Sorry this edition is late, I’ve been (Mai) Tai-d up with “work”.
Taking a look at the size and experience of the IU Lines and LBs and seeing how they match up against Purdue's equivalents.
- Purdue’s defense will face an IU O-line which will be the smaller side that Purdue will face this year at 306.0 lbs. which is jbelow the average for B10 teams. As mentioned in previous weeks, the O-lines for this year’s B10 and OOC opponents are much younger than in years past. IU however still comes in slightly below average at 2.4 years of experience. The interior of the line is comprised of two R-Sophs and a R-Jr. The tackles, both with Purdue connections, are a true Soph and Junior. Combined, they have 87 collective starts, a little on the light side for the last game of their season.
- This year’s Purdue’s D-Line (Larkin, Robinson, Neal, Ezechukwu) averages about 277.5 lbs, down from the 283.5 lbs average of last year. They will be outweighed by the IU line by only about 29.5 lbs per man on average. Purdue’s average experience is 3.5 years, up from last year’s line of 3.2 year average. The size of this group will be slightly below average for a B10 team but above average in terms of experience. As a unit however they have good starting experience as going into Saturday they have 91 collective starts.
- Purdue’s LBs (McCollum, Bentley, Bailey) come in at 243.3 lbs and are at 3.33 years of experience. That’s up about 1.5 lbs from last year and an additional year in collective experience (Up from 2.33 the last two years). They have a collective 91 starts between them (Counting McCollum’s starts at WKU). Size wise, this group is the largest in the B10 by 10+/- lbs per man and above average in terms of experience.
- Purdue’s O-line (Swingler, Evans, Baron, McCann, Steinmetz) will average 309.0 lbs per man, down by less than three Quarter Pounder with Cheese’s from last year’s 309.6 lbs. This puts them slightly above average compared to other B10 programs. They average 3.00 years of experience which is a significant drop from last year (3.6 years). However, this also places them well above average for the B10 and also for all opponents. Collectively, this group has a very good 104 starts among them. By comparison, last season going into the IU game with Roos, Cermin and King leading the way, Purdue’s O-line had 117 starts.
- At 278.75 lbs, IU’s D-line is one of the smaller D-Line units Purdue will face this year and below average for B10 lines. They will be well above the B10 average in terms of experience with a 3.75 year average. The right side of the line is basically in their first year of starting while the left side has multi-year starters with 22 and 19 career starts. They’ll be outweighed by Purdue’s O-line by 30.25 lbs per man. As mentioned, they have a mix of newer starters and only have 61 starts between them.
- The Hoosier LBs come also in well below the average for Purdue’s opponents at 221.67 lbs. and will be one of the smalest groups they’ll face this season, equal to Missouri’s group. This is in part due to their 4-2-5 lineup where their “Husky” position is a DB playing a de-facto LB. They are however at the top of the B10 and well above the league average in terms of experience with 4.00 years at the position. While older (they matched Iowa in age), their collective starts are less than half of what Iowa’s LBs had with just 56 starts.
Vegas predicts Purdue by 2.5 points (opened at -2.5 but is inching up to -3.0 at some books)
Compughter Ratings.com predicts a 25-16 Purdue win
MasseyRatings predicts a 24-17 Purdue win
Sagarin predicts an 4.93 Purdue win
CollegeFootballPoll predicts a 1.51 point Purdue win
One of Purdue’s goals this year was to make a bowl game. Had the ball bounced differently, Purdue could already be sitting on 7 wins and simply trying to add to that total and improve their bowl location. As it is, they sit at 5 wins and need to win against IU to get back the Bucket and to meet the 6 win threshold for bowl eligibility and the extra practices which come with that eligibility.
In a bit like the 2012 team which needed to win their last three games to go bowling (@IU, @Illinois, IU at home) this year’s team also needs to win at IU and at home against IU to hit that 6 win total. That 2012 team is also the last team to win at Kinnick Stadium against Iowa and then came home to beat IU..
Just looking at some of the statistics, Purdue and IU come into the game very similar. Both have 5-6 records; both have played some of the better conference teams tough; both have used two QBs and now have more of a pocket passer due to injury; both are strong against the run.
The comparisons pretty much stop there.
In the past few years IU has had an NFL quality running back leading their ground game. This season, IU’s rushing offense is ranked 104th nationally. It would have probably been worse had it not been for the change in QB to Ramsey during the season. However, having a running QB, and worse, one your team is largely dependent upon to create a running game, often leads to injury. Thus, last year’s starter and the starter early this season, Richard Lagow, takes over late in his Senior season.
Lagow is slightly more mobile than a statue but has a strong arm and can make all of the throws necessary in IU’s, up-tempo offense. However, he also has a bit of a penchant for throwing to the other team. His TD:INT ratio 1.7 with 12 TDs and 7 Interceptions this season. For his career at IU, he’s just over a 1.29 ratio with 31 TDs and 24 Interceptions. In last year’s Bucket game, he was 11 of 19 with 3 interceptions and 1 TD. Out of the 117 yards he passed for, he got 44 of them on a single pass play.
IU did have their top two running backs, Ellison and Gest, both top 100 yards rushing last week against Rutgers but as a team, hasn’t exceeded 140 yards rushing in their prior four games and were held below 100 yards in three of those.
Back to those turnovers. IU is last in the league (111th nationally) in turnover margin. They also come in ranked 84th in Passing Efficiency (7th in Conference).
IU does have one of the better receiving corps that Purdue will face this year. I’d put them behind Nebraska’s but Senior Simmie Cobbs (former Purdue commit) is their biggest target (both figuratively and literally). Rutgers was able to hold him to two receptions but to little avail as IU was able to run roughshod over the Rutgers defense and put up 41 points on them. The two receptions was a season low (Georgia Southern) but Georgia Southern also held him to 17 yards in receptions. Again, with IU winning that game handily, I doubt he was targeted much.
With Kevin Wilson no longer the HC and no longer calling the plays, IU’s offense doesn’t seem nearly as explosive as they have in years past. The numbers seem to back that up as so far this season, IU has generated 20+ yard plays from scrimmage 41 times (31 passing/10 rushing). Going into the Purdue game last season, IU had 52 such plays (41 passing/11 rushing).
On defense, IU under Allen, first as DC and now as HC, has gone to a smaller, quicker lineup and brings pressure in passing situations. From where IU was in 2015, they’ve made a substantial improvement in their defense most significantly in their rush defense, coming in this season ranked 48th nationally (9th in conference).
As mentioned, with the pressure they bring, they come in high in sacks, 10th nationally (3rd in conference) and tackles for loss at 17th nationally (also 3rd in conference).
Where IU’s defense has been a bit lacking has been on takeaways. They are ranked 101st nationally (13th in conference) in takeaways. As much pressure they seem to bring on defense, you would think they would be higher ranked in terms of interceptions and Pass Efficiency Defense but not so, they are ranked 115th in Passes Intercepted (last in conference) and 48th in Pass Efficency Defense (10th in conference).
For the 2nd time in three years of starting, Blough will be injured for the Bucket game and a backup will start. It’s a bit different this year as the “backup”, Sindelar now has more actual starts this season than Blough, so it’s not like putting in some untested rookie behind center. One thing to watch is Sindelar’s health. As documented, Sindelar suffered an injury against Northwestern which required a knee brace however the injury did not seem to hamper him in the 2nd half of the Northwestern game nor against Iowa. Purdue’s backup and Wildcat QB (when he isn’t a WR), Sparks also suffered a injury against Iowa so his status is a bit questionable as well.
My expectation is that both will play but Sparks may be limited to the wide receiver position. Any snaps he can play at Wildcat would be a plus however and IU will certainly have to account for him, both in practice leading up to the game and the game itself. This could be the week that Purdue lets Sparks throw the ball.
Purdue’s running back group is also banged up with Fuller and now Worship out for the season. Thankfully, it’s one of Purdue’s deepest groups and Knox and Jones (in essence the two main backs from 2015) are carrying the load nicely.
It’s also nice to see Lankford-Johnson resurface from his apparently time in the Gulag. He can bring some additional speed to the position and also from his re-insertion into the kickoff return team.
Purdue’s O-line is hanging together with duct tape and bailing wire but performed well even with the loss of Herrmans at LT. With IU’s desire to bring pressure, it will be important to again play a solid game.
The “shake up” from a few weeks ago at the WR position where Sparks and Burgess moved over Phillips and Mahoungou has paid dividends. Last week when Sparks had to go to the sideline, Mahoungou stepped right in and Purdue was able to exploit a mismatch in the Iowa defensive backfield, torch them for two touchdowns on their first two possessions of the 2nd half and seize control of the game.
On the other side, Burgess has also been a pleasant surprise now that he’s finally getting a chance to get a consistent number of snaps. His size and speed creates the same type of matchup problems that IU’s Cobbs creates to other teams.
Overall, the offense has shown the ability to create some big plays, and not necessarily just off of trick or gadget plays. For the year, Purdue has 53 plays of 20 yards or more. (14 Rushing, 39 Passing). If you’ll note, that is 12 more than this year’s IU team has and one more than IU had last year at this time under Wilson.
Unlike the Purdue offense, the Purdue defense is relatively healthy. And, more importantly, performing well.
Rushing Defense is at 31st nationally (7th in conference), Scoring Defense is at 18th nationally (4th in conference) and Total Defense is at 35th nationally (8th in conference). You have to go back to the 2003 team to find a statistically better defense. That year they were ranked 13th nationally in Total Defense; 10th in Rushing Defense, and; 14th in Scoring Defense.
Against Iowa, Purdue was able to bring pressure to Stanley and the Iowa offense. They finished with 6 sacks in the game when Iowa had been allowing 1.6 per game previously. Coach Holt will need to devise a scheme to keep IU guessing as to whom will be coming, and when, to keep them on their heels and guessing.
Purdue’s defense, and in turn the offense, this year has benefited greatly from creating turnovers. Against Rutgers (loss), Nebraska (loss) and Northwestern (loss), Purdue failed to generate any takeaways on defense. With IU’s potential on offense, it’s going to be critical for Purdue to play like they did early in the season and against Illinois and Iowa, winning the turnover battle.
As mentioned, IU recently has been able to get its running game productive with their just running backs. Purdue’s been able to hold their last four opponents under 100 yards rushing. Purdue’s 2003 defense was able to hold seven opponents under that mark but their streak was five games to start off the season. This year’s team has an excellent opportunity to match that streak.
It’s going to be imperative that Purdue limits IU in the running game to make IU one-dimensional on offense. If Purdue has to defend both the run and pass, IU has the capability to pick apart Purdue’s defense.
From a matchup perspective, Cobbs with his size (6’4”, 220lbs) is closer to a TE than a WR size wise. (If you’ll recall, Purdue’s plan was going to use Cobbs as a Safety.) For that reason, I have to believe that Okonye (6’0”, 200lbs) will be his primary defender. I’d also expect Purdue to continually switch up coverages to try and confuse Lagow and induce a misread or a bad throw and a turnover. Between man-to-man, zone and bracket coverage, hopefully they can limit Cobbs without leaving open holes elsewhere.
IU’s receiving corps is not just Cobbs. Timian (6’0”, 195lbs) and TE Thomas are both productive in their offense.
Special Teams continue to be a bit of a mixed bag with Coach Levine finding weaknesses in opponent’s schemes, formations or tendencies which can be exploited.
The return games, so far, haven’t had as much to write home about. Again, would like to see Lankford-Johnson get an opportunity to return a kick to see if he can replicate his production from last season.
Using Evans on the kickoffs has made a world of difference to Purdue’s overall game. Having teams consistently start at the 25 due to Evans’ touchbacks, it’s put opponents in less than optimal field position and kept them from gaining any momentum generated by a long return. Case in point, against Iowa, wind conditions kept Purdue’s last kickoff from reaching the end zone and Iowa was able to create a 53 yard return leading to a Hawkeye touchdown.
The weather forecast is about as good as one could expect for a late November game with a high of around 48 degrees, a slight (10%) chance of rain and winds in the 10-20 mph range.
Rivalry games are always a bit of a crapshoot although both first year coaches should have a pretty good handle on what to expect. The impact of the game is only ramped up by both teams needing a win to go bowling.
Purdue has come into the last four contests as underdogs (+21.5 in 2016; +6.5 in 2015; +2.5 in 2014; +20.5 in 2013). Three of those games were played in Bloomington with only the 2015 game played at home. Saturday’s game will played in the friendly confines of Ross-Ade.
This year, Purdue breaks that trend and comes in as a favorite. A slight favorite, but nonetheless, a favorite.
Purdue is 8-2-2 when playing IU on November 25th. Saturday is obviously November 25th and it’s also Senior Day for Purdue presenting an opportunity to exorcise the demons of the previous four years of losing seasons and ineffectual performances.
All season long, Purdue has been full of surprises, exceeding expectations and watching a competent coaching staff virtually overnight stop the slide, get the program headed in the right direction and on the doorstep of some measure of respectability. I believe Purdue will finish the job and come Saturday night, begin making plans for a bowl game.
Saturday can’t get here soon enough. Let’s play football!
Taking a look at the size and experience of the IU Lines and LBs and seeing how they match up against Purdue's equivalents.
- Purdue’s defense will face an IU O-line which will be the smaller side that Purdue will face this year at 306.0 lbs. which is jbelow the average for B10 teams. As mentioned in previous weeks, the O-lines for this year’s B10 and OOC opponents are much younger than in years past. IU however still comes in slightly below average at 2.4 years of experience. The interior of the line is comprised of two R-Sophs and a R-Jr. The tackles, both with Purdue connections, are a true Soph and Junior. Combined, they have 87 collective starts, a little on the light side for the last game of their season.
- This year’s Purdue’s D-Line (Larkin, Robinson, Neal, Ezechukwu) averages about 277.5 lbs, down from the 283.5 lbs average of last year. They will be outweighed by the IU line by only about 29.5 lbs per man on average. Purdue’s average experience is 3.5 years, up from last year’s line of 3.2 year average. The size of this group will be slightly below average for a B10 team but above average in terms of experience. As a unit however they have good starting experience as going into Saturday they have 91 collective starts.
- Purdue’s LBs (McCollum, Bentley, Bailey) come in at 243.3 lbs and are at 3.33 years of experience. That’s up about 1.5 lbs from last year and an additional year in collective experience (Up from 2.33 the last two years). They have a collective 91 starts between them (Counting McCollum’s starts at WKU). Size wise, this group is the largest in the B10 by 10+/- lbs per man and above average in terms of experience.
- Purdue’s O-line (Swingler, Evans, Baron, McCann, Steinmetz) will average 309.0 lbs per man, down by less than three Quarter Pounder with Cheese’s from last year’s 309.6 lbs. This puts them slightly above average compared to other B10 programs. They average 3.00 years of experience which is a significant drop from last year (3.6 years). However, this also places them well above average for the B10 and also for all opponents. Collectively, this group has a very good 104 starts among them. By comparison, last season going into the IU game with Roos, Cermin and King leading the way, Purdue’s O-line had 117 starts.
- At 278.75 lbs, IU’s D-line is one of the smaller D-Line units Purdue will face this year and below average for B10 lines. They will be well above the B10 average in terms of experience with a 3.75 year average. The right side of the line is basically in their first year of starting while the left side has multi-year starters with 22 and 19 career starts. They’ll be outweighed by Purdue’s O-line by 30.25 lbs per man. As mentioned, they have a mix of newer starters and only have 61 starts between them.
- The Hoosier LBs come also in well below the average for Purdue’s opponents at 221.67 lbs. and will be one of the smalest groups they’ll face this season, equal to Missouri’s group. This is in part due to their 4-2-5 lineup where their “Husky” position is a DB playing a de-facto LB. They are however at the top of the B10 and well above the league average in terms of experience with 4.00 years at the position. While older (they matched Iowa in age), their collective starts are less than half of what Iowa’s LBs had with just 56 starts.
Vegas predicts Purdue by 2.5 points (opened at -2.5 but is inching up to -3.0 at some books)
Compughter Ratings.com predicts a 25-16 Purdue win
MasseyRatings predicts a 24-17 Purdue win
Sagarin predicts an 4.93 Purdue win
CollegeFootballPoll predicts a 1.51 point Purdue win
One of Purdue’s goals this year was to make a bowl game. Had the ball bounced differently, Purdue could already be sitting on 7 wins and simply trying to add to that total and improve their bowl location. As it is, they sit at 5 wins and need to win against IU to get back the Bucket and to meet the 6 win threshold for bowl eligibility and the extra practices which come with that eligibility.
In a bit like the 2012 team which needed to win their last three games to go bowling (@IU, @Illinois, IU at home) this year’s team also needs to win at IU and at home against IU to hit that 6 win total. That 2012 team is also the last team to win at Kinnick Stadium against Iowa and then came home to beat IU..
Just looking at some of the statistics, Purdue and IU come into the game very similar. Both have 5-6 records; both have played some of the better conference teams tough; both have used two QBs and now have more of a pocket passer due to injury; both are strong against the run.
The comparisons pretty much stop there.
In the past few years IU has had an NFL quality running back leading their ground game. This season, IU’s rushing offense is ranked 104th nationally. It would have probably been worse had it not been for the change in QB to Ramsey during the season. However, having a running QB, and worse, one your team is largely dependent upon to create a running game, often leads to injury. Thus, last year’s starter and the starter early this season, Richard Lagow, takes over late in his Senior season.
Lagow is slightly more mobile than a statue but has a strong arm and can make all of the throws necessary in IU’s, up-tempo offense. However, he also has a bit of a penchant for throwing to the other team. His TD:INT ratio 1.7 with 12 TDs and 7 Interceptions this season. For his career at IU, he’s just over a 1.29 ratio with 31 TDs and 24 Interceptions. In last year’s Bucket game, he was 11 of 19 with 3 interceptions and 1 TD. Out of the 117 yards he passed for, he got 44 of them on a single pass play.
IU did have their top two running backs, Ellison and Gest, both top 100 yards rushing last week against Rutgers but as a team, hasn’t exceeded 140 yards rushing in their prior four games and were held below 100 yards in three of those.
Back to those turnovers. IU is last in the league (111th nationally) in turnover margin. They also come in ranked 84th in Passing Efficiency (7th in Conference).
IU does have one of the better receiving corps that Purdue will face this year. I’d put them behind Nebraska’s but Senior Simmie Cobbs (former Purdue commit) is their biggest target (both figuratively and literally). Rutgers was able to hold him to two receptions but to little avail as IU was able to run roughshod over the Rutgers defense and put up 41 points on them. The two receptions was a season low (Georgia Southern) but Georgia Southern also held him to 17 yards in receptions. Again, with IU winning that game handily, I doubt he was targeted much.
With Kevin Wilson no longer the HC and no longer calling the plays, IU’s offense doesn’t seem nearly as explosive as they have in years past. The numbers seem to back that up as so far this season, IU has generated 20+ yard plays from scrimmage 41 times (31 passing/10 rushing). Going into the Purdue game last season, IU had 52 such plays (41 passing/11 rushing).
On defense, IU under Allen, first as DC and now as HC, has gone to a smaller, quicker lineup and brings pressure in passing situations. From where IU was in 2015, they’ve made a substantial improvement in their defense most significantly in their rush defense, coming in this season ranked 48th nationally (9th in conference).
As mentioned, with the pressure they bring, they come in high in sacks, 10th nationally (3rd in conference) and tackles for loss at 17th nationally (also 3rd in conference).
Where IU’s defense has been a bit lacking has been on takeaways. They are ranked 101st nationally (13th in conference) in takeaways. As much pressure they seem to bring on defense, you would think they would be higher ranked in terms of interceptions and Pass Efficiency Defense but not so, they are ranked 115th in Passes Intercepted (last in conference) and 48th in Pass Efficency Defense (10th in conference).
For the 2nd time in three years of starting, Blough will be injured for the Bucket game and a backup will start. It’s a bit different this year as the “backup”, Sindelar now has more actual starts this season than Blough, so it’s not like putting in some untested rookie behind center. One thing to watch is Sindelar’s health. As documented, Sindelar suffered an injury against Northwestern which required a knee brace however the injury did not seem to hamper him in the 2nd half of the Northwestern game nor against Iowa. Purdue’s backup and Wildcat QB (when he isn’t a WR), Sparks also suffered a injury against Iowa so his status is a bit questionable as well.
My expectation is that both will play but Sparks may be limited to the wide receiver position. Any snaps he can play at Wildcat would be a plus however and IU will certainly have to account for him, both in practice leading up to the game and the game itself. This could be the week that Purdue lets Sparks throw the ball.
Purdue’s running back group is also banged up with Fuller and now Worship out for the season. Thankfully, it’s one of Purdue’s deepest groups and Knox and Jones (in essence the two main backs from 2015) are carrying the load nicely.
It’s also nice to see Lankford-Johnson resurface from his apparently time in the Gulag. He can bring some additional speed to the position and also from his re-insertion into the kickoff return team.
Purdue’s O-line is hanging together with duct tape and bailing wire but performed well even with the loss of Herrmans at LT. With IU’s desire to bring pressure, it will be important to again play a solid game.
The “shake up” from a few weeks ago at the WR position where Sparks and Burgess moved over Phillips and Mahoungou has paid dividends. Last week when Sparks had to go to the sideline, Mahoungou stepped right in and Purdue was able to exploit a mismatch in the Iowa defensive backfield, torch them for two touchdowns on their first two possessions of the 2nd half and seize control of the game.
On the other side, Burgess has also been a pleasant surprise now that he’s finally getting a chance to get a consistent number of snaps. His size and speed creates the same type of matchup problems that IU’s Cobbs creates to other teams.
Overall, the offense has shown the ability to create some big plays, and not necessarily just off of trick or gadget plays. For the year, Purdue has 53 plays of 20 yards or more. (14 Rushing, 39 Passing). If you’ll note, that is 12 more than this year’s IU team has and one more than IU had last year at this time under Wilson.
Unlike the Purdue offense, the Purdue defense is relatively healthy. And, more importantly, performing well.
Rushing Defense is at 31st nationally (7th in conference), Scoring Defense is at 18th nationally (4th in conference) and Total Defense is at 35th nationally (8th in conference). You have to go back to the 2003 team to find a statistically better defense. That year they were ranked 13th nationally in Total Defense; 10th in Rushing Defense, and; 14th in Scoring Defense.
Against Iowa, Purdue was able to bring pressure to Stanley and the Iowa offense. They finished with 6 sacks in the game when Iowa had been allowing 1.6 per game previously. Coach Holt will need to devise a scheme to keep IU guessing as to whom will be coming, and when, to keep them on their heels and guessing.
Purdue’s defense, and in turn the offense, this year has benefited greatly from creating turnovers. Against Rutgers (loss), Nebraska (loss) and Northwestern (loss), Purdue failed to generate any takeaways on defense. With IU’s potential on offense, it’s going to be critical for Purdue to play like they did early in the season and against Illinois and Iowa, winning the turnover battle.
As mentioned, IU recently has been able to get its running game productive with their just running backs. Purdue’s been able to hold their last four opponents under 100 yards rushing. Purdue’s 2003 defense was able to hold seven opponents under that mark but their streak was five games to start off the season. This year’s team has an excellent opportunity to match that streak.
It’s going to be imperative that Purdue limits IU in the running game to make IU one-dimensional on offense. If Purdue has to defend both the run and pass, IU has the capability to pick apart Purdue’s defense.
From a matchup perspective, Cobbs with his size (6’4”, 220lbs) is closer to a TE than a WR size wise. (If you’ll recall, Purdue’s plan was going to use Cobbs as a Safety.) For that reason, I have to believe that Okonye (6’0”, 200lbs) will be his primary defender. I’d also expect Purdue to continually switch up coverages to try and confuse Lagow and induce a misread or a bad throw and a turnover. Between man-to-man, zone and bracket coverage, hopefully they can limit Cobbs without leaving open holes elsewhere.
IU’s receiving corps is not just Cobbs. Timian (6’0”, 195lbs) and TE Thomas are both productive in their offense.
Special Teams continue to be a bit of a mixed bag with Coach Levine finding weaknesses in opponent’s schemes, formations or tendencies which can be exploited.
The return games, so far, haven’t had as much to write home about. Again, would like to see Lankford-Johnson get an opportunity to return a kick to see if he can replicate his production from last season.
Using Evans on the kickoffs has made a world of difference to Purdue’s overall game. Having teams consistently start at the 25 due to Evans’ touchbacks, it’s put opponents in less than optimal field position and kept them from gaining any momentum generated by a long return. Case in point, against Iowa, wind conditions kept Purdue’s last kickoff from reaching the end zone and Iowa was able to create a 53 yard return leading to a Hawkeye touchdown.
The weather forecast is about as good as one could expect for a late November game with a high of around 48 degrees, a slight (10%) chance of rain and winds in the 10-20 mph range.
Rivalry games are always a bit of a crapshoot although both first year coaches should have a pretty good handle on what to expect. The impact of the game is only ramped up by both teams needing a win to go bowling.
Purdue has come into the last four contests as underdogs (+21.5 in 2016; +6.5 in 2015; +2.5 in 2014; +20.5 in 2013). Three of those games were played in Bloomington with only the 2015 game played at home. Saturday’s game will played in the friendly confines of Ross-Ade.
This year, Purdue breaks that trend and comes in as a favorite. A slight favorite, but nonetheless, a favorite.
Purdue is 8-2-2 when playing IU on November 25th. Saturday is obviously November 25th and it’s also Senior Day for Purdue presenting an opportunity to exorcise the demons of the previous four years of losing seasons and ineffectual performances.
All season long, Purdue has been full of surprises, exceeding expectations and watching a competent coaching staff virtually overnight stop the slide, get the program headed in the right direction and on the doorstep of some measure of respectability. I believe Purdue will finish the job and come Saturday night, begin making plans for a bowl game.
Saturday can’t get here soon enough. Let’s play football!
