Saturday was about the most beautiful spring day I've seen in a while. I'm generally a cold weather guy, so the 80 degrees weather some of y'all prefer is non my preferred experience. But Saturday hit that sweet spot of warm enough to walk around outside without needing a jacket to stay comfortable, yet cool enough to avoid sweating. Sunny, slight breeze, all around excellent day.
Today has rain in the forecast. Whomp whomp.
More information can be found here: [OTE PRIMER], [DROPBOX]
PREVIOUS ACHIEVEMENTS
Overall Ratings
Off/Def Ratings
W%/Luck Ratings
RECORD COMPARISON, 2009-2015
| Tm Rk | Gms | W | L | T | W% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 154 | 114 | 40 | 0 | 74% |
| 10 | 149 | 76 | 73 | 0 | 51% |
| 15 | 120 | 57 | 63 | 0 | 48% |
| 20 | 141 | 51 | 90 | 0 | 36% |
| 25 | 114 | 33 | 81 | 0 | 29% |
| 30 | 113 | 21 | 92 | 0 | 19% |
| 35 | 100 | 24 | 76 | 0 | 24% |
| 40 | 113 | 20 | 93 | 0 | 18% |
| 45 | 102 | 17 | 85 | 0 | 17% |
| 50 | 87 | 10 | 77 | 0 | 11% |
| 55 | 108 | 18 | 90 | 0 | 17% |
| 60 | 95 | 9 | 86 | 0 | 9% |
| 65 | 86 | 10 | 76 | 0 | 12% |
| 70 | 74 | 4 | 70 | 0 | 5% |
| 75 | 77 | 6 | 71 | 0 | 8% |
| 80 | 72 | 4 | 68 | 0 | 6% |
| 85 | 88 | 5 | 83 | 0 | 6% |
| 90 | 83 | 2 | 81 | 0 | 2% |
| 95 | 73 | 1 | 72 | 0 | 1% |
| 100 | 61 | 0 | 61 | 0 | 0% |
| Avg | Gms | W | L | T | W% |
| 85.0 | 20 | 1 | 19 | 0 | 5% |
Record vs Top 25
| Lo | Hi | Gms | W | L | T | W% | +/- |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 99% | 100% | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100% | +0.0 |
| 90% | 99% | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 100% | +0.2 |
| 80% | 90% | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 100% | +1.0 |
| 70% | 80% | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 100% | +0.4 |
| 60% | 70% | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 25% | -1.6 |
| 50% | 60% | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 50% | -0.2 |
| 40% | 50% | 8 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 38% | -0.6 |
| 30% | 40% | 7 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 43% | +0.5 |
| 20% | 30% | 6 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 33% | +0.6 |
| 10% | 20% | 9 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 11% | -0.2 |
| 0% | 10% | 33 | 1 | 32 | 0 | 3% | -0.0 |
| Close Gms | 27 | 9 | 18 | 0 | 33% | -1.4 | |
Win Lk Comparison
You may be asking yourself, why 2009? Granted, a 7-year lookback period isn't exactly an obvious choice, but I wanted to choose a range specific to each school. In this case, 2009 is the first year of Danny Hope's coaching tenure, so the 2009-2015 range offers a nice look at the post-Tiller world of Purdue's non-existence. There's two comparisons at play here, so let's break it down.
The Record vs Top 25 is what it says, a comparison of win/loss/tie-where-applicable records for all teams against Top 25 opponents (as determined by my end-of-season ratings, site-adjusted). The main section of the table is the Top 25 records for all teams at various tiers. The highlight row is the tier in which the non-Cartesian choo-choo trains fall. And the last row is the team specific records, which allows us to appreciate Purdue Harbor once more.
The Win-Lk Comparison is a team-specific look at how a team does at achieving/preventing upsets of various calibers, as well as comparing "close game" performance. The "+/-" column is there to show the total wins above/below expected (per my amateurish guessing and maths). No FCS opponents considered, so sadly Appalachian State will not get their moment in the sun here.
Other than adding more tables for your eyes to glaze over when skimming through these posts, the point of these comparisons is to try and be a buzzkill. For example, one of my least favorite talking points is when a coach's record of failure against Top XX schools are brought up. Well, duh. It's hard to win against top quality opponents, and most teams will have a losing record in those scenarios. How do they compare against their peers, and is it really all that major of a difference? I tend to think the answer to that last question is "probably nah."
FUTURE ENDEAVORS
| Conf | Record | C-Rec | Tot Rat | rk | Adj Rat | rk | Res Rat | rk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B10-West | 0-0 | 0-0 | -0.11 | 86 | -0.08 | 83 | -0.32 | 94 |
| # Tms | Prj Rec | Prj C-Rec | Adj Off | rk | Adj Def | rk | Prj SOS | rk |
| 129 | 5-7 | 3-6 | 1.00 | 67 | 1.09 | 90 | 0.11 | 61 |
| Perf W | 1 Loss | Bowl | Ret Off | rk | Ret Def | rk | Rec 3yr | rk |
| 0.0% | 0.0% | 26.3% | 8 | 22 | 8 | 14 | 81.94 | 68 |
| Gm | Wk | Date | H/V | Opponent | Opp Rk | FCS | C-Gm | Prj Lk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 09/03 | H | Eastern Kentucky | 129 | Y | ~ | 90% |
| 2 | 3 | 09/10 | H | Cincinnati | 71 | ~ | ~ | 43% |
| 3 | 5 | 09/24 | H | Nevada | 96 | ~ | ~ | 58% |
| 4 | 6 | 10/01 | V | Maryland | 51 | ~ | Y | 32% |
| 5 | 7 | 10/08 | V | Illinois | 61 | ~ | Y | 37% |
| 6 | 8 | 10/15 | H | Iowa | 50 | ~ | Y | 32% |
| 7 | 9 | 10/22 | V | Nebraska | 16 | ~ | Y | 13% |
| 8 | 10 | 10/29 | H | PennState | 46 | ~ | Y | 29% |
| 9 | 11 | 11/05 | V | Minnesota | 44 | ~ | Y | 26% |
| 10 | 12 | 11/12 | H | Northwestern | 64 | ~ | Y | 40% |
| 11 | 13 | 11/19 | H | Wisconsin | 32 | ~ | Y | 21% |
| 12 | 14 | 11/26 | V | Indiana | 58 | ~ | Y | 35% |
| Opp Rk | Team | B10 Avg | Opp %ile |
|---|---|---|---|
| Top 12 | 0 | 1.6 | 90% |
| Top 25 | 1 | 2.3 | 80% |
| Top 51 | 6 | 6.0 | 60% |
| Bot 25 | 1 | 1.3 | 20% |
Any question about the above projections, please let me know. On to other things...
My goals with these previews has been to slap a bunch of images and tables together, then ignore those while I discuss some other topic that I think is interesting. Mostly I do this because you can find 100+ other preview pieces talking about Purwho's prospects coming out of spring practice, and I am unlikely to offer anything more insightful in my words than what's already there. Most of what I'd have to say are basically in the numbers above, so take a gander there if you choose.
Besides, one the benefits of having 80+ years of college football data to dig through is seeing what you can do with it. For my efforts, one of the things I've been trying to accomplish over the off-season is determining a set of criteria for determining whether a conference is a "power conference" or not. It is annoyingly more difficult than I expected.
Keeping in mind that I am limited to the results on the field (so nothing based on revenue/TV contracts/etc.), my current model is based on the average rating of conference members. Rating > 0.00 -> power conference. Ratings mid-major conference. Based on this criteria, 2015 conferences (Ind excluded):
Powers - ACC, B10, B12, P12, SEC
Others - Amer, CUSA, MAC, MWC, Sun
Not bad! Unfortunately, doing this comparison year-by-year brings up some outlier cases at times. The 1970's era Big Ten fails quite a bit by this measure, and they aren't the only conference to have some ambiguity in their power status. Until I can come up with a better method (and feel free to offer your suggestions!), here's the current status since 1930:
100% POWER CONFERENCE
| Conf | Yr Beg | Yr End | Num Yrs |
|---|---|---|---|
| B12 | 1996 | 2015 | 20 |
| P10 | 1978 | 2010 | 33 |
| P12 | 2011 | 2015 | 5 |
| P8 | 1968 | 1977 | 10 |
| SEC | 1933 | 2015 | 83 |
100% NON-POWER CONFERENCE
| Conf | Yr Beg | Yr End | Num Yrs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amer | 2013 | 2015 | 3 |
| BW | 1988 | 2000 | 13 |
| SWAC | 1977 | 1977 | 1 |
| Sky | 1948 | 1961 | 14 |
| Sun | 2001 | 2015 | 15 |
| Z_FCS | 1930 | 2015 | 86 |
AND THE REST...
| Conf | Yr Beg | Yr End | Num Yrs | Power % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| West | 1930 | 1952 | 23 | 96% |
| BE | 1991 | 2012 | 22 | 91% |
| AAWU | 1959 | 1967 | 9 | 89% |
| SWC | 1930 | 1995 | 66 | 86% |
| B7 | 1948 | 1959 | 12 | 83% |
| B8 | 1960 | 1995 | 36 | 83% |
| B10 | 1953 | 2015 | 63 | 81% |
| PCC | 1930 | 1958 | 29 | 76% |
| ACC | 1953 | 2015 | 63 | 70% |
| B6 | 1930 | 1947 | 18 | 50% |
| Slnd | 1975 | 1981 | 7 | 43% |
| MWC | 1999 | 2015 | 17 | 41% |
| Ivy | 1956 | 1981 | 26 | 27% |
| Bord | 1931 | 1961 | 30 | 20% |
| MSAC | 1938 | 1947 | 10 | 20% |
| Sou | 1930 | 1981 | 52 | 15% |
| MAC | 1962 | 2015 | 54 | 15% |
| MVC | 1930 | 1985 | 56 | 13% |
| RMC | 1930 | 1937 | 8 | 13% |
| WAC | 1962 | 2012 | 51 | 12% |
| PCAA | 1969 | 1987 | 19 | 5% |
| CUSA | 1996 | 2015 | 20 | 5% |
Talk Big Ten football with Off Tackle Empire