The SportsWire

Iowa

2026 · week 6 result vs Washington

Updated Tue Oct 13, 7:55 PM CT

Next up projections

at Minnesota

Week 8 · Fri Oct 23, 11:00 PM CT / 12:00 AM ET · Huntington Bank Stadium · Minnesota (FBS, Big Ten)

Both models favor Iowa.

Our call posts Monday, Oct 19, when that week's ratings are set.

Regression watch: Last game's 17-point win matched the play (score +3 against play), inside the 7-point band: no flag. More ›

Schedule: Played the 33rd-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating -1.0); 56th-toughest remaining (+4.0). More ›

Opponents by our model's rating 6 played · 6 left
  • Week 1 vs Northern Illinois (-17.0)
  • Week 2 vs Iowa State (+1.9)
  • Week 3 vs Northern Iowa (-32.8) · FCS, pooled
  • Week 4 at Michigan (+11.8)
  • Week 5 vs Ohio State (+25.9)
  • Week 6 at Washington (+4.2)
  • Remaining:
  • Week 8 at Minnesota (+0.9)
  • Week 9 vs Wisconsin (+5.3)
  • Week 10 at Northwestern (+5.9)
  • Week 11 vs Purdue (+2.0)
  • Week 12 at Illinois (-0.2)
  • Week 13 vs Nebraska (+10.2)

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: Minnesota leads 62–54–2 · last: Iowa 41–3, 2025 · Iowa has won 2 straight

Series history 118 meetings since 1901
  • All-time: Minnesota leads 62–54–2 (118 meetings since 1901)
  • Last meeting: Iowa 41–3, 2025, Kinnick Stadium
  • Streak: Iowa has won 2 straight
  • At Huntington Bank Stadium: Iowa leads 6–3 (9 meetings)
  • Biggest margins: Iowa 55–0 (2008) · Minnesota 75–0 (1903)
  • Since 2000: Iowa leads 20–6 (26 meetings)
SeasonResultSite
2025Iowa 41–3Kinnick Stadium
2024Iowa 31–14Huntington Bank Stadium
2023Minnesota 12–10Kinnick Stadium
2022Iowa 13–10Huntington Bank Stadium
2021Iowa 27–22Kinnick Stadium
2020Iowa 35–7Huntington Bank Stadium
2019Iowa 23–19Kinnick Stadium
2018Iowa 48–31Huntington Bank Stadium
2017Iowa 17–10Kinnick Stadium
2016Iowa 14–7Huntington Bank Stadium
2015Iowa 40–35Kinnick Stadium
2014Minnesota 51–14Huntington Bank Stadium
2013Iowa 23–7Huntington Bank Stadium
2012Iowa 31–13Kinnick Stadium
2011Minnesota 22–21Huntington Bank Stadium
2010Minnesota 27–24Huntington Bank Stadium
2009Iowa 12–0Kinnick Stadium
2008Iowa 55–0away
2007Iowa 21–16Kinnick Stadium
2006Minnesota 34–24away
2005Iowa 52–28Kinnick Stadium
2004Iowa 29–27away
2003Iowa 40–22Kinnick Stadium
2002Iowa 45–21away
2001Iowa 42–24Kinnick Stadium
2000Minnesota 27–24away
RatingIowaMinnesota
SP+ +13.0 #24 +2.9 #60
Elo 1853 1427

Projected margin for Iowa · two models and the line, side by side

SP+
+7.6
Iowa +13.0 vs Minnesota +2.9
avg miss 10.6
closest 47/79
Elo
+14.5
Iowa 1853 vs Minnesota 1427
avg miss 12.3
closest 33/79
Line · benchmark
n/a
no pregame line
avg miss 11.1
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 Iowa'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.
  • In SP+, Elo the home team gets 2.5 points (Minnesota); 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 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 · Iowa 6 games, Minnesota 6 games

Edge: Iowa wins 4 of 5

Iowa moves the ball better, stops plays better, has the edge on big plays and allows fewer big plays. Minnesota is more disruptive.

Iowalonger bar = betterMinnesota

Run game, head to head · season to date

Iowa's runs work 45% of the time; Minnesota's run defense allows 47%. Minnesota's runs work 39% of the time; Iowa's run defense allows 34%.

More numbers
MeasureIowaMinnesotaEdge
Off. success rate46.7%41.3%Iowa
Off. explosiveness1.221.16Iowa
Def. success rate allowed36.5%41.4%Iowa
Def. explosiveness allowed1.151.19Iowa
Havoc created16.5%21.5%Minnesota
  • Run game, success rate: Iowa offense 45.3% · Minnesota defense allows 47.0% · edge: Iowa
  • Run game, success rate: Minnesota offense 39.4% · Iowa defense allows 34.0% · edge: Iowa
  • Run game, PPA per play: Iowa offense +0.20 · Minnesota defense allows +0.19 · edge: Iowa
  • Run game, PPA per play: Minnesota offense -0.15 · Iowa defense allows -0.16 · edge: Iowa
  • 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, 7:25 AM CT.

5 entries about games now final not shown.

Score and result

Iowa 41, Washington 24W

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

Projected: SP+ n/a · Elo +1.0 ✓ · Our model +0.7 ✓ · the line (benchmark) -1.5 · actual +17 · Closest: Elo

Iowa was as low as 45% and won Iowa was as low as 45% and won Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 100% 50% 0% 41–24
  1. Q1 0:23 · 1st & 10 · 59% → 82%
    (00:23) Shotgun #28 K.Moulton rush middle for 56 yards gain to the WASH00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 00:10, 1ST DOWN #92 C.Buhr kick attempt good (H: #35 T.Philpott, LS: #69 I.Speltz)
  2. Q2 9:11 · 3rd & 1 · 79% → 92%
    (09:11) #10 J.Hecklinski pass complete short left to #81 D.Vonnahme caught at WASH19, for 20 yards to the WASH00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 09:05, 1ST DOWN #92 C.Buhr kick attempt good (H: #35 T.Philpott, LS: #69 I.Speltz)
  3. Q1 12:33 · 4th & 12 · 48% → 56%
    (12:33) #92 C.Buhr field goal attempt from 51 yards GOOD (H: #35 T.Philpott, LS: #69 I.Speltz), clock 12:30

Away at Husky Stadium · Fri Oct 9, 8:00 PM CT / 9:00 PM ET · vs Washington (FBS, Big Ten)

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

Verdict

The 17-point win matched the play: Iowa's per-play edge (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.45 vs +0.16, success rate 60% vs 35%) implies roughly a +14 margin.

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

Efficiency

Edge: Iowa won 3 of 4

Iowa moved the ball better, got more from each play and was more disruptive. Washington hit the bigger plays.

Iowalonger bar = betterWashington
More numbers

Iowa ran 58 plays, Washington 78. Each number is that team's offense; Washington's column is also what Iowa's defense allowed.

MeasureIowaWashingtonEdge
PPA / play+0.45+0.16Iowa
Total PPA+26.0+12.4Iowa
Success rate60.3%34.6%Iowa
Explosiveness1.141.37Washington
Havoc created14.5%7.0%Iowa
  • 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

Iowa 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
Jeremy Hecklinski QB 100% +12.6 +0.66

Rushing

PlayerRush usagePPA/play
Kamari Moulton RB 80% +13.3 +0.56
Tony Diaz WR 3% +0.7 +0.65
L.J. Phillips Jr. RB 17% -0.2 -0.04

Receiving

PlayerTarget usagePPA/play
DJ Vonnahme TE 10% +5.4 +2.72
Braeden Jackson RB 5% +1.9 +1.86
Zach Ortwerth TE 5% +1.4 +1.39
Tony Diaz WR 21% +1.2 +0.30
By play type
MeasureIowaWashingtonEdge
Rushing PPA+0.32-0.35Iowa
Rushing success57.9%15.8%Iowa
Passing PPA+0.66+0.36Iowa
Passing success63.2%42.1%Iowa
Standard downs PPA+0.55+0.06Iowa
Standard downs success66.7%37.0%Iowa
Passing downs PPA-0.03+0.31Washington
Passing downs success30.0%31.2%Washington

Havoc detail — Iowa defense: TFL 2, sacks 6, takeaways 0, breakups 3 on 76 snaps. Washington defense: TFL 2, sacks 0, takeaways 0, breakups 2 on 57 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.

◀ IowaWashington ▶
  • 11Drives12
  • 10Scoring opportunities10
  • 3.4Points per opportunity2.4
  • own 33Avg. starting field positionown 20
By half

Shown because the game changed between halves: the per-play edge swung by 0.41 points a play (Iowa +0.47 in the first half, +0.05 in the second). Overtime counts with the second half.

IowaWashington
1st2nd1st2nd
PPA / play+0.42+0.45-0.05+0.40
Success rate55%67%30%41%
Plays33243739

Recruiting

MeasureIowaWashington
2026 class rank2613
2026 class points228.57262.32
Talent composite 722.7
#44 of 138
777.6
#24 of 138
Transfer portal · 15 in, 8 out

Arrivals (15)

PlayerFrom★Elig.Date
Anthony Hawkins S Villanova 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Brice Stevenson DL Holy Cross 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
Kahmari Brown EDGE Elon 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Trent Wilson IOL James Madison 3 Immediate Jan 8, 2026
Lance Ingold EDGE Northern Illinois 3 Immediate Jan 9, 2026
Tyler Brown S James Madison 3 Immediate Jan 9, 2026
Tony Diaz WR Texas-Rio Grande Valley 3 Immediate Jan 10, 2026
Evan James WR Furman 3 Immediate Jan 11, 2026
L.J. Phillips Jr. RB South Dakota 3 Immediate Jan 11, 2026
Xavier Styles S Robert Morris 3 Immediate Jan 11, 2026

+5 more not shown (15 total).

Departures (8)

PlayerTo★Elig.Date
Brian Allen EDGE Vanderbilt 4 Immediate Jan 11, 2026
Jackson Stratton QB undecided 3 Immediate Nov 30, 2025
Rhys Dakin P Michigan State 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Jaziun Patterson RB Michigan State 3 Immediate Jan 8, 2026
Koen Entringer S Louisville 3 Immediate Jan 10, 2026
TJ Washington Jr. RB New Mexico State 3 Immediate Jan 13, 2026
CJ Bell Jr. CB UConn 3 Immediate Jan 24, 2026
Kael Kolarik S South Dakota – Immediate Jan 13, 2026
2026 commits · 19
PlayerHometown★Rating
Tradon Bessinger QB Kaysville, UT 4 0.9370
Darion Jones CB Omaha, NE 4 0.9321
Julian Manson LB Iowa City, IA 4 0.9226
Carson Nielsen OT Waterloo, IA 4 0.9076
Kasen Thomas LB Sioux City, IA 4 0.9075
Hudson Parliament IOL Brandon, SD 4 0.9031
Gene Riordan IOL Hinsdale, IL 4 0.8972
Marcello Vitti ATH Dearborn, MI 4 0.8922
Billy Weivoda LB Alpharetta, GA 3 0.8878
Luke Brewer TE Norwalk, IA 3 0.8878
Colin Whitters IOL Iowa City, IA 3 0.8867
Owen Linder OT Chanhassen, MN 3 0.8867
Brody Schaffer WR Winneconne, WI 3 0.8800
Xavier Stinson WR Vero Beach, FL 3 0.8800
Jack Janda TE Novi, MI 3 0.8744

+4 more not shown (19 total).

Returning production

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

Unit% PPAPPAUsage
Overall34.2%80.440.4%
Passing16.3%8.18.7%
Receiving55.9%55.049.8%
Rushing19.7%17.255.6%

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.