Ratings Consensus

[huskersalways]

Phil Steele did a ratings consensus of 6 preseason ratings.

http://www.philsteele.com/Blogs/2015/JUNE15/DBJune08.html

 

[RU4Real]

76? Riiiiight....

 

[T2Kplus10]

76? Riiiiight....

That doesn't sound too off for a pre-season rating. We have a lot of unknowns for 2015 with the most glaring one at QB.

 

[RU4Real]

That doesn't sound too off for a pre-season rating. We have a lot of unknowns for 2015 with the most glaring one at QB.

We could start you at quarterback and beat half the teams above us on that list.

 

[MADHAT1]

[pfftt]

 

[RURM85]

That doesn't sound too off for a pre-season rating. We have a lot of unknowns for 2015 with the most glaring one at QB.

and with the exception of Ohio State, everybody else in our Conference has a lot of unknowns

 

[sherrane]

We could start you at quarterback and beat half the teams above us on that list.

Perhaps. Discard the highest (58 by Lindy) and lowest (97 by FEI) and the average of the other 4 is 73.5 instead of 74.83, so a lot of people are thinking similarly.

 

[NYSportsFan]

We could win 10 games this year and next year's preseason rankings we would be #70 up 6 spots. our rankings have been the same the past 10 years, they never change. thats why coaches have people on staff that look for these articles and clip em out and make sure the players see this stuff. motivation.

 

[DJ Spanky]

Just unbelievable how much history plays into these rankings instead of actual research and facts.

I pulled the following from that list, either teams we're playing (with game date in bold), teams we beat last year (UNC, Navy, etc.), other Big Ten teams (Iowa, NW, etc.) or teams of note (Temple, BC, etc.):

1 OHIO ST (10/24/2015)
7 MICHIGAN ST (10/10/2015)
23 WISCONSIN (10/31/2015)
31 MICHIGAN (11/07/2015) (2014 - 5-7 (3-5 B1G))
32 NEBRASKA (11/14/2015)
39 PENN ST (09/19/2015) (2014 - 7-6 (2-6 B1G))
41 N CAROLINA (2014 - 6-7 (4-4 ACC))
44 PITTSBURGH (2014 - 6-7 (4-4 ACC))
51 IOWA (2014 - 7-6 (4-4 B1G))
54 VIRGINIA (2014 - 5-7 (3-5 ACC))
56 TEMPLE (2014 - 6-6 (4-4 AAC))
58 NORTHWESTERN (2014 - 5-7 (3-5 B1G))
59 BOSTON COLLEGE (2014 - 7-6 (4-4 ACC))
62 NAVY
64 WASHINGTON ST (09/12/2015) (2014 - 3-9 (2-7 P12))
66 MARYLAND (11/28/2015) (2014 - 7-6 (4-4 B1G))
67 ILLINOIS (2014 - 6-7 (3-5 B1G))
74 INDIANA (10/17/2015) (2014 - 4-8 (1-7 B1G))

76 RUTGERS

80 PURDUE (2014 - 3-9 (1-7 B1G))
82 SYRACUSE (2014 - 3-9 (1-7 ACC))
100 KANSAS (09/26/2015)
121 ARMY (11/21/2015)

What's amazing is that 6 teams we beat are now rated higher than us. Other Big Ten teams with worse records than ours are rated higher than us.

 

[BigLou]

I was going to bring up the same thing about the 6 teams we beat. We continue to get no respect.

 

[rutgersdave]

This would mean that we don't win a Big Ten game and they expect us to be last in the big Ten East.

 

[Rutgers25]

I think they put A LOT of weight on returning starters. We return only 5 on offense and defense. They don't do any research on the depth chart to see who will be replacing these guys it if the listed starter actually got most of the snaps.

 

[HeyHuey]

Losing Nova hurts but....hey, this is college. People on the outside (and in) look at losing Ralph and our game becomes "52 card pickup."

 

[RURM85]

I think they put A LOT of weight on returning starters. We return only 5 on offense and defense. They don't do any research on the depth chart to see who will be replacing these guys it if the listed starter actually got most of the snaps.

Maryland lost 13 starters and 17 players on their 2 deep (excludes recent losses of Leaks and Veii bringing their total up to 19 players). Yeah, the losing starters, which includes Brown, 3 OL, 4 WRs and major defensive losses is every bit as bad as our losses.

Indiana losses 45% of their total production yards in 1 player, Tevin Coleman.

Based on starter losses, I can argue we're as good as a number of other teams that are ahead of us.

 

[wheezer]

fixated on that temple rating right now.....geez

 

[RUChoppin]

We could start you at quarterback and beat half the teams above us on that list.

Unfortunately, we're playing 6 teams that are 39th or better on that list, half of which are on the road. I'm assuming our upcoming scheduling is at least partly taken into account in a few of the rankings.

Still, just bulletin board material at this point.

 

[MADHAT1]

fixated on that temple rating right now.....geez

When you're in a tough conference like Temple is in , you get all the respect :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

 

[DJ Spanky]

I think they put A LOT of weight on returning starters. We return only 5 on offense and defense. They don't do any research on the depth chart to see who will be replacing these guys it if the listed starter actually got most of the snaps.

Maryland lost 13 starters and 17 players on their 2 deep (excludes recent losses of Leaks and Veii bringing their total up to 19 players). Yeah, the losing starters, which includes Brown, 3 OL, 4 WRs and major defensive losses is every bit as bad as our losses.

Let's see, they lose a 6th year senior QB (CJ Brown) and their top 4 receivers (Stefon Diggs, Deon Long, Marcus Leak, Jacquille Veii) from last year. These receivers accounted for 149/228 (65.4%) of completions, 1894/2863 (66.2%) of yards and 11/19 (57.9%) of receiving TD's.

Oh, yeah, CJ Brown also accounted for a third of their rushing yardage and TD's - 539/1582 (34.1%), 8/21 (38.1%).

Nah, that won't affect them at all this year!

 

[sherrane]

I think they put A LOT of weight on returning starters. We return only 5 on offense and defense. They don't do any research on the depth chart to see who will be replacing these guys it if the listed starter actually got most of the snaps.

They probably also took into account the recruiting rankings when evaluating the impact of the lost starters.

 

[imbazza]

It is Rutgers remember!
So we beat Washington State and take their spot at 64
Then we take down Posu at their house and take their spot at 39! Who ranks this crap!
And the best is beat Michigan at their house and we take their spot at 29 YEA new HC and they just jump to a top 30 team AINT GOING TO HAPPEN IN YEAR 1

 

[mdk01]

Indiana loses Coleman, but hey do get Sudfeld back. Still, Rutgers should be favored in that game, and ahead of a number of those teams on Spanky's list. I'd say anywhere from 55 to 65 would be appropriate for a preseason ranking. Get good QB play and it goes up from there.

 

[IMARUFAN]

Temple = 56; Rutgers = 76.

Temple goes 6-6 playing Tulane and Delaware State. Rutgers goes 8-5 playing in the B1G East and playing Nebraska & Wisconsin in their 2 crossover games with the B1G West.

I mean, come on ... these "experts" had to be drunk when they came up with these predictions. So, Temple would be favored in Vegas to beat Rutgers if they played on a neutral field in week1?! Yeah, not so much.

It's hard to take any of these predictions seriously when I see nonsense like that.

 

[MADHAT1]

Indiana loses Coleman, but hey do get Sudfeld back. Still, Rutgers should be favored in that game, and ahead of a number of those teams on Spanky's list. I'd say anywhere from 55 to 65 would be appropriate for a preseason ranking. Get good QB play and it goes up from there.

Don't think the Hoosiers are better than the Scarlet Knights, but the so-called experts might be considering with Sudfeld back and the ex UAB running back Jordan Howard (rushed for 1,587 yards and 13 touchdowns last season) Coleman's loss won't be felt that much by Indiana.
They probably didn't take into consideration James coming back and the way Hicks and Martin looked once they started getting playing time.
Those so-called ranking experts probably only thought of the RU O losing Nova and Kroft.

 

[NotInRHouse]

TTFP 39 and UNC 41.....LMAO

 

[newell138]

every year we see how useless preseason rankings are. The same teams are put in the top 30 and the rest is all a random shuffle from year to year.
Here are last years preseason and final rankings:
Preaseason ranking and Points
1 Florida State 1496
2 Alabama 1361
3 Oregon 1334
4 Oklahoma 1324
5 Ohio State 1207
6 Auburn 1198
7 UCLA 1106
8 Michigan State 1080
9 South Carolina 1015
10 Baylor 966
11 Stanford 885
12 Georgia 843
13 LSU 776
14 Wisconsin 637
15 Southern California 626
16 Clemson 536
17 Notre Dame 445
18 Ole Miss 424
19 Arizona State 357
20 Kansas State 242
21 Texas A&M 238
22 Nebraska 226
23 North Carolina 194
24 Missouri 134
25 Washington 130

1 Ohio State (59) 14-1 1475 5
2 Oregon 13-2 1402 3
3 TCU 12-1 1349 6
4 Alabama 12-2 1297 1
T5 Michigan State 11-2 1212 7
T5 Florida State 13-1 1212 2
7 Baylor 11-2 1098 4
8 Georgia Tech 11-3 1071 10
9 Georgia 10-3 925 13
10 UCLA 10-3 908 14
11 Mississippi State 10-3 767 8
12 Arizona State 10-3 756 15
13 Wisconsin 11-3 724 17
14 Missouri 11-3 710 16
15 Clemson 10-3 683 18
16 Boise State 12-2 653 21
17 Mississippi 9-4 543 9
18 Kansas State 9-4 509 11
19 Arizona 10-4 499 12
20 Southern California 9-4 315 24
21 Utah 9-4 302 23
22 Auburn 8-5 216 19
23 Marshall 13-1 161 NR
24 Louisville 9-4 116 20
25 Memphis 10-3 94 NR

 

[Abro1975]

I think once you get below the top 30, most of these so called experts spend little time doing actual research.

At worst, even with medicore new QB play (I think we will be better), RU will win 6-7 games with a running game and Defense alone.

 

[RU#1fan]

Just unbelievable how much history plays into these rankings instead of actual research and facts.

I pulled the following from that list, either teams we're playing (with game date in bold), teams we beat last year (UNC, Navy, etc.), other Big Ten teams (Iowa, NW, etc.) or teams of note (Temple, BC, etc.):

1 OHIO ST (10/24/2015)
7 MICHIGAN ST (10/10/2015)
23 WISCONSIN (10/31/2015)
31 MICHIGAN (11/07/2015) (2014 - 5-7 (3-5 B1G))
32 NEBRASKA (11/14/2015)
39 PENN ST (09/19/2015) (2014 - 7-6 (2-6 B1G))
41 N CAROLINA (2014 - 6-7 (4-4 ACC))
44 PITTSBURGH (2014 - 6-7 (4-4 ACC))
51 IOWA (2014 - 7-6 (4-4 B1G))
54 VIRGINIA (2014 - 5-7 (3-5 ACC))
56 TEMPLE (2014 - 6-6 (4-4 AAC))
58 NORTHWESTERN (2014 - 5-7 (3-5 B1G))
59 BOSTON COLLEGE (2014 - 7-6 (4-4 ACC))
62 NAVY
64 WASHINGTON ST (09/12/2015) (2014 - 3-9 (2-7 P12))
66 MARYLAND (11/28/2015) (2014 - 7-6 (4-4 B1G))
67 ILLINOIS (2014 - 6-7 (3-5 B1G))
74 INDIANA (10/17/2015) (2014 - 4-8 (1-7 B1G))

76 RUTGERS

80 PURDUE (2014 - 3-9 (1-7 B1G))
82 SYRACUSE (2014 - 3-9 (1-7 ACC))
100 KANSAS (09/26/2015)
121 ARMY (11/21/2015)

What's amazing is that 6 teams we beat are now rated higher than us. Other Big Ten teams with worse records than ours are rated higher than us.

We can certainly prove this to be complete trash during the second week of the season when WSU comes to Piscataway . Should blow them away easily.

 

[RURM85]

Don't think the Hoosiers are better than the Scarlet Knights, but the so-called experts might be considering with Sudfeld back and the ex UAB running back Jordan Howard (rushed for 1,587 yards and 13 touchdowns last season) Coleman's loss won't be felt that much by Indiana.
They probably didn't take into consideration James coming back and the way Hicks and Martin looked once they started getting playing time.
Those so-called ranking experts probably only thought of the RU O losing Nova and Kroft.

Coleman was responsible for 45% of their total yards from scrimmage last year. That wouldn't be easy to replace. Watched their Spring game and I don't believe Howard played as he was unavailable.

I also root for Indiana and watch all their games, as well as, attend 1 game a year, because my daughter is a student. At this point in time I really like us over Indiana. As mentioned I watched both Spring games and thought Rutgers has the better team at this point. While their fan base is somewhat optimistic they'll finally get to a bowl game under Coach Wilson, they are losing key components from last year in Coleman and Wynn, as well as, 3/4 of their secondary, including both CBs (Bennett and Hunter) who played well last year. Sudfeld will be working with underclassmen WRs, with Wynn and Stoner leaving. I like our chances in Bloomington.