Purdue is a night game....

teachercd said:
Long story short...it doesn't matter how the score ends up being close...you want a chance for it to be close so you have a chance to win.
Click to expand...


What you really want is repeatability. There is no such thing as being good in close games (sample error), and if you're trying to forecast what a team will do in the future, close games are a red flag. Moreso are teams that have inconsistent or bad production relative to the final outcome. Purdue is 3-3 and has slightly negative differentials across most stats. When I see a team with a negative yards per play differential, it's an enormous red flag. (See my 2015 Sparty posts)

Purdue is making their wins seem bigger than they are and their losses seem closer than they are due to a small sample size.

Against Minnesota: they're actually down 1 with just over a minute to play. Final Score: 31-17. 

Against Michigan: 10 net yards in the second half. Mich 5.64 YPP, Purdue 3.78 YPP. Final score 28-10

Against Wisconsin: Purdue 4.02 YPP, Wisconsin 6.96 YPP. Final score 17-9

One might think that they had a good chance to win vs Wisconsin, because of those 3 Wisconsin turnovers. This is true, turnovers are big, but they are not repeatable, nor are they predictable. They may have been able to win that game, but they also got outplayed by a large margin.

Purdue to date is roughly equivalent to Nebraska to date, but the perception is that they are doing much better. Hence they're being overrated.

 
brophog said:
What you really want is repeatability. There is no such thing as being good in close games (sample error), and if you're trying to forecast what a team will do in the future, close games are a red flag. Moreso are teams that have inconsistent or bad production relative to the final outcome. Purdue is 3-3 and has slightly negative differentials across most stats. When I see a team with a negative yards per play differential, it's an enormous red flag. (See my 2015 Sparty posts)

Purdue is making their wins seem bigger than they are and their losses seem closer than they are due to a small sample size.

Against Minnesota: they're actually down 1 with just over a minute to play. Final Score: 31-17. 

Against Michigan: 10 net yards in the second half. Mich 5.64 YPP, Purdue 3.78 YPP. Final score 28-10

Against Wisconsin: Purdue 4.02 YPP, Wisconsin 6.96 YPP. Final score 17-9

One might think that they had a good chance to win vs Wisconsin, because of those 3 Wisconsin turnovers. This is true, turnovers are big, but they are not repeatable, nor are they predictable. They may have been able to win that game, but they also got outplayed by a large margin.

Purdue to date is roughly equivalent to Nebraska to date, but the perception is that they are doing much better. Hence they're being overrated.
Click to expand...
Excellent analysis.

 
Red Five said:
With that said, I am expecting Purdue to crossing route us to death and put up 450 passing.
Click to expand...


They do love crossing routes, and Nebraska has not defended them well. When you're physical with Purdue's receivers they struggle, obviously not a tendency Nebraska has shown defensively.

 
brophog said:
Purdue to date is roughly equivalent to Nebraska to date, but the perception is that they are doing much better. Hence they're being overrated.
Click to expand...


Sagarin has Purdue at 51 and Nebraska at 60 and implies Purdue is a 2-3 point favorite, so roughly equivalent.

S&P+ has Purdue at 55 and Nebraska at 74, so a bit of a difference there.

Purdue is exceeding expectations though.  I believe they have already topped their Vegas win total, while its going to be a dogfight to see if Nebraska can do the same (depending on which number one got, anywhere between 6 an 7.5 iirc)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Red Five said:
S&P+ has Purdue at 55 and Nebraska at 74, so a bit of a difference there.
Click to expand...


I explained, briefly, the base principles of S&P the other day. Those scoring margins being what they are is what is creating the difference you're seeing.

 
As odd as this is to type this, their game v. Rutgers this week will tell me quite a bit.  If Purdue is for real they'll go on the road and cruise pretty comfortably against a terrible Rutgers team.  I watched just about the whole Purdue/Whisky game last game for some dumb reason and I couldn't believe how crappy Wisconsin looked.  Wisconsin should've won that game by 21+.  Purdue to their credit is pretty physical and will try to get after you which is exactly what you need to do when you're limited offensively.  I'm not sure what the heck has happened to David Blough but he looks like a shadow of his former self.  Knowing Nebraska's luck they'll roll him out there next week and he'll shred.

Also +1 to you @brophog, really good analysis.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
They should win comfortably at Rutgers, which says a little something considering they haven't been a road favorite since 2012 and haven't covered as one since  2009. Rutgers had no depth or playmakers to begin with, and they starting to get banged up.

If Purdue wins, I'm not sure it says anything more than any other team beating Rutgers, unless they win really big. Similar to their win over Missouri, in retrospect.

 
brophog said:
What you really want is repeatability. There is no such thing as being good in close games (sample error), and if you're trying to forecast what a team will do in the future, close games are a red flag. Moreso are teams that have inconsistent or bad production relative to the final outcome. Purdue is 3-3 and has slightly negative differentials across most stats. When I see a team with a negative yards per play differential, it's an enormous red flag. (See my 2015 Sparty posts)

Purdue is making their wins seem bigger than they are and their losses seem closer than they are due to a small sample size.

Against Minnesota: they're actually down 1 with just over a minute to play. Final Score: 31-17. 

Against Michigan: 10 net yards in the second half. Mich 5.64 YPP, Purdue 3.78 YPP. Final score 28-10

Against Wisconsin: Purdue 4.02 YPP, Wisconsin 6.96 YPP. Final score 17-9

One might think that they had a good chance to win vs Wisconsin, because of those 3 Wisconsin turnovers. This is true, turnovers are big, but they are not repeatable, nor are they predictable. They may have been able to win that game, but they also got outplayed by a large margin.

Purdue to date is roughly equivalent to Nebraska to date, but the perception is that they are doing much better. Hence they're being overrated.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I see what you are saying.

 
Redux said:
We are going to dismantle them, it won't be close.
Click to expand...
It is interesting that we still have some delusional fans that think that Mike Riley has the capacity and brain power to dismantle anyone. Purdue wins by two touchdowns. I hate to have to admit this but I do not believe that this coaching staff is capable of putting a cohesive game plan that can beat anyone. Our kids have heart and we do have some excellent playmakers but they are terribly coached by this below average coaching staff. 

 
Purdue's D has improved under Nick Holt but Brohm certainly hasn't had the effect on their O one would have expected.  Still not a team we have any business losing to. 

 
huskerfan74 said:
It is interesting that we still have some delusional fans that think that Mike Riley has the capacity and brain power to dismantle anyone. Purdue wins by two touchdowns. I hate to have to admit this but I do not believe that this coaching staff is capable of putting a cohesive game plan that can beat anyone. Our kids have heart and we do have some excellent playmakers but they are terribly coached by this below average coaching staff. 
Click to expand...


It is interesting that we still have some delusional fans that think Purdue is capable of beating even a poorly coached Nebraska coming off a Bye Week by two touchdowns.

 
FTW said:
They struggled to throw the ball. We should stack the box and jam their receivers and dare them to beat us by throwing. Wait Bob Diaco is our DC, nvm. We'll play our DB's 10 yards off the LOS and get beat underneath.
Click to expand...
I read your first two sentences and started wondering what you were smoking.  :(

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top