Michigan State

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0527th
  Defense+0.1620th
• 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.
  Offense41.7%43rd
  Defense45.2%16th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2132nd
  Defense+1.1874th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0130th
  Defense+0.1421st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1442nd
  Defense+0.2625th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.0%42nd
  Defense51.5%10th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.5%44th
  Defense30.0%46th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.566th
  Defense2.8753rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense25.4%3rd
  Defense16.8%24th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.0%15th
  Defense13.5%18th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   WMU
2. W
   BC
3. W
   YSU
4. L
   USC
5. L
   NEB
6. L
   UCLA
7. L
   IU
8. L
   MICH
9. L
   MINN
10. L
    PSU
11. L
    IOWA
12. W
    MD

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

Players, 2025

1. Aidan ChilesQB211 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 101st of 231 QBs
   0.79WAR0.38 to 1.15
2. Alessio MilivojevicQB157 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 126th of 231 QBs
   0.56WAR0.28 to 0.83
3. Omari KellyWR63 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 80th of 451 WRs
   0.19WAR0.06 to 0.30
4. Makhi FrazierRB98 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 184th of 365 RBs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.19
5. Elijah Tau-TolliverRB76 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 187th of 365 RBs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.18
6. Brandon TullisRB70 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 201st of 365 RBs
   0.13WAR0.10 to 0.16
7. Chrishon McCrayWR32 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 162nd of 451 WRs
   0.11WAR0.04 to 0.18
8. Nick MarshWR82 plays · +0.047 pts/play · 251st of 451 WRs
   0.07WAR−0.09 to 0.27

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  71771738th of 134Roster talent: 717, 38th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21221231st of 134Recruiting: 212, 31st of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  66%66%14th of 132Returning production: 66%, 14th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −3.4−3.480th of 134SP+ rating: −3.4, 80th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.09 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. at IOWAQ4 0:41 4th & 2 at MSU 45, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
2. vs MDQ4 1:56 4th & 7 at MD 10, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
3. at IOWAQ3 12:56 4th & 1 at MSU 34, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. vs BCQ1 0:53 4th & 1 at MSU 28, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs BCQ1 0:53 4th & 1 at MSU 28, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs MDQ2 4:11 4th & 2 at MSU 37, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at MINNQ3 7:56 4th & 3 at MSU 43, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs MICHQ2 4:48 4th & 3 at MSU 44, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

105th of 136 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

   WMU
2. W

   BC
3. W

   YSU
4. L

   USC
5. L

   NEB
6. L

   UCLA
7. L

   IU
8. L

   MICH
9. L

   MINN
10. L

    PSU
11. L

    IOWA
12. W

    MD

What moved it, 2025

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−1.62
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.14
• Other−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.37

Game by game

• WMUW 23-6 vs WMU92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +15, Timeouts −3
• BCW 42-40 vs BC57% → 42%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −15: Timeouts −26, Clock +15
• YSUW 41-24 vs YSU95% → 99%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +10, Timeouts +1
• USCL 31-45 at USC11% → 1%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −14, Timeouts −1
• NEBL 27-38 at NEB17% → 1%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22
• UCLAL 13-38 vs UCLA72% → 0%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −52, Timeouts −9
• IUL 13-38 at IU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• MICHL 20-31 vs MICH17% → 3%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −27, Clock −2
• MINNL 20-23 at MINN40% → 16%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts +22
• PSUL 10-28 vs PSU29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −35, Clock −2
• IOWAL 17-20 at IOWA13% → 4%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −18, Possession & field position −1
• MDW 38-28 vs MD65% → 99%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +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.