Purdue

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.1752nd
  Defense+0.1071st
• 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.
  Offense46.0%75th
  Defense39.8%74th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.134th
  Defense+1.3133rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.121st
  Defense+0.0567th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3378th
  Defense+0.1867th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.3%57th
  Defense45.7%71st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.9%93rd
  Defense26.9%83rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7512th
  Defense2.8965th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.0%24th
  Defense17.0%51st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.2%58th
  Defense18.0%75th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2021

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
   ORST
2. W
   CONN
3. L
   ND
4. W
   ILL
5. L
   MINN
6. W
   IOWA
7. L
   WIS
8. W
   NEB
9. W
   MSU
10. L
    OSU
11. W
    NU
12. W
    IU
13. W
    TENN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Purdue.

Players, 2021

1. Aidan O'ConnellQB386 plays · +0.374 pts/play · 8th of 219 QBs
   2.70WAR1.94 to 3.53
2. Jack PlummerQB129 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 130th of 219 QBs
   0.48WAR0.24 to 0.72
3. David BellWR91 plays · +0.208 pts/play · 12th of 474 WRs
   0.35WAR0.24 to 0.48
4. King DoerueRB119 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 135th of 387 RBs
   0.33WAR0.23 to 0.43
5. Zander HorvathRB89 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 166th of 387 RBs
   0.27WAR0.19 to 0.35
6. Milton WrightWR62 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 49th of 474 WRs
   0.22WAR0.16 to 0.28
7. Jackson AnthropWR73 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 137th of 474 WRs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.21
8. Broc ThompsonWR36 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 195th of 474 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.16

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64464446th of 130Roster talent: 644, 46th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19519545th of 130Recruiting: 195, 45th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  90%90%26th of 128Returning production: 90%, 26th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +10.3+10.335th of 130SP+ rating: +10.3, 35th of 130 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2021

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.12 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 NEBQ4 7:24 4th & 1 at NEB 48, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
2. vs WISQ3 7:07 4th & 2 at PUR 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. vs TENNQ4 8:57 4th & 3 at PUR 44, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. vs MSUQ2 7:43 4th & 1 at PUR 45, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. at IOWAQ4 5:30 4th & 1 at PUR 40, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. vs ILLQ2 1:03 4th & 1 at PUR 34, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs TENNQ2 14:01 4th & 2 at TENN 7, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at NUQ2 6:39 4th & 4 at NU 8, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

13th of 130 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

   ORST
2. W

   CONN
3. L

   ND
4. W

   ILL
5. L

   MINN
6. W

   IOWA
7. L

   WIS
8. W

   NEB
9. W

   MSU
10. L

    OSU
11. W

    NU
12. W

    IU
13. W

    TENN

What moved it, 2021

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+1.45
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock+0.10
• Timeouts−0.24
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.42

Game by game

• ORSTW 30-21 vs ORST70% → 99%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +31
• CONNW 49-0 at CONN98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• NDL 13-27 at ND31% → 1%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −33
• ILLW 13-9 vs ILL77% → 94%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +1
• MINNL 13-20 vs MINN56% → 14%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −45, Clock −2
• IOWAW 24-7 at IOWA22% → 99%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +77: Scoreboard +66, Clock +2
• WISL 13-30 vs WIS39% → 2%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −45, Clock −2
• NEBW 28-23 at NEB32% → 73%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +37, Possession & field position −3
• MSUW 40-29 vs MSU47% → 98%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +40, Possession & field position +1
• OSUL 31-59 at OSU10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −14
• NUW 32-14 at NU82% → 99%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +27, Clock +1
• IUW 44-7 vs IU88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +16
• TENNW 48-45 vs TENN35% → 80%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts −25

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.