D3-CFB Game Preview:  Wheaton (IL) Thunder (12-2) vs. DePauw Tigers (10-1)

0
60

The third round of the 2025 NCAA Division III football playoffs brings an intriguing Midwest showdown between the No. 6-seeded Wheaton (IL) Thunder (12-1, CCIW champions) and the surging DePauw Tigers (10-1, NCAC champions). Set for Saturday, December 6, 2025, at 12:00 PM CT, this matchup at Wheaton’s home field pits a high-octane offensive powerhouse against a battle-tested underdog coming off a gritty road upset. Both teams earned byes in the first round and advanced via dominant second-round wins, but Wheaton’s home-field edge and explosive attack make them the team to beat. The winner punches a ticket to the quarterfinals, eyeing a potential path to the Stagg Bowl in Allison, IA, on December 20.

Venue and Game Details

Location: Memorial Field, Wheaton, Illinois (Capacity: 4,500). This intimate, grass-surface venue on the Wheaton College campus has been a fortress for the Thunder, who posted a perfect 6-0 home record this season, outscoring opponents 280-98 (46.7-16.3 PPG). Built in 1893 and renovated in 2018, it features a scenic backdrop with campus buildings and is known for its passionate student section, the “Thunder Zone,” which creates a wall of noise despite the smaller size.

Kickoff: 12:00 PM CT (1:00 PM ET).

Broadcast/Stream: Live on ESPN+ with local radio on WETN 88.1 FM (Wheaton) and WGRE 91.5 FM (DePauw). Pre-game analysis begins at 11:00 AM CT on both networks.

Weather Forecast

Early December in suburban Chicago often means brisk, variable conditions, and models for Wheaton point to a chilly but playable afternoon favoring a run-heavy game. Based on long-range forecasts from AccuWeather and the National Weather Service (as of December 1, 2025):

High: 32°F (0°C).

Low: 22°F (-6°C).

Conditions: Partly cloudy with light winds from the north at 8-12 mph. Chance of precipitation: 20% (light flurries possible late, but no accumulation expected). Feels-like temps around 20°F could affect ball handling and deep passes, but dry grass should prevent major footing issues. Bundle up—Thunder fans’ blue-and-gold scarves will be out in force.

Injury Report

Both squads are largely intact heading into the third round, with no season-ending injuries reported post-second round. Updates from team sites and midweek press conferences (as of December 1, 2025):

Wheaton (IL) Thunder:

Out: None significant; the team avoided major hits in their 76-14 rout of Crown.

Questionable: LB Jake Goldberg (shoulder; limited in Tuesday’s practice but optimistic per coach Quincy Wright).

Probable: All key starters, including QB Ryan Beyers (full participation after a minor wrist wrap last week).

DePauw Tigers:

Out: None; the defense that limited Wisconsin-Whitewater to 23 points is fully operational.

Questionable: WR Robby Ballentine (ankle tweak from the second-round pick-six recovery; day-to-day but practiced Wednesday).

Probable: QB Scott Ballentine (cleared after throwing 2 TDs in snowy conditions vs. Whitewater) and RB Caden Whitehead (full go post-63-yard rushing effort). Coaches Wright (Wheaton) and Chris Dietz (DePauw) both highlighted depth as a strength, with backups proving reliable in recent blowouts.

Key Player Matchups

Wheaton’s explosive passing game (top-5 nationally at 285 yds/game) will test DePauw’s opportunistic secondary, while the Tigers’ balanced attack seeks to exploit gaps in the Thunder’s stout front seven. Spotlight battles:

MatchupWheaton PlayerDePauw PlayerWhy It Matters
QB vs. Pass RushRyan Beyers (Sr., QB): 2,450 pass yds, 28 TDs, 65% comp.; 450 rush yds, 5 TDsChris Green (So., DE): 12 sacks, 18 TFL, 45 tacklesBeyers’ quick release and mobility (4 TD runs in playoffs) vs. Green’s league-leading pressure (2.5 sacks in Monon Bell). If Green disrupts, DePauw could force turnovers (Tigers +7 TO margin).
RB vs. Front SevenJalen Blackmon (Jr., RB): 1,150 rush yds, 14 TDs on 165 carries (7.0 YPC)Holt Helderman (Jr., LB): 98 tackles, 9 TFL, 2 INTsBlackmon’s vision and speed (two 150+ yd games) tests Helderman’s run fits. DePauw allows 112 rush yds/game but bent vs. Whitewater’s ground game.
WR vs. SecondaryTrey Cholod (So., WR): 62 rec., 950 yds, 11 TDsSammy Miranda (Sr., CB): 4 INTs, 35 tackles, 2 PBUsCholod’s deep-threat ability (three 100+ yd games) vs. Miranda’s coverage skills (top-10 NCAC in passes defended). Wheaton’s air raid could stretch DePauw’s zone.
TE vs. LinebackerMax Snygg (Jr., TE): 35 rec., 520 yds, 6 TDsCaden Whitehead (So., LB/RB hybrid): 112 tackles, 7 TFLSnygg’s mismatch in the seam vs. Whitehead’s versatility (63 rush yds in playoffs). DePauw’s hybrid D ranks top-15 in TE coverage efficiency.

These clashes highlight Wheaton’s offensive versatility (42.1 PPG) against DePauw’s gritty defense (17.2 PPG allowed).

Recent Team Forms

Wheaton rides a 12-game win streak into the playoffs, while DePauw has won 10 straight after an early stumble, showcasing resilience in adverse conditions.

Wheaton (IL) Thunder: Dominant in the CCIW (7-0), the Thunder outscored foes 504-198 (42.1-16.5 PPG), with a playoff explosion underscoring their ceiling. Recent highlights:

Nov. 29 (2nd Rd): 76-14 W vs. Crown—Beyers: 320 pass yds/4 TDs; Blackmon: 140 rush yds/2 TDs; defense forced 5 TOs.

Nov. 15 (Reg. Finale): 45-21 W vs. North Central—Snapped rival’s streak with 400+ total yds.

Oct. 25: 38-17 W at Carthage—Bounced back from lone loss (to Mount Union) with balanced attack. Form: WWWWW (last 5); +25.6 point differential; 9-1 in one-score games.

DePauw Tigers: Undefeated in NCAC play (8-0) after a Week 2 loss to Susquehanna, the Tigers score 31.8 PPG while allowing 17.2, peaking with back-to-back road playoff wins. Recent surge:

Nov. 29 (2nd Rd): 26-23 W at #12 Wisconsin-Whitewater—Ballentine: 182 pass yds/2 TDs in snow; defense sealed with late INT.

Nov. 15 (Reg. Finale): 41-20 W vs. Wabash (Monon Bell)—Ballentine: 328 yds/4 TDs; held foes to 32 rush yds.

Nov. 1: 35-14 W at Wittenberg—Rushed for 180 yds in rain, showing adaptability.

Form: WWWWW (last 5); +14.6 point differential; 7-0 as underdogs.

Conference vs. Conference: CCIW vs. NCAC

This game contrasts the run-first, physical grind of the College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin (CCIW) with the North Coast Athletic Conference’s (NCAC) balanced, adaptive style. The CCIW, ranked No. 3 nationally in D3 rankings, produced three playoff teams this year (Wheaton, North Central, #18 North Park) and emphasizes trench warfare—Wheaton’s 220 rush yds/game and top-10 scoring defense (16.5 PPG allowed) embody this. Historically, CCIW teams hold a 65-42 edge over NCAC squads since 2010, with a +12.4 average margin.

The NCAC, climbing to No. 7 in 2025 rankings after adding John Carroll, features DePauw’s pass-heavy attack (260 yds/game) and opportunistic D. The conference sent two teams to playoffs (DePauw, #15 Wooster) and shines in versatility, but trails in non-con wins (18-12 vs. CCIW’s 25-8). Expect CCIW power to clash with NCAC cunning, potentially favoring Wheaton’s home style.

Team Records

TeamOverall RecordConference RecordPF/PANational Rank (D3Football.com)
Wheaton (IL) Thunder12-17-0 (CCIW Champs)42.1 / 16.5#6 (Off: #4; Def: #10)
DePauw Tigers10-18-0 (NCAC Champs)31.8 / 17.2#15 (Off: #18; Def: #12)

Wheaton chases its first Final Four since 2017; DePauw seeks a second straight quarterfinal appearance.

Series History

These non-conference foes have limited history, meeting just twice since 2000, with Wheaton holding a slim edge (2-0). No playoff meetings, but the Thunder’s home dominance looms large:

Oct. 22, 2022: Wheaton 35-28—Beyers’ predecessor threw for 300 yds; DePauw rallied late but fell short.

Sept. 12, 2015: Wheaton 24-17—Defensive stands sealed a low-scoring affair. Wheaton is 2-0 at home vs. DePauw; average score: 29.5-22.5. DePauw’s 2025 road form (5-0) could make it competitive.

Betting Trends

Wheaton: 8-4-1 ATS in last 13 overall; 7-2 O/U at home (high-scoring affairs). Public 68% on Thunder to cover; 6-1 ATS in playoffs historically.

DePauw: 9-2 ATS as underdogs; 5-1 O/U in road games but 3-4 ATS vs. top-10 teams. Tigers 7-0 SU in last 7 but 4-3 ATS; public 55% on DePauw ML.

Head-to-Head: Limited data, but Wheaton 2-0 ATS in series; games hit over in both (avg. total: 52 pts). Trends suggest a Thunder cover but over risk in Wheaton’s offensive showcase.

Historical Betting Results (Series Games)

DateResultSpreadATS WinnerTotal (O/U)
Oct. 22, 2022Wheaton 35-28Wheaton -6Wheaton63 (Over 55)
Sept. 12, 2015Wheaton 24-17Wheaton -3.5Wheaton41 (Over 48)

Wheaton 2-0 ATS; 2-0 Over.

Final Prediction: Wheaton 31, DePauw 20

Game Odds

Wheaton (IL) Thunder                   – 7.5

DePauw Tigers                                  50.5

Odds Courtesy of Sports Odd Direct as of Friday, December 5, 2025

Previous articleD3-CFB Game Preview:  Mount Union Purple Raiders (12-0) vs. John Carroll Blue Streaks (10-1)
Next articleD3-CFB Game Preview:  Trinity (TX) Tigers (10-1) vs. Berry Vikings (10-1)
NCAAFB Editor
Profile: A dedicated college football analyst with a deep understanding of the sport’s tactical complexity, recruiting landscape, and conference‑wide dynamics. This columnist provides comprehensive coverage of the NCAA football season, blending film study, statistical insight, and historical context to explain how programs evolve from Week 1 through bowl season and the College Football Playoff. Background: With extensive experience covering Division I football, the columnist has contributed to national sports outlets, digital platforms, and radio segments focused on coaching trends, roster construction, and player development. A background in sports journalism and analytics supports a disciplined approach to evaluating performance, interpreting data, and tracking long‑term program trajectories across all major conferences. Signature Coverage Areas: Game previews and tactical matchups Film‑based breakdowns of offensive and defensive systems Recruiting analysis, transfer‑portal movement, and roster‑building strategy Coaching philosophies, scheme evolution, and conference‑wide trends Historical context, rivalry features, and postseason analysis Style & Approach: The writing emphasizes clarity, accuracy, and accessibility — translating complex schemes, advanced metrics, and recruiting data into insights that resonate with both long‑time college football fans and new followers of the sport. Each column reflects a commitment to balanced reporting, thoughtful evaluation, and a deep appreciation for the tradition, passion, and unpredictability that define NCAA football.