FanPost

Hoegher's 2016 Previews: PURDUE

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%