Next up projections
at Michigan State
Week 7 · Sat Oct 17, 11:00 AM CT / 12:00 PM ET · Spartan Stadium (East Lansing) · Michigan State (FBS, Big Ten)
Our call: Northwestern by 9.0Strong
All three models favor Northwestern. The line, shown for comparison only, has Northwestern by 9.5.
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 ›
Game page: at Michigan State ›
Regression watch: Last game's 31-point win matched the play (score +7 against play), inside the 7-point band: no flag. More ›
Schedule: Played the 75th-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating -5.1); 35th-toughest remaining (+7.8). More ›
Opponents by our model's rating 5 played · 7 left
- Week 1 vs South Dakota State (-32.8) · FCS, pooled
- Week 3 vs Colorado (-1.5)
- Week 4 at Indiana (+19.1)
- Week 5 vs Penn State (+7.1)
- Week 6 vs Ball State (-17.3)
- Remaining:
- Week 7 at Michigan State (-0.6)
- Week 8 vs Rutgers (-3.1)
- Week 9 at Oregon (+20.4)
- Week 10 vs Iowa (+11.4)
- Week 11 at Ohio State (+25.9)
- Week 12 at Minnesota (+0.9)
- Week 13 vs Illinois (-0.2)
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.
| Rating | Northwestern | Michigan State |
|---|---|---|
| SP+ | +15.6 #17 | -1.2 #77 |
| Elo | 1731 | 1452 |
Projected margin for Northwestern · 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 Northwestern'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 (Michigan State); 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 · Northwestern 5 games, Michigan State 6 games
Edge: Northwestern wins 4 of 5
Northwestern moves the ball better, is more disruptive, has the edge on big plays and allows fewer big plays. Michigan State stops plays better.
-
51%✓ Moves the ballsuccessful plays 44%
-
44% Stops playssuccessful plays allowed ✓43%
-
17%✓ Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers 13%
-
1.32✓ Big playson offense 1.07
-
1.13✓ Big plays allowedon defense 1.28
Run game, head to head · season to date
Northwestern's runs work 50% of the time; Michigan State's run defense allows 42%. Michigan State's runs work 42% of the time; Northwestern's run defense allows 47%.
More numbers
| Measure | Northwestern | Michigan State | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Off. success rate | 51.4% | 43.5% | Northwestern |
| Off. explosiveness | 1.32 | 1.07 | Northwestern |
| Def. success rate allowed | 43.7% | 43.0% | Michigan State |
| Def. explosiveness allowed | 1.13 | 1.28 | Northwestern |
| Havoc created | 16.7% | 12.7% | Northwestern |
- Run game, success rate: Northwestern offense 49.7% · Michigan State defense allows 42.1% · edge: Northwestern
- Run game, success rate: Michigan State offense 42.4% · Northwestern defense allows 46.8% · edge: Michigan State
- Run game, PPA per play: Northwestern offense +0.26 · Michigan State defense allows +0.09 · edge: Northwestern
- Run game, PPA per play: Michigan State offense -0.01 · Northwestern defense allows +0.05 · edge: Northwestern
- 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) · 5
Gathered by an AI model from public posts, not from CollegeFootballData. Not used in any number on this page. Verify against the linked sources.
-
Northwestern apparel deal part of larger athletics investment including new stadium
The Under Armour deal is part of Northwestern focus including a new stadium and coach commitment.
-
Northwestern extends Under Armour apparel deal for ten years through 2037
Northwestern extended its Under Armour apparel deal 10 years to 2037 with NIL opportunities.
-
Ohio State Iowa game led Week 5 with six million viewers
Ohio State versus Iowa drew six million viewers topping Week 5 Nielsen ratings.
-
Kentucky receives 160 points in AP Poll just behind Pitt
Kentucky tallied 160 points in the AP Poll, two behind Pitt, with others also getting votes.
-
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.
1 entry about games now final not shown.
Score and result
Northwestern 45, Ball State 14W
Game page: the call before kickoff and how each model did ›
Projected: SP+ n/a · Elo +28.7 ✓ · Our model +25.7 ✓ · the line (benchmark) n/a · actual +31 · Closest: Elo
Home at Ryan Field · Sat Oct 10, 11:30 AM CT / 12:30 PM ET · vs Ball State (FBS, Mid-American)
Opponent for every game-level number: Ball State (FBS, Mid-American).
- By quarter: Northwestern 14-17-14-0 · Ball State 0-14-0-0
- Week 6 polls: neither team ranked
- Pregame Elo: Northwestern 1720, Ball State 1065
- Postgame win probability: 99.6%
Verdict
The 31-point win matched the play: Northwestern's per-play edge (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.49 vs +0.04, success rate 52% vs 40%) implies roughly a +24 margin.
The verdict compares the score with the margin the plays earned. How it is reached ›
Efficiency
Edge: Northwestern won 3 of 4
Northwestern moved the ball better, got more from each play and hit the bigger plays. Ball State was more disruptive.
-
52%✓ Moved the ballsuccessful plays 40%
-
+0.49✓ Points per playwhat a play was worth +0.04
-
1.52✓ Big playssize of the good plays 1.18
-
13% Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers ✓15%
More numbers
Northwestern ran 56 plays, Ball State 80. Each number is that team's offense; Ball State's column is also what Northwestern's defense allowed.
| Measure | Northwestern | Ball State | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| PPA / play | +0.49 | +0.04 | Northwestern |
| Total PPA | +27.6 | +3.3 | Northwestern |
| Success rate | 51.8% | 40.0% | Northwestern |
| Explosiveness | 1.52 | 1.18 | Northwestern |
| Havoc created | 12.8% | 14.5% | Ball State |
- 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
Northwestern 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aidan Chiles QB | 100% | +25.0 | +1.04 |
Rushing
| Player | Rush usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aidan Chiles QB | 26% | +3.5 | +0.59 |
| Caleb Komolafe RB | 30% | +0.9 | +0.12 |
| Joseph Himon II RB | 13% | +0.7 | +0.23 |
| Gavin Sawchuk RB | 17% | -0.2 | -0.06 |
Receiving
| Player | Target usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Griffin Wilde WR | 38% | +13.4 | +1.49 |
| Drew Wagner WR | 21% | +8.2 | +1.65 |
| Alex Honig TE | 12% | +4.5 | +1.51 |
| Ricky Ahumaraeze WR | 4% | +0.4 | +0.37 |
By play type
| Measure | Northwestern | Ball State | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rushing PPA | +0.15 | -0.05 | Northwestern |
| Rushing success | 46.7% | 48.3% | Ball State |
| Passing PPA | +0.96 | +0.08 | Northwestern |
| Passing success | 60.0% | 34.7% | Northwestern |
| Standard downs PPA | +0.33 | +0.13 | Northwestern |
| Standard downs success | 52.5% | 47.1% | Northwestern |
| Passing downs PPA | +0.91 | -0.11 | Northwestern |
| Passing downs success | 50.0% | 27.6% | Northwestern |
Havoc detail — Northwestern defense: TFL 5, sacks 2, takeaways 1, breakups 2 on 78 snaps. Ball State defense: TFL 2, sacks 1, takeaways 0, breakups 5 on 55 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.
Recruiting
Northwestern's 2026 class: #52 · 204.95 points.
| Measure | Northwestern | Ball State |
|---|---|---|
| Talent composite | 688.3 #60 of 138 |
563.9 #113 of 138 |
Transfer portal · 17 in, 8 out
Arrivals (17)
| Player | From | ★ | Elig. | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kobie McKinzie LB | Oklahoma | 4 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Aidan Chiles QB | Michigan State | 4 | Immediate | Jan 7, 2026 |
| David Anchondo OT | Saginaw Valley State | 3 | Immediate | Dec 11, 2025 |
| Brenden Deasfernandes CB | Central Michigan | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Jamaal Johnson EDGE | UCF | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Grant Seagren OT | Oklahoma State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 8, 2026 |
| Luke Dehnicke TE | Minnesota Duluth | 3 | Immediate | Jan 9, 2026 |
| Alex Honig TE | UConn | 3 | Immediate | Jan 10, 2026 |
| Arkel Anugwom OT | Alabama | 3 | Immediate | Jan 10, 2026 |
| Montae Pate CB | Weber State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 12, 2026 |
+7 more not shown (17 total).
Departures (8)
| Player | To | ★ | Elig. | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dillon Tatum S | Miami (OH) | 4 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Anto Saka EDGE | Texas A&M | 4 | Immediate | Jan 7, 2026 |
| Hunter Welcing TE | Ohio State | 4 | Immediate | Jan 12, 2026 |
| Hayden Wright OT | Houston | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Nick Herzog OT | undecided | 3 | Immediate | Jan 8, 2026 |
| Jack Olsen K | Miami | 3 | Immediate | Jan 17, 2026 |
| Evan Smith CB | Duke | 3 | Immediate | Jan 17, 2026 |
| Dashun Reeder RB | UConn | 3 | Immediate | Jan 24, 2026 |
2026 commits · 22
| Player | Hometown | ★ | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jaden McDuffie WR | Edgewater, MD | 4 | 0.9167 |
| Owen Fors IOL | Barrington, IL | 4 | 0.8934 |
| Jack Fuchs OT | Hendersonville, TN | 3 | 0.8867 |
| Leighton Burbach OT | Norfolk, NE | 3 | 0.8778 |
| Tom McGlinchey ATH | Philadelphia, PA | 3 | 0.8767 |
| Nick Zalewski EDGE | Columbus, OH | 3 | 0.8744 |
| Sean Morris II RB | Orange, CA | 3 | 0.8733 |
| Jacob Miller OT | Hamilton, MO | 3 | 0.8711 |
| Tre Hoskins DL | Hannibal, MO | 3 | 0.8689 |
| Gabe Davis-Ray S | Columbus, OH | 3 | 0.8678 |
| Max Mohring LB | Malvern, PA | 3 | 0.8678 |
| Jaden Vaughn CB | Cypress, TX | 3 | 0.8644 |
| Keaton Reinke WR | St. Charles, IL | 3 | 0.8644 |
| Ronald Derrick III DL | Waco, TX | 3 | 0.8644 |
| Johnny O'Brien QB | Palatine, IL | 3 | 0.8622 |
+7 more not shown (22 total).
Returning production
Share of last season's production returning for Northwestern in 2026.
| Unit | % PPA | PPA | Usage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 88.5% | 198.2 | 94.8% |
| Passing | 93.9% | 44.9 | 99.7% |
| Receiving | 86.3% | 95.5 | 89.0% |
| Rushing | 88.0% | 57.9 | 94.8% |
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.