Michigan State’s third-down conversion rate with Alessio Milivojevic and without Alessio Milivojevic
, ,
Against what the season’s ratings expected, Michigan State was 1.3 percentage points under with Alessio Milivojevic and 3.2 percentage points under without Alessio Milivojevic over its last 25 games, 12 games against 12. The plain averages are 37.1% and 34.9%, a difference of 2.3%. Expected was 2.4 percentage points higher with Alessio Milivojevic than without Alessio Milivojevic.
Alessio Milivojevic, quarterback: 2,530 passing yards, 359 pass attempts and 232 completions in 17 of those 25 games.
third-down conversion rate a game over expected
A +2.0% difference in third-down conversion rate over expected with Alessio Milivojevic vs without Alessio Milivojevic is about what you’d expect.
A +2.3% difference in third-down conversion rate with Alessio Milivojevic vs without Alessio Milivojevic is a bit unusual: shuffle which games were with Alessio Milivojevic and it comes up 16 times in 100.
The games
| Side | Date | Game | Result | 3rd downs | Expected |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 26, 2024 | @ Michigan | L | 53.3% | 34.3% | |
| Nov 2, 2024 | vs Indiana | L | 33.3% | 35.1% | |
| Nov 16, 2024 | @ Illinois | L | 13.3% | 42.4% | |
| Nov 22, 2024 | vs Purdue | W | 42.9% | 42.2% | |
| Nov 30, 2024 | vs Rutgers | L | 33.3% | 39.7% | |
| Aug 29, 2025 | vs Western Michigan | W | 30.8% | 35.7% | |
| Sep 6, 2025 | vs Boston College | W | 41.7% | 38.0% | |
| Sep 13, 2025 | vsYYoungstown State | W | 60.0% | — | |
| Sep 20, 2025 | @ USC | L | 45.5% | 32.9% | |
| Oct 4, 2025 | @ Nebraska | L | 14.3% | 37.7% | |
| Oct 11, 2025 | vs UCLA | L | 53.3% | 39.7% | |
| Oct 18, 2025 | @Indiana | L | 35.7% | 27.0% | |
| Oct 25, 2025 | vsMichigan | L | 31.3% | 34.0% | |
| Nov 1, 2025 | @ Minnesota | L | 33.3% | 36.9% | |
| Nov 15, 2025 | vs Penn State | L | 10.0% | 38.9% | |
| Nov 22, 2025 | @ Iowa | L | 26.7% | 29.9% | |
| Nov 29, 2025 | vs Maryland (neutral) | W | 35.7% | 39.5% | |
| Sep 4, 2026 | vs Toledo | W | 33.3% | 41.0% | |
| Sep 12, 2026 | vs Eastern Michigan | W | 66.7% | 41.0% | |
| Sep 19, 2026 | @ Notre Dame | L | 36.4% | 37.6% | |
| Sep 26, 2026 | vsNebraska | L | 37.5% | 32.9% | |
| Oct 3, 2026 | @ Wisconsin | L | 27.8% | 40.2% | |
| Oct 10, 2026 | vsIllinois | L | 60.0% | 40.6% | |
| Oct 17, 2026 | vs Northwestern | L | 25.0% | 42.7% | |
| Oct 24, 2026 | @UCLA | L | 18.2% | 33.7% |
Method
- Expected is an offense and a defense a team, fit over every game of its season between two teams in the table with the game being read left out, plus 0.6% in 2024, plus 0.7% in 2025, plus 1.4% in 2026 for the home team (the edge the fit finds once strength is in), nothing at a neutral site.
- Each expected number is then fit to the season’s games: a game bears out about 50% in 2024, 56% in 2025, 40% in 2026 of the difference the model predicts.
- The shuffle keeps the season’s shape: the games are cut in two where one date leaves the least variance, each game is read against its stretch, and the sides are shuffled only inside each stretch.
- Youngstown State has no other game in the table, so that game has no expected number and sits out the second figure.
- Who played is read from the schools’ box scores’ participation lists for 20 of these 25 games; in the other 5 a player is counted as in them when the box score has a stat for him.
- With him means he was the team’s quarterback that game, at least half of its pass attempts; a game he left early or came into late reads as without him.