Michigan State's 47-10 loss to the Indiana Hoosiers on Saturday played out in a very similar manner to the loss to Ohio State back in Week Five. The Spartans got off to a surprisingly good start and looked like they might be able to trade blows and hang with a talented opponent.

But then, at some point in the second quarter, the wheels came off, momentum was lost, and things started to snowball. By the end of the game, the Spartans were buried and fans left Spartan Stadium feeling cold.

While I was disappointed by the outcome, I was not surprised. Indiana proved that it is a legitimate top-10 team. But I was surprised by the snowballing collection of negative emotions from Spartan fans online following the loss. It seems a vocal sector of the fan base now thinks the sky is falling.

In times like these, it is important to view the results of the season in their proper perspective. One of the reasons that I like to dive so far in the numbers is that they provide a truly unbiased reality check on what we are seeing on the field.

At the beginning of the year, the preseason rankings had the Spartans ranked in the mid-60s of the FBS, which is essentially where they sit today (No. 61 according to my computer).

Back then, my analysis predicted an expected win total of 4.85 with just a 36% chance to make a bowl game. Furthermore, that was based on a schedule that my computer thought was slightly easier than the one the Spartans are currently playing by about half-a-win. In August, Michigan State's expected win total through nine games was just 3.5 wins.

Believe it or not, Michigan State is still slightly ahead of schedule. It may not feel that way, but that is what the unemotional, snow-cold numbers say.

Yes, it is frustrating to get blown out by the elite teams in the conference, and it is more frustrating that one of those teams in a perineal doormat that was picked as the weakest team in the Big Ten back in the summer. It is also frustrating that the Spartans let two very winnable games get away in Boston and in Ann Arbor.

But what I see is a well-coached team that has potential, but that lacks depth, experience and consistent execution. The math confirms that there is no reason to panic.

So while winter is coming soon in the the upper Midwest, the Michigan State football program is not rolling out of control. Everybody simply needs to chill out.

Now let's cool off a bit and check in on the picks that I made in last week's Bad Betting Advice article, starting with the overview summary shown below in Figure 1.

More information about how to read this figure can be found in Week One's edition of Against All Odds.

This week, 10 teams overachieved by beating the spread by more than 14 points including Central Florida, Iowa, Mississippi, Southern Methodist, North Carolina State, North Carolina and Indiana. No teams underachieved, yet still won.

I count a total of 20 upsets out of just 47 games, which is extraordinary. This is two standard deviations higher than expected, based on the pre-week simulation. Table 1 below summarizes those upsets and compares them to the picks made last week.

This week's biggest upsets were Texas Tech's win over Iowa State (-13.5) and Hawaii's win over Fresno State (-13.5). Other notable upsets include Louisville over Clemson (-11), UCLA over Nebraska (-7.5), Vanderbilt over Auburn (-7), Syracuse over Virginia Tech (-3.5), and South Carolina over Texas A&M (-3).

The fact that all 20 upsets occurred in games with less than a 14-point spread is also incredible. Over half of the games that opened with spreads under two touchdowns ended in an upset.

My computer was stone-cold accurate on upset picks, going a cool 6-1 (86%), which brings the year-to-date performance to 33-41 (45%). The FPI also did well, going 3-1 (75%), which brings the year-to-date total up to 20-22 (48%).

Table 2 below gives the results of the computers' picks against the opening spread.

The performance of the my computer against the spread leaves me a bit cold. It went just 2-5 (29%) in suggested bets and 22-26 (52%) overall. This brings the year-to-date performances to an even 29-29 (50%) and 263-245 (52%), respectively.

My curated set of FPI picks went 1-0 for the week by correctly, and coldly, picking Indiana to cover the spread at Michigan State. The full set of FPI picks went 25-23 (52%). This brings the year-to-date performance for the FPI to 21-16 (57%) and 263-245 (52%), respectively. My algorithm is literally tied in performance with the FPI overall against the spread after 10 weeks and over 500 games.

Table 3 below gives the results of the point-total (over/under) bet predictions for Week 10.

My lock picks were 2-1 (67%), while the full collection of suggested point-total bets went 3-1 (75%). This brings the year-to-date totals to 16-18 (47%) for the locks, but 88-61 (59%) for the suggested bets.

Following the results of Week 10, I have re-run the full season Monte Carlo simulation using the updated power rankings, including the current uncertainty in those rankings, which provides the opportunity to update the season odds for each team. Table 4 below gives the update for the Big Ten Conference and Table 5 shows the updated Big Ten win distribution matrix.

Note that all the rankings listed next to each team refer to my computer's power rankings and not the national polls.