UCLA Bruins vs Indiana Hoosiers Football Match Player Stats: Detailed Breakdown

The transition of the UCLA Bruins into the Big Ten Conference has brought about several high-stakes matchups, but few have been as statistically lopsided as their recent encounters with the Indiana Hoosiers. As we look back at the historical data from the 2024 and 2025 seasons, the player stats reveal a narrative of offensive dominance from Bloomington and a struggling offensive identity for the Bruins. Analyzing these numbers provides a clear picture of where these programs stand in the current collegiate landscape.

The 2025 Statistical Fallout: A Closer Look at the Numbers

The most recent meeting in October 2025 at Memorial Stadium in Bloomington ended in a 56-6 rout in favor of the Hoosiers. For fans and analysts looking at the UCLA Bruins football vs Indiana Hoosiers football match player stats, the disparity in efficiency is the first thing that jumps off the page.

Quarterback Efficiency and Passing Metrics

In the 2025 contest, the quarterback battle was a study in contrasts. Indiana’s Fernando Mendoza operated with surgical precision, while UCLA’s Nico Iamaleava found himself under constant duress.

Indiana Passing Stats:

• Fernando Mendoza: 15-of-22 completions, 168 passing yards, 3 touchdowns, and 1 interception.
• Alberto Mendoza: 4-yard rushing touchdown (contributing to the scoring despite limited passing volume).

Fernando Mendoza’s ability to maintain a 68.2% completion rate allowed the Hoosiers to stay ahead of the chains. His touchdown-to-interception ratio in this specific game highlighted a disciplined approach to the red zone, where he frequently found his primary targets in tight windows.

UCLA Passing Stats:

• Nico Iamaleava: 13-of-27 completions, 113 passing yards, 0 touchdowns, and 2 interceptions.

Iamaleava’s stats reflect the immense pressure applied by the Indiana defensive front. Averaging only 4.2 yards per attempt, the Bruins' passing game was essentially neutralized. The two interceptions were pivotal; one was a pick-six by Indiana’s Aiden Fisher just 57 seconds into the game, which set the statistical tone for the remainder of the afternoon.

Rushing Production and Ground Dominance

The ground game stats further illustrate Indiana's physical dominance at the line of scrimmage. The Hoosiers utilized a multi-back system that kept the UCLA defense off balance.

Indiana Rushing Leaders:

• Roman Hemby: 17 carries, 81 yards, 2 touchdowns. (4.8 yards per carry)
• Kaelon Black: 10 carries, 70 yards. (7.0 yards per carry)
• Fernando Mendoza: 1 rushing touchdown.
• Alberto Mendoza: 1 rushing touchdown.

Indiana totaled over 200 yards on the ground, consistently finding lanes between the tackles. Roman Hemby’s performance was particularly noteworthy for his efficiency in short-yardage situations, scoring twice from inside the five-yard line.

UCLA Rushing Leaders:

• Anthony Frias II: 6 carries, 31 yards. (5.2 yards per carry)
• Nico Iamaleava: 7 carries, 28 yards.
• Jalen Berger: 5 carries, 17 yards.
• Javian Thomas: 7 carries, 12 yards.

While Anthony Frias II showed flashes of productivity, the lack of volume was a direct result of the Bruins trailing early. When a team falls behind by three scores in the first half, the rushing statistics almost always suffer as the play-calling shifts toward a desperate passing attack.

Receiving Totals and Target Distribution

The receiving stats from the 2025 game show that Indiana’s wideouts were much more effective at creating separation and gaining yards after the catch.

Indiana Receiving Leaders:

• E.J. Williams Jr.: 5 receptions, 109 yards, 2 touchdowns. (21.8 yards per catch)
• Elijah Sarratt: 1 touchdown reception.

E.J. Williams Jr. was the statistical star of the game, including a 62-yard touchdown reception that blew the game open. His ability to turn short completions into massive gains is reflected in his high average per catch.

UCLA Receiving Leaders:

• Rico Flores Jr.: 4 receptions, 50 yards.
• M. Matthews: 1 reception, 18 yards.
• Kwazi Gilmer: 1 reception, 13 yards.

Rico Flores Jr. was the only reliable target for Iamaleava, accounting for nearly half of the team’s total passing yardage. The lack of explosive plays from the receiving corps was a major factor in UCLA’s inability to find the end zone.

Retrospective: The 2024 Matchup at the Rose Bowl

To understand the trajectory of these player stats, we must also look at the September 2024 meeting, which served as UCLA's inaugural Big Ten game. Indiana won that contest 42-13, and the statistical trends were remarkably similar to the 2025 blowout.

Quarterback Performance in 2024

In 2024, the primary signal-callers were Kurtis Rourke for Indiana and Ethan Garbers for UCLA.

Kurtis Rourke (Indiana):

• 25-of-33 completions, 307 yards, 4 touchdowns, 0 interceptions.
• In-game completion percentage: 75.8%.
• Third-down passing: 9-of-9 for 128 yards.

Rourke’s performance was arguably one of the most efficient in Indiana history. His 193.9 passer rating in this game highlighted a mastery of the Hoosiers' offensive scheme, especially on crucial third downs where he remained perfect.

Ethan Garbers (UCLA):

• 14-of-23 completions, 137 yards, 0 touchdowns, 1 interception, 1 fumble lost.
• Completion percentage: 60.9%.

Garbers struggled with turnovers, including a fumble on the Bruins' opening drive that led to a short field for Indiana. The statistical deficit in the passing game (307 yards vs 137 yards) was the primary driver of the final score.

Ground Game and Special Teams (2024)

Indiana Rushing:

• Justice Ellison: 10 carries, 47 yards, 1 touchdown.
• Ty Son Lawton: 10 carries, 33 yards.
• Elijah Green: 3 carries, 15 yards, 1 touchdown.

UCLA Rushing:

• T.J. Harden: 12 carries, 48 yards, 1 touchdown.
• Ethan Garbers: 7 carries, 21 yards.

Harden provided the only touchdown for the Bruins in the 2024 game, a one-yard plunge that temporarily narrowed the gap to 21-7. However, the stats show that UCLA could not sustain the rushing attack as the Hoosiers’ defense tightened in the second half.

Kicking Stats:

• Mateen Bhaghani (UCLA): Perfect in both the 2024 and 2025 games. In 2024, he was 2-for-2 on field goals (28 and 34 yards). In 2025, he was again 2-for-2 (44 and 30 yards).
• Nicolas Radicic (Indiana): 6-for-6 on extra points in 2024, demonstrating the frequency of Indiana's scoring drives.

Comparative Analysis of Team-Wide Player Stats

When we aggregate the player stats from both the 2024 and 2025 matchups, several key data points emerge that define the rivalry's recent history.

The Impact of Turnovers on Individual Stats

The individual player stats for UCLA's quarterbacks have been severely hampered by turnovers. Between Garbers and Iamaleava, the Bruins threw three interceptions and lost multiple fumbles in these two games. These turnovers often occurred in UCLA territory, giving Indiana’s offensive players shorter fields to work with and boosting their scoring stats without requiring long, sustained drives.

Conversely, Indiana's defensive players have seen their stats bolstered by these matchups. Aiden Fisher and Mikail Kamara have been statistical stalwarts. In the 2025 game, Fisher’s interception return for a touchdown was the defensive highlight, while Kamara’s ability to generate pressure (recording a recovery in 2024 and frequent hurries in 2025) has consistently disrupted the Bruins' rhythm.

Third-Down Efficiency: The Hidden Stat

A critical component of the player stats that often goes overlooked is the third-down conversion rate. In the 2024 game, Kurtis Rourke was a perfect 9-for-9 on third downs. This statistical anomaly explains why Indiana was able to control the clock (holding the ball for over 31 minutes) and keep the UCLA defense on the field.

In the 2025 game, the trend continued with Indiana’s Fernando Mendoza effectively utilizing E.J. Williams Jr. on crossing routes to move the chains. The player stats show that Indiana’s wide receivers averaged 14.5 yards per reception across both games, indicating that they weren't just catching the ball—they were catching it past the first-down marker.

Defensive Player Contributions

While offensive stats usually dominate the headlines, the defensive player stats for these matchups reveal why the scores were so lopsided.

Indiana Defensive Highlights (2025):

• Aiden Fisher: 1 interception (TD), several tackles before leaving with a minor injury.
• Team Performance: Held UCLA to just 201 total yards and a mere 3.8 yards per play.

UCLA Defensive Highlights (2025):

• JonJon Vaughns: 13 total tackles (5 solo, 8 assisted). Vaughns was statistically the most active defender for the Bruins, essentially playing a "cleanup" role as Indiana's runners reached the second level of the defense.
• Scooter Jackson: 1 interception. Jackson has been a bright spot in the secondary, recording interceptions in consecutive games, including the 2025 meeting with Indiana.
• Key Lawrence: 1 interception.

Despite the interceptions by Jackson and Lawrence in 2025, the overall defensive stats for UCLA were overwhelmed by the volume of Indiana’s scoring. The Bruins’ defense faced 69 plays in 2024 and a similar load in 2025, leading to fatigue and late-game statistical inflation for Indiana’s reserve players like Alberto Mendoza and Elijah Green.

Historical Context and Coaching Influence

The shift in stats also reflects coaching changes. In 2024, UCLA was led by Deshaun Foster in his first year, while 2025 saw a mid-season transition to Tim Skipper. On the other side, Curt Cignetti’s tenure at Indiana has been marked by immediate statistical improvement across all categories.

Cignetti’s offensive scheme has maximized the efficiency of his quarterbacks. Whether it was Rourke in 2024 or Mendoza in 2025, the Indiana QBs have combined for a completion percentage of over 72% against the Bruins. This is a staggering statistic that indicates a significant schematic advantage in identifying and attacking weaknesses in the UCLA secondary.

What the Stats Suggest for Future Matchups

Looking forward, the player stats from these two games suggest a few necessary adjustments for the Bruins if they hope to narrow the gap:

1. Quarterback Protection: The stats show that when UCLA quarterbacks have time, their completion percentage is respectable (around 60%). However, under pressure, that number drops significantly, and the interception rate climbs. Improving the offensive line’s statistical output in "pockets kept clean" is paramount.
2. Explosive Play Deficiency: Indiana has produced five plays of over 40 yards in these two games. UCLA has produced zero. The receiving stats for the Bruins are dominated by short-to-intermediate routes, which allows the Hoosiers' defense to play aggressively near the line of scrimmage.
3. Red Zone Efficiency: Indiana has been nearly perfect in the red zone (going 5-for-5 in 2024). UCLA’s stats show a reliance on field goals from Mateen Bhaghani. Converting those 3-point drives into 7-point drives is the only way to compete with a high-scoring Indiana offense.

Summary of Key Individual Performances

To wrap up the statistical review, here are the standout performers from the UCLA vs. Indiana series over the last two seasons:

• Total Passing Leader: Kurtis Rourke (IND) - 307 yards (single game).
• Total Rushing Leader: Roman Hemby (IND) - 81 yards (single game).
• Total Receiving Leader: E.J. Williams Jr. (IND) - 109 yards (single game).
• Defensive Leader: JonJon Vaughns (UCLA) - 13 tackles (single game).
• Kicking Leader: Mateen Bhaghani (UCLA) - 4-for-4 Field Goals (combined).

The player stats from the UCLA Bruins vs. Indiana Hoosiers matchups provide a clear roadmap of the current power dynamics in the Big Ten. While Indiana has utilized a high-efficiency passing game and a balanced rushing attack to dominate the scoreboard, UCLA remains in a rebuilding phase, searching for the statistical consistency needed to challenge the conference's elite. As the 2026 season approaches, these numbers will serve as the benchmark for both programs.