Week 8 report · Sat, Oct 24 · 2026 Week 8
Michigan State
2–6 · Ours #69 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.
10–28FinalWe had MSU 17 – UCLA 33
AP #9UCLA
7–0 · Ours #15 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.UCLA 83%UCLA won
UCLA 83%UCLA 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 UCLA −13.5.UCLA −16oursOur 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. −15.9 · UCLA covered by 2
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 50.6.43.5final 38 · under by 5.5
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.UCLA −14Wbeat the close by 2.0
UCLA −14Wbeat the close by 2.0Quarterbacksthis game
Leo Hannan9/15 · 67 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.
- −0.1228th pct
- Comp %
- 60.0
- TD
- 0
- Turnovers
- 11 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 1
Replaced Kayd Coffman in Q4
Ty Dieffenbach18/31 · 198 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.
- +0.0546th pct
- Comp %
- 58.1
- TD
- 1
- Turnovers
- 00 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 0
The matchupthis game · ▲▼ better or worse than the unit's usual · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| Michigan Stateoffense | Played like UCLA +26.1Fitted from non-garbage efficiency; describes how the game was played, not who deserved it. | defenseUCLA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10th | 28.3%▼15.2 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 28.3%▲6.0 | 90th |
| 5th | −0.38▼0.37 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | −0.38▲0.23 | 95th |
| 7th | −0.51▼0.53 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | −0.51▲0.24 | 93rd |
| 18th | −0.21▼0.21 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | −0.21▲0.13 | 82nd |
| 15th | 2▼1.0 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 2▼0.5 | 85th |
| UCLAoffense | defenseMichigan State | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 82nd | 51.9%▲6.7 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 51.9%▼10.9 | 18th |
| 53rd | +0.07▼0.05 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | +0.07▼0.01 | 47th |
| 50th | +0.05▲0.06 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | +0.05▲0.09 | 50th |
| 55th | +0.08▼0.16 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | +0.08▼0.08 | 45th |
| 79th | 0▲1.2 | 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 | UCLAUCLA | |
|---|---|---|
| Special teams & field position | ||
| Average startWhere the team's drives started on average. | Own 3057th | Own 3893rd |
| Kicking vs expectedKickingPoints from field goals and extra points against what an average kicker makes from the same spots. | +1.0 pts76th | −1.5 pts16th |
| Drives & pace | ||
| PlaysOffensive plays outside garbage time. | 5336th | 7794th |
| 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. | −18.211th | +18.289th |
| Turnovers & hidden points | ||
| Penalty first downsPenalty 1st downsFirst downs the team was handed by the opponent's penalties. | 251st | 698th |
| 4th downsPoints from going for it on fourth down, against what the average team gets from the same spots. | +0.3 pts68th | −0.2 pts35th |
| 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. UCLA +6.2: turnovers +2.6, field position +3.0, kicking −1.8, 4th downs −0.7, penalty first downs +3.1. | −6.222nd | +6.278th |
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 −17.5L
at 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 +7Lat UCLA10–28missed +16
at UCLA10–28missed +16UCLA7–0 · 75th-hardest schedule
W
at California45–24covered −2.5
at California45–24covered −2.5W
vs San Diego State28–10covered −13.5
vs San Diego State28–10covered −13.5W
vs Purdue52–38covered −13.5
vs Purdue52–38covered −13.5W
at Maryland54–3covered −2.5
at Maryland54–3covered −2.5W
at Oregon17–15covered +10.5
at Oregon17–15covered +10.5Wvs Wisconsin17–7covered −1.5
vs Wisconsin17–7covered −1.5Wvs Michigan State28–10covered −16
vs Michigan State28–10covered −16Model cfb_scratch · uncertainty ±15.5 · run Oct 24, 3:20 PM EDT · froze at kickoff and graded as-is