Duke vs. Illinois: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
DUKETeam statsILL
- Q4 13:53DUKECosme Salas 39 Yd Field Goal 31–27
- Q3 5:08ILLEthan Moczulski 47 Yd Field Goal 28–27
- Q3 10:47DUKENate Sheppard 3 Yd pass from Walker Eget (Cosme Salas Kick)28–24
- Q2 0:38DUKENate Sheppard 7 Yd pass from Walker Eget (Cosme Salas Kick)21–24
- Q2 1:48ILLCollin Dixon 2 Yd pass from Katin Houser (Ethan Moczulski Kick)14–24
- Q2 7:05DUKENate Sheppard 2 Yd Run (Cosme Salas Kick)14–17
- Q2 12:47ILLCollin Dixon 40 Yd pass from Katin Houser (Ethan Moczulski Kick)7–17
- Q1 3:41ILLEthan Moczulski 51 Yd Field Goal 7–10
- Q1 8:28DUKEJonah Burton 12 Yd pass from Walker Eget (Cosme Salas Kick)7–7
- Q1 10:23ILLCollin Dixon 13 Yd pass from Katin Houser (Ethan Moczulski Kick)0–7
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- DUKE played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and ILL did not face the same ones. 3rd & 7.9 vs 3rd & 4.4
Illinois scored 45 on Duke a year ago; the Duke pass defense arriving in Champaign now allows less through the air than any unit in the country.
Illinois scored 45 on Duke in Durham last September and won by 26. That afternoon flatters what is coming. Duke arrives in Champaign with the stingiest pass defense in the country, 1st of 185 by what it allows, pointed squarely at the half of Illinois's offense that produced that scoreline. Illinois grades 11.2 points the better team. Six is the number.
- PassWalker Eget 15/21, 206 YDS, 3 TD
- RushNate Sheppard 24 CAR, 147 YDS, 1 TD
- RecJonah Burton 4 REC, 76 YDS, 1 TD
- PassKatin Houser 24/35, 271 YDS, 3 TD, 1 INT
- RushCa'Lil Valentine 18 CAR, 56 YDS
- RecCollin Dixon 11 REC, 166 YDS, 3 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsDUKE up 1 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,678 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q3 10:47DUKE +26%
Shotgun #2 W.Eget pass complete short left to #20 N.Sheppard caught at ILL06, for 3 yards to the ILL00 TOUCHDOWN
- Q4 2:48DUKE +20%
Shotgun #20 N.Sheppard rush middle for 3 yards gain to the ILL35 (#1 X.Scott; #6 J.Clarke)
- Q4 6:06ILL +17%
Shotgun #5 C.Valentine rush middle for 1 yard gain to the ILL21 (#34 L.Mergott; #95 P.Watson)
- Q4 7:15DUKE +17%
Shotgun #20 N.Sheppard rush middle for 3 yards gain to the ILL42 (#96 D.Prater)
- Q1 8:28DUKE +16%
Shotgun #2 W.Eget pass complete short left to #6 J.Burton caught at ILL00, for 12 yards to the ILL00 TOUCHDOWN, 1ST DOWN. ILL is challenging the ruling on the field -…
- Q1 10:23ILL +16%
Shotgun #4 K.Houser pass complete short right to #17 C.Dixon caught at DUKE00, for 13 yards to the DUKE00 TOUCHDOWN, 1ST DOWN
FAQ
What was the final score of Duke vs. Illinois?
Duke 31, Illinois 27.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked ILL, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| DUKE | ILL | |
|---|---|---|
| 376 | Total yards | 382 |
| 206 | Passing yards | 271 |
| 170 | Rushing yards | 111 |
| 19 | First downs | 23 |
| 2-9 | 3rd down | 5-12 |
| 2-2 | 4th down | 1-3 |
| 15/22 | Comp/Att | 24/36 |
| 9.4 | Yards per pass | 7.5 |
| 4.9 | Yards per rush | 3.5 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 11-112 | Penalties | 7-71 |
| 26:46 | Possession | 33:14 |
Costliest call
Q2 0:04 ILL field goal on 4th & 5 at DUKE 44. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.92 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- DUKEEnd of Game6 plays · 0 yds · from ILL 38 · Q4 2:54−2.2 EPA+13% WP
- ILLDowns6 plays · 18 yds · from ILL 20 · Q4 6:13+3.3 EPA−11% WP
- DUKEPunt3 plays · 1 yds · from ILL 45 · Q4 7:21−3.8 EPA+2% WP
- ILLInterception3 plays · 2 yds · from ILL 45 · Q4 8:14+0.8 EPA−2% WP
- DUKEPunt3 plays · 0 yds · from DUKE 18 · Q4 9:38−0.8 EPA+2% WP
- ILLDowns8 plays · 57 yds · from ILL 35 · Q4 13:53−1.6 EPA−5% WP
- DUKEField Goal10 plays · 53 yds · from DUKE 35 · Q3 5:08+7.3 EPA+17% WP
- ILLField Goal11 plays · 46 yds · from ILL 35 · Q3 10:47+3.6 EPA+10% WP
- DUKETouchdown9 plays · 75 yds · from DUKE 35 · Q3 15:00−2.1 EPA+26% WP
- ILLMissed FG5 plays · 21 yds · from ILL 35 · Q2 0:32−0.6 EPA
- DUKETouchdown8 plays · 75 yds · from DUKE 35 · Q2 1:48+3.5 EPA+18% WP
- ILLTouchdown11 plays · 75 yds · from ILL 35 · Q2 7:05+1.9 EPA+18% WP
- DUKETouchdown12 plays · 75 yds · from DUKE 35 · Q2 12:47+6.9 EPA+16% WP
- ILLTouchdown8 plays · 62 yds · from ILL 28 · Q1 1:36+2.8 EPA+16% WP
- Q4 13:53DUKECosme Salas 39 Yd Field Goal 31–27
- Q3 5:08ILLEthan Moczulski 47 Yd Field Goal 28–27
- Q3 10:47DUKENate Sheppard 3 Yd pass from Walker Eget (Cosme Salas Kick)28–24
- Q2 0:38DUKENate Sheppard 7 Yd pass from Walker Eget (Cosme Salas Kick)21–24
- Q2 1:48ILLCollin Dixon 2 Yd pass from Katin Houser (Ethan Moczulski Kick)14–24
- Q2 7:05DUKENate Sheppard 2 Yd Run (Cosme Salas Kick)14–17
- Q2 12:47ILLCollin Dixon 40 Yd pass from Katin Houser (Ethan Moczulski Kick)7–17
- Q1 3:41ILLEthan Moczulski 51 Yd Field Goal 7–10
- Q1 8:28DUKEJonah Burton 12 Yd pass from Walker Eget (Cosme Salas Kick)7–7
- Q1 10:23ILLCollin Dixon 13 Yd pass from Katin Houser (Ethan Moczulski Kick)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (ILL Elo 1595, DUKE Elo 1607 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects ILL -4.8 (62% to win), essentially in line with the market.
Why that percentage is worth reading: across 604 graded in-season games, the calls this model put near 58% came in at 58.2%. The full calibration table is published, bin by bin. Early in the season the cold-start path runs instead and calibrates less well (Brier 0.2028 against 0.1889).
Model as of Sep 1 · through week 1 · drive simulation
Season form — 2026
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles| DUKE | ILL | |
|---|---|---|
| +4.6 (#53) | CORE overall | +6.7 (#45) |
| -1 / -5 | offense / defense | +7 / +1 |
| -15 | pass over expected | +3 |
Bold is the side ahead. CORE strips the situation from every play and solves the schedule out across the league, so these compare two teams that never met.
Key matchups
The analyst read: each team's offense splits crossed against the opponent's defense, with the edges called out.
Create a free account →You get Pro free for 6 months. No card required.
Duke's secondary is built to erase Illinois's deep game
Illinois scored 45 on Duke a year ago; the Duke pass defense arriving in Champaign now allows less through the air than any unit in the country.
Duke wins
The range of outcomes for this game. Each bar is how often the final margin lands in that range — the more it leans toward Illinois, the more likely Illinois wins.
Illinois's deep ball runs into the wrong secondary
The widest gap anywhere on this field is Illinois's explosive passing against Duke's coverage — 3.64 standard deviations, and it points at the underdog. The projected receiving bands agree: Collin Dixon at 18 to 56 yards with a 29% touchdown chance, Hudson Clement at 17 to 44, Kaden Feagin at 15 to 26. An offense that lives on chunk throws is projected into short gains all afternoon.
Each unit matchup this season, sorted by how decisive it is — the top bar is what most tilts the game. Bars toward Illinois are battles it should win; toward Duke are ones Duke wins.
Against UAB, Illinois scored on 62.5% of eight drives and gained 43.9 yards per possession — and went three-and-out on 62.5% of them too. That is an offense that either finishes fast or stalls in three plays, and the finishing half runs on exactly the throws Duke takes away. The overall big-play edge, 1.23 standard deviations, also sits with Duke. Strip the top off Illinois and what remains is a lot of second-and-eight.
The 26-point loss overstates the current gap
Illinois won the last meeting by 26 on Duke's field. The projection here is six points, with Illinois at home this time. Duke finished 9-5 last season to Illinois's 9-4, and most of what separates them now is that full body of work rather than one September blowout.
Duke scored 17 and needed thirteen drives to do it
Duke beat Tulane 17-3 and the defense did nearly all of the work. Thirteen possessions yielded points on 23.1% of them, 29.8 yards a drive, a three-and-out on 38.5%. That is a functioning defense attached to an offense that could not finish. Saturday it draws a defense ranked 124th of 185 against the run and 138th of 185 against the pass. Duke does not need a new identity. It needs its scoring rate to move.
Nate Sheppard is the lever. He projects for 53 to 101 rushing yards with a 53% chance of a touchdown against that soft front, and the short-yardage and power edge, 1.30 standard deviations, belongs to Duke. The path is heavy and possession-shortening: fewer drives for both teams, more of them ending in field position rather than points, and an Illinois offense standing on the sideline while its best weapon goes unused.
Jeremiah Hasley faces a secondary that allows more than almost anyone, 138th of 185, and still projects for only 16 to 51 receiving yards with a 36% touchdown chance. That band describes Duke's throw volume, not the coverage. The counterweight is staying on schedule, where Illinois holds a 1.09-standard-deviation edge — and a Duke offense behind the chains surrenders the power-run leverage that is the whole plan.
Illinois's defense is the softer half of this game
Illinois allowed 23 points to UAB in a game it scored 42 in, and the scoreboard covered for a unit that grades 124th of 185 against the run and 138th of 185 against the pass. Duke's offense last week was not sharp enough to punish that. A defense this permeable turns a six-point line into a live one if the visiting offense finds even average efficiency.
Illinois's own ground answer is split. Ca'Lil Valentine projects for 28 to 74 rushing yards with a 28% touchdown chance, Aidan Laughery for 24 to 67 with 30% — two backs with nearly identical bands, which is a committee rather than a hammer. Asking a committee to carry the scoring load against a defense that just held an opponent to three points is a slow, uncertain way to build a comfortable margin.
How far each factor swings the win probability when it breaks one way vs the other. The top bar is the X-factor — the thing most worth watching.
The total still expects points, and that is on Illinois's defense
The number sits at 53.5 with the under at 37%, and that lean has almost nothing to do with anyone throwing on Duke. It is a bet on Illinois's soft front and softer secondary giving Duke the drives Tulane never allowed. The version that busts it is the one Duke just played: long possessions, a low scoring rate on both sides, and a final score that looks more like 17-3 than 42-23.
Each ingredient of our projection and the side it favors — bars toward Illinois are why it's the pick (home field is counted separately).
Duke's path is a shortened, ugly afternoon
Duke covers by compressing the game. Take the explosive throws off the table, stay ahead of the sticks on early downs, and hand Sheppard a run front ranked 124th of 185 until the score sits in the low twenties, where six points is a wide number. Duke's outright win probability is 22%, and the projection puts a one-score finish at about 33%. That is a live dog with a coherent plan.
Illinois clears -6 in roughly 64% of projected outcomes, and the route there is not the deep ball. It is intermediate throws, the schedule edge on early downs, and Duke repeating the 23.1% scoring rate it managed against Tulane. If Dixon and Clement are held to their projected bands and Duke still cannot finish drives, Illinois wins comfortably on a night nobody remembers a single explosive play.
Illinois has to score without the throws that beat Duke last year, which means the committee backfield and a defense that has not gotten off the field. Duke has to convert the run-game edge into touchdowns rather than the field goals and punts that defined its opener. The team that changes the least from last week loses this one.
Our coverage of this game
Where this number comes from. Every projection on this page is produced by the same model, run before kickoff on opponent-adjusted efficiency, power ratings and situational data — walk-forward validated on eleven seasons and never adjusted after the fact. How the model works →