2026 Massachusetts

4–⁠3 (1–⁠3 Mid-American Conference), coached by Joe Harasymiak.

Schedule and results

Massachusetts in 2026, game by game: won at Rutgers 37–21; won vs. Sacred Heart 37–10; won vs. Stonehill 36–14; won at Sacramento State 35–6; lost vs. Eastern Michigan 14–38; lost vs. Miami (OH) 19–20; lost at Buffalo 18–25+29−24Won 37–21 at Rutgers+16RutgersWon 37–10 vs. Sacred Heart+27Sacred HeartWon 36–14 vs. Stonehill+22StonehillWon 35–6 at Sacramento State+29Sacramento StateLost 14–38 vs. Eastern Michigan-24Eastern MichiganLost 19–20 vs. Miami (OH)-1Miami (OH)Lost 18–25 at Buffalo-7Buffalo
Each game’s margin, wins above the line and losses below.

Elo: a pregame chance from scores alone.

Record
4–⁠3
Conference
1–⁠3 11th in Mid-American Conference
AP now
Unranked
Points
196–⁠134
Coach
Joe Harasymiak
Elo
1339 +70 this season
SP+ rating
-9.5 No. 106 of 138; offense No. 109, defense No. 97, special teams No. 88
SRS
−12.4 No. 114 of 138 in FBS
Returning
-57% of last season’s EPA, No. 136 of 136
Recruiting class
No. 116 roster talent No. 128 in FBS

How good, play by play

  • Offense63rd of 138
  • Defense45th of 138
  • Offense, opponent-adjusted66th of 138
  • Defense, opponent-adjusted78th of 138
EPA per playSuccessExplosivenessFBS rank
Offense0.1243%1.1563rd of 138
Defense0.0442%1.1645th of 138
Opponent-adjusted0.10 off
0.11 def
41% off
44% def
—66th off
78th def

Passing and running

Pass successDepth of targetDeep throwsLine yardsStuffed
Offense45%10.7 yds19%3.3015%
Defense41%8.4 yds11%2.9016%
How these are measured

Play-weighted averages over games against FBS opponents; raw numbers, not adjusted for the strength of the opponent. EPA (expected points added) measures how much each play changed the expected score; success rate counts plays that kept the offense on schedule; explosiveness is the average EPA on successful plays. Lower is better on defense. Ranked by EPA per play among teams that were FBS that season. The opponent-adjusted row (offense / defense) is CollegeFootballData.com’s WEPA, which accounts for who each team played. Passing and running: depth of target is how far downfield passes traveled in the air; deep throws are the share thrown deep, of the passes whose depth and direction the play-by-play describes (about half); line yards are the running yards per carry credited to the blockers; stuffed is the share of carries stopped at or behind the line. The defense’s line is what its opponents did. From CollegeFootballData.com, 2025 on.

Drives and havoc

Points per trip inside the 40Average startHavoc
Offense3.8own 2913% allowed
Defense2.8own 2815% caused

CORE rating -2.1, 74th of 138 (offense -2.9, defense -0.9).

A trip inside the 40 is a drive that reaches the opponent’s 40-yard line; points per trip is how many it scored on average (allowed, on defense). Average start is where drives began (the defense’s line is where its opponents started). Havoc is the share of plays ending in a tackle for loss, a forced fumble, an interception or a pass broken up. CORE is CollegeFootballData.com’s context- and opponent-adjusted rating (points better than an average team; lower is better on defense). From CollegeFootballData.com.

Leaders

Passing yardsWilliam Watson III QB820 yds
Passing touchdownsWilliam Watson III QB7 TD
Rushing yardsElijah Faulkner RB361 yds
Rushing touchdownsCurtis Kimmons IV RB4 TD
Receiving yardsTy Harding WR327 yds
Receiving touchdownsMax Dowling TE3 TD
TacklesTimmy Hinspeter LB45 tkl
SacksWilliam Depaepe DL2 sacks
InterceptionsJahmad Harmon S3 INT

Top recruits in the 2026 class

Aedan McCarthy QB★★★No. 1566
Terron Johnson CB★★★No. 1754
Kai Owens WR★★★No. 1846
Corey Warner CB★★★No. 1914
C.J. Amobi DE★★★No. 1914

247Sports composite rankings via CollegeFootballData.com; national rank in the class.

The 2026 class by position

SignedStarsRating
Quarterbacks13.00.860
Running backs23.00.849
Receivers33.00.835
Offensive line13.00.844
Defensive line43.00.846
Defensive backs33.00.845
Athletes and specialists43.00.834
Whole class183.00.842

High-school signees by position group, with their average stars and 247Sports composite rating (out of 1), via CollegeFootballData.com. Athletes are signees with no set position.

Roster 102

The 2026 roster

102 players, with numbers, heights, hometowns and each player’s 2026 line; 56 have a stat line. See the roster

Transfers in 21

The 2026 portal

And 9 more, lower-rated or unrated.

Transfers out 19

And 7 more, lower-rated or unrated.

2026 Mid-American Conference standings

Conference page
TeamConf.OverallAP final
Ohio3–⁠05–⁠2
Western Michigan3–⁠05–⁠2
Eastern Michigan3–⁠14–⁠4
Toledo2–⁠15–⁠2
Buffalo2–⁠14–⁠3
Miami (OH)2–⁠14–⁠3
Bowling Green2–⁠12–⁠5
Central Michigan1–⁠23–⁠4
Ball State1–⁠22–⁠5
Kent State1–⁠22–⁠5
Massachusetts1–⁠34–⁠3
Sacramento State0–⁠41–⁠6
Akron0–⁠31–⁠6

Ordered by conference winning percentage, then conference wins. Division splits and tiebreakers aren’t applied.