Advertisement
Published Sep 28, 2018
PRE-SNAP READ: Spartans vs Chippewas
circle avatar
Jim Comparoni  •  Spartans Illustrated
Publisher
Twitter
@JimComparoni
Advertisement

EAST LANSING - This should be a good “get-well” game for Michigan State.

Central Michigan (1-3) does a few things well, some of which will test areas in which Michigan State needs tests and improvement.

Central Michigan is weak in some areas, areas that could and should give MSU’s weak areas a chance for some success, confidence and momentum.

Overall, the chance of an upset is less than it was for the Utah State game, which I compared to an Michigan State vs Maryland type of game.

After that game, I told my friend Tim Staudt on the air that Utah State would beat any of the in-state MAC schools by four touchdowns. Tim was shocked to hear that. I still stand by that, although CMU might be able to hang within three TDs of Utah State if CMU could create turnovers, as the Chippewas are known to do.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW PART 1

Locally, there is a lot of chatter about Lansing native Tony Poljan, who was a super stud passer at Lansing Catholic, as was his predecessor, Cooper Rush. I liked Poljan in high school as an intriguing prospect, tall and athletic, and said back then that he was a quality prospect because at 6-foot-7, with good athleticism, he had good potential to move to tight end if things didn’t work out at quarterback.


Michigan State offered him a scholarship late in the recruiting process, but CMU offered a shot at quarterback. He’s the only player I’m aware of, in history, who committed to Central Michigan after getting an Michigan State scholarship offer. Credit to him for that. Not a bad move. The MAC has produced several NFL quarterbacks how might have never developed if they had gone to a Big Ten school and rode the bench.

As it turns out, Poljan struggled at QB earlier this month. He doesn’t look as athletic as he did in high school. He is somewhat deceptively fast, but is more awkward than agile.

That wasn’t the biggest problem. He struggled with decisions and processing from the pocket, especially in a blowout loss to Kansas in which he was intercepted four times. The following week, he struggled mightily in the first half at Northern Illinois and was replaced in the second half, with CMU trailing 21-3.

His replacement, Tommy Lazzaro, rallied CMU. The Chippewas had the ball with an 8-point lead in the red zone when the game ended. Larraro was given the start against Maine last week, and CMU won. The job appears to be Lazzaro’s for the long haul. Poljan went to CMU head coach John Bonamego and said he was willing to change positions and do whatever the team needed. So Poljan played some wide receiver last week, and caught a deep fade pass for about 25 yards.

Poljan is still the No. 2 quarterback, but forget that stuff I said in the V-Cast about him being a threat to have a major impact on this game. I think CMU has moved on. I think Lazzaro is the guy. I think if Poljan sees time at QB in this game, it will be due to major problems for CMU.

In watching CMU closely, they have other players that are talented and more noteworthy and deserving of mention, specifically at MLB (Fountain), DE (Danna), DE (Stanitzek). Meanwhile they are weak at offensive tackle and defensive tackle, they are questionable at cornerback and often have tackling problems in the secondary.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW PART 2

1. CMU will be a good sparring partner for Michigan State because the Chippewas have a good pass rush. They will test MSU’s offensive tackles, which have struggled.

MSU’s pass protection will need to be better than it was last week against Indiana. Last week, Michigan State’s o-linemen were pretty good in pass protection for about three quarters, but then Jordan Reid and Tyler Higby sagged a bit in the fourth quarter. (The sacks Michigan State allowed earlier in the game were not charged to the o-line).

If Michigan State keeps Brian Lewerke clean this weekend, the Spartans will have earned it. CMU’s defensive ends are good. Michigan State needs to improve its pass protection in order to have a clean pocket for Lewerke. That’s a good test. Michigan State needs this test, and it’s good that it’s coming against a CMU team that isn’t all that capable of making you pay in other areas. That’s why they are a good sparring partner. They’ll test Michigan State in this area that needs testing.

2. Where stats lie:

Michigan State is ranked No. 123 in the nation in pass yards allowed (they used to call it pass defense. Now they call it “pass yards allowed,” which is probably more accurate).

CMU is No. 5 in the nation in passing yards allowed.

So CMU’s pass defense is WAY better than MSU’s right?

Right? Yeah, wrong.

CMU’s pass defense looks good because opponents have success running the ball against them. And CMU has played some poor quarterbacks. And, credit where it’s due, their pass rush is pretty good.

MSU’s pass defense looks bad on the stat sheet because teams can’t run the ball against them, and Michigan State has faced some pretty good QBs, and Michigan State has allowed “controlled” completions to the slot and flat while stopping the run and preventing big plays. That equation hasn’t always worked out all that gracefully, but you’re not seeing Michigan State DBs getting beat all over the field.

Michigan State has had coverage busts to the flat on two or three expensive occasions involving outside linebackers in zone coverage. That is correctable, but it’s getting tiresome. Last week, a true freshman safety was caught in a coverage conflict and was out of position when a crossing route against zone sprung out for a 65-yard TD. That was one of the first snaps of that player (Xavier Henderson’s) career, and had a difficult task of covering half the field in cover-two, which is not MSU’s base defense. So that, too, was a correctable isolated incident, but again something that is getting tiresome.

Overall, Michigan State was strong on pass defense in terms of yards allowed per pass attempt, especially when counting sack yardage.

But the stat sheet says Michigan State is No. 123 in the nation in that category. However, I seriously doubt that CMU’s quarterback will think MSU’s defense is actually that bad after the game on Saturday.

3. CMU is No. 104 in the nation in rush defense. Michigan State is No. 1.

Okay, those numbers are much more applicable to what’s actually going on, on a football field, in terms of teams winning or losing snaps on a down-in, down-out basis. Michigan State is winning A LOT of snaps on defense. If they keep doing so, I think this trend will begin to show itself in the feel-good national stat rankings in pass defense as well as run defense.

CMU is not firm at defensive tackle. Michigan State has had problems gaining movement with its double-team blocking on the offensive line as part of its inside run game. Michigan State needs improvement in this area. CMU offers an opponent with mediocre defensive tackles in the run-stopping category. It’s a chance for MSU’s struggling double-team blockers to work all week and gain some traction and confidence. That’s why I mean by a “get-well” game.

SET THE TABLE:

* CMU is 1-3.

Lost at Kentucky, 35-20

Lost to Kansas, 31-7

Lost at Northern Illinois, 24-16

Win vs Maine, 17-5

* The Latest: CMU replaced Poljan at QB when trailing NIU 21-3 in the third quarter. New QB Tommy Lazzaro rallied CMU with a pair of TD drives, cutting the lead to 21-16, before CMU ran out of gas, or ran out of time. CMU’s hopes of a huge comeback tie ended with a tip-drill INT in the end zone with :17 seconds left.

In the six quarters since Lazzaro became the No. 1 QB, Central Michigan has outscored its opponents 30-8.

* CMU head coach John Bonamego is 22-21 in his fourth year in Mount Pleasant. Bonamego, a native of Paw Paw, has taken CMU to three bowl games.

Prior to taking the job at CMU, he was a special teams coordinator in the NFL for seven different teams from 1999 to 2014.

Last year, CMU went 8-5 and played in the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl, where they lost to Wyoming, 37-14.

Last year, CMU finished the regular season with a five-game win streak, racking up 56, 35, 42, 42 and 31 points in those five wins. QB Shane Morris, the UM transfer, has graduated.

CMU had to replace him. Poljan got the first crack at it, but struggled.

* This is the 11th meeting between the Spartans and Chippewas. Michigan State holds a 7-3 lead.

* CMU’s last win against a ranked team was in 2016 at Oklahoma State on a crazy Hail Mary play.

“We are a young team, we are making progress every week and we have talented players on our team,” Bonamega said.

* CMU has 70 players from the state of Michigan (Michigan State has 48).

OFFENSIVE STYLE:

* CMU is no-huddle, but they aren’t hyper-speed no huddle.

* They run conventional spread, with RPOs. They aren’t explosive in terms of going downfield and throwing speed at you.

* Their run game is based off of inside zone, like everyone else’s. They are unique with their use of the QB power read option. That’s what they love in short yardage, with either quarterback. It’s a decent chain-mover but not an explosive element, somewhat similar to Brian Lewerke’s chain-moving run ability.

None of those run game elements will be a concern to Michigan State. Michigan State will do its usually dirty work and stop the run cold.

CMU has had trouble running the ball thus far this year. They will likely have zero success on Saturday.

* CMU is conservative on offense. They’ll run the ball on third-and-long, or they’ll throw short of the chains too often.

* After falling behind 14-3 at Northern Illinois, CMU received a kickoff at own 25 with 1:00 left, and they were willing to run the ball and run out the clock and get to halftime.

* A week later, with Lazaro at QB, on first and 10 from their own 1-yard line, CMU ran it three straight times including third-and-six, willing to punt rather than test the air. Some of their decisions are akin to the Perles ‘80s. And it’s worked for them, to an extent. Their defense has been decent at times, and they’ve used field position and turnovers and punt exchanges to set up scores.

* CMU’s returning wide receivers totaled only 14 receptions last year. They graduated some good ones. Their new WRs have had trouble making an impact, due in part to spotty pass protection and QB inconsistencies.

If CMU’s wide receivers are all that good, I haven’t seen it.

DEFENSIVE STYLE:

* CMU defensive coordinator Greg Colby was a defensive assistant on Nick Saban’s first staff at Michigan State, from 1995-97. He was a staff partner with Mark Dantonio, who was DBs coach for Michigan State back then.

* They run a 4-3/over, which is similar to MSU’s defense. In fact, it’s very similar. Michigan State’s offensive line has been more comfortable going against these type of fronts over the years.

CMU is mainly a one-gapping defensive front, which again is familiar and comfortable for MSU’s blockers.

CMU will occasionally dabble in two-gap schemes, but infrequently, and it hasn’t worked out well for them when they’ve done it - including a 47-yard TD run they allowed against Northern Illinois.

* CMU prefers to keep two safeties deep. There should be windows open against zone coverages. They’ll mix in man-to-man and blitzes like anybody else. They’ll play off coverage on the corners more than Michigan State does.

* CMU has a penchant for forcing turnovers. They forced four against Kentucky, all in the first half. CMU led the MAC in takeaways last year and ranked No. 3 in the country with 31 (19 INTs and 12 fumble recoveries).

KEY MATCHUPS:

* Brian Lewerke and his offensive line have some things to prove.

The o-line needs to show it can protect Lewerke for four quarters, not just three as was the case last week. Michigan State hasn’t had a clean game of pass protection all season. I’m not guaranteeing that Michigan State will be clean in this game.

MSU’s pass protection vs CMU’s pass rush is a major matchup. It’s THE matchup. If Michigan State is sound in this area, the Spartans could and should win by four touchdowns.

More likely, Michigan State will be merely solid-to-functional in pass protection. CMU defensive end Mike Danna (No. 7, 6-2, 250, Jr., Warren De La Salle) is good.

Danna had four sacks last week. Yes, four. It was against weak Maine pass protection, but he is a solid threat. He has no sacks in his other three games, but he has been credited with five QB its.

Danna would probably start for Michigan State. Colby thinks he has NFL potential. He’s smallish, but he’s quick, plays low, and has the leverage to “flip the table” on you when bull rushing. But bull rushing isn’t his main thing. He can zip and squeeze past you in a number of ways.

He’s smallish, but I haven’t seen him struggle in run defense. He’s strong for his size and uses his hands well.

Danna will play right end and left end. Jordan Reid has had good moments in pass protection this year, moving his feet well and looking like he can do the job, but then has lapses. He needs to play four good quarters. Danna will likely get the best of him once or twice. Michigan State needs to limit the damage on those.

I noticed Michigan State using running backs to chip block more frequently last week. That means RBs were helping offensive tackles with pass protection while on their way out into pass routes.

I would expect Michigan State to do more chip blocking in this game. Meanwhile, MSU’s running backs have seemingly made two or three pass protection errors per game. That needs to stop.

If Lewerke gets reasonably good pass protection, I would expect him to put a big dent in CMU’s so-called No. 5-ranked pass defense. He will see coverages very much like the ones he sees in practice. If he’s comfortable in the pocket, he should be comfortable finding his receivers.

In the meantime, Lewerke needs to be less risky with his decisions. The coaches feel he needs to dial it back a bit. I’m not sure he agrees. This will be interesting to observe, going forward.

**

Here’s the deal with CMU: They have good players at some positions, but are mediocre in others. That’s par for the course with MAC teams, and many Big Ten teams.

They are good at d-end. Not so good at d-tackle.

One of their d-tackles (No. 4, Nathan Brisson-Fast, 6-5, 270, Sr., Ferndale) is a pretty good pass rusher, with a good arm-over move. But he is not firm against double-teams. Neither is the other starting DT, No. 55, D’Andre Dill (6-1, 310, Jr., Chester, Pa.)

Michigan State should be able to isolate those defensive tackles with double-team blocks, gain displacement and enjoy more consistent success in the ground game than we’ve seen so far this year.

Kentucky rushed for 299 yards against CMU.

Kansas rushed for 216.

Northern Illinois rushed for 180.

Last week, Maine rushed for 82.

**

So what’s up with Maine?

Well, Maine is an FCS team. They were 2-0 prior to meeting CMU, with wins over New Hampshire and Division I Western Kentucky.

Maine went 4-6 last year. I don’t know why they played only 10 games.

Maine’s QB went down with an injury early in the game. Maine was not impressive.

**

So Michigan State SHOULD get the ground game going this weekend. And if they do, don’t plant a flag. Just look at it as progress.

CMU played decent defense against Kentucky for awhile, gang-swarming to the ball while hosting their gaps. But then CMU seemed a step slow in the second half.

**

When CMU has the ball, watch for Kenny Willekes to have another big game. CMU’s offensive tackles are the weakest Michigan State has faced this year.

Michigan State will stuff the run, and heat-up the QB. CMU is not explosive with hot reads or deep fades. They aren’t dynamic with tempo spread, or horizonal stretch concepts. There’s a chance Michigan State will shut down CMU’s offense.

If MSU gets rolling, freshman d-end Jack Camper could and should breakthrough with some noisy plays.

WHAT HAPPENED AT KENTUCKY?

Well, that was Labor Day weekend. That’s basically years ago. Think about Penn State vs Appalachian State that day, and how different PSU has looked since then. Same with Michigan and how they looked against Notre Dame.

Well, Kentucky is 4-0 for the first time since the Revolutionary War, or something like that. They’re one of the interesting stories of the season, with wins over a bad Florida team and what was supposed to be a good Mississippi State team.

So why and how was UK trailing CMU 17-7 in the first half.

Well, CMU did a good job hustling and swarming to the ball to contain the run for awhile, and the pass rush got home a little bit, and Kentucky’s quarterback was stinkage. They eventually changed QBs. I don’t know which QB has led them against Florida and Mississippi State, and I’m not going to look it up. But the QB Central Michigan faced for about a quarter and a half was not good.

Meanwhile, Poljan began 6 of 7 through the air. Nothing spectacular, he just dinked and ambled his way to some completions.

CMU led 3-0 after defense provided good field position, and Poljan found WR Cameron Cole (6-0, 202, Jr.) on a crossing route.

* Kentucky’s o-line was not good that day. They were miscommunicating, missing blocking, and CMU earned some plays up front. Many o-lines across the country were “behind” their defensive opponents in early September. That problem was rampant for offenses, from Michigan State to Michigan to Miami and Florida State and many others. Sacks allowed figures were WAY up in weeks one and two compared to last year, nationwide.

CMU took a 10-7 lead when their scoring drive was prolonged by a defensive personal foul on third-and-11.

Then, on UK’s next drive, CMU scored on a scoop-and-score when the Chippewa blew up a jailbreak screen, giving CMU a 17-7 lead at Kentucky.

* Kentucky scored on runs of 45 and 52 yards. (CMU’s safety took a bad angle on the first one and the other safety missed a tackle. On the second TD, CMU stunted but didn’t finish the stunts into the gaps and left daylight; from there, CMU’s safeties failed to tackle RB Snell of UK, who is a good one).

* But CMU stayed in it when DB Gage Kreske of St. Ignace made an easy interception on a terrible pass to the flat. He returned it to the 10-yard line. CMU settled for a field goal and led 20-14.

* UK scored late in the half to lead 21-20 at halftime, and controlled the second half, as Poljan came back down to Earth and the CMU defense lost some fizz.

**

PLAYERS TO KNOW

In order of importance:


QB TOMMY LAZARO (6-3, 217, Jr., Monument, Colo.)


* Transferred from Dodge City (Kan.) Community College in 2016.

* He played one series in 2016, didn’t play last year.

* He not taken a hit in a game in three years, prior to coming in vs Northern Illinois.

* Season Stats: 20-38 210 (52%) 2 TDs, 2 INTs.

* Started for the first time last week.

* He was interestingly impressive in relief at NIU. Impressive enough that I had to watch the Maine game to get a second read on him.

He was mediocre against Maine.

Against Maine, last week, he was 7 of 16 for 82 yards with 1 TD and 1 INT. He didn’t get good pass protection, getting sacked three times. CMU relied on defense and field position, and nursed home a win.

* He was 13 of 22 for 128 in one and a half quarters vs NIU with 55 yards rushing on 12 carries.

* CMU seemed like a completely different offense in the third quarter when he took over. Quicker with decisions, quicker feet.

* So which QB is he? The one who played vs NIU or the one vs Maine? Probably a combination. Neither version is good enough to do what Clayton Thorson or the QB for Utah State did. He’s not as good as Indiana’s QB and doesn’t have nearly the supporting cast.

Scoring plays:

+ 6-yard TD run on power read option.

+ TD to Julian Hicks on a slant to cut it to 21-16 with 9 minutes to play. CMU went for 2 and failed.

* Pretty good runner, somewhere between Lewerke and Drew Stanton in running style and effectiveness, although he seemed like a better runner against NIU than he did last week

* With the OTs not holding up in pass pro, CMU tried to move the pocket on its final drive of the game. But on a pair of half-rolls to his left, he wasn’t accurate. They had to keep him in the pocket, but he didn’t have much time to throw.

Vs Maine:

He got off to a slow start with inaccuracy, and spotty pass protection. He didn’t have that “beginner’s bump” that he enjoyed at NIU.

+ 5 yard TD on corner fade to the far side of the field to WR Jacorey Sullivan (6-1, 221, Soph., Muskegon), good throw. The TD drive was set up by the run and penalties, and a deep fade from Lazzaro to Poljan for about 20. That put CMU up 16-3.

+ Back shoulder fade completion to WR Hicks for 25 yards on an RPO.

* INT: Hit while throwing, as LT allowed pressure. Deep seam, in accurate due to the pressure.

Lazzaro as a recruit back in May of 2014:


info icon
Embed content not availableManage privacy settings

7 DE MIKE DANNA (6-2, 250, Jr.) Warren De La Salle.


* Was a 5.4 two-star recruit. He was a summer commitment with no other apparent offers.

* Had 11 sacks for a Division II state title team. Sacked Michigan commitment Alex Malzone twice in a quarterfinal upset of Brother Rice.

* Four sacks last week vs Maine, five TFLs, seven solo tackles.

* Entered the season with 5.5 career sacks.

* Fast, low take-off.

+ Penetrated on a fourth-and-one stoppage at the goal line last week.

+ Quick stop-and-start ability serves him well when playing the zone read as an unblocked d-end.

+ Speed bull rush for a sack late in the 1H, nearly for a safety. The guy probably has a very good power clean for his size or any size the way he gets under you and drives.

44 DE MITCH STANITZEK (6-4, 250, Grand Rapids West Catholic).

* Quality player.

* Was a 5.4 two-star. EMU was his only other offer.

* Quad-captain.

* Two-year starter, 6 career sacks.

* Pretty good shoulder club, quickish, Marcus Rush type.

* Can dip his shoulder and slant hard inside for penetration, did it for a third-down TFL in the third quarter vs NIU.

+ Drew a holding penalty with a good outside rush vs Kentucky.

8 MLB MALIK FOUNTAIN (6-2, 230, Sr., Olympia Fields, Ill.)

* Was ranked No. 70 in Illinois.

* Two-time All-MAC.

* Team-high 47 tackles, 1 sack, 1 INT

* Tied for the MAC lead in tackles on the year.

* Ranks No. 9 in the nation in tackles per game (11.8).

* Had 18 tackles in a loss at Northern Illinois.

* Quick first step, good cruising speed, good closing speed, lays out with good knack and some violence.

* A tough bowling ball of a LB.

* Plays hard, like a hungry veteran.

CMU has quality linebackers in Fountain, Michael Oliver (6-0, 235, Sr., Detroit Cass Tech), Alex Briones (6-2, 228, Sr., Ishpeming, Mich.) and Trevor Apsey (6-0, 221, Sr., Empire, Mich.)

Apsey and Oliver share time as co-starters.

These guys are huntin’ dogs. They’re sturdy, they play hard and they play correct.

If CMU had good defensive tackles, this front seven would be legit.

Their d-tackles aren’t bad, they just aren’t all-around players. No. 4 at DT is a good pass rusher but not firm against the run. No. 71 comes off the bench and he’s firm, but has no lateral quickness. That type of thing.

CMU’s back-up defensive end, Sean Adesanya (6-3, 250, Sr., Thatcher, Ariz.) is a grad transfer from Illinois. he was a 5.5 three-star recruit. He’s a pretty good pass rusher, but not strong against the run. That type of thing.

**

* At QB, Tony Poljan is 40 of 70 for 344 yards with 1 TD and 4 INTs.

* Poljan was 18 of 32 for 177 yards with 1 TD and 4 INTs vs Kansas.

* He 5-of-11 for 30 yards before being pulled in the third quarter at NIU, trailing 21-3.

* CMU committed six turnovers against Kansas, as the Jayhawks snapped a 46-game road losing, which was the second-longest road losing streak in NCAA history.

OTHER OFFENSIVE PERSONNEL

RB JONATHAN WARD (6-0, 202, Jr., Kankakee, Ill.)

info icon
Embed content not availableManage privacy settings

* Good slashing speed to the outside, as you would expect from a 1,000-yard rusher.

* Was second-team All-MAC lat year with 1019 yards rushing.

* He had 48 catches last year.

* In the first two games, he had only 22 total carries.

* Rushed 16 times for 74 yards vs NIU.

He has some ability. He could probably hang with some Big Ten rosters. But CMU is not getting good blocking up front. And the pass game isn’t good enough to stretch linebackers and safeties out of the box.

Their run game stats are not good.

Ward is averaging just 3.0 yards per carry (156 yards on 52 carries). He's better than that.

* Second-string RB Kemehnnu Gwilly (6-2, 246, Soph.) makes good use of his size. He is averaging 3.2 per carry (122 yards on 38 carries).

QB Lazzaro is the third leading rusher, averaging 3.8 per carry. They use him quite often on power read option, especially on third down.

AT WIDE RECEIVER…

Cameron Cole (6-0, 202, Jr., Cincinnati LaSalle) has a team-high 11 catches, 127 yards.

Cole originally signed with Indiana as a 5.5 three-star recruit.

Julian Hicks (6-2, 186, R-Fr., Cleveland) has nine catches for 101 yards.


Brandon Childress (6-2, 184, Jr., Baldwin, Mich.) has eight catches for 75 yards. They tried to go deep to him last week but he didn’t beat the CB. He signed with CMU as a dual-threat three-star QB.

None of those guys seem all that frightening. Hicks is probably the guy with potential.

WHAT ABOUT THE DBs?

* No. 22 is the guy to test. He’s Xavier Crawford (6-1, 180, JR., Concord, Calif.) He is a grad transfer from Oregon State. He was a 5.4 two-star recruit.

- Beaten on a hitch-and-go double move for a TD vs NIU in the red zone.

- Beaten deep on an out and up midway through the fourth quarter, but the NIU QB over-threw him.

* Maine tried to test him but didn’t have the athletes to do it.

SPECIAL TEAMS?

* CMU blocked a field goal last week, Mike Dana take off and low pad level.

* Kicker Ryan Tice left Michigan to become a grad transfer at Tennessee in May, and then changed his mind in August and opted for CMU. He was granted a waiver the day before the opener against Kentucky.

He is 2-of-2 on field goals including a 41-yarder.

He took over for Mike Armstrong, who missed a 25-yarder in the first quarter at NIU.

* True freshman Kobe Lewis averages 23.5 yards per kick return

* Australian punter Jack Sheldon averaged 43.4 yards per punt last year. His 41.5 mark this year ranks No. 5 in the MAC.

ADD IT ALL UP

Michigan State wins this game handily if the Spartans don’t beat themselves, or keep the score down due to red zone failures and third down botches.

MSU needs to protect Lewerke, get the ground game pounding, punch holes in the defensive tackles, attack No. 22 through the air. There are some fun challenges in there. It should be a feel-good day for the offense.

CMU’s offense is a watered-down version of Indiana’s. Michigan State should stifle the run, and the Spartans need to get through four quarters without a coverage communication bust in the back seven.

Beating CMU is never easy, but it’s time for Michigan State to have one of those blowout games that other teams in the Big Ten have been enjoying.

MichiganState
FOOTBALL
Scores / Schedule
footballfootball
5 - 2
Overall Record
0 - 0
Conference Record
Upcoming
N. Carolina
4 - 2
N. Carolina
Michigan St.
5 - 2
Michigan St.
Finished
Michigan St.
63
Michigan St.
Memphis
71
Arrow
Memphis
Michigan St.
72
Arrow
Michigan St.
Colorado
56
Colorado
Advertisement
Michigan State
2025Commitment List
Updated: