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

I always vote for the team that most exceeds my expectations, since really that's all this award is.  So I went MSU.  I had them 4-8, they went over that by 6 wins.  Wisconsin was exactly what I believe I predicted preseason (12-0 followed by a loss in Indy), while OSU was slightly worse (I had them as Big Ten champs, with only 1 loss).  Not sure where I had Northwestern and Purdue, certainly lower than they finished, but not 6 wins lower.

Not sure where I had Northwestern and Purdue, certainly lower than they finished, but not 6 wins lower.

https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?topic=238.120

You had Purdue as 1-8 (2-10).  So Five wins lower.

(EDIT) ..and if you want to be truly honest with yourself ELA, if you had been asked in the preseason which would be more surprising, Dantonio bouncing back from one bad season to being a 9 win team (before the bowls) or Purdue going bowling in Jeff Brohm's first year, which would you have picked?

https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?topic=238.120

You had Purdue as 1-8 (2-10).  So Five wins lower.

(EDIT) ..and if you want to be truly honest with yourself ELA, if you had been asked in the preseason which would be more surprising, Dantonio bouncing back from one bad season to being a 9 win team (before the bowls) or Purdue going bowling in Jeff Brohm's first year, which would you have picked?

Probably about the same.  Honestly the only game I felt good about was Bowling Green.  But, as you said, it was tough to imagine them staying THAT far down, so I went MSU in all 3 games (WMU, UMD, @Rutgers) that I felt were tossups.
In my Top 120 countdown last spring, I had Michigan State #91 and Purdue #96.  So I felt like they were basically equal.

I agree voting for Dantonio. From what I remember he kept all his assistants too and  rallied the same collection of players who the season before had divided themselves.

Less than the same.
They played enough young guys that people were sort of hoping for a bounce back 2017 early on, but then losing 13 underclassmen early to the Draft, transfers or dismissals, the take on the state of the program going into last year was dismal, as my #91 preseason ranking shows.
I will say, the feeling was that the starters could be serviceable, but there was no depth, so if they stayed healthy, they could mangle something together possibly.  And they did stay healthy.  RBs were the only group that had even minor injury issues, forced us to pull Heyward's redshirt, but that's about it.

He did a great job with the turnaround. No question about it.

He also had a TON more talent to work with than Brohm. Purdue has recruited at mid-MAC levels for years now.

I certainly wouldn't go that far.  Based on composite recruiting rankings, their class would have still been #1 in the MAC in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2017; and #2 in 2016.  They've still all along been recruiting above MAC level, just not at Big Ten level.

I don't have easy access to the numbers now, but I recall Rutgers recruiting rankings being another one of the reasons I didn't want them in the conference.

The 4 or 5 years prior to coming to the B1G they were a middle of the Mac in recruiting, and Purdue was the worse but still ahead of any Mac Team.

Rutgers just didn't belong under any metric except, hopeful access to NYC media market.  
And If I recall correctly FOX Sports pulled some ESPN crap and said "Hey New Yorkers, we own the Yankee Entertainment Network, if you want access to that, you'll have to take the BTN also. So was Rutgers really needed at all?