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 ›
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)
| 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 | away |
| Rating | Penn State | Michigan |
|---|---|---|
| SP+ | +9.6 #38 | +13.1 #23 |
| Elo | 1802 | 1719 |
Projected margin for Penn State · 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 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.
-
40% Moves the ballsuccessful plays ✓42%
-
40% Stops playssuccessful plays allowed ✓33%
-
17%✓ Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers 17%
-
1.29✓ Big playson offense 1.15
-
1.28 Big plays allowedon defense ✓1.14
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
| Measure | Penn State | Michigan | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Off. success rate | 40.4% | 42.3% | Michigan |
| Off. explosiveness | 1.29 | 1.15 | Penn State |
| Def. success rate allowed | 40.3% | 33.2% | Michigan |
| Def. explosiveness allowed | 1.28 | 1.14 | Michigan |
| Havoc created | 17.1% | 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 WRinjuryOutNoted 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.
-
Max Granville DEinjuryOutNoted 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.
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.
-
Weekly Press Conference - Head Coach Matt Campbell (Michigan)
Penn State football head coach Matt Campbell met with the media on Tuesday ahead of Penn State's road matchup against Michigan on Saturday.
-
Game Notes: Penn State vs. Michigan
Penn State meets Michigan on Saturday, October 17 at Michigan Stadium.
-
Michigan keeps Underwood at quarterback and Beck calling plays
Michigan has not changed its starting quarterback or offensive play-caller.
-
Football vs. USC Gallery 3 (10/10/26)
Penn State football fell to No. 19 USC, 31-23, on Oct.
- Football vs USC Gallery 2 (10/10/26)
- Football vs USC Gallery 1 (10/10/26)
-
Penn State Falls to No. 19/17 USC in Penn State White Out
Nittany Lions set Beaver Stadium attendance record with 114,419 on Saturday against Trojans
- Penn State Football Postgame Press Conference - USC
-
Becht Named To Johnny Unitas Golden Arm Award Top 15
Redshirt senior among 15 candidates for nation’s premier collegiate quarterback
-
Ohio State Iowa game led Week 5 with six million viewers
Ohio State versus Iowa drew six million viewers topping Week 5 Nielsen ratings.
-
Koby Howard injury update and Rocco Becht plan from press conference
Press recap includes Koby Howard injury update and Rocco Becht improvement plan.
- Penn State Football Weekly Press Conference - Week 6
-
Penn State Football Scheduled For 3:30 p.m. Kick At Michigan
Nittany Lions will take on the Wolverines at 3:30 p.m. on October 17
-
Football vs Northwestern (10/3/26)
PENN STATE DROPS ROAD TEST AT NORTHWESTERN, 34-13 Photos by Mark Selders
-
Penn State Drops Road Test at Northwestern, 34-13
Nittany Lions return to action Saturday, Oct.
-
Northwestern hosts Penn State tonight in renovated Ryan Field costing 850 million
Northwestern opens its new Ryan Field tonight against Penn State.
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
- 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)
- 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)
- 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).
- By quarter: Penn State 7-10-3-3 · USC 7-10-7-7
- Week 6 polls: Coaches: USC #17 · AP: USC #19
- Pregame Elo: Penn State 1821, USC 1785
- Postgame win probability: 15.0%
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.
-
38% Moved the ballsuccessful plays ✓50%
-
+0.04 Points per playwhat a play was worth ✓+0.44
-
1.20 Big playssize of the good plays ✓1.40
-
10% Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers ✓14%
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.
| Measure | Penn State | USC | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| PPA / play | +0.04 | +0.44 | USC |
| Total PPA | +2.8 | +28.2 | USC |
| Success rate | 38.5% | 50.0% | USC |
| Explosiveness | 1.20 | 1.40 | USC |
| Havoc created | 9.5% | 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
| Player | Pass usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rocco Becht QB | 97% | +14.6 | +0.46 |
Rushing
| Player | Rush usage | PPA | /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
| Player | Target usage | PPA | /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
| Measure | Penn State | USC | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rushing PPA | -0.16 | +0.11 | USC |
| Rushing success | 33.3% | 37.9% | USC |
| Passing PPA | +0.36 | +0.68 | USC |
| Passing success | 45.5% | 58.8% | USC |
| Standard downs PPA | +0.05 | +0.35 | USC |
| Standard downs success | 45.5% | 55.6% | USC |
| Passing downs PPA | +0.02 | +0.66 | USC |
| Passing downs success | 23.8% | 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.
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 State | USC | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 2nd | 1st | 2nd | |
| PPA / play | +0.32 | -0.09 | +0.44 | +0.40 |
| Success rate | 41% | 39% | 44% | 55% |
| Plays | 32 | 31 | 34 | 29 |
Recruiting
| Measure | Penn State | USC |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 class rank | 65 | 1 |
| 2026 class points | 194.39 | 310.67 |
| Talent composite | 774.0 #26 of 138 |
899.0 #9 of 138 |
Transfer portal · 38 in, 48 out
Arrivals (38)
| Player | From | ★ | 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)
| Player | To | ★ | 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
| Player | Hometown | ★ | 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 | % PPA | PPA | Usage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 7.6% | 21.5 | 3.5% |
| Passing | 3.3% | 2.5 | 0.3% |
| Receiving | 14.5% | 20.1 | 10.6% |
| Rushing | -1.6% | -1.1 | 1.5% |
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.