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

What do you think about when looking at the top 15-20 teams out there?  (I presume few of us rank every 297,000 teams each year.)  I think many of us (most?) are influenced by Athlon et al. at least to get a top 20 or so.  Maybe a team below that perks up and gets interesting later on, which is neat I think.

My own rather qualitative "ranking scheme" goes like this:

1.  Solid returning QB with experience.  This is my number uno factor, by a good measure.  Obviously, a highly regarded FNG can be given some "points", and we fairly often today see an FNG QB do really well, but it's harder to predict.

2.  Returning OLmen who were good last year.  This can compensate for an inexperienced QB to an extent and make a decent RB look really good.  If 3-4 return and 1-2 were all conference, really good sign.

3.  Consistency.  If the team has recruited well and has finished top ten over the past 5 year period or so, it's obvious they likely will finish there again.  Duh.

4.  Schedule.  Each team typically has 4-5 "loseable games" each season, if they are top ten material.  Some of these games can be decided by a late fumble or penalty or whatever and end up as a loss even by the better team.

This is usually pretty good for choosing 7-8 of the top ten, and sometimes useful in spotting a less heralded team that has the potential to have a great year (top ten).  And of course, "round up the usual suspects" works well also.

That solid QB thing didn't work too well for my boys last year. He got worse...


I'm bullish on this season, due to his transfer, the OL, RB, TE and WR. DL is healthy too, which also hurt last year. LB is young, but very fast. It will be fun to watch them.

OL is always important to any offense, but especially to offenses like the Badgers and the Hawkeyes and Georgia Tech

i think i'd go:

• returning starters

• returning oline that were/are good. returning a bad oline doesn't do much for me. same for other positions. to me, a good oline can mask almost all other problems on the o side, and today's game is geared towards offense.
• returning dline. all world secondary and/or lbs can't do much if the qb has time to throw or oline can easily get to second level.
• returning qb. can mask some, but will eventually get caught and need help.
• returning rb. can take over a game more effectively than a single lb, db, te or wr.

• coaching turnover
• recruiting consistency - this will allow for holes from leaving starters to be filled with quality players that already know the system
• recruiting needs met - a star player can change a team, but it's got to be in the right place.
• schedule - when and where the hard teams fall is a contributing factor.

How often does a great defensive player change the game for a top team these days?

I was musing about Roquan Smith, who was close to as much of a game changer as I've seen for a while on defense.  He certainly made a difference.

If that's the case, Maryland ought to be really good this year.

If what is the case?

"What do you think about when looking at the top 15-20 teams out there?"

I wanted to keep this one separate because it seems more theoretical and controversial:

I think DB is the most complicated set of returnees to evaluate. To me, the difference between a full set of great returning DBs (relative to one great returning DB) is greater than the same difference for full sets at OL or DL (again, relative to just one great one returning). 

That's a nuanced point, so I have to be clear: I think, guy-for-guy, that returnees at OL and DL are more valuable than returnees at DB. But I also think that the *slope* for value as you go from one guy to a full set is greatest for DBs. Followed by OL and then by DL (and by far least for WRs and LBs).

There's always a slope for the incomplete sets. Because having a weak link (turd in punch bowl) will always blemish group. I just happen to think that effect is maximal for DBs. That the weak link for a 3(good)/4 DB set is easier to exploit than for a 4(good)/5 OL set or 3(good)/4 DL set.