Matchup analysis
Before kickoff our model projected Penn State 30.7, Wisconsin 16.3 at Beaver Stadium in Week 4. That is a solid edge: Penn State wins about 83% of the time by our estimate, with a projected margin of 14.4 points and 47 combined points. Tags: leans low scoring.
Wisconsin is 2-1, scoring 34.3 and allowing 20 points per game (+14.3 per game). Penn State (No. 13) is 3-0, scoring 42.3 and allowing 7.3 points per game (+35 per game).
Expect Wisconsin to find it hard going: Penn State's elite defense (12th) outranks Wisconsin's below-average offense (91st of 138 in our opponent-adjusted ratings, worth about 24.7 points against an average defense). Penn State's strong offense (30th of 138 in our opponent-adjusted ratings, worth about 31.2 points against an average defense) meets Wisconsin's strong defense (39th) โ an even matchup on paper, so game script and turnovers will decide how many points Penn State puts up.
College football is noisy: even a well-rated projection misses the final margin by about 14 points on average. Based on how real results have scattered around our numbers, the final margin should land somewhere between Wisconsin by 8 and Penn State by 37 about 80% of the time.
Penn State gets about 2.1 points for playing at home. Even on a neutral field the ratings would still favour Penn State by about 12.3. The game is on Peacock.
Result: Wisconsin 24, Penn State 20. Wisconsin won, so this goes down as a miss for the model (margin off by 18.4 points).
Market lines
Market lines ยท Source: The Odds API, ESPN, Action Network ยท Updated Oct 29, 9:25 AM UTC. Shown for information; not an input to our projections.
| Provider | Spread (open โ now) | Total (open โ now) | Moneyline (Wisconsin / Penn State) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | Penn State -10.75 โ Penn State -9.75 | 44.5 โ 43.75 | +300 / -390 |
| DraftKings | Penn State -11.5 โ Penn State -9.5 | 42.5 โ 43.5 | +300 / -380 |
| Bovada | Penn State -10 | 46.5 โ 44 | +300 / -400 |
This game's lines: CollegeFootballData.com ยท read Oct 22, 6:37 PM UTC.
| Projection | Margin | Total | Penn State win |
|---|---|---|---|
| Our model | Penn State -14.5 | 47.0 | 83% |
| Market consensus | Penn State -10 | 43.8 | 76% |
| Blended projection | Penn State -10.5 | 45.2 | 76% |
Blended projection = 0.16 x our margin + 0.84 x the market margin, weights fitted on past seasons (see methodology).
Model vs market
- Penn State win probability
- model 83% ยท market (no-vig) 76% ยท difference +7 pts
- Margin
- model Penn State -14.4 ยท market Penn State -9.75 ยท difference +4.7 pts (Penn State view)
- Total
- model 47.0 ยท market 43.75 ยท difference +3.3
Model margin is 4.7 pts more toward Penn State than the market.
21+ only where legal. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER.
Original projection vs new formula
| Projection | Score | Win prob | Margin miss | Total miss |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Original projection | Wisconsin 16.3, Penn State 30.7 | Penn State 83%wrong winner | 18.4 | 3.0 |
| New formula | Wisconsin 15.3, Penn State 29.8 | Penn State 83%wrong winner | 18.5 | 1.1 |
Final: Wisconsin 24, Penn State 20. Original = the number we posted before kickoff. New formula (2026-10-21 matchup terms) = the current model re-run with only the games played before this one.
Wisconsin vs Penn State: stat comparison
Season to date before kickoff: these numbers are frozen at kickoff and do not include this game or anything after it.
| Stat | Wisconsin | Penn State |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 34.3#57 | 42.3#22 |
| Points allowed per game | 20.0#59 | 7.3#3 |
| Yards per play | 6.98#34 | 7.56#12 |
| Yards per play allowed | 5.05#51 | 3.84#5 |
| Rushing yards per game | 144.3#102 | 195.0#48 |
| Net passing yards per game | 265.0#43 | 311.3#18 |
| Rushing yards allowed per game | 120.3#45 | 119.3#42 |
| Net passing yards allowed per game | 184.3#56 | 93.3#3 |
| Turnovers per game | 0.67#70 | 0.00#7 |
| Takeaways per game | 0.67#106 | 0.67#91 |
| Sacks per game | 1.00#121 | 1.67#78 |
| Sacks allowed per game | 0.67#25 | 1.00#43 |
| Stat | Wisconsin | Penn State |
|---|---|---|
| EPA per play | +0.17#38 | +0.18#35 |
| EPA per play allowed | +0.01#63 | -0.14#11 |
| Success rate | 41.9%#90 | 44.7%#53 |
| Success rate allowed | 39.4%#61 | 32.8%#12 |
| Explosive play rate | 13.5%#60 | 16.2%#17 |
| Explosive plays allowed | 9.4%#25 | 8.8%#14 |
| Havoc rate | 10.6%#123 | 16.4%#31 |
| Havoc allowed | 12.2%#54 | 10.9%#30 |
| Points per scoring opportunity | 3.89#95 | 4.30#67 |
| Points per opportunity allowed | 4.08#84 | 3.09#19 |
| Average starting field position | own 32#51 | own 37#10 |
| Opponents' starting field position | own 23#7 | own 22#2 |
| Offensive plays per game (pace) | 58.7#119 | 67.0#56 |
| Stat | Wisconsin | Penn State |
|---|---|---|
| Rushing EPA per play | +0.08#69 | -0.05#117 |
| Passing EPA per play | +0.26#32 | +0.43#8 |
| Rushing EPA allowed | -0.02#55 | -0.04#47 |
| Passing EPA allowed | +0.05#81 | -0.23#8 |
| Rushing success rate | 35.1%#123 | 40.0%#104 |
| Passing success rate | 48.6%#39 | 56.1%#12 |
| Run stuff rate | 14.6%#40 | 15.6%#56 |
| Passing-down success rate | 28.6%#98 | 34.4%#49 |
| Passing-down success allowed | 16.8%#3 | 23.7%#26 |
| Third-down conversion rate | 50.0%#33 | 42.1%#74 |
| Third-down rate allowed | 30.6%#30 | 18.9%#3 |
| Red-zone touchdown rate | 44.4%#128 | 54.1%#112 |
| Red-zone TD rate allowed | 40.1%#17 | 44.8%#24 |
# = rank among 138 FBS teams. Efficiency numbers exclude garbage time. Per-play numbers of teams with a weak schedule are pulled toward their opponent-adjusted values (fully at one standard deviation below an average schedule). Source: play-by-play (cfbfastR / sportsdataverse), aggregated by us.
More: Wisconsin schedule ยท Penn State schedule ยท all Week 4 projections
Share this prediction
Projections are statistical estimates for entertainment and analysis only. They are not betting advice and nothing here guarantees any result.
Free weekly projections email
One email a week in season: the closest projected games, the biggest mismatches and how the model graded out last week. Email address only โ no spam, unsubscribe any time.