Purdue

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.2985th
  Defense+0.277th
• 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.
  Offense47.4%73rd
  Defense46.4%11th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2550th
  Defense+1.3715th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1353rd
  Defense+0.246th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4891st
  Defense+0.3418th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.4%71st
  Defense49.1%29th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.7%83rd
  Defense40.7%4th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9434th
  Defense3.358th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.4%61st
  Defense12.8%7th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.3%79th
  Defense13.8%24th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   WAKE
3. L
   UCLA
4. L
   ND
5. W
   ILL
6. W
   MINN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Purdue.

Players, 2026

1. Ryan BrowneQB144 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 56th of 192 QBs
   0.31WAR0.09 to 0.52
2. Fame IjeboiRB99 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 10th of 320 RBs
   0.19WAR0.12 to 0.26
3. Xavier TownsendWR27 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 61st of 364 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.13
4. Chauncey MagwoodWR24 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 131st of 364 WRs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
5. Asaad WaseemWR28 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 136th of 364 WRs
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.11
6. Antonio HarrisRB12 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 245th of 320 RBs
   0.02WAR0.02 to 0.03
7. George BurhennTE7 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 78th of 164 TEs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
8. Dylan DrennanP9 plays · +0.073 pts/play · 42nd of 84 punters
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.03

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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  69869855th of 138Roster talent: 698, 55th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18718766th of 138Recruiting: 187, 66th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  48%48%57th of 136Returning production: 48%, 57th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.6+1.662nd of 138SP+ rating so far: +1.6, 62nd of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.01 of the 0.04 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 MINNQ2 7:38 4th & 2 at MINN 10, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
2. vs WAKEQ3 4:49 4th & 3 at WAKE 12, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
3. vs WAKEQ2 0:02 4th & 4 at WAKE 4, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at UCLAQ3 5:50 4th & 8 at PUR 45, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs NDQ1 1:18 4th & 2 at PUR 44, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
6. vs INSTQ2 0:00 4th & 5 at INST 5, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. vs MINNQ1 12:53 4th & 4 at MINN 27, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
8. vs INSTQ1 11:06 4th & 4 at INST 21, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

31st of 138 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

   WAKE
3. L

   UCLA
4. L

   ND
5. W

   ILL
6. W

   MINN

What moved it, 2026

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+0.45
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.18
• Timeouts−0.18
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.35

Game by game

• INSTW 44-19 vs INST98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• WAKEL 36-38 vs WAKE47% → 12%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −18
• UCLAL 38-52 at UCLA18% → 1%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• NDL 10-49 vs ND4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −8
• ILLW 24-17 at ILL25% → 97%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +56, Clock +3
• MINNW 41-13 vs MINN39% → 100%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +54

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.