SI Big Ten Preview
Pegs us at 7-5, 4-4 in the conference.
Also predicts Nebraska over Wisconsin in the conference campionship game.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:02 PM ^
I think that is low balling us. I don't know how much I'd look into a piece that calls Braxton Miller as the impact freshman but tags him as a RB instead of a QB.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:04 PM ^
We'll be better than 4-4 in conference. I'm sure they have us losing to Neb, OSU, Iowa and MSU, but I like our odds against both of the last two. Hell, we have Neb and OSU at home, we could pull something out there.
I'm more along the lines of 9-3, 6-2. I still think ND will be tough.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^
With the analysts saying that Iowa is going to be solid? They are breaking in a new QB, while deep at the RB spot in terms of potential, not a lot of game experience. I know everyone says that Kinnick is a hard place to play, but there home record over the past 5 years is not that impressive.
As for the record, your 9-3 might be a stretch, but looking at the schedule I can see where you came up with it.
August 16th, 2011 at 4:49 PM ^
Vandenberg has experience. His first start was against Ohio, and almost beat them. Iowa will be decent, but I have them at (8-4) (4-4).
Iowa was 5-2 at home last year, 2-2 against ranked opponents, beating Penn State and Michigan State, but lost to Ohio and Wisconsin.
In 2009, Iowa was 6-1 at home, with no home games against ranked opponents.
In 2008, Iowa was 6-1 at home, 1-0 against ranked opponents, beating Penn State.
In 2007, Iowa was 4-1 at home, 1-0 against ranked opponents, beating Illinois.
In 2006, Iowa was 4-3 at home, 0-2 against ranked opponents, losing to Ohio and Wisconsin.
If my numbers are correct, that puts them at 25-8 over 5 years at home, a .757 win percentage. If that "not that impressive," what do you consider impressive?
August 16th, 2011 at 5:37 PM ^
I dont want to take this too far off topic, but in the time that you referenced at Kinnick Iowa is 4-6 vs ranked opponents at home, if it such a difficult place to play why are they below .500 in that subset...I think that .757 is more of a product of playing a crappy non-conf schedule (only playing a ranked non-conf team 1x since 2006 and never at home). Dont get me wrong if we have to go on the road, I would rather play in Bloomington or Minny than Kinnick, I just think its overrated in terms of how difficult it is.
Alright, enough about Iowa
August 16th, 2011 at 6:47 PM ^
You still didn't answer my question. If that "not that impressive," what do you consider impressive?
As for the crappy non-conf schedule, most BCS teams have that sort of schedule. The Georgia v. Boise St and LSU v. Oregon games are generally anomalies.
I agree with the Bloomington and Minny comment, but Kinnick is tougher than you think.
For example, while UM is 3-2 at Iowa since 1998, each game has been decided by no more than 6 points.
August 16th, 2011 at 6:55 PM ^
Maybe my math is fuzzy, but the way I read it they were 4-4 against ranked opponents, which is still not enough to make them too tough at home, considering Iowa was also ranked for much of that period.
The part that stuck out to me was that from 2006-2009, each year they lost to an unranked team at home. Teams that have a reputation of having a very difficult stadium to plat at have whole seasons where they don't lose at home, or only lose to an elite team. Iowa hasn't had any seasons lately where they've gone undefeated at home and almost every year they lose to an unranked opponent that comes to town.
August 16th, 2011 at 10:47 PM ^
2006, 2008, and 2009 Iowa lost to Northwestern at home.
I lost track of the 2007 game with WMU, Iowa should have had two losses at home that year - Indiana and WMU.
I understand your point, but Northwestern has been somewhat of a bug-a-boo for Iowa lately. In fact, Iowa is 5-7 since 1997 against Northwestern. More disturbing for Hawkeye fans, Iowa is 1-5 in the last six, including a three game losing streak (2008 Iowa City 22-17, 2009 Iowa City 17-10, and 2010 Evanston 21-17).
August 16th, 2011 at 10:18 PM ^
Wasn't the score like 17-10 or something it was a pretty bad game for vandenberg.
August 16th, 2011 at 10:50 PM ^
27-24 in overtime, in Columbus, mind you.
Vandenberg was 20 for 33, 233 yards, 2 TDs, 3 INT. Certainly not MVP numbers, but not too shabby for a first career start.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:08 PM ^
Marcus Coker for offensive MVP put an end to any credibility this article may have had.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:24 PM ^
He's a RB from Iowa, and we all know how running backs from Iowa tend to fair...
August 16th, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^
I don't like it when analysts argue that the running back will get yards because there is little in the way of a credible passing game (or vice versa, to a lesser extent). If the passing game isn't there, you don't have balance and defenses are going to key on the running back. You might have more carries, but then again you might not be on the field long enough to have very many of those if you don't have a passing game. The YPC are going to suffer, along with wins and points that might otherwise help your case for MVP.
August 16th, 2011 at 4:00 PM ^
If you dont have a passing game you will be facing a defense with 8 guys in the box the majority of the time. Good luck getting solid yards against that look. You may get more carries, but that does not necessarily mean more yardage. I did not read the article because I can tell I will just get pissed bc of how stupid the guy who wrote it is.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:09 PM ^
I see us as going 8-4. Too many games that could go either way to really predict and too much uncertainty with the coaching change and Denard. I'd be thrilled to see 9-3, but I don't see that happening.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:10 PM ^
Is anyone else out there as annoyed about prognostications as I am? There is not one "expert" in the business that has predictions that I place value on (except maybe the Vegas odds). The only value I find in these preview issues is information about other teams that I might not know. (For the record, I'm not berating the OP for starting the thread - I appreciated the post.)
August 16th, 2011 at 12:12 PM ^
As much as I hate Ohio, pegging them at 7-5 seems like a stretch.
August 16th, 2011 at 2:44 PM ^
August 16th, 2011 at 4:52 PM ^
Agreed on both accounts. I have Illinois at (8-4) (4-4) and Ohio at (9-3) (6-2). Non conference schedules for both schools are soft. Troublesome game in non conference for Ohio is Miami. Troublesome game in non conference for Illinois is Arizona St.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:13 PM ^
"Robinson will line up under center the majority of the time"
Disagree.
August 16th, 2011 at 4:03 PM ^
That's what I was going to post about...
He has obviously done a lot of research, and everybody should believe all of his predictions.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:14 PM ^
Taylor Martinez will miss multiple games this year with injury... no doubt.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:17 PM ^
When Martinez was hobbled, the Husker offense struggled last year. Couple that with the tough stretch og big ten games they have (opening with Wisconsin and what not) and Nebraska could be in for a rough stretch this season.
August 16th, 2011 at 3:43 PM ^
Sounds like another team I know. . . Please don't happen this year, please don't happen this year . . . [profitgoblue performs a good-luck dance]
August 16th, 2011 at 4:19 PM ^
a sophmore walk-on, a freshman walk-on, and a redshirt freshman
August 16th, 2011 at 12:15 PM ^
I kinda hope Nebraska doesn't win the conference. Big 10 won't look as good if the 'always a bridesmaid' team of the Big 12 can come in and win the title first year.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:17 PM ^
IMO, Wisconsin has the better overall team and should win the conference.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:45 PM ^
I agree, and I don't think Nebraska will win it. Their crossover games this year are Ohio State, @ Wisconsin, and @ Penn State. That's brutal (and much rougher than what they've known in the Big 12).
On top of that, they have to study up on a bunch of new teams. If they win it this year, they deserve whatever praise they get.
August 16th, 2011 at 2:10 PM ^
I know bowl games are not always the best indicator, but Nebraska looked like garbage against Washington. Their defense will get them stops, but going all the way back to Calahan, I am not sure Nebraska has a firm grasp on where they want to go offensively. Every time I watch them it is kind of like of hodge podge of things without real direction. I know that I am supposed to fear them as a Michigan fan, but I really don't. I don't think that game is guaranteed in the loss column, Nebraska has a lot to show me.
August 16th, 2011 at 4:16 PM ^
as others have pointed out, a very underachieving offense. And though the kicking/special teams could be good, we lost one of the best kickers in CFB history so likely won't be as good there either.
The D means we'll contend, but I agree the B1G is wide open this year, I'd say more so than anytime I can remember in decades. Totally agree all the good teams have their flaws.
The only teams I'd rule out are IU, Purdue, Illinois and Minnesota.
Will be a very interesting season.
August 16th, 2011 at 3:09 PM ^
August 16th, 2011 at 3:43 PM ^
All Nebraska has done is make the Big 12 title game two years in a row while the other name program in the division (Colorado) has been pretty crappy. Gary Barnett did that four times in five years at Colorado while Nebraska's program was in bad shape (and even won it once). As a result he was promptly fired.
August 16th, 2011 at 4:36 PM ^
and lack of program control, not results on the field.
August 16th, 2011 at 5:15 PM ^
He was fired for losing to Iowa State, then getting smoked 100-6 against Nebraska and Texas to close out the 2005 season (he was fired a week later). The whole "anonymous letter" thing was bullshit. He had been retained for two seasons after the sex/drug/alcohol recruiting allegations and the Katie Hnida comments. The only NCAA sanctions the school received because of his tenure were for undercharging on student meals.
August 16th, 2011 at 6:28 PM ^
maybe a better way to put it is, the scandals + losses=being fired
August 16th, 2011 at 1:53 PM ^
Penn State lost consecutive mid-season conference games ( Mich, @OSU ) in its first big ten season ( 1993) and ran the table the following season. I can see Nebraska doing something similar this year.
August 16th, 2011 at 3:03 PM ^
I don't think it will matter. People know that Michigan and Ohio State are in transition and that conditions are ripe for a newcomer to do well. Penn State won the conference title in their second year, and that title is one of only three they've won since joining.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:23 PM ^
I just don't see how any one can pick the winners of the Big 10 right now. I mean come on Wisky is getting a good QB transfer in Wilson but how is he going to adjust to a new team so quickly?
MOO U has a horrible Oline and lost a lot on D.
OSU is starting either a True Freshman at QB or Bauserman. lol
Penn St is still playing the QB derby.
I know our team is coming off some bad years and our talent was down or too young but to not give us a shot at the title is not fair. Every team has holes on it but we have a great Qb and some really good playmakers so why not us? If the D is you answer I get you but even with an average D we should make some noise .
August 16th, 2011 at 12:32 PM ^
So many on this board are really down on Ohio State this year because of the quarterback situation. Yes, they won't be as good as they were under Pryor, but let's not forget that Ohio State has had some pretty good teams that didn't exactly have much in the way of quarterback - their latest national championship season, for starters.
Also, Penn State did pretty well against us last year with a nobody at quarterback (okay, maybe not saying much but still).
Wisconsin rarely has much going for it in the quarterback department and they almost always do well enough.
Is it possible that the QB position in the Big Ten is a tad overrated?
August 16th, 2011 at 12:54 PM ^
Krenzel was a tough, smart dude who was a pretty damn solid college QB. He picked up a ton of key first downs with his legs and made plays in the clutch. Not exactly an NFL stud, but he wasn't some schlub like Todd Boeckman (who only won games because the rest of the Big Ten pretty much stunk in 2007).
McGloin was a nobody before we played PSU last year (because he hadn't played before), but afterwards he threw for 300+ yards against Indiana and MSU. He also threw for 4 TDs against Northwestern.
August 16th, 2011 at 1:50 PM ^
- First five games without any of their top offensive players.
- New QB
- Heavy losses on defense
- New HC
- Relatively thin at OL (especially first 5 games); one injury and it could get ugly for a new QB
August 16th, 2011 at 2:41 PM ^
Plus the new HC has never been an HC at any level.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:28 PM ^
Seems like a reasonable prediction for us.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:28 PM ^
Seems like a reasonable prediction for us.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:31 PM ^
Historically speaking, it's usually a good thing when expectations are low for us.
August 16th, 2011 at 12:38 PM ^
That's true. We were preseason #14 in 2006. But predicting Northwestern will have a better record than us is crazy.
August 16th, 2011 at 1:26 PM ^
August 16th, 2011 at 1:34 PM ^
August 16th, 2011 at 2:00 PM ^