Michigan State Spartans vs No. 3 Notre Dame Fighting Irish Prediction & Betting Pick

——START OUTPUT——

[NCAA FBS][Non-Conference] Michigan State Spartans @ No. 3 Notre Dame Fighting Irish Estimated $4.6M Handle — September 19, 2026

Michigan State Spartans (2-0) vs No. 3 Notre Dame Fighting Irish (2-0)

Type: Regular Season · FBS vs FBS Kick-off: 4:30 PM PDT / 7:30 PM ET Venue: Notre Dame Stadium, South Bend, Indiana Weather: ~70°F · steady rain/showers likely · ~90% precipitation · SE wind ~5 mph Market Anchor: Notre Dame -29.5 · Total 52.0 Estimated Handle Default: Spread $2.5M · Moneyline $1.2M · Total $0.9M RCF: FALSE WVI: -0.75 Model Version: NFL Edge Engine v3.3 · σmargin 13.5 · σtotal 13.5 Opponent Class: FBS vs FBS — validated σ_margin population

⸻

STARTING QB COMPOSITE SCORE

Michigan State — Alessio Milivojevic

Passing Yards: 417 Interceptions: 0 Passing TDs: 3 Completions/Attempts: 38/54 Rushing: 13 carries, 9 yards, 0 TD

TQBS: (3 Season Passing TD + 417 Season Passing Yards − 0 INT) = 420 True QB Score

Projection:

• Passing Attempts: 21.7
• Passing Yards: 167
• Full-budget passing projection: 186
• C-1 adjusted passing projection: 125
• Rushing Yards: 4
• Anytime TD: 4.8%
• Condition: ~90% of snaps / trailing-game script

Notre Dame — CJ Carr

Passing Yards: 492 Interceptions: 0 Passing TDs: 6 Completions/Attempts: 35/49 Rushing: 2 carries, -6 yards, 0 TD

TQBS: (6 Season Passing TD + 492 Season Passing Yards − 0 INT) = 498 True QB Score

Projection:

• Passing Attempts: 20.4
• Passing Yards: 205
• Full-budget passing projection: 293
• C-1 adjusted passing projection: 190
• Rushing Yards: -3
• Anytime TD: 13.7%
• Condition: ~70% of snaps because of blowout/script risk

TQBS comparison: CJ Carr’s TQBS is approximately 18.6% higher than Alessio Milivojevic’s.

Efficiency:

• Carr: 10.04 Y/A
• Milivojevic: 7.72 Y/A

Carr has the better passing efficiency profile, while neither starting quarterback has thrown an interception through two games.

⸻

TEAM METRICS SNAPSHOT

Michigan State

• PTS/G: 32.5
• Pass Yards/G: 230.5
• Rush Yards/G: 204.0
• Projected POS / Market TT: 10.875
• Opp Pass Yards/G: 157.0
• Opp Rush Yards/G: 89.0
• Opp PTS/G: 13.5
• Total Offense: 434.5 yards/game
• Yards/Play: 5.64
• Opp Yards/Play: 5.29
• Own Pace: 77.0 plays/game
• Opponent Plays Faced: 46.5
• C-11 Budget: 61.75
• Turnover Margin: +1
• True Team Stat: (230.5 + 204.0 + 10.875 + 61.75) − (157.0 + 89.0) = 261.13

Notre Dame

• PTS/G: 46.5
• Pass Yards/G: 299.5
• Rush Yards/G: 114.5
• Projected POS / Market TT: 40.375
• Opp Pass Yards/G: 140.5
• Opp Rush Yards/G: 65.5
• Opp PTS/G: 6.5
• Total Offense: 414.0 yards/game
• Yards/Play: 6.57
• Opp Yards/Play: 4.26
• Own Pace: 63.0 plays/game
• Opponent Plays Faced: 55.5
• C-11 Budget: 59.25
• Turnover Margin: +6
• True Team Stat: (299.5 + 114.5 + 40.375 + 59.25) − (140.5 + 65.5) = 307.63

——START OUTPUT——

[NCAA FBS][Non-Conference] Michigan State Spartans @ No. 3 Notre Dame Fighting Irish Estimated $4.6M Handle — September 19, 2026

Michigan State Spartans (2-0) vs No. 3 Notre Dame Fighting Irish (2-0)

Type: Regular Season · FBS vs FBS Kick-off: 4:30 PM PDT / 7:30 PM ET Venue: Notre Dame Stadium, South Bend, Indiana Weather: ~70°F · steady rain/showers likely · ~90% precipitation · SE wind ~5 mph Market Anchor: Notre Dame -29.5 · Total 52.0 Estimated Handle Default: Spread $2.5M · Moneyline $1.2M · Total $0.9M RCF: FALSE WVI: -0.75 Model Version: NFL Edge Engine v3.3 · σ_margin 13.5 · σ_total 13.5 Opponent Class: FBS vs FBS — validated σ_margin population

⸻

STARTING QB COMPOSITE SCORE

Michigan State — Alessio Milivojevic

Passing Yards: 417 Interceptions: 0 Passing TDs: 3 Completions/Attempts: 38/54 Rushing: 13 carries, 9 yards, 0 TD

TQBS: (3 Season Passing TD + 417 Season Passing Yards − 0 INT) = 420 True QB Score

Projection:

• Passing Attempts: 21.7
• Passing Yards: 167
• Full-budget passing projection: 186
• C-1 adjusted passing projection: 125
• Rushing Yards: 4
• Anytime TD: 4.8%
• Condition: ~90% of snaps / trailing-game script

Notre Dame — CJ Carr

Passing Yards: 492 Interceptions: 0 Passing TDs: 6 Completions/Attempts: 35/49 Rushing: 2 carries, -6 yards, 0 TD

TQBS: (6 Season Passing TD + 492 Season Passing Yards − 0 INT) = 498 True QB Score

Projection:

• Passing Attempts: 20.4
• Passing Yards: 205
• Full-budget passing projection: 293
• C-1 adjusted passing projection: 190
• Rushing Yards: -3
• Anytime TD: 13.7%
• Condition: ~70% of snaps because of blowout/script risk

TQBS comparison: CJ Carr’s TQBS is approximately 18.6% higher than Alessio Milivojevic’s.

Efficiency:

• Carr: 10.04 Y/A
• Milivojevic: 7.72 Y/A

Carr has the better passing efficiency profile, while neither starting quarterback has thrown an interception through two games.

⸻

TEAM METRICS SNAPSHOT

Michigan State

• PTS/G: 32.5
• Pass Yards/G: 230.5
• Rush Yards/G: 204.0
• Projected POS / Market TT: 10.875
• Opp Pass Yards/G: 157.0
• Opp Rush Yards/G: 89.0
• Opp PTS/G: 13.5
• Total Offense: 434.5 yards/game
• Yards/Play: 5.64
• Opp Yards/Play: 5.29
• Own Pace: 77.0 plays/game
• Opponent Plays Faced: 46.5
• C-11 Budget: 61.75
• Turnover Margin: +1
• True Team Stat: (230.5 + 204.0 + 10.875 + 61.75) − (157.0 + 89.0) = 261.13

Notre Dame

• PTS/G: 46.5
• Pass Yards/G: 299.5
• Rush Yards/G: 114.5
• Projected POS / Market TT: 40.375
• Opp Pass Yards/G: 140.5
• Opp Rush Yards/G: 65.5
• Opp PTS/G: 6.5
• Total Offense: 414.0 yards/game
• Yards/Play: 6.57
• Opp Yards/Play: 4.26
• Own Pace: 63.0 plays/game
• Opponent Plays Faced: 55.5
• C-11 Budget: 59.25
• Turnover Margin: +6
• True Team Stat: (299.5 + 114.5 + 40.375 + 59.25) − (140.5 + 65.5) = 307.63

TTS comparison: Notre Dame’s TTS is approximately 17.8% higher than Michigan State’s.

A major Michigan State contextual strength is possession control: the Spartans run 77 plays/game while allowing only 46.5, the lowest opponent-play figure in the supplied series.

⸻

PREVIOUS GAMES

Michigan State

• 09/12/26 — W 35-7 vs Eastern Michigan · ATS W · Under 50.5
• 09/04/26 — W 30-20 vs Toledo · ATS W · Over 48.5
• Previous Game 3: No 2026 data available
• Previous Game 4: No 2026 data available
• Previous Game 5: No 2026 data available

Notre Dame

• 09/12/26 — W 52-0 vs Rice · ATS W · Under 54.5
• 09/06/26 — W 41-13 vs Wisconsin · ATS W · Over 46.5
• Previous Game 3: No 2026 data available
• Previous Game 4: No 2026 data available
• Previous Game 5: No 2026 data available

Historical context:

• Notre Dame leads the series 49-29-1
• Notre Dame is 29-14 at home
• Michigan State has won 11 of the last 19

Prior-season ATS information is context only and is not used as a ledger input.

⸻

RECENT NEWS & INJURIES

Michigan State

• [ILvl LOW] No confirmed unavailable starter identified
• Current two-deep available
• No contradictory QB1 or OL-starting-five information
• Cam Fancher remains a package QB rather than merely a backup

Notre Dame

• [ILvl HIGH] Quincy Porter, WR — OUT, left knee
• [ILvl MEDIUM] Owen Strebig, OT — OUT, concussion
• [ILvl MEDIUM] Charles Jagusah, OL — OUT
• [ILvl MEDIUM] Matty Augustine, OL — OUT
• [ILvl MEDIUM] Chris Terek, OL — OUT
• Brauntae Johnson, DB — OUT
• Jason Onye, DT — OUT
• Christopher Burgess Jr., DL — OUT
• Tiki Hola, DL — OUT
• Chaz Smith, DB — OUT

All four Notre Dame offensive-line absences are reserves. The starting five is confirmed as:

• Black
• Knapp
• Craig
• Absher
• Lambert

RCF

RCF = FALSE

No ≥2 starting-OL uncertainty and no QB1 contradiction.

⸻

WEATHER

• Outdoor stadium
• Kickoff temperature: approximately 70°F
• Precipitation: 90%
• Showers / possible thunderstorm
• Expected rainfall: approximately 0.5–0.75 inch
• Wind: ~5 mph SE
• Roof: none

WVI = -0.75

Rain adjustment:

• Steady rain ≥60% → -0.75
• Wind below threshold → 0
• Temperature neutral → 0

Weather/Market Conflict

The total opened around 53.5 and now carries a 52.0 consensus.

Therefore two treatments were examined:

• Weather unpriced → μ_total 51.25
• Weather already reflected in market move → μ_total 52.0

The official run retains the model’s WVI once, but neither treatment produces a qualifying consensus edge.

⸻

TEAM PLAYING AT HOME

Notre Dame — YES

Standard presentation rule adds 4 percentage points to the home team’s displayed win probability.

Raw model:

• Notre Dame: 98.53%
• Michigan State: 1.47%

Home-adjusted presentation:

• Notre Dame: 100% capped
• Michigan State: 0% capped

The betting model itself remains at 98.53% / 1.47%, because home field is already incorporated into the market line.

⸻

PUBLIC FAVORITES DELTA

Spread tickets:

• Michigan State: 50%
• Notre Dame: 50%

Handle:

• N/A

No team has documented 90%+ of money.

No Public Favorites Delta adjustment.

⸻

GAME PREDICTIONS

1. Team to Win: Notre Dame — CF 98.53%

Reasons:

• Notre Dame has scored 46.5 PPG while allowing only 6.5.
• CJ Carr: 10.04 Y/A, 6 TD, 0 INT.
• Notre Dame defense: 4.26 yards/play allowed.
• Notre Dame turnover margin: +6 with zero giveaways.
• Simulation gives Notre Dame 98.53% raw win probability.

MSI

MSI: NOT TRIGGERED

Michigan State:

• Market vig-free win probability: 4.35%
• Model win probability: 1.47%
• Edge: -2.88%

The model likes the underdog substantially less than the market.

⸻

2. Final Score Prediction

Notre Dame 40 — Michigan State 11

Model team means:

• Notre Dame: 40.375
• Michigan State: 10.875
• Model total after WVI: 51.25
• Model margin: 29.50

The prediction:

• Sum = 51
• Margin = 29

Both remain within 0.5 points of the model means.

2a. Moneyline Surprise

No Moneyline Surprise projected — model and market align on Notre Dame.

2b. TRUE SCORE SIMULATION

100,000 simulations:

• Notre Dame win: 98.53%
• Michigan State win: 1.47%
• Michigan State +29.5: 50.93% clamped
• Notre Dame -29.5: 49.07% clamped
• Over 52.0: 48.47% clamped
• Under 52.0: 51.53% clamped
• Mean score: Notre Dame 40.4 – Michigan State 11.5
• Median score: Notre Dame 40 – Michigan State 11

Most common clamped occurrences:

1. Notre Dame 42-0 — 0.58% 2. Notre Dame 40-0 — 0.58% 3. Notre Dame 41-0 — 0.57% 4. Notre Dame 39-0 — 0.57% 5. Notre Dame 38-0 — 0.56%

UNCLAMPED CONTROL

• Michigan State +29.5: 50.13%
• Over 52.0: 47.76%
• Under 52.0: 52.24%
• Michigan State ML: 1.33%
• Clamp impact on ML: 0.00 percentage points

Clamp artifact:

• Spread: +0.80 points toward Michigan State
• Over: +0.71 points
• Therefore clamp actually suppresses the Under, rather than manufacturing it.

Distribution

• P(Margin ≥28): 55.21%
• P(Michigan State outright): 1.47%
• P(Michigan State shutout): 13.73%
• P(|margin| ≥14): 88.39%

⸻

3. First Team to Score

Notre Dame — 68.3% CF

Michigan State: 31.7%

No posted market, therefore no betting verdict.

⸻

4. Total Points

51.25 model total vs 52.0 market

Using WVI -0.75:

At consensus 52.0:

• Under: 51.53% clamped
• Under: 52.24% unclamped
• Fair market bar: 50.00%
• Valid unclamped edge: +2.24%

Verdict: NO EDGE

Threshold: 3%

At other books:

• FanDuel 52.5: Under edge approximately +1.97%
• BetMGM 52.5 -102: apparent edge +4.79%

The BetMGM reading is declined as a single-book price anchor because its pricing implies approximately a 53.09 fair total against a market consensus near 52.0.

Weather Sensitivity

If WVI is treated as already incorporated into the 1.5-point market move:

• Consensus Under edge becomes approximately -0.83%

Neither interpretation supports a consensus wager.

⸻

5. Point Spread

Michigan State +29.5 — CF 50.13% valid control

Unclamped:

• Michigan State +29.5: 50.13%
• Notre Dame -29.5: 49.87%

Representative bars:

• -110/-110 → 50.00%
• Michigan State edge: +0.13%

Clamped model:

• Michigan State: 50.93%
• Apparent edge up to +0.93%

Verdict: NO EDGE

The difference between +0.13% and +0.93% is attributable to the score floor.

C-10 also applies: the ledger is empty and μ_margin equals the market spread, making the spread fundamentally market-anchored.

⸻

6. FIRST TOUCHDOWN

Michigan State

N/A — SF

Notre Dame

N/A — SF

No first-touchdown market recovered.

⸻

7. ANYTIME TD MODEL

No TD prices were available, therefore model probabilities are descriptive only.

Notre Dame

• Aneyas Williams — 47.2%
• Jordan Faison — 39.4%
• Micah Gilbert — 36.6%
• Cooper Flanagan — 36.6%
• Mylan Graham — 34.4%
• Jaden Greathouse — 28.6%
• Nolan James Jr. — 26.6%
• CJ Carr — 13.7%
• Kedren Young — 10.6%
• James Flanigan — 10.6%
• Elijah Burress — 10.6%
• Matt Jeffery — 9.4%
• Jonaz Walton — 8.1%
• Logan Saldate — 8.1%
• Javian Osborne — 6.8%
• Unnamed reserves — 9.4%

Team λ: 4.037

Quincy Porter excluded — OUT, zero expected snaps.

Michigan State

• Cam Edwards — 17.4%
• Rodney Bullard Jr. — 15.7%
• Chrishon McCray — 14.4%
• Fredrick Moore — 13.6%
• Brennan Parachek — 10.4%
• Jaziun Patterson — 7.0%
• Jayden Savoury — 5.0%
• Alessio Milivojevic — 4.8%
• Charles Taplin — 3.2%
• Marvis Parrish — 2.9%
• KK Smith — 2.9%
• Braylon Collier — 2.5%
• Cam Fancher — 0.5%
• Unnamed reserves — 1.8%

Team λ: 1.088

Usage Override Warning

Observed TD concentration indicates fixed positional weights remain problematic.

• Nolan James Jr.: 30% of Notre Dame offensive TDs
• Standard role weight: RB2 0.8
• Observed-share divergence: 3.92×

Cam Edwards:

• Approximately 42.9% of Michigan State offensive TDs
• Role-weight divergence: 2.43×

The standard QB rushing weight also appears too high for this matchup:

• CJ Carr: 2 carries, -6 yards, zero rushing TD
• Milivojevic: 13 carries, 9 yards, zero rushing TD

The needed correction is therefore bidirectional, based on observed rushing/goal-line usage.

⸻

PLAYER BREAKOUT

BRI = N/A — SI

Both teams have only two current-season games. The current BRI requires at least three.

Michigan State

• Alessio Milivojevic — 167 pass yds, 4 rush yds, 4.8% TD · BRI N/A/SI
• Cam Edwards — 101 rush yds tier-1 / 70 sober-adjusted, 17.4% TD · BRI N/A/SI
• Rodney Bullard Jr. — 47 receiving yds, 15.7% TD · BRI N/A/SI
• Chrishon McCray — 32 receiving yds, 14.4% TD · BRI N/A/SI
• Jayden Savoury — 40 receiving yds, 5.0% TD · BRI N/A/SI
• Fredrick Moore — 17 receiving yds, 13.6% TD · BRI N/A/SI

Notre Dame

• CJ Carr — 205 pass yds conditioned / 293 full budget, -3 rush yds, 13.7% TD · BRI N/A/SI
• Aneyas Williams — 56 rush yds, 47.2% TD · BRI N/A/SI
• Nolan James Jr. — 23 rush yds, 31 receiving yds, 26.6% standard TD · BRI N/A/SI
• Jordan Faison — 63 receiving yds, 39.4% TD · BRI N/A/SI
• Micah Gilbert — 38 receiving yds, 36.6% TD · BRI N/A/SI
• Cooper Flanagan — 7 receiving yds, 36.6% TD · BRI N/A/SI

⸻

EDGE SUMMARY

Spread

• Michigan State +29.5 valid-control edge: +0.13%
• Clamped apparent edge: +0.93%
• No edge / definitional

Total

• Under 52 consensus, unclamped: +2.24%
• Under 52 consensus, clamped: +1.53%
• No edge
• BetMGM Under 52.5: apparent +4.79%
• Declined — single-book price anchor

Moneyline

• Notre Dame model: 98.53%
• Consensus vig-free: 95.65%
• Edge: +2.88%
• No edge — below 3% threshold

Michigan State ML

• Model: 1.47%
• Market: 4.35%
• Edge: -2.88%

Props

• All recovered props single-sided
• No official prop verdicts

FINAL EDGE VERDICT

NO QUALIFYING EDGE

⸻

INSIGHTS

• Notre Dame strength: 46.5 PPG, 6.57 yards/play, 6.5 PPG allowed, 4.26 opponent yards/play and a +6 turnover margin with zero giveaways.
• Michigan State strength: extraordinary possession profile — 77 offensive plays/game vs only 46.5 opponent plays/game.
• Michigan State rushing: 204 yards/game with a 61% run tendency gives it a plausible clock-shortening path.
• Notre Dame constraint: C-11 gives the favorite only 59.25 plays, fewer than Michigan State’s 61.75.
• Weather: rain pushes the model total down 0.75 points, but the market has already moved from 53.5 to approximately 52.0, creating a potential double-counting issue.
• Distributional issue: market prices Michigan State’s outright tail at almost 3× the normal-model probability.
• Turnover blind spot: Notre Dame’s six takeaways and zero giveaways are not explicitly modeled under C-3.
• Efficiency-path conflict: raw pace × efficiency path points toward a much higher total, but it lacks a defensive term and therefore cannot be treated as a standalone forecast.
• TD allocation weakness: fixed role weights continue to misrepresent players whose actual scoring roles differ materially from depth-chart labels.

⸻

SPORTSBOOK LIABILITIES

• Spread ticket split: 50% / 50%
• Handle: N/A
• Spread opened approximately Notre Dame -29.5 and remains around -29.5
• Total opened 53.5 and moved to approximately 52.0
• This is a genuine number move rather than only a juice move
• Moneyline prices range widely because of the extreme favorite:
• Michigan State approximately +1700 to +2500
• Notre Dame approximately -4000 to -10000

Book-exposure interpretation:

• Spread appears balanced.
• Total has been actively repriced downward.
• No RLM determination is possible without handle percentages.

⸻

99.99% PARLAY

Step 1 — Highest supplied model probabilities

1. Notre Dame ML — 98.53% 2. Notre Dame team total Over 24.5 — 95.16% 3. Notre Dame -14.5 — 86.74% 4. Over 38.5 — 85.14% 5. Aneyas Williams anytime TD — 47.2%

Simulation intersection of first four legs: 74.25%

Including Williams TD:

• True modeled joint probability: 35.03%
• Naive independent product: 32.67%
• Correlation lift: +2.36 percentage points

Step 2 — Same legs adjusted toward 98%

Not mathematically supportable.

A genuine:

• 98% five-leg parlay requires approximately 99.60% per leg
• 99% requires approximately 99.80% per leg
• 99.99% requires approximately 99.998% per leg

No available five-leg structure meets those standards.

No 98%, 99%, or 99.99% parlay recommended.

⸻

RAW PREDICTION

Core

• ML: Notre Dame 98.53% · Michigan State 1.47%
• Spread: Michigan State +29.5 50.13% valid control · Notre Dame -29.5 49.87%
• Total: Under 52.0 52.24% valid control · Over 47.76%
• Final Score: Notre Dame 40, Michigan State 11

Top 5 Alternate Spreads

1. Notre Dame -7.5 — 94.78% 2. Notre Dame -14.5 — 86.74% 3. Notre Dame -21.5 — 72.24% 4. Notre Dame -24.5 — 64.15% 5. Notre Dame -27.5 — 55.21%

Top 5 Alternate Totals

1. Over 38.5 — 85.14% 2. Over 42.5 — 76.22% 3. Over 45.5 — 68.23% 4. Over 48.5 — 59.42% 5. Under 55.5 — 61.95%

Passing Yards

• CJ Carr — 205 conditioned / 293 full-budget
• Noah Grubbs — 52
• Alessio Milivojevic — 167 conditioned / 186 full-budget
• Cam Fancher — 18

Rushing Yards — Michigan State

• Cam Edwards — 101 tier-1 / 70 sober-adjusted
• Jaziun Patterson — 19
• Marvis Parrish — 16
• Brandon Tullis — 15
• Cam Fancher — 4
• Alessio Milivojevic — 4
• Kenneth Williams — 3
• Zion Gist — 2
• Chrishon McCray — 2

Rushing Yards — Notre Dame

• Aneyas Williams — 56
• Nolan James Jr. — 23
• Jonaz Walton — 23
• Kedren Young — 8
• Javian Osborne — 2
• CJ Carr — -3

Receiving Yards — Michigan State

• Rodney Bullard Jr. — 47
• Jayden Savoury — 40
• Chrishon McCray — 32
• Charles Taplin — 26
• Fredrick Moore — 17
• Braylon Collier — 9
• Cam Edwards — 5
• KK Smith — 4
• Brennan Parachek — 4
• Kai Rios — 2
• Marvis Parrish — 0

Receiving Yards — Notre Dame

• Jordan Faison — 63
• Micah Gilbert — 38
• Nolan James Jr. — 31
• Jerome Bettis Jr. — 29
• Jaden Greathouse — 25
• Logan Saldate — 17
• Elijah Burress — 16
• Matt Jeffery — 13
• Mylan Graham — 11
• Kedren Young — 9
• Devin Fitzgerald — 9
• Cooper Flanagan — 7
• Aneyas Williams — 5
• James Flanigan — 5
• Ty Washington — 3

Anytime TD — Notre Dame

• Aneyas Williams — 47.2%
• Jordan Faison — 39.4%
• Micah Gilbert — 36.6%
• Cooper Flanagan — 36.6%
• Mylan Graham — 34.4%
• Jaden Greathouse — 28.6%
• Nolan James Jr. — 26.6%
• CJ Carr — 13.7%
• Kedren Young — 10.6%
• James Flanigan — 10.6%
• Elijah Burress — 10.6%
• Matt Jeffery — 9.4%
• Jonaz Walton — 8.1%
• Logan Saldate — 8.1%
• Javian Osborne — 6.8%

Anytime TD — Michigan State

• Cam Edwards — 17.4%
• Rodney Bullard Jr. — 15.7%
• Chrishon McCray — 14.4%
• Fredrick Moore — 13.6%
• Brennan Parachek — 10.4%
• Jaziun Patterson — 7.0%
• Jayden Savoury — 5.0%
• Alessio Milivojevic — 4.8%
• Charles Taplin — 3.2%
• Marvis Parrish — 2.9%
• KK Smith — 2.9%
• Braylon Collier — 2.5%
• Cam Fancher — 0.5%

⸻

POSTED PLAYER PROP READS

Jordan Faison Receiving Yards

• Market: Under 67.5 -114
• Model: 63 yards
• C-1 adjusted: 58
• Model direction: Under
• Verdict: N/A / NO VERDICT — single-sided market

Jordan Faison Receptions

• Market: Under 5.5 -136
• Model: 3.8 receptions
• Model direction: Under
• Verdict: N/A / NO VERDICT — single-sided market

Cooper Flanagan Receiving Yards

• Market: Under 17.5 -114
• Model: 7 yards
• C-1 adjusted: 6
• Model direction: Under
• Verdict: N/A / NO VERDICT — single-sided market

All three recovered props point in the same direction as the model, but none qualifies for an official verdict under C-2.

⸻

TOP PLAYS

NO PLAY — NO QUALIFYING EDGE

Consensus Markets

Notre Dame ML

• Model: 98.53%
• Consensus vig-free: 95.65%
• Edge: +2.88%
• Threshold: 3%
• NO PLAY

Michigan State +29.5

• Valid-control model: 50.13%
• Market fair bar: approximately 50.00%
• Edge: +0.13%
• NO PLAY / DEFINITIONAL

Under 52.0

• Valid-control model: 52.24%
• Market fair bar: 50.00%
• Edge: +2.24%
• Threshold: 3%
• NO PLAY

Declined Outlier

BetMGM Under 52.5

• Apparent edge: +4.79%
• DECLINED — single-book price anchor
• BetMGM’s price implies approximately 53.09
• Consensus total: approximately 52.0

FINAL MODEL READ

• Winner: Notre Dame
• Projected Score: Notre Dame 40, Michigan State 11
• Raw Win Probability: Notre Dame 98.53%
• Spread: No qualifying edge
• Moneyline: +2.88%, below threshold
• Total: Valid-control Under edge +2.24%, below threshold
• MSI: No trigger
• RCF: FALSE
• WVI: -0.75
• Official Model Action: NO PLAY

No qualifying edge.

——END OUTPUT——