Week 5 report · Sat, Oct 3 · 2026 Week 5
AP #6Indiana
7–1 · Ours #9 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.
47–15FinalWe had IU 41 – RUTG 18
Rutgers
2–6 · Ours #104 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.IU 92%IU won
IU 92%IU 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 IU −23.5.IU −24.5oursOur 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. −22.9 · IU covered by 7.5
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 58.7.57final 62 · over by 5
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.RUTG +24Llost 0.5 to the close
RUTG +24Llost 0.5 to the closeQuarterbacksthis game
Josh Hoover20/27 · 251 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.
- +0.3977th pct
- Comp %
- 74.1
- TD
- 4
- Turnovers
- 00 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 1
AJ Surace6/10 · 128 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.
- +0.9499th pct
- Comp %
- 60.0
- TD
- 1
- Turnovers
- 00 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 4
Replaced Dylan Lonergan in Q2
The matchupthis game · ▲▼ better or worse than the unit's usual · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| Indianaoffense | Played like IU +38.1Fitted from non-garbage efficiency; describes how the game was played, not who deserved it. | defenseRutgers | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 88th | 55.0%▲14.4 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 55.0%▼6.8 | 12th |
| 92nd | +0.43▲0.35 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | +0.43▼0.25 | 8th |
| 81st | +0.39▲0.17 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | +0.39▼0.18 | 20th |
| 94th | +0.47▲0.56 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | +0.47▼0.30 | 6th |
| 79th | 0▲0.3 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 0▼0.6 | 21st |
| Rutgersoffense | defenseIndiana | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18th | 32.3%▼10.5 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 32.3%▲4.5 | 82nd |
| 6th | −0.35▼0.42 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | −0.35▲0.33 | 94th |
| 19th | −0.28▼0.29 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | −0.28▲0.26 | 81st |
| 5th | −0.43▼0.54 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | −0.43▲0.40 | 95th |
| 79th | 0▲2.8 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 0▼1.2 | 21st |
Team statsthis game · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| IndianaIU | RutgersRUTG | |
|---|---|---|
| Special teams & field position | ||
| Average startWhere the team's drives started on average. | Own 3059th | Own 2417th |
| Kicking vs expectedKickingPoints from field goals and extra points against what an average kicker makes from the same spots. | −0.9 pts23rd | 0.0 pts39th |
| Drives & pace | ||
| PlaysOffensive plays outside garbage time. | 4017th | 317th |
| 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. | +17.689th | −17.612th |
| Turnovers & hidden points | ||
| 4th downsPoints from going for it on fourth down, against what the average team gets from the same spots. | 0.0 pts50th | 0.0 pts41st |
| 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. IU +1.4: field position +2.0, kicking −0.7, 4th downs +0.1. | +1.457th | −1.443rd |
Season so far
Indiana7–1 · 34th-hardest schedule
W
vs North Texas52–16missed −40
vs North Texas52–16missed −40Wvs Howard55–0missed −58
W
vs Western Kentucky38–0missed −44.5
vs Western Kentucky38–0missed −44.5W
vs Northwestern29–23missed −20.5
vs Northwestern29–23missed −20.5Wat Rutgers47–15covered −24.5
at Rutgers47–15covered −24.5W
at Nebraska20–17missed −9
at Nebraska20–17missed −9L
vs Ohio State15–19missed +2.5
vs Ohio State15–19missed +2.5W
at Michigan13–6missed −7.5
at Michigan13–6missed −7.5Rutgers2–6 · 40th-hardest schedule
L
vs Massachusetts21–37missed −29
vs Massachusetts21–37missed −29L
at Boston College21–28missed +3
at Boston College21–28missed +3L
vs USC35–42covered +21
vs USC35–42covered +21Wvs Howard58–7covered −42
Lvs Indiana15–47missed +24.5QB change mid-game
vs Indiana15–47missed +24.5QB change mid-gameW
at Maryland37–30covered +6
at Maryland37–30covered +6Lat Northwestern14–42missed +14.5
at Northwestern14–42missed +14.5Lvs Michigan21–28covered +16.5
vs Michigan21–28covered +16.5Model cfb_scratch · uncertainty ±15.5 · run Oct 3, 7:15 AM EDT · froze at kickoff and graded as-is