Next up · week 9
at Iowa
Sat Oct 31, Time TBA
29%Our win chance71%
Our win chance: Iowa 71% · Wisconsin 29% · experimental, see how it is tested
Week 8 vs USC was played Sat Oct 24, 6:30 PM CT; the result and its numbers land with the next schedule refresh (the live scoreboard triggers one when the game ends, and Sunday's refresh always does).
Wisconsin vs USC not yet played
Season so far
| Date | Opponent | Result | Our call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 6 | vs Notre Dame | L 13-41 | — |
| Sep 12 | vs Western Illinois | W 36-9 | — |
| Sep 19 | vs Eastern Michigan | W 54-10 | — |
| Sep 26 | at Penn State | W 24-20 | — |
| Oct 3 | vs Michigan State | W 31-3 | — |
| Oct 17 | at UCLA | L 7-17 | UCLA by 6.1 ✓ Right |
Our call is shown for the games that had a game page before kickoff, as it stood then.
No injury report yet for the next game; it shows here when one is filed.
Next up projections
at Iowa
Week 9 · Sat Oct 31, Time TBA · Kinnick Stadium · Iowa (FBS, Big Ten)
·
All 9 models favor Iowa (SP+ from the week 8 snapshot).
Our call posts Monday when this week's ratings are set.
Schedule: Played the 18th-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating +2.7); 61st-toughest remaining (+2.7). More ›
Opponents by our model's rating 7 played · 5 left
- Week 1 vs Notre Dame (+31.2)
- Week 2 vs Western Illinois (-33.2) · FCS, pooled
- Week 3 vs Eastern Michigan (-11.4)
- Week 4 at Penn State (+7.1)
- Week 5 vs Michigan State (-0.8)
- Week 7 at UCLA (+10.4)
- Week 8 vs USC (+15.6)
- Remaining:
- Week 9 at Iowa (+11.8)
- Week 10 vs Rutgers (-1.6)
- Week 11 at Maryland (+2.4)
- Week 12 at Purdue (+0.1)
- Week 13 vs Minnesota (+0.8)
Each opponent's rating from our model's week 8 snapshot, in points against an average FBS team; the averages are ranked among the 138 FBS teams. Played means through week 8. Experimental, like the Our model card.
| Rating | Wisconsin | Iowa |
|---|---|---|
| SP+ | +8.3 #43 | +13.6 #20 |
| Elo | 1708 | 1846 |
Projected margin for Wisconsin · three models side by side
More models: ESPN FPI Iowa by 6.6 · SRS Iowa by 6.8 · Sagarin Iowa by 6.5 · Sonny Moore Iowa by 4.1 · The Margin Iowa by 2.1 · Record Iowa (better record) Who's been right ›
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.
- Market is the margin the market expected before kickoff, shown from Wisconsin's side, a model like the others.
- In SP+, Elo the home team gets 2.5 points (Iowa); the market already includes its 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). 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. 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 against the actual margin: ✓ when a model named the winner, ✗ when it did not, and Closest: the model nearest the final margin among those present (an exact tie goes to the first listed). The "closest 10/39" counts keep the accuracy report's scoring, where a tie credits each.
- Metrics explained: the four models and their track record ›
Efficiency matchup · season to date · Wisconsin 6 games, Iowa 7 games
Edge: Iowa wins 3 of 5
Iowa moves the ball better, stops plays better and is more disruptive. Wisconsin has the edge on big plays and allows fewer big plays.
-
39% Moves the ballsuccessful plays ✓44%
-
38% Stops playssuccessful plays allowed ✓35%
-
17% Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers ✓18%
-
1.36✓ Big playson offense 1.21
-
1.00✓ Big plays allowedon defense 1.13
Run game, head to head · season to date
Wisconsin's runs work 39% of the time; Iowa's run defense allows 32%. Iowa's runs work 43% of the time; Wisconsin's run defense allows 37%.
More numbers
| Measure | Wisconsin | Iowa | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Off. success rate | 39.0% | 44.5% | Iowa |
| Off. explosiveness | 1.36 | 1.21 | Wisconsin |
| Def. success rate allowed | 37.8% | 35.2% | Iowa |
| Def. explosiveness allowed | 1.00 | 1.13 | Wisconsin |
| Havoc created | 17.2% | 17.5% | Iowa |
- Run game, success rate: Wisconsin offense 39.4% · Iowa defense allows 32.3% · edge: Iowa
- Run game, success rate: Iowa offense 43.2% · Wisconsin defense allows 37.3% · edge: Wisconsin
- Run game, PPA per play: Wisconsin offense +0.17 · Iowa defense allows -0.16 · edge: Iowa
- Run game, PPA per play: Iowa offense +0.11 · Wisconsin defense allows +0.01 · edge: even
- 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 ›
Big Ten race
| Team | Conf | Overall |
|---|---|---|
| #7 UCLA | 5-0 | 7-0 |
| #2 Ohio State | 4-0 | 6-1 |
| #4 Indiana | 4-1 | 7-1 |
| #20 Northwestern | 3-1 | 6-1 |
| Minnesota | 3-1 | 5-2 |
| #25 Wisconsin | 3-1 | 5-2 |
| USC | 3-2 | 6-2 |
| Iowa | 2-2 | 5-2 |
| Nebraska | 2-2 | 5-2 |
| Illinois | 2-2 | 4-3 |
| Oregon | 2-2 | 4-3 |
| Purdue | 2-2 | 3-4 |
| Michigan | 1-3 | 4-3 |
| Washington | 1-3 | 4-3 |
| Rutgers | 1-3 | 2-5 |
| Penn State | 0-4 | 3-4 |
| Maryland | 0-4 | 2-5 |
| Michigan State | 0-5 | 2-6 |
Records through week 8, FBS games on record.
AP Top 25 · top 10
- 1 Miami 7-0
- 2 Ohio State 6-1
- 3 Georgia 6-1
- 4 Indiana 7-1
- 5 Notre Dame 6-1
- 6 Utah 7-0
- 7 UCLA 7-0
- 8 BYU 6-1
- 9 Kentucky 7-1
- 10 Alabama 6-2
Recruiting
2026 class: #78 nationally (186.8 points). Roster talent: #30 of 138.
Rest of the season experimental
| Date | Opponent | Our win chance | Projected |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sat Oct 31 · time TBA | at Iowa | 29% | Iowa by 9.0 |
| Sat Nov 7 · time TBA | vs Rutgers | 79% | Wisconsin by 12.5 |
| Sat Nov 14 · time TBA | at Maryland | 68% | Wisconsin by 7.2 |
| Sat Nov 21 · time TBA | at Purdue | 63% | Wisconsin by 5.2 |
| Fri Nov 27 | vs Minnesota | 71% | Wisconsin by 8.9 |
Projected record: 8.1 wins on average; most likely 8-4 (32%). Conference title: 1%. Playoff: 3%. Playoff chances ›
From our model's simulation of the rest of the season (10,000 times); the win chance is how often we won that game in the simulations, the projected margin is Our call's (SP+, Elo and Our model averaged, 2.5 points to the home team).
Injuries
No injury report yet for this game. First reports usually come Wednesday.
Coverage (AI-assisted) · 1
Gathered by an AI model from public posts, not from CollegeFootballData. Not used in any number on this page. Verify against the linked sources.
-
Most-watched Week 7 games per Nielsen with Ohio State-Indiana leading
Ohio State-Indiana drew 10.4 million viewers as the most-watched Week 7 game per Nielsen.
Score and result
Wisconsin vs USCnot yet played
Home at Camp Randall Stadium (Madison) · Sat Oct 24, 6:30 PM CT · vs USC (FBS, Big Ten)
Opponent for every game-level number: USC (FBS, Big Ten).
- Week 8 polls: Coaches: USC #15 · AP: USC #16
- Pregame Elo: Wisconsin 1658, USC 1804
Verdict
No verdict: the game has not been played.
The verdict compares the score with the margin the plays earned. How it is reached ›
Efficiency
Edge: Wisconsin won 3 of 4
Wisconsin got more from each play, hit the bigger plays and was more disruptive. USC moved the ball better.
-
42% Moved the ballsuccessful plays ✓47%
-
+0.03✓ Points per playwhat a play was worth -0.18
-
0.96✓ Big playssize of the good plays 0.89
-
21%✓ Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers 14%
More numbers
Wisconsin ran 57 plays, USC 77. Each number is that team's offense; USC's column is also what Wisconsin's defense allowed.
| Measure | Wisconsin | USC | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| PPA / play | +0.03 | -0.18 | Wisconsin |
| Total PPA | +1.8 | -13.6 | Wisconsin |
| Success rate | 42.1% | 46.8% | USC |
| Explosiveness | 0.96 | 0.89 | Wisconsin |
| Havoc created | 21.1% | 13.8% | Wisconsin |
- 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 sentence above the rows counts them: it describes how the game was played, not who won it.
- Metrics explained ›
Top performers
Wisconsin 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Colton Joseph QB | 100% | -1.0 | -0.06 |
Rushing
| Player | Rush usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ryan Schwendeman TE | 2% | +2.5 | +2.45 |
| Bryan Jackson RB | 17% | +2.0 | +0.28 |
| Abu Sama III RB | 39% | +1.7 | +0.10 |
| Eugene Hilton Jr. WR | 2% | -0.1 | -0.12 |
Receiving
| Player | Target usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chris Brooks Jr. WR | 6% | +3.3 | +3.25 |
| Eugene Hilton Jr. WR | 19% | +1.1 | +0.37 |
| Jacob Harris TE | 19% | +0.4 | +0.14 |
| Jaylon Domingeaux WR | 6% | +0.2 | +0.25 |
By play type
| Measure | Wisconsin | USC | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rushing PPA | +0.07 | -0.28 | Wisconsin |
| Rushing success | 46.3% | 40.0% | Wisconsin |
| Passing PPA | -0.06 | -0.15 | Wisconsin |
| Passing success | 31.2% | 49.1% | USC |
| Standard downs PPA | +0.01 | -0.03 | Wisconsin |
| Standard downs success | 47.4% | 51.0% | USC |
| Passing downs PPA | +0.07 | -0.43 | Wisconsin |
| Passing downs success | 31.6% | 39.3% | USC |
Havoc detail — Wisconsin defense: TFL 3, sacks 4, takeaways 2, breakups 7 on 76 snaps. USC defense: TFL 5, sacks 2, takeaways 0, breakups 1 on 58 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
| Measure | Wisconsin | USC |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 class rank | 78 | 1 |
| 2026 class points | 186.75 | 310.67 |
| Talent composite | 767.7 #30 of 138 |
899.0 #9 of 138 |
Transfer portal · 33 in, 26 out
Arrivals (33)
| Player | From | ★ | Elig. | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eric Fletcher CB | Oklahoma State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 3, 2026 |
| Jacob Harris TE | Bowling Green | 3 | Immediate | Jan 3, 2026 |
| Abu Sama III RB | Iowa State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 3, 2026 |
| Carson Van Dinter S | Iowa State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 3, 2026 |
| Ryan Schwendeman TE | Southern Illinois | 3 | Immediate | Jan 4, 2026 |
| Shamar Rigby WR | Oklahoma State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 4, 2026 |
| Colton Joseph QB | Old Dominion | 3 | Immediate | Jan 4, 2026 |
| Austin Kawecki IOL | Oklahoma State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 4, 2026 |
| Justus Boone EDGE | Arkansas | 3 | Immediate | Jan 4, 2026 |
| Jon Jon Kamara LB | Kansas | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
+23 more not shown (33 total).
Departures (26)
| Player | To | ★ | Elig. | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Brunner IOL | Indiana | 4 | Immediate | Jan 14, 2026 |
| Preston Zachman S | Indiana | 3 | Immediate | Jan 4, 2026 |
| Billy Edwards Jr. QB | North Carolina | 3 | Immediate | Jan 4, 2026 |
| Geimere Latimer Jr. CB | West Virginia | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Trech Kekahuna WR | North Carolina | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Jake Renfro IOL | Illinois | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Tackett Curtis LB | UCF | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Christian Alliegro LB | Ohio State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 8, 2026 |
| Remington Moss S | Elon | 3 | Immediate | Jan 9, 2026 |
| Cody Raymond EDGE | Ohio | 3 | Immediate | Jan 10, 2026 |
+16 more not shown (26 total).
2026 commits · 14
| Player | Hometown | ★ | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady Bekkenhuis OT | Arlington, MA | 4 | 0.8961 |
| Keeyshawn Tabuteau WR | Chattanooga, TN | 3 | 0.8878 |
| Djidjou Bah DL | Germantown, TN | 3 | 0.8844 |
| Jack Sievers TE | Everett, WA | 3 | 0.8833 |
| Yahya Gaad DL | Medina, TN | 3 | 0.8811 |
| Ryan Hopkins QB | Santa Ana, CA | 3 | 0.8800 |
| Carsen Eloms CB | Fishers, IN | 3 | 0.8756 |
| Donovan Dunmore CB | Clovis, CA | 3 | 0.8733 |
| Zion Legree ATH | Fort Walton Beach, FL | 3 | 0.8667 |
| Arthur Scott III DL | Streetsboro, OH | 3 | 0.8644 |
| Ben Wenzel LB | Appleton, WI | 3 | 0.8633 |
| Kah'ni Watts S | Iowa Colony, TX | 3 | 0.8622 |
| Kash Brock WR | Chandler, AZ | 3 | 0.8500 |
| Dorsett Stecker WR | Newport Beach, CA | 3 | 0.8000 |
Returning production
Share of last season's production returning for Wisconsin in 2026.
| Unit | % PPA | PPA | Usage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 31.0% | 29.8 | 46.8% |
| Passing | -500.0% | -2.0 | 51.9% |
| Receiving | 33.7% | 24.6 | 22.7% |
| Rushing | 31.8% | 7.1 | 57.6% |
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.