Purdue

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0942nd
  Defense+0.0767th
• 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.
  Offense43.7%58th
  Defense40.7%63rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.128th
  Defense+1.2262nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0225th
  Defense+0.0467th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2248th
  Defense+0.2632nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.0%70th
  Defense48.5%36th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.9%28th
  Defense22.7%95th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9630th
  Defense3.0747th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.9%50th
  Defense14.4%22nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.2%87th
  Defense15.2%38th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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. L
   PSU
2. W
   INST
3. L
   SYR
4. W
   FAU
5. W
   MINN
6. W
   MD
7. W
   NEB
8. L
   WIS
9. L
   IOWA
10. W
    ILL
11. W
    NU
12. W
    IU
13. L
    MICH
14. L
    LSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Purdue.

Players, 2022

1. Aidan O'ConnellQB477 plays · +0.274 pts/play · 9th of 234 QBs
   2.45WAR1.68 to 3.31
2. Devin MockobeeRB172 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 33rd of 384 RBs
   0.50WAR0.36 to 0.64
3. Charlie JonesWR95 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 20th of 455 WRs
   0.28WAR0.11 to 0.44
4. Dylan DowningRB78 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 181st of 384 RBs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.23
5. TJ SheffieldWR45 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 126th of 455 WRs
   0.15WAR0.07 to 0.21
6. Payne DurhamTE56 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 16th of 214 TEs
   0.13WAR0.04 to 0.25
7. Mitchell FineranPK21 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 50th of 110 kickers
   0.07WAR0.00 to 0.13
8. King DoerueRB29 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 285th of 384 RBs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64664651st of 129Roster talent: 646, 51st of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20020035th of 129Recruiting: 200, 35th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  60%60%64th of 128Returning production: 60%, 64th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.7+7.747th of 129SP+ rating: +7.7, 47th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 9 clear-cut ones account for 0.17 of the 0.23 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. vs FAUQ4 2:07 4th & 2 at PUR 46, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−6.1 pts
2. vs NEBQ4 10:00 4th & 2 at NEB 17, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
3. at SYRQ2 8:00 4th & 1 at SYR 23, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. at MINNQ4 13:02 4th & 7 at MINN 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. at ILLQ4 1:05 4th & 1 at ILL 8, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs PSUQ4 2:22 4th & 6 at PUR 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. at WISQ1 0:02 4th & 1 at PUR 44, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. at IUQ4 3:20 4th & 1 at IU 46, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

40th of 131 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. L

   PSU
2. W

   INST
3. L

   SYR
4. W

   FAU
5. W

   MINN
6. W

   MD
7. W

   NEB
8. L

   WIS
9. L

   IOWA
10. W

    ILL
11. W

    NU
12. W

    IU
13. L

    MICH
14. L

    LSU

What moved it, 2022

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+0.64
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.03

Game by game

• PSUL 31-35 vs PSU36% → 15%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −37, Clock −3
• INSTW 56-0 vs INST98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• SYRL 29-32 at SYR46% → 18%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −18, Possession & field position −2
• FAUW 28-26 vs FAU87% → 95%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• MINNW 20-10 at MINN24% → 96%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +72: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• MDW 31-29 at MD40% → 95%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• NEBW 43-37 vs NEB83% → 97%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +2
• WISL 24-35 at WIS44% → 3%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −37, Possession & field position −1
• IOWAL 3-24 vs IOWA57% → 1%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −56, Clock −1
• ILLW 31-24 at ILL34% → 96%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• NUW 17-9 vs NU88% → 96%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +16, Possession & field position +1
• IUW 30-16 at IU77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +31, Clock +1
• MICHL 22-43 at MICH12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −17
• LSUL 7-63 vs LSU16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22

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.