Purdue

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0527th
  Defense+0.245th
• 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.
  Offense42.8%56th
  Defense48.3%4th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2451st
  Defense+1.2067th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1059th
  Defense+0.1518th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0615th
  Defense+0.383rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.9%33rd
  Defense54.5%1st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.2%87th
  Defense31.9%30th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9451st
  Defense3.2510th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.2%44th
  Defense18.2%43rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.0%39th
  Defense15.2%43rd

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   BALL
2. W
   SIU
3. L
   USC
4. L
   ND
5. L
   ILL
6. L
   MINN
7. L
   NU
8. L
   RUTG
9. L
   MICH
10. L
    OSU
11. L
    WASH
12. L
    IU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Purdue.

Players, 2025

1. Ryan BrowneQB267 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 128th of 231 QBs
   0.54WAR−0.03 to 1.08
2. Devin MockobeeRB89 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 184th of 365 RBs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.18
3. Malachi SingletonQB44 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 194th of 231 QBs
   0.10WAR−0.02 to 0.22
4. Malachi ThomasRB51 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 231st of 365 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
5. Nitro TuggleWR45 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 206th of 451 WRs
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.16
6. Michael Jackson IIIWR51 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 242nd of 451 WRs
   0.07WAR−0.01 to 0.15
7. Spencer PorathPK11 plays · +0.292 pts/play · 85th of 112 kickers
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
8. Corey SmithWR22 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 320th of 451 WRs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.09

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  68868854th of 134Roster talent: 688, 54th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18818858th of 134Recruiting: 188, 58th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  20%20%97th of 132Returning production: 20%, 97th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.1−6.188th of 134SP+ rating: −6.1, 88th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 3 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. at MINNQ3 8:20 4th & 3 at MINN 3, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
2. vs RUTGQ3 4:00 4th & 5 at RUTG 40, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. at MINNQ4 3:09 4th & 5 at MINN 14, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
4. vs ILLQ2 3:03 4th & 2 at PUR 43, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs RUTGQ1 0:08 4th & 2 at RUTG 2, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at NUQ2 1:00 4th & 3 at NU 46, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at NUQ2 5:28 4th & 3 at PUR 30, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs RUTGQ2 5:44 4th & 9 at RUTG 39, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

113th of 136 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

   BALL
2. W

   SIU
3. L

   USC
4. L

   ND
5. L

   ILL
6. L

   MINN
7. L

   NU
8. L

   RUTG
9. L

   MICH
10. L

    OSU
11. L

    WASH
12. L

    IU

What moved it, 2025

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−1.84
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.49

Game by game

• BALLW 31-0 vs BALL88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +16, Timeouts −1
• SIUW 34-17 vs SIU93% → 98%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +12
• USCL 17-33 vs USC8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −16, Clock −1
• NDL 30-56 at ND5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −8
• ILLL 27-43 vs ILL27% → 1%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −36, Clock −1
• MINNL 20-27 at MINN28% → 7%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −24, Possession & field position −2
• NUL 0-19 at NU39% → 1%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −2
• RUTGL 24-27 vs RUTG50% → 7%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• MICHL 16-21 at MICH6% → 5%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −11, Timeouts −1
• OSUL 10-34 vs OSU3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −7
• WASHL 13-49 at WASH13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −16
• IUL 3-56 vs IU4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −8

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.