The SportsWire

Northwestern

2026 · week 6 result vs Ball State

Updated Tue Oct 13, 7:56 PM CT

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.

RatingNorthwesternMichigan State
SP+ +15.6 #17 -1.2 #77
Elo 1731 1452

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

SP+
+14.3
Northwestern +15.6 vs Michigan State -1.2
avg miss 10.6
closest 47/79
Elo
+8.7
Northwestern 1731 vs Michigan State 1452
avg miss 12.3
closest 33/79
Line · benchmark
+9.5
pregame line
avg miss 11.1
Our model · experimental
+4.0
Northwestern +5.9 vs Michigan State -0.6
prior 55%
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 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.

Northwesternlonger bar = betterMichigan State

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
MeasureNorthwesternMichigan StateEdge
Off. success rate51.4%43.5%Northwestern
Off. explosiveness1.321.07Northwestern
Def. success rate allowed43.7%43.0%Michigan State
Def. explosiveness allowed1.131.28Northwestern
Havoc created16.7%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.

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).

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.

Northwesternlonger bar = betterBall State
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.

MeasureNorthwesternBall StateEdge
PPA / play+0.49+0.04Northwestern
Total PPA+27.6+3.3Northwestern
Success rate51.8%40.0%Northwestern
Explosiveness1.521.18Northwestern
Havoc created12.8%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

PlayerPass usagePPA/play
Aidan Chiles QB 100% +25.0 +1.04

Rushing

PlayerRush usagePPA/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

PlayerTarget usagePPA/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
MeasureNorthwesternBall StateEdge
Rushing PPA+0.15-0.05Northwestern
Rushing success46.7%48.3%Ball State
Passing PPA+0.96+0.08Northwestern
Passing success60.0%34.7%Northwestern
Standard downs PPA+0.33+0.13Northwestern
Standard downs success52.5%47.1%Northwestern
Passing downs PPA+0.91-0.11Northwestern
Passing downs success50.0%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.

◀ NorthwesternBall State ▶
  • 9Drives10
  • 7Scoring opportunities5
  • 6.4Points per opportunity2.8
  • own 24Avg. starting field positionown 22

Recruiting

Northwestern's 2026 class: #52 · 204.95 points.

MeasureNorthwesternBall State
Talent composite 688.3
#60 of 138
563.9
#113 of 138
Transfer portal · 17 in, 8 out

Arrivals (17)

PlayerFrom★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)

PlayerTo★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
PlayerHometown★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% PPAPPAUsage
Overall88.5%198.294.8%
Passing93.9%44.999.7%
Receiving86.3%95.589.0%
Rushing88.0%57.994.8%

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.