Michigan State

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.0520th
  Defense+0.1433rd
• 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.
  Offense41.6%37th
  Defense41.7%49th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1714th
  Defense+1.3717th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0020th
  Defense+0.0468th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1027th
  Defense+0.2719th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.0%70th
  Defense44.7%71st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.0%8th
  Defense35.4%12th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7618th
  Defense2.8072nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.0%17th
  Defense20.2%77th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.5%29th
  Defense14.5%29th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   FAU
2. W
   MD
3. W
   PV
4. L
   BC
5. L
   OSU
6. L
   ORE
7. W
   IOWA
8. L
   MICH
9. L
   IU
10. L
    ILL
11. W
    PUR
12. L
    RUTG

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

Players, 2024

1. Aidan ChilesQB343 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 66th of 232 QBs
   1.34WAR0.68 to 1.98
2. Kay'Ron Lynch-AdamsRB120 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 116th of 373 RBs
   0.25WAR0.14 to 0.34
3. Nathan CarterRB115 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 128th of 373 RBs
   0.23WAR0.16 to 0.31
4. Nick MarshWR41 plays · +0.198 pts/play · 82nd of 452 WRs
   0.15WAR0.05 to 0.26
5. Montorie Foster Jr.WR38 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 111th of 452 WRs
   0.12WAR0.02 to 0.21
6. Jonathan KimPK17 plays · +0.377 pts/play · 15th of 114 kickers
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.16
7. Jack VellingTE28 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 32nd of 221 TEs
   0.08WAR0.00 to 0.16
8. Ryan EckleyP39 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 41st of 106 punters
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.12

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  72272241st of 131Roster talent: 722, 41st of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21021030th of 131Recruiting: 210, 30th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  30%30%99th of 130Returning production: 30%, 99th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.6−4.688th of 131SP+ rating: −4.6, 88th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2024

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.11 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 IOWAQ2 0:01 4th & 2 at IOWA 37, up 12Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
2. at MICHQ3 3:45 4th & 3 at MICH 28, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. at MICHQ2 2:58 4th & 1 at MSU 24, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. vs IUQ2 8:45 4th & 1 at MSU 27, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. vs IUQ4 14:54 4th & 23 at MSU 30, down 23Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.1 pts
6. vs PURQ4 9:54 4th & 4 at MSU 30, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs PURQ3 2:51 4th & 3 at MSU 43, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs PURQ3 2:41 4th & 3 at MSU 43, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

75th of 134 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

   FAU
2. W

   MD
3. W

   PV
4. L

   BC
5. L

   OSU
6. L

   ORE
7. W

   IOWA
8. L

   MICH
9. L

   IU
10. L

    ILL
11. W

    PUR
12. L

    RUTG

What moved it, 2024

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−0.82
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Timeouts+0.09
• Other−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.20

Game by game

• FAUW 16-10 vs FAU82% → 94%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts −3
• MDW 27-24 at MD26% → 89%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +5
• PVW 40-0 vs PV99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• BCL 19-23 at BC35% → 10%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts +6
• OSUL 7-38 vs OSU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −10
• OREL 10-31 at ORE7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −12, Timeouts +1
• IOWAW 32-20 vs IOWA30% → 99%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +58, Timeouts −3
• MICHL 17-24 at MICH39% → 3%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts +3
• IUL 10-47 vs IU30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −35, Clock −1
• ILLL 16-38 at ILL44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts +2
• PURW 24-17 vs PUR81% → 83%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +14, Possession & field position +2
• RUTGL 14-41 vs RUTG53% → 0%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −52, Clock −2

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.