Purdue

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.0113th
  Defense+0.2113th
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense41.3%28th
  Defense45.7%26th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2777th
  Defense+1.2916th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0117th
  Defense+0.199th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0321st
  Defense+0.2618th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.4%25th
  Defense49.9%30th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.2%43rd
  Defense36.4%22nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9143rd
  Defense3.0635th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.5%33rd
  Defense20.7%60th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.7%56th
  Defense13.3%15th

Percentiles among the 128 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2016

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what Purdue allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. W
   EKU
2. L
   CIN
3. W
   NEV
4. L
   MD
5. W
   ILL
6. L
   IOWA
7. L
   NEB
8. L
   PSU
9. L
   MINN
10. L
    NU
11. L
    WIS
12. L
    IU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Purdue.

Players, 2016

1. David BloughQB416 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 55th of 218 QBs
   1.31WAR0.61 to 1.93
2. Markell JonesRB150 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 92nd of 347 RBs
   0.36WAR0.25 to 0.48
3. DeAngelo YanceyWR62 plays · +0.198 pts/play · 53rd of 417 WRs
   0.23WAR0.12 to 0.33
4. Joe SchopperP46 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 36th of 82 punters
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.21
5. Cameron PoseyWR45 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 194th of 417 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.18
6. Bilal MarshallWR59 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 220th of 417 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.16
7. Domonique YoungWR32 plays · +0.078 pts/play · 348th of 417 WRs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.09
8. Cole HerdmanTE28 plays · +0.031 pts/play · 53rd of 195 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.03 to 0.06

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares Purdue's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  51351368th of 128Roster talent: 513, 68th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15515573rd of 128Recruiting: 155, 73rd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  69%69%59th of 128Returning production: 69%, 59th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −11.0−11.0105th of 128SP+ rating: −11.0, 105th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2016

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than Purdue's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.18 of the 0.24 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. at IUQ4 1:13 4th & 14 at IU 27, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−4.7 pts
2. at ILLQ3 8:20 4th & 1 at PUR 49, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.2 pts
3. at ILLQ3 0:38 4th & 1 at ILL 20, down 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
4. at MINNQ3 3:43 4th & 2 at PUR 49, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. vs NUQ2 1:20 4th & 1 at PUR 40, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
6. at MINNQ3 11:16 4th & 2 at PUR 47, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. vs PSUQ2 1:43 4th & 1 at PUR 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
8. vs EKUQ3 13:08 4th & 2 at PUR 27, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

79th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Purdue's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   EKU
2. L

   CIN
3. W

   NEV
4. L

   MD
5. W

   ILL
6. L

   IOWA
7. L

   NEB
8. L

   PSU
9. L

   MINN
10. L

    NU
11. L

    WIS
12. L

    IU

What moved it, 2016

Every game starts at Purdue's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard−1.19
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.20
• Timeouts+0.22
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.69

Game by game

• EKUW 45-24 vs EKU86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +17
• CINL 20-38 vs CIN33% → 1%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −41, Clock −2
• NEVW 24-14 vs NEV64% → 96%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +33, Possession & field position −2
• MDL 7-50 at MD25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28
• ILLW 34-31 at ILL28% → 89%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +19
• IOWAL 35-49 vs IOWA18% → 1%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −27, Clock −1
• NEBL 14-27 at NEB6% → 1%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −10
• PSUL 24-62 vs PSU22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −29, Clock −1
• MINNL 31-44 at MINN12% → 1%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts −1
• NUL 17-45 vs NU24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −31, Clock −1
• WISL 20-49 vs WIS6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −10
• IUL 24-26 at IU16% → 5%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −21

Points of win probability, from Purdue's side.

Closest call

PUR 34-31 ILL (2016) - Purdue dropped to a 12.1% win probability before pulling it out.