Week 3 report · Sat, Sep 19 · 2026 Week 3
Eastern Michigan
4–5 · Ours #121 enteringOur rank going into this game, from the rankings page. The board's line comes from the betting model, which sees more than this one number.
10–54FinalWe had EMU 15 – WIS 29
Wisconsin
5–3 · Ours #65 enteringOur rank going into this game, from the rankings page. The board's line comes from the betting model, which sees more than this one number.
Win chanceOur odds before kickoff: how often each team won outright when we played the game out thousands of times from our line.WIS 81%WIS won
WIS 81%WIS wonSpreadOur last pregame odds pull, usually inside the hour before kickoff. A median of the books we track, not a sharp close. First seen at WIS −24.5.WIS −23.5oursOur computer's point spread for this game, built from team stats, not from the betting odds. Read it like a betting line: −7 means we have that team winning by 7. −14.7 · WIS covered by 20.5
TotalOur last pregame odds pull, usually inside the hour before kickoff. A median of the books we track, not a sharp close. Our total was 44.2.44final 64 · over by 20
Our callThe side our number took at the early-week line, graded at that line. Line value is how far the market moved toward it by the last capture before kickoff.EMU +24.5Lbeat the close by 1.0
EMU +24.5Lbeat the close by 1.0Quarterbacksthis game
Noah Kim16/28 · 140 yards
- EPA / dropbackExpected points added per dropback (passes and sacks) in this game. The percentile is among every 2026 FBS quarterback game with 10+ dropbacks.
- −0.0337th pct
- Comp %
- 57.1
- TD
- 1
- Turnovers
- 22 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 1
Colton Joseph23/33 · 362 yards
- EPA / dropbackExpected points added per dropback (passes and sacks) in this game. The percentile is among every 2026 FBS quarterback game with 10+ dropbacks.
- +0.7394th pct
- Comp %
- 69.7
- TD
- 3
- Turnovers
- 11 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 0
The matchupthis game · ▲▼ better or worse than the unit's usual · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| Eastern Michiganoffense | Played like WIS +35.7Fitted from non-garbage efficiency; describes how the game was played, not who deserved it. | defenseWisconsin | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7th | 26.5%▼12.6 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 26.5%▲12.6 | 93rd |
| 21st | −0.15▼0.08 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | −0.15▲0.04 | 79th |
| 28th | −0.17▼0.02 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | −0.17▲0.04 | 72nd |
| 26th | −0.13▼0.16 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | −0.13▲0.02 | 74th |
| 15th | 2▼1.0 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 2▲1.0 | 85th |
| Wisconsinoffense | defenseEastern Michigan | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 89th | 56.0%▲19.6 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 56.0%▼12.3 | 11th |
| 95th | +0.48▲0.52 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | +0.48▼0.44 | 5th |
| 96th | +0.76▲0.96 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | +0.76▼0.57 | 4th |
| 66th | +0.16▲0.06 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | +0.16▼0.23 | 34th |
| 41st | 1▼0.2 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 1▲0.1 | 59th |
Team statsthis game · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| Eastern MichiganEMU | WisconsinWIS | |
|---|---|---|
| Special teams & field position | ||
| Average startWhere the team's drives started on average. | Own 2737th | Own 3062nd |
| Kicking vs expectedKickingPoints from field goals and extra points against what an average kicker makes from the same spots. | −1.1 pts21st | +1.6 pts88th |
| Drives & pace | ||
| PlaysOffensive plays outside garbage time. | 3410th | 5030th |
| Drive pointsThe part of the final margin the offense moved the ball for (efficiency, success rate, big plays, finishing drives), in points. A margin over the opponent. | −29.13rd | +29.197th |
| Turnovers & hidden points | ||
| Penalty first downsPenalty 1st downsFirst downs the team was handed by the opponent's penalties. | 372nd | 127th |
| 4th downsPoints from going for it on fourth down, against what the average team gets from the same spots. | +0.7 pts87th | −0.2 pts37th |
| Return touchdownsReturn TDsDefensive and special-teams touchdowns. | 043rd | 192nd |
| Hidden pointsPoints from outside the offense's drives: turnovers, field position, kicking, fourth downs, penalty first downs, return touchdowns and safeties. A margin over the opponent. WIS +7.3: turnovers +2.6, field position +1.3, kicking +1.9, 4th downs −1.2, penalty first downs −1.5, return touchdowns +4.2. | −7.319th | +7.381st |
Season so far
Eastern Michigan4–5 · 125th-hardest schedule
W
vs Sacramento State28–17covered −9
vs Sacramento State28–17covered −9L
vs San José State21–27missed −1.5
vs San José State21–27missed −1.5L
at Michigan State7–35missed +17.5
at Michigan State7–35missed +17.5Lat Wisconsin10–54missed +23.5
at Wisconsin10–54missed +23.5Wvs Lindenwood29–3covered −24
W
at Massachusetts38–14covered +5.5
at Massachusetts38–14covered +5.5W
at Akron25–23missed −5.5
at Akron25–23missed −5.5L
vs Toledo14–34missed +7.5
vs Toledo14–34missed +7.5L
at Ohio20–24covered +10
at Ohio20–24covered +10Wisconsin5–3 · 11th-hardest schedule
L
at Notre Dame13–41missed +21.5
at Notre Dame13–41missed +21.5Wvs Western Illinois36–9missed −43.5
Wvs Eastern Michigan54–10covered −23.5
vs Eastern Michigan54–10covered −23.5W
at Penn State24–20covered +10
at Penn State24–20covered +10Wvs Michigan State31–3covered −8.5
vs Michigan State31–3covered −8.5L
at UCLA7–17missed +1.5
at UCLA7–17missed +1.5W
vs USC24–7covered +2.5
vs USC24–7covered +2.5L
at Iowa0–30missed +2.5
at Iowa0–30missed +2.5Model cfb_best · uncertainty ±15.5 · run Sep 19, 12:05 PM EDT · froze at kickoff and graded as-is