Yes. Minnesota had players that were better and Maryland had players that were worse.
Look, I get the point that you're trying to make, but if you look at the same data from 247 for last year, Maryland was 6 and the Gophers 12. Maryland has better talent. They did last year, they will next year. We beat them last year. They beat us this year.
In the overall College Football Rankings (of this silliness which is the 24/7 rankings you pulled into the conversation) Maryland is 28. UCF is 55. Gophers are 63. Maryland is better than both of these teams, and the Gophers and UCF are closer to each other than to Maryland. Maryland lost, and lost badly after suffering adversity last week to a team that didn't have anywhere near the talent Maryland does (again, according to a seriously flawed measurement system your using as "fact").
They also have a coaching staff that was able to take a real sh!t show from the week before and fix it, quickly. We'll find out if we have the same when we have the 12th most talented team playing the 14th most talented team on Saturday.
All teams have injuries, weaknesses and adversity. We'll see what happens the rest of the way and how this coaching staff deals with the adversity and how the kids respond.
And for the record? Oregon State has more talent than we do, too.
I believe when it comes to top 10 teams in terms of overall talent, there is some validity in recruiting rankings. Outside of that, I don't buy it. Too many players to evaluate, and no consistency in how it can be done. I also have a hard time with any "objective" ranking that lists Blake Cashman as a 1 star .69 talent player (today as the 247 numbers do reflecting his high school rating) or shows that the Middle Tennessee QB Stockstill is rated the same as Maryland's third string QB is.
The development of those players since being recruited has a big impact on how talented a team is vs. using a "paper" assessment that says "at a point in time, when none of these players was seen by everyone, so called experts say this team is better than that team" so therefore team "A" has more talent than team "B".
This isn't to say that you're assessment of Maryland having better players is wrong, it's just not as clear as you want it to be. Just ask the LSU players - or the Troy players. In the NFL, it is much closer to gospel that it is in college. College football is riddled with examples of players who aren't any good and teams that suck beating much better teams/players.