Illinois
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · 2024 · Big Ten
Illinois went 10-3 and was ranked 18th in the FanBoardHQ CFP Rankings (blended resume and efficiency). Their 30th-ranked offense was the engine, backed by a 49th-ranked defense. They ran the ball on 52% of offensive plays with a 38th-ranked rushing attack and passed the ball on the remaining 48% of plays with a 39th-ranked passing attack.
Quadrant record
By opponent strength, adjusted for where the game was played.
Projected wins
Per-game win probabilities combined across the full schedule.
The resume
Every game on the schedule. Click a row for the game breakdown (played) or the matchup projection (upcoming).
| Wk | Opponent | Conf | Opp rank | Result | Exp. margin | Win prob | GameScore | Quad |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | vs Eastern Illinois | Big South-OVC | — | W 45–0 | +44.0 | 100% | 4.6 | Q4 |
| 2 | vs Kansas | Big 12 | #48 | W 23–17 | -1.6 | 100% | 16.8 | Q2 |
| 3 | vs Central Michigan | Mid-American | #116 | W 30–9 | +27.5 | 100% | 2.7 | Q4 |
| 4 | @ Nebraska | Big Ten | #43 | W 31–24 | -4.3 | 100% | 14.8 | Q2 |
| 5 | @ Penn State | Big Ten | #6 | L 7–21 | -17.2 | 0% | 7.1 | Q1 |
| 7 | vs Purdue | Big Ten | #129 | W 50–49 | +24.1 | 100% | -9.6 | Q4 |
| 8 | vs Michigan | Big Ten | #23 | W 21–7 | -0.3 | 100% | 22.2 | Q2 |
| 9 | @ Oregon | Big Ten | #3 | L 9–38 | -16.5 | 0% | -16.2 | Q1 |
| 10 | vs Minnesota | Big Ten | #32 | L 17–25 | -2.9 | 0% | 2.2 | Q2 |
| 12 | vs Michigan State | Big Ten | #73 | W 38–16 | +13.7 | 100% | 16.4 | Q4 |
| 13 | @ Rutgers | Big Ten | #49 | W 38–31 | -0.0 | 100% | 15.7 | Q2 |
| 14 | vs Northwestern | Big Ten | #94 | W 38–28 | +12.2 | 100% | 7.7 | Q4 |
| Postseason | ||||||||
| — | vs South Carolina | SEC | #16 | W 21–17 | -8.0 | 100% | 20.4 | Q1 |
13 played · 10-3. Expected margin and gamescore use the latest ratings — a completed game shows what the model would say now, not that week.
The season
The model’s read on Illinois, recomputed after every week. Toggle between overall, offensive, and defensive efficiency (each with a dot for that week’s game) or the FanBoardHQ CFP rank.
Passing & rushing
Opponent-adjusted, FBS-only. The bar is the blended Eff rank — EPA/play (scoring value), success rate (staying on schedule), and yards/play (explosiveness), each standardized against the FBS field. The three ranks below each bar are those components, so you can see what's driving it.
Their offense vs. what their defense allows.
Scored vs. allowed, all regular-season games.
What kind of team is this?
Every team by offensive and defensive efficiency (points/game vs. an average team, higher is better on both). Click a dot for that team.
Field position 58th · Finishing 26th
Field position 43rd · Finishing 49th
2.68 points per drive on offense, 1.95 allowed — starting, on average, at their own 31.
Play-calling & efficiency
What the offense did, by quarter and by down — raw, not opponent-adjusted.
| Quarter (att.) | Pass / rush | Success | Yd/play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1(197) | 52% / 48% | 50% | 7.0 |
| Q2(201) | 49% / 51% | 43% | 5.8 |
| Q3(177) | 47% / 53% | 44% | 6.2 |
| Q4(235) | 43% / 57% | 44% | 6.1 |
| Down (att.) | Avg. to go | Success | Yd/play |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1st(142) | 10.0 | 44% | 7.1 |
| 2nd(135) | 8.8 | 47% | 7.0 |
| 3rd(97) | 9.0 | 41% | 7.3 |
| 4th(11) | 6.3 | 45% | 6.9 |
| All (386) | — | 44% | 7.1 |
| Down (att.) | Avg. to go | Success | Yd/play |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1st(226) | 9.9 | 44% | 5.4 |
| 2nd(131) | 6.9 | 41% | 5.6 |
| 3rd(59) | 4.7 | 59% | 6.0 |
| 4th(8) | 3.1 | 75% | 5.8 |
| All (424) | — | 46% | 5.5 |
Illinois, all games.