• Each returning starter was given 1 point
  
• If a player was HM All-Big Ten, he received an additional point
  
• If a player was All-Big Ten (1st or 2nd team), he received 2 bonus points
  
• If a player was a sophomore, he received an additional point
  
• If a player was a junior or senior, he received an additional 2 points

Here are the raw RETURNING STRENGTH totals:

Now, as some of you might recall, I made the argument last year that there is a difference in a bunch of players returning from a great defense and a bunch of players returning from a horrible defense. So, essentially what I did was rank the offenses and defenses from last year using a combined ranking of points scored/allowed and yard gained/allowed. Then, the top 2 teams retained 100% of their returning strength points, the next two 95%, the next two 90%, and so on down the line.

Here are how the teams ranked in offense and defense last year:

This gives us the ADJUSTED RETURNING STRENGH RATING of:

Combining these numbers into one average ranking, we get the following overall indicator for returning strength:

1. Illinois
2. Iowa
3. Michigan
4. Michigan State
5. Ohio State
6. Purdue
7. Wisconsin
8. Indiana
9. Northwestern
10. Penn State
11. Minnesota

Now, our next factor to consider when predicting the Big Ten is traditional strength. Essentially, this is simply measuring how strong each team has been in recent history, with more weight given to recent seasons. This is what most pre-season computer polls do, so I used the Howell 2002 Pre-season rankings to gauge recent traditional strength.

1. Michigan
2. Ohio State
3. Wisconsin
4. Illinois
5. Purdue
6. Michigan State
7. Penn State
8. Iowa
9. Minnesota
10. Northwestern
11. Indiana

Finally, we have to consider strength of schedule. Obviously, some teams have an easier path than do others. I don't have conference SOS availabe to me, so I used the overall SOS (Howell once again). Here are the ratings, from easiest to toughest:

1. Minnesota
2. Michigan State
3. Northwestern
4. Indiana
5. Illinois
6. Purdue
7. Iowa
8. Ohio State
9. Wisconsin
10. Penn State
11. Michigan

Now, let's combine RETURNING STRENGTH, TRADITIONAL STRENGTH, and STRENGH OF SCHEDULE into one rating which gives the "analytical" prediction for how the Big Ten will turn out this season:

1. Illinois-The Illini just aren't getting their due in the pre-season rags according to this little exercise. They have a lot coming back, including all their backs and receivers and 3 of their 5 offensive linemen (including both tackles). All of their linebackers return, and they return both corners (and excellent ones at that). Their schedule isn't too tough. I don't know if I would pick them to win it all, but I think they have a good chance of finishing in the top 3 once again.

2. Michigan State-Their biggest advantage is a very easy schedule. Their offense returns all five offensive linemen plus potential stars at the skill position in Smoker and Rogers. Defensively, they have anchor Mike Labinjo back do go with what looks to be a very experienced defensive backfield. They have a lot of youth in their two deep, but if they stay healthy, they should be considered a pre-season favorite.

3. Ohio State-The Buckeyes feature what could be dominant defense with star player sprinkeld througout in Scott, Wilhelm, and Doss. They are very light in terms of experience at the skill position, but return enough on the OL that it should give them some help.

4. Michigan-Their biggest problem seems to be a very tough schedule. Like OSU, their defense looks to be tremendous. Their entire DL returns as does a very deep defensive backfield. Offensively, while the QB position has gotten a lot of publicity, I see their OL as the biggest question mark. They have a number of highly though of players stepping into the lineup, but only one returning starter. If the OL jells, they will also contend.

5. Purdue-And then we come to Purdue, lurking in the upper middle again as it seems they have been doing ever since Tiller's arrival. What people fail to realize is that the last couple of seasons, the strength of the team has been their defense. I see a similiar situation this year as they return players like Phillips, Landon Johnson, Odom and Schweigert. Their defensive backfield looks to be excellent. Offensively, they return 4 of 5 on the offensive line and most of their skill players as well. They had the worst offense in the league last year, but unless Orton bombs, that will change this year. If they can split with Michigan and OSU (both on the road), they could also cnotend.

6. Iowa-Iowa returns the second highest rated core of players and plays a fairly easy conference schedule by missing Ohio State and Illinois. The strength of their team is the offensive line as they return talent AND depth. The question mark for them will be who steps up at the skill positions. Defensively, they have an outstanding bacfield, but have question marks up front. Their offensive line is going to win some games for them, but I don't think they have quite enough to contend this year.

7. Wisconsin-The Badgers stack up well in the traditional strength category, but right now there are just too many questions on the defensive side of the ball to make them a serious contender. If Bell beats out BJ Tucker at corner, the Badgers will be playing 8 freshmen or sophomores on defense and that is going to make it tough considering they have a fairly tough schedule (missing Northwestern and Purdue in conference). Like Iowa, Wisconsin has an outstanding offensive line and experienced playmakers, so if guys like Lewis, Hawthorne, and Timbers make the defense respectable, they could get into the top half of the Big Ten.

8. Northwestern-This one was somewhat surprising, as the Wildcats look to be very weak on defense once again. However, a lot of their ranking value came via their outstanding offense last year. With only 3 starters returning, I look for that to change and for the Cats to finish worse than this projection.

9. Minnesota-They fare very poorly in the returning strength and computer poll strength, but play the easiest schedule in the conference. Essentially, this tells me they won't be very good, but if they get some breaks in their close games, could certainly finish around .500.

10. Indiana-Similiar to Minnesota in that they don't have a ton of reasons to believe they are going to be all that good, but a weak enough schedule that will give them a chance. Actually, I like them more than Minnesota due to a pretty solid offensive line that almost returns intact. Who knows what they are going to put on the field defensively, but if I was subjectively picking the conference, I like them more than Minnesota.

11. Penn State-This one is the shocker. Some have picked the Nits to compete for the title, whereas this informal ranking system puts them dead last. Their defensive line looks pretty good, especially inside against the run, but their offensive line remains in doubt and their skill players have not proven they can be playmakers. Throw in a tough schedule and I think that although picking them last is way out of line, I wouldn't pick them any higher than middle of the pack based on what I see on paper.

This yields the following rankings:

So, are we done? Not quite yet. As I indicated when I began, there is a big difference in 8 players returning from a good offense and 8 returning from an abysmal defense.

First, I produced an overall offensive and defensive ranking for each team in the conference based on a combination of yards gained/allowed and points gained/allowed, which rendered the following rankings (conference games only in an attempt to equalize strength of schedule)

Now, how do we combine what we know....players returning and 2000 strength? Well, here is what I arbitrarily decided to do. Each team ranked first in the 2000 rankings retain 100% of their player value for the returning players. So, Northwestern, based on their 2000 offense, gets to "keep" all of their "player returning points". From there, each successive place in the 2000 rankings retains 5% fewer than the previous team. What we are left with are the following rankings:

The top 10 returning units:

1. Northwestern Offense
   
2. Purdue Defense
   
3. Ohio State Defense
   
4. Michigan State Defense
   
5. Minnesota Offense
   
6. Wisconsin Defense
   
7. Michigan Defense
   
8. Purdue Offense
   
9. Northwestern Defense
   
10. Indiana Offense

Based on this, the early favorites would have to be Purdue and Northwestern. Teams in trouble would be Iowa, Illinois, and Penn State.

In case you are curious, putting Jamar Fletcher on Wisconsin would rank them as the second best returning defense and 3rd best unit overall. Michael Bennett would not have improved Wisconsin's offensive standing significantly.

Here is what I found out as well as a few comments. (Ranked in rough order of success/importance).

STATE	RECRUITS	AVG RAT	FLAME	START	STARS
Wisconsin	87	2.62	26%	46%	17%
Ohio	11	3.55	18%	64%	27%
Missouri	10	3.2	40%	60%	30%
Pennsylvania	14	2.79	29%	57%	14%
New York	19	2.42	21%	47%	11%
New Jersey	16	2.31	31%	31%	19%
Michigan	8	2.25	25%	50%	0%
Minnesota	13	2.15	15%	38%	0%
Texas	8	1.88	38%	38%	0%
Connecticut	4	4.5	0%	75%	50%
Indiana	15	2.0	20%	20%	13%
Colorado	4	2.00	25%	25%	25%
Hawaii	3	2.67	33%	67%	0%
California	20	1.45	35%	20%	5%
Illinois	43	1.33	51%	21%	5%
Florida	9	1.56	44%	22%	11%
Georgia	5	0.6	40%	0%	0%

State: Wisconsin

# of Players: 87
Avg Pt: 2.62
% Flameouts: 26%
% Starters: 46%
% Stars: 17%

COMMENT: About what you would expect from recruits in general. A solid group with about a third of all recruits washing out for various reasons. Most of the stars were linemen. The 46% of starters is a solid figure for 87 players, indicating that the heart of most Badger teams will continue to be Wisconsin kids.

State: Ohio
# of Players: 11
Avg Pt: 3.55
% Flameouts: 18%
% Starters: 64%
% Stars: 27%

COMMENT: Not as many players as you might think, especially in recent years though an astounding success rate. Not only have more than half of the Ohio players become starters, a 27% star rate is excellent. Ohio has been a key state in getting impact players, which tells you about the depth of football talent in Ohio.

State: Missouri
# of Players: 10
Avg Pt: 3.2
% Flameouts: 40%
% Starters: 60%
% Stars: 30%

COMMENT: What started as a peripheral state for the Badgers has become a key source of talent the last few years, replacing Ohio in many respects. The flameout rate is a bit high, however just about every other player has become a starter. With the loss of Cosgrove, this well may run dry.

State: Pennsylvania
# of Players: 14
Avg Pt: 2.79
% Flameouts: 29%
% Starters: 57%
% Stars: 14%

COMMENT: Not as many stars as from Ohio, but lots good solid blue collar kids who can play. PSU and OSU are very fortunate to have the recruiting bases they do, as there is a ton of talent in these two states.

State: New York
# of Players: 19
Avg Pt: 2.42
% Flameouts: 21%
% Starters: 47%
% Stars: 11%

COMMENT: New York was an early pipeline for Alvarez, particular the JUCO ranks. It has yieled a high number of starters, but not many impact players. Wisconsin seems to have revived New York last year with solid recruits in Bernstein, Lewis, and Goode. Many people don't realize that more recruits have come from New York than states like Ohio, Missouri, or Pennsylvania.

State: New Jersey
# of Players: 16
Avg Pt: 2.31
% Flameouts: 31%
% Starters: 31%
% Stars: 11%

COMMENT: Overall, a nice supplemental state, but one that did not perform quite as well as might have been believed given the recent semi-pipeline the Badgers have had to NJ. It has been a state that has supplied some key players, though not consistently. The numbers here are right about average.

State: Michigan
# of Players: 8
Avg Pt: 2.25
% Flameouts: 25%
% Starters: 50%
% Stars: 0%

COMMENT: Only a few players with decent success. Good percentage of starters but no stars to this point. Jonathan Orr still could be the first impact player from Michigan.

State: Minnesota
# of Players: 13
Avg Pt: 2.15
% Flameouts: 15%
% Starters: 38%
% Stars: 0%

COMMENT: Like New York, Minnesota was a key state for Wisconsin early in the Alvarez era, but its importance has diminished lately. Minnesota has a low flameout rate, but not a single star player has come from Minnesota. It has been a nice state for the Badgers in terms of building some depth but the Badgers have not been able to pull the studs out of the Gopher state.

State: Texas
# of Players: 8
Avg Pt: 1.88
% Flameouts: 38%
% Starters: 38%
% Stars: 0%

COMMENT: Texas recruiting has gotten hammered pretty good by some fans, but the results aren't as poor as you might think. It hasn't been a strong state by any means, but probably no worse than average. Due to the small numbers, the jury is still out. If players like Welsh and Brooks perform well this year, it could boost the numbers even higher.

State: Connecticut
# of Players: 4
Avg Pt: 4.5
% Flameouts: 0%
% Starters: 75%
% Stars: 50%

COMMENT: Great numbers but just a few players (Saleh, Diatelevi, Hawthorne, and Myers). Wisconsin doesn't venture here often, but the kids they HAVE gotten have been good. This is one of the states where you can pick and choose to pick off elite players.

State: Indiana
# of Players: 15
Avg Pt: 2.0
% Flameouts: 20%
% Starters: 20%
% Stars: 13%

COMMENT: Wisconsin has taken more players from Indiana than you might expect. The downside is that only 20% have gone on to become starters, a pretty poor percentage. Not a horrible group of players, but nothing special either. It appears the Badgers have chosen to abandon Indiana other than for fallback type players.

State: Colorado
# of Players: 4
Avg Pt: 2.0
% Flameouts: 25%
% Starters: 25%
% Stars: 25%

COMMENT: Just a few players with about average success. Pete Monty was the big one here. Not a state the Badgers recruit generally.

State: Hawaii
# of Players: 3
Avg Pt: 2.67
% Flameouts: 33%
% Starters: 67%
% Stars: 0%

COMMENT: One low average player, one good starter with star potential, and one flameout...pretty much what you would expect with three players.

State: California
# of Players: 20
Avg Pt: 1.45
% Flameouts: 35%
% Starters: 20%
% Stars: 5%

COMMENT: Wisconsin has worked hard to establish a pipeline to California, but thus far the players they have gotten just haven't been very good. Davenport is the only star and 40% flameout is too high. Wisconsin's decision to de-emphasize California seems like one that is solidly supported.

State: Illinois
# of Players: 43
Avg Pt: 1.33
% Flameouts: 51%
% Starters: 21%
% Stars: 5%

COMMENT: The second highest number of recruits but just horrible results. The worst flameout rate plus the fewest percentage of starters is pitiful. It is amazing that Wisconsin has done as well as they have with one of their supposedly most fertile recruiting areas being a near bust. Tony Simmons and Mark Anelli were the only two "stars". Ironically, the Illinois recruits have often been more highly rated than the Ohio or PA recruits. Cribbs, Daniels, Bell, and Smith are players to watch that could help Illinois' rating slightly.

State: Florida
# of Players: 9
Avg Pt: 1.56
% Flameouts: 44%
% Starters: 22%
% Stars: 11%

COMMENT: Just not good overall results. Like California, the only impact player has been a kicker. Erasmus James looks solid and Brandon White could help the numbers as well.

State: Georgia
# of Players: 5
Avg Pt: 0.6
% Flameouts: 40%
% Starters: 0%
% Stars: 0%

COMMENT: Easy to see why they no longer recruit Georgia.

Here are how the Big Ten teams rank nationally. The higher the rating the stronger the recruiting base. The number following the Big Ten rank is their national rank. The number in parenthesis after the school name is their score.

1. (4)Ohio State (54)-As mentioned Sunday, Ohio State lies in a talent rich state that lacks quality in-state competion for recruits. If we were to be totally accurate here, OSU's score would probably rank a bit lower because there are probably more than a few Ohio athletes (that are being counted as D1 recruits) that attend schools like Bowling Green or Akron that really are not quality Big Ten recruits. Still, I think their conference rank would remain close to the top.
2. (8)Penn State (50.5)-Again, to recap Sunday, a strong argument could be made for PSU as number one in the Big Ten because not only do they only have to contend with Pitt and Temple, but they also have clear sailing in New Jersey which isn't really reflected here.
3. (18)Michigan (34.3)-Quite a drop here, primarily because Michigan, while a strong recruiting state, does not quite compare to say Ohio or the other biggies. Michigan also has to contend with Michigan State for the top notch recruits.
4. (19) Illinois (30.6)-This is the one ranking that really has a chance to rise. Based on the way I set up the study, their "power" score wasn't that great. But, the potential is there for them to be the dominant power in a fairly rich state, competing only with Northwestern and Northern Illinois.
5. (20) Northwestern (30.6)-This one is an anomoly in my opinion for a variety of reasons. First, I gave them the benefit of the doubt based on their nice run in the mid 90's. But, if they continue on the downswing with Illinois on the rise, their recruiting clout is going to take a dip. Secondly, Northwestern is one of those schools that really must recruit nationally due to their academic standards. While I think NW grads overstate the difficulty of getting kids into school there, I still think it is a factor which is going to downgrade their score here.
6. (28)Michigan State (22.9)-A notch below because unlike Michigan, they have not been a national power, slighty lessening their recruiting clout. Still, they have done pretty well in-state going head to head with a big name like Michigan and they certainly would probably rank a bit higher subjectively.
7. (41)Wisconsin (15.3)-Again, we are now at a different tier, specifically schools which have limited talent within the state. Still, Wisconsin benefits by being the only team in the state. Wisconsin also produces slightly more recruits than states like Iowa and Minnesota.
8. (51) Minnesota (13.5)-Basically the same as Wisconsin other than the fact that Minnesota hasn't been quite as productive over the last 10 years.
9. (71) Purdue (9.9)-Indiana produces more players than Minnesota and Wisconsin, though Purdue has some other schools to share with, specifically that Irish team to the north. Now, I think this might be a little deceptive in that Notre Dame doesn't really focus in-state but rather is the true essence of national recruiters. If Notre Dame is taken out of the equation, then Purdue's score jumps to 12.6, much closer to the other lower tier teams.
10. (82) Iowa (8.2)-The Hawks are in a tough spot. Not only is there limited talent in Iowa but they have to share it with Iowa State (and that isn't even including the Nebraska factor). Hayden Fry, as much as I hate him, really deserves credit for what he did over the years with such a situation.
11. (84)Indiana (6.1)-Indiana's case already has been stated for the most part in the Purdue comment. I think Notre Dame really skews their numbers and I don't consider them this much beneath the other teams like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Still, somebody has to be last.

Here is Part 3 of my Recruiting Base Strength study.

Before I give the entire rankings from 1 to 115, let me briefly explain how the numbers were derived.

First, each team was given a power ranking (RATING) from 1 to 6 based on their past and recent success, an attempt to measure their traditional recruiting strength. How much pull do they currently have with potential recruits? More emphasis was placed on recent success.

1=doormat or small run of the mill team from poor conference
2=bad team from a good conference or a decent team from a bad conference
3=good team from a bad conference or a mid-level team from a good conference
4=good team from a good conference
5=borderline elite, a team that is among the nation's strongest in some years
6=elite power team

From there, all D1 recruits from the last 10 years were grouped according to state (going on the premise that in-state schools have an edge in landing potential recruits) (TOREC)

Each state then received a value measuring how much power they had in each state (SCH PTS). So, for states with only one team like Wisconsin, the state value would be the same as the schools power value. States like Texas would have a much higher power value, indicating fiercer competition for recruits within the state.

Then, all the D1 schools in a particular state were "allocated" a certain number of recruits based on their power ranking (REC SHARE). So, if they had 50% of the states power ranking, they would be allocated 50% of the D1 recruits in a given year.

Take Iowa for instance. Iowa has a power ranking of 3 while Iowa State has a ranking of 2. That would mean that Iowa would be allocated 60% (3/5) of the recruits in Iowa while Iowa State would be allocated 40% (2/5).

Make sense? Again, I realize there are a lot of problems with measuring it in this way, but it is simply a preliminary look at a topic that is oft discussed but rarely measured.