Skip to content

Massachusetts Minutemen

Mid-American·2-0·
Elo
1076#135
SP+
-25.8#135
FPI
-11.0
AP
NR
Nextvs Stonehill · Wk 3
Talent #128 (525.9)Recruiting class #116-57% production returning

Team Leaders

Latest on Massachusetts

All news

William Watson III had a hand in four of Massachusetts's six explosive plays

Matchup · Sep 4

Rutgers Kept KJ Duff and Rebuilt Almost Everything Else

Matchup · Aug 31

Roster · 102 players

FR 25SO 17JR 26SR 34
#PlayerPosClHtWt
5William Watson IIIQBSR6'0"210
7Will PerryQBJR6'2"205
10Ty McCutcheonQBJR6'3"200
13Aedan McCarthyQBFR6'5"230
16Logan InagawaQBSO5'11"210
0Jordan WashingtonRBJR6'1"215
4Da'Marion AlbericRBJR5'10"190
6Justin Williams-ThomasRBSR6'0"220
14Curtis Kimmons IVRBSR5'11"230
20Ricardo LaboyRBJR5'10"185
22TK DavisRBFR5'10"190
23Elijah FaulknerRBSO5'9"195
33Justin LewisRBFR5'10"200
1Joseph Griffin Jr.WRSR6'4"210
2T.Y. HardingWRSR5'9"185
3Elijah PedroWRSO6'1"190
8Kezion Dia-JohnsonWRJR6'0"185
9Devin MatthewsWRSR5'9"200
12David Moore Jr.WRFR5'11"180
15Tavian DashiellWRFR6'0"170
17Dallas ElliottWRSR6'3"200
19Jabari LewisWRSR5'11"190
21Kai OwensWRFR6'2"190
80Isaiah SimmonsWRFR5'9"175
85Drew AlsupWRFR5'9"175
11Max DowlingTESR6'6"260
18Matt OgunniyiTEJR6'5"235
83Reece AdkinsTESR6'6"260
86Jax MarkovichTESO6'4"250
87Owen AndersonTESR6'4"260
88John CondakesTEJR6'3"250
89Matthew TyborTEFR6'4"260
35Magnus Von SaldernOLSR6'4"280
50Gavin WilsonOLSO6'6"300
55Ben NoomeOLFR6'9"310
57Garrett CooperOLSO6'6"315
59Nick DalessandroOLSR6'4"305
63Aidan Canty-WhittOLFR6'3"320
64Peyton MillerOLSR6'3"330
65Samu SuominenOLSO6'4"330
66Greg Knox IIIOLSR6'6"315
67Will McNamaraOLFR6'5"285
69Brock TaylorOLJR6'3"350
73Zachary FranksOLSR6'6"310
74Jake McGrathOLFR6'6"310
75Tanner BurlingameOLJR6'5"305
76Riley BlochOLJR6'3"310
77Jaxon KingOLSR6'7"315
78Greg KlingensmithOLSR6'5"325
79Aitor UrionabarrenecheaOLSR6'5"350
2Joshua NoblesDLSR6'4"270
9Justin KruegerDLJR6'4"270
10Aubrey MelvinDLSO6'3"325
11Jerry WashingtonDLSO6'2"255
17Zachary BettsDLJR6'2"250
26CJ AmobiDLFR6'3"245
34Payton AndradeDLSR6'1"240
42Andrew DePaepeDLJR6'5"260
55Zakar MorrisDLJR6'2"300
58Donovan MurphyDLFR6'4"255
88Samuel MulbahDLFR6'3"265
90Tim Passmore Jr.DLSR6'2"340
92Romando JohnsonDLSO6'3"250
94Colin ReynoldsDLSR6'3"260
95Hollis DirstineDLSR6'2"290
97Robert EkinsDLFR6'2"285
98William DePaepeDLJR6'6"260
99Kamarion ThomasDLSO6'3"295
5Tyler MartinLBSR6'2"240
6Joshua IseahLBSR6'2"240
15Khari BendolphLBSO6'1"220
16Kendric CouncilLBJR6'2"230
18Dinos DrossosLBSO6'2"215
36David TimsonLBSO5'10"225
40Moritz StrempelLBFR6'3"230
44Timmy HinspeterLBSR6'1"235
0Isaiah ReedCBSR6'0"180
4Chris StanleyCBJR6'0"185
7TJ MageeCBSR5'10"195
12Corey WarnerCBFR5'11"195
13Raheim SexilCBJR6'1"200
21Terron JohnsonCBFR5'11"180
23JC ClarkCBSO5'10"175
28Ahkir MorganCBFR5'10"185
8Michael RobinsonDBSR5'11"200
1DD SnyderSSR6'0"200
3Kendall BournesSSR6'0"205
14Jose TouronSJR5'10"180
19David ChiavegatoSFR5'11"190
20Keith SarkodiehSJR6'2"195
22Jahmad HarmonSSR5'10"180
24Ted MondesirSFR6'2"200
25Anochie Azuakolam Jr.SSO6'2"185
27Michael PangaroSJR6'1"185
29Kareem PruittSFR6'3"180
38Zeraun DanielSSR6'1"220
33Seamus McIntyrePKFR6'2"230
99Derek MorrisPKJR6'2"205
43Edward PhillipsonPJR6'4"220
46Michael StreeterPSO6'4"220
51Grant MillsLSJR5'10"225
56James HortonLSJR6'0"215

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
37.0
scoring offense
Points allowed
15.5
scoring defense
Differential
+21.5
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
356.0#102
Yards / play
6.9#35
Passing yards / game
180.0#105
Rushing yards / game
176.0#66
First downs / game
16.0#119
3rd down %
35.0%#94
4th down %
100.0%#1
Time of possession
30:40#64
Defense
Yards allowed / game
326.0#70
Yards / play allowed
5.0#66
Pass yards allowed / game
239.5#102
Rush yards allowed / game
86.5#36
3rd down % allowed
25.0%#22
Sacks
5#38
Tackles for loss
7#111
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
+5#5
Takeaways
5#9
Giveaways
0#1
Penalties / game
8.0#105
Penalty yards / game
61.5#91

Rank is national among all FBS teams (#1 = best), oriented so higher rank = better even for defensive and discipline metrics. Bars show percentile.

Scouting Report · 2026 projection

Massachusetts is in year 2 under Joe Harasymiak. The strengths are defensive, led by 23rd at keeping everything in front of them. The way in is 138th at throwing it, and they are 138th at moving the ball on the ground.

Massachusetts has played 1 game against a genuinely tough slate, adjusted for here. That football carries about 0% of what is below; the rest is still the preseason projection.

Projected strengths

  • Defensehitting chunk plays
    #23
    projected

Projected soft spots

  • Offensethrowing it
    #138
    projected
  • Offensemoving the ball on the ground
    #138
    projected
  • Offensefirst and second down
    #138
    projected

Each bar is where this team sits in the country. Before the season has produced enough football these are PROJECTIONS — last season regressed to the mean, plus talent, returning production, recruiting and whether the staff is the same one — and the season replaces them as it is played. Head coaches only — there is no free feed for coordinators, so on a program where the head coach does not call the offense this describes the staff he hired. Play-calling identity is a style, not a grade: throwing more than the situations warrant is not better than throwing less than they warrant.

2026 Season Projection

model win prob · 9 to play
2.88.2
projected final record (now 20)
Exp. wins left
0.8
of 9 games
Bowl odds
0%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
33%
vs Ball State
Toughest
1%
vs Sacramento State

How the season could finish · 2026 · chance of each final win total · 9 games left

Every remaining game simulated from the model's win probability for it. Tallest bar is the single likeliest finish, not a prediction that it happens.

234567891011
final winstallest bar = 41% chance
Likeliest finish 3-8 (41%)Bowl eligible 0% · marked on the axis at 6

Player Value

EPA contribution by position group + estimated NIL market value (derived from position rates and on-field production — not actual deal figures).

Unit Value — Total EPA
QBWilliam Watson III, Logan Inagawa
+35.7 EPA
WRJoseph Griffin Jr., Ty Harding +2
+21.2 EPA
RBElijah Faulkner, Curtis Kimmons IV
+6.1 EPA
TEReece Adkins, Max Dowling +1
+4.7 EPA

Total EPA produced by each positional group this season. OL value is captured via the rush/pass efficiency of skill players; OL-specific EPA isn't separately reported.

Estimated NIL Market Value
ESTIMATED
EPA +34.60.824/play42 snaps
EPA +2.60.081/play32 snaps

Estimated from position-group market rates and on-field EPA contribution. Actual NIL valuations depend on social media following, brand fit, and market negotiations — these figures are directional only.

The Five Factors

ranked vs. FBS · bar = better
Efficiency (PPA)
Off0.4386th#20
Def0.0272nd#39
Explosiveness
Off1.2342nd#80
Def1.3429th#98
Field position
Off67.725th#104
Def75.815th#117
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off4.1553rd#65
Def0.8399th#3
Turnovers
Won 5Lost 0
Margin +5

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
Defense
Off · pass
0.7392nd#12
Off · rush
0.2776th#34

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.2776th#34
Def-0.2492nd#12
Passing
Off0.7392nd#12
Def0.3523rd#107

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
3.39#36
2nd-level / open-field
1.47 / 1.07
Power / stuff (off)
60.0% / 19.0%
Havoc — total (def)
15.7%#67
Havoc — front 7 / DB
6.7% / 9.0%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.38
Def-0.03
Pass downs
Off0.56
Def0.11

PPA on each down type (off vs. def).

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense0.23#270.56#160.48#81
Defense-0.28#180.34#1090.26#53

Elo Trajectory

@RutgersFinal
Elo rating 9781049+71 over season

Team Fingerprint · 2026 · 43 opponent-adjusted metrics · percentile vs 138 FBS teams

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.3983rd
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.0361st
  • Offense success rate50%72nd
  • Defense success rate allowed38%50th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs56%82nd
  • Offense success — passing downs31%40th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs40%61st
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs34%20th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.245th
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.342nd
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs1.176th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs1.514th

Trenches

  • Offense line yards3.476th
  • Defense line yards allowed2.469th
  • Offense highlight yards1.048th
  • Defense highlight yards allowed0.0298th
  • Offense power success0.4811th
  • Defense power success allowed0.8029th
  • Offense stuff rate0.1840th
  • Defense stuff rate0.2255th

Third down

  • Third down conversion35%28th
  • Third down distance faced7.136th
  • Third down conversion allowed27%82nd
  • Third down distance forced8.074th

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half0.2081st
  • Net success rate — second half0.0134th

Drives

  • Points per drive3.787th
  • Points per drive allowed1.865th
  • Average starting field position4199th
  • Opponent starting field position2482nd
  • Available yards gained58%70th
  • Available yards allowed41%74th
  • Scoring opportunities per drive80%50th
  • Scoring opportunities allowed58%96th
  • Points per scoring opportunity4.691st
  • Points allowed per opportunity3.047th
  • Three-and-out rate20%64th
  • Three-and-outs forced50%96th

Roster

  • Returning usage14%10th
  • Returning EPA-3.41st
  • Team talent composite5267th
  • Recruiting class rank11616th
  • Recruiting class points16716th

Every metric is opponent-adjusted and ranked so that higher is always better — a defensive rate that is good when low is ranked accordingly. Sack and tackle-for-loss composition are deliberately absent: their relationship to team quality is a measured null, so they carry a style rather than a rank, and they appear in the pressure signature instead.

Intelligence Report

Offensive DNA

Pass-dominant offense performing above the national average
EPA/play
+0.426#20 · top 20%
Pass EPA/play
+0.730#12
Rush EPA/play
+0.273#34
Explosiveness
1.230#80
Pts/opportunity
4.15#65
Success rate
51.6%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.457 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

Disruptive defense suppressing opponents below the national average
EPA/play allowed
+0.016#39 · above avg
Havoc rate (total)
15.7%#67
Front-7 havoc
6.7%
DB havoc
9.0%
Big play rate allowed
1.338#98
Success rate allowed
36.4%

Disruption comes primarily from the secondary.

📊

Season Signature

37.0 PPG offense, 15.5 allowed — +21.5 margin/game
Points per game
37.0
Points allowed/game
15.5
Scoring margin/game
+21.5
Turnover margin
+5won 5 · lost 0
Production returning
-57%
Talent rank (247)
#128

2-0 record through 2 games.

Team Shape · percentile vs. FBS · dashed = 50th

OFFENSE86thEXPLOSIVENESS42thFINISHING53thFIELD POS25thDEFENSE72thHAVOC52th50th100th
Offense
86th
Explosiveness
42th
Finishing
53th
Field Pos
25th
Defense
72th
Havoc
52th

Each axis = national percentile rank. 100th = best in FBS, 0th = worst. Defense and Havoc are oriented so higher = better.

CORE efficiency · situation and opponent removed

Points per 100 plays above average, after the game state is regressed out of every snap and the schedule is solved out across the whole league. The version of this team’s efficiency that can be compared to a team it never played.

Overall
-16.0
#122
Offense
-10.0
#121
Defense
+6.0
#108
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 10 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive3.701.75
Starting field positionown 40.8own 24.2
Available yards57.6%40.8%
Scoring opportunities80.0%58.3%
Points per opportunity4.633.00
Three-and-out rate20.0%50.0%
Every team’s drive efficiency →

Play-calling identity

Against what the league calls from the same down, distance, field position, score and clock — so this is the staff, not the game script.

Pass rate
38.3%
Expected, given the spots
39.4%
Over expected
-1.0
Fourth down vs peers
-10
Fourth down vs the model
-33
All play-calling tendencies →

National Landscape · 2026 FBS · offense vs. defense EPA/play

Each dot = one FBS team. Massachusetts is highlighted. Tap or hover a dot for details.

ELITEDEF. FORTRESSOFF. POWERHOUSEREBUILDING-0.100.00+0.10+0.20+0.30-0.050.00+0.10+0.20Offensive EPA/play← worsebetter →Defensive EPA allowed/play← worsebetter →

Similar Programs

Teams with the closest offense + defense efficiency profile to Massachusetts in 2026

by EPA/play distance
USCSP+ +17.7
Off EPA/play +0.421Def EPA/play +0.023Elo 1835
Match
99%
HoustonSP+ +6.5
Off EPA/play +0.425Def EPA/play +0.057Elo 1514
Match
98%
Georgia StateSP+ -22.7
Off EPA/play +0.431Def EPA/play +0.063Elo 1241
Match
97%
Penn StateSP+ +19.8
Off EPA/play +0.373Def EPA/play +0.049Elo 1891
Match
96%
Colorado StateSP+ -7.5
Off EPA/play +0.429Def EPA/play +0.088Elo 1336
Match
96%
Ohio StateSP+ +30.0
Off EPA/play +0.355Def EPA/play +0.043Elo 1986
Match
95%

Similarity = normalized Euclidean distance on season offensive and defensive EPA/play. Teams within ±0.02 EPA/play on both units score >90%.

Program Trajectory · CORE rating · 20152026 · points per game vs an average FBS team

2015: -13.0, #100 of 1282016: -19.5, #115 of 1282017: -4.5, #77 of 1302018: -19.3, #119 of 1302019: -55.8, #130 of 1302021: -39.2, #130 of 1302022: -27.6, #130 of 1312023: -18.3, #120 of 1332024: -15.7, #117 of 1342025: -40.3, #136 of 1362026: -16.0, #122 of 138
20152026
Now -16.0 · #122 of 138Best -4.5 in 2017Worst -55.8 in 2019

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20262-00-0
100%
2.0+0.0
20250-120-8
0%
1.6-1.6
20242-100-1
17%
4.8-2.8
20233-91-1
25%
4.2-1.2
20221-110-3
8%
1.7-0.7
20211-110-0
8%
1.3-0.3
20200-40-0
0%
0.0-0.0
20191-110-0
8%
1.0-0.0
20184-80-0
33%
4.5-0.5
20174-80-0
33%
4.7-0.7

xW = expected wins from per-game dominance. Luck = actual − expected (positive = won close games).

0.1%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

1-0 so far, projected to finish 6.7-5.4. Wins the Mid-American in 1.4%.

If they finish with…

5.7%
1 loss
0.1%
2 losses
0%
3 losses
0%
4 losses

Their chance of making it at each final loss count.

up 0.1 points since preseasonwon 37-21 over Rutgers against an expected margin of 38, so +54.0 against the number.

  • At 1 loss they are 5.7% where the average Mid-American team is 39%.
  • The Mid-American takes 0.07 bids in an average season.
  • One bid goes to the best champion outside the P4. They take it in 0.1% of seasons, having won their league in 89% of those.

Massachusetts’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk11at Toledo0.7
  • wk8at UConn0.5
  • wk6vs Miami (OH)0.5
  • wk7at Buffalo0.4
  • wk13at Bowling Green0.3
  • wk5vs Eastern Michigan0.3

Who to root for

Games Massachusetts is not in that move its odds most. Same units, much smaller scale.

  • wk13Michigan over Ohio State0.2
  • wk7Rutgers over Maryland0.1
  • wk11Rutgers over Nebraska0.1
  • wk6North Dakota State over UNLV0.1
  • wk3Oklahoma over New Mexico0.1
  • wk6Ohio State over Maryland0.1
The full playoff picture →

Mid-American

0-0 in league play, projected 3.5-4.58 of 13 by title odds
1.4%
Wins the Mid-American
5.9%
Reaches the title game

The Mid-American sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 46% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk11Massachusetts at Toledo5.0
  • wk6Miami (OH) at Massachusetts3.6
  • wk7Massachusetts at Buffalo3.2
  • wk13Massachusetts at Bowling Green2.7

Points of title probability riding on each result. The whole Mid-American race →

If not the playoff, then

55%
Bowl eligible
54%
Placed in a bowl
0.1%
In the playoff
46%
Season over in November

Massachusetts is 2-0 and needs 4 more wins from 10 games to reach the six that make a team eligible — at most one of which may come against an FCS opponent.

  • Arizona Bowl10%
  • Famous Idaho Potato Bowl7.6%
  • Myrtle Beach Bowl7.0%
  • GameAbove Sports Bowl6.4%
  • Boca Raton Bowl6.1%
  • Cure Bowl4.9%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 4 have sent Massachusetts a player since 2010 — 7 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of Massachusetts's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
Don Bosco PrepNJ20
StephensonGA20
West OrangeFL20
ParkwayLA10
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.