Michigan

There is no corresponding uncertainty about the starting quarterback. Underwood entered spring as the clear No. 1, and Whittingham pointed to both his athletic profile and his election as a spring captain. The question is how quickly he can master Beck’s system. Whittingham reported improvement in Underwood’s footwork and decision-making but still called him a work in progress. Those skills matter after Michigan managed only 11 passing touchdowns in 2025. Tommy Carr left spring as the provisional backup, although that order could change during preseason practice.

Underwood’s progress will depend partly on a receiving corps learning under new position coach Micah Simon. Returning leader Andrew Marsh is central to that transition, but route precision and quarterback chemistry—not simply new personnel—will determine whether Michigan becomes more dangerous through the air. Zack Marshall, the most productive 2025 holdover with 16 catches for 199 yards, missed spring work but said in May that he expected to play in 2026. Up front, Jake Guarnera worked as the starting center and emerged as the line’s spring leader. That stability could be valuable as Underwood assumes more protection responsibility, while the tackle picture may depend on Andrew Babalola’s return from a 2025 ACL injury.

Michigan’s defensive line offers the clearest counterweight to those offensive questions. Whittingham estimated that roughly five tackles and five ends could contribute, giving Hill the possibility of rotating fresh players rather than leaning heavily on a small core. That depth could also protect an inexperienced linebacker group. Chase Taylor, Troy Bowles and Nathaniel Au were the spring risers Whittingham identified, while late-July reporting said Nathaniel Staehling was expected back for fall camp after missing spring following surgery. Until his readiness and the eventual rotation are established, linebacker remains the defense’s most obvious developmental concern.

The secondary presents the opposite shape: more confidence in the starters than in the players behind them. Whittingham said he felt good about the first unit but wanted greater depth, a concern sharpened by Rod Moore’s recovery from multiple recent injuries. If Moore and the veteran group remain available, Hill should have more freedom to pair aggressive coverage with pressure from the defensive front. If injuries force reserves into larger roles, that approach could become harder to sustain. Michigan’s broad transfer turnover adds another variable across the roster, making cohesion and clearly defined roles especially important in Whittingham’s first season.

The schedule will not allow those questions to linger indefinitely. Michigan opens at home against Western Michigan before Oklahoma visits in Week 2, providing an early test of Underwood and the new systems. UTEP and Iowa complete the opening home stretch before a trip to Minnesota. The later schedule raises the pressure considerably: Penn State visits Michigan Stadium, and the closing weeks include a trip to Oregon, a home game against UCLA and the regular-season finale at Ohio State. Michigan State and Indiana also visit Ann Arbor, while Michigan travels to Rutgers.

That sequence makes the season’s central challenge clear without requiring a prediction. Michigan has a credible formula: run through Marshall and a promising backfield, give Underwood room to grow, and let a deep defensive line ease pressure on less-established linebackers and secondary reserves. But the formula depends on health at tackle, receiver and safety, along with faster development in the passing game. Oklahoma will offer the first meaningful reading; Penn State, Oregon and Ohio State will test whether Whittingham’s reconstructed roster has become a complete team.

Win probability

99%