/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/47199190/usa-today-8797463.0.jpg)
Week 2 is now behind us, but we still only have two whole data points to work with in regards to every Big Ten team. There appears to be a few certainties thus far, like Ohio State and Michigan State both being very good. Or like Maryland, Rutgers, and Indiana having absolutely awful defenses. But there are still way more unknowns. For instance, how good is anyone in the Big Ten West? Is the division Wisconsin's for the taking? Or will one of Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, or Northwestern (sorry, Purdue) step up and take it? At this point in time, there are still too many question marks for each of the six teams I just listed for us to really know anything about how the conference slate will play out.
Because of this uncertainty, the numbers you will find below are still 60% influenced by the preseason projections. For those who were upset that Iowa's offensive rushing rating was still bad after week 1, you will see that they are now almost average after week 2. These things work themselves out after enough games are played. The preseason projections are weighted so heavily early on to make sure that the numbers don't completely overreact to one game. You know, to help avoid Illinois being rated #1 overall after devouring their first two cupcakes by a total score of 96-3. You're welcome.
This week will be a less-wordy version of the Power Rankings, as I am on vacation and don't have a whole lot of time or motivation. So, I'll just leave you with a few reminders. All ratings are on a scale where 100 = the FBS average. The higher a number is above 100, the better a team is in that category. The lower a team falls under 100, the worse a team is in that particular category. Additionally, the points per game, points per game allowed, win percentage, and wins all listed below are estimates of the true talent level of each team if they were to play an exactly average schedule.
Lastly, a reminder of how the game watch rating works:
It takes into account the ranking of each team (games between two highly ranked teams are generally fun to watch), how close the game is expected to be (everyone loves a close, competitive game), and how many points are projected to be scored (sorry, defense fans, but people love when both teams score a lot of points). It then spits out a number that tells you how entertaining the game should be to watch. Like the rest of my ratings, 100 is average.
Keep in mind this metric gives equal weight to each of those three things listed. I think what I failed to mention last week is that part of looking at the THOR+ ranking of each team is not just about how highly-ranked they are, but the game watch rating also takes into account how similarly-ranked each team is. A game is expected to be closer/more entertaining when both teams are ranked right around each other. So, a game between two similarly lesser-ranked opponents that is projected be 44-41 with a 55/45% win probability split is likely going to have a higher game watch rating than a contest between two highly-ranked opponents that is projected to end 30-21 with a 65/35% win probability split. The more criteria a game projection meets, the higher the rating will be. So, if a game between two lesser-ranked teams has a higher game watch rating than you are expecting, look at how close the game is projected to be, the number of points projected to be scored (*cough* Indiana and Western Kentucky *cough*), and don't forget to look at how closely ranked each team is to their opponent (*cough* Maryland and South Florida *cough*). The main point of the game watch rating isn't to say that better football is being played in one game compared to another. It's more trying to give the viewer an idea of what games could be entertaining to watch, or are at least worth catching the end of.
Now, to the Power Rankings!
Big Ten Power Rankings Post-Week 2
Rank | Team | Coach | Offense+ | Defense+ | Special Teams+ | THOR+ | PPG vs. Avg. | PPGA vs. Avg. | W% vs. Avg. | W vs. Avg. |
4 | Ohio State | Urban Meyer | 152 | 135 | 104 | 144 | 44.7 | 21.3 | 0.853 | 10.2 |
13 | Wisconsin | Paul Chryst | 139 | 127 | 131 | 131 | 41.9 | 23.0 | 0.758 | 9.1 |
16 | Michigan State | Mark Dantonio | 139 | 130 | 64 | 129 | 41.6 | 23.1 | 0.741 | 8.9 |
27 | Michigan | Jim Harbaugh | 105 | 144 | 108 | 122 | 32.9 | 19.5 | 0.687 | 8.2 |
34 | Nebraska | Mike Riley | 125 | 107 | 96 | 119 | 38.0 | 28.0 | 0.661 | 7.9 |
35 | Illinois | Bill Cubit | 104 | 135 | 113 | 118 | 32.6 | 21.5 | 0.658 | 7.9 |
47 | Iowa | Kirk Ferentz | 100 | 117 | 117 | 110 | 31.5 | 25.5 | 0.598 | 7.2 |
51 | Northwestern | Pat Fitzgerald | 64 | 152 | 122 | 109 | 22.5 | 17.6 | 0.585 | 7.0 |
56 | Minnesota | Jerry Kill | 87 | 123 | 115 | 106 | 28.5 | 24.3 | 0.563 | 6.8 |
63 | Penn State | James Franklin | 70 | 130 | 106 | 99 | 23.6 | 22.6 | 0.514 | 6.2 |
71 | Purdue | Darrell Hazell | 86 | 96 | 100 | 93 | 27.7 | 30.4 | 0.468 | 5.6 |
80 | Maryland | Randy Edsall | 99 | 69 | 158 | 87 | 31.9 | 36.4 | 0.423 | 5.1 |
82 | Rutgers | Kyle Flood | 98 | 68 | 133 | 87 | 31.8 | 37.0 | 0.418 | 5.0 |
96 | Indiana | Kevin Wilson | 92 | 62 | 83 | 78 | 29.5 | 38.6 | 0.351 | 4.2 |
1. Ohio State #4, 144 THOR+
Rank | Offense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Blocking+ | Offense+ | PPG vs. Avg. |
6 | Ohio State | Urban Meyer | 138 | 133 | 110 | 120 | 152 | 41.1 |
Rank | Defense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Pressure+ | Defense+ | PPGA vs. Avg |
19 | Ohio State | Urban Meyer | 139 | 121 | 138 | 125 | 135 | 17.7 |
Rank | Special Teams | Coach | Off. Special Teams+ | PPG vs. Avg. | Def. Special Teams+ | PPGA vs. Avg. | Special Teams+ |
57 | Ohio State | Urban Meyer | 74 | 3.6 | 134 | 3.5 | 104 |
Up Next: vs. #61 Northern Illinois
Game Watch Rating: 71
Win Probability: 93%
Projected Score: Ohio State 48, Northern Illinois 20
2. Wisconsin #13, 131 THOR+
Rank | Offense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Blocking+ | Offense+ | PPG vs. Avg. |
13 | Wisconsin | Paul Chryst | 118 | 109 | 116 | 104 | 139 | 37.8 |
Rank | Defense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Pressure+ | Defense+ | PPGA vs. Avg |
34 | Wisconsin | Paul Chryst | 128 | 117 | 106 | 144 | 127 | 19.6 |
Rank | Special Teams | Coach | Off. Special Teams+ | PPG vs. Avg. | Def. Special Teams+ | PPGA vs. Avg. | Special Teams+ |
9 | Wisconsin | Paul Chryst | 114 | 4.1 | 147 | 3.4 | 131 |
Up Next: vs. #98 Troy
Game Watch Rating: 44
Win Probability: 93%
Projected Score: Wisconsin 60, Troy 20
3. Michigan State #16, 129 THOR+
Rank | Offense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Blocking+ | Offense+ | PPG vs. Avg. |
14 | Michigan State | Mark Dantonio | 141 | 102 | 120 | 108 | 139 | 37.7 |
Rank | Defense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Pressure+ | Defense+ | PPGA vs. Avg |
29 | Michigan State | Mark Dantonio | 112 | 135 | 113 | 139 | 130 | 18.8 |
Rank | Special Teams | Coach | Off. Special Teams+ | PPG vs. Avg. | Def. Special Teams+ | PPGA vs. Avg. | Special Teams+ |
120 | Michigan State | Mark Dantonio | 96 | 3.9 | 32 | 4.3 | 64 |
Up Next: vs. #75 Air Force
Game Watch Rating: 73
Win Probability: 87%
Projected Score: Michigan State 52, Air Force 21
4. Michigan #27, 122 THOR+
Rank | Offense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Blocking+ | Offense+ | PPG vs. Avg. |
51 | Michigan | Jim Harbaugh | 72 | 109 | 73 | 115 | 105 | 28.9 |
Rank | Defense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Pressure+ | Defense+ | PPGA vs. Avg |
11 | Michigan | Jim Harbaugh | 129 | 124 | 73 | 138 | 144 | 15.7 |
Rank | Special Teams | Coach | Off. Special Teams+ | PPG vs. Avg. | Def. Special Teams+ | PPGA vs. Avg. | Special Teams+ |
44 | Michigan | Jim Harbaugh | 110 | 4.0 | 106 | 3.8 | 108 |
Up Next: vs. #118 UNLV
Game Watch Rating: 36
Win Probability: 93%
Projected Score: Michigan 44, UNLV 10
5. Nebraska #34, 119 THOR+
Rank | Offense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Blocking+ | Offense+ | PPG vs. Avg. |
23 | Nebraska | Mike Riley | 128 | 100 | 102 | 102 | 125 | 34.1 |
Rank | Defense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Pressure+ | Defense+ | PPGA vs. Avg |
53 | Nebraska | Mike Riley | 99 | 94 | 99 | 115 | 107 | 24.2 |
Rank | Special Teams | Coach | Off. Special Teams+ | PPG vs. Avg. | Def. Special Teams+ | PPGA vs. Avg. | Special Teams+ |
82 | Nebraska | Mike Riley | 96 | 3.9 | 96 | 3.8 | 96 |
Up Next: at #25 Miami (Florida)
Game Watch Rating: 137
Win Probability: 39%
Projected Score: Nebraska 25, Miami (Florida) 37
6. Illinois #35, 118 THOR+
Rank | Offense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Blocking+ | Offense+ | PPG vs. Avg. |
56 | Illinois | Bill Cubit | 102 | 80 | 78 | 74 | 104 | 28.6 |
Rank | Defense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Pressure+ | Defense+ | PPGA vs. Avg |
20 | Illinois | Bill Cubit | 138 | 110 | 122 | 106 | 135 | 17.8 |
Rank | Special Teams | Coach | Off. Special Teams+ | PPG vs. Avg. | Def. Special Teams+ | PPGA vs. Avg. | Special Teams+ |
36 | Illinois | Bill Cubit | 116 | 4.1 | 111 | 3.7 | 113 |
Up Next: at #39 North Carolina
Game Watch Rating: 162
Win Probability: 41%
Projected Score: Illinois 29, North Carolina 31
7. Iowa #47, 110 THOR+
Rank | Offense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Blocking+ | Offense+ | PPG vs. Avg. |
62 | Iowa | Kirk Ferentz | 131 | 98 | 110 | 94 | 100 | 27.6 |
Rank | Defense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Pressure+ | Defense+ | PPGA vs. Avg |
47 | Iowa | Kirk Ferentz | 108 | 116 | 63 | 131 | 117 | 21.9 |
Rank | Special Teams | Coach | Off. Special Teams+ | PPG vs. Avg. | Def. Special Teams+ | PPGA vs. Avg. | Special Teams+ |
27 | Iowa | Kirk Ferentz | 104 | 4.0 | 129 | 3.6 | 117 |
Up Next: vs. #55 Pittsburgh
Game Watch Rating: 139
Win Probability: 65%
Projected Score: Iowa 36, Pittsburgh 26
8. Northwestern #51, 109 THOR+
Rank | Offense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Blocking+ | Offense+ | PPG vs. Avg. |
112 | Northwestern | Pat Fitzgerald | 72 | 90 | 124 | 97 | 64 | 18.3 |
Rank | Defense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Pressure+ | Defense+ | PPGA vs. Avg |
1 | Northwestern | Pat Fitzgerald | 142 | 112 | 118 | 122 | 152 | 13.8 |
Rank | Special Teams | Coach | Off. Special Teams+ | PPG vs. Avg. | Def. Special Teams+ | PPGA vs. Avg. | Special Teams+ |
22 | Northwestern | Pat Fitzgerald | 136 | 4.3 | 108 | 3.7 | 122 |
Up Next: at #46 Duke
Game Watch Rating: 136
Win Probability: 35%
Projected Score: Northwestern 13, Duke 19
9. Minnesota #56, 106 THOR+
Rank | Offense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Blocking+ | Offense+ | PPG vs. Avg. |
83 | Minnesota | Jerry Kill | 110 | 95 | 90 | 136 | 87 | 24.3 |
Rank | Defense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Pressure+ | Defense+ | PPGA vs. Avg |
40 | Minnesota | Jerry Kill | 113 | 104 | 120 | 102 | 123 | 20.5 |
Rank | Special Teams | Coach | Off. Special Teams+ | PPG vs. Avg. | Def. Special Teams+ | PPGA vs. Avg. | Special Teams+ |
32 | Minnesota | Jerry Kill | 131 | 4.2 | 100 | 3.8 | 115 |
Up Next: vs. #123 Kent State
Game Watch Rating: 49
Win Probability: 92%
Projected Score: Minnesota 41, Kent State 13
10. Penn State #63, 99 THOR+
Rank | Offense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Blocking+ | Offense+ | PPG vs. Avg. |
104 | Penn State | James Franklin | 63 | 104 | 120 | 61 | 70 | 19.7 |
Rank | Defense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Pressure+ | Defense+ | PPGA vs. Avg |
30 | Penn State | James Franklin | 119 | 127 | 80 | 149 | 130 | 19.0 |
Rank | Special Teams | Coach | Off. Special Teams+ | PPG vs. Avg. | Def. Special Teams+ | PPGA vs. Avg. | Special Teams+ |
49 | Penn State | James Franklin | 99 | 3.9 | 114 | 3.7 | 106 |
Up Next: vs. #82 Rutgers
Game Watch Rating: 115
Win Probability: 71%
Projected Score: Penn State 33, Rutgers 20
11. Purdue #71, 93 THOR+
Rank | Offense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Blocking+ | Offense+ | PPG vs. Avg. |
87 | Purdue | Darrell Hazell | 75 | 90 | 69 | 99 | 86 | 23.9 |
Rank | Defense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Pressure+ | Defense+ | PPGA vs. Avg |
71 | Purdue | Darrell Hazell | 110 | 87 | 117 | 113 | 96 | 26.7 |
Rank | Special Teams | Coach | Off. Special Teams+ | PPG vs. Avg. | Def. Special Teams+ | PPGA vs. Avg. | Special Teams+ |
64 | Purdue | Darrell Hazell | 89 | 3.8 | 111 | 3.7 | 100 |
Up Next: vs. #49 Virginia Tech
Game Watch Rating: 149
Win Probability: 46%
Projected Score: Purdue 24, Virginia Tech 27
12. Maryland #80, 87 THOR+
Rank | Offense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Blocking+ | Offense+ | PPG vs. Avg. |
66 | Maryland | Randy Edsall | 60 | 107 | 60 | 90 | 99 | 27.2 |
Rank | Defense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Pressure+ | Defense+ | PPGA vs. Avg |
95 | Maryland | Randy Edsall | 96 | 100 | 59 | 82 | 69 | 33.0 |
Rank | Special Teams | Coach | Off. Special Teams+ | PPG vs. Avg. | Def. Special Teams+ | PPGA vs. Avg. | Special Teams+ |
1 | Maryland | Randy Edsall | 174 | 4.7 | 143 | 3.5 | 158 |
Up Next: vs. #79 South Florida
Game Watch Rating: 142
Win Probability: 61%
Projected Score: Maryland 32, South Florida 26
13. Rutgers #82, 87 THOR+
Rank | Offense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Blocking+ | Offense+ | PPG vs. Avg. |
67 | Rutgers | Kyle Flood | 97 | 90 | 74 | 82 | 98 | 27.1 |
Rank | Defense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Pressure+ | Defense+ | PPGA vs. Avg |
98 | Rutgers | Kyle Flood | 88 | 107 | 59 | 98 | 68 | 33.1 |
Rank | Special Teams | Coach | Off. Special Teams+ | PPG vs. Avg. | Def. Special Teams+ | PPGA vs. Avg. | Special Teams+ |
6 | Rutgers | Kyle Flood | 177 | 4.7 | 89 | 3.9 | 133 |
Up Next: at #63 Penn State
Game Watch Rating: 115
Win Probability: 29%
Projected Score: Rutgers 20, Penn State 33
14. Indiana #96, 78 THOR+
Rank | Offense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Blocking+ | Offense+ | PPG vs. Avg. |
78 | Indiana | Kevin Wilson | 97 | 90 | 127 | 111 | 92 | 25.5 |
Rank | Defense | Coach | Passing+ | Rushing+ | Turnovers | Pressure+ | Defense+ | PPGA vs. Avg |
106 | Indiana | Kevin Wilson | 72 | 79 | 95 | 69 | 62 | 34.5 |
Rank | Special Teams | Coach | Off. Special Teams+ | PPG vs. Avg. | Def. Special Teams+ | PPGA vs. Avg. | Special Teams+ |
101 | Indiana | Kevin Wilson | 108 | 4.0 | 59 | 4.1 | 83 |
Up Next: vs. #66 Western Kentucky
Game Watch Rating: 152
Win Probability: 48%
Projected Score: Indiana 38, Western Kentucky 40