3coaching hire
Pat Fitzgerald takes over at Michigan State
Pat Fitzgerald replaces Jonathan Smith as Michigan State's head coach.
Michigan State4-8Latest
Michigan State fans are split on what comes next.
belief cooled ↓ 13.0vs prior week
Fanbase belief
Mixed
48/100 · 374 mentions
~ our readGrounding
about average
7% cite a stat · 7% typical ✓ counted
~ our readVolatility
Chaotic
σ 34 pts
~ our readThe model
#74
CFB Zeitgeist · +0.2
✓ measured3Hope-Doping·Offseason
Michigan State is the program that knocks off the giant down the road when no one sees it coming — and is now on its third coach of the decade, betting Pat Fitzgerald can rebuild the chip into a contender again.
Title DroughtSince 2015 · 10 yrs
The fanbase measures itself against the program 60 miles west and savors every upset of it — the conviction that Michigan State is at its truest when it walks in unranked and walks out with the rivalr…
offseason · quiet
Roster Reload - Michigan State
2026 snapshot - 2026-08-06Returning Production69%High continuity
Talent Composite#38 nationally247 composite 717.4
Portal Additions28Primary repair: RB
Portal Losses46Primary pressure: OT
Draft Loss2NFL Draft departures (2)
Recruiting Reload#45Development class
OTin 2 - Ben Murawskiout 7 - Stanton RamilStarter Risk
CBin 3 - Tre Bellout 6 - Aydan WestStarter Risk
current room: 189 lbs avg (2025 roster)
WRin 2 - KK Smithout 6 - Nick MarshStarter Risk
current room: 193 lbs avg (2025 roster)
IOLin 2 - Trent Fraleyout 5 - Kristian PhillipsStarter Risk
current room: 305 lbs avg (2025 roster)
LBin 3 - Kenny Soares Jr.out 4 - Semaj BridgemanDowngrade
current room: 233 lbs avg (2025 roster)
Sin 3 - Cam Stodghillout 4 - Armorion SmithDowngrade
Belief EKG
WinLoss · hover for scorePrior seasonsWire eventStory arc
Approaching
30 days
until kickoff · vs Toledo · Sat Sep 5 · 00:00 UTC
The experience
Michigan State is the program that beat Michigan when nobody else thought to.
Offense: SoftTempo: Methodical, ball-controlDefense: Poor
Michigan State's 2026 season hinges on roster stability and transfer impact
The team returns 69% of its roster but faces challenges due to a net portal exporter status with 46 transfers out. Recruiting ranked #45 nationally adds developmental pressure.
- Roster reloadMichigan State returns 69% of its roster, indicating high continuity despite losing 46 transfers.
Data as of 2026-08-01
·
Validated against program evidence
Sparty is contemplating Michigan.
Michigan State · the story right now
7 storylines developing
What Michigan State's offseason is really about
the open questionwhere does it go from here?
market_swing2026-06-19~readnew
Jonathan Smith's first full season at Michigan State ended with a 4-8 record, but the win total projection climbs to 4.5 in his second year.
what happenedMichigan State win total rose from 3.5 to 4.5 (+1 wins) between Jun 19 and Jun 19, 2026 (tier C). ✓ fact
the contextwin total up 1.0 from 3.5 to 4.5
narrative tension · our read
coachingthis cycle~readnew
Fitzgerald, who led Northwestern to a 9-4 record, inherits a 4-8 roster at Michigan State — the program that beat Michigan when nobody else thought to, now tasked with steadying.
what happenedPat Fitzgerald took over as Michigan State's head coach, replacing Jonathan Smith. ✓ fact
the contextthe program's third head coach in five seasons
narrative tension · our read
closerthis cycle✓ factnew
Elijah Tau-Tolliver gets meaningfully MORE work in the fourth quarter with a lead than his overall workload would predict, mostly in real, competitive games -- not just mop-up snaps.
narrative tension · our read
coordinatorsthis cycle~readnew
Fitzgerald, who previously coached at Northwestern, inherits a 4-8 losing record at Michigan State — a program that once beat Michigan, now grappling with uncertainty.
what happenedMichigan State: coordinator change reshaping a unit. ✓ fact
narrative tension · our read
deep threatthis cycle~attributednew
Jack Velling is used almost exclusively underneath -- a low share of his targets are downfield shots.
narrative tension · our read
garbage timethis cycle~attributednew
Nick Marsh: a garbage time merchant signal screened this season.
narrative tension · our read
program_outlookthis cycle~readnew
Michigan State enters 2025 at No. 82 in SP+ — the 8-spot jump is real, but 4-8 and Smith's second year raise the question of sustaining momentum.
what happenedMichigan State enters 2025 rated No. 82 in SP+ (-3.4), up 8 spots from 2024. ✓ fact
narrative tension · our read
How past storylines here turned out
AnsweredMichigan State's head-coaching hire held for another season.
Died downMichigan State's defensive coordinator change has died down — no clear next chapter yet.
Died downMichigan State's offensive coordinator change has died down — no clear next chapter yet.
Active arcs
The Offseason Ledger · Michigan State
6 verified updates · portal · recruiting · staff · news- News
Former Spartan dismissed by new team
Fitzgerald's Dantonio-era revival hits a roster footnote — a former Spartan dismissed elsewhere doesn't move the needle on a depth chart still thin at OT and rebuilding from two draft exits.
- Recruiting
Matthew Brady commits to Michigan State
OT pressure was the one spot Smith couldn't paper over with scheme — Brady lands in a room that lost two NFL-bound linemen and has been sitting thin since spring ball ended.
- News
Kohler seeks injunction for 5th year
If Kohler wins this injunction, Smith's OT room — already under pressure with two NFL draft departures and a #45 class — gets a veteran anchor it couldn't recruit its way to in time.
- News
Win total (line at 4.5) — no reprice yet on "Former Spartan dismissed by new team"
It's been 6d since "Former Spartan dismissed by new team" and the line hasn't moved. Worth checking again in a few days to see if the books are just slow.
- News
Win total (line at 4.5) holding steady right after "Former Spartan dismissed by new team"
"Former Spartan dismissed by new team" landed 4d ago and the market hasn't reacted — early, but a line worth revisiting.
- News
Win total: 3.5 → 4.5 (▲1)
SP+ jumps 8 spots but the books only trust it for one extra win — OT depth pressure and a #57 class still have the market skeptical Smith's rebuild clears 4.5 on the board.
Transfer portal snapshot
-5.0 net portal points
(raw ledger: -57.9 — unweighted, no position adjustment)OT-15.3
starter risk
WR-10.2
starter risk
IOL-8.9
starter risk
CB-8.7
starter risk
RB+7.0
need not filled
EDGE-6.7
starter risk
P+4.5
need not filled
LB-4.3
QB-4.0
TE-3.4
S-3.4
LS-3.3
DL+3.2
K-2.5
ATH-2.0
low confidence
Top 3 commits
2026 class
★★★★☆
Collin Campbell
#197 national
★★★★☆
Samson Gash
#257 national
Profiles like a typical incoming wide receiver — 14 of his 25 closest recruiting profiles since 2018 shared the Possession Receiver archetype.~our read · projection from recruiting profile — no college snaps yet
★★★★☆
Kayd Coffman
#273 national
Profiles like a typical incoming quarterback — 13 of his 25 closest recruiting profiles since 2018 shared the Pocket Passer archetype.~our read · projection from recruiting profile — no college snaps yet
↓
Fan confidence lower than any point since 2025
15th percentile among FBS programs
Fan vs. market≈
15th
Fan percentile
(FBS mood rank)
(FBS mood rank)
4.5
Vegas O/U wins
(11th among FBS)
(11th among FBS)
Fan mood aligned with market consensus
Win total consensus · 3 books
Market outlook
Season expectations
Win total3 booksO/U 4.5▲1 since Jun 2026
CFP championship#58 in field+60000
Big Ten title#16 in market+25000
Sportsbook consensus · best odds across multiple books · 2026-08-06
Michigan State · Next-Season Outcome Band
Michigan State · Next-Season Outcome BandFloor / Base / Ceiling
Floor 5-7
Base 8-5
Ceiling 10-3
floor5-7No postseason.
base8-5Bowl game.
ceiling10-3Bowl game.
Final-season-aware projection: floor / base / ceiling include conference title and CFP games where the model supports them, so a ceiling can exceed a 12-game regular season.
How the room reacted
Following now · Michigan State · Market Confidence
The market bumped Michigan State up a win. Win totals move for reasons; the books don't give interviews.
Michigan State win total rose from 3.5 to 4.5 (+1 wins) between Jun 19 and Jun 19, 2026 (tier C). It is win total up 1.0 from 3.5 to 4.5. The market moved; the fan base is split on what it means. Oddsmakers react to information, not sentiment — but that doesn't mean they're right. The room is divided — bulls and bears both have game-specific cases.
the room is genuinely split
where the takes land · dot = how loud
DOUBTBELIEF
Skeptics4 doubt takes
Believers4 bull takes
💬 fans: 14% volume · negative overall
Developing3 new this week
todayWin total (line at 4.5) — no reprice yet on "Former Spartan dismissed by new team"
2 days agoWin total (line at 4.5) holding steady right after "Former Spartan dismissed by new team"
6 days agoFormer Spartan dismissed by new team — Reported
Jun 19Win total: 3.5 → 4.5 (▲1)
CFB Zeitgeist Read · our take
Jonathan Smith's first full season at Michigan State ended with a 4-8 record, but the win total projection climbs to 4.5 in his second year.
Next · what to watch
Win total moves are the sharpest signal the market sends in the offseason. They don't reflect fan enthusiasm — they reflect information: roster losses, schedule difficulty, injury reports, and coaching staff changes that haven't hit the beat press yet. One-win adjustments are deliberate, not rounding. Watch whether the line moves again — markets don't stop at one adjustment when the signal changes.
Source of record: Michigan State win total rose from 3.5 to 4.5 (+1 wins) between Jun 19 and Jun 19, 2026 (tier C) — win total up 1.0 from 3.5 to 4.5.
How each room is reacting — tap to expand
📣Believers4 bullish/market items -- the case it's working.›
The 'market knows something fans don't' read -- when odds move, it's on information.
“125 Years of CMU Football: Remembering Central Michigan's Wins Over Michigan State”
Central Michigan University Athletics · 2026-08-05 · read ↗
“Michigan State OL Ben Murawski makes Outland Trophy watch list”
247Sports · 2026-08-05 · read ↗
“Ben Murawski Featured on Outland Trophy Watch List”
Michigan State University Athletics · 2026-08-04 · read ↗
🧐Skeptics“5 Bold Predictions for Michigan State Football's Fall Camp” — the real counter.›
💬The boards14% of recent board volume — the fanbase is locked in. Board mood this week: negative overall · anger notable (64%).›
This event was in 71 of 490 board posts (14%) over the last 60 days — a fanbase consumed by it. Fan text shown verbatim, attributed to the community not the individual poster.
"I believe Cooper can’t return due to him signing a two way contract with Memphis"
r/MSUSpartans ~ fan take
"I'm a lifelong IU fan. And I don't really want to go into my reasons for posting this comment here, on this day. I may speak more to it later on. But I don't think it's right to go"
r/MSUSpartans ~ fan take
Board health this week (308 posts): 16% positive · 49% neutral · 35% negative. Team-level weekly mood — not specific to this event. The boards ≠ the fanbase: a self-selected vocal slice.
Following now · Michigan State · Coaching Confidence
The Pat Fitzgerald story at Michigan State won't sit still.
Pat Fitzgerald took over as Michigan State's head coach, replacing Jonathan Smith. It is the program's third head coach in five seasons. It's not the hire that's the story anymore — it's everything it set in motion. The room has bought in, but early believers have been wrong before.
skeptical — but there's a bull case
where the takes land · dot = how loud
DOUBTBELIEF
Skeptics4 doubt takes
Believers2 bull takes
💬 fans: 2% volume · negative overall
Developing6 new this week
todayWin total (line at 4.5) — no reprice yet on "Former Spartan dismissed by new team"
yesterday5 Michigan State football questions as Pat Fitzgerald opens 1st camp — freep.com
yesterdayWith athletic director hire looming, Michigan State’s Pat Fitzgerald is ready for camp — On3
2 days agoWin total (line at 4.5) holding steady right after "Former Spartan dismissed by new team"
3 days agoMichigan State's O-line overhaul key in Pat Fitzgerald's rebuild — The Detroit News
The cast who's driving the story · latest headline on each, attributed
Pat Fitzgerald Head coach
“5 Michigan State football questions as Pat Fitzgerald opens 1st camp” — freep.com · 2026-08-05
Jonathan Smith Out
Ten Media
“Five notable quotes from Michigan State's Pat Fitzgerald at Big Ten Media Days” — On3 · 2026-07-31
Mark Dantonio
“Mark Dantonio speaks on Pat Fitzgerald's new Michigan State staff” — 247Sports · 2026-08-03
CFB Zeitgeist Read · our take
Fitzgerald, who led Northwestern to a 9-4 record, inherits a 4-8 roster at Michigan State — the program that beat Michigan when nobody else thought to, now tasked with steadying.
Next · what to watch
The obvious story is the marquee name; the non-obvious one is roster churn — a coaching change keeps a portal and decommit window open long after the introductory presser. Watch decommitments and portal moves in the next window — that's where this is actually won or lost, not at the podium. The boards are already there — one thread raises exactly this.
Source of record: Pat Fitzgerald took over as Michigan State's head coach, replacing Jonathan Smith — the program's third head coach in five seasons.
How each room is reacting — tap to expand
📣Believers2 bullish/hire items -- the case it's working.›
The 'this hire changes everything' takes -- new-era believers making the case early.
“Michigan State's O-line overhaul key in Pat Fitzgerald's rebuild”
The Detroit News · 2026-08-03 · read ↗
“Fitzgerald talks expectations, goal of winning Big Ten during media days”
Spartans Wire · 2026-07-30 · read ↗
“With athletic director hire looming, Michigan State’s Pat Fitzgerald is ready for camp”
On3 · 2026-08-05 · read ↗
🧐Skeptics“5 Michigan State football questions as Pat Fitzgerald opens 1st ” — the real counter.›
The 'show me the body of work' counter -- resume gaps, scheme fits, and 'not that guy' reads.
“5 Michigan State football questions as Pat Fitzgerald opens 1st camp”
freep.com · 2026-08-05 · read ↗
“Pat Fitzgerald to rebuild Michigan State with old-school, tough, reinvigorated identity”
sportingnews.com · 2026-07-31 · read ↗
💬The boards8 board mentions — too thin to call a stance. Board mood this week: negative overall · anger notable (64%).›
Only 8 of 490 board posts mention it — below our floor to call a community stance. Shown as texture, not a verdict.
"Wish they went more in depth to what they've been up to lately but I guess we'll have to wait. Also, he is looking bigger, what are we feeding our coaches?? Saw JS go through the s"
r/MSUSpartans ~ fan take
"Its been awhile since I actually wrote something on the program. With the first OV weekend underway, I figured now is a good time to do an actual overview of Fitz and his path forw"
r/MSUSpartans ~ fan take
Board health this week (308 posts): 16% positive · 49% neutral · 35% negative. Team-level weekly mood — not specific to this event. The boards ≠ the fanbase: a self-selected vocal slice.
🔗The dominoes7 downstream moves — the hire's knock-on effects.›
The second-order trail: commits, decommits, portal and staff knock-on from the hire.
“BIG IMPACT: Top Michigan State football DT transfer Eli Coenen set for BIG ROLE in 2026”
13newsnow.com · 2026-08-03 · read ↗
“Mark Dantonio speaks on Pat Fitzgerald's new Michigan State staff”
247Sports · 2026-08-03 · read ↗
Recent Form · last 10 games
Cold
One of five. The film room is busy this week.
Streak W1Last 5 · 1-4Last 10 · 2-8
The forecast
Opens Sep 5
vs Toledo · at home
Season line4.5 winsover +145
SoftMethodical, ball-controlPoor
✓ fact on line · ~ our read on style
Rival pulse
Penn State
Mixed-4
Land Grant Trophy
Michigan
Mixed-1
Paul Bunyan Trophy
Fan mood index · most recent r/cfb data
Recruiting Footprint · 2026
Recruiting Footprint · 2026
22
MI · 5OH · 4GA · 3IL · 2NC · 2AZ · 1FL · 1NJ · 1+3 more
MI leads the 2026 class with 5 commits. National footprint reaching 11 states.
Where they recruit · 2023-2026
87 signees across 24 states, 2023-2026. MI leads the pull.
r/cfb this year
[Postgame Thread] USC Defeats Michigan State 45-31
[Game Thread] Michigan State @ USC (11:00 PM ET)
[Postgame Thread] Michigan State Defeats Youngstown State 41-24
Top community posts · last 12 months · r/cfb
National spotlight
11 games with TV coverage: 4 national broadcast, 4 cable, 3 conference network
Kickoff windows: 1 noon, 5 afternoon, 5 primetime
Fumble luck
33% recovery rate on the fumbles they've forced — below the ~49% league baseline.
4 of 12 forced fumbles recovered; 4 of 10 own fumbles recovered themselves, 2025 only.
Takeaway conversion
14% of tipped/broken-up passes have turned into picks — below the ~19% league average, and due for more.
5 interceptions of 36 disrupted passes (31 deflected, 5 intercepted), 2025 only.
Penalty battle
63 penalties committed, 64 drawn on opponents — ceding 32 yards of field position.
539 penalty yards committed vs. 507 drawn on opponents, 2025 season total.
The Pulse on Michigan State
48
Δ -13.0 vs last wk
374
mentions this week · conversation velocity
What moved it — fall camp · last 14 days
Camp
Fall camp open — install + scrimmage cycle
ongoing
Kickoff
Season opener in 16 days
kickoff
"Sparty"
— Michigan State fanbase · recurring line
Fanbase Signals
Cohort Divergence4 pctSpread between sub-fanbase cohorts in the Pulse window.
The Fever Year
Position = mood · width = volume · color = the kind of feeling
Inside the fanbase — all 10 corners
Cr/CFB
GGoogle News
LLocked On
OThe Only Colors
BBluesky
YYouTube
The split, staged
Warmest corner+0.00
Media
least sour cohort our read
vs
Coldest corner−0.00
Bettors
most skeptical cohort our read
Believers keep circling back to fan energy; skeptics keep coming back to where the program is headed. our read
How Michigan State fans actually talk real · top-upvoted
The crowd’s loudest take by upvotes — read for mood, not as a side. The cohort read is the measured part.
Loudest in the room this week real · by engagement
All 10 corners of the fanbase
skeptical
buying in
Media−0.09
Bettors−0.23
Cohort sentiment is a source-weighted model read — never a quote pinned to a person.
What this fanbase keeps coming back to our read · topic model
Topics are model-labeled from Reddit — a rough signal of what this fanbase is circling right now.
468 mentions · 6 sources · week 2026-01. Counts, sources and the divergence rank are measured (fact). Cohort labels and sentiment are a source-weighted model read (our read) — never a quote attributed to a person.
Belief checkmiddle of the pack
~ our readMichigan State fans are down on the program, and they're backing it with about as much hard evidence as anyone.
backed by facts
the mood
✓ counted We read 308 posts from Michigan State fans this week.
What fans are saying
Fan claims · every quote verified verbatim
portal roster moveWidely held among fans
fans believe the team's success depends on proving itself in the winter portal
All in all, most of my chips are in the winter portal. At that point, those are your guys, your team is set. Either prove your point in 2027 or get out.
Based on 1 comment from 1 poster across 1 thread · Jul 29, 2026 · via MSUSpartans
player performanceLimited signal that season
fans think the defensive unit looks more cohesive under Rossi
Man if anyone has showed up this season it's joe rossi. Let's be real. The defense almost looks competent sometimes and that is not something we have had in 5 years
Based on 1 comment from 1 poster across 1 thread · Nov 23, 2025 · via CFB
job securityLimited signal that season
fans believe Smith's performance is unacceptable
Gonna be a bloodbath. The team will quit by the 2nd quarter. And Smith will be fired. I hate it but that's how it will play out
Based on 1 comment from 1 poster across 1 thread · Oct 18, 2025 · via CFB
player roleLimited signal that season
fans think the coaching staff isn't developing players' skills effectively
I have no idea why this coaching staff is so hesitant to let Aiden air it out when it seems like such a strong suit for us
Based on 1 comment from 1 poster across 1 thread · Sep 21, 2025 · via CFB
player performanceLimited signal that season
fans believe Michigan State's offensive line struggles to protect the quarterback
When players can transfer at will, why would a guy like Chiles stay at MSU? Our o line sucks, and will likely suck next season too.
Based on 1 comment from 1 poster across 1 thread · Sep 21, 2025 · via CFB
Show all 7
scheme identityLimited signal that season
fans think his defensive schemes are easily exploited
Rossi and Legi can pack their bags tonight and fuck off. Every week we have confusion in the secondary, bad tackling, using LBs who cannot cover against pass catchers, no pass rush/variety, and a total lack of control at the line of scrimmage.
Based on 1 comment from 1 poster across 1 thread · Sep 13, 2025 · via CFB
player performanceLimited signal that season
fans believe the offensive line is giving up too many sacks
It blows my mind how much this O-line is getting blown up by an FCS team, Jesus Christ.
Based on 1 comment from 1 poster across 1 thread · Sep 13, 2025 · via CFB
Season storylines
Week 2
“Not great. Poor performance and a lot of injuries. Woof. Put a few pots of coffee on for our trainers and get ready for next week. We are 3-0 and have a huge opportunity at USC before a bye week to get healthy. Fun fact, though. I learned we have a player named Ah You on …”— r/CFB
Week 10
“Nah, the pattern now is to let fans get raw dogged the entire season if the team is COMPLETE ass, and fire good coaches who have sub .500 records.”— r/CFB
Week 8
“Golesh really sold that game. Refused to not run hurry up to burn the clock. Offense seemed unhinged the whole second half. After a first down the next play always looked like the offense wasn't ready. The defense was also bad. Two horribly shanked punts as well. Not kicking …”— r/CFB
Week 4
“I’m convinced that was what made Lincoln go to LA: “Look, coach, you’ve had success here in Norman, but what you did to that brisket is a serious crime. We’re gonna be lenient and give you a year to find a new job, but holy fuck a steer gave its life for that meat, you don’t …”— r/CFB
Week 1
“Very conservative safe second half but boy that first half was fun. Hoping we can keep that play going cuz it was fun watching a competent MSU offense for the first time in years.”— r/CFB
Five Lenses
What people are saying right now
Radio, beat writers & editorial13 posts
News & campus coverage5 posts
CFB analyst takes7 posts
Bluesky · @adavidhalejoint.bsky.social
6d ago
Rent free · r/cfb fan posts, last season
Fanbase Health Index · Michigan State · high confidence
Fanbase Health Index · Michigan State · high confidenceGrowing (58)
DecliningStableGrowingSurging
On-Field — 4-8 (33% win rate)47
Volume — 1209 effective signal-N92
Cohort Engagement — Divergence 0.04 — quiet35
From the booth
The Lexicon
553 posts and articles vs the field · 2025 season
chiles
×418.8 the field
Signature — ≥10× the rest of college football
chiles×418.8n=44
marsh×47.5n=18
msu×20.1n=25
detroit×35.0n=10
Mild — <3×
defense×1.7n=105
Characteristic — 3–10×
secondary×3.5n=20
looks×3.0n=22
interception×4.2n=12
good×1.9n=58
sack×3.7n=13
“Yeah Chiles isn’t taking that sack most likely”
reddit/CFB · fan post, verbatim
Fans using CHILES (8 examples)
i really want to know how much Chiles paid the coaching staff to make any of them think he was better than Milivojevi
How in the fuck did Chiles get the job over this guy?
Sunk cost fallacy as well: Chiles was supposed to be The Guy and kept looking like he just needed to turn the corner,
Man the only thing better about Chiles is I can confidently spell his name.
He's so much better than chiles its insane
No QB has a chance with this OL at least Chiles has mobility.
Theres still time to bring Chiles back in, not out of reach yet
Spoiler: Chiles was not the problem* *this does not mean he's the solution, either.
Fanbase Voice
1,946 fan mentions
Doomers
vs the 81 highest-volume fanbases - 2025 season
Your Vocabulary Clusterdefense / offense / line
defenseoffenselinebad
with 5 other fanbasesKey stats — 2025 — FBS rank
Points/game#87 / 138 · 38th pct24.6
Pts allowed/game#99 / 138 · 29th pct29.9
Total yards/gm#109 / 136 · 21st pct345.3
Rush yards/gm#115 / 136 · 16th pct122.7
Pass yards/gm#80 / 136 · 42nd pct222.7
Yards allowed/gm#53 / 136 · 62nd pct379.9
Rush yds allowed/gm#53 / 136 · 62nd pct148.6
Sacks#89 / 136 · 35th pct22
Interceptions#117 / 136 · 15th pct5
3rd-down conv#110 / 136 · 20th pct34.6%
All 98 stats
Offense / Defense
Total yards
Team4144345.3/gm5.41/play#109 / 136 · 21st pct#57 / 69 · 19th pct#14 / 18 · 28th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Opp4559379.9/gm6.05/play#53 / 136 · 62nd pct#38 / 69 · 46th pct#14 / 18 · 28th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Rush yards
Team1472122.7/gm1.92/play#115 / 136 · 16th pct#59 / 69 · 16th pct#15 / 18 · 22nd pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Opp1783148.6/gm2.36/play#53 / 136 · 62nd pct#39 / 69 · 45th pct#11 / 18 · 44th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Rush carries
Team38832.3/gm#114 / 136 · 17th pct#58 / 69 · 17th pct#14 / 18 · 28th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Opp38732.2/gm#8 / 136 · 95th pct#7 / 69 · 91st pct#3 / 18 · 89th pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Rush TDs
Team161.3/gm#91 / 136 · 34th pct#52 / 69 · 26th pct#12 / 18 · 39th pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Opp211.8/gm#81 / 136 · 41st pct#52 / 69 · 26th pct#14 / 18 · 28th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
Net pass yards
Team2672222.7/gm3.49/play#80 / 136 · 42nd pct#46 / 69 · 35th pct#10 / 18 · 50th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Opp2776231.3/gm3.68/play#70 / 136 · 49th pct#40 / 69 · 43rd pct#15 / 18 · 22nd pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Pass attempts
Team37831.5/gm#82 / 136 · 40th pct#41 / 69 · 42nd pct#8 / 18 · 61st pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Opp36730.6/gm#43 / 136 · 69th pct#19 / 69 · 74th pct#9 / 18 · 56th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Completions
Team24020.0/gm#73 / 136 · 47th pct#40 / 69 · 43rd pct#10 / 18 · 50th pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Opp24220.2/gm#75 / 136 · 46th pct#33 / 69 · 54th pct#11 / 18 · 44th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Pass TDs
Team201.7/gm#57 / 136 · 59th pct#33 / 69 · 54th pct#9 / 18 · 56th pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Opp231.9/gm#107 / 136 · 22nd pct#57 / 69 · 19th pct#15 / 18 · 22nd pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Passer rating
Team137.7137.7#58 / 136 · 58th pct#36 / 69 · 49th pct#10 / 18 · 50th pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Opp146.9146.9#118 / 136 · 14th pct#62 / 69 · 12th pct#16 / 18 · 17th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
Interceptions thrown
Team60.5/gm#115 / 136 · 16th pct#60 / 69 · 14th pct#17 / 18 · 11th pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct
Opp50.4/gm#15 / 136 · 90th pct#10 / 69 · 87th pct#3 / 18 · 89th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Sacks (def)
Team221.8/gm#89 / 136 · 35th pct#51 / 69 · 28th pct#15 / 18 · 22nd pct#7 / 10 · 40th pct
Opp373.1/gm#125 / 136 · 9th pct#62 / 69 · 12th pct#17 / 18 · 11th pct#10 / 10 · 10th pct
Tackles for loss
Team564.7/gm#113 / 136 · 18th pct#61 / 69 · 13th pct#14 / 18 · 28th pct#8 / 10 · 30th pct
Opp937.8/gm#130 / 136 · 5th pct#67 / 69 · 4th pct#18 / 18 · 6th pct#10 / 10 · 10th pct
First downs
Team22618.8/gm#108 / 136 · 21st pct#57 / 69 · 19th pct#14 / 18 · 28th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Opp23419.5/gm#38 / 136 · 73rd pct#26 / 69 · 64th pct#11 / 18 · 44th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
3rd-down conv
Team554.6/gm#121 / 136 · 12th pct#64 / 69 · 9th pct#17 / 18 · 11th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Opp635.2/gm#36 / 136 · 74th pct#18 / 69 · 75th pct#6 / 18 · 72nd pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
3rd-down att
Team15913.2/gm#112 / 136 · 18th pct#51 / 69 · 28th pct#11 / 18 · 44th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Opp15012.5/gm#8 / 136 · 95th pct#4 / 69 · 96th pct#4 / 18 · 83rd pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
4th-down conv
Team121.0/gm#79 / 136 · 43rd pct#42 / 69 · 41st pct#10 / 18 · 50th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
Opp110.9/gm#32 / 136 · 77th pct#14 / 69 · 81st pct#6 / 18 · 72nd pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
4th-down att
Team272.2/gm#54 / 136 · 61st pct#29 / 69 · 59th pct#7 / 18 · 67th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Opp231.9/gm#46 / 136 · 67th pct#23 / 69 · 68th pct#8 / 18 · 61st pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Time of possession
Team362:2030:12/gm#90 / 136 · 35th pct#47 / 69 · 33rd pct#15 / 18 · 22nd pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Opp355:0129:35/gm#15 / 136 · 90th pct#7 / 69 · 91st pct#3 / 18 · 89th pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Kicking & Punting
Field goals#103 / 135 · 24th pct12/17 (70.6%)
Extra points32/33
Punting#3 / 136 · 99th pct47.7 avg · 53 punts
Turnovers & special teams
Turnovers
Team121.0/gm#113 / 136 · 18th pct#56 / 69 · 20th pct#11 / 18 · 44th pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct
Opp90.8/gm#6 / 136 · 96th pct#3 / 69 · 97th pct#2 / 18 · 94th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Fumbles lost
Team60.5/gm#69 / 136 · 50th pct#28 / 69 · 61st pct#4 / 18 · 83rd pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Opp40.3/gm#19 / 136 · 87th pct#11 / 69 · 86th pct#4 / 18 · 83rd pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
INT return TDs
Team00.0/gm#76 / 135 · 44th pct#39 / 69 · 45th pct#9 / 18 · 56th pct#10 / 11 · 18th pct
Opp10.1/gm#61 / 136 · 56th pct#30 / 69 · 58th pct#11 / 18 · 44th pct#4 / 10 · 70th pct
INT return yards
Team00.0/gm#136 / 136 · 1st pct#69 / 69 · 1st pct#18 / 18 · 6th pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct
Opp574.8/gm#32 / 136 · 77th pct#17 / 69 · 77th pct#6 / 18 · 72nd pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Punt ret yds
Team15012.5/gm#58 / 136 · 58th pct#35 / 69 · 51st pct#9 / 18 · 56th pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Opp39833.2/gm#135 / 136 · 1st pct#69 / 69 · 1st pct#18 / 18 · 6th pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct
Punt ret TDs
Team00.0/gm#43 / 135 · 69th pct#23 / 69 · 68th pct#9 / 18 · 56th pct#2 / 9 · 89th pct
Opp20.2/gm#128 / 135 · 6th pct#67 / 69 · 4th pct#18 / 18 · 6th pct#8 / 10 · 30th pct
Kick ret yds
Team32527.1/gm#94 / 136 · 32nd pct#43 / 69 · 39th pct#11 / 18 · 44th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Opp27422.8/gm#29 / 136 · 79th pct#20 / 69 · 72nd pct#4 / 18 · 83rd pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
Kick ret TDs
Team10.1/gm#7 / 136 · 96th pct#3 / 69 · 97th pct#1 / 18 · 100th pct#1 / 9 · 100th pct
Opp00.0/gm#1 / 135 · 100th pct#1 / 69 · 100th pct#1 / 18 · 100th pct#1 / 10 · 100th pct
Penalty yards
Team53944.9/gm#114 / 136 · 17th pct#53 / 69 · 25th pct#8 / 18 · 61st pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
Opp50742.2/gm#18 / 136 · 88th pct#12 / 69 · 84th pct#8 / 18 · 61st pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Other
Passes intercepted opponent#9 / 136 · 94th pct#5 / 69 · 94th pct#1 / 18 · 100th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct60.5/gm
Fourth down go rate#16 / 138 · 89th pct#5 / 69 · 94th pct#2 / 18 · 94th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct0.50.0/gm
Penalties (opp)#25 / 136 · 82nd pct#15 / 69 · 80th pct#11 / 18 · 44th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct645.3/gm
Fumbles rec (def)#46 / 136 · 67th pct#29 / 69 · 59th pct#12 / 18 · 39th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct60.5/gm
Kick ret (opp)#47 / 136 · 66th pct#31 / 69 · 57th pct#7 / 18 · 67th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct171.4/gm
Recruiting rating#57 / 138 · 59th pct#57 / 69 · 19th pct#16 / 18 · 17th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct196.116.3/gm
Red zone pass rate#69 / 154 · 56th pct#33 / 69 · 54th pct#10 / 18 · 50th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct0.40.0/gm
H1 epa per play opponent#82 / 167 · 52nd pct#43 / 69 · 39th pct#11 / 18 · 44th pct0.20.0/gm
Fumbles recovered#91 / 136 · 34th pct#48 / 69 · 32nd pct#12 / 18 · 39th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct50.4/gm
H1 epa per play#91 / 162 · 44th pct#52 / 69 · 26th pct#14 / 18 · 28th pct0.20.0/gm
Punt returns#96 / 136 · 30th pct#56 / 69 · 20th pct#13 / 18 · 33rd pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct121.0/gm
H2 epa per play#100 / 142 · 30th pct#52 / 69 · 26th pct#16 / 18 · 17th pct0.10.0/gm
Penalties#107 / 136 · 22nd pct#49 / 69 · 30th pct#6 / 18 · 72nd pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct635.2/gm
First down pass rate#110 / 215 · 49th pct#38 / 69 · 46th pct#11 / 18 · 44th pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct0.40.0/gm
Kick returns#110 / 136 · 20th pct#51 / 69 · 28th pct#12 / 18 · 39th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct131.1/gm
Interceptions (def)#117 / 136 · 15th pct#57 / 69 · 19th pct#14 / 18 · 28th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct50.4/gm
H2 epa per play opponent#132 / 143 · 8th pct#65 / 69 · 7th pct#17 / 18 · 11th pct0.30.0/gm
Punt ret (opp)#132 / 136 · 4th pct#67 / 69 · 4th pct#18 / 18 · 6th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct272.2/gm
Situational
3rd-down conversion
Off34.6%#110 / 136 · 20th pct#61 / 69 · 13th pct#17 / 18 · 11th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Def42.0%#101 / 136 · 26th pct#56 / 69 · 20th pct#14 / 18 · 28th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
4th-down conversion
Off44.4%#111 / 136 · 19th pct#61 / 69 · 13th pct#14 / 18 · 28th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Def47.8%#45 / 136 · 68th pct#22 / 69 · 70th pct#7 / 18 · 67th pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Turnover margin#86 / 136 · 38th pct#46 / 69 · 35th pct#15 / 18 · 22nd pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct-0.25/gm
Sack rate (def)#90 / 136 · 35th pct#50 / 69 · 29th pct#15 / 18 · 22nd pct#6 / 10 · 50th pct6.0%
Red Zone & Drive Efficiency (2014– , play-by-play derived)
Red zone trips
Team423.5/gm#75 / 167 · 56th pct#43 / 69 · 39th pct#13 / 18 · 33rd pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Opp514.2/gm#146 / 166 · 13th pct#61 / 69 · 13th pct#15 / 18 · 22nd pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Red zone score %
Team78.6%78.6%#76 / 167 · 55th pct#41 / 69 · 42nd pct#11 / 18 · 44th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Opp70.6%70.6%#26 / 166 · 85th pct#9 / 69 · 88th pct#2 / 18 · 94th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Points / drive
Team1.90.2/gm#87 / 167 · 48th pct#49 / 69 · 30th pct#14 / 18 · 28th pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Opp2.10.2/gm#108 / 166 · 36th pct#59 / 69 · 16th pct#15 / 18 · 22nd pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Yards / drive
Team39.63.3/gm#91 / 167 · 46th pct#52 / 69 · 26th pct#14 / 18 · 28th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Opp40.13.3/gm#66 / 166 · 61st pct#32 / 69 · 55th pct#9 / 18 · 56th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Plays / drive
Team6.50.5/gm#95 / 167 · 44th pct#49 / 69 · 30th pct#14 / 18 · 28th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Opp6.30.5/gm#35 / 166 · 80th pct#12 / 69 · 84th pct#3 / 18 · 89th pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Three-and-out rate
Team12.9%12.9%#73 / 167 · 57th pct#40 / 69 · 43rd pct#13 / 18 · 33rd pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Opp10.8%10.8%#124 / 166 · 26th pct#62 / 69 · 12th pct#16 / 18 · 17th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Scheme Identity (2014– , play-by-play derived)
Rush rate over expected#90 / 145 · 39th pct#40 / 69 · 43rd pct#12 / 18 · 39th pct-2.4%-2.4%
Havoc rate
Team13.9%13.9%#111 / 140 · 21st pct#62 / 69 · 12th pct#15 / 18 · 22nd pct
Opp18.0%18.0%#118 / 140 · 16th pct#61 / 69 · 13th pct#17 / 18 · 11th pct
Standard-downs success
Team47.7%47.7%#78 / 154 · 50th pct#44 / 69 · 38th pct#12 / 18 · 39th pct
Opp51.9%51.9%#133 / 172 · 23rd pct#64 / 69 · 9th pct#15 / 18 · 22nd pct
Passing-downs success
Team29.2%29.2%#91 / 153 · 41st pct#49 / 69 · 30th pct#15 / 18 · 22nd pct
Opp29.9%29.9%#63 / 149 · 58th pct#32 / 69 · 55th pct#6 / 18 · 72nd pct
Line yards / carry
Team2.62.6#129 / 143 · 10th pct#68 / 69 · 3rd pct#18 / 18 · 6th pct
Opp2.92.9#73 / 155 · 54th pct#44 / 69 · 38th pct#9 / 18 · 56th pct
Stuff rate
Team25.0%25.0%#133 / 143 · 8th pct#67 / 69 · 4th pct#18 / 18 · 6th pct
Opp15.9%15.9%#118 / 155 · 25th pct#60 / 69 · 14th pct#16 / 18 · 17th pct
Power success rate
Team62.2%62.2%#112 / 137 · 19th pct#60 / 69 · 14th pct#16 / 18 · 17th pct
Opp81.2%81.2%#128 / 141 · 10th pct#63 / 69 · 10th pct#18 / 18 · 6th pct
Efficiency
Completion %
Off63.5%#53 / 136 · 62nd pct#31 / 69 · 57th pct#9 / 18 · 56th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Def65.9%#116 / 136 · 15th pct#59 / 69 · 16th pct#15 / 18 · 22nd pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
Yards / attempt
Off7.1#75 / 136 · 46th pct#45 / 69 · 36th pct#11 / 18 · 44th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Def7.6#101 / 136 · 26th pct#55 / 69 · 22nd pct#15 / 18 · 22nd pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Yards / completion
Off11.1#85 / 136 · 38th pct#48 / 69 · 32nd pct#10 / 18 · 50th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Def11.5#67 / 136 · 51st pct#45 / 69 · 36th pct#16 / 18 · 17th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Yards / carry#105 / 136 · 24th pct#52 / 69 · 26th pct#15 / 18 · 22nd pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct3.8
Yards / play#92 / 136 · 33rd pct#52 / 69 · 26th pct#13 / 18 · 33rd pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct5.41
Scoring margin#104 / 136 · 24th pct#59 / 69 · 16th pct#15 / 18 · 22nd pct#9 / 11 · 27th pct-5.3/gm
FBS rankings · 2025 season · all stats vs 136 FBS programs
Player stats — 2025 season
Quarterbacks
| Player | # | G | Cmp/Att | Pct | Yds | Y/A | TD | INT | Rate | QBR | Adj ANY/A | Sack% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pocket Passer · +0.44 EPA/play | 2 | 8 | 128 / 203 | 63.1 | 1392 | 6.9 | 10 | 3 | 134.0 | 61.0 | 6.2 | 6.5 | |
Yards by week → Pocket Passer· Money-downBalanced passer who operates within the system, without one standout number carrying the profile. saves his best for the money downs All-Conference honorable mention / 2nd team — the recognition has started. The most common profile in its group this season — 97 of 183 classified this way. Played in 8 of 21 games this season · junior View Aidan Chiles's full player page | |||||||||||||
| Pocket Passer · +0.13 EPA/play | 11 | 9 | 111 / 173 | 64.2 | 1267 | 7.3 | 10 | 3 | 141.3 | 55.1 | 6.6 | 7.5 | |
Yards by week → Pocket PasserBalanced passer who operates within the system, without one standout number carrying the profile. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. 97 of 183 QBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Yards / attempt8.2 65th percentile · FBS QBs, min. 80 attempts Rush yards / carry-1.9 bottom 6th percentile · FBS QBs, min. 80 attempts Trait fingerprint Plays like View Alessio Milivojevic's full player page | |||||||||||||
Running Backs
| Player | # | G | Car | Yds | Avg | TD | Long | 3rd Dn Use | Pass Dn Use | Stuff% | 10+% | Tgt Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Workhorse · -0.10 EPA/play | 5 | 9 | 116 | 520 | 4.5 | 2 | 49 | 16.7 | 16.7 | 23.7 | 13.6 | 4.4% (15/339) | |
Yards by week → WorkhorseBuilt to take 20+ carries per game. Volume is the value. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. 52 of 349 RBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Weight218 lb 79th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Yards / reception2.1 bottom 5th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Trait fingerprint Plays like View Makhi Frazier's full player page | |||||||||||||
| Satellite Back · +0.04 EPA/play | 4 | 11 | 72 | 428 | 5.9 | 2 | 85 | 7.8 | 7.4 | 21.4 | 11.4 | 6.2% (21/339) | |
Yards by week → Satellite Back· Boom-or-bustDeployed as a receiver as much as a runner. Value is in space, not between the tackles. his yards come in chunks — feast or famine Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. 50 of 349 RBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Receiving share20.0% 90th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Yards / carry7.0 93th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Trait fingerprint Plays like View Elijah Tau-Tolliver's full player page | |||||||||||||
| Workhorse · +0.03 EPA/play | 7 | 12 | 68 | 297 | 4.4 | 4 | 35 | 5.6 | 8 | 20.3 | 17.4 | — | |
Yards by week → WorkhorseBuilt to take 20+ carries per game. Volume is the value. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. 52 of 349 RBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Weight227 lb 92th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Rush TD rate5.9% 73th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Trait fingerprint Plays like View Brandon Tullis's full player page | |||||||||||||
Receivers
| Player | # | G | Rec | Yds | Avg | TD | Long | 3rd Dn Use | Pass Dn Use | Tgt Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Possession Receiver · +0.33 EPA/play | 6 | 12 | 59 | 662 | 11.2 | 6 #62 FBS | 48 | 18.1 | 16.5 | 29.8% (101/339) | |
Yards by week → Possession ReceiverReliable target who converts on critical downs. Not flashy; consistently productive. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. 332 of 558 WRs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Yards / reception12.3 bottom 38th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions Reception volume59 91th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions Trait fingerprint Plays like View Nick Marsh's full player page | |||||||||||
| Slot Technician · +0.56 EPA/play | 1 | 12 | 47 | 626 | 13.3 | 2 | 75 | 9.7 | 13.2 | 21.5% (73/339) | |
Yards by week → Slot Technician· Boom-or-bustRuns precise routes in tight quarters. Volume player who keeps chains moving. his yards come in chunks — feast or famine Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. 97 of 558 WRs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Reception volume47 75th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions Plays like View Omari Kelly's full player page | |||||||||||
| Complete TE · +0.71 EPA/play | 12 | 11 | 36 | 359 | 10.0 | 3 | 28 | 5.4 | 6.3 | 12.7% (43/339) | |
Yards by week → Complete TENo single go-to route — the receiving numbers show up inline and split out alike. All-Conference honorable mention / 2nd team — the recognition has started. 177 of 223 TEs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Yards / reception11.6 55th percentile · FBS TEs, min. 8 receptions Reception volume36 88th percentile · FBS TEs, min. 8 receptions Trait fingerprint Plays like View Jack Velling's full player page | |||||||||||
| Possession Receiver · +0.37 EPA/play | 13 | 10 | 24 | 330 | 13.8 | 3 | 45 | 13.3 | 9.5 | 10.9% (37/339) | |
Yards by week → Possession ReceiverReliable target who converts on critical downs. Not flashy; consistently productive. 332 of 558 WRs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Yards / reception13.3 bottom 50th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions TD rate12.5% 74th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions Trait fingerprint Plays like our readFading: his CFB Index score went from the 79th percentile among FBS WRs to the 40th | |||||||||||
| Red-Zone Weapon · +0.65 EPA/play | 81 | 10 | 19 | 232 | 12.2 | 3 | 28 | 2 | 3.5 | 5.6% (19/339) | |
Yards by week → Red-Zone WeaponThe first read called near the goal line — size and catch radius do the rest. 12 of 223 TEs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TD rate15.8% 80th percentile · FBS TEs, min. 8 receptions Yards / reception13.3 73th percentile · FBS TEs, min. 8 receptions Trait fingerprint Plays like View Michael Masunas's full player page | |||||||||||
| +1.00 EPA/play | 3 | 3 | 5 | 119 | 23.8 | 1 | 71 | 2.6 | 5.5 | — | |
Yards by week → | |||||||||||
Defensive Line
| Player | # | G | Tot | Solo | TFL | Sack | Hur |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Two-Gap Base | 91 | 12 | 50 | 16 | 2 | 1.5 | 2 |
Two-Gap BaseStout at the point of attack — steady tackle-for-loss production without a standout pass-rush number. Impact starter — above-average production for the conference. The most common profile in its group this season — 388 of 809 classified this way. Played in 12 of 21 games this season · junior · 4-star, 2022 class our readBreakout: his CFB Index score now sits at the 83rd percentile among FBS IDLs, up from the 37th | |||||||
| 3-Tech Penetrator | 9 | 10 | 29 | 15 | 5.5 | 2.5 | 8 |
3-Tech PenetratorDisruptive interior rusher who lives in the backfield. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. 269 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate19.0% 67th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like our readAscending: his CFB Index score now sits at the 56th percentile among FBS IDLs, up from the 31st | |||||||
| Two-Gap Base | 16 | 10 | 25 | 7 | 3.5 | 1 | 1 |
Two-Gap BaseStout at the point of attack — steady tackle-for-loss production without a standout pass-rush number. The most common profile in its group this season — 388 of 809 classified this way. Played in 10 of 21 games this season · senior View Grady Kelly's full player page | |||||||
| 3-Tech Penetrator | 99 | 10 | 25 | 14 | 5 | 2.5 | 9 |
3-Tech PenetratorDisruptive interior rusher who lives in the backfield. 269 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate20.0% 71th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like our readBounce-Back: his CFB Index score shows a real arc: 83rd percentile among FBS IDLs, fell to 29th, now back up to 52nd | |||||||
| Two-Gap Base | 93 | 7 | 15 | 8 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 |
Two-Gap BaseStout at the point of attack — steady tackle-for-loss production without a standout pass-rush number. 388 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate3.3% bottom 12th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like View Jalen Satchell's full player page | |||||||
| Two-Gap Base | 88 | 8 | 13 | 11 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
Two-Gap BaseStout at the point of attack — steady tackle-for-loss production without a standout pass-rush number. 388 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate15.4% 53th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like View Ru'Quan Buckley's full player page | |||||||
| Nose Anchor | 55 | 6 | 11 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Nose AnchorThe heaviest frame on the interior. Sack production is intentionally not the point of this profile. 152 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Weight335 lb 97th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like View Ben Roberts's full player page | |||||||
| 51 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Linebackers
| Player | # | G | Tot | Solo | Ast | TFL | Sack | PD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Balanced Linebacker | 5 | 12 | 88 | 47 | 41 | 4.5 | 2.5 | 1 | 1 |
Balanced LinebackerSolid in every phase without a signature dimension. Starter — over 60% of the snaps, holding the job. 362 of 660 LBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Tackle volume88 91th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles TFL rate5.1% bottom 28th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Trait fingerprint Plays like our readBounce-Back: his CFB Index score shows a real arc: 84th percentile among FBS LBs, fell to 20th, now back up to 84th | |||||||||
| Balanced Linebacker | 10 | 12 | 73 | 32 | 41 | 4.5 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Balanced LinebackerSolid in every phase without a signature dimension. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. The most common profile in its group this season — 362 of 660 classified this way. Played in 12 of 21 games this season · senior our readBounce-Back: his CFB Index score shows a real arc: 93rd percentile among FBS LBs, fell to 14th, now back up to 58th | |||||||||
| Balanced Linebacker | 23 | 10 | 34 | 17 | 17 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Balanced LinebackerSolid in every phase without a signature dimension. The most common profile in its group this season — 362 of 660 classified this way. Played in 10 of 21 games this season · senior · 3-star, 2020 class View Darius Snow's full player page | |||||||||
| Versatile End | 13 | 11 | 25 | 15 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Versatile EndNo single standout number, but nothing missing either — competent across the board. 139 of 200 EDGEs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate4.0% bottom 8th percentile · FBS EDGE, min. 10 tackles Plays like View Isaac Smith's full player page | |||||||||
| Versatile End | 41 | 12 | 24 | 10 | 14 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 1 | 0 |
Versatile EndNo single standout number, but nothing missing either — competent across the board. The most common profile in its group this season — 139 of 200 classified this way. Played in 12 of 21 games this season · sophomore View David Santiago's full player page | |||||||||
| Versatile End | 44 | 9 | 13 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 |
Versatile EndNo single standout number, but nothing missing either — competent across the board. The most common profile in its group this season — 139 of 200 classified this way. Played in 9 of 21 games this season · senior View Cam Williams's full player page | |||||||||
| 8 | 8 | 12 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| 4 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 11 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | |
| 17 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Defensive Backs
| Player | # | G | Tot | PD | INT | TFL | Sack |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hybrid Nickel | 43 | 12 | 52 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
Hybrid NickelMoves between deep coverage and the slot — the modern positionless DB. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. The most common profile in its group this season — 419 of 801 classified this way. Played in 12 of 21 games this season · senior · 3-star, 2022 class View Malik Spencer's full player page | |||||||
| Rover | 14 | 12 | 49 | 6 | 0 | 5 | 1 |
RoverHits like a linebacker and still takes the ball away. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. 83 of 801 Ss we've classified this way this season. Season receipt PD rate12.2% 71th percentile · FBS safeties, min. 15 tackles Plays like our readReinvented: changed shape entirely — Centerfielder to Rover, his CFB Index score moved from the 6th to 63rd percentile among FBS Ss | |||||||
| Hybrid Nickel | 19 | 11 | 36 | 1 | 1 | 1.5 | 0 |
Hybrid NickelMoves between deep coverage and the slot — the modern positionless DB. 419 of 801 Ss we've classified this way this season. Season receipt PD rate2.8% bottom 24th percentile · FBS safeties, min. 15 tackles Plays like View Armorion Smith's full player page | |||||||
| Hybrid Nickel | 1 | 4 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Hybrid NickelMoves between deep coverage and the slot — the modern positionless DB. The most common profile in its group this season — 419 of 801 classified this way. Played in 4 of 21 games this season · senior View Nikai Martinez's full player page | |||||||
| Centerfielder | 7 | 9 | 19 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
CenterfielderSingle-high range who erases the deep middle of the field. 133 of 801 Ss we've classified this way this season. Season receipt PD rate10.5% 63th percentile · FBS safeties, min. 15 tackles Plays like View Joshua Eaton's full player page | |||||||
| Hybrid Nickel | 2 | 7 | 19 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 |
Hybrid NickelMoves between deep coverage and the slot — the modern positionless DB. 419 of 801 Ss we've classified this way this season. Season receipt PD rate5.3% bottom 36th percentile · FBS safeties, min. 15 tackles Plays like View Aydan West's full player page | |||||||
| Hybrid Nickel | 6 | 4 | 16 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Hybrid NickelMoves between deep coverage and the slot — the modern positionless DB. 419 of 801 Ss we've classified this way this season. Season receipt PD rate6.2% bottom 41th percentile · FBS safeties, min. 15 tackles Plays like View Ade Willie's full player page | |||||||
| Hybrid Nickel | 30 | 7 | 15 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Hybrid NickelMoves between deep coverage and the slot — the modern positionless DB. 419 of 801 Ss we've classified this way this season. Season receipt PD rate0.0% bottom 14th percentile · FBS safeties, min. 15 tackles Plays like View Aveon Grose's full player page | |||||||
| 28 | 5 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| 27 | 7 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 25 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Kicking
| Player | # | G | FG M/A | FG% | XP M/A | Pts | Long |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steady | 29 | 11 | 12/16 | 75 | 26/27 | 62 | 50 |
Punting
| Player | # | G | No | Yds | Avg | Long | In20 | TB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Complete | 96 | 12 | 49 | 2378 | 48.5 | 60 | 20 | 1 |
Net average is unavailable — CFBD's punting feed carries gross yards only, with no return-yardage or touchback deduction.
Kick Returns
| Player | # | G | No | Yds | Avg | TD | Long |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Satellite Back · +0.04 EPA/play | 4 | 11 | 6 | 79 | 13.2 | 0 | 22 |
Punt Returns
| Player | # | G | No | Yds | Avg | TD | Long |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Slot Technician · +0.56 EPA/play | 1 | 12 | 12 | 150 | 12.5 | 0 | 83 |
2025 stat leaders
final
2025 stat leaders
1.
Jordan Hall
LB
88.0 tot (def)
2.
Wayne Matthews III
LB
73.0 tot (def)
3.
Nick Marsh
WR
662 yds (rec)
4.
Omari Kelly
WR
626 yds (rec)
5.
Malik Spencer
DB
52.0 tot (def)
Roster
2025
23
players carry a qualified CFB Index Score this season.
Jordan Hall
LB
#105 of 583
Nick Marsh
WR
#109 of 485
Alex VanSumeren
IDL
#79 of 330
Malik Spencer
S
#131 of 544
Jack Velling
TE
#44 of 156
Omari Kelly
WR
#142 of 485
+17 more
Michigan State · 2025 schedule & results4-8Brutal slateAverage opponent win rate 57% · 5 AP top-25 opponents on the schedule.
| Wk | Date | Us | Opp | Line | Opponent | Result | Record | Conf |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Aug 29 | #80 | #62 | -21.5 | Western Michigan | W 23–6 125 | 1-0 | 0-0 |
| 2 | Sep 6 | #71 | #75 | -3.5 | Boston College | W 42–40 134 | 2-0 | 0-0 |
| 3 | Sep 13 | #81 | #227 | -23.5 | Youngstown State | W 41–24 123 | 3-0 | 0-0 |
| 4 | Sep 21 | #87 | #31 | +18.5 | @USC | L 31–45 117 | 3-1 | 0-1 |
| 6 | Oct 4 | #81 | #36 | +12.5 | @Nebraska | L 27–38 118 | 3-2 | 0-2 |
| 7 | Oct 11 | #78 | #77 | -6.5 | UCLA | L 13–38 127 | 3-3 | 0-3 |
| 8 | Oct 18 | #92 | #4 | +26.5 | @Indiana | L 13–38 118 | 3-4 | 0-4 |
| 9 | Oct 25 | #93 | #18 | +13.5 | Michigan | L 20–31 138 | 3-5 | 0-5 |
| 10 | Nov 1 | #92 | #58 | +3.5 | @Minnesota | L 20–23 131 | 3-6 | 0-6 |
| 12 | Nov 15 | #86 | #15 | +6.5 | Penn State | L 10–28 112 | 3-7 | 0-7 |
| 13 | Nov 22 | #96 | #20 | +17.5 | @Iowa | L 17–20 130 | 3-8 | 0-8 |
| 14 | Nov 30 | #80 | #109 | -4 | Maryland (N) | W 38–28 147 | 4-8 | 1-8 |
Advanced box score (EPA, success rate, explosiveness)▼
| Date | Opp | Result | Yds | TO | TOP | EPA/play | Success% | Explosive% | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 30 | Maryland | W 38–28 | 453 | 1 | 31:44 | +0.292 | 52.1% | 119.9% | Best success rate |
| Nov 22 | @Iowa | L 17–20 | 335 | 1 | 30:20 | -0.010 | 39.4% | 120.6% | One-score loss |
| Nov 15 | Penn State | L 10–28 | 229 | 1 | 22:41 | -0.097 | 34.0% | 99.7% | Season-low EPA/play |
| Nov 1 | @Minnesota | L 20–23 | 467 | 0 | 34:34 | +0.180 | 43.8% | 150.8% | Most explosive |
| Oct 25 | Michigan | L 20–31 | 305 | 1 | 29:27 | +0.005 | 36.8% | 109.1% | |
| Oct 18 | @Indiana | L 13–38 | 367 | 0 | 31:14 | +0.267 | 45.9% | 122.2% | |
| Oct 11 | UCLA | L 13–38 | 253 | 1 | 23:36 | +0.072 | 44.3% | 94.8% | |
| Oct 4 | @Nebraska | L 27–38 | 242 | 3 | 33:24 | +0.012 | 30.9% | 126.0% | |
| Sep 21 | @USC | L 31–45 | 333 | 0 | 28:39 | +0.272 | 44.4% | 118.9% | Defense's roughest night |
| Sep 13 | Youngstown State | W 41–24 | 444 | 1 | 30:06 | +0.462 | 50.8% | 140.1% | Season-high EPA/play |
| Sep 6 | Boston College | W 42–40 | 380 | 1 | 29:48 | +0.129 | 33.3% | 129.9% | One-score win |
| Aug 29 | Western Michigan | W 23–6 | 336 | 2 | 36:47 | +0.008 | 48.6% | 101.4% | Best defensive stand |
| Season average (12 games) | 345 | 1.0 | +0.133 | 42.0% | 119.4% | ||||
How They Play · 2025
How They Play · 2025Michigan State fields a limited methodical, ball-control offense behind a porous, bend-don't-break defense.
Opponent-adjusted percentiles vs all FBS. Bar = where this team ranks — right is better.
Team identity · competitive snaps only
How Michigan State actually scores
27th percentile quality, 75th percentile boom-dependency. Garbage time excluded from both axes — the same correction that changes the Q4 story below.
View all FBS teams as a table
| Team | Quality percentile | Boom-share percentile |
|---|---|---|
| Air Force | 86th | 11th |
| Akron | 12th | 89th |
| Alabama | 58th | 17th |
| App State | 35th | 47th |
| Arizona | 64th | 37th |
| Arizona State | 41st | 62nd |
| Arkansas | 90th | 12th |
| Arkansas State | 17th | 66th |
| Army | 57th | 43rd |
| Auburn | 47th | 53rd |
| BYU | 78th | 19th |
| Baylor | 69th | 25th |
| Boise State | 66th | 20th |
| Boston College | 37th | 54th |
| Bowling Green | 2nd | 98th |
| Buffalo | 11th | 88th |
| California | 28th | 48th |
| Central Michigan | 52nd | 64th |
| Cincinnati | 89th | 16th |
| Clemson | 51st | 48th |
| Coastal Carolina | 17th | 83rd |
| Colorado | 18th | 84th |
| Colorado State | 16th | 83rd |
| Delaware | 38th | 58th |
| Duke | 80th | 14th |
| East Carolina | 63rd | 36th |
| Eastern Michigan | 49th | 42nd |
| Florida | 30th | 67th |
| Florida Atlantic | 62nd | 59th |
| Florida International | 42nd | 50th |
| Florida State | 83rd | 32nd |
| Fresno State | 26th | 73rd |
| Georgia | 81st | 3rd |
| Georgia Southern | 73rd | 21st |
| Georgia State | 36th | 70th |
| Georgia Tech | 84th | 5th |
| Hawai'i | 64th | 41st |
| Houston | 27th | 65th |
| Illinois | 75th | 26th |
| Indiana | 95th | 1st |
| Iowa | 44th | 40th |
| Iowa State | 68th | 22nd |
| Jacksonville State | 54th | 38th |
| James Madison | 65th | 44th |
| Kansas | 85th | 28th |
| Kansas State | 71st | 49th |
| Kennesaw State | 56th | 30th |
| Kent State | 21st | 86th |
| Kentucky | 15th | 85th |
| LSU | 14th | 81st |
| Liberty | 43rd | 56th |
| Louisiana | 19th | 73rd |
| Louisiana Tech | 39th | 61st |
| Louisville | 48th | 64th |
| Marshall | 55th | 39th |
| Maryland | 30th | 74th |
| Memphis | 80th | 24th |
| Miami | 76th | 5th |
| Miami (OH) | 34th | 67th |
| Michigan | 67th | 33rd |
| Michigan State | 27th | 75th |
| Middle Tennessee | 39th | 52nd |
| Minnesota | 29th | 77th |
| Mississippi State | 22nd | 77th |
| Missouri | 61st | 30th |
| Missouri State | 55th | 46th |
| NC State | 86th | 23rd |
| Navy | 94th | 17th |
| Nebraska | 48th | 57th |
| Nevada | 3rd | 97th |
| New Mexico | 58th | 60th |
| New Mexico State | 9th | 87th |
| North Carolina | 13th | 89th |
| North Texas | 98th | 7th |
| Northern Illinois | 8th | 92nd |
| Northwestern | 52nd | 36th |
| Notre Dame | 99th | 20th |
| Ohio | 67th | 18th |
| Ohio State | 93rd | 4th |
| Oklahoma | 20th | 80th |
| Oklahoma State | 5th | 95th |
| Old Dominion | 83rd | 45th |
| Ole Miss | 89th | 2nd |
| Oregon | 91st | 10th |
| Oregon State | 2nd | 98th |
| Penn State | 73rd | 33rd |
| Pittsburgh | 60th | 39th |
| Purdue | 25th | 78th |
| Rice | 6th | 94th |
| Rutgers | 70th | 27th |
| SMU | 74th | 42nd |
| Sam Houston | 4th | 96th |
| San Diego State | 24th | 76th |
| San José State | 45th | 69th |
| South Alabama | 36th | 58th |
| South Carolina | 23rd | 86th |
| South Florida | 87th | 23rd |
| Southern Miss | 40th | 55th |
| Stanford | 10th | 90th |
| Syracuse | 5th | 95th |
| TCU | 72nd | 35th |
| Temple | 70th | 34th |
| Tennessee | 96th | 11th |
| Texas | 45th | 55th |
| Texas A&M | 82nd | 14th |
| Texas State | 92nd | 8th |
| Texas Tech | 77th | 31st |
| Toledo | 50th | 61st |
| Troy | 14th | 80th |
| Tulane | 79th | 15th |
| Tulsa | 20th | 70th |
| UAB | 61st | 45th |
| UCF | 33rd | 82nd |
| UCLA | 23rd | 79th |
| UConn | 95th | 13th |
| UL Monroe | 11th | 92nd |
| UNLV | 88th | 9th |
| USC | 98th | 2nd |
| UTEP | 1st | 99th |
| UTSA | 77th | 51st |
| Utah | 97th | 6th |
| Utah State | 46th | 63rd |
| Vanderbilt | 100th | 0th |
| Virginia | 59th | 27th |
| Virginia Tech | 32nd | 71st |
| Wake Forest | 42nd | 72nd |
| Washington | 92nd | 8th |
| Washington State | 33rd | 52nd |
| West Virginia | 7th | 93rd |
| Western Kentucky | 53rd | 29th |
| Western Michigan | 31st | 68th |
| Wisconsin | 0th | 100th |
| Wyoming | 8th | 91st |
Fourth-quarter reliability, corrected
Michigan State's 4th-quarter offense, before and after garbage time
Raw Q4 EPA/play ranks 34th percentile in FBS. Strip out snaps taken with a blowout margin and it drops to the 12th — the correction is the finding, not a footnote.
Standard downs vs. passing downs
Does Michigan State hold up once the down-and-distance turns against them?
48th percentile success on standard downs, 39th on passing downs — little dropoff between the two — a schedule-independent identity.
View all FBS teams as a table
| Team | Standard-downs percentile | Passing-downs percentile |
|---|---|---|
| Air Force | 82nd | 69th |
| Akron | 20th | 36th |
| Alabama | 47th | 76th |
| App State | 41st | 80th |
| Arizona | 54th | 54th |
| Arizona State | 40th | 37th |
| Arkansas | 90th | 97th |
| Arkansas State | 51st | 40th |
| Army | 37th | 44th |
| Auburn | 73rd | 24th |
| Austin Peay | 56th | 13th |
| BYU | 91st | 46th |
| Ball State | 5th | 3rd |
| Baylor | 70th | 77th |
| Boise State | 42nd | 63rd |
| Boston College | 56th | 54th |
| Bowling Green | 10th | 17th |
| Bryant | 7th | 2nd |
| Buffalo | 29th | 20th |
| California | 25th | 66th |
| Central Michigan | 57th | 11th |
| Charlotte | 7th | 7th |
| Cincinnati | 89th | 65th |
| Clemson | 49th | 34th |
| Coastal Carolina | 16th | 22nd |
| Colorado | 8th | 48th |
| Colorado State | 29th | 35th |
| Delaware | 66th | 31st |
| Duke | 82nd | 63rd |
| East Carolina | 63rd | 91st |
| Eastern Michigan | 46th | 67th |
| Florida | 52nd | 45th |
| Florida Atlantic | 44th | 61st |
| Florida International | 50th | 26th |
| Florida State | 65th | 90th |
| Fresno State | 22nd | 71st |
| Georgia | 95th | 69th |
| Georgia Southern | 64th | 84th |
| Georgia State | 22nd | 75th |
| Georgia Tech | 92nd | 89th |
| Hawai'i | 33rd | 87th |
| Houston | 61st | 29th |
| Idaho | 30th | 78th |
| Idaho State | 93rd | 14th |
| Illinois | 79th | 95th |
| Indiana | 97th | 98th |
| Iowa | 74th | 19th |
| Iowa State | 80th | 58th |
| Jacksonville State | 59th | 56th |
| James Madison | 77th | 52nd |
| Kansas | 99th | 82nd |
| Kansas State | 37th | 59th |
| Kennesaw State | 44th | 67th |
| Kent State | 15th | 5th |
| Kentucky | 62nd | 29th |
| LSU | 18th | 52nd |
| Lafayette | 0th | 12th |
| Liberty | 65th | 53rd |
| Lindenwood | 4th | 1st |
| Long Island University | 24th | 78th |
| Louisiana | 24th | 23rd |
| Louisiana Tech | 41st | 24th |
| Louisville | 84th | 32nd |
| Maine | 3rd | 18th |
| Marshall | 71st | 62nd |
| Maryland | 11th | 86th |
| Massachusetts | 5th | 9th |
| Memphis | 75th | 68th |
| Merrimack | 1st | 83rd |
| Miami | 80th | 64th |
| Miami (OH) | 33rd | 39th |
| Michigan | 73rd | 74th |
| Michigan State | 48th | 39th |
| Middle Tennessee | 69th | 47th |
| Minnesota | 35th | 33rd |
| Mississippi State | 52nd | 35th |
| Missouri | 76th | 50th |
| Missouri State | 32nd | 50th |
| Murray State | 1st | 6th |
| NC State | 58th | 71st |
| Navy | 95th | 72nd |
| Nebraska | 78th | 51st |
| Nevada | 17th | 16th |
| New Mexico | 38th | 60th |
| New Mexico State | 16th | 33rd |
| North Carolina | 14th | 30th |
| North Texas | 100th | 97th |
| Northern Illinois | 9th | 5th |
| Northwestern | 48th | 88th |
| Notre Dame | 88th | 99th |
| Ohio | 69th | 76th |
| Ohio State | 99th | 99th |
| Oklahoma | 39th | 41st |
| Oklahoma State | 14th | 7th |
| Old Dominion | 72nd | 79th |
| Ole Miss | 83rd | 95th |
| Oregon | 93rd | 55th |
| Oregon State | 54th | 25th |
| Penn State | 76th | 73rd |
| Pittsburgh | 35th | 56th |
| Purdue | 46th | 88th |
| Rice | 20th | 0th |
| Rutgers | 71st | 84th |
| SMU | 50th | 57th |
| Sam Houston | 26th | 4th |
| San Diego State | 84th | 1st |
| San José State | 68th | 70th |
| South Alabama | 53rd | 28th |
| South Carolina | 31st | 8th |
| South Carolina State | 10th | 3rd |
| South Florida | 86th | 46th |
| Southern Miss | 27th | 38th |
| Stanford | 12th | 12th |
| Syracuse | 19th | 10th |
| TCU | 63rd | 82nd |
| Temple | 85th | 22nd |
| Tennessee | 97th | 81st |
| Texas | 27th | 61st |
| Texas A&M | 88th | 59th |
| Texas State | 60th | 93rd |
| Texas Tech | 45th | 65th |
| Toledo | 67th | 42nd |
| Troy | 18th | 27th |
| Tulane | 81st | 86th |
| Tulsa | 43rd | 43rd |
| UAB | 34th | 94th |
| UCF | 39th | 20th |
| UCLA | 28th | 48th |
| UConn | 96th | 37th |
| UL Monroe | 13th | 14th |
| UNLV | 78th | 85th |
| USC | 94th | 90th |
| UT Martin | 2nd | 41st |
| UTEP | 3rd | 10th |
| UTSA | 67th | 92nd |
| Utah | 87th | 96th |
| Utah State | 31st | 49th |
| Vanderbilt | 90th | 100th |
| Virginia | 36th | 73rd |
| Virginia Tech | 59th | 21st |
| Wake Forest | 21st | 31st |
| Washington | 98th | 93rd |
| Washington State | 61st | 44th |
| West Virginia | 12th | 18th |
| Western Kentucky | 55th | 80th |
| Western Michigan | 86th | 16th |
| Wisconsin | 6th | 27th |
| Wyoming | 23rd | 15th |
Halftime identity
Michigan State by half
1st-half offense ranks 44th percentile in FBS; 2nd-half, 30th — competitive snaps only, garbage time excluded from both halves.
Schedule mirage
How much of Michigan State's number is the schedule?
Raw EPA/play through week 21 is 0.13; 50th percentile once opponent strength is stripped out, it's 0.03. The widest gap came in week 3: 0.20 raw vs. 0.03 adjusted.
Michigan State reads strongest in explosive plays allowed (top 27%) and success rate (top 52%); the crux lives in success rate allowed, where Michigan State sits at the 15th percentile.
offense · strengths lead
defense · higher bar = harder to play against
hidden math · special situations
ELITE · 90+STRONG · 70+AVERAGE · 40-70CONCERN · 10-40BOTTOM · <10
Most Similar Programs · Michigan State
Most Similar Programs · Michigan StateReads Like
AkronTier 3 · Similarly-sized rosters up frontApp StateTier 3 · Similarly-sized rosters up frontArizonaTier 3 · Similarly-sized rosters up front
Static-attribute similarity across tier, archetype, conference, and voice. Not a prediction — a calibration.
Home-Field Advantage · Michigan State · 2018-present
Strong
57% home win rate vs 33% on the road. margin runs +6.8 better at home. Spartan Stadium seats 75,005, averaging 91% full (68,367 attendance, 24 games reported).
Home29-21Away13-26
Positional competition · RB room
The carries are split. The job isn’t.
Makhi Frazier and Elijah Tau-Tolliver split the carries (118/189 vs 71/189) -- but Elijah Tau-Tolliver leads on every measured axis. This isn't a split role, it's a hierarchy with a change-of-pace back behind it.
Makhi FrazierElijah Tau-Tolliver
Carries
the baseline -- every row below is tested against this split, not a flat 50/50
Targets
p = 0.015 -- real, not noise
Top-5-carry share
concentration and EPA/carry agree -- a real boom/bust split
Screened 2 claims, 2 survived
Positional competition · WR/TE room
The targets are split. The job isn’t.
Nick Marsh (WR) and Jack Velling (TE) split the targets (97/138 vs 41/138) -- but the job isn't split the same way.
Nick MarshJack Velling
Targets
the baseline -- every row below is tested against this split, not a flat 50/50
3rd-down targets
shared -- dots touch, this room really is a committee here
Garbage-time share
shared -- dots touch, this room really is a committee here
Top-5-catch share
concentration alone -- EPA/target doesn't corroborate, read with caution
Screened 3 claims, 0 survived, 3 falsified
What changed
Michigan State’s play-calling, before and after the change
Offense: Jay Johnson (2020–2023) → Brian Lindgren (2024–2025)
The biggest shift: red-zone pass rate moved down 5 points. The rest held closer to steady.
1st-down pass rate
Red-zone pass rate
4th-down go rate
Defense: Scottie Hazelton (2020–2023) → Joe Rossi (2024–2025)
The biggest shift: red-zone pass rate moved down 5 points. The rest held closer to steady.
1st-down pass rate
Red-zone pass rate
4th-down go rate
Season by season
How Michigan State’s current staff calls plays, year over year
Offense: Brian Lindgren (2024–2025)
1st-down pass rate
2024: 47% → 2025: 43% · 4-pt range · #155 of 171 · less than most
Red-zone pass rate
2024: 42% → 2025: 39% · 3-pt range · #165 of 171 · less than most
4th-down go rate
2024: 40% → 2025: 50% · 10-pt range · #136 of 171 · less than most
Defense: Joe Rossi (2024–2025)
1st-down pass rate
2024: 47% → 2025: 43% · 4-pt range · #173 of 189 · less than most
Red-zone pass rate
2024: 42% → 2025: 39% · 3-pt range · #186 of 189 · less than most
4th-down go rate
2024: 40% → 2025: 50% · 10-pt range · #143 of 188 · less than most
Defensive identity · pass zones
What this defense gives up, by zone.
On short passes, Michigan State’s defense allows a completion rate below the FBS mean (65.0% vs 65.9% league-wide, shrunk toward the mean for its 128-play sample) — mid-pack, 49 of 133 qualifying defenses.
We won’t show a deep-ball leaderboard here: at the defense level, most teams face well under 30 rich-feed deep targets all season — too thin to tell a real tendency from noise, so we won’t guess.
Screened 133 claims, 133 survived · 2025 only, in the 399 games with the detailed play-text feed; n=128 short-zone plays faced, raw rate 64.1%
Historical echo
Michigan State’s slide has precedent — and 1 of the 4 closest kept falling.
Programs whose stature fell in the same shape. The grey line is their decline; the color is what came next for them.
Tulsa 1952–1957
kept sliding
Georgia Tech 1966–1971
stayed down
Washington State 2006–2011
clawed back
Miami (OH) 1986–1991
clawed back
An analogy on the shape of a program’s Zeitgeist stature arc — not a prediction. Interim calibration, medium confidence; matched among current FBS programs at a comparable level.
Venue texture
57°F average kickoff temp; 12% of games had measurable precipitation; 10 mph average wind.
Based on 78 home games with weather data.
The CFP Era
12 seasons inside the CFP era, no bids yet — the era the program is still trying to break into.
TRAJECTORY · quality-score line · AP rank dotted · CFP bids marked · coach regimes ribboned
Program Quality
AP Rank (inverted)
CFP Appearance
Michigan State's 2014–2025 record is 80-65. The era is still being written; the CFP line is the one the program is arguing for.
All-Time Record
620-454-31
since 1898 · 121 seasons · .561 win rate
HOME
390-179-17
AWAY
212-257-14
NEUTRAL
18-18
1890s
1900s
1910s
1920s
1930s
1940s
1950s
1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000s
2010s
2020s
Program résumé
1CFP apps
The program, in full — read the essay
Michigan State started 2025 at 3-0 and lost its next eight games. Jonathan Smith was fired after two seasons and nine losses in the Big Ten. The school hired Pat Fitzgerald the next day. That is three head coaches in four years for a program that spent a decade making its rival fear November.
The program's self-image was forged in a specific kind of defiance. Duffy Daugherty won back-to-back national championships in 1965 and 1966. Mark Dantonio built the modern era on a simpler premise: Michigan State is at its best when it walks in as the smaller story and walks out with the trophy. The 2015 blocked punt returned for a touchdown as time expired against Michigan is the canonical moment — not a fluky win, but the expression of something the program knew about itself that its rival didn't. Dantonio went 8-of-11 against Michigan over his tenure. That stretch is why the post-Dantonio years sting the way they do.
Jonathan Smith lasted two seasons and finished 9-15. The 2025 collapse was especially clean: three wins to open the year, then eight straight losses before a season-ending win that changed nothing about the math. Michigan State fired Smith and hired Fitzgerald — the former Northwestern coach who rebuilt a smaller program into a consistent Big Ten contender before his tenure ended under difficult circumstances — the next day. Fitzgerald arrives in East Lansing with a coaching reputation built on toughness, culture, and making programs win more than their recruiting rankings suggest they should. The parallel to Dantonio's profile when he was hired is not lost on the fanbase.
The 2026 question for Michigan State is whether Fitzgerald can install enough of his system in a single offseason to arrest the program's slide or whether year one is a foundation season that asks the fanbase for patience it has already given twice. The program measures everything against one Saturday in November. The 2026 version of The Game will tell Fitzgerald — and the fanbase — a lot about what this reset actually is.
How they play
Hard-nosed, defense-and-toughness Big Ten football — the Dantonio template, which Fitzgerald's profile suggests he'll rebuild toward. Fitzgerald's Northwestern teams were disciplined, line-of-scrimmage-physical, and efficient rather than explosive offensively. Michigan State's identity has historically lived on defense: gap-sound, physical, difficult to run on. The 2026 roster's defensive depth is the most pressing rebuild question Fitzgerald faces entering fall camp.
Declining
Michigan State 2016–2025. Slipping -0.8 rungs across the last 10 seasons. Slope -0.34 rungs / year — moving down the prestige scale.
CFP Era · Michigan State
12 seasons on file
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
down middle peak CFP year
Season Standing · 2025 · 4-8
Season Standing · 2025 · 4-8FBS sub-.500
Michigan State: Below .500 in FBS play. The rebuild bar.
R0R1R2R3R4R5R6R7R8R9
Sub-FBSBuildingBowlRankedContenderPlayoff
Big Ten Standing · 2025
17th in the Big Ten
Michigan State is 17th of 18 in the Big Ten at 1-8. The path to the title is steep — the focus is on bowl access and rivalry wins.
| # | Program | Record |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Indiana | 11-0 |
| 2 | Ohio State | 9-1 |
| 3 | Oregon | 8-2 |
| 4 | Michigan | 7-2 |
| 5 | USC | 7-2 |
| 6 | Iowa | 6-3 |
| 7 | Illinois | 5-4 |
| 8 | Minnesota | 5-4 |
| 9 | Washington | 5-4 |
| 10 | Nebraska | 4-5 |
| 11 | Northwestern | 4-5 |
| 12 | Penn State | 3-6 |
| 13 | UCLA | 3-6 |
| 14 | Rutgers | 2-7 |
| 15 | Wisconsin | 2-7 |
| 16 | Maryland | 1-8 |
| 17 | Michigan State | 1-8 |
| 18 | Purdue | 0-9 |
Coaching Era · Michigan State
Coaching Era · Michigan StatePat Fitzgerald
Pat Fitzgerald took over from Jonathan Smith for the 2026 season.
Era Pat Fitzgerald · 2026–presentPrev: Jonathan Smith (2024–2025)OC: Nick SheridanPrev OC: Brian Lindgren (2024–2025)DC: Joe Rossi / co-Max BulloughPrev DC: Joe Rossi (2024–2025)
1
year · era
Rituals
Three gameday rituals — the ones outsiders never quite catch.
Sparty Statue
since 1945
The Sparty statue (terra-cotta, 9 feet) on campus is rubbed for luck before every game. Rivals (specifically Michigan students) have attempted to vandalize it; East Lansing PD responds with the seriousness of a national-security incident. Sparty IS the program.
The Old Brass Spittoon (vs Indiana)
since 1950
Trophy rivalry that nobody else takes seriously and East Lansing takes very seriously. The Old Brass Spittoon (literal antique spittoon) is the trophy. Origin is genuinely two history teachers in 1950 deciding it should exist.
Paul Bunyan Trophy (vs Michigan)
since 1953
4-foot tall wooden Paul Bunyan trophy, created in 1953 by Gov. G. Mennen Williams. Awarded to the winner of the Michigan-Michigan State game. The trophy has been stolen, rescued, and re-presented in ceremonies more elaborate than the trophy deserves. The rivalry is the calendar.
Program memory
What this program never forgets
Most weeks vanish. These didn’t.
1952
Biggie Munn's title
A 9-0 season under Biggie Munn won Michigan State the 1952 national title
The 1966 Game of the Century
Michigan State and Notre Dame tie 10-10 in a landmark integration-era showdown
The 2013 Rose Bowl run
A Big Ten title and Rose Bowl win, the Dantonio peak
The 2015 blocked punt vs Michigan
MSU returns a botched punt for a touchdown as time expires — the rivalry's defining miracle
Miracle
Moment of the Year · Michigan State · 2025
Moment of the Year · Michigan State · 2025Lost 13-38 at Indiana
Week 8 of 2025. The single game that defined the season's arc.
Bowl / Postseason Ledger
Bowl / Postseason LedgerRecent postseason (2014-2021): 4-2
Most recent: 2021 — win 31-21 (home). Last 5 postseason: 3-2.
20212019201820172015
NFL Draft Pipeline
2022–2026
NFL Draft PipelineSteady
11 picks last 5 cycles. Reliable mid-tier pipeline.
11
picks · 0 R1
#41
Ken Walker III
Running Back · 2022 · Seattle
#50
Jayden Reed
Wide Receiver · 2023 · Green Bay · #132/488 final season
#191
Jalen Nailor
Wide Receiver · 2022 · Minnesota · #122/468 final season
#17 all-time · 35 first-round picksthe talent factory →
Unit lineage
Michigan State’s offense and defense, by coordinator
FBS-relative efficiency percentile per season (2014–2025), same population as the Coordinator Mirror board. Dashed vertical lines mark a coordinator change.
Offense2014–2025
2014–2018 · co-Jim Bollman / co-Dave Warner2019 · Brad Salem2020–2023 · Jay Johnson2024–2025 · Brian Lindgren
Hired for 2026: Nick Sheridan — not yet reflected in on-field data.
Defense2014–2025
2014 · Pat Narduzzi2015–2017 · co-Harlon Barnett / co-Mike Tressel2018–2019 · Mike Tressel2020–2023 · Scottie Hazelton2024–2025 · Joe Rossi
Hired for 2026: Joe Rossi / co-Max Bullough — not yet reflected in on-field data.
Elite (≥70th pct)AveragePoor (≤30th pct)
Chronicle Visuals
Among the most continuous rosters into 2025 — 69% back, anchored by the qb room, only offense to settle.
The portal upgraded the P room but opened a hole at WR.
2 players drafted in 2026; the reload runs through the portal and recruiting.
Michigan State sits where recruit talent and draft yield largely match.
Featured in The Canon
This page may include content derived from public news sources, social media, and fan communities. We relay these sources as-is — we are not reporting them. Sources may be summarized or quoted imperfectly; for anything that matters, go look at the original source directly. The original source may also be wrong. AI-generated content is labeled and may contain factual errors. All analysis is editorial opinion, not professional reporting. Data sources · About this site