview

115 East Carolina

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 28.18
2019 Ranking: 105
2018 Ranking: 80
2017 Ranking: 72
Biggest Positive: 3.8 Attendance Score
Biggest Negative: 20% Conference Winning %
Analysis: If the Pirates can just start winning on a regular basis, the fan base will be there to start cranking things up. The 14 FBS wins, though, aren’t good, and the 20% clip in AAC play stinks. Just two Quality Wins is a disaster.
– CFN East Carolina 2020 Team Preview

114 ULM

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 20.63
2019 Ranking: 115
2018 Ranking: 113
2017 Ranking: 104
Biggest Positive: 9.664 APR Score
Biggest Negative: 1.32 Attendance Score
Analysis: The Warhawks are sort of winning, and they’ve been competitive, but the program should be better. The APR Score isn’t that great, and the 13 Bad Wins are too many. Winning just 40% of Sun Belt games isn’t good enough.
– CFN ULM 2020 Team Preview

113 Old Dominion

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 30.66
2019 Ranking: 102
2018 Ranking: 103
2017 Ranking: 107
Biggest Positive: 21 FBS Wins
Biggest Negative: 15 Bad Wins
Analysis: The 2019 Monarchs were disappointing, and there haven’t been enough wins overall, but the 21 FBS victories over the last five years aren’t bad for being this low. There’s not a lot to get excited about, though, from the other categories.
– CFN Old Dominion 2020 Team Preview

112 Akron

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 30.75
2019 Ranking: 106
2018 Ranking: 99
2017 Ranking: 115
Biggest Positive: 20 FBS Wins
Biggest Negative: 9.452 APR Score
Analysis: Going 0-12 in 2019 doesn’t help the cause. The 20 FBS wins in the previous four seasons are the saving grace to keep things from sinking any further. There’s just nothing to get interested in across the numbers board, with the 40% winning clip in MAC play one of the few positives.
– CFN Akron 2020 Team Preview

111 Bowling Green

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 30.98
2019 Ranking: 103
2018 Ranking: 78
2017 Ranking: 60
Biggest Positive: 40% Conference Winning Percentage
Biggest Negative: 1.62 Attendance Score
Analysis: The Falcons did just enough winning a few years ago to see the slide in the rankings – 60th in 2017?! – go any further, but this is bad. The Attendance Score is always a problem, and the 12 Bad Wins don’t help.
– CFN Bowling Green 2020 Team Preview

110 Oregon State

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 32.09
2019 Ranking: 113
2018 Ranking: 98
2017 Ranking: 73
Biggest Positive: 8 players drafted
Biggest Negative: 18% conference winning percentage
Analysis: The Beavers haven’t won a whole lot of games lately with just nine victories over FBS teams over the last five seasons. The Attendance Score of 3.52 isn’t okay, and getting eight players drafted helps, but they have to be a LOT better in Pac-12 play.
– CFN Oregon State 2020 Team Preview

109 UTSA

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 33.53
2019 Ranking: 104
2018 Ranking: 93
2017 Ranking: 94
Biggest Positive: 1 Bad Loss
Biggest Negative: 15 Bad Wins
Analysis: Give UTSA credit for one thing despite the crash in the rankings over the last few years – it doesn’t lose to the miserable teams. The key in Conference USA is to not drop the games to the dregs, and the loss to North Texas – the only win of the Mean Green season – in 2015 is it. In this case, a Bad Win score of 15 isn’t that awful – you’re doing your job.
– CFN UTSA 2020 Team Preview

108 Georgia State

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 34.45
2019 Ranking: 116
2018 Ranking: 124
2017 Ranking: 126
Biggest Positive: 7 Quality Wins
Biggest Negative: 7 Bad Loss Score
Analysis: The Panthers’ run to a bowl game and a 7-6 season – with wins over Tennessee and Arkansas State – helped boost up the the program’s ranking despite the rough Attendance Score of 1.5 and horrible Bad Loss Score. Losing to Texas State last season hurts.
– CFN Georgia State 2020 Team Preview

107 South Alabama

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 34.70
2019 Ranking: 93
2018 Ranking: 87
2017 Ranking: 99
Biggest Positive: 6 Quality Wins
Biggest Negative: 28% conference winning percentage
Analysis: The Jaguars aren’t getting it done in the Sun Belt. They only have 15 FBS wins overall and can’t get enough big performances in conference play, but a win at Troy in 2017 and a victory over San Diego State on the road gave them a 2.5 Elite Win score to put a stop to the ranking freefall.
– CFN South Alabama 2020 Team Preview

106 Illinois

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 34.95
2019 Ranking: 101
2018 Ranking: 102
2017 Ranking: 95
Biggest Positive: 9.808 APR Score
Biggest Negative: 23% conference winning percentage
Analysis: The Lovie Smith era isn’t exactly taking off. Yeah, Illinois went to a bowl game last season, but the 17 FBS wins and a mere three Quality Wins aren’t getting it done. Getting almost 40,000 fans per game helps, and the APR Score is great, but the program doesn’t win enough Big Ten games.
– CFN Illinois 2020 Team Preview

105 New Mexico

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 35.00
2019 Ranking: 97
2018 Ranking: 96
2017 Ranking: 93
Biggest Positive: 1 Bad Loss Score
Biggest Negative: 33% conference win percentage
Analysis: The Lobos went to bowl games in 2015 and 2016, and everything fell off the map with with just two wins that weren’t against FCS or teams that finished with three wins or fewer over the last three seasons. The program has just one Mountain West win since late September of 2017.
– CFN New Mexico 2020 Team Preview

104 Eastern Michigan

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 36.64
2019 Ranking: 114
2018 Ranking: 122
2017 Ranking: 124
Biggest Positive: 23 FBS wins
Biggest Negative: 1.41 Attendance Score
Analysis: It’s hard to move up too much when the attendance hovers around 14,000 a game and the team wins about 38% of its MAC games. However, the 23 wins for a program that struggled for so, so long is fantastic.
– CFN Eastern Michigan 2020 Team Preview

103 Tulsa

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 38.40
2019 Ranking: 112
2018 Ranking: 106
2017 Ranking: 82
Biggest Positive: 23 FBS wins
Biggest Negative: 4.5 Bad Loss Score
Analysis: The Golden Hurricane are struggling to get to 20,000 fans a game in the stands, and the 4.5 Bad Loss Score is crushing, but the 2-10 season of 2014 isn’t on the books anymore so the ranking went up. Improving the 9.4 APR and the 48% conference winning clip would help.
– CFN Tulsa 2020 Team Preview

102 Nevada

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 39.51
2019 Ranking: 100
2018 Ranking: 112
2017 Ranking: 101
Biggest Positive: 9.714 APR Score
Biggest Negative: 1.82 Attendance Score
Analysis: It seems like the Wolf Pack should be a whole lot better than this. They have a not-horrible 26 wins over FBS teams and six Quality Wins, the Bad Loss Score of 5 and the mediocre attendance are a drag.
– CFN Nevada 2020 Team Preview

101 North Texas

Five-Year Program Analysis Score: 40.22
2019 Ranking: 94
2018 Ranking: 89
2017 Ranking: 102
Biggest Positive: 8 Quality Wins
Biggest Negative: 2 players drafted
Analysis: The Mean Green won 24 games over FBS teams over the last five years, and the eight wins over teams that finished with a winning record are great, but the 14 bad wins and 3.5 Bad Loss Score brought the ranking down.
– CFN North Texas 2020 Team Preview

2019 5-Year Program Analysis Rankings
Top 10 | 11-25 | 26-50 | 51-75 | 76-100
Ranking Categories Explained

NEXT: CFN Five Year Program Analysis Rankings, The Top 100

Pages: 1234567

College Football Elite Loss Rankings By Conference: 2020 CFN Five Year Program Analysis

Who had the most losses to top teams? In the CFN 5-Year Program Analysis, here’s the conference ranking of who had the most elite losses

Who had the most elite losses over the last five years? Here are the conference rankings of the teams and their losses to the best of the best – the defeats to the powerhouses on the slate.

Contact @PeteFiutak

They’re the big losses that hurt, but are forgivable. By conference, who had the most losses to the elite teams over the last five years?

An Elite Loss is a loss to a team that finished with two losses or fewer.

[jwplayer z06Wb7Fe]

ACC

1 Florida State 9

2 Louisville 8

T3 Georgia Tech 7

T3 Pitt 7

T5 Boston College 6

T5 Syracuse 6

T5 Wake Forest 6

T5 Virginia Tech 6

9 NC State 5

10 Miami 4

T11 Clemson 3

T11 Duke 3

T11 North Carolina 3

T11 Virginia 3

[lawrence-related id=516689]

American Athletic Conference

T1 Navy 9

T1 SMU 9

T3 Cincinnati 8

T3 Memphis 8

T3 Tulane 8

T6 East Carolina 7

T6 Tulsa 7

T6 USF 7

9 Temple 5

10 Houston 4

11 UCF 3

[lawrence-related id=485709]

Big 12

1 Iowa State 9

T2 Baylor 7

T2 TCU 7

T2 Texas Tech 7

T5 Kansas 6

T5 Kansas State 6

T5 Texas 6

T5 West Virginia 6

T9 Oklahoma 5

T9 Oklahoma State 5

[lawrence-related id=485714]

Big Ten

1 Maryland 12

2 Michigan 11

T3 Indiana 10

T3 Rutgers 10

5 Northwestern 9

6 Nebraska 8

T7 Illinois 7

T7 Wisconsin 7

T9 Michigan State 6

T9 Penn State 6

T11 Iowa 5

T11 Minnesota 5

T11 Purdue 5

14 Ohio State 4

[lawrence-related id=485700]

Conference USA

1 North Texas 4

T2 Charlotte 3

T2 Florida Atlantic 3

T2 Middle Tennessee 3

T5 FIU 2

T5 Marshall 2

T5 Old Dominion 2

T5 Southern Miss 2

T9 WKU 1

T9 Louisiana Tech 1

T9 Rice 1

T9 UAB 1

T9 UTEP 1

14 UTSA 0

[lawrence-related id=516733]

Independents

T1 UConn 6

T1 Notre Dame 6

3 Army 4

4 New Mexico State 3

T5 BYU 2

T5 UMass 2

7 Liberty 1

[lawrence-related id=485748]

T1 Kent State 4

T1 Miami Univ. 4

T4 Buffalo 3

T4 Ohio 3

T4 Central Michigan 3

T4 Eastern Michigan 3

T4 Northern Illinois 3

T9 Bowling Green 2

T9 Ball State 2

T9 Toledo 2

T9 Western Michigan 2

NEXT: MW, Pac-12, SEC, Sun Belt

Pages: 12

College Football Elite Loss Rankings 1-130: 2020 CFN Five Year Program Analysis

Who got hit with the most losses to top teams? In the CFN 5-Year Program Analysis, here’s the 1-130 ranking of who had the most elite losses

Who had the most elite losses over the last five years? Here are the 1-130 rankings of the teams and their losses to the best of the best – the defeats to the powerhouses on the slate.

Contact @PeteFiutak

Sometimes, a team should get a bit of a pass for losing a game.

While some schools and coaches – (cough) Michigan and Jim Harbaugh (cough) – aren’t allowed to lose to the elite of the elite teams, there should be a little bit of forgiveness if you just so happen to have the misfortune of facing to one of a season’s superstars.

Who had the most losses to the best teams over the last five seasons?

Elite Losses: defeats to FBS teams that finished a season with two losses or fewer.

[jwplayer zttcjcuk]

– CFN Preview 2020: All 130 Team Previews

130 UTSA

5-Year Elite Loss Total: 0
2019 Elite Loss Total Ranking: 130

T121 Arizona State

5-Year Elite Loss Total: 1
2019 Elite Loss Total Ranking: T118

T121 Boise State

5-Year Elite Loss Total: 1
2019 Elite Loss Total Ranking: T118

T121 Liberty

5-Year Elite Loss Total: 1
2019 Elite Loss Total Ranking: T118

T121 Louisiana Tech

5-Year Elite Loss Total: 1
2019 Elite Loss Total Ranking: T101

T121 Rice

5-Year Elite Loss Total: 1
2019 Elite Loss Total Ranking: T101

T121 San Diego State

5-Year Elite Loss Total: 1
2019 Elite Loss Total Ranking: T101

T121 UAB

5-Year Elite Loss Total: 1
2019 Elite Loss Total Ranking: T118

T121 UTEP

5-Year Elite Loss Total: 1
2019 Elite Loss Total Ranking: T118

– CFN 2020 ACC Preseason Rankings

T121 WKU

5-Year Elite Loss Total: 1
2019 Elite Loss Total Ranking: T118

T109 Appalachian State

5-Year Elite Loss Total: 2
2019 Elite Loss Total Ranking: T101

T109 Ball State

5-Year Elite Loss Total: 2
2019 Elite Loss Total Ranking: T101

T109 Bowling Green

5-Year Elite Loss Total: 2
2019 Elite Loss Total Ranking: T101

T109 BYU

5-Year Elite Loss Total: 2
2019 Elite Loss Total Ranking: T77

T109 FIU

5-Year Elite Loss Total: 2
2019 Elite Loss Total Ranking: T77

T109 Marshall

5-Year Elite Loss Total: 2
2019 Elite Loss Total Ranking: T118

T109 Nevada

5-Year Elite Loss Total: 2
2019 Elite Loss Total Ranking: T101

T109 Old Dominion

5-Year Elite Loss Total: 2
2019 Elite Loss Total Ranking: T77

T109 Southern Miss

5-Year Elite Loss Total: 2
2019 Elite Loss Total Ranking: T77

– CFN 2020 All-American Athletic Team

T109 Toledo

5-Year Elite Loss Total: 2
2019 Elite Loss Total Ranking: T60

T109 UMass

5-Year Elite Loss Total: 2
2019 Elite Loss Total Ranking: T101

T109 Western Michigan

5-Year Elite Loss Total: 2
2019 Elite Loss Total Ranking: T101

NEXT: Top 87 Elite Loss Rankings

Pages: 12345

College Football Elite Win Rankings By Conference: 2020 CFN Five Year Program Analysis

Who came up with the big victories that make a season? Here are the rankings by conference of the teams with most elite wins each season.

How many elite wins did you get? Who came up with the really, really big victories that make a season? Here are the rankings by conference of the teams with FBS wins over the strongest and best teams each season.

Contact @PeteFiutak

Who got the big wins, and who was able to get the most of them in each conference? They’re the elite wins, and they take a team to a whole other level.

In the CFN Five-Year Program Analysis, an Elite Win is a victory over an FBS team that finished with two losses or fewer, or three losses or fewer on the road, neutral site game, conference championship or bowl game. An extra 0.5 is added on to the Elite Win score when a team comes up with a road victory or in a bowl game over a team that finished with two losses or fewer.

ACC

1 Clemson 13

2 Florida State 2.5

3 Miami 2

4 Pitt 1.5

T5 Syracuse 1

T5 Duke 1

T5 North Carolina 1

T5 Virginia 1

T9 Boston College 0

T9 Louisville 0

T9 NC State 0

T9 Wake Forest 0

T9 Georgia Tech 0

T9 Virginia Tech 0

[lawrence-related id=516689]

American Athletic Conference

1 Houston 4.5

2 UCF 3

T3 Temple 2

T3 Memphis 2

T3 Navy 2

T6 Cincinnati 0

T6 East Carolina 0

T6 SMU 0

T6 Tulane 0

T6 Tulsa 0

T6 USF 0

[lawrence-related id=485709]

Big 12

1 Oklahoma 10.5

2 Texas 5

3 Baylor 3

4 Kansas State 2

5 Iowa State 1.5

T6 Oklahoma State 1

T6 TCU 1

T8 Kansas 0

T8 Texas Tech 0

T8 West Virginia 0

[lawrence-related id=485714]

Big Ten

1 Ohio State 8.5

2 Penn State 7.5

3 Michigan State 5.5

T4 Iowa 4

T4 Wisconsin 4

6 Minnesota 2

T7 Indiana 1

T7 Nebraska 1

T7 Northwestern 1

T7 Purdue 1

T11 Illinois 0

T11 Maryland 0

T11 Michigan 0

T11 Rutgers 0

[lawrence-related id=485700]

Conference USA

1 Boise State 6

2 Fresno State 2

T3 Colorado State 1

T3 Utah State 1

T3 Hawaii 1

T3 Nevada 1

T3 San Diego State 1

T8 Air Force 0

T8 New Mexico 0

T8 Wyoming 0

T8 San Jose State 0

T8 UNLV 0

[lawrence-related id=485690]

Independents

1 Notre Dame 4

T2 UConn 1

T2 Army 1

T2 BYU 1

T5 Liberty 0

T5 New Mexico State 0

T5 UMass 0

[lawrence-related id=485748]

MAC

T1 Northern Illinois 1.5

T1 Western Michigan 1.5

3 Central Michigan 1

T4 Akron 0

T4 Bowling Green 0

T4 Buffalo 0

T4 Kent State 0

T4 Miami Univ. 0

T4 Ohio 0

T4 Ball State 0

T4 Eastern Michigan 0

T4 Toledo 0

NEXT: MW, Pac-12, SEC, Sun Belt

Pages: 12

College Football Elite Win Rankings 1-130: 2020 CFN Five Year Program Analysis

Who came up with the really big victories? In the CFN 5-Year Program Analysis, here’s the 1-130 ranking of who had the most elite wins.

How many elite wins did you get? Who came up with the really, really big victories that make a season? Here are the 1-130 rankings of the teams with FBS wins over the strongest and best teams each season.

Contact @PeteFiutak

Who got the true difference-making, season-defining wins over the last five years? Who came up with the most elite wins?

As you’ll notice, it’s really, really hard to get a win over a great team – that’s why they’re Elite Wins.

[jwplayer zttcjcuk]