The SportsWire

Michigan

2026 · Last game: week 5 vs Minnesota · bye in week 6

Updated Tue Oct 13, 7:56 PM CT

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 ›

Game page: vs Penn State ›

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)
SeasonResultSite
2023Michigan 24–15Beaver Stadium
2022Michigan 41–17Michigan Stadium
2021Michigan 21–17Beaver Stadium
2020Penn State 27–17Michigan Stadium
2019Penn State 28–21Beaver Stadium
2018Michigan 42–7Michigan Stadium
2017Penn State 42–13Beaver Stadium
2016Michigan 49–10Michigan Stadium
2015Michigan 28–16Beaver Stadium
2014Michigan 18–13Michigan Stadium
2013Penn State 43–40Beaver Stadium
2010Penn State 41–31Beaver Stadium
2009Penn State 35–10Michigan Stadium
2008Penn State 46–17Beaver Stadium
2007Michigan 14–9Michigan Stadium
2006Michigan 17–10Beaver Stadium
2005Michigan 27–25Michigan Stadium
2002Michigan 27–24Michigan Stadium
2001Michigan 20–0Beaver Stadium
2000Michigan 33–11home
RatingMichiganPenn State
SP+ +13.1 #23 +9.6 #38
Elo 1719 1802

Projected margin for Michigan · three models and the line, side by side

SP+
+6.0
Michigan +13.1 vs Penn State +9.6
avg miss 10.6
closest 47/79
Elo
-0.8
Michigan 1719 vs Penn State 1802
avg miss 12.3
closest 33/79
Line · benchmark
+6.5
pregame line
avg miss 11.1
Our model · experimental
+7.2
Michigan +11.8 vs Penn State +7.1
prior 55%
avg miss 11.8
closest 14/40
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.

Michiganlonger bar = betterPenn State

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
MeasureMichiganPenn StateEdge
Off. success rate42.3%40.4%Michigan
Off. explosiveness1.151.29Penn State
Def. success rate allowed33.2%40.3%Michigan
Def. explosiveness allowed1.141.28Michigan
Havoc created16.9%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.

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 Michigan was as high as 75% and lost Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 100% 50% 0% 14–20
  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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).

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.

Michiganlonger bar = betterMinnesota
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.

MeasureMichiganMinnesotaEdge
PPA / play-0.26-0.21Minnesota
Total PPA-13.1-13.6Michigan
Success rate37.3%37.9%Minnesota
Explosiveness0.990.97Michigan
Havoc created7.7%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

PlayerPass usagePPA/play
Bryce Underwood QB 100% -16.5 -0.69

Rushing

PlayerRush usagePPA/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

PlayerTarget usagePPA/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
MeasureMichiganMinnesotaEdge
Rushing PPA+0.11-0.15Michigan
Rushing success44.0%35.0%Michigan
Passing PPA-0.69-0.30Minnesota
Passing success29.2%44.0%Minnesota
Standard downs PPA-0.35-0.17Minnesota
Standard downs success45.5%45.8%Minnesota
Passing downs PPA-0.08-0.32Michigan
Passing downs success22.2%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.

◀ MichiganMinnesota ▶
  • 10Drives12
  • 7Scoring opportunities8
  • 1.0Points per opportunity2.5
  • own 30Avg. starting field positionown 35
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.

MichiganMinnesota
1st2nd1st2nd
PPA / play-0.02-0.56-0.38-0.07
Success rate40%33%45%36%
Plays25242936

Recruiting

Michigan's 2026 class: #12 · 270.12 points.

MeasureMichiganMinnesota
Talent composite 890.0
#11 of 138
728.8
#41 of 138
Transfer portal · 17 in, 33 out

Arrivals (17)

PlayerFrom★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)

PlayerTo★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
PlayerHometown★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% PPAPPAUsage
Overall69.2%212.571.1%
Passing103.7%69.898.6%
Receiving60.1%74.346.0%
Rushing58.9%68.466.8%

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.