Skip to content

Michigan State Spartans

Big Ten·2-0·
Elo
1468#74
SP+
1.0#71
FPI
1.3
AP
NR
Next@ Notre Dame · Wk 3Win prob 3%Model +27.6
Talent #61 (685.0)Recruiting class #4521% production returning

Roster · 111 players

FR 48SO 18JR 15SR 30
#PlayerPosClHtWt
2Cam FancherQBSR6'0"207
10Kayd CoffmanQBFR6'2"206
11Alessio MilivojevicQBSO6'3"223
15Leo HannanQBFR6'3"221
23Peyton BabbittQBFR6'0"200
0Cam EdwardsRBSR5'11"206
4Jaziun PattersonRBSR5'10"214
7Brandon TullisRBJR6'1"224
20Zion GistRBFR5'11"209
21Marvis ParrishRBSO5'11"209
25Jace ClarizioRBFR5'10"213
26Cedric Williams Jr.RBFR5'9"201
27Darrin Jones Jr.RBFR5'11"206
32Kenneth WilliamsRBJR5'9"191
33Jaxon McCaigRBSO6'1"236
44Jay CoyneFBSR6'2"231
3Rodney Bullard Jr.WRSR5'11"188
5Samson GashWRFR6'0"185
6Fredrick MooreWRJR6'1"187
8KK SmithWRJR6'0"180
13Chrishon McCrayWRSR5'10"180
14Bryson WilliamsWRFR6'2"225
16Zach WashingtonWRFR6'2"188
17Braylon CollierWRFR6'0"187
18Jameel Gardner Jr.WRSR6'0"193
19Charles TaplinWRFR6'1"184
22Jack YanachikWRJR6'2"205
81Colin CharlesWRFR6'0"202
85Rai'Shawn ElmoreWRFR6'2"193
89Nick HardyWRFR6'1"194
12Carson GulkerTESR6'3"245
31Jayden SavouryTEFR6'5"253
48Charlie BakerTESO6'4"252
82Brennan ParachekTEJR6'5"249
84Eddie WhitingTEFR6'6"254
86Ethan MelvilleTEFR6'4"213
87Joe CaudillTEFR6'4"232
88Kai RiosTESR6'6"262
52Nick SharpeOLSR6'2"351
54Antonio JohnsonOLFR6'5"287
55Rakeem JohnsonOLSO6'4"296
56Jack ZiarkoOLFR6'2"286
58Conner MooreOLSR6'6"311
61Collin CampbellOLFR6'6"295
63Trent FraleyOLSR6'1"306
65Cole BertkeOLFR6'5"285
68Eli BickelOLFR6'6"312
70Luka VincicOLSR6'5"306
71Robert Wright Jr.OLJR6'5"294
73Rustin YoungOLSO6'4"308
75Ben MurawskiOLSR6'7"340
76Drew NicholsOLFR6'4"298
77Andrew DennisOLSO6'4"302
79Tristan ComerOLFR6'5"305
8Trey LisleEDGESO6'6"254
9Keahnist ThompsonEDGESR6'3"266
11Anelu LafaeleEDGESO6'2"240
13Isaac SmithEDGESR6'6"260
23Kenny Soares Jr.EDGESR6'2"234
33Cory House Jr.EDGEFR6'3"230
36Leonard Ah YouEDGEFR6'3"250
47Jaxson WilsonEDGEJR6'5"258
51Kekai BurnettEDGESO6'3"262
56Chris PiwowarczykEDGESO6'0"250
94Aidan BoehleEDGEJR6'4"253
25Carlos HazelwoodDLSO6'4"290
52Mikeshun BeelerDLSO6'2"290
55Ben RobertsDLSR6'3"325
57Hudson AultmanDLFR6'4"312
91Jackson PahlDLFR6'2"282
96Eli CoenenDLJR6'6"287
97Cal ThrushDLFR6'5"263
98Derrick SimmonsDLFR6'3"305
5Jordan HallLBSR6'3"249
10DiMari MaloneLBFR6'1"238
12Cam StodghillLBSR6'3"222
16Adam ShawLBFR6'3"223
18Dion CrawfordLBSR6'1"243
39Jack Lansing IIILBFR6'0"213
40DeJae WhiteLBFR6'3"225
44Caleb WheatlandLBSR6'1"244
45Brady PretzlaffLBSO6'3"238
0NiJhay BurtCBSR5'11"188
3Tre BellCBSR6'1"200
14Andrew Brinson IVCBSO6'1"186
19Charles BrantleyCBSR6'0"170
20Keshawn WilliamsCBSO6'0"187
22Tyran ChappellCBSO6'3"189
24Jeremiah FavoriteCBFR5'11"172
27Truth UmenyioraCBFR6'1"194
29KJ DerisoCBFR6'0"160
37Darelle CochranCBFR6'2"175
42Luca GenrichCBFR5'10"187
21Nikai MartinezDBSR5'11"196
2Devin VaughtSJR6'0"212
7Michael RichardSSR5'10"179
15Caleb GashSJR6'0"193
17Jonathan GranbySFR5'10"200
26Trevaughn MartinezSJR5'9"175
28Brayden ThomasSFR6'0"177
30Aveon GroseSSR5'11"187
31Deuce EdwardsSFR6'0"202
32Evan YoungSSO6'0"196
34Khalil MajeedSSR5'11"201
35Eliyjah CaldwellSFR6'0"188
37Liam BoydPKSR6'1"200
85Stephen GonzalesPKFR5'10"182
9Rhys DakinPJR6'4"235
49Alex WeeksPFR6'4"191
50Nick DuzanskyLSJR6'5"197
53Trey SerauskisLSFR5'10"205

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
32.5
scoring offense
Points allowed
13.5
scoring defense
Differential
+19.0
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
434.5#52
Yards / play
5.6#91
Passing yards / game
230.5#66
Rushing yards / game
204.0#40
First downs / game
25.0#29
3rd down %
48.5%#43
4th down %
83.3%#24
Time of possession
37:19#2
Defense
Yards allowed / game
246.0#24
Yards / play allowed
5.3#79
Pass yards allowed / game
157.0#38
Rush yards allowed / game
89.0#39
3rd down % allowed
33.3%#54
Sacks
6#20
Tackles for loss
13#47
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
+1#41
Takeaways
2#76
Giveaways
1#21
Penalties / game
4.0#17
Penalty yards / game
37.5#25

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 · 2 games in

balanced

Michigan State is in year 1 under Pat Fitzgerald, whose offenses have been balanced. The way in is 131st at staying out of the backfield, and they are 122nd at shutting down the ground game.

On fourth down he goes for it more often than his peers do from the same spots (+3.5%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −17.0% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

Michigan State has played 2 games against an average slate, adjusted for here. That football carries about 22% of what is below; the rest is still the preseason projection.

Soft spots

  • Offensegetting stopped at the line
    15.9%
    #131 of 138
  • Defensemoving the ball on the ground
    44%
    #122 of 138
  • Offenserunning it
    +0.05
    #120 of 138

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 · 10 to play
3.88.2
projected final record (now 20)
Exp. wins left
1.8
of 10 games
Bowl odds
7%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
34%
vs Illinois
Toughest
3%
vs Oregon

How the season could finish · 2026 · chance of each final win total · 10 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.

23456789101112
final winstallest bar = 31% chance
Likeliest finish 3-9 (31%)Bowl eligible 7% · 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
WRChrishon Mccray, Fredrick Moore +4
+23.2 EPA
QBCam Fancher, Alessio Milivojevic
+22.8 EPA
TEBrennan Parachek, Kai Rios +1
+7.0 EPA
RBJaziun Patterson, Camryn Edwards +2
-1.6 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 +22.40.335/play67 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)
Off0.1425th#104
Def0.1922nd#108
Explosiveness
Off1.1118th#113
Def1.4612th#121
Field position
Off62.85th#131
Def78.33rd#134
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off3.5633rd#93
Def3.0064th#50
Turnovers
Won 2Lost 1
Margin +1

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
Defense
Off · pass
0.3045th#76
Off · rush
0.0527th#101

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.0526th#102
Def0.2215th#117
Passing
Off0.3045th#76
Def0.1563rd#52

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
3.19#54
2nd-level / open-field
0.94 / 0.94
Power / stuff (off)
64.3% / 15.9%
Havoc — total (def)
23.2%#19
Havoc — front 7 / DB
14.7% / 8.4%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.11
Def-0.02
Pass downs
Off0.21
Def0.56

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

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense0.07#760.03#1050.36#99
Defense-0.15#380.52#1290.35#72

Elo Trajectory

ToledoFinal
Elo rating 14391528+89 over season

Team Fingerprint · 2026 · 46 opponent-adjusted metrics · percentile vs 138 FBS teams

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.1739th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.1919th
  • Offense success rate46%58th
  • Defense success rate allowed36%58th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs51%59th
  • Offense success — passing downs33%51st
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs39%67th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs29%42nd

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.126th
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.65th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs0.9736th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs1.942nd

Trenches

  • Offense line yards3.371st
  • Defense line yards allowed2.563rd
  • Offense highlight yards0.9444th
  • Defense highlight yards allowed2.47th
  • Offense power success0.6026th
  • Defense power success allowed0.3686th
  • Offense stuff rate0.1658th
  • Defense stuff rate0.2987th

Third down

  • Third down conversion47%62nd
  • Third down distance faced5.688th
  • Third down conversion allowed35%58th
  • Third down distance forced8.073rd

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half0.1363rd
  • Net success rate — second half0.0958th

Drives

  • Points per drive3.683rd
  • Points per drive allowed1.668th
  • Average starting field position3794th
  • Opponent starting field position2669th
  • Available yards gained69%90th
  • Available yards allowed87%1st
  • Scoring opportunities per drive89%70th
  • Scoring opportunities allowed72%68th
  • Points per scoring opportunity4.082nd
  • Points allowed per opportunity2.274th
  • Three-and-out rate6%93rd
  • Three-and-outs forced39%85th

CORE

  • CORE offense-0.5143rd
  • CORE defense4.816th
  • CORE overall-5.324th

Roster

  • Returning usage30%37th
  • Returning EPA52.930th
  • Team talent composite68556th
  • Recruiting class rank45.068th
  • Recruiting class points21468th

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 — below average EPA/play nationally
EPA/play
+0.138#104 · below avg
Pass EPA/play
+0.304#76
Rush EPA/play
+0.052#102
Explosiveness
1.110#113
Pts/opportunity
3.56#93
Success rate
45.3%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.252 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

High-pressure defense — allowing above-average EPA/play
EPA/play allowed
+0.192#108 · below avg
Havoc rate (total)
23.2%#19
Front-7 havoc
14.7%
DB havoc
8.4%
Big play rate allowed
1.457#121
Success rate allowed
37.0%

Disruption comes evenly from front and secondary.

📊

Season Signature

32.5 PPG offense, 13.5 allowed — +19.0 margin/game
Points per game
32.5
Points allowed/game
13.5
Scoring margin/game
+19.0
Turnover margin
+1won 2 · lost 1
Production returning
21%
Talent rank (247)
#61

2-0 record through 2 games.

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

OFFENSE25thEXPLOSIVENESS18thFINISHING33thFIELD POS5thDEFENSE22thHAVOC87th50th100th
Offense
25th
Explosiveness
18th
Finishing
33th
Field Pos
5th
Defense
22th
Havoc
87th

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
-0.8
#74
Offense
+0.3
#64
Defense
+1.2
#83
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 18 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive3.561.56
Starting field positionown 36.7own 25.8
Available yards69.5%86.9%
Scoring opportunities88.9%72.2%
Points per opportunity4.002.15
Three-and-out rate5.6%38.9%
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
43.0%
Expected, given the spots
44.7%
Over expected
-1.7
Fourth down vs peers
+6
Fourth down vs the model
+0
All play-calling tendencies →

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

Each dot = one FBS team. Michigan State 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 Michigan State in 2026

by EPA/play distance
MinnesotaSP+ +9.6
Off EPA/play +0.130Def EPA/play +0.191Elo 1510
Match
100%
KentuckySP+ +8.5
Off EPA/play +0.155Def EPA/play +0.178Elo 1476
Match
99%
WisconsinSP+ -1.5
Off EPA/play +0.114Def EPA/play +0.177Elo 1475
Match
98%
UABSP+ -16.0
Off EPA/play +0.162Def EPA/play +0.164Elo 1411
Match
98%
RutgersSP+ -3.6
Off EPA/play +0.124Def EPA/play +0.234Elo 1372
Match
97%
South FloridaSP+ -3.1
Off EPA/play +0.141Def EPA/play +0.146Elo 1679
Match
97%

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: +11.1, #33 of 1282016: +2.7, #55 of 1282017: +13.6, #23 of 1302018: +5.4, #41 of 1302019: +10.8, #28 of 1302020: -9.5, #93 of 1242021: +10.0, #37 of 1302022: -7.7, #92 of 1312023: -14.5, #108 of 1332024: -3.8, #80 of 1342025: -8.6, #91 of 1362026: -0.8, #74 of 138
20152026
Now -0.8 · #74 of 138Best +13.6 in 2017Worst -14.5 in 2023

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20262-00-0
100%
1.5+0.5
20254-81-8
33%
4.5-0.5
20245-73-6
42%
4.5+0.5
20234-82-7
33%
4.3-0.3
20225-73-6
42%
3.9+1.1
202111-27-2
85%
9.2+1.8
20202-52-5
29%
2.6-0.6
20197-64-5
54%
8.3-1.3
20187-65-4
54%
7.2-0.2
201710-37-2
77%
9.4+0.6

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

0.8%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

2-0 so far, projected to finish 5.4-6.6.

If they finish with…

53%
2 losses
0.6%
3 losses
0%
4 losses

Their chance of making it at each final loss count. Better than even up to 2.

down 0.8 points since preseasonwon 30-20 over Toledo against an expected margin of +14, so 3.7 against the number.

  • At 2 losses they are 53% where the average Big Ten team is 69%.
  • The Big Ten takes 2.71 bids in an average season, and four or more in 18%.

Michigan State’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk12vs Oregon3.3
  • wk10at Michigan2.9
  • wk8at UCLA2.3
  • wk4vs Nebraska2.1
  • wk11vs Washington1.8
  • wk5at Wisconsin1.5

Who to root for

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

  • wk7Kentucky over Oklahoma0.4
  • wk3Arkansas over Georgia0.4
  • wk6Kentucky over LSU0.3
  • wk10South Carolina over Texas A&M0.3
  • wk10Arkansas over Auburn0.3
  • wk4Ohio State over Illinois0.3
The full playoff picture →

Big Ten

0-0 in league play, projected 3.3-5.715 of 18 by title odds
0.1%
Wins the Big Ten
0.6%
Reaches the title game

The Big Ten sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 50% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

Points of title probability riding on each result. The whole Big Ten race →

If not the playoff, then

45%
Bowl eligible
41%
Placed in a bowl
0.8%
In the playoff
58%
Season over in November

Michigan State 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. In 2.9% of seasons they get there and still go nowhere: there are more eligible teams than seats.

  • LA Bowl6.8%
  • GameAbove Sports Bowl6.4%
  • Rate Bowl5.2%
  • Pinstripe Bowl4.0%
  • Xbox Bowl3.8%
  • Las Vegas Bowl3.3%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 11 have sent Michigan State a player since 2010 — 25 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of Michigan State's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
Archbishop MoellerOH50
Cass TechnicalMI50
HarrisonGA21
Hinsdale CentralIL21
BolingbrookIL20
ChaminadeCA20
Pickerington CentralOH20
WayneOH20
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.