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)
| Season | Result | Site |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Indiana 13–10 | neutral site |
| 2024 | Ohio State 38–15 | Ohio Stadium |
| 2023 | Ohio State 23–3 | Memorial Stadium (Bloomington, IN) |
| 2022 | Ohio State 56–14 | Ohio Stadium |
| 2021 | Ohio State 54–7 | Memorial Stadium (Bloomington, IN) |
| 2020 | Ohio State 42–35 | Ohio Stadium |
| 2019 | Ohio State 51–10 | Memorial Stadium (Bloomington, IN) |
| 2018 | Ohio State 49–26 | Ohio Stadium |
| 2017 | Ohio State 49–21 | Memorial Stadium (Bloomington, IN) |
| 2016 | Ohio State 38–17 | Ohio Stadium |
| 2015 | Ohio State 34–27 | Memorial Stadium (Bloomington, IN) |
| 2014 | Ohio State 42–27 | Ohio Stadium |
| 2013 | Ohio State 42–14 | Ohio Stadium |
| 2012 | Ohio State 52–49 | Memorial Stadium (Bloomington, IN) |
| 2011 | Ohio State 34–20 | Ohio Stadium |
| 2010 | Ohio State 38–10 | Ohio Stadium |
| 2009 | Ohio State 33–14 | Memorial Stadium (Bloomington, IN) |
| 2006 | Ohio State 44–3 | Ohio Stadium |
| 2005 | Ohio State 41–10 | Memorial Stadium (Bloomington, IN) |
| 2004 | Ohio State 30–7 | Ohio Stadium |
| 2003 | Ohio State 35–6 | Memorial Stadium (Bloomington, IN) |
| 2002 | Ohio State 45–17 | Ohio Stadium |
| 2001 | Ohio State 27–14 | Memorial Stadium (Bloomington, IN) |
| Rating | Indiana | Ohio State |
|---|---|---|
| SP+ | +26.7 #5 | +29.5 #1 |
| Elo | 2098 | 2060 |
Projected margin for Indiana · three models and the line, side by side
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.
-
49% Moves the ballsuccessful plays ✓53%
-
35% Stops playssuccessful plays allowed ✓35%
-
19%✓ Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers 19%
-
1.45✓ Big playson offense 1.24
-
1.40 Big plays allowedon defense ✓1.23
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
| Measure | Indiana | Ohio State | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Off. success rate | 49.0% | 53.1% | Ohio State |
| Off. explosiveness | 1.45 | 1.24 | Indiana |
| Def. success rate allowed | 34.9% | 34.9% | Ohio State |
| Def. explosiveness allowed | 1.40 | 1.23 | Ohio State |
| Havoc created | 19.1% | 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.
-
Ohio State starting right tackle Phillip Daniels expected to return
Ohio State starting RT Phillip Daniels is expected to return Saturday against Indiana.
- FOOTBALL GAMEDAY: Ohio State (Week 7)
- 4th-and-2 For the Win
- Postgame Notes: at Nebraska
- Negate the Noise – Hoosiers Prepare Nebraska Sellout Crowd
-
Indiana adds Jacksonville State to 2027 football schedule
Indiana scheduled Jacksonville State for a 2027 home game after UMass cancellation.
- NOTEBOOK: Battle of Unbeatens; 21 and Counting; Big-Play Richard
-
NCAA stay denied for Indiana players Stephen Daley and Kellan Wyatt
The NCAA motion to stay was denied allowing Indiana's Stephen Daley and Kellan Wyatt to play.
-
Judge denies NCAA stay, Daley and Wyatt remain eligible for Indiana
Monroe County judge denied NCAA's stay request; Stephen Daley and Kellan Wyatt remain eligible.
- Postgame Notes: at Rutgers
- Hoosiers Race Past Rutgers
-
Rutgers running back Antwan Raymond expected to play against Indiana
Rutgers starting running back Antwan Raymond is a game-time decision but expected to play against Indiana.
- Indiana Seeks to Take Its ‘Standard’ to Rutgers
-
Harris injury described as knee
Cignetti mentioned AJ Harris suffered a knee injury.
-
Indiana third availability report lists AJ Harris out
A.J.
-
Lee Beebe Jr. listed as questionable
Lee Beebe Jr. is questionable, putting Indiana's top running backs on the injury report.
-
Texas-Tennessee was the most-watched Week 4 college football game
Texas-Tennessee drew 9.7 million viewers as Week 4's most-watched game per Nielsen.
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
- 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)
- 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)
- 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).
- By quarter: Indiana 3-0-3-14 · Nebraska 10-0-0-7
- Week 6 polls: Coaches: Indiana #5 · AP: Indiana #7
- Pregame Elo: Indiana 2114, Nebraska 1751
- Postgame win probability: 77.8%
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.
-
30% Moved the ballsuccessful plays ✓40%
-
+0.20✓ Points per playwhat a play was worth +0.04
-
1.82✓ Big playssize of the good plays 1.34
-
17% Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers ✓18%
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.
| Measure | Indiana | Nebraska | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| PPA / play | +0.20 | +0.04 | Indiana |
| Total PPA | +9.3 | +3.5 | Indiana |
| Success rate | 29.8% | 40.2% | Nebraska |
| Explosiveness | 1.82 | 1.34 | Indiana |
| Havoc created | 17.1% | 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
| Player | Pass usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Josh Hoover QB | 100% | +13.6 | +0.57 |
Rushing
| Player | Rush usage | PPA | /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
| Player | Target usage | PPA | /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
| Measure | Indiana | Nebraska | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rushing PPA | -0.14 | +0.13 | Nebraska |
| Rushing success | 25.0% | 41.2% | Nebraska |
| Passing PPA | +0.57 | -0.02 | Indiana |
| Passing success | 37.5% | 39.6% | Nebraska |
| Standard downs PPA | +0.34 | -0.13 | Indiana |
| Standard downs success | 40.0% | 42.9% | Nebraska |
| Passing downs PPA | -0.06 | +0.30 | Nebraska |
| Passing downs success | 11.8% | 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.
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.
| Indiana | Nebraska | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 2nd | 1st | 2nd | |
| PPA / play | +0.16 | +0.29 | +0.26 | -0.20 |
| Success rate | 25% | 36% | 51% | 28% |
| Plays | 16 | 28 | 43 | 39 |
Recruiting
Indiana's 2026 class: #29 · 226.46 points.
| Measure | Indiana | Nebraska |
|---|---|---|
| Talent composite | 735.3 #38 of 138 |
787.5 #22 of 138 |
Transfer portal · 17 in, 17 out
Arrivals (17)
| Player | From | ★ | 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)
| Player | To | ★ | 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
| Player | Hometown | ★ | 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 | % PPA | PPA | Usage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 16.6% | 97.9 | 11.8% |
| Passing | 1.9% | 3.7 | 0.5% |
| Receiving | 24.1% | 63.0 | 15.4% |
| Rushing | 24.5% | 31.2 | 17.5% |
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.