| 2002 | Purdue7–6 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range 0–0.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) | — (— · —) | #40 (of 117 teams · 29.7 pts/g · 386 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #35 (of 117 teams · 22.1 pts/g allowed · 288 points) | #30 (of 117 teams · +7.5 /g · +98 on the season) | — (—) | — (— /g · — on the season) | — (— of last season's passing production returning) | — (— of last season's receiving production returning) | — (— of last season's rushing production returning) | — (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons) | — (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) | — (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence) | — (— of plays successful) | — (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) | — (— average PPA on successful plays) | — (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better) |
| Median | of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002 | 0 (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range 0–0.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (Regular-season wins over teams ranked 1–10 in the final Playoff Committee Rankings: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Regular season only, with each opponent's rank frozen at the final regular-season poll — so a team you pin is measured against games it could also have played.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (Regular-season wins over teams ranked 1–25 in the final Playoff Committee Rankings: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Regular season only, with each opponent's rank frozen at the final regular-season poll — so a team you pin is measured against games it could also have played.) | — (No team has a rank for this) | #47 (Scoring offense: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range #7–#95. 1 of 11 in the top 10.) | — (No team has a rank for this) | #38 (Scoring defense: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range #2–#113. 1 of 11 in the top 10.) | #50 (Point margin: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range #5–#110. 3 of 11 in the top 10.) | — (No team has a rank for this) | — (No team has a rank for this) | — (No team has a rank for this) | — (No team has a rank for this) | — (No team has a rank for this) | — (No team has a rank for this) | — (No team has a rank for this) | — (No team has a rank for this) | — (No team has a rank for this) | — (No team has a rank for this) | — (No team has a rank for this) | — (No team has a rank for this) |
| 2002 | Illinois5–7 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range 0–0.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) | — (— · —) | #47 (of 117 teams · 28.8 pts/g · 346 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #57 (of 117 teams · 25.6 pts/g allowed · 307 points) | #59 (of 117 teams · +3.3 /g · +39 on the season) | — (—) | — (— /g · — on the season) | — (— of last season's passing production returning) | — (— of last season's receiving production returning) | — (— of last season's rushing production returning) | — (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons) | — (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) | — (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence) | — (— of plays successful) | — (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) | — (— average PPA on successful plays) | — (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better) |
| 2002 | Indiana3–9 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range 0–0.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) | — (— · —) | #95 (of 117 teams · 21.5 pts/g · 258 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #109 (of 117 teams · 37.1 pts/g allowed · 445 points) | #106 (of 117 teams · -15.6 /g · -187 on the season) | — (—) | — (— /g · — on the season) | — (— of last season's passing production returning) | — (— of last season's receiving production returning) | — (— of last season's rushing production returning) | — (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons) | — (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) | — (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence) | — (— of plays successful) | — (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) | — (— average PPA on successful plays) | — (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better) |
| 2002 | Iowa11–2 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range 0–0.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) | — (— · —) | #7 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 37.2 pts/g · 484 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #24 (of 117 teams · 19.7 pts/g allowed · 256 points) | #5 — top 10 (of 117 teams · +17.5 /g · +228 on the season) | — (—) | — (— /g · — on the season) | — (— of last season's passing production returning) | — (— of last season's receiving production returning) | — (— of last season's rushing production returning) | — (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons) | — (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) | — (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence) | — (— of plays successful) | — (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) | — (— average PPA on successful plays) | — (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better) |
| 2002 | Michigan10–3 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range 0–0.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) | — (— · —) | #54 (of 117 teams · 27.8 pts/g · 361 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #26 (of 117 teams · 20.4 pts/g allowed · 265 points) | #31 (of 117 teams · +7.4 /g · +96 on the season) | — (—) | — (— /g · — on the season) | — (— of last season's passing production returning) | — (— of last season's receiving production returning) | — (— of last season's rushing production returning) | — (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons) | — (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) | — (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence) | — (— of plays successful) | — (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) | — (— average PPA on successful plays) | — (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better) |
| 2002 | Michigan State4–8 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range 0–0.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) | — (— · —) | #68 (of 117 teams · 26.3 pts/g · 316 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #96 (of 117 teams · 33.2 pts/g allowed · 398 points) | #86 (of 117 teams · -6.8 /g · -82 on the season) | — (—) | — (— /g · — on the season) | — (— of last season's passing production returning) | — (— of last season's receiving production returning) | — (— of last season's rushing production returning) | — (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons) | — (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) | — (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence) | — (— of plays successful) | — (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) | — (— average PPA on successful plays) | — (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better) |
| 2002 | Minnesota8–5 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range 0–0.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) | — (— · —) | #44 (of 117 teams · 28.9 pts/g · 376 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #48 (of 117 teams · 24.5 pts/g allowed · 319 points) | #50 (of 117 teams · +4.4 /g · +57 on the season) | — (—) | — (— /g · — on the season) | — (— of last season's passing production returning) | — (— of last season's receiving production returning) | — (— of last season's rushing production returning) | — (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons) | — (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) | — (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence) | — (— of plays successful) | — (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) | — (— average PPA on successful plays) | — (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better) |
| 2002 | Northwestern3–9 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range 0–0.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) | — (— · —) | #87 (of 117 teams · 22.7 pts/g · 272 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #113 (of 117 teams · 41.1 pts/g allowed · 493 points) | #110 (of 117 teams · -18.4 /g · -221 on the season) | — (—) | — (— /g · — on the season) | — (— of last season's passing production returning) | — (— of last season's receiving production returning) | — (— of last season's rushing production returning) | — (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons) | — (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) | — (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence) | — (— of plays successful) | — (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) | — (— average PPA on successful plays) | — (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better) |
| 2002 | Ohio State14–0 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range 0–0.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) | — (— · —) | #41 (of 117 teams · 29.3 pts/g · 410 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #2 — top 10 (of 117 teams · 13.1 pts/g allowed · 183 points) | #10 — top 10 (of 117 teams · +16.2 /g · +227 on the season) | — (—) | — (— /g · — on the season) | — (— of last season's passing production returning) | — (— of last season's receiving production returning) | — (— of last season's rushing production returning) | — (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons) | — (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) | — (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence) | — (— of plays successful) | — (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) | — (— average PPA on successful plays) | — (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better) |
| 2002 | Penn State9–4 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range 0–0.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) | — (— · —) | #14 (of 117 teams · 34.3 pts/g · 446 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #11 (of 117 teams · 17.5 pts/g allowed · 227 points) | #9 — top 10 (of 117 teams · +16.9 /g · +219 on the season) | — (—) | — (— /g · — on the season) | — (— of last season's passing production returning) | — (— of last season's receiving production returning) | — (— of last season's rushing production returning) | — (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons) | — (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) | — (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence) | — (— of plays successful) | — (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) | — (— average PPA on successful plays) | — (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better) |
| 2002 | Wisconsin8–6 | 0 / 0 — at or above the median (Top-10 classes in the 5 recruiting cycles before that season: median of 11 Big Ten teams in 2002. Range 0–0.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) | — (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) (No Playoff Committee poll for this season — the committee began in 2014. Not the same as no ranked wins.) | — (— · —) | #66 (of 117 teams · 26.6 pts/g · 372 points) | — (— allowed · —) | #38 (of 117 teams · 23.0 pts/g allowed · 322 points) | #56 (of 117 teams · +3.6 /g · +50 on the season) | — (—) | — (— /g · — on the season) | — (— of last season's passing production returning) | — (— of last season's receiving production returning) | — (— of last season's rushing production returning) | — (— composite · a squad total, so not comparable across seasons) | — (— predicted points added per play · not opponent-adjusted) | — (— allowed per play · lower is better, so #1 is the best defence) | — (— of plays successful) | — (— of opponent plays successful · lower is better) | — (— average PPA on successful plays) | — (— allowed on opponent successes · lower is better) |