Week 3 report · Sat, Sep 19 · 2026 Week 3
Michigan State
2–6 · Ours #46 enteringOur rank going into this game, from the rankings page. The board's line comes from the betting model, which sees more than this one number.
10–27FinalWe had MSU 13 – ND 44
AP #3Notre Dame
7–1 · Ours #1 enteringOur rank going into this game, from the rankings page. The board's line comes from the betting model, which sees more than this one number.
Win chanceOur odds before kickoff: how often each team won outright when we played the game out thousands of times from our line.ND 97%ND won
ND 97%ND wonSpreadOur last pregame odds pull, usually inside the hour before kickoff. A median of the books we track, not a sharp close. First seen at ND −29.5.ND −29oursOur computer's point spread for this game, built from team stats, not from the betting odds. Read it like a betting line: −7 means we have that team winning by 7. −30.4 · MSU covered by 12
TotalOur last pregame odds pull, usually inside the hour before kickoff. A median of the books we track, not a sharp close. Our total was 56.9.51.5final 37 · under by 14.5
Our callThe side our number took at the early-week line, graded at that line. Line value is how far the market moved toward it by the last capture before kickoff.ND −29.5Llost 0.5 to the close
ND −29.5Llost 0.5 to the closeQuarterbacksthis game
Alessio Milivojevic9/17 · 123 yards
- EPA / dropbackExpected points added per dropback (passes and sacks) in this game. The percentile is among every 2026 FBS quarterback game with 10+ dropbacks.
- −0.428th pct
- Comp %
- 52.9
- TD
- 0
- Turnovers
- 22 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 4
CJ Carr18/24 · 234 yards
- EPA / dropbackExpected points added per dropback (passes and sacks) in this game. The percentile is among every 2026 FBS quarterback game with 10+ dropbacks.
- +0.4179th pct
- Comp %
- 75.0
- TD
- 0
- Turnovers
- 00 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 1
The matchupthis game · ▲▼ better or worse than the unit's usual · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| Michigan Stateoffense | Played like ND +17.5Fitted from non-garbage efficiency; describes how the game was played, not who deserved it. | defenseNotre Dame | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25th | 34.8%▼7.7 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 34.8%▼5.4 | 75th |
| 14th | −0.20▼0.18 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | −0.20▲0.01 | 86th |
| 11th | −0.41▼0.41 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | −0.41▲0.07 | 89th |
| 45th | 0.00▲0.04 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | 0.00▼0.09 | 55th |
| 15th | 2▼1.0 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 2▲0.7 | 85th |
| Notre Dameoffense | defenseMichigan State | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 76th | 49.3%▼4.8 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 49.3%▼7.9 | 24th |
| 56th | +0.09▼0.21 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | +0.09▼0.04 | 44th |
| 82nd | +0.41▲0.05 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | +0.41▼0.32 | 18th |
| 30th | −0.10▼0.33 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | −0.10▲0.13 | 71st |
| 79th | 0▲0.2 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 0▼0.4 | 21st |
Team statsthis game · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| Michigan StateMSU | Notre DameND | |
|---|---|---|
| Special teams & field position | ||
| Average startWhere the team's drives started on average. | Own 2738th | Own 3271st |
| Kicking vs expectedKickingPoints from field goals and extra points against what an average kicker makes from the same spots. | +0.5 pts60th | −1.4 pts18th |
| Drives & pace | ||
| PlaysOffensive plays outside garbage time. | 4626th | 6774th |
| Drive pointsThe part of the final margin the offense moved the ball for (efficiency, success rate, big plays, finishing drives), in points. A margin over the opponent. | −7.529th | +7.572nd |
| Turnovers & hidden points | ||
| Penalty first downsPenalty 1st downsFirst downs the team was handed by the opponent's penalties. | 08th | 251st |
| 4th downsPoints from going for it on fourth down, against what the average team gets from the same spots. | +0.5 pts78th | +0.6 pts85th |
| Hidden pointsPoints from outside the offense's drives: turnovers, field position, kicking, fourth downs, penalty first downs, return touchdowns and safeties. A margin over the opponent. ND +7.4: turnovers +5.2, field position +1.8, kicking −1.3, 4th downs +0.2, penalty first downs +1.5. | −7.418th | +7.482nd |
Season so far
Michigan State2–6 · 16th-hardest schedule
W
vs Toledo30–20push −10
vs Toledo30–20push −10W
vs Eastern Michigan35–7covered −17.5
vs Eastern Michigan35–7covered −17.5Lat Notre Dame10–27covered +29
at Notre Dame10–27covered +29L
vs Nebraska13–31missed +6
vs Nebraska13–31missed +6L
at Wisconsin3–31missed +8.5
at Wisconsin3–31missed +8.5L
vs Illinois37–38covered +2.5
vs Illinois37–38covered +2.5L
vs Northwestern21–24covered +7
vs Northwestern21–24covered +7L
at UCLA10–28missed +16
at UCLA10–28missed +16Notre Dame7–1 · 72nd-hardest schedule
Wvs Wisconsin41–13covered −21.5
vs Wisconsin41–13covered −21.5W
vs Rice52–0covered −44.5
vs Rice52–0covered −44.5Wvs Michigan State27–10missed −29
vs Michigan State27–10missed −29W
at Purdue49–10covered −27.5
at Purdue49–10covered −27.5W
at North Carolina37–26missed −21
at North Carolina37–26missed −21W
vs Stanford58–7covered −39.5
vs Stanford58–7covered −39.5L
at BYU24–28missed −10.5
at BYU24–28missed −10.5W
at Navy35–13missed −31
at Navy35–13missed −31Model cfb_best · uncertainty ±15.5 · run Sep 19, 6:05 PM EDT · froze at kickoff and graded as-is