The SportsWire

Indiana

2026 · week 6 result vs Nebraska

Updated Tue Oct 13, 7:55 PM CT

Next up projections

vs Ohio State

Week 7 · Sat Oct 17, 11:00 AM CT / 12:00 PM ET · Memorial Stadium (Bloomington, IN) · Ohio State (FBS, Big Ten)

Our call: Ohio State by 0.2Toss-up

SP+ and Our model favor Ohio State; Elo favors Indiana. The line, shown for comparison only, has Ohio State by 4.0.

The average of SP+, Elo and Our model; the line is left out and kept as a benchmark. Toss-up under 3 points, Lean 3 to 7, Strong 7 and over. More ›

Big game prediction page: vs Ohio State ›

Regression watch: Last game's 3-point win matched the play (score -3 against play), inside the 7-point band: no flag. More ›

Schedule: Played the 61st-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating -4.2); 17th-toughest remaining (+9.9). More ›

Opponents by our model's rating 6 played · 6 left
  • Week 1 vs North Texas (+4.9)
  • Week 2 vs Howard (-32.8) · FCS, pooled
  • Week 3 vs Western Kentucky (-10.3)
  • Week 4 vs Northwestern (+5.9)
  • Week 5 at Rutgers (-3.1)
  • Week 6 at Nebraska (+10.2)
  • Remaining:
  • Week 7 vs Ohio State (+25.9)
  • Week 8 at Michigan (+11.8)
  • Week 9 vs Minnesota (+0.9)
  • Week 11 vs USC (+14.8)
  • Week 12 at Washington (+4.2)
  • Week 13 vs Purdue (+2.0)

Each opponent's rating from our model's week 7 snapshot, in points against an average FBS team; the averages are ranked among the 138 FBS teams. Played means through week 6. Experimental, like the Our model card.

Series: Ohio State leads 81–13–5 · last: Indiana 13–10, 2025

Series history 99 meetings since 1901
  • All-time: Ohio State leads 81–13–5 (99 meetings since 1901)
  • Last meeting: Indiana 13–10, 2025, neutral site
  • Streak: none
  • At Memorial Stadium (Bloomington, IN): Ohio State leads 10–0 (10 meetings)
  • Biggest margins: Indiana 41–7 (1988) · Ohio State 56–0 (1957)
  • Since 2000: Ohio State leads 22–1 (23 meetings)
SeasonResultSite
2025Indiana 13–10neutral site
2024Ohio State 38–15Ohio Stadium
2023Ohio State 23–3Memorial Stadium (Bloomington, IN)
2022Ohio State 56–14Ohio Stadium
2021Ohio State 54–7Memorial Stadium (Bloomington, IN)
2020Ohio State 42–35Ohio Stadium
2019Ohio State 51–10Memorial Stadium (Bloomington, IN)
2018Ohio State 49–26Ohio Stadium
2017Ohio State 49–21Memorial Stadium (Bloomington, IN)
2016Ohio State 38–17Ohio Stadium
2015Ohio State 34–27Memorial Stadium (Bloomington, IN)
2014Ohio State 42–27Ohio Stadium
2013Ohio State 42–14Ohio Stadium
2012Ohio State 52–49Memorial Stadium (Bloomington, IN)
2011Ohio State 34–20Ohio Stadium
2010Ohio State 38–10Ohio Stadium
2009Ohio State 33–14Memorial Stadium (Bloomington, IN)
2006Ohio State 44–3Ohio Stadium
2005Ohio State 41–10Memorial Stadium (Bloomington, IN)
2004Ohio State 30–7Ohio Stadium
2003Ohio State 35–6Memorial Stadium (Bloomington, IN)
2002Ohio State 45–17Ohio Stadium
2001Ohio State 27–14Memorial Stadium (Bloomington, IN)
RatingIndianaOhio State
SP+ +26.7 #5 +29.5 #1
Elo 2098 2060

Projected margin for Indiana · three models and the line, side by side

SP+
-0.3
Indiana +26.7 vs Ohio State +29.5
avg miss 10.6
closest 47/79
Elo
+4.0
Indiana 2098 vs Ohio State 2060
avg miss 12.3
closest 33/79
Line · benchmark
-4.0
pregame line
avg miss 11.1
Our model · experimental
-4.3
Indiana +19.1 vs Ohio State +25.9
prior 50%
avg miss 11.8
closest 14/40
How to read this
  • SP+ is a rating of how good a team is, in points better or worse than an average team, built from its play-by-play, so the gap between two teams' ratings is a projected margin.
  • Elo is a rating that goes up with every win and down with every loss, more for beating a strong team, less for beating a weak one. The gap between two ratings is divided by 25 to turn it into points.
  • The line is the pregame line, the margin the market expected, shown from Indiana's side. It is not one of the models: it is shown for comparison only, as the benchmark the models and Our call are measured against.
  • Our model is this site's own experimental rating, built from each team's play-by-play adjusted for who it has played, blended with a preseason estimate from last season, returning players and recruiting. "prior 67%" means 67 percent of the rating is still that preseason estimate; the share shrinks as games are played.
  • In SP+, Elo and our model the home team gets 2.5 points (Indiana); the line already includes the market's own home edge. The conversion to points is approximate.
  • "avg miss 9.8" under a card is how far that model's projections have been from the actual margins this season, on average, in points. "closest 10/39" is how many of the season's 39 finished games that model came closest on (a tie counts for every tied model); the line, a benchmark, shows its average miss only. Shown once a model has 20 finished games.
  • Our call, above the cards, is the site's prediction: the simple average of the SP+, Elo and our model margins. The pregame line is left out of it and kept as a benchmark to measure it against. Toss-up means the average is under 3 points, Lean 3 to 7, Strong 7 or more. It is made only when all three of those models have a number, and it is scored after the game like the models.
  • Each card is one method's estimate, shown side by side; when they disagree, that is worth knowing.
  • After a game, the sentence under the score shows every model and the line against the actual margin: ✓ when a model named the winner, ✗ when it did not (the line, a benchmark, gets no mark), and Closest: the model nearest the final margin among those present, never the line (an exact tie goes to the first listed). The "closest 10/39" counts keep the accuracy report's scoring of SP+ and Elo, where a tie credits both.
  • Metrics explained: the four models and their track record ›

Efficiency matchup · season to date · Indiana 6 games, Ohio State 6 games

Edge: Ohio State wins 3 of 5

Ohio State moves the ball better, stops plays better and allows fewer big plays. Indiana is more disruptive and has the edge on big plays.

Indianalonger bar = betterOhio State

Run game, head to head · season to date

Indiana's runs work 45% of the time; Ohio State's run defense allows 41%. Ohio State's runs work 50% of the time; Indiana's run defense allows 32%.

More numbers
MeasureIndianaOhio StateEdge
Off. success rate49.0%53.1%Ohio State
Off. explosiveness1.451.24Indiana
Def. success rate allowed34.9%34.9%Ohio State
Def. explosiveness allowed1.401.23Ohio State
Havoc created19.1%18.7%Indiana
  • Run game, success rate: Indiana offense 45.3% · Ohio State defense allows 41.5% · edge: even
  • Run game, success rate: Ohio State offense 50.3% · Indiana defense allows 32.4% · edge: even
  • Run game, PPA per play: Indiana offense +0.24 · Ohio State defense allows -0.04 · edge: Indiana
  • Run game, PPA per play: Ohio State offense +0.12 · Indiana defense allows -0.08 · edge: Indiana
  • Success rate: how often a play does its job, gaining enough yards to keep the offense on schedule.
  • Explosiveness: how big a team's successful plays are on average; a higher number means more big gains.
  • Havoc: how often the defense blows up a play with a sack, a tackle for loss, a takeaway or a pass broken up.
  • PPA (predicted points added): how many points an average play is worth to the offense; above zero is good for the offense, below zero good for the defense.

How to read this

  • Each row compares the two teams on one measure of how well they have played this season, offense and defense, using every game so far with garbage time (plays late in a decided game) left out.
  • The run game rows pair one team's rushing offense with the other's run defense. The row goes to whichever side is further from the FBS baseline this season, the offense by how far it runs above it, the defense by how much less it allows (baseline: run success rate 43%, PPA per play +0.08, the midpoint of what FBS offenses gain and FBS defenses allow, since both also play FCS teams), so two strong sides or two weak ones are judged by which is the more so. Edges within 3 points of success rate or 0.05 PPA are even. A strong run offense against a weak run defense is where a team can control the game on the ground.
  • In the five rows at the top the longer bar is the better number: bars are scaled within each row, and in the two "allowed" rows the lower number gets the longer bar.
  • Success rate is the share of plays that kept the offense on schedule (half the yards needed on first down, most of them on second, all of them on third or fourth). Explosiveness is how big the successful plays were, on average, in points. Havoc is the share of the opponent's snaps the defense wrecked: a tackle for loss, a sack, a takeaway or a pass broken up.
  • "Allowed" rows are what each defense gave up, so the lower value wins.
  • These are not adjusted for who each team has played, so a light schedule flatters a team, and early in the season they rest on very few games.
  • Metrics explained: success rate, explosiveness and havoc ›

Injuries

No injury report yet for this game. First reports usually come Wednesday.

Coverage (AI-assisted) · 17

Gathered by an AI model from public posts, not from CollegeFootballData. Not used in any number on this page. Verify against the linked sources. Beat coverage checked Tue Oct 13, 7:30 AM CT.

7 entries about games now final not shown.

Score and result

Indiana 20, Nebraska 17W

Game page: the call before kickoff and how each model did ›

Projected: SP+ n/a · Elo +12.0 ✓ · Our model +6.5 ✓ · the line (benchmark) +8.5 · actual +3 · Closest: Our model

Indiana was as low as 6% and won Indiana was as low as 6% and won Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 100% 50% 0% 20–17
  1. Q4 7:21 · 4th & 1 · 28% → 73%
    (07:21) No Huddle-Shotgun #10 J.Hoover pass complete short left to #11 N.Marsh caught at NEB31, for 44 yards to the NEB00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 07:13, 1ST DOWN #15 N.Radicic kick attempt good (H: #93 Q.Warren, LS: #55 D.Clausen)
  2. Q4 12:01 · 1st & 10 · 6% → 32%
    (12:01) No Huddle-Shotgun #10 J.Hoover pass complete short middle to #11 N.Marsh caught at IND39, for 75 yards to the NEB00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 11:51, 1ST DOWN #15 N.Radicic kick attempt good (H: #93 Q.Warren, LS: #55 D.Clausen)
  3. Q1 6:20 · 1st & 10 · 54% → 35%
    (06:20) No Huddle-Shotgun #10 A.Colandrea pass incomplete short middle to #8 L.Lindenmeyer thrown to NEB30 broken up by #97 M.Landino

Away at Memorial Stadium (Lincoln, NE) · Sat Oct 10, 11:00 AM CT / 12:00 PM ET · vs Nebraska (FBS, Big Ten)

Opponent for every game-level number: Nebraska (FBS, Big Ten).

Verdict

The 3-point win matched the play: Indiana's per-play edge (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.20 vs +0.04, though Nebraska was more consistent: success rate 30% vs 40%) implies roughly a +6 margin.

The verdict compares the score with the margin the plays earned. How it is reached ›

Efficiency

Even game split 2–2

Indiana got more from each play and hit the bigger plays. Nebraska moved the ball better and was more disruptive.

Indianalonger bar = betterNebraska
More numbers

Indiana ran 47 plays, Nebraska 82. Each number is that team's offense; Nebraska's column is also what Indiana's defense allowed.

MeasureIndianaNebraskaEdge
PPA / play+0.20+0.04Indiana
Total PPA+9.3+3.5Indiana
Success rate29.8%40.2%Nebraska
Explosiveness1.821.34Indiana
Havoc created17.1%18.2%Nebraska
  • Success rate: how often a play did its job, gaining enough yards to keep the offense on schedule.
  • Explosiveness: how big a team's successful plays were on average; a higher number means more big gains.
  • Havoc: how often the defense blew up a play with a sack, a tackle for loss, a takeaway or a pass broken up. Counted from the play-by-play, so it is approximate.
  • PPA (predicted points added): how many points an average play was worth to the offense. Total PPA adds up every play, and is what the Verdict compares with the score.

How to read this

  • The four rows at the top compare the two offenses in this game; the longer bar is the better number, scaled within each row. A number at or below zero draws no bar.
  • A check marks the better side of a row. The line above the rows counts them: it describes how the game was played, not who won it.
  • Metrics explained ›
Top performers

Indiana players by cumulative PPA in this game. Usage is the share of the team's plays of that type involving the player. Receiving is passing-play PPA for non-quarterbacks.

Passing

PlayerPass usagePPA/play
Josh Hoover QB 100% +13.6 +0.57

Rushing

PlayerRush usagePPA/play
Josh Hoover QB 15% +2.6 +0.86
Turbo Richard RB 40% -2.6 -0.33
Lee Beebe RB 45% -2.8 -0.31

Receiving

PlayerTarget usagePPA/play
Nick Marsh WR 33% +15.0 +1.87
Trevor Gibbs TE 8% +1.9 +0.96
Charlie Becker WR 29% +0.8 +0.12
Lee Beebe RB 4% -0.4 -0.38
By play type
MeasureIndianaNebraskaEdge
Rushing PPA-0.14+0.13Nebraska
Rushing success25.0%41.2%Nebraska
Passing PPA+0.57-0.02Indiana
Passing success37.5%39.6%Nebraska
Standard downs PPA+0.34-0.13Indiana
Standard downs success40.0%42.9%Nebraska
Passing downs PPA-0.06+0.30Nebraska
Passing downs success11.8%36.4%Nebraska

Havoc detail — Indiana defense: TFL 3, sacks 5, takeaways 1, breakups 5 on 82 snaps. Nebraska defense: TFL 3, sacks 2, takeaways 0, breakups 3 on 44 snaps.

Drives

A scoring opportunity is a drive that reaches the opponent's 40-yard line or scores; points per opportunity is the points those drives produced divided by their number.

◀ IndianaNebraska ▶
  • 11Drives11
  • 9Scoring opportunities8
  • 2.2Points per opportunity2.1
  • own 25Avg. starting field positionown 25
By half

Shown because the game changed between halves: the per-play edge swung by 0.60 points a play (Indiana -0.11 in the first half, +0.49 in the second). Overtime counts with the second half.

IndianaNebraska
1st2nd1st2nd
PPA / play+0.16+0.29+0.26-0.20
Success rate25%36%51%28%
Plays16284339

Recruiting

Indiana's 2026 class: #29 · 226.46 points.

MeasureIndianaNebraska
Talent composite 735.3
#38 of 138
787.5
#22 of 138
Transfer portal · 17 in, 17 out

Arrivals (17)

PlayerFrom★Elig.Date
Nick Marsh WR Michigan State 4 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Tobi Osunsanmi EDGE Kansas State 4 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Josh Hoover QB TCU 4 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
A.J. Harris CB Penn State 4 Immediate Jan 12, 2026
Joe Brunner IOL Wisconsin 4 Immediate Jan 14, 2026
Preston Zachman S Wisconsin 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Jiquan Sanks S Cincinnati 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Turbo Richard RB Boston College 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Joshua Burnham EDGE Notre Dame 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
Chiddi Obiazor EDGE Kansas State 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026

+7 more not shown (17 total).

Departures (17)

PlayerTo★Elig.Date
Andrew DePaepe EDGE Massachusetts 4 Immediate Jan 12, 2026
Hosea Wheeler DL Baylor 4 Immediate Jan 22, 2026
Mitch Verstegen IOL undecided 3 Immediate Jan 2, 2026
Makai Jackson WR Liberty 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
William DePaepe EDGE Massachusetts 3 Immediate Jan 12, 2026
Jah Jah Boyd S Colorado 3 Immediate Jan 18, 2026
Alberto Mendoza QB Georgia Tech 3 Immediate Jan 20, 2026
Ace Ciongoli WR Florida 3 Immediate Jan 21, 2026
Evan Lawrence OT San Diego State 3 Immediate Jan 21, 2026
J'mari Monette DL Memphis 3 Immediate Jan 23, 2026

+7 more not shown (17 total).

2026 commits · 23
PlayerHometown★Rating
Gabe Hill DL Naperville, IL 4 0.9208
Henry Ohlinger ATH Columbus, OH 4 0.9111
Kasmir Hicks CB Indianapolis, IN 4 0.9090
Parker Elmore TE Columbus, IN 4 0.9072
Kevontay Hugan EDGE Sarasota, FL 4 0.9060
Ja'Dyn Williams LB Massillon, OH 4 0.9036
Cam McHaney DL Bradenton, FL 4 0.8969
Ronelle Johnson EDGE Blue Springs, MO 3 0.8899
D'Montae Tims S Seffner, FL 3 0.8867
Trevor Gibbs LB Crown Point, IN 3 0.8856
Jamar Owens S Douglasville, GA 3 0.8789
Lavar Keys WR Hyattsville, MD 3 0.8767
Ben Novak IOL Merrillville, IN 3 0.8756
PJ MacFarlane TE Middletown, OH 3 0.8744
Sam Simpson IOL River Falls, WI 3 0.8744

+8 more not shown (23 total).

Returning production

Share of last season's production returning for Indiana in 2026.

Unit% PPAPPAUsage
Overall16.6%97.911.8%
Passing1.9%3.70.5%
Receiving24.1%63.015.4%
Rushing24.5%31.217.5%

A figure above 100% or below 0% is expected when last season's returning players had negative PPA in that phase, since PPA can be negative.