Michigan St (22-5) (13-3) NET 8 SoS 39
Vital signs: 9-4 R/N, non-con SoS 147, 10-3 vs. Q1, 3-2 vs. Q2, avg win 97
Signature wins: Purdue, @Wisky, Maryland
Bad losses: @Illinois, Indiana
The 10 Q1 wins is a bit inflated, as @Nebraska and PSU are mixed in there. With games against Michigan in hand, plenty of chances to move up to the 1 line coming.
Michigan (24-3) (13-3) NET 7 SoS 80
Vital signs: 8-3 R/N, non-con SoS 183, 7-3 vs. Q1, 8-0 vs. Q2, avg win 115
Signature wins: UNC, Purdue, Wisky
Bad losses: @Penn St
Plenty of signature wins, all metrics outside of non-con SoS in great shape. Still though, competition is tight on the 1 line, so wins over Michigan St will be required for those purposes.
Purdue (19-7) (12-3) NET 11 SoS 7
Vital signs: 6-7 R/N, non-con SoS 48, 7-6 vs. Q1, 6-0 vs. Q2, avg win 93
Signature wins: Michigan St, @Wisky, Maryland
Bad losses: N-Notre Dame
Only issue of note is perhaps losing too many Q1 games to be a 2 or 3 seed. Plenty of quantity in their profile. Their pretty marginal non-con results are their undoing on that front.
Wisconsin (18-8) (10-5) NET 12 SoS 11
Vital signs: 8-5 R/N, non-con SoS 50, 7-6 vs. Q1, 3-2 vs. Q2, avg win 115
Signature wins: Michigan, Maryland, @Iowa
Bad losses: @WKU, Minny?
An obviously safe resume that perhaps lacks some high-end quality. Tough to see this sneaking into the top 4 lines.
Maryland (20-7) (11-5) NET 23 SoS 16
Vital signs: 7-5 R/N, non-con SoS 45, 6-5 vs. Q1, 5-2 vs. Q2, avg win 124
Signature wins: Purdue, Wisky, @Iowa
Bad losses: N-Illinois, SHU?
I have no idea how their non-con SoS is 45. Looks unimpressive on the surface. That observation aside, their resume is fine. Mostly kept their nose clean, and has done solid road/neutral work.
Iowa (21-6) (10-6) NET 30 SoS 85
Vital signs: 7-3 R/N, non-con SoS 274, 4-6 vs. Q1, 7-0 vs. Q2, avg win 132
Signature wins: Michigan, Iowa St, Ohio St
Bad losses: @Minny is the worst
That non-con SoS is a fatal flaw that’s going to keep them from the Maryland/Wisconsin tier. Still an obviously fine resume outside of that one blemish.
Ohio St (17-9) (7-8) NET 43 SoS 61
Vital signs: 6-4 R/N, non-con SoS 139, 4-6 vs. Q1, 3-2 vs. Q2, avg win 137
Signature wins: @Cincy, Minny? @Nebraska?
Bad losses: Illinois, @Rutgers
The bottom line is they’ve whiffed against every team ahead of them in the standings. Ouch. A decent number of Q1/Q2 wins, but there’s some empty calories in there. It is hardly safe. But, Maryland, Iowa, Purdue, Wisky are still on the board. It’s time for them to add some quality wins to the ledger.
Minnesota (17-10) (7-9) NET 52 SoS 40
Vital signs: 5-7 R/N, non-con SoS 169, 3-8 vs. Q1, 5-2 vs. Q2, avg win 127
Signature wins: @Wisky, N-Washington, Iowa
Bad losses: @BC, @Illinois
1 true road win. Sure, it’s Wisky. But 1 true road win. That’s a black mark. Most of the other metrics are at least tolerable or better. Good news though: they get to play Rutgers and Northwestern on the road next. If they show some general competency, I think they’ll be fine.
Nebraska (14-12) (5-11) NET 46 SoS 92
Vital signs: 4-8 R/N, non-con SoS 209, 2-9 vs. Q1, 5-3 vs. Q2, avg win 131
Signature wins: @Clemson, Minny? @Indiana?
Bad losses: @Rutgers, @Illinois
Indiana (13-14) (4-12) NET 57 SoS 33
Vital signs: 3-9 R/N, non-con SoS 162, 5-10 vs. Q1, 0-4 vs. Q2, avg win 147
Signature wins: @Michigan St, Louisville, Marquette
Bad losses: @Northwestern and Rutgers, etc
It’s amazing I can even semi-legitimately justify listing a team below .500, but 5 Q1 wins make it mandatory. But whatever.