Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I am neither a Badger fan, nor do I have strong feelings one way or the other with regards to Minnesota, but everything else that you said is true. 

Most have given up on Michigan, but they have some talent right?  Are they the second most talented squad in the conference?

Maybe this is the year they do better than expected?

This is a chart I made up from Scout rankings not too long ago:

This is total signees over the last five years so, at least in theory, it is a good baseline for the talent available to each program.  

Obviously Ohio State jumps off the page with a lot more 5* guys than the other 13 teams combined and also more 4* guys than any other school.  Thus, it shouldn't be terribly surprising that the Buckeyes have been REALLY good lately, tOSU B1G records:

• 5-0 in 2020, outright B1G-E Champion, B1G Champion
• 9-0 in 2019, outright B1G-E Champion, B1G Champion
• 8-1 in 2018, B1G-E Champion, B1G Champion
• 8-1 in 2017, outright B1G-E Champion, B1G Champion
• 8-1 in 2016, co-B1G-E Champion
• 7-1 in 2015, co-B1G-E Champion
• 8-0 in 2014, outright B1G-E Champion, B1G Champion, CFP Champion
• 8-0 in 2013, outright B1G-Divisional Champion
• 8-0 in 2012, outright B1G-Divisional Champion
• 3-5 in 2011, 4th in division

In 10 years of divisional play the Buckeyes have nine B1G losses.  Five of those in the first year which was a coaching transition year for Ohio State and four in the nine years since.  Also the Buckeyes have won nine straight Division Championships and five B1G Championships including four straight.  


Based on this, Michigan *SHOULD* be #2.  As an Ohio State fan they still concern me more than most other B1G teams because they probably have the most raw talent of any other B1G team so therefore they probably have the highest ceiling of any other B1G team.  That said, their records of late certainly do NOT reflect that:

• 2-4 in 2020, 6th in B1G-E
• 6-3 in 2019, 3rd in B1G-E
• 8-1 in 2018, co-B1G-E Champion
• 5-4 in 2017, 4th in B1G-E
• 7-2 in 2016, 3rd in B1G-E
• 6-2 in 2015, 3rd in B1G-E
• 3-5 in 2014, tied for 4th/5th in B1G-E
• 3-5 in 2013, 5th in division
• 6-2 in 2012, 2nd in division
• 6-2 in 2011, 2nd in division

Michigan isn't recruiting at Ohio State's level but neither is any other school outside of Georgia and Alabama.  That said, they are recruiting at a level sufficiently good that they shouldn't be pushing 20 years since their last league title (2004) and they obviously should have more than a single divisional co-championship in 10 years of divisional play.  

I've already provided a complete and total breakdown of my reasoning with regards to Rutgers. All I could do is restate what I already said at this point.

Yeah, and I get it. But my counter-argument would be based on the chart medina just posted.

I think it will end up being another bad year. They may have a good recruiting class coming in, but football usually takes at least 1-2 years before that shows up on the field. They're in the same division with two teams (OSU and UM) that each have more 5* players in the last 5 years than they have 4*, teams like PSU and UMD which have significant leads in both 5* and 4* players, and MSU and IU that may be in somewhat similar recruiting over that same time period. They don't have a recruiting advantage over anyone in the division, and a division record of 2-4 would probably be the best case scenario.

I don't think there's a team in either division that I'd look at Rutgers and say "yeah, Rutgers should easily handle that team." There are more than a few where I think Rutgers would be competitive or it might be a toss-up, but none that I'd simply call them clear favorites.

If you think of a power ranking as "who would I pick to win on a neutral field", Rutgers would be somewhere between #11 and #14 for me. 

Schiano in year 2 might give them a boost towards the upper end of that range, but I wouldn't suggest mid-pack. 

Yeah, and I get it. But my counter-argument would be based on the chart medina just posted.

I think it will end up being another bad year. They may have a good recruiting class coming in, but football usually takes at least 1-2 years before that shows up on the field. They're in the same division with two teams (OSU and UM) that each have more 5* players in the last 5 years than they have 4*, teams like PSU and UMD which have significant leads in both 5* and 4* players, and MSU and IU that may be in somewhat similar recruiting over that same time period. They don't have a recruiting advantage over anyone in the division, and a division record of 2-4 would probably be the best case scenario.

I don't think there's a team in either division that I'd look at Rutgers and say "yeah, Rutgers should easily handle that team." There are more than a few where I think Rutgers would be competitive or it might be a toss-up, but none that I'd simply call them clear favorites.

If you think of a power ranking as "who would I pick to win on a neutral field", Rutgers would be somewhere between #11 and #14 for me.

Schiano in year 2 might give them a boost towards the upper end of that range, but I wouldn't suggest mid-pack.

I have them ranked behind OSU, PSU, Michigan and Indiana in the B1G East, along with Wisconsin, Iowa and Northwestern in the B1G West. Yet you guys are behaving as though I am picking them to contend for a Big Ten Title. 

So every team that you listed as being obviously better than them, I am in full agreement with the exception of Maryland, who are perennial underachievers that are usually down to their 3rd string QB by the beginning of October. 

I just don't see how you could definitively favor any of the other teams over Rutgers on a neutral field. Rutgers is the only one of the road apples that is clearly trending in the right direction, so I parked them at the top of the dung heap for the time being. Now maybe they will take a giant step back while a Purdue or whoever else gets off to a hot start, at which point I will make the necessary adjustments. But for now I'll throw Rutgers a bone for their unexpected turnaround. 

What I was expecting to get a brow beating for was picking Michigan second because a) they were hilariously bad last year and cancelled the season like a bunch of cowards, b) everyone else has them ranked low, and c) it is extremely off script for me to rank them any higher than the lowest possible spot that isn't going to make Medina's head explode. But the talent chart might explain why he gave me a pass on being so bullish on the Wolverines this year. 

I just don't see how you could definitively favor any of the other teams over Rutgers on a neutral field. Rutgers is the only one of the road apples that is clearly trending in the right direction, so I parked them at the top of the dung heap for the time being. Now maybe they will take a giant step back while a Purdue or whoever else gets off to a hot start, at which point I will make the necessary adjustments. But for now I'll throw Rutgers a bone for their unexpected turnaround.

Oh, I don't favor those other teams. I think everyone on medina's list from Purdue on down to Rutgers, including IU, is a toss up, except maybe Northwestern. 

I get it though, you see an upward trend there. That's enough explanation for where you put them for me. 

We can all agree that recruiting rankings and star ratings do mean something and usually are a good overall predictor of success.  But another indicator may be how well that talent is developed and how many players end up on NFL rosters.  Attached is a summary of how many players are in NFL camps right now,  which is not the same thing as players that will make the final rosters,  but still I do believe it does mean something.

I'm thinking defense. The offense should be fine.