Top 5 Sleeper teams in 2013. 3 of them are B10

Submitted by WingsNWolverines on August 5th, 2013 at 1:04 PM gives their top 5 sleeper teams of 2013. The three B10 schools listed are Iowa, NW and Purdue. Honestly I agree with Purdue being an under the radar team. With Akeem Hunt at RB and Ricardo Allen in the secondary with their line this year which should be pretty strong I think Purdue could be a Leaders division contender. Should they beat OSU that division is theirs! Also Robert Marve is strong in the spread and has given OSU fits as of late.


Mr. Yost

August 5th, 2013 at 1:24 PM ^

Chris Weinke was just an old man playing college football.

Marve has turned into an old man while stille playing college football.

Even Case Keenum thinks Robert Marve has been in CFB forever.



August 5th, 2013 at 2:28 PM ^

Marve (IIRC) was in that Meat Market book, ffs! He has to be at least a 6th yr Senior. Anyway, I don't think any team has played osu harder than Purdue the last 5 years. They just drop odd games every year. Iowa will always have a boring but tough offense and decent defense. NW could easily play in the B10 title game so not a sleeper to me.

Mr. Yost

August 5th, 2013 at 1:27 PM ^

I completely agree on N'Western. They're going to be the real deal (refrained from saying "legit" even that was a proper use of the word).

They've got good young talent from some better than normal recruiting classes mixed in with the typical overachievers.

Coming off a 10-win season, even with the hype...they're more dangerous than ever.


August 5th, 2013 at 1:34 PM ^

Every year Purdue is a "sleeper pick" and every year they go 6-6

Iowa will be bad.

Indiana is my sleeper pick... and by sleeper I mean they will max out at 7-5 (3-5) and lose 59-55 to WVU in the Texas whatever bowl.


August 5th, 2013 at 1:40 PM ^

Northwestern certainly will contend. I agree with others in saying they have a solid team and their recruiting will ensure that they are solid for the foreseeable future. Fitzgerald is doing an excellent job building a program that has been below average for some time now. I really do not even view them as being that under the radar anymore. Purdue could upset, but won't. Iowa just is not there yet.


August 5th, 2013 at 1:49 PM ^

Did a little kid write this article?


"Last season, Purdue did not have the turn out they wanted. With new head coach, Darrell Hazzel, he will use his running game to help win games.

With returning running back, Akeem Hunt, he will help the coach’s offense because of his great speed. Also, with such a great defensive line, ran by Ryan Russell and defensive backs ran by Ricardo Allen, no team will be able to throw or run the ball on the Purdue defense."


August 5th, 2013 at 2:04 PM ^

If you want to "Become a writer," you have to fill out a form:

"This is a form you have to complete if you want to write for It would be greatly appreciated if you send this to anyone you feel would be interested and qualified. This will INCREASE the possibility of your acceptance!"

So if you want to write for, your odds of being accepted are increased if you send the application to other people? That makes no sense whatsoever.

But neither does this statement: "no team will be able to throw or run the ball on the Purdue defense."

French West Indian

August 5th, 2013 at 2:10 PM ^

If I were going to make a sleeper pick in the Big Ten, I'd go with the Golden Gophers.  They are a couple of years into the Kill regime and they are in the non-Mich/OSU division so, like shit can happen.


August 5th, 2013 at 2:11 PM ^

Iowa is finishing last in the Legends

Purdue is finishing 5th in the Leaders

Everyone is on Northwestern, so they're not a sleeper.


August 5th, 2013 at 2:55 PM ^

I know this may sound funny but I'd pick Indiana as a sleeper team over Iowa or Purdue. Past successes, or lack thereof, notwithstanding, Indiana has been building an explosive offense lately and if you sleep on them like the buckeyes did last year they'll sneak up on you.


August 5th, 2013 at 2:28 PM ^

These sorts of stories are just filler. The problem with "sleeper" teams is that they usually lack depth. They may have great athletes at some of the skill positions and have a depth chart that looks good on paper, but once the season wears on or a couple of guys get boo boos they start to crumble because the three deep isn't as flashy. So a fig for sleeper teams I say! GO BLUE!


August 5th, 2013 at 2:45 PM ^

Writing a "sleeper" article is the lamest thing ever. Pick a team that no one expects to win anything but that isn't a complete disaster, say they'll be good because of (name their top 3 players) and pick one or two of their tough-ish games as likely upsets and you've got your article. I could do that for Vietnamese cricket teams if you gave me their roster and schedule.


August 5th, 2013 at 2:36 PM ^

I mean they have two potential conference players of the year on offense in Mark and Colter, plus a great backup qb in Siene who can come in and throw to those guys.  And the Cats' have a schedule that will indicate early if they are legit. I mean if the Wildcats beat California week one, then Ohio doesn't get much of a boost playing the Golden Bears two weeks later. 

I think Indiana is the only real conference sleeper. Purdue is always an upset threat but has no consistent game to base that judgment on and Iowa only thrives when its starters have been around for awhile. 

At this point, I'd be more concerned about Minnesota's rise and whether Penn State will demonstrate the ability to play beyond its seeming capability as it did last year, a very proud and scrappy program. 



August 5th, 2013 at 2:54 PM ^

You know, I actually had a good feeling about Purdue this year...until I looked at their schedule.  It is brutal, especially considering where the Boilermakers have been in recent years.  They get 5 really tough Big Ten games with Wisconsin, MSU, and Penn State on the road and Ohio State and Nebraska at home.  Plus, they have to go on the road against Cincinnati and play Notre Dame at home.  Even if they just lose the games they're expected to lose, that gives them 7 losses.  Then we haven't even added in going and playing Indiana on the road and one of the other "sleeper" teams (Iowa) at home. 


August 5th, 2013 at 3:26 PM ^

Purdue a sleeper? lol.. that article is a joke..  No one can throw on them because of ricardo allen?  hmmm.. seems like teams threw all over them last year.. he isn't that good and the team sucks


August 5th, 2013 at 3:30 PM ^

time that Purdue was picked as the sleeper team was, well, last year.  And they sucked.  Look, I'm sorry, but Purdue is never good, and this year is going to be no different.


August 5th, 2013 at 4:30 PM ^

I hung out with Purdue's Marve at a recent AARP pancake breakfast. His doctor must write better prescriptions than mine does.  Marve slept through it all until suddenly he bounded up and remarked, "But Coach Hazell, I used to crush Joe Tiller in arm wrestling!"  Then I hummed The Victors and it went donnybrook that day at the managed care facility.


August 5th, 2013 at 4:41 PM ^

"With returning running back, Akeem Hunt, he will help the coach’s offense because of his great speed. "

I will say, Akeem Hunt was underused by Hope's staff, and I would imagine Hazell might have a larger role in mind for that backfield. Still, this sentence without any sort of thoughtful analysis to back it up disturbs me somehow. Hunt managed 8.0 YPC as an average over 335 yards and 42 carries. Not bad, and it would be interesting to see if the RBs get more action when you're rolling either Rob Henry or Danny Etling (true freshman, I think) behind a young OL, never mind the questions at WR. 

As for the praise for Ricardo Allen in the article, Purdue still did give up an average of 416 yards of offense per game last year. I am guessing that Ricardo Allen simply needs to be that much faster, in the view of the person who wrote this. Purdue's pass defense was around the middle of the rankings in Division I. 

The popular estimate for Purdue is 5-7 this year, from what I have seen.