Michigan State

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.0114th
  Defense+0.1920th
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense43.5%52nd
  Defense43.0%32nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.074th
  Defense+1.2838th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0120th
  Defense+0.0937th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0821st
  Defense+0.3023rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.0%46th
  Defense48.5%33rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.6%42nd
  Defense32.5%28th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9737th
  Defense2.9445th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.3%51st
  Defense20.5%67th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.8%23rd
  Defense12.7%13th

Percentiles among the 138 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2026

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what Michigan State allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. W
   TOL
2. W
   EMU
3. L
   ND
4. L
   NEB
5. L
   WIS
6. L
   ILL

Bars above the line: better than expected for Michigan State.

Players, 2026

1. Alessio MilivojevicQB154 plays · +0.056 pts/play · 107th of 192 QBs
   0.16WAR−0.05 to 0.35
2. Cam EdwardsRB59 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 50th of 320 RBs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.17
3. Jaziun PattersonRB56 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 63rd of 320 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.15
4. Rodney Bullard Jr.WR26 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 76th of 364 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
5. Cam FancherQB19 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 149th of 192 QBs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11
6. Liam BoydPK11 plays · +0.290 pts/play · 2nd of 82 kickers
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09
7. Chrishon McCrayWR25 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 136th of 364 WRs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.09
8. Jayden SavouryTE27 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 13th of 164 TEs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.09

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares Michigan State's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  68568561st of 138Roster talent: 685, 61st of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21021039th of 138Recruiting: 210, 39th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  21%21%100th of 136Returning production: 21%, 100th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.2−1.277th of 138SP+ rating so far: −1.2, 77th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than Michigan State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.01 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. vs EMUQ2 0:11 4th & 14 at EMU 42, up 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
2. at NDQ3 10:42 4th & 4 at MSU 38, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
3. vs EMUQ2 15:00 4th & 11 at EMU 35, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

104th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Michigan State's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   TOL
2. W

   EMU
3. L

   ND
4. L

   NEB
5. L

   WIS
6. L

   ILL

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Michigan State's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard−1.22
• Possession & field position+0.10
• Clock+0.12
• Timeouts−0.14
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.18

Game by game

• TOLW 30-20 vs TOL75% → 25%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts +5
• EMUW 35-7 vs EMU86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +18
• NDL 10-27 at ND3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −7
• NEBL 13-31 vs NEB35% → 1%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts +2
• WISL 3-31 at WIS28% → 0%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −30
• ILLL 37-38 vs ILL42% → 48%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +6: Timeouts −21, Scoreboard −18

Points of win probability, from Michigan State's side.

Closest call

MSU 42-41 BAY (2014) - Michigan State dropped to a 2.4% win probability before pulling it out.