Next up projections
vs Penn State
Week 7 · Sat Oct 17, 2:30 PM CT / 3:30 PM ET · Michigan Stadium (Ann Arbor) · Penn State (FBS, Big Ten)
Our call: Michigan by 4.1Lean
SP+ and Our model favor Michigan; Elo favors Penn State. The line, shown for comparison only, has Michigan by 6.5.
The average of SP+, Elo and Our model; the line is left out and kept as a benchmark. Toss-up under 3 points, Lean 3 to 7, Strong 7 and over. More ›
Regression watch: Last game's 6-point loss matched the play (score -7 against play), inside the 7-point band: no flag. More ›
Schedule: Played the 24th-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating +0.7); 8th-toughest remaining (+11.4). More ›
Opponents by our model's rating 5 played · 7 left
- Week 1 vs Western Michigan (-3.9)
- Week 2 vs Oklahoma (+14.7)
- Week 3 vs UTEP (-19.4)
- Week 4 vs Iowa (+11.4)
- Week 5 at Minnesota (+0.9)
- Remaining:
- Week 7 vs Penn State (+7.1)
- Week 8 vs Indiana (+19.1)
- Week 9 at Rutgers (-3.1)
- Week 10 vs Michigan State (-0.6)
- Week 11 at Oregon (+20.4)
- Week 12 vs UCLA (+11.2)
- Week 13 at Ohio State (+25.9)
Each opponent's rating from our model's week 7 snapshot, in points against an average FBS team; the averages are ranked among the 138 FBS teams. Played means through week 6. Experimental, like the Our model card.
Series: Michigan leads 17–10 · last: Michigan 24–15, 2023 · Michigan has won 3 straight
Series history 27 meetings since 1993
- All-time: Michigan leads 17–10 (27 meetings since 1993)
- Last meeting: Michigan 24–15, 2023, Beaver Stadium
- Streak: Michigan has won 3 straight
- At Michigan Stadium: Michigan leads 7–2 (9 meetings)
- Biggest margins: Michigan 49–10 (2016) · Penn State 46–17 (2008)
- Since 2000: Michigan leads 13–7 (20 meetings)
| Season | Result | Site |
|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Michigan 24–15 | Beaver Stadium |
| 2022 | Michigan 41–17 | Michigan Stadium |
| 2021 | Michigan 21–17 | Beaver Stadium |
| 2020 | Penn State 27–17 | Michigan Stadium |
| 2019 | Penn State 28–21 | Beaver Stadium |
| 2018 | Michigan 42–7 | Michigan Stadium |
| 2017 | Penn State 42–13 | Beaver Stadium |
| 2016 | Michigan 49–10 | Michigan Stadium |
| 2015 | Michigan 28–16 | Beaver Stadium |
| 2014 | Michigan 18–13 | Michigan Stadium |
| 2013 | Penn State 43–40 | Beaver Stadium |
| 2010 | Penn State 41–31 | Beaver Stadium |
| 2009 | Penn State 35–10 | Michigan Stadium |
| 2008 | Penn State 46–17 | Beaver Stadium |
| 2007 | Michigan 14–9 | Michigan Stadium |
| 2006 | Michigan 17–10 | Beaver Stadium |
| 2005 | Michigan 27–25 | Michigan Stadium |
| 2002 | Michigan 27–24 | Michigan Stadium |
| 2001 | Michigan 20–0 | Beaver Stadium |
| 2000 | Michigan 33–11 | home |
| Rating | Michigan | Penn State |
|---|---|---|
| SP+ | +13.1 #23 | +9.6 #38 |
| Elo | 1719 | 1802 |
Projected margin for Michigan · three models and the line, side by side
How to read this
- SP+ is a rating of how good a team is, in points better or worse than an average team, built from its play-by-play, so the gap between two teams' ratings is a projected margin.
- Elo is a rating that goes up with every win and down with every loss, more for beating a strong team, less for beating a weak one. The gap between two ratings is divided by 25 to turn it into points.
- The line is the pregame line, the margin the market expected, shown from Michigan's side. It is not one of the models: it is shown for comparison only, as the benchmark the models and Our call are measured against.
- Our model is this site's own experimental rating, built from each team's play-by-play adjusted for who it has played, blended with a preseason estimate from last season, returning players and recruiting. "prior 67%" means 67 percent of the rating is still that preseason estimate; the share shrinks as games are played.
- In SP+, Elo and our model the home team gets 2.5 points (Michigan); the line already includes the market's own home edge. The conversion to points is approximate.
- "avg miss 9.8" under a card is how far that model's projections have been from the actual margins this season, on average, in points. "closest 10/39" is how many of the season's 39 finished games that model came closest on (a tie counts for every tied model); the line, a benchmark, shows its average miss only. Shown once a model has 20 finished games.
- Our call, above the cards, is the site's prediction: the simple average of the SP+, Elo and our model margins. The pregame line is left out of it and kept as a benchmark to measure it against. Toss-up means the average is under 3 points, Lean 3 to 7, Strong 7 or more. It is made only when all three of those models have a number, and it is scored after the game like the models.
- Each card is one method's estimate, shown side by side; when they disagree, that is worth knowing.
- After a game, the sentence under the score shows every model and the line against the actual margin: ✓ when a model named the winner, ✗ when it did not (the line, a benchmark, gets no mark), and Closest: the model nearest the final margin among those present, never the line (an exact tie goes to the first listed). The "closest 10/39" counts keep the accuracy report's scoring of SP+ and Elo, where a tie credits both.
- Metrics explained: the four models and their track record ›
Efficiency matchup · season to date · Michigan 5 games, Penn State 6 games
Edge: Michigan wins 3 of 5
Michigan moves the ball better, stops plays better and allows fewer big plays. Penn State is more disruptive and has the edge on big plays.
-
42%✓ Moves the ballsuccessful plays 40%
-
33%✓ Stops playssuccessful plays allowed 40%
-
17% Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers ✓17%
-
1.15 Big playson offense ✓1.29
-
1.14✓ Big plays allowedon defense 1.28
Run game, head to head · season to date
Michigan's runs work 41% of the time; Penn State's run defense allows 42%. Penn State's runs work 37% of the time; Michigan's run defense allows 32%.
More numbers
| Measure | Michigan | Penn State | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Off. success rate | 42.3% | 40.4% | Michigan |
| Off. explosiveness | 1.15 | 1.29 | Penn State |
| Def. success rate allowed | 33.2% | 40.3% | Michigan |
| Def. explosiveness allowed | 1.14 | 1.28 | Michigan |
| Havoc created | 16.9% | 17.1% | Penn State |
- Run game, success rate: Michigan offense 40.5% · Penn State defense allows 42.1% · edge: even
- Run game, success rate: Penn State offense 37.1% · Michigan defense allows 32.2% · edge: Michigan
- Run game, PPA per play: Michigan offense +0.05 · Penn State defense allows +0.23 · edge: Michigan
- Run game, PPA per play: Penn State offense +0.01 · Michigan defense allows -0.13 · edge: Michigan
- Success rate: how often a play does its job, gaining enough yards to keep the offense on schedule.
- Explosiveness: how big a team's successful plays are on average; a higher number means more big gains.
- Havoc: how often the defense blows up a play with a sack, a tackle for loss, a takeaway or a pass broken up.
- PPA (predicted points added): how many points an average play is worth to the offense; above zero is good for the offense, below zero good for the defense.
How to read this
- Each row compares the two teams on one measure of how well they have played this season, offense and defense, using every game so far with garbage time (plays late in a decided game) left out.
- The run game rows pair one team's rushing offense with the other's run defense. The row goes to whichever side is further from the FBS baseline this season, the offense by how far it runs above it, the defense by how much less it allows (baseline: run success rate 43%, PPA per play +0.08, the midpoint of what FBS offenses gain and FBS defenses allow, since both also play FCS teams), so two strong sides or two weak ones are judged by which is the more so. Edges within 3 points of success rate or 0.05 PPA are even. A strong run offense against a weak run defense is where a team can control the game on the ground.
- In the five rows at the top the longer bar is the better number: bars are scaled within each row, and in the two "allowed" rows the lower number gets the longer bar.
- Success rate is the share of plays that kept the offense on schedule (half the yards needed on first down, most of them on second, all of them on third or fourth). Explosiveness is how big the successful plays were, on average, in points. Havoc is the share of the opponent's snaps the defense wrecked: a tackle for loss, a sack, a takeaway or a pass broken up.
- "Allowed" rows are what each defense gave up, so the lower value wins.
- These are not adjusted for who each team has played, so a light schedule flatters a team, and early in the season they rest on very few games.
- Metrics explained: success rate, explosiveness and havoc ›
Injuries
No injury report yet for this game. First reports usually come Wednesday.
Coverage (AI-assisted) · 11
Gathered by an AI model from public posts, not from CollegeFootballData. Not used in any number on this page. Verify against the linked sources. Beat coverage checked Mon Oct 12, 7:30 PM CT.
- Game Time, TV Designation Announced for Indiana Contest
-
Michigan Monday: Wolverines Return to Big House for Homecoming Against Penn State
Michigan will return to the Big House on Saturday (Oct.
-
Michigan keeps Underwood at quarterback and Beck calling plays
Michigan has not changed its starting quarterback or offensive play-caller.
-
Ohio State Iowa game led Week 5 with six million viewers
Ohio State versus Iowa drew six million viewers topping Week 5 Nielsen ratings.
-
Michigan TE Zack Marshall apologizes for criticizing OC
Zack Marshall apologized for leaked texts criticizing Michigan offensive coordinator Jason Beck.
- Game Time Revealed for Homecoming Contest vs. Penn State
-
Michigan Falls to Minnesota in 100th Battle for Little Brown Jug
Michigan took a 14-7 halftime lead behind interceptions from Smith Snowden and Nathaniel Staehling, but Minnesota scored 13 unanswered second-half points to…
- Postgame Notes: Minnesota 20, Michigan 14
- Player Participation: Minnesota 20, Michigan 14
-
Michigan is 1-2 versus Power 4 teams since beating Western Michigan
Michigan has not scored more than 19 points in a game since beating Western Michigan.
-
Texas-Tennessee was the most-watched Week 4 college football game
Texas-Tennessee drew 9.7 million viewers as Week 4's most-watched game per Nielsen.
1 entry about games now final not shown.
Score and result
Michigan 14, Minnesota 20L
Game page: the call before kickoff and how each model did ›
Projected: SP+ +5.3 ✗ · Elo +6.8 ✗ · Our model +9.0 ✗ · the line (benchmark) +7.5 · actual -6 · Closest: SP+
Michigan was as high as 75% and lost
- Q4 13:44 · 2nd & 3 · 41% → 16%(13:44) Shotgun #5 D.Lindsey pass complete short right to #1 D.Taylor caught at MICH02, for 3 yards to the MICH00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 13:44 #12 L.Drzewiecki kick attempt good (H: #42 T.Weston, LS: #52 A.Soukup)
- Q2 3:00 · 1st & 10 · 40% → 62%(03:00) #5 D.Lindsey pass intercepted by #44 N.Staehling at MICH21 QB hurried by #0 J.Hill #44 N.Staehling return 79 yards to the MINN00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 02:48 #99 T.Butkowski kick attempt good (H: #33 C.Brown, LS: #49 N.Crawford)
- Q2 13:52 · 3rd & 1 · 33% → 54%(13:52) Shotgun #23 J.Marshall rush middle for 5 yards gain to the MINN00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 13:46, 1ST DOWN. The previous play is under automatic review - "Runner broke the plane". CALL UPHELD #99 T.Butkowski kick attempt good (H: #33 C.Brown, LS: #49 N.Crawford)
Away at Huntington Bank Stadium · Sat Oct 3, 11:00 AM CT / 12:00 PM ET · vs Minnesota (FBS, Big Ten)
Opponent for every game-level number: Minnesota (FBS, Big Ten).
- By quarter: Michigan 0-14-0-0 · Minnesota 7-0-3-10
- Week 6 polls: neither team ranked
- Pregame Elo: Michigan 1739, Minnesota 1506
- Postgame win probability: 10.5%
Verdict
The 6-point loss matched the play: Minnesota's per-play edge (PPA (expected points added per play) -0.26 vs -0.21, success rate 37% vs 38%) implies roughly a +1 margin.
The verdict compares the score with the margin the plays earned. How it is reached ›
Efficiency
Edge: Minnesota won 3 of 4
Minnesota moved the ball better, got more from each play and was more disruptive. Michigan hit the bigger plays.
-
37% Moved the ballsuccessful plays ✓38%
-
-0.26 Points per playwhat a play was worth ✓-0.21
-
0.99✓ Big playssize of the good plays 0.97
-
8% Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers ✓29%
More numbers
Michigan ran 51 plays, Minnesota 66. Each number is that team's offense; Minnesota's column is also what Michigan's defense allowed.
| Measure | Michigan | Minnesota | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| PPA / play | -0.26 | -0.21 | Minnesota |
| Total PPA | -13.1 | -13.6 | Michigan |
| Success rate | 37.3% | 37.9% | Minnesota |
| Explosiveness | 0.99 | 0.97 | Michigan |
| Havoc created | 7.7% | 28.6% | Minnesota |
- Success rate: how often a play did its job, gaining enough yards to keep the offense on schedule.
- Explosiveness: how big a team's successful plays were on average; a higher number means more big gains.
- Havoc: how often the defense blew up a play with a sack, a tackle for loss, a takeaway or a pass broken up. Counted from the play-by-play, so it is approximate.
- PPA (predicted points added): how many points an average play was worth to the offense. Total PPA adds up every play, and is what the Verdict compares with the score.
How to read this
- The four rows at the top compare the two offenses in this game; the longer bar is the better number, scaled within each row. A number at or below zero draws no bar.
- A check marks the better side of a row. The line above the rows counts them: it describes how the game was played, not who won it.
- Metrics explained ›
Top performers
Michigan players by cumulative PPA in this game. Usage is the share of the team's plays of that type involving the player. Receiving is passing-play PPA for non-quarterbacks.
Passing
| Player | Pass usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bryce Underwood QB | 100% | -16.5 | -0.69 |
Rushing
| Player | Rush usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bryce Underwood QB | 28% | +4.9 | +0.69 |
| Jordan Marshall RB | 40% | +3.5 | +0.35 |
| Savion Hiter RB | 32% | -5.6 | -0.70 |
Receiving
| Player | Target usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hogan Hansen TE | 12% | +0.7 | +0.24 |
| Andrew Marsh WR | 29% | -0.5 | -0.07 |
| Zack Marshall TE | 4% | -1.1 | -1.07 |
| JJ Buchanan WR | 33% | -2.2 | -0.28 |
By play type
| Measure | Michigan | Minnesota | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rushing PPA | +0.11 | -0.15 | Michigan |
| Rushing success | 44.0% | 35.0% | Michigan |
| Passing PPA | -0.69 | -0.30 | Minnesota |
| Passing success | 29.2% | 44.0% | Minnesota |
| Standard downs PPA | -0.35 | -0.17 | Minnesota |
| Standard downs success | 45.5% | 45.8% | Minnesota |
| Passing downs PPA | -0.08 | -0.32 | Michigan |
| Passing downs success | 22.2% | 16.7% | Michigan |
Havoc detail — Michigan defense: TFL 3, sacks 0, takeaways 2, breakups 0 on 65 snaps. Minnesota defense: TFL 4, sacks 3, takeaways 2, breakups 5 on 49 snaps.
Drives
A scoring opportunity is a drive that reaches the opponent's 40-yard line or scores; points per opportunity is the points those drives produced divided by their number.
By half
Shown because the game changed between halves: the per-play edge swung by 0.85 points a play (Michigan +0.36 in the first half, -0.49 in the second). Overtime counts with the second half.
| Michigan | Minnesota | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 2nd | 1st | 2nd | |
| PPA / play | -0.02 | -0.56 | -0.38 | -0.07 |
| Success rate | 40% | 33% | 45% | 36% |
| Plays | 25 | 24 | 29 | 36 |
Recruiting
Michigan's 2026 class: #12 · 270.12 points.
| Measure | Michigan | Minnesota |
|---|---|---|
| Talent composite | 890.0 #11 of 138 |
728.8 #41 of 138 |
Transfer portal · 17 in, 33 out
Arrivals (17)
| Player | From | ★ | Elig. | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| John Henry Daley EDGE | Utah | 4 | Immediate | Jan 9, 2026 |
| JJ Buchanan WR | Utah | 4 | Immediate | Jan 12, 2026 |
| Salesi Moa CB | Utah | 4 | Immediate | Jan 12, 2026 |
| Smith Snowden CB | Utah | 4 | Immediate | Jan 13, 2026 |
| Trey Butkowski K | Pittsburgh | 3 | Immediate | Jan 8, 2026 |
| Taylor Tatum RB | Oklahoma | 3 | Immediate | Jan 8, 2026 |
| Jaime Ffrench Jr. WR | Texas | 3 | Immediate | Jan 11, 2026 |
| Brayden Fowler-Nicolosi QB | Colorado State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 11, 2026 |
| Jonah Leaea DL | Utah | 3 | Immediate | Jan 12, 2026 |
| Houston Ka'aha'aina-Torres IOL | Nebraska | 3 | Immediate | Jan 12, 2026 |
+7 more not shown (17 total).
Departures (33)
| Player | To | ★ | Elig. | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andrew Sprague OT | undecided | 4 | Withdrawn | Jan 7, 2026 |
| Jake Guarnera IOL | undecided | 4 | Withdrawn | Jan 12, 2026 |
| Jayden Sanders CB | Notre Dame | 4 | Immediate | Jan 12, 2026 |
| Ty Haywood OT | Alabama | 4 | Immediate | Jan 12, 2026 |
| Elijah Dotson CB | Missouri | 4 | Immediate | Jan 14, 2026 |
| Justice Haynes RB | Georgia Tech | 4 | Immediate | Jan 14, 2026 |
| Jake Garcia QB | undecided | 4 | Immediate | Jan 15, 2026 |
| Enow Etta DL | undecided | 4 | Withdrawn | Jan 18, 2026 |
| Zeke Berry CB | undecided | 3 | Immediate | Jan 2, 2026 |
| Jaden Mangham S | Purdue | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
+23 more not shown (33 total).
2026 commits · 24
| Player | Hometown | ★ | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carter Meadows EDGE | Washington, DC | 5 | 0.9945 |
| Savion Hiter RB | Mineral, VA | 5 | 0.9933 |
| Titan Davis DL | St. Louis, MO | 4 | 0.9595 |
| Malakai Lee OT | Honolulu, HI | 4 | 0.9543 |
| Travis Johnson WR | Chesapeake, VA | 4 | 0.9481 |
| Jamarion Vincent CB | Waco, TX | 4 | 0.9390 |
| Alister Vallejo DL | Liberty Hill, TX | 4 | 0.9208 |
| Marky Walbridge OT | Needham, MA | 4 | 0.9160 |
| Tariq Boney EDGE | Washington, DC | 4 | 0.9049 |
| Tommy Carr QB | Saline, MI | 4 | 0.9044 |
| Jordan Deck S | Frisco, TX | 4 | 0.8978 |
| Brady Smigiel QB | Newbury Park, CA | 4 | 0.8964 |
| McHale Blade DL | Chicago, IL | 4 | 0.8933 |
| Mason Bonner TE | Denver, CO | 3 | 0.8878 |
| Ace Hamilton IOL | Washington, DC | 3 | 0.8844 |
+9 more not shown (24 total).
Returning production
Share of last season's production returning for Michigan in 2026.
| Unit | % PPA | PPA | Usage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 69.2% | 212.5 | 71.1% |
| Passing | 103.7% | 69.8 | 98.6% |
| Receiving | 60.1% | 74.3 | 46.0% |
| Rushing | 58.9% | 68.4 | 66.8% |
A figure above 100% or below 0% is expected when last season's returning players had negative PPA in that phase, since PPA can be negative.