Week 6 report · Sat, Oct 10 · 2026 Week 6
Illinois
5–3 · Ours #71 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.
38–37FinalWe had ILL 27 – MSU 24
Michigan State
2–6 · Ours #69 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.ILL 56%ILL won
ILL 56%ILL 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 ILL −3.ILL −2.5oursOur 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. −2.3 · MSU covered by 1.5
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 50.9.48.5final 75 · over by 26.5
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.MSU +3.5Wbeat the close by 1.0
MSU +3.5Wbeat the close by 1.0Quarterbacksthis game
Katin Houser20/29 · 194 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.
- +0.1656th pct
- Comp %
- 69.0
- TD
- 1
- Turnovers
- 11 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 0
Alessio Milivojevic22/26 · 196 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.
- +0.4381st pct
- Comp %
- 84.6
- TD
- 2
- Turnovers
- 00 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 2
The matchupthis game · ▲▼ better or worse than the unit's usual · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| Illinoisoffense | Played like MSU +13.4Fitted from non-garbage efficiency; describes how the game was played, not who deserved it. | defenseMichigan State | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 78th | 50.0%▲4.1 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 50.0%▼8.7 | 22nd |
| 56th | +0.09▼0.08 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | +0.09▼0.04 | 44th |
| 68th | +0.24▲0.05 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | +0.24▼0.12 | 32nd |
| 33rd | −0.08▼0.23 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | −0.08▲0.10 | 67th |
| 41st | 1▼0.4 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 1▲0.7 | 59th |
| Michigan Stateoffense | defenseIllinois | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 71st | 47.9%▲7.2 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 47.9%▼0.2 | 29th |
| 89th | +0.39▲0.50 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | +0.39▼0.18 | 11th |
| 89th | +0.57▲0.71 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | +0.57▼0.23 | 11th |
| 68th | +0.17▲0.23 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | +0.17▼0.04 | 32nd |
| 41st | 1▲0.1 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 1▲0.6 | 59th |
Team statsthis game · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| IllinoisILL | Michigan StateMSU | |
|---|---|---|
| Special teams & field position | ||
| Average startWhere the team's drives started on average. | Own 3376th | Own 3791st |
| Kicking vs expectedKickingPoints from field goals and extra points against what an average kicker makes from the same spots. | +2.1 pts95th | +0.9 pts73rd |
| Drives & pace | ||
| PlaysOffensive plays outside garbage time. | 6876th | 4828th |
| 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. | −5.832nd | +5.868th |
| 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. | −0.3 pts32nd | +0.6 pts85th |
| 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. MSU +0.3: field position +1.4, kicking −0.9, 4th downs +1.2, penalty first downs −1.5. | −0.349th | +0.351st |
Season so far
Illinois5–3 · 41st-hardest schedule
W
vs UAB42–23missed −25.5
vs UAB42–23missed −25.5L
vs Duke27–31missed −6.5
vs Duke27–31missed −6.5Wvs Southern Illinois48–10covered −35.5
L
at Ohio State19–42covered +26
at Ohio State19–42covered +26L
vs Purdue17–24missed −9.5
vs Purdue17–24missed −9.5Wat Michigan State38–37missed −2.5
at Michigan State38–37missed −2.5W
vs Oregon21–10covered +10
vs Oregon21–10covered +10W
at Maryland20–17covered −2.5
at Maryland20–17covered −2.5Michigan State2–6 · 16th-hardest schedule
W
vs Toledo30–20push −10
vs Toledo30–20push −10W
vs Eastern Michigan35–7covered −17.5
vs Eastern Michigan35–7covered −17.5L
at Notre Dame10–27covered +29
at Notre Dame10–27covered +29L
vs Nebraska13–31missed +6
vs Nebraska13–31missed +6L
at Wisconsin3–31missed +8.5
at Wisconsin3–31missed +8.5Lvs Illinois37–38covered +2.5
vs Illinois37–38covered +2.5L
vs Northwestern21–24covered +7
vs Northwestern21–24covered +7L
at UCLA10–28missed +16
at UCLA10–28missed +16Model cfb_scratch · uncertainty ±15.5 · run Oct 10, 7:15 AM EDT · froze at kickoff and graded as-is