Oregon Ducks Football vs Indiana Hoosiers Football Match Player Stats
fThe Oregon Ducks Football vs Indiana Hoosiers Football Match Player Stats provide a detailed look at one of the most decisive games of the 2025 to 2026 college football postseason. On January 10, 2026, the Indiana Hoosiers defeated the Oregon Ducks 56-22 in the College Football Playoff semifinal at the Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl. Indiana’s victory was built on outstanding quarterback efficiency, a productive rushing attack, multiple passing touchdowns, and a defense that turned a key interception into a touchdown.
The final score tells only part of the story. Oregon quarterback Dante Moore threw for 285 yards, while Indiana quarterback Fernando Mendoza completed 17 of 20 passes for 177 yards and five touchdowns. That difference highlights an important lesson in football analysis: passing yardage alone does not determine offensive success. Indiana made its opportunities count, protected the football, and consistently converted possessions into points.
This article examines the final score, individual player performances, passing and rushing statistics, receiving production, defensive contributions, turnovers, special teams, and the key factors that explain Indiana’s 34-point victory. Whether you are reviewing the box score, comparing both quarterbacks, or looking for a clear statistical explanation of the Peach Bowl semifinal, the following breakdown puts the most important numbers into context.
Game Overview: Indiana Hoosiers vs Oregon Ducks
The Peach Bowl semifinal brought together two successful programs competing for a place in the College Football Playoff championship game. Indiana entered the contest with an unbeaten 15-0 record, while Oregon arrived at 13-1 before the semifinal. Indiana’s victory improved its record to 16-0, whereas Oregon finished the game at 13-2, according to the supplied game data.
The result was especially significant because Indiana did not rely on a single offensive approach. The Hoosiers combined efficient passing with a strong ground game and a defense capable of creating game-changing plays. Oregon generated more passing yards, but Indiana produced substantially more touchdowns and controlled the scoreboard throughout the contest.
Indiana Hoosiers
Winning team · Peach Bowl semifinal
56 points
Record after game: 16-0
Oregon Ducks
Losing team · Peach Bowl semifinal
22 points
Record after game: 13-2
Game date
January 10, 2026
Winning margin
34 points
Venue event
Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl
ESPN game ID
401769074
Final Score by Quarter
The quarter-by-quarter breakdown shows how Indiana established control early and maintained its advantage after halftime.
| Quarter | Oregon Ducks | Indiana Hoosiers |
| First quarter | 7 | 14 |
| Second quarter | 0 | 21 |
| Third quarter | 8 | 7 |
| Fourth quarter | 7 | 14 |
| Final score | 22 | 56 |
Indiana outscored Oregon 35-7 in the first half. The Hoosiers then added 21 more points after halftime, while Oregon managed 15. Indiana’s three-touchdown second quarter was particularly important because it expanded an early lead into a substantial advantage before the teams reached the locker room.
Oregon scored in three of the four quarters but could not produce enough consecutive scoring drives to challenge Indiana’s lead. The eight-point third quarter offered a brief sign of offensive progress, yet Indiana answered with seven points of its own and continued to score in the final period.
The most useful takeaway is that Indiana did not win through a single late-game surge. It built a large advantage early and continued to score, leaving Oregon with too much ground to recover.
Oregon Ducks Football vs Indiana Hoosiers Football Match Player Stats
The individual numbers reveal why the Hoosiers controlled the semifinal. Oregon produced 362 total yards, compared with Indiana’s 378, according to the official game statistics. That relatively small difference in total yardage contrasts sharply with the 34-point gap on the scoreboard.
Indiana was more effective at turning offensive production into touchdowns and avoided the turnovers that hurt Oregon. The Ducks recorded three turnovers, including two lost fumbles and one interception. Indiana recorded none.
The following table summarizes the main statistical differences.
| Statistical category | Oregon Ducks | Indiana Hoosiers |
| Final score | 22 | 56 |
| Total yards | 362 | 378 |
| Passing yards | 285 | 177 |
| Rushing yards | 93 | 185 |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 | 5 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 | 2 |
| Completions | 24 | 17 |
| Pass attempts | 40 | 20 |
| Interceptions thrown | 1 | 0 |
| Turnovers | 3 | 0 |
| Fumbles lost | 2 | 0 |
| Third-down conversions | 8 of 13 | 11 of 14 |
| Time of possession | 28:47 | 31:13 |
| Sacks recorded by defense | 1 | 3 |
Source: ESPN’s official game statistics. Oregon’s team passing total includes one additional team attempt beyond Dante Moore’s 39 attempts.
ESPN
+1
Three statistics stand out immediately.
First, Indiana gained 92 more rushing yards. Second, the Hoosiers converted 11 of 14 third downs, giving them an excellent opportunity to sustain drives. Third, Indiana finished with zero turnovers, while Oregon gave the ball away three times.
These figures explain the result better than the passing-yard totals alone. Oregon moved the ball through the air, but Indiana combined balanced offense with superior possession security and more effective finishing.
Quarterback Comparison: Dante Moore vs Fernando Mendoza
The quarterback matchup was one of the most revealing parts of the game. Dante Moore accumulated more passing yards, but Fernando Mendoza delivered considerably more touchdowns and completed a much higher percentage of his attempts.
Quarterback statistical comparison
Dante Moore
Oregon Ducks
285
Passing yards
24 of 39 completions
2 passing TDs
1 interception
67.9 QBR
Fernando Mendoza
Indiana Hoosiers
177
Passing yards
17 of 20 completions
5 passing TDs
0 interceptions
98.5 QBR
Dante Moore’s passing performance
Moore completed 24 of 39 passes for 285 yards, two touchdowns, and one interception. His reported yards per attempt were 7.3, and his ESPN quarterback rating, or QBR, was 67.9.
His 285 passing yards were a meaningful positive for Oregon. The Ducks were able to move the football through the air, and their passing game produced touchdowns to Jamari Johnson and Roger Saleapaga II.
However, Moore’s overall performance was affected by more than his passing totals. The supplied box score credits him with two fumbles lost, and Oregon’s team total includes an additional interception. Those mistakes gave Indiana opportunities to score without needing to win every conventional offensive exchange.
Moore also recorded five rushing attempts for minus 28 yards. That figure should not automatically be interpreted as 28 yards of failed designed runs. Quarterback rushing statistics can include sacks, and negative yardage can reflect pressure and the structure of a play. The box score alone does not establish how much of that total came from each cause.
For Oregon, the central issue was the gap between moving the ball and protecting it. Moore’s passing yardage demonstrated that the offense could generate production, but the turnovers made it much harder to turn that production into a competitive final score.
Fernando Mendoza’s efficient five-touchdown performance
Mendoza completed 17 of 20 passes for 177 yards and five touchdowns without throwing an interception. His completion rate was 85%, and his reported average was 8.9 yards per attempt.
The most striking figure is the five passing touchdowns on only 20 attempts. Mendoza did not need to accumulate 300 passing yards to control the game. Instead, he consistently converted opportunities into scores.
His touchdowns went to four different receivers:
- Omar Cooper Jr. caught an eight-yard touchdown pass.
- Charlie Becker scored on a 36-yard reception.
- Elijah Sarratt caught two touchdown passes.
- E.J. Williams Jr. added a 13-yard touchdown reception.
That distribution illustrates Indiana’s ability to score through different receiving options. The defense could not focus exclusively on one receiver and assume the rest of the passing game would become ineffective.
Mendoza’s performance also benefited from ball security. He recorded no interceptions and no lost fumbles. His two recorded fumbles were recovered by Indiana, according to the supplied player statistics, so they did not become turnovers.
Which quarterback played better?
The answer depends on the measure being used.
Moore led in passing yardage by 108 yards. Mendoza led in completion percentage, passing touchdowns, interception avoidance, and reported QBR.
| Metric | Dante Moore | Fernando Mendoza |
| Completion percentage | 61.5% | 85.0% |
| Passing yards | 285 | 177 |
| Yards per attempt | 7.3 | 8.9 |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 | 5 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 0 |
| Reported QBR | 67.9 | 98.5 |
Mendoza was more effective in the context of this particular game because he combined accuracy with touchdown production and avoided turnovers. Moore’s yardage was higher, but that advantage did not translate into comparable scoring.
The lesson for readers comparing quarterback performances is straightforward: passing yards describe volume, while touchdowns, completion rate, turnovers, and down-by-down efficiency help explain how that volume affected the outcome.
Oregon Rushing Stats: Dierre Hill Jr. Leads the Ducks
Oregon’s rushing game had one outstanding individual performance but struggled to produce consistent yardage across the full group of ball carriers.
Dierre Hill Jr. led the Ducks with 86 yards on just five carries. His average of 17.2 yards per carry was the best rushing average among the principal Oregon ball carriers listed in the supplied statistics. He also recorded the game’s longest Oregon rush, a 71-yard gain.
That single run made a major contribution to his total. Hill’s remaining four carries combined for 15 yards, meaning the 71-yard play accounted for most of his rushing production. This distinction matters when evaluating whether a team had a consistently productive ground game or benefited from one explosive play.
Oregon’s leading rushers
| Player | Attempts | Yards | Average | TDs | Longest rush |
| Dierre Hill Jr. | 5 | 86 | 17.2 | 0 | 71 |
| Jay Harris | 16 | 35 | 2.2 | 1 | 7 |
| Dante Moore | 5 | -28 | -5.6 | 0 | 6 |
| Team total | 26 | 93 | 3.6 | 1 | 71 |
Dierre Hill Jr.’s explosive rushing ability
Hill demonstrated that Oregon could generate a substantial gain on the ground. His 71-yard run was evidence of explosive potential and helped him finish with 86 rushing yards despite receiving only five carries.
Yet his workload was limited compared with Harris’s 16 attempts. The figures do not establish why the carries were distributed that way, but they do show that Hill’s strong average did not become sustained team-wide rushing production.
For a more complete evaluation, rushing averages should be read alongside carry counts and longest runs. A player averaging 17.2 yards on five attempts has produced a very different statistical profile from one averaging five yards on 20 attempts.
Jay Harris’s contribution
Harris carried the ball 16 times for 35 yards, averaging 2.2 yards per attempt. He scored Oregon’s rushing touchdown on a two-yard run in the third quarter.
His touchdown mattered because it helped Oregon reach 15 points after the successful two-point conversion. Nevertheless, his modest average indicates that the Ducks found it difficult to create regular gains through his carries.
This does not establish that every run was poorly executed. Defensive penetration, blocking assignments, down and distance, and the score can all affect rushing production. It does show that Oregon’s primary rushing workload did not generate the consistent yardage the team needed.
Understanding Oregon’s team rushing total
Oregon finished with 93 rushing yards on 26 attempts, averaging 3.6 yards per carry and scoring one rushing touchdown.
The team average was pulled down by Moore’s negative rushing total. This is why individual rushing figures should not be interpreted without considering quarterback losses and the contribution of explosive runs.
Hill’s performance showed the Ducks could threaten Indiana with a big play. Their challenge was producing that kind of threat more consistently and protecting their possessions well enough to capitalize on it.
Indiana Rushing Stats: Kaelon Black Sets the Pace
Indiana gained 185 rushing yards on 40 attempts, averaging 4.6 yards per carry and scoring two rushing touchdowns. The Hoosiers’ ground game supplied a strong complement to Mendoza’s passing efficiency.
Kaelon Black led Indiana with 63 yards on 12 carries and scored twice. Roman Hemby added 53 yards on 17 carries, while Khobie Martin gained 42 yards on four attempts.
The distribution is important because Indiana did not depend entirely on one back to create its rushing production. Multiple players contributed, and Black provided the finishing ability that helped turn the team’s rushing work into points.
Indiana’s leading rushers
| Player | Attempts | Yards | Average | TDs | Longest rush |
| Kaelon Black | 12 | 63 | 5.3 | 2 | 23 |
| Roman Hemby | 17 | 53 | 3.1 | 0 | 12 |
| Khobie Martin | 4 | 42 | 10.5 | 0 | 26 |
| Fernando Mendoza | 6 | 28 | 4.7 | 0 | 21 |
| Team total | 40 | 185 | 4.6 | 2 | 26 |
Kaelon Black’s two-touchdown performance
Black’s 63 yards and two touchdowns made him Indiana’s leading rushing scorer. His first touchdown was a one-yard run in the second quarter, and his second was a 23-yard scoring run in the fourth.
These scores served different purposes. The first extended Indiana’s lead during the second-quarter surge. The later touchdown added another score after the Hoosiers had already built a substantial advantage.
Black averaged 5.3 yards per carry, a productive rate across 12 attempts. His longest run of 23 yards also showed that he could gain more than short-yardage yardage.
Roman Hemby’s workload and contribution
Hemby carried the ball 17 times for 53 yards, averaging 3.1 yards per attempt. Although his average was lower than Black’s, his workload helped Indiana maintain a consistent rushing presence.
A running back’s contribution cannot be fully assessed through yards per carry alone. Repeated carries can help manage down and distance, maintain offensive balance, and require the defense to account for the run even when an individual attempt produces a modest gain.
The supplied statistics do not identify the precise blocking or situational role behind every carry. They do establish that Hemby was a major part of Indiana’s rushing workload.
Khobie Martin’s explosive contribution
Martin recorded 42 yards on four carries, averaging 10.5 yards per attempt. His longest rush was 26 yards.
Like Hill for Oregon, Martin demonstrated the value of explosive rushing plays. However, Indiana’s overall rushing advantage was not based on one player alone. Black and Hemby added 116 yards combined, and Mendoza contributed 28 more.
The comparison between the two teams is instructive. Oregon had the more explosive individual rushing line, but Indiana produced almost twice as many team rushing yards and twice as many rushing touchdowns. Across a full game, that broader production proved more valuable than a single long run.
Receiving Stats: Oregon’s Jamari Johnson vs Indiana’s Elijah Sarratt
Receiving statistics help explain how each quarterback converted passes into meaningful offensive production. Oregon’s leading receiver by yardage was Jamari Johnson, while Indiana’s leading receiver was Elijah Sarratt.
Johnson recorded 83 receiving yards, compared with Sarratt’s 75. However, Sarratt caught two touchdown passes, while Johnson caught one. Indiana also spread its scoring across several additional receivers, helping Mendoza finish with five touchdown passes.
Oregon receiving leaders
| Receiver | Receptions | Yards | Average | TDs | Longest catch |
| Jamari Johnson | 4 | 83 | 20.8 | 1 | 39 |
| Jeremiah McClellan | 5 | 64 | 12.8 | 0 | 43 |
| Jay Harris | 3 | 32 | 10.7 | 0 | 15 |
| Kenyon Sadiq | 5 | 29 | 5.8 | 0 | 21 |
| Dakorien Moore | 2 | 28 | 14.0 | 0 | 15 |
| Dierre Hill Jr. | 2 | 25 | 12.5 | 0 | 13 |
| Malik Benson | 2 | 23 | 11.5 | 0 | 14 |
| Roger Saleapaga II | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 1 | 1 |
The table lists the receiving lines provided in the supplied statistics. The official scoring record identifies Roger Saleapaga’s late touchdown as a one-yard reception.
ESPN
+1
Jamari Johnson’s impact for Oregon
Johnson caught four passes for 83 yards, averaging 20.8 yards per reception. His longest catch covered 39 yards, and he scored Oregon’s first offensive touchdown on a 19-yard pass from Moore.
His production shows how Oregon generated downfield yardage despite losing the game by a wide margin. An average of 20.8 yards per reception is a strong indicator of the distance gained on completed catches, although it does not reveal how many targets were missed or how often a receiver was open.
Johnson also played a part in Oregon’s successful two-point conversion in the third quarter. Following Harris’s two-yard rushing touchdown, Moore connected with Johnson for the conversion, bringing Oregon to 15 points.
Jeremiah McClellan’s consistent involvement
McClellan led Oregon in receptions with five and finished with 64 receiving yards. His longest reception was 43 yards, the longest single reception recorded in the supplied Oregon receiving statistics.
His combination of catches and yardage suggests he was a regular option in the passing game. The 43-yard reception also illustrates that Oregon’s offense was capable of generating a significant gain through a receiver other than its leading yardage producer.
McClellan additionally recorded a 15-yard kick return. His contributions therefore extended beyond the standard receiving column, although the available statistics do not establish the overall impact of his special-teams role.
Indiana receiving leaders
| Receiver | Receptions | Yards | Average | TDs | Longest catch |
| Elijah Sarratt | 7 | 75 | 10.7 | 2 | 23 |
| Charlie Becker | 2 | 48 | 24.0 | 1 | 36 |
| Riley Nowakowski | 2 | 18 | 9.0 | 0 | 13 |
| Omar Cooper Jr. | 3 | 17 | 5.7 | 1 | 8 |
| E.J. Williams Jr. | 1 | 13 | 13.0 | 1 | 13 |
| D’Angelo Ponds | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 | 6 |
| Roman Hemby | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
Elijah Sarratt’s two-touchdown performance
Sarratt finished with seven catches for 75 yards and two touchdowns. He was Indiana’s leading receiver by both receptions and receiving touchdowns.
His two scoring receptions came in different game situations. The first was a two-yard touchdown near the end of the second quarter, and the second was a three-yard touchdown in the fourth quarter.
Although those catches produced only five combined receiving yards, they were worth two touchdowns. This is a useful example of why receiving yardage alone can misrepresent a player’s impact. Short catches near the goal line can be more valuable to the scoreboard than longer gains between the 20-yard lines.
Sarratt’s seven receptions also gave Mendoza a reliable target throughout the contest. His role was not limited to one scoring play or one isolated drive.
Charlie Becker’s explosive receiving average
Becker caught two passes for 48 yards, averaging 24 yards per reception. He scored on a 36-yard touchdown reception in the second quarter.
His average was higher than that of any other Indiana receiver listed in the supplied statistics. The relatively small number of catches matters, however: two receptions provide a limited sample for judging consistency across a full game.
What can be said confidently is that Becker made both catches count in yardage terms and contributed one of Indiana’s most important scoring plays. His 36-yard touchdown helped extend the Hoosiers’ advantage to 28-7.
How Indiana distributed its touchdown catches
Indiana’s five passing touchdowns were spread among four receivers. Sarratt caught two, while Becker, Cooper, and Williams each caught one.
This distribution gave the offense several ways to finish drives. It also meant the Ducks had to defend different receiving options rather than simply preventing one player from scoring.
Oregon’s receiving production was led by Johnson and McClellan, who combined for 147 yards. Indiana’s top two receivers, Sarratt and Becker, combined for 123 yards, but they accounted for three touchdown catches.
The difference illustrates an important distinction: the leading receivers in a game are not necessarily the players whose catches most directly determine the score.
Defensive Player Stats: Which Players Made the Biggest Impact?
The defensive statistics reveal a different side of the matchup. Indiana’s defense recorded three sacks, ten tackles for loss, and one interception returned for a touchdown. Oregon recorded one sack and five tackles for loss.
Both defenses registered substantial tackle totals, but Indiana produced more plays behind the line of scrimmage and created the game’s decisive defensive score.
Indiana defensive leaders
| Player | Total tackles | Solo tackles | Sacks | Tackles for loss |
| Aiden Fisher | 9 | 5 | 0 | 1.5 |
| Isaiah Jones | 6 | 5 | 0 | 1.5 |
| D’Angelo Ponds | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0.5 |
| Tyrique Tucker | 6 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Rolijah Hardy | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Daniel Ndukwe | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Mikail Kamara | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Aiden Fisher’s nine tackles
Fisher led Indiana’s listed defenders with nine total tackles, including five solo tackles and 1.5 tackles for loss.
Tackles for loss are particularly useful when assessing defensive disruption. They identify plays in which the defense stops the ball carrier behind the line of scrimmage, excluding sacks from the ordinary rushing play category where relevant statistical conventions apply.
Fisher’s figures indicate that his contribution included more than finishing tackles after positive gains. Still, tackle totals alone cannot establish the quality of every assignment or the number of plays a defender influenced without receiving statistical credit.
Daniel Ndukwe’s two sacks
Ndukwe recorded three total tackles, all solo, alongside two sacks and two tackles for loss. His sack total was the highest individual figure listed for Indiana.
Sacks can affect an offense in several ways. They may push a team into a difficult passing situation, eliminate a potential rushing gain, or force a longer third-down attempt. Repeated pressure can also influence quarterback decisions, although the available box score does not quantify every pressured throw.
Indiana finished with three team sacks, so Ndukwe accounted for two of them. His contribution was an important component of the defense’s ability to disrupt Oregon’s offensive rhythm.
D’Angelo Ponds’ game-changing interception
Ponds delivered one of the defining plays of the semifinal. He intercepted Moore and returned the ball 25 yards for a touchdown just 11 seconds into the game, with the scoring play recorded at 14:49 of the first quarter.
That defensive touchdown immediately gave Indiana a 7-0 lead. Rather than requiring the offense to complete a long drive, the Hoosiers scored directly from a defensive play.
Ponds finished with six tackles, four solo tackles, half a tackle for loss, and the interception returned for a score. His defensive touchdown was especially valuable because it created an early lead and put immediate pressure on Oregon to respond.
The play also demonstrates why turnovers must be treated as more than a single entry in a box score. An interception returned for a touchdown both removes an offensive possession and adds points to the opponent’s total.
Oregon defensive leaders
| Player | Total tackles | Solo tackles | Sacks | Tackles for loss |
| Bryce Boettcher | 11 | 7 | 0 | 1 |
| Dillon Thieneman | 9 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Aaron Flowers | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Nasir Wyatt | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Ashton Porter | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| James Ferguson-Reynolds | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Bryce Boettcher’s team-leading tackle total
Boettcher recorded 11 total tackles, including seven solo tackles, one tackle for loss, and one pass defended. He led the listed Oregon defenders in total tackles.
A high tackle total can reflect involvement in many defensive plays, but it does not automatically mean the defense performed well overall. Defenders can accumulate tackles when an opponent completes passes or gains yards, too.
Boettcher’s statistics show that he was frequently involved in stopping Indiana’s offense. Yet the Hoosiers still scored 56 points, demonstrating that individual defensive activity and team-level defensive success are separate measures.
Nasir Wyatt’s pass-rushing contribution
Wyatt recorded one sack and two tackles for loss on two total tackles. He supplied Oregon’s only sack listed in the team statistics.
His line suggests that his limited number of credited tackles included two significant negative-yardage plays. Even so, Oregon’s defense did not generate enough disruption overall to prevent Indiana from scoring repeatedly.
Indiana’s three sacks and ten tackles for loss compared with Oregon’s one sack and five tackles for loss provide a clearer team-level contrast than any single defender’s tackle count.
Turnovers and Special Teams: The Details Behind the Score
Turnovers were among the most important differences between the teams. Indiana recorded zero turnovers, while Oregon recorded three. Moore was charged with two lost fumbles, and his interception was returned for a touchdown by Ponds.
These mistakes created an especially difficult situation for Oregon because Indiana did not need to win every offensive possession to extend its lead. The interception produced an immediate score, while the lost fumbles gave the Hoosiers additional opportunities to retain or regain control.
Fumbles and interceptions
| Turnover category | Oregon | Indiana |
| Fumbles | 3 | 2 |
| Fumbles lost | 2 | 0 |
| Interceptions thrown | 1 | 0 |
| Total turnovers | 3 | 0 |
| Interception return touchdowns | 0 | 1 |
Indiana’s defensive performance was not based solely on sacks or tackles. Its ability to take the ball away without giving it back was central to the outcome.
Oregon’s three turnovers also help explain why a team with 285 passing yards and 362 total yards could lose by 34 points. Yardage measures how much ground a team gains, while turnovers measure how often it gives the opponent additional possession opportunities.
Kicking statistics
| Kicking category | Oregon | Indiana |
| Field goals made | 0 | 0 |
| Field goals attempted | 1 | 0 |
| Extra points made | 2 | 8 |
| Extra points attempted | 2 | 8 |
| Kicking points | 2 | 8 |
Oregon kicker Atticus Sappington converted both extra-point attempts but missed his only field-goal attempt. Indiana kicker Nico Radicic converted all eight extra points and did not attempt a field goal.
Indiana’s eight extra points reflected the team’s eight touchdowns. The Hoosiers did not need a field goal because they repeatedly finished possessions with touchdowns.
Punting and returns
Oregon punter James Ferguson-Reynolds recorded three punts for 96 yards, averaging 32 yards per punt. His longest punt was 50 yards, and one punt finished inside the 20-yard line.
Indiana punter Mitch McCarthy also recorded three punts, but his total was 142 yards, averaging 47.3 yards per punt. Two punts landed inside the 20-yard line, and his longest punt covered 49 yards.
| Special-teams category | Oregon | Indiana |
| Punts | 3 | 3 |
| Total punt yards | 96 | 142 |
| Average punt distance | 32.0 | 47.3 |
| Punts inside the 20 | 1 | 2 |
| Punt return yards | 11 | 23 |
| Kick return yards | 15 | 0 |
The punting figures favor Indiana in distance and in punts inside the 20. However, averages alone do not reveal the full quality of each punt because field position, hang time, coverage, and the circumstances of the kick also matter.
Special teams were not the main reason for the 56-22 result. The larger explanation remains Indiana’s efficient scoring, superior rushing production, defensive touchdown, and turnover advantage.
How Indiana Won the Peach Bowl Semifinal
The final score can be explained through five connected factors: the early defensive touchdown, Mendoza’s passing efficiency, Indiana’s rushing advantage, Oregon’s turnovers, and the difference in third-down conversions.
1. Indiana scored before Oregon’s offense could establish control
Ponds’ interception return touchdown gave Indiana an immediate 7-0 lead. Oregon subsequently tied the score at 7-7 with Johnson’s receiving touchdown, but Indiana answered with another scoring drive.
The early interception mattered for two reasons. It placed Indiana ahead on the scoreboard, and it showed Oregon that a mistake could become a direct scoring opportunity for the Hoosiers.
A defensive touchdown can also change the decisions a trailing team makes. As the deficit grows, an offense may need to attempt more aggressive passes or prioritize quicker scoring opportunities. That can increase the risks of turnovers and unsuccessful drives.
The box score does not establish that every later Oregon decision was caused by the early interception. It does show that Indiana took the first major opportunity and converted it into seven points.
2. The second quarter created a decisive separation
Indiana entered halftime with a 35-7 lead. The Hoosiers scored three touchdowns in the second quarter, while Oregon failed to score.
The sequence included Black’s one-yard rushing touchdown, Becker’s 36-yard reception, and Sarratt’s two-yard touchdown catch. These scores came through different offensive methods, demonstrating that Indiana could finish short-yardage situations and create explosive passing plays.
Oregon faced a 28-point deficit at halftime. That made the second half a much more difficult task because the Ducks needed several scoring possessions while simultaneously preventing Indiana from adding points.
3. Mendoza converted opportunities into touchdowns
Mendoza’s five touchdown passes were the clearest individual statistical advantage in the game.
He completed 85% of his passes and did not throw an interception. His 177 yards were lower than Moore’s total, but his passing game produced five touchdowns compared with Oregon’s two.
The key distinction is efficiency in the scoring area. Indiana did not require its quarterback to throw for an extraordinary number of yards because the offense repeatedly converted its possessions into touchdowns.
4. Indiana controlled the ground game
Indiana’s 185 rushing yards exceeded Oregon’s 93 by 92 yards. The Hoosiers also recorded two rushing touchdowns, compared with one for the Ducks.
This advantage gave Indiana a more balanced offense. Mendoza could punish Oregon through the air while Black, Hemby, Martin, and Mendoza contributed on the ground.
Oregon’s long run from Hill demonstrated the Ducks’ ability to create explosive plays, but the overall rushing totals favored Indiana. The difference was sustained team production rather than the absence of any Oregon rushing success.
5. Ball security amplified Indiana’s advantage
Oregon’s three turnovers and Indiana’s zero turnovers represent one of the most important contrasts in the box score.
A turnover can end a promising drive, give an opponent possession in favorable field position, or directly produce a defensive score. Ponds’ interception return demonstrated the last possibility.
Indiana’s ability to protect the ball meant the Hoosiers could capitalize on their offensive opportunities without surrendering possessions through interceptions or lost fumbles.
The combination of turnovers and scoring efficiency explains much of the gap between the teams’ similar total-yardage figures.
What the Team Statistics Reveal About Offensive Efficiency
The game is a useful example of why football performance should be evaluated through several measures rather than a single headline statistic.
Indiana gained 378 total yards, while Oregon gained 362. The difference was only 16 yards. Yet Indiana scored 34 more points.
That contrast becomes easier to understand when the supporting statistics are considered together.
Key statistical comparisons
Total yards
Indiana 378 · Oregon 362
Indiana’s total-yardage advantage was modest.
Rushing yards
Indiana 185 · Oregon 93
Indiana produced almost twice Oregon’s rushing yardage.
Passing touchdowns
Indiana 5 · Oregon 2
Indiana scored three more passing touchdowns.
Turnovers
Oregon 3 · Indiana 0
Every recorded turnover belonged to Oregon.
Figures are based on the supplied box score and official ESPN team statistics.
ESPN
+1
Third-down efficiency and possession
Indiana converted 11 of 14 third downs, a rate of approximately 78.6%. Oregon converted eight of 13, or approximately 61.5%.
Both teams converted a majority of their third-down attempts, but Indiana was more successful. The Hoosiers’ higher rate helped them sustain drives and maintain opportunities to score.
Indiana also held the ball for 31 minutes and 13 seconds, compared with Oregon’s 28 minutes and 47 seconds. The difference was two minutes and 26 seconds.
Possession time alone does not determine a winner. A team can hold the ball for a long period without scoring, while another can score quickly. In this game, however, Indiana combined a slight possession advantage with more third-down conversions, more rushing yards, and substantially more touchdowns.
Why total yards can be misleading
Total yards combine passing and rushing production, but they do not assign a value to every type of play. A 40-yard gain that ends in a fumble does not have the same practical value as a 40-yard gain that leads to a touchdown.
Similarly, passing yards gained between the 20-yard lines do not necessarily produce the same scoreboard impact as a short touchdown pass near the goal line.
The statistics from this semifinal demonstrate that distinction. Oregon had more passing yards, but Indiana scored more often and protected its possessions.
Readers assessing future matchups can use a similar method: compare total yards, scoring efficiency, third-down conversions, turnovers, rushing production, and defensive scoring plays before drawing conclusions from passing yardage alone.
Historical Significance of the Result
The semifinal was significant because Indiana continued an unbeaten season with a dominant performance against a highly successful Oregon team. The supplied game data lists Indiana at 15-0 entering the game and Oregon at 13-1 before the loss.
After the 56-22 victory, Indiana advanced from the Peach Bowl semifinal. Its 16-0 record reflected the result of the game, while Oregon’s 13-2 record reflected its second defeat of the season.
The margin also demonstrated how a playoff game can be decided through several different phases. Indiana received a defensive touchdown, five touchdown passes, two rushing touchdowns, and a clean turnover record. Oregon’s passing yardage was respectable, but its offense could not match Indiana’s scoring output.
For anyone reviewing the matchup in the context of college football postseason history, the most meaningful point is not simply the final margin. It is how Indiana created that margin through a combination of offensive execution and defensive disruption.
Official Box Score and Statistical Reference
For readers who want to verify individual player totals, scoring plays, and team statistics, the most useful reference is the official ESPN box score for the Indiana Hoosiers vs Oregon Ducks Peach Bowl semifinal.
The box score is especially helpful for distinguishing player statistics from team totals. For example, Moore’s individual passing line lists 39 attempts, while Oregon’s team passing total includes an additional attempt. Using the team and player tables together helps prevent small discrepancies from being mistaken for errors.
The scoring summary also confirms the order of the touchdowns and shows why Indiana’s second-quarter surge was so important. Reviewing the scoring sequence alongside the statistical totals provides a more complete understanding of the game than reading the final score alone.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of Oregon vs Indiana in the Peach Bowl semifinal?
Indiana defeated Oregon 56-22 in the College Football Playoff semifinal at the Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl on January 10, 2026. Indiana led 35-7 at halftime and maintained its advantage throughout the second half.
2. Who was the best quarterback in the game?
Fernando Mendoza delivered the more efficient performance. He completed 17 of 20 passes for 177 yards and five touchdowns without an interception. Dante Moore threw for 285 yards and two touchdowns but also recorded one interception and two lost fumbles.
3. Which player recorded the most rushing yards?
Dierre Hill Jr. led Oregon with 86 rushing yards on five carries, including a 71-yard run. Indiana’s leading rusher was Kaelon Black, who gained 63 yards on 12 carries and scored two rushing touchdowns.
4. Who led the game in receiving yards?
Jamari Johnson led Oregon with 83 receiving yards on four catches. Elijah Sarratt led Indiana with 75 yards on seven receptions and caught two touchdown passes.
5. How did Indiana’s defense affect the result?
Indiana recorded three sacks, ten tackles for loss, and one interception returned for a 25-yard touchdown by D’Angelo Ponds. The Hoosiers also finished without a turnover, while Oregon committed three.
6. Why did Oregon lose despite gaining more passing yards?
Oregon’s 285 passing yards exceeded Indiana’s 177, but the Ducks produced fewer passing touchdowns, gained fewer rushing yards, and committed three turnovers. Indiana’s five passing touchdowns, two rushing touchdowns, and defensive touchdown made its overall performance much more productive on the scoreboard.
Conclusion
The Oregon Ducks Football vs Indiana Hoosiers Football Match Player Stats reveal how Indiana turned an evenly matched total-yardage contest into a decisive 56-22 victory. Although Oregon gained more passing yards, the Hoosiers were more efficient in the passing game, more productive on the ground, and more careful with possession.
Fernando Mendoza’s five touchdown passes were the standout offensive performance. Elijah Sarratt provided two touchdown receptions, Kaelon Black scored twice on the ground, and D’Angelo Ponds changed the game with his opening interception return for a touchdown.
Oregon also had notable individual performances. Dante Moore threw for 285 yards, Jamari Johnson gained 83 receiving yards, and Dierre Hill Jr. produced 86 rushing yards, including a 71-yard run. Those contributions demonstrated the Ducks’ offensive potential, but they were not enough to overcome the turnover deficit and Indiana’s scoring efficiency.
Ultimately, the statistical difference came down to execution. Indiana combined 378 total yards with seven offensive touchdowns, a defensive touchdown, and zero turnovers. Oregon finished with 362 total yards but could not match the Hoosiers’ ability to turn opportunities into points. The result shows why quarterback efficiency, rushing balance, defensive takeaways, and ball security are essential measures when evaluating a major college football matchup.
