CFBLive! Fan Ranking Index

This is the ninth year in a row that CFBLive! and FBFans have pooled resources and created the Fan Ranking Index. We’ve done the research and crunched the numbers, and there was significant movement throughout the rankings in 2008-2009.

Gator fans climbed into the top place on the index this year, and their fans had plenty of reasons to cheer. Penn State, Oklahoma, and Texas made the largest jumps within the Top 25. It’s no surprise that these programs all performed well. Their teams gave them a reason to cheer and travel, and all three programs have accomplished alumni centers.

CONFERENCE RATINGS Conference Points SEC 90.29 Big Ten 88.23 Big 12 87.99 ACC 85.42 Pac 10 85.05 Big East 83.91 Mountain West 80.03 WAC 77.92 Conference USA 77.23 Sun Belt 74.03 Mid-American 73.13

While neither program showed up in the Top 50, Temple fans made the largest drop mostly due to attendance figures (31 spots) and Ball State fans climbed 17 spots due to a strong season.

The best fans outside the major conferences were Notre Dame followers. They led the way for three programs in the west: BYU, Utah, and Boise State. The latter programs are establishing themselves for years to come.

Overall the fan bases in the SEC, Big Ten, and Big Twelve dominate the index. The ACC struggled this year and the Pac-10 held steady. The Big East has the most variance. Mountain West fans were the only non-major conference to achieve an average ranking of over 80 points.

Many readers are interested in the formulas we use for the Index. We combine categories based on objective and subjective rankings. Only the Top Fifty programs are displayed. If you would like to know where other programs are ranked or see programs listed by conference you can make a request in the comments section.

Attendance: (Sell-Outs and Capacity): This category considers the capacity of the stadium though most of the points are awarded based on how close the fans come to filling it. The formula rewards fans that sell out their stadiums.

Noise Production: Fan Noise gauges the level of disruption and intimidation caused by fans during the game. This is not necessarily based on crowd size, so large stadiums with thousands of mellow fans will not rate as high as a smaller stadium with more exuberant fans. Stadiums with student sections located at mid-field and close to the action are given higher ratings. This year home winning percentage is taken into considering as a bonus.

Loyalty: (Reputation & Sportsmanship) Even when the home team is in a slump, the loyal fans still come out to support them. Faithful fans remain until the clock runs to zero, and you rarely see them file out of the facilities at halftime. This has historical influence, but it's also based on the current and past season. Spring game attendance is another objective measurement value for loyalty.

Travel: This is measured by the willingness of fans to travel during the regular and post season to show support for their beloved team. If fans have to travel greater distances to play opponents then this is taken into consideration as well. Selling out travel allotments is also a good measuring tool. Tailgating and game day atmosphere are taken into consideration here.

* This year Merchandising was removed from the formula because those figures aren't released until the following year. The results often combine overall merchandise which includes basketball and other sports.

Feedback Appreciated: Your feedback is appreciated, especially when backed up with first hand accounts of stadium visits or facts/figures.

2008-09 CFBLive! Fan Ranking Index

TEAM RATINGS
Fan Index		Total	Attendance	Noise	Loyalty	Travel
#	Program	100.00	30.00	30.00	10.00	10.00
1	Florida	95.42	28.78	29.56	8.88	8.20
2	Penn St.	95.30	29.61	28.06	9.13	8.50
3	Ohio St.	95.10	29.59	28.06	8.88	8.58
4	Louisiana St.	94.98	28.66	29.15	9.00	8.18
5	Tennessee	94.92	29.45	27.90	8.75	8.83
6	Alabama	94.90	28.78	28.17	9.13	8.83
7	Oklahoma	94.08	28.03	28.50	8.88	8.68
8	Michigan	94.05	29.63	27.15	8.63	8.65
9	Nebraska	94.01	28.03	27.83	9.13	9.03
10	Texas	93.71	29.53	27.58	8.63	7.98
11	Georgia	93.50	28.80	27.75	8.88	8.08
12	Auburn	93.47	28.01	28.02	8.88	8.58
13	Texas A&M	93.41	27.53	28.81	9.00	8.08
14	Wisconsin	93.37	27.66	28.19	8.63	8.90
15	Virginia Tech	91.64	26.16	28.06	8.75	8.68
16	Southern Cal	91.41	27.53	27.78	8.00	8.10
17	Notre Dame	91.41	27.28	26.48	8.88	8.78
18	S. Carolina	90.87	27.28	26.77	8.75	8.08
19	Michigan St.	90.17	26.91	26.99	8.13	8.15
20	Clemson	90.06	27.03	27.45	8.38	7.20
21	Iowa	90.06	26.41	26.90	8.00	8.75
22	Florida St.	89.47	27.03	26.86	8.25	7.33
23	Oregon	89.41	25.41	27.83	8.00	8.18
24	W. Virginia	89.41	25.16	27.95	8.13	8.18
25	Arkansas	88.50	25.91	27.27	8.00	7.33
26	BYU	88.43	25.78	26.75	7.88	8.03
27	Kansas	88.09	24.70	27.37	7.63	8.40
28	Missouri	87.87	25.53	26.54	7.75	8.05
29	Utah	87.72	24.28	27.29	8.00	8.15
30	Kentucky	87.59	26.53	26.11	7.63	7.33
31	Oregon St.	87.26	23.88	27.20	8.00	8.18
32	Illinois	87.11	25.53	26.30	7.88	7.40
33	Texas Tech	86.76	24.91	26.81	7.75	7.30
34	Colorado	86.68	24.53	26.38	7.50	8.28
35	Boston College	86.42	23.41	27.34	7.88	7.80
36	Kansas St.	85.89	23.66	26.21	7.63	8.40
37	Boise St.	85.84	22.04	27.75	8.00	8.05
38	Washington	85.83	25.03	25.38	7.63	7.80
39	Oklahoma St.	85.70	23.28	26.85	7.88	7.70
40	N. Carolina	85.58	25.16	25.35	7.75	7.33
41	Mississippi	85.50	24.28	26.55	7.38	7.30
42	California	85.42	24.91	26.19	7.25	7.08
43	Maryland	85.33	23.78	27.00	7.63	6.93
44	Arizona St.	85.31	25.16	25.80	7.38	6.98
45	Rutgers	85.23	23.91	27.02	7.63	6.68
46	UCLA	85.18	25.53	25.43	7.13	7.10
47	Virginia	85.10	24.28	25.87	7.75	7.20
48	Hawaii	85.05	23.03	27.04	7.88	7.10
49	Louisville	85.03	23.28	26.53	7.63	7.60
50	Purdue	85.01	24.41	25.83	7.00	7.78

2008-09 NCAA Football Family Atmosphere Rankings

The top two spots remain the same in the second annual CFBLive! Football Family Atmosphere Rankings. The Football Family List becomes more dysfunctional beyond these paternal programs. Due to head coaching changes and academic penalties based on the APR (Academic Progress Rate), a host of programs disappeared while others made their debut.

Recognition for building strong character and unity in student-athletes doesn’t have to come at the expense of winning. In fact, most of the programs in the 2008-2009 rankings reflect the best of both worlds. We’ve identified key elements to define the intrinsic family feeling created in college football.

Family atmosphere begins with the head coach and his staff. Their guidance, integrity, and personality set the stage for their athletes and employees.

The staff’s leadership bolsters individuals and teams, whether they are facing adversity or handling success. Using input from across the country, we’ve built a list of programs that foster family atmospheres.

Family atmosphere plays a major role in an athlete’s integration with the school and team. This occurs during a time when young athletes are making the transition from home to college. In the end, the football family bond ensures teammates feel included, complete coursework, and aren’t distracted by acts that would otherwise get them grounded. Like any other family, these athletes are given the support to lead successful lives.

Camaraderie shared between athletes can carry a program through challenging times, as evidenced by the many programs on this list that seem to get stronger as the season progresses. Athletes that build trust within one another are more likely to experience success and accomplish their goals.

Recruiting student athletes with these values before they arrive on campus contributes to a healthy atmosphere. However, it’s athletes with troubled pasts that often reap the greatest rewards.

Young student-athletes leaving home for the first time want a comfortable destination that can make their college transition easier. A well-adjusted athlete performs better in school and on the gridiron. This aspect is often overlooked within sports programs, yet it has a significant impact on the long term well being of both the individual and the program as a whole.

THE 2008-09 TOP FAMILY ATMOSPHERE PROGRAMS
Programs going through head coaching changes this year were not eligible for this list. Those that don’t meet the minimum Academic Progress Rate are not qualified for the rankings either. Most of the programs listed below have had their core coaching staff in place for multiple years, but this is not a prerequisite. Data for determining the top programs was collected after January 2007.

Last season West Virginia (Rich Rodriguez), University of Hawaii (June Jones), Auburn (Tommy Tuberville), and Army (Stan Brock) all made the Top 10. This year those coaches and programs are going in another direction and four other programs have replaced them.

1) OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY BEAVERS
Head of the Family: Mike Riley
2008 Ranking: #1
2007 Ranking: #1

Whether the offense is growing beards as a sign of solidarity or the athletes are raising money and awareness for underprivileged children, head coach Mike Riley is the person setting the foundation. Coaches around the league send transfer players to Riley because of the person he is. One of the big stories in previous years was the kidney transplant that graciously went from the offensive coordinator to the offensive line coach’s wife. She’s doing well in 2009…

2) PENN STATE NINTANY LIONS
Head of the Family: Joe Paterno
2008 Ranking: #2
2007 Ranking: #2

Joe Paterno has cultivated an atmosphere of family and trust in State College, PA. The loyalty of defensive coordinator Tom Bradley over the last 29 years illustrates the family aura. In simple terms Bradley explains, “There's just a unique family atmosphere between the staff, the players and the community.” Paterno and Bradley are known for taking immediate corrective action when athletes find trouble off the field and making sure they don’t stray.

3) TEXAS LONGHORNS
Head of the Family: Mack Brown
2008 Ranking: #3
2007 Ranking: #9

The Texas program has enjoyed over a decade of strong leadership and coaching from head coach Mack Brown. Brown ensures his athletes avoid off-field distractions in a place where football players are treated with reverence. In addition, Brown is an advocate to several causes including the Texas Council on Family Violence.

4) WAKE FOREST DEMON DEACONS
Head of the Family: Jim Grobe
2008 Ranking: #4
2007 Ranking: #13

There aren’t many coaches more respected for their (I THINK it’s “their” and not “his”… not entirely sure) integrity and ability to mold youth than Jim Grobe. Grobe has passed up more glamorous head coaching positions to stay at Wake Forest and signed a long term contract. He’s proof that nice guys can finish on top because his staff and athletes persevere through tough times using teamwork and trust.

5) GEORGIA BULLDOGS
Head of the Family: Mark Richt
2008 Ranking: #5
2007 Ranking: #6

Mark Richt uses religious values, weekly ‘Family Nights’, and individual accountability to instill a family atmosphere. Richt’s personal lessons came while playing at the University of Miami when off field troubles derailed his career. Since then his coaching style leads his student-athletes to make smart choices on and off the field.

6) RUTGERS SCARLET KNIGHTS
Head of the Family: Greg Schiano
2008 Ranking: #6
2007 Ranking: Not Ranked

The term family atmosphere is easy to apply to Rutgers. The Scarlet Knights have more siblings playing in their program than nearly every major conference program. During recruiting visits, most recruits admit the primary theme they discovered was the family atmosphere. Greg Schiano extended his contract through 2016, and his pledge to his athletes that he’ll stay for them carries more weight than many other well-respected coaches in the business.

7) VIRGINIA TECH HOKIES
Head of the Family: Frank Beamer
2008 Ranking: #7
2007 Ranking: #4

It’s been over a year since the tragedy on Blacksburg’s campus. Head Coach Frank Beamer has helped his student-athletes move past the horror and recommit themselves to school and football. His closest friends describe him as feisty and fatherly in the same sentence. Not everyone learns life lessons under Coach Beamer. Ask the Vicks. But overall Beamer is still one of the best at establishing a family feeling among his staff and players.

8) UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TROJANS
Head of the Family: Pete Carroll
2008 Ranking: #8
2007 Ranking: #8

Head Coach Pete Carroll lands on this list for a different reason than most. His charismatic, class act approach is a testament to a school located between downtown Los Angeles and Compton. The distractions are high, but Coach Carroll has regularly discussions with his players about accepting accountability and keeping the annual hype in perspective. Perhaps the biggest compliment comes from former athletes that maintain a brotherhood years after leaving the program.

9) EAST CAROLINA PIRATES
Head of the Family: Skip Holtz
2008 Ranking: #9
2007 Ranking: #12

Skip Holtz may have learned a trick or two from his father (Lou Holtz) about creating team unity and setting an example for athletes. His finest season of coaching occurred this year when his team struggled to a 3-3 start. Holtz didn’t change the playbook. He repaired the cohesiveness of the athletes and instilled an “us-against-the-world” mentality that led to the Conference Championship and Conference USA Coach of the Year Award.

10) NEBRASKA CORNHUSKERS
Header of the Family: Bo Pelini
2008 Ranking: #10
2007 Ranking: Unranked

It’s not often a first year coach cracks the Top 10 list, but Bo Pelini has a long list of advocates on his behalf. He started off his first press conference by saying he would bring back Cornhusker tradition and the signature family atmosphere that had evaporated under the two prior regimes. Once the family atmosphere was restored at Nebraska, it was easy to get players to buy into Pelini’s other two ingredients toward winning: Effort and Attitude.

Honorable Mention List:

11) Ohio State: Jim Tressel isn’t the epitome of cool, but he’s created a program based on old-fashioned values, trust and loyalty. Ohio State’s family atmosphere is founded on those values. (2007 Ranking, #11)

12) Louisiana Tech: It all begins with Head Coach and Athletic Director Derek Dooley. In just two seasons Dooley’s leadership has produced team unity that has led to unprecedented wins on the field and in academics. (2007 Ranking, unranked)

13) Ole Miss: When Houston Nutt resigned at Arkansas he took his ability to create team unity and a belief in winning to Ole Miss. Few recruits leave their official visits without mentioning the family atmosphere that surrounds his programs. (2007 Ranking, unranked)

14) Oklahoma: Bob Stoops isn’t a touchy-feely coach, but his former athletes give testimonials that he creates a setting where his athletes feel like family. (2007 Ranking, unranked)

15) Stanford: Jim Harbaugh began molding his coaches and players into a family by handing out gas station uniform shirts with the purpose of building a blue-collar bond throughout the team. (2007 Ranking, unranked)

Where to go for College Football Recruiting

College Football recruiting has evolved over the years. By request CFBLive! has spent the last 4 months performing the research to navigate you through the modern recruiting landscape with an eye toward the future. We’ve subscribed to many services over the years, conducted interviews with current site subscribers, and provided countless hours of online inquiries to determine which service(s) provide the best value.

Understanding the types recruiting services is the first step. Recruiting coverage is divided into five categories as defined below:

National Recruiting (generally covers the top 250-500 athletes) Regional Recruiting (focus on city, state, or region) Program Specific Recruiting (recruiting analysis on NCAA program) Hybrid Network (national and program-specific) Athlete Services & Promotion (designed to market student-athletes)

Rivals.com and Scout.com are classified as Hybrid Networks because they offer a staff of National evaluators, and provide individual NCAA team websites. The hybrid recruiting sites also offer High School and Junior College specific websites. Hybrid sites offer the best of all worlds for fans that want complete recruiting coverage.

ESPN dipped their foot in the hybrid waters in 2007, but they are generally included with other recruiting services like PrepStar, Tom Lemming (CSTV), and Max Emfinger. These sites are classified as National Recruiting websites. Each has its own niche that makes it attractive to the college football market.

There are few program-specific sites remaining that are not affiliated with a major Network. Examples of the Program Specific coverage include Notre Dame’s BlueAndGold.com and Washington’s RealDawg.com. Dave Campbell’s Texas Football is a primary example of Regional Recruiting. These sites are not covered in the 2008 Buyer’s Guide, but be aware of them if you want local recruiting coverage.

Based on our research, feedback, and user comments, we've identified the Top Five recruiting sites over the last year. However, your needs may change the way you would rank their coverage so be sure to visit the Buyer’s Guide.

Athlete Services and Promotion is not covered in this guide because prospective athletes pay to market themselves on these sites. Athlete marketing leads to biased rankings.

College Football Recruiting Services - TOP 5

1) [92/100 overall rating] Rivals.com – In 2007 Rivals was added to the Yahoo! Sports family. While they still manage themselves, they are marketed by the team at Yahoo!. Rivals.com is currently the recognized leader in NCAA, High School, and Junior College football recruiting. Led by CEO Shannon Terry and venerable recruiting personality Bobby Burton, Rivals.com offers NCAA fans a dreamscape of football, basketball, and baseball information. Jeremy Crabtree is the National Recruiting Analyst and provides the power under the hood of the Rivals engine. Recruiting guru Jamie Newburg joined the Rivals team in 2008 after years at Scout.com. Team specific websites ensure recruiting has a focused flavor for all Division 1A programs. Instead of print magazines, Rivals invests in Radio and Online Video.
[$9.95/mo or $99.95/yr]

JUNIOR COLLEGE RECRUITING – JCGridiron.com: The retirement of Hank Ives (JCGridwire) leaves Brad Hoiseth as one of only two full-time JUCO publishers in the Nation. He’s located near the action in Southern California. Hoiseth provides a high number of quality features and his recent “Top 100 Gridders” list is capturing attention. This year the JCGridiron Team is affiliated with the BioKats JUCO camps and combines. Hoiseth’s reputation among fans and coaches is among the best in the recruiting fraternity.

HIGH SCHOOL RECRUITING – Student Sports: Student Sports and Nike have created a strong foundation for athletes to improve on the Nike Camp circuit. These camps are a major benefit to Rivals because of their access to the Nike Camps so the measurements on Rivals.com are considered more accurate by college coaches. Greg Biggins is the recruiting analyst for Student Sports and has become a household name.

2) [88/100 overall rating] Scout.com - Fox Sports acquired Scout.com in 2005. Formerly TheInsiders.com, the company dabbles in professional sports, but like Rivals.com it focuses on college recruiting coverage. Patrick Crumb is the SVP and General Manager. Recruiting legend Allen Wallace, formerly of SuperPrep, joined Scout.com as their Recruiting Editor and has long been one of the best in the business. Scout.com has an assortment of regional recruiting managers that ensure the database overflows with prospects at all levels. There are team-specific sites all across Scout.com that provide an assortment of recruiting information. They also cover Junior College and High School recruiting. Scout.com puts more emphasis on print media than other web-based strategies.
[$9.95/mo or $99.95/yr]

JUNIOR COLLEGE RECRUITING – JCFootball.com: Kevin Lustgarten owns and operates the JCFootball.com on the Scout.com Network. There are a series of regional combines offered. Some income comes from JUCO athletes that are willing to pay to have their names marketed. Providing athlete services can lead to biased rankings and features. A strong message board provides insight and entertainment, and JCFootball.com has long been a favorite destination for the JUCO community.

HIGH SCHOOL RECRUITING – Scout has teamed with sponsor Under Armour to provide a series of combines across the Nation. This provides them an opportunity to get reliable statistics on many athletes across the country. The Scout Combines have evolved over the years, and are no longer losing ground to the Student Sports/Nike camps and combines.

3) [74/100 overall rating] ESPN.com (Insider) - The focus at ESPN is usually on blue chip recruits so it's worth investigating. They have started making associations with independent publishers. ESPN welcomed disenchanted publishers from Scout.com (USC, Florida, Oklahoma, and Ohio State). The general premium package from ESPN is included with their Insider Access where National top recruits are covered, but their recruiting information is historically inaccurate. In many cases it arrives second-hand from Rivals and Scout. While ESPN has a magazine, it is not specific to recruiting.
[Package range from $9.95/mo to $11.95/mo]

JUNIOR COLLEGE RECRUITING – Reliable Junior College information is hard to find on ESPN. Coaches or Recruitniks interested in Junior College features need to lean on JCGridiron.com or JCFootball.com.

HIGH SCHOOL RECRUITING – ESPN does well covering team rankings, but their vision into High School recruiting doesn’t match insight gained by Nike Camps (Rivals/Student Sports) or Scout Camps (Scout.com). The numbers reported by ESPN are unconfirmed or borrowed from Rivals/Scout camps and combines. This could change in 2008 as ESPN works on high school television and camp ideas.

4) [73/100 overall rating] Prepstar.com - This National online magazine offers supplemental information to Rivals and Scout. Jeff Duva is the founder of PrepStar and introduced Rick Kimbrel to the business (Kimbrel has since taken over as Rivals West Coast expert). Prepstar is really the exterior around a foundation called CSA-PrepStar that attempts to place high school student-athletes at the collegiate level. Due to this association, there is always the risk that information provided within PrepStars rankings could be biased, but they also uncover athletes other recruiting publishers miss.
[Online – $4.95, Magazine - $64.95 (4 issues), Season Pass – $99.95/annual]

JUNIOR COLLEGE RECRUITING – Like its name indicates, PrepStar puts most of its focus on high school athletes.

HIGH SCHOOL RECRUITING – Prepstar doesn’t have a series of camps or combines, but it does have the PrepStar Magazine All-American Camp. The camp is overshadowed by bigger games like the Army-All American Bowl, but it still draws good athletes.

5) [71/100 overall rating] TomLemmingFootball.com (College Sports TV)
This marks Tom Lemming’s 30th year in the recruiting business. His tenure has earned him respect, and he fought the establishment by staying offline. His independence offered luxuries other services can’t provide, and throughout the years has sold his work to many major media outlets. His weakness comes in providing timely news since his publication is offline. Partnering with College Sports TV (CBSSports college presence) may change that, but CSTV relies on other recruiting services for news on athletes outside the top 500. The recruiting tandem of Bill Hodge and Lemming at College Sports TV are well respected, but CSTV is far behind other services. While we list Tom Lemming and CSTV as partners, it's Lemming's magazine that generates revenue.
[magazine - $60.00/three annual magazines or $90/three magazine + 5 bulletins]

JUNIOR COLLEGE RECRUITING – Limited Coverage. Lemming focuses on preps so if you care about the entire recruiting process his information may not be thorough enough.

HIGH SCHOOL RECRUITING – Strong National coverage. If you want to know about the top recruits around the Nation, then Lemming’s publications should give you insight into athletes that haven’t been uncovered by the other publishers. He’s on the road nearly half the year interview and analyzing athletes.

Behind the Scenes and Looking Forward

Over the past decade the major sites have jockeyed for position. Many of the independent recruiting services have joined more technologically advanced networks that take care of administrative and data-related tasks. The last 12 months have brought several new developments that will shape the coming years. Gone are the days of using (900) numbers and waiting for an annual newsletters or magazines.

Rivals.com has emerged from the pack with the best recruiting product, and this year the company found someone to market their services – Yahoo! To keep the momentum, Rivals.com needs to invest in their core recruiting team that breaks stories across all regions. Otherwise Rivals.com will slip. Keep an eye on the partnership between Rivals and Student Sports.

Fox and ESPN have butted heads in broadcast television, and the battle has crossed into recruiting territory. In 2007 a subset of unhappy Scout.com publishers left the Scout Network (Fox) and affiliated with ESPN's website. This ebb and flow isn’t new. Similar scenarios played out four years ago between Rivals and Scout, but they shook hands and agreed to reduce publisher poaching. But ESPN is new to this contest and is posturing for position.

Independent National sites from founding fathers like Tom Lemming and Max Emfinger are reinventing their niche. Lemming left ESPN and partnered with CSTV which is CBSSportsline’s extension for college sports. Emfinger left Scout.com and went independent with his National site. While Emfinger’s website is clunky, it’s already a Top 10 college recruiting destination and is worth investigating if you are in the Southeast.

Prepstar remains part of the National scene, though it relies on income through marketing and placing recruits. They handle their own research and uncover information other major sites might miss. Prepstar has kept name recognition, but it’s flying below the radar and won’t challenge Rivals, Scout, or ESPN anytime soon.

Subscriber's Guide and Bottom Line: About a decade ago the popularity of recruiting and the internet sites peaked. One long-time HS fan in Florida explained, “At least 30-35 legitimate National and Regional sites came on the scene around 2000, and they’ve all morphed. The gurus are all the same, but they now flock to the best place to market their information.”

If you’re interested in Recruiting Coverage, investigate your NCAA team site on Rivals.com and Scout.com. This is where the majority of recruiting gurus have landed. Even though they are more expensive it’s still your best bang for the buck.

If you don’t want to drop a C-Note on your recruiting habit then consider subscribing to ESPN’s Insider Package or PrepStar for National coverage. Most sites offer a free limited-time offer so take advantage and see which site has the strongest features and community. If you don’t need timely information at your fingertips or prefer print media then consider Tom Lemming’s publication.

Subscriber’s Guide
• Be cautious with sites that offer athlete marketing because their ratings and features can be biased.
• Magazines are a nice touch, but they are antiquated and take time away from online publishing. In most cases the information has already been recycled.
• Recruiting websites affiliated with legitimate Camps and Combines offer reliable combine values.
• Don’t rely on the experts. Seeing is believing, and several sites offer video on the majority of prospects.
• If you have the recruiting itch then subscribe to multiple sites. It certainly won’t make you less informed.
• Strong message boards and forums can often be the best way to learn about recruits and your program.
• Pick sites that concentrate on recruiting and aren’t saturated with other sports information that can be found in local media.
• Take advantage of weekly trials if you want to get a feel for a website.

* Please share your thoughts and opinions based on your experiences.

CFBLive! - Fan Ranking Index

In the autumn of 2000 a group of college football pundits began to identify and rank the top college football fans. Ranking the fans was an original but difficult undertaking. The team spent months developing and compiling objective formulas and subjective input from media and game day experts.

After months of research the team released their ‘Fan Ranking Index’ under the online name FBFans, and over the last eight years the process has evolved. The core categories and grades are as similar today as they were in the first year of the index. The most significant change is that College Football Live! hosts and assists with the FBFans index and content.

Each year there are questions about the index, and this article will clarify as many questions as possible. The group of college media and fans that provide input into the Fan Ranking Index continues to grow as well. The panelists cover major college football regions and send updates from after attending college football games.

The data is calculated in an algorithm and a numeric value determines where the fans are ranked. Our current group of panelists has a broad range of college football knowledge for the subjective rankings, and it is the differing opinions that make the index unique.

The CFBLive! Fan Ranking Index is based approximately 80% on the last twelve months of the football season and 20% on historical facts, figures, and reputations. CFBFans uses five weighted categories to determine the final assessment. Each of the categories is based on a subset of sub-categories.

Here is an example of how the categories are compiled. The “Attendance” category is based on a formula that includes four different variables. It considers the stadium capacity, the size of the alumni base, and percentage of sold tickets in the last year, and number of other Division 1A schools in the state. This is an important category so Attendance contributes 30% of the ratings.

Other than a category for “Merchandise” the other categories are more subjective. We enforce standards to keep the values reasonable. For example, the “Travel” category will generally have a close deviation among programs, and it also takes into consideration fans willingness to watch games in bad weather. The “Noise Production” category is based on reputation, decibel values (when available), proximity of the students to the field, and on the program’s home field success during the season.

The “Loyalty” category is the only category based on historical reputation. It has sub-categories that include game day atmosphere, sportsmanship, tailgating, general support for the team, and whether fans support the program through good and bad seasons.

We've chosen the categories that we thought best quantify the spirit of the fans, and try to apply quantitative values. It's not an exact science so we use fan input to help find articles or share personal testimony that will give the panelists more insight. While the rankings cover all 119 major programs, only the Top 50 are shown below.

---

Attendence: (Sell-Outs and Capcity): This category considers the capacity of the stadium though most of the points are awarded based on how close the fans come to filling it. The formula rewards fans that sell out their stadiums.

Noise Production: Fan Noise gauges the level of disruption and intimidation caused by fans during the game. This is not necessarily based on crowd size, therefore large stadiums with thousands of mellow fans will not rate as high as a smaller stadium with more exuberant fans. Stadiums with student sections located at mid-field and close to the action are given higher ratings.

Loyalty: (Reputation & Sportsmanship) Even when the home team is in a slump, the loyal fans still come out to support them. Faithful fans remain until the clock runs to zero, and you rarely see them file out of the facilities at halftime. This has historical influence, but it's also based on the current and past season.

Travel: This is measured by the willingness of fans to travel during the regular and post season to show support for their beloved team. If fans have to travel greater distances to play opponents then this is taken into consideration as well. Selling out travel allotments is also a good measuring tool. Tailgating and game day atmosphere are taken into consideration here.

Merchandise (bonus rating): This rating comes from the sales analysis on NCAA programs. This bonus rating partially measures how much National support a program receives from fans.

2007 CFBLive!
Fan Ranking Index

Fan Index		Total	Attendance	Noise	Loyalty	Travel	Merch.
#	Program	100.00	30.00	30.00	10.00	10.00	bonus
1	Louisiana State	97.20	28.78	29.88	9.25	7.88	1.42
2	Florida	96.74	28.78	29.63	8.75	8.00	1.58
3	Tennessee	96.70	29.57	28.38	8.63	8.63	1.50
4	Ohio State	96.55	29.59	28.25	8.88	8.25	1.58
5	Michigan	96.30	29.63	27.75	9.00	8.25	1.67
6	Alabama	96.28	28.78	28.50	9.00	8.50	1.50
7	Penn State	96.24	29.61	28.00	9.13	8.00	1.50
8	Texas A&M	95.41	27.53	29.75	9.13	7.75	1.25
9	Auburn	95.17	27.51	28.63	9.00	8.63	1.42
10	Nebraska	95.11	27.66	28.38	8.88	8.88	1.33
11	Georgia	95.01	28.80	28.00	8.75	7.88	1.58
12	Oklahoma	94.91	27.66	28.50	8.88	8.38	1.50
13	Wisconsin	94.86	27.66	28.38	8.63	8.88	1.33
14	Notre Dame	93.57	27.28	27.25	8.88	8.50	1.67
15	Texas	93.32	28.03	27.25	8.50	7.88	1.67
16	South Carolina	92.86	27.16	27.50	9.00	7.88	1.33
17	Virginia Tech	92.78	26.16	28.63	8.63	8.38	1.00
18	Iowa	92.28	26.53	28.00	8.00	8.75	1.00
19	Clemson	91.91	27.53	28.00	8.38	7.00	1.00
20	Southern Cal	91.86	27.78	27.13	7.88	8.00	1.08
21	Florida State	91.45	27.28	27.50	8.13	7.13	1.42
22	Oregon	90.41	25.41	28.25	8.00	7.75	1.00
23	Arkansas	90.11	26.28	27.75	7.63	7.13	1.33
24	Michigan State	90.03	26.41	27.38	7.50	7.75	1.00
25	West Virginia	90.03	25.41	28.00	8.00	7.63	1.00
26	Kentucky	88.82	26.16	26.50	7.63	7.13	1.42
27	Colorado	88.66	24.53	27.50	7.50	8.13	1.00
28	BYU	88.53	25.78	26.13	7.88	7.75	1.00
29	Kansas	88.20	23.82	27.75	7.63	8.00	1.00
30	Oregon State	88.13	23.38	27.88	8.00	7.88	1.00
31	Washington	88.11	25.66	26.75	7.50	7.13	1.08
32	Boston College	87.78	23.66	27.63	8.00	7.50	1.00
33	Kansas State	87.70	23.78	27.13	7.63	8.00	1.17
34	Illinois	87.61	24.03	27.38	7.88	7.00	1.33
35	Virginia	87.32	25.28	26.25	7.75	6.88	1.17
36	Utah	87.41	23.41	27.25	8.00	7.75	1.00
37	Purdue	87.20	25.16	26.50	7.00	7.38	1.17
38	Missouri	87.07	24.78	25.88	7.63	7.63	1.17
39	Texas Tech	87.07	24.53	26.63	7.75	7.00	1.17
40	UCLA	87.03	26.03	26.00	7.00	7.00	1.00
41	Maryland	87.03	24.53	27.50	7.63	6.13	1.25
42	Louisville	87.03	23.28	27.38	7.88	7.50	1.00
43	Hawaii	86.78	23.16	27.75	7.88	7.00	1.00
44	Boise State	86.67	22.04	27.88	8.00	7.75	1.00
45	California	86.53	25.28	26.13	7.38	6.75	1.00
46	Rutgers	86.53	23.91	27.63	7.63	6.38	1.00
47	Oklahoma State	86.53	22.91	27.38	7.88	7.38	1.00
48	Mississippi	86.41	23.78	27.25	7.38	7.00	1.00
49	North Carolina	86.36	25.16	26.00	7.50	6.38	1.33
50	Arizona State	86.16	25.03	26.25	7.38	6.50	1.00