Purdue

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.0417th
  Defense+0.371st
• 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.
  Offense40.8%29th
  Defense49.3%4th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1611th
  Defense+1.3814th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0119th
  Defense+0.321st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0825th
  Defense+0.433rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.2%25th
  Defense52.6%10th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.4%47th
  Defense40.9%1st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0450th
  Defense3.3911th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.3%29th
  Defense14.8%20th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense21.7%3rd
  Defense12.5%7th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   INST
2. L
   ND
3. L
   ORST
4. L
   NEB
5. L
   WIS
6. L
   ILL
7. L
   ORE
8. L
   NU
9. L
   OSU
10. L
    PSU
11. L
    MSU
12. L
    IU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Purdue.

Players, 2024

1. Hudson CardQB153 plays · +0.222 pts/play · 115th of 232 QBs
   0.63WAR0.35 to 0.91
2. Devin MockobeeRB69 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 199th of 373 RBs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.19
3. Reggie Love IIIRB44 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 263rd of 373 RBs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
4. Keelan CrimminsP29 plays · +0.073 pts/play · 67th of 106 punters
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.08
5. Max KlareTE28 plays · +0.073 pts/play · 89th of 221 TEs
   0.04WAR−0.03 to 0.10

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  73973937th of 131Roster talent: 739, 37th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19119148th of 131Recruiting: 191, 48th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  50%50%58th of 130Returning production: 50%, 58th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −16.2−16.2118th of 131SP+ rating: −16.2, 118th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.09 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 NEBQ3 6:42 4th & 1 at NEB 27, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.5 pts
2. vs NUQ3 11:46 4th & 2 at PUR 46, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. at WISQ2 8:41 4th & 3 at WIS 3, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at ORSTQ2 2:42 4th & 4 at PUR 40, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs NUQ2 14:07 4th & 1 at PUR 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at WISQ1 4:31 4th & 1 at PUR 46, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at ILLQ2 5:42 4th & 4 at ILL 4, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at ORSTQ3 3:00 4th & 2 at PUR 11, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

130th of 134 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

   INST
2. L

   ND
3. L

   ORST
4. L

   NEB
5. L

   WIS
6. L

   ILL
7. L

   ORE
8. L

   NU
9. L

   OSU
10. L

    PSU
11. L

    MSU
12. L

    IU

What moved it, 2024

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−2.32
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.12
• Timeouts−0.19
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.42

Game by game

• INSTW 49-0 vs INST98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• NDL 7-66 vs ND32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −37, Clock −1
• ORSTL 21-38 at ORST53% → 1%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −46, Timeouts +1
• NEBL 10-28 vs NEB23% → 1%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −31, Clock −1
• WISL 6-52 at WIS21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −24
• ILLL 49-50 at ILL9% → 2%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −14, Clock −1
• OREL 0-35 vs ORE4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −7
• NUL 20-26 vs NU63% → 10%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −47, Timeouts −20
• OSUL 0-45 at OSU2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• PSUL 10-49 vs PSU3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• MSUL 17-24 at MSU19% → 17%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −14, Possession & field position −2
• IUL 0-66 at IU5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7

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.