Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

So, how do folks think Purdue ends the season?

Or they could continue to smoke people and beat everyone say but Wisky and finish a pretty decent 8-4 and be a tough bowl opponent.

I'd like to see this....but I don't know for sure.
The two games I've watched Purdue, Lincoln in person and the tOSU game, they look good enough for 8-4

I think that minimizes the most important and most inarguable aspect of any game. Who won and who lost.  We can argue over should have and could have won. We can argue over why the margin of victory was big or small but who won and lost is in stone and it’s the entire reason these games are played.

So, this question cuts to the center of what we want from our rankings. 
OAM and a lot of others say, we want rankings that say, this is who we think wins between those two teams. So in theory, on a neutral field, a team on average wins against the team a spot below it, loses to the team a spot above it. This would be a forward looking ranking. We might use data from the past, but we are not rewarding a team for accomplishments.
And it turns out, relying on wins is not a good way to build a forward looking ranking. They're too blocky of a piece of data. Looking at wins, a 1-point win and 40 point win have more in common than a 1-point loss and a 1-point win. Those last two are a stark difference, even though they're likely functionally the same game, give or take a play. So we can't build a great forward looking ranking by only using what amounts to a standing approach looking backwards.
That being said, I don't really see any need for the biggest rankings to be forward looking. I much prefer them to be backwards looking. I like rankings as a comparison of resumes and accomplishments. But that means I have to do away with the idea the No. 1 team should usually beat 2 or 3. It means I have to accept the No. 4 team might really be better than No. 1. 
In the end, I think there's room for any of these. I love some predictive ones. I don't mind the resume ones. To be honest, I'm mostly not bent out of shape by the big ones because they're not really held to any standard. I'm sure some use the old poll movement logic, and nothing says they can't. Some try to build their own resumes each week. Some use a bunch of advanced stats and then slightly adjust. And it all kind of comes out in the wash. 

Wisconsin will lose at Purdue.

Damn sure feels that way. 

Programs like OSU and Bama and now Clemson have that depth thing so losing players is not as much of a drop off as for a Purdue.

tOSU had that depth thing last year - in Aces Tyquan Lewis,Sam Hubbard,Jalyn Holmes - 2nd,3rd,4th rds and Trace Sprinkle - signed as a FE off of the D-Line.Billy Price (1st rd),Jamarco Jones (4th I think) and somebody else left I'd have to look up.Many thought last season Urban would go with Dwayne or Joe under center after JT's play in the Clemson & Oklahoma games.Now with injury & performance issues that depth is thin

For Purdue, what a difference a quarterback makes.

More than ever, I'm questioning that last part - whether Urby stays.

From the preseason scandal/suspension, to the head ache when he fell to the ground on the sideline versus Indiana, to the (supposedly untrue) rumors about Day talking with the AD about becoming "HC in waiting," to how ill Meyer looked versus Purdue, to the (supposedly untrue) rumors building this week about tension between Meyer, Gene Smith and his staff (...) there are just so many bad heuristics.

I won't question his resolve to stay and fight, but at this moment, it just seems like if he stays, he may be doing it primarily to spite the haters. Because all else being equal, it seems like being a CFB HC is thorough torture to Meyer right now.

So, this question cuts to the center of what we want from our rankings.
OAM and a lot of others say, we want rankings that say, this is who we think wins between those two teams. So in theory, on a neutral field, a team on average wins against the team a spot below it, loses to the team a spot above it. This would be a forward looking ranking. We might use data from the past, but we are not rewarding a team for accomplishments.
And it turns out, relying on wins is not a good way to build a forward looking ranking. They're too blocky of a piece of data. Looking at wins, a 1-point win and 40 point win have more in common than a 1-point loss and a 1-point win. Those last two are a stark difference, even though they're likely functionally the same game, give or take a play. So we can't build a great forward looking ranking by only using what amounts to a standing approach looking backwards.
That being said, I don't really see any need for the biggest rankings to be forward looking. I much prefer them to be backwards looking. I like rankings as a comparison of resumes and accomplishments. But that means I have to do away with the idea the No. 1 team should usually beat 2 or 3. It means I have to accept the No. 4 team might really be better than No. 1.
In the end, I think there's room for any of these. I love some predictive ones. I don't mind the resume ones. To be honest, I'm mostly not bent out of shape by the big ones because they're not really held to any standard. I'm sure some use the old poll movement logic, and nothing says they can't. Some try to build their own resumes each week. Some use a bunch of advanced stats and then slightly adjust. And it all kind of comes out in the wash.

Great post.
I have a problem knowingly ranking a team above another team I'm pretty sure would spank it.  So  no, I don't feel bad when a UCF can't crack the top 5.  There are reasons they have weight classes in boxing.  



As with a coach, I'd rather the voters make aggressive mistakes, not lazily moving everyone up who didn't happen to lose.  If someone thinks Purdue would beat all but 7 teams, then rank them 8th.  But at the same time, a loss in September = a loss in November.  If they're going to be damning, then when they occur shouldn't matter much at all.  Purdue's resume isn't great, but you can still think highly of a team like that.



For me, I've labeled this the "USC conundrum" in my mind.  It would be the Alabama conundrum, but Bama actually wins nearly all its games.  For a long while now, USC has pulled in the top talent west of the Rockies (if not Tuscaloosa) and lost a handful of games each year.  They're nearly always more talented than who they play, but don't wind up with an elite record.
So what do you do?  The more talented team doesn't win ?enough? of the time...so what do you do about that?  Purdue isn't better than tOSU, but they spanked the Buckeyes.  It happened.  



Then there's trap games, letdown games, injuries, etc that are part of the natural order of things.