The SportsWire

Penn State

2026 · week 6 result vs USC

Updated Tue Oct 13, 7:56 PM CT

Next up projections

at Michigan

Week 7 · Sat Oct 17, 2:30 PM CT / 3:30 PM ET · Michigan Stadium (Ann Arbor) · Michigan (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 6.0.

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: at Michigan ›

Regression watch: Flattered last game: the 8-point loss ran 17 points ahead of the play. In a 2022–25 study, teams flattered by more than 7 fell about 3 points short of their season form the next game. More ›

Schedule: Played the 37th-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating -1.4); 59th-toughest remaining (+3.4). More ›

Opponents by our model's rating 6 played · 6 left
  • Week 1 vs Marshall (-11.2)
  • Week 2 at Temple (-6.6)
  • Week 3 vs Buffalo (-16.8)
  • Week 4 vs Wisconsin (+5.3)
  • Week 5 at Northwestern (+5.9)
  • Week 6 vs USC (+14.8)
  • Remaining:
  • Week 7 at Michigan (+11.8)
  • Week 9 vs Purdue (+2.0)
  • Week 10 at Washington (+4.2)
  • Week 11 vs Minnesota (+0.9)
  • Week 12 vs Rutgers (-3.1)
  • Week 13 at Maryland (+4.9)

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: Penn State 46–17 (2008) · Michigan 49–10 (2016)
  • 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 33–11away
RatingPenn StateMichigan
SP+ +9.6 #38 +13.1 #23
Elo 1802 1719

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

SP+
-6.0
Penn State +9.6 vs Michigan +13.1
avg miss 10.6
closest 47/79
Elo
+0.8
Penn State 1802 vs Michigan 1719
avg miss 12.3
closest 33/79
Line · benchmark
-6.0
pregame line
avg miss 11.1
Our model · experimental
-7.2
Penn State +7.1 vs Michigan +11.8
prior 50%
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 Penn State'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 · Penn State 6 games, Michigan 5 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.

Penn Statelonger bar = betterMichigan

Run game, head to head · season to date

Penn State's runs work 37% of the time; Michigan's run defense allows 32%. Michigan's runs work 41% of the time; Penn State's run defense allows 42%.

More numbers
MeasurePenn StateMichiganEdge
Off. success rate40.4%42.3%Michigan
Off. explosiveness1.291.15Penn State
Def. success rate allowed40.3%33.2%Michigan
Def. explosiveness allowed1.281.14Michigan
Havoc created17.1%16.9%Penn State
  • Run game, success rate: Penn State offense 37.1% · Michigan defense allows 32.2% · edge: Michigan
  • Run game, success rate: Michigan offense 40.5% · Penn State defense allows 42.1% · edge: even
  • Run game, PPA per play: Penn State offense +0.01 · Michigan defense allows -0.13 · edge: Michigan
  • Run game, PPA per play: Michigan offense +0.05 · Penn State defense allows +0.23 · 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 AI-assisted 2

Gathered by an AI model from public reporting, not from CollegeFootballData. Not used in any number on this page. Verify against the linked sources.

"AI-assisted" means gathered by an AI model from public reporting. When a conference publishes an official availability list for Penn State's game (the SEC, Big Ten and ACC do, for conference games), this section shows that instead, labeled "Official report". More ›

  • Koby Howard WRinjuryOut
    Noted Sat Oct 10, 4:30 PM CT.
    Big Ten availability report (Game Day), posted Sat Oct 10, 4:30 PM CT / 5:30 PM ET, for USC at Penn State, Sat Oct 10. Reporting: Star wide receiver will miss Saturday against Wisconsin and an extended period after an injury on a 70-yard touchdown versus Buffalo that is not season-ending.
    Sources (3): [1] [2] [3] · as of Sat Oct 10, 4:30 PM CT / 5:30 PM ET
  • Max Granville DEinjuryOut
    Noted Sat Oct 10, 4:30 PM CT.
    Big Ten availability report (Game Day), posted Sat Oct 10, 4:30 PM CT / 5:30 PM ET, for USC at Penn State, Sat Oct 10. Reporting: Top edge rusher is out for the season after playing in only one game.
    Sources (3): [1] [2] [3] · as of Sat Oct 10, 4:30 PM CT / 5:30 PM ET

Coverage (AI-assisted) · 16

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 Tue Oct 13, 7:30 PM CT.

4 entries about games now final not shown.

Score and result

Penn State 23, USC 31L

Game page: the call before kickoff and how each model did ›

Projected: SP+ n/a · Elo +3.9 ✗ · Our model -3.1 ✓ · the line (benchmark) +1.5 · actual -8 · Closest: Our model

Penn State was as high as 69% and lost Penn State was as high as 69% and lost Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 100% 50% 0% 23–31
  1. Q1 · 3rd & 10 · 41% → 13%
    No Huddle-Shotgun #14 J.Maiava pass complete short left to #17 K.Dixon-Wyatt caught at PSU00, for 10 yards to the PSU00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 11:11, 1ST DOWN #45 C.Chittenden kick attempt good (H: #35 L.Carrigan, LS: #53 L.Brown)
  2. Q1 · 2nd & 4 · 54% → 28%
    No Huddle-Shotgun #8 K.Miller rush left for 13 yards gain to the PSU00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 05:38, 1ST DOWN #45 C.Chittenden kick attempt good (H: #35 L.Carrigan, LS: #53 L.Brown)
  3. Q1 · 2nd & 11 · 50% → 25%
    J. Maiava pass to T. Hines for 11 yds, for a TD (C. Chittenden KICK)

Home at Beaver Stadium · Sat Oct 10, 6:30 PM CT / 7:30 PM ET · vs USC (FBS, Big Ten)

Opponent for every game-level number: USC (FBS, Big Ten).

Verdict

The scoreboard flattered Penn State: the -8 margin ran 17 points ahead of the -25 implied by per-play quality (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.04 vs +0.44, success rate 38% vs 50%).

The verdict compares the score with the margin the plays earned. How it is reached ›

Efficiency

Edge: USC won 4 of 4

USC moved the ball better, got more from each play, hit the bigger plays and was more disruptive.

Penn Statelonger bar = betterUSC
More numbers

Penn State ran 65 plays, USC 64. Each number is that team's offense; USC's column is also what Penn State's defense allowed.

MeasurePenn StateUSCEdge
PPA / play+0.04+0.44USC
Total PPA+2.8+28.2USC
Success rate38.5%50.0%USC
Explosiveness1.201.40USC
Havoc created9.5%14.3%USC
  • 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

Penn State 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
Rocco Becht QB 97% +14.6 +0.46

Rushing

PlayerRush usagePPA/play
Carson Hansen RB 43% +1.0 +0.08
James Peoples RB 23% -1.6 -0.23
Brett Eskildsen WR 3% -4.0 -4.00
Rocco Becht QB 33% -4.2 -0.42

Receiving

PlayerTarget usagePPA/play
Brett Eskildsen WR 12% +6.0 +1.50
Andrew Rappleyea TE 27% +5.0 +0.55
Chase Sowell WR 18% +4.3 +0.72
Gabe Burkle TE 9% +2.5 +0.84
By play type
MeasurePenn StateUSCEdge
Rushing PPA-0.16+0.11USC
Rushing success33.3%37.9%USC
Passing PPA+0.36+0.68USC
Passing success45.5%58.8%USC
Standard downs PPA+0.05+0.35USC
Standard downs success45.5%55.6%USC
Passing downs PPA+0.02+0.66USC
Passing downs success23.8%36.8%USC

Havoc detail — Penn State defense: TFL 0, sacks 1, takeaways 0, breakups 5 on 63 snaps. USC defense: TFL 2, sacks 2, takeaways 1, breakups 4 on 63 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.

◀ Penn StateUSC ▶
  • 9Drives9
  • 9Scoring opportunities9
  • 2.6Points per opportunity3.4
  • own 33Avg. starting field positionown 23
By half

Shown because the game changed between halves: the per-play edge swung by 0.37 points a play (Penn State -0.12 in the first half, -0.49 in the second). Overtime counts with the second half.

Penn StateUSC
1st2nd1st2nd
PPA / play+0.32-0.09+0.44+0.40
Success rate41%39%44%55%
Plays32313429

Recruiting

MeasurePenn StateUSC
2026 class rank651
2026 class points194.39310.67
Talent composite 774.0
#26 of 138
899.0
#9 of 138
Transfer portal · 38 in, 48 out

Arrivals (38)

PlayerFrom★Elig.Date
Benjamin Brahmer TE Iowa State 4 Immediate Jan 3, 2026
Marcus Neal Jr. S Iowa State 4 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Rocco Becht QB Iowa State 4 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Caleb Bacon LB Iowa State 4 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Chase Sowell WR Iowa State 4 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
Will Tompkins OT Iowa State 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Gabe Burkle TE Iowa State 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Alex Manske QB Iowa State 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Brett Eskildsen WR Iowa State 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Carson Hansen RB Iowa State 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026

+28 more not shown (38 total).

Departures (48)

PlayerTo★Elig.Date
Chaz Coleman EDGE Tennessee 5 Immediate Jan 10, 2026
Kaden Saunders WR Southern Miss 4 Immediate Jan 7, 2026
Xavier Gilliam DL Tennessee 4 Immediate Jan 9, 2026
Luke Reynolds TE Virginia Tech 4 Immediate Jan 11, 2026
Zuriah Fisher EDGE USC 4 Immediate Jan 12, 2026
A.J. Harris CB Indiana 4 Immediate Jan 12, 2026
Ethan Grunkemeyer QB Virginia Tech 4 Immediate Jan 14, 2026
Daniel Jennings EDGE Virginia Tech 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Matt Henderson TE Virginia Tech 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Elliot Washington II CB Clemson 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026

+38 more not shown (48 total).

2026 commits · 15
PlayerHometown★Rating
Elijah Reeder EDGE Bayville, NJ 4 0.9149
Jackson Ford EDGE Malvern, PA 4 0.9067
Josiah Zayas CB Edison, NJ 4 0.8961
Peyton Falzone QB Nazareth, PA 4 0.8933
Tyrell Chatman S Lincoln, NE 3 0.8867
Bryson Williams S Omaha, NE 3 0.8800
Mason Bandhauer OT Fort Collins, CO 3 0.8800
Ben Whitver WR Powhatan, VA 3 0.8767
Amarion Jackson WR Omaha, NE 3 0.8744
D'Antae Sheffey RB State College, PA 3 0.8700
Kase Evans QB Lexington, TX 3 0.8678
Christian Askew S Kathleen, GA 3 0.8667
Keian Kaiser LB Sidney, NE 3 0.8656
Pete Eglitis OT Columbus, OH 3 0.8589
Lucas Tenbrock P St. Charles, IL 3 0.8244

Returning production

Share of last season's production returning for Penn State in 2026.

Unit% PPAPPAUsage
Overall7.6%21.53.5%
Passing3.3%2.50.3%
Receiving14.5%20.110.6%
Rushing-1.6%-1.11.5%

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.