2dynasty move
Army climbs into top 41% power rating, joining dynasty ranks.
Monken's 7-6 record last season keeps Army in dynasty-caliber territory despite a talent rank outside the top 100 — proof the triple-option can outwork the odds.
Army7-6Latest
The Navy rivalryCarson Smith sees a real spike in usage once the game is out of reach, and his efficiency in competitive snaps sits below the position baseline -- the numbers lean on the opponent giving up.our read
Cautious optimism is building around Army.
belief cooled ↓ 23.6vs prior week
Fanbase belief
Leaning up
56/100 · 30 mentions · top 15% of FBS
~ our readGrounding
backed by facts
11% cite a stat · 7% typical ✓ counted
~ our readVolatility
Chaotic
σ 37 pts
~ our readThe model
#59
CFB Zeitgeist · +2.7
✓ measured2Hope-Doping·Offseason
Army's whole season bends toward one Saturday in December — Beat Navy — and in 2025 the Black Knights lost it 17-16, surrendering the Commander-in-Chief's Trophy and the only standard West Point truly keeps.
Title DroughtSince 2024 · 1 yrs
Black Knights fans say the sport treats Army as a quaint December novelty — a parade of cadets and a salute — and forgets that those same cadets went 12-2 and won the Trophy a year ago; they say the r…
offseason · quiet
Roster Reload - Army
2026 snapshot - 2026-08-06Returning Production25%Low continuity / heavy reload
Talent Composite#134 nationally247 composite 23.7
Portal Additions0No clear position repair point
Portal Losses2Primary pressure: OT
Draft Loss0No NFL Draft departures recorded
Recruiting Reload#138Depth class
OTin 0out 1 - Josh ManeckeEven
RBin 0out 1 - Trey TrembaEven
current room: 226 lbs avg (2025 roster)
Belief EKG
WinLoss · hover for scorePrior seasons
Approaching
30 days
until kickoff · vs Bryant · Sat Sep 5 · 16:00 UTC
The experience
Army is the West Point service academy whose triple-option offense and Commander-in-Chief's Trophy chase make every Saturday a salute to a different version of college football.
Offense: SolidRun/Pass: Run-heavy, ground-controlTempo: Methodical, ball-control
Army's 2026 season hinges on depth class reloading and transfer portal adjustments
With only 25% of returning players and a recruiting rank of #138, Army faces significant challenges in maintaining consistency. The team lost two key transfers, including OT Josh Manecke, but has no incoming transfers to offset the departure.
- Roster reloadArmy's roster has only 25% returning players and a recruiting score of 39.85, indicating a heavy reliance on depth class reloading.
Data as of 2026-08-03
·
Validated against program evidence
The mule stands at attention.
Army · the story right now
6 storylines developing
What Army's offseason is really about
the open questionwhere does it go from here?
garbage timethis cycle✓ factnew
Carson Smith sees a real spike in usage once the game is out of reach, and his efficiency in competitive snaps sits below the position baseline -- the numbers lean on the opponent giving up.
narrative tension · our read
underdogthis cycle✓ factnew
Noah Short produces at a notably LOWER rate when his team is an underdog than when favored -- he fades when the pressure is on, and his per-target value drops too.
narrative tension · our read
coordinatorsthis cycle~readnew
Jeff Monken enters his 11th season with a 7-6 record, navigating a coordinator-driven reshaping of a unit at a program defined by its triple-option identity and Commander-in-Chief's Trophy pursuit.
what happenedArmy: coordinator change reshaping a unit. ✓ fact
narrative tension · our read
deep threatthis cycle~attributednew
Noah Short is a real deep-ball threat -- a high share of his targets come on throws past the sticks.
narrative tension · our read
dynastythis cycle~read★new
Monken's 7-6 record last season keeps Army in dynasty-caliber territory despite a talent rank outside the top 100 — proof the triple-option can outwork the odds.
what happenedArmy has climbed into dynasty-caliber territory — into the top 41% of FBS by power rating over the last three seasons, up from the top 44% a year ago. ✓ fact
the contexta 23-14 record over the last three regular seasons
narrative tension · our read
program_outlookthis cycle~readnew
Army collapsed 37 spots in SP+ — Jeff Monken's task is to halt the slide under the weight of a triple-option offense with no talent advantage.
what happenedArmy enters 2025 rated No. 74 in SP+ (+0.8), down 37 spots from 2024. ✓ fact
narrative tension · our read
How past storylines here turned out
Died downArmy's offensive coordinator change has died down — no clear next chapter yet.
The Offseason Ledger · Army
3 verified updates · portal · recruiting · staff · news- Recruiting
Felton commits to Army
SP+ dropped Army 37 spots, class sits at #130 nationally, and the OT depth pressure is real — Felton's commitment at least shores up a defensive back room that needed bodies before fall camp.
- Recruiting
LB Nick Miletto commits to Army
Miletto slots into a linebacker room that needed bodies behind the starters — class rank 130 doesn't tell the whole story when Monken's defense just jumped 37 spots in SP+ and needs the depth to sustain it.
- Recruiting
Ryder Reeve commits to Army
OT depth was a pressure point at #130 nationally — Reeve's family military background isn't a recruiting pitch here, it's the actual reason he's there, and Monken's line room needed this body.
Transfer portal snapshot
-2.9 net portal points
(raw ledger: -3.0 — unweighted, no position adjustment)OT-2.0
low confidence
RB-1.0
low confidence
Top 3 commits
2026 class
★★★☆☆
Phillip Goodrich
#1976 national
Profiles like a typical incoming linebacker — 17 of his 25 closest recruiting profiles since 2018 shared the Balanced Linebacker archetype.~our read · projection from recruiting profile — no college snaps yet
★★★☆☆
Dominic Basrawala
#2846 national
Profiles like a typical incoming interior lineman — 15 of his 25 closest recruiting profiles since 2018 shared the Two-Gap Base archetype.~our read · projection from recruiting profile — no college snaps yet
★★★☆☆
Maverick Diede
#3115 national
↓
Fan confidence lower than any point since 2020
5th percentile among FBS programs
Fan vs. market↓
5th
Fan percentile
(FBS mood rank)
(FBS mood rank)
7.5
Vegas O/U wins
(60th among FBS)
(60th among FBS)
Market 55pp more optimistic than fan mood
Win total consensus · 3 books
Market outlook
Season expectations
Win total3 booksO/U 7.5
CFP championship#78 in field+100000
AAC title#7 in market+575
Sportsbook consensus · best odds across multiple books · 2026-08-06
Army · Next-Season Outcome Band
Army · Next-Season Outcome BandFloor / Base / Ceiling
Floor 2-10
Base 4-8
Ceiling 7-6
floor2-10No postseason.
base4-8No postseason.
ceiling7-6Bowl game.
Final-season-aware projection: floor / base / ceiling include conference title and CFP games where the model supports them, so a ceiling can exceed a 12-game regular season.
How the room reacted
Following now · Army · Developing Confidence
Army: coordinator change reshaping a unit.
Army: coordinator change reshaping a unit.
CFB Zeitgeist Read · our take
Jeff Monken enters his 11th season with a 7-6 record, navigating a coordinator-driven reshaping of a unit at a program defined by its triple-option identity and Commander-in-Chief's Trophy pursuit.
Source of record: Army: coordinator change reshaping a unit.
How each room is reacting — tap to expand
🎪The circus“Army Football Players Named to East-West Bowl 1000” — the saga that won't quit.›
The off-field storyline driving the noise right now. Not analysis — the soap opera, and that's the point.
“Army Football Players Named to East-West Bowl 1000”
Hudson Valley Press · 2026-07-29 · read ↗
📣Believers1 bullish items -- the case it's working.›
The optimistic read: momentum, and the 'this is real' takes.
“WATCH: Football-themed Army adverts divide England supporters”
South West Londoner · 2026-07-27 · read ↗
“Pair of Army linemen nominated for Outland, Patrick Mannelly awards - Times Herald-Record”
news · 2026-08-05 · read ↗
“Army football QB Cale Hellums named to Maxwell Award watch list”
Yahoo Sports · 2026-08-03 · read ↗
🧐SkepticsNo prominent dissent — the coverage runs one way.›
The analytical counter: rankings, results, and 'the hype is ahead of the tape' takes.
Nothing in our corpus yet — this door stays open for when there is.
💬The boards37% of recent board volume — the fanbase is locked in.›
This event was in 49 of 132 board posts (37%) over the last 60 days — a fanbase consumed by it. Fan text shown verbatim, attributed to the community not the individual poster.
"Offense should be a little better, assuming Helums continues to improve as he did over the course of last season. D is a big question mark with lots of holes to fill and new coordi"
Academy Wars ~ fan take
"It didn't work against Navy or Notre Dame. It worked in 2024 because of a once-in-a-generation QB and a weak conference schedule, where we avoided Navy and 11-2 Memphis in conferen"
Academy Wars ~ fan take
The boards ≠ the fanbase: a vocal, self-selected slice.
Following now · Army · Program power Confidence
Army is moving up in the ratings, and the data says it's real.
Army has climbed into dynasty-caliber territory — into the top 41% of FBS by power rating over the last three seasons, up from the top 44% a year ago. It is a 23-14 record over the last three regular seasons. A real, measurable rise in the model. The room has caught up; now the schedule has to agree.
CFB Zeitgeist Read · our take
Monken's 7-6 record last season keeps Army in dynasty-caliber territory despite a talent rank outside the top 100 — proof the triple-option can outwork the odds.
Next · what to watch
The non-obvious consequence of climbing the power tiers is the expectation tax: the same season that looked like a breakout last year now reads as a disappointment. Watch whether the schedule lets the run actually show up on the field.
Source of record: Army has climbed into dynasty-caliber territory — into the top 41% of FBS by power rating over the last three seasons, up from the top 44% a year ago — a 23-14 record over the last three regular seasons.
How each room is reacting — tap to expand
🎪The circus“Army Football Players Named to East-West Bowl 1000” — the saga that won't quit.›
The off-field storyline driving the noise right now. Not analysis — the soap opera, and that's the point.
“Army Football Players Named to East-West Bowl 1000”
Hudson Valley Press · 2026-07-29 · read ↗
📣Believers1 bullish/momentum items -- the case it's working.›
The 'resurgence is real' read: the numbers are starting to back the hype.
“WATCH: Football-themed Army adverts divide England supporters”
South West Londoner · 2026-07-27 · read ↗
“Pair of Army linemen nominated for Outland, Patrick Mannelly awards - Times Herald-Record”
news · 2026-08-05 · read ↗
“Army football QB Cale Hellums named to Maxwell Award watch list”
Yahoo Sports · 2026-08-03 · read ↗
🧐SkepticsNo prominent dissent — the coverage runs one way.›
The 'wait and see' counter -- power shifts often get overread before the season proves them.
Nothing in our corpus yet — this door stays open for when there is.
Recent Form · last 10 games
Mixed
Three of five. Trending up, not yet hot.
Streak W1Last 5 · 3-2Last 10 · 6-4
The forecast
Opens Sep 5
vs Bryant · at home
Season line7.5 winsover -145
SolidRun-heavy, ground-controlMethodical, ball-control
✓ fact on line · ~ our read on style
Rival pulse
Air Force
Uneasy-19
Commander-in-Chief (AF-Army)
Fan mood index · most recent r/cfb data
Recruiting Footprint · 2026
Recruiting Footprint · 2026
50
TX · 12FL · 5GA · 5CA · 4VA · 3WI · 3NC · 2NE · 2+14 more
TX leads the 2026 class with 12 commits. National footprint reaching 22 states.
Where they recruit · 2023-2026
189 signees across 36 states, 2023-2026. TX leads the pull.
r/cfb this year
[Postgame Thread] Navy Defeats Army 17-16
[Postgame Thread] Tarleton Defeats Army 30-27 (2OT)
[Postgame Thread] ECU Defeats Army 28-6
Top community posts · last 12 months · r/cfb
National spotlight
12 games with TV coverage: 2 national broadcast, 3 ESPN, 5 cable, 2 streaming
Kickoff windows: 7 noon, 3 afternoon, 2 primetime
Fumble luck
Recovering 50% of their own fumbles — in line with the ~51% league rate.
4 of 8 own fumbles recovered themselves; 7 of 14 forced fumbles recovered, 2025 only.
Takeaway conversion
Converting 22% of pass disruptions into takeaways — right in line with the ~19% league rate.
8 interceptions of 37 disrupted passes (29 deflected, 8 intercepted), 2025 only.
Penalty battle
Winning the penalty battle: 34 penalties committed vs. 63 drawn on opponents, a 203-yard edge.
285 penalty yards committed vs. 488 drawn on opponents, 2025 season total.
The Pulse on Army
56
Δ -23.6 vs last wk
30
mentions this week · conversation velocity
What moved it — fall camp · last 14 days
Camp
Fall camp open — install + scrimmage cycle
ongoing
Kickoff
Season opener in 16 days
kickoff
"On Brave Old Army Team"
— Army fanbase · recurring line
Fanbase Signals
Cohort Divergence0 pctSpread between sub-fanbase cohorts in the Pulse window.
The Fever Year
Position = mood · width = volume · color = the kind of feeling
Cr/CFB
GGoogle News
AAcademy Wars
BBluesky
YYouTube
What little we hear
Only 2 cohort(s) cleared the signal floor this week, so we won’t stage a split we can’t back. Here’s the honest read:
Millennials+0.34
National take+0.34
How Army fans actually talk real · top-upvoted
The crowd’s loudest take by upvotes — read for mood, not as a side. The cohort read is the measured part.
90 mentions · 5 sources · week 2026-01. Counts, sources and the divergence rank are measured (fact). Cohort labels and sentiment are a source-weighted model read (our read) — never a quote attributed to a person.
Belief checkevidence-driven
~ our readArmy fans are down on the program, and they're pointing to real stats and results to back it up — more than most fanbases right now.
backed by facts
the mood
✓ counted We read 60 posts from Army fans this week.
Army-Navy Game
Fan mood across the 2025 season, both sides — our read
Hover a week for both sides’ game
Shaded weeks show whose fanbase read warmer, our measure of what fans actually said, not a poll.
Season storylines
Week 1
“Department of Defense is dead. Department of WAR is here. Absolutely love how aggressive Jeff was in this game. Tarleton State is legit.”— r/CFB
Week 2
Week 10
“Some great execution and smart play-calling at the end of the game. This team is a lot better than the 5-4 record suggests. Save for 1-2 key mistakes in previous games, there is a world where this team could’ve been 8-1 right now. With this being a “rebuild year” performance…”— r/CFB
Week 5
Week 18
Forum Pulse
via Academy Wars
- Army Football-Black Knights Alley • Re: Early bird 2026 Army football outlook
- Army Football-Black Knights Alley • Re: Early bird 2026 Army football outlook
- Army Football-Black Knights Alley • Re: Early bird 2026 Army football outlook
- Army Football-Black Knights Alley • Re: Early bird 2026 Army football outlook
- Army Football-Black Knights Alley • Re: Early bird 2026 Army football outlook
Five Lenses
What people are saying right now
Diehard fan boards14 posts
News & campus coverage12 posts
Fanbase Health Index · Army · high confidence
Fanbase Health Index · Army · high confidenceGrowing (55)
DecliningStableGrowingSurging
On-Field — 7-6 (54% win rate)53
Volume — 229 effective signal-N77
Cohort Engagement — Divergence 0.00 — quiet35
Fanbase Voice
341 fan mentions
Doomers
vs the 81 highest-volume fanbases - 2025 season
Key stats — 2025 — FBS rank
Points/game#90 / 138 · 36th pct23.8
Pts allowed/game#37 / 138 · 74th pct21.6
Total yards/gm#97 / 136 · 29th pct335.8
Rush yards/gm#6 / 136 · 96th pct255.0
Pass yards/gm#136 / 136 · 1st pct80.8
Yards allowed/gm#45 / 136 · 68th pct343.5
Rush yds allowed/gm#81 / 136 · 41st pct153.2
Sacks#125 / 136 · 9th pct14
Interceptions#84 / 136 · 39th pct8
3rd-down conv#52 / 136 · 62nd pct41.2%
All 98 stats
Offense / Defense
Total yards
Team4366335.8/gm5.00/play#97 / 136 · 29th pct#52 / 70 · 27th pct#11 / 14 · 29th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Opp4466343.5/gm5.58/play#45 / 136 · 68th pct#32 / 70 · 56th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Rush yards
Team3315255.0/gm3.80/play#6 / 136 · 96th pct#3 / 70 · 97th pct#2 / 14 · 93rd pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Opp1991153.2/gm2.49/play#81 / 136 · 41st pct#50 / 70 · 30th pct#7 / 14 · 57th pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Rush carries
Team74757.5/gm#1 / 136 · 100th pct#1 / 70 · 100th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Opp44234.0/gm#54 / 136 · 61st pct#37 / 70 · 49th pct#2 / 14 · 93rd pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Rush TDs
Team312.4/gm#19 / 136 · 87th pct#10 / 70 · 87th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Opp181.4/gm#60 / 136 · 57th pct#39 / 70 · 46th pct#3 / 14 · 86th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Net pass yards
Team105180.8/gm1.20/play#136 / 136 · 1st pct#70 / 70 · 1st pct#14 / 14 · 7th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Opp2475190.4/gm3.09/play#30 / 136 · 79th pct#16 / 70 · 79th pct#3 / 14 · 86th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Pass attempts
Team1269.7/gm#136 / 136 · 1st pct#70 / 70 · 1st pct#14 / 14 · 7th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Opp35927.6/gm#40 / 136 · 71st pct#18 / 70 · 76th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Completions
Team685.2/gm#136 / 136 · 1st pct#70 / 70 · 1st pct#14 / 14 · 7th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Opp22817.5/gm#51 / 136 · 63rd pct#24 / 70 · 67th pct#5 / 14 · 71st pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Pass TDs
Team60.5/gm#136 / 136 · 1st pct#70 / 70 · 1st pct#14 / 14 · 7th pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Opp151.2/gm#28 / 136 · 80th pct#21 / 70 · 71st pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Passer rating
Team127.1127.1#88 / 136 · 36th pct#52 / 70 · 27th pct#12 / 14 · 21st pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Opp132.4132.4#66 / 136 · 52nd pct#40 / 70 · 44th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Interceptions thrown
Team50.4/gm#129 / 136 · 6th pct#66 / 70 · 7th pct#12 / 14 · 21st pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Opp80.6/gm#44 / 136 · 68th pct#23 / 70 · 69th pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Sacks (def)
Team141.1/gm#125 / 136 · 9th pct#65 / 70 · 9th pct#13 / 14 · 14th pct#10 / 10 · 10th pct
Opp70.5/gm#1 / 136 · 100th pct#1 / 70 · 100th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#4 / 10 · 70th pct
Tackles for loss
Team443.4/gm#132 / 136 · 4th pct#69 / 70 · 3rd pct#14 / 14 · 7th pct#10 / 10 · 10th pct
Opp483.7/gm#8 / 136 · 95th pct#4 / 70 · 96th pct#2 / 14 · 93rd pct#6 / 10 · 50th pct
First downs
Team24418.8/gm#89 / 136 · 35th pct#49 / 70 · 31st pct#11 / 14 · 29th pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Opp24218.6/gm#51 / 136 · 63rd pct#33 / 70 · 54th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
3rd-down conv
Team775.9/gm#35 / 136 · 75th pct#19 / 70 · 74th pct#6 / 14 · 64th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Opp745.7/gm#101 / 136 · 26th pct#57 / 70 · 20th pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
3rd-down att
Team18714.4/gm#27 / 136 · 81st pct#10 / 70 · 87th pct#5 / 14 · 71st pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Opp16512.7/gm#35 / 136 · 75th pct#16 / 70 · 79th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
4th-down conv
Team393.0/gm#2 / 136 · 99th pct#1 / 70 · 100th pct#2 / 14 · 93rd pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Opp211.6/gm#128 / 136 · 7th pct#65 / 70 · 9th pct#12 / 14 · 21st pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct
4th-down att
Team564.3/gm#2 / 136 · 99th pct#1 / 70 · 100th pct#2 / 14 · 93rd pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Opp362.8/gm#122 / 136 · 11th pct#61 / 70 · 14th pct#12 / 14 · 21st pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
Time of possession
Team449:4634:36/gm#12 / 136 · 92nd pct#9 / 70 · 89th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Opp330:1425:24/gm#3 / 136 · 99th pct#2 / 70 · 99th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Kicking & Punting
Field goals#80 / 135 · 41st pct15/20 (75.0%)
Extra points35/36
Punting#73 / 136 · 47th pct43.1 avg · 32 punts
Turnovers & special teams
Turnovers
Team110.8/gm#121 / 136 · 12th pct#59 / 70 · 17th pct#12 / 14 · 21st pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Opp161.2/gm#65 / 136 · 53rd pct#35 / 70 · 51st pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Fumbles lost
Team60.5/gm#69 / 136 · 50th pct#28 / 70 · 61st pct#10 / 14 · 36th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Opp80.6/gm#90 / 136 · 35th pct#52 / 70 · 27th pct#7 / 14 · 57th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
INT return TDs
Team10.1/gm#36 / 135 · 74th pct#19 / 70 · 74th pct#4 / 13 · 77th pct#3 / 10 · 80th pct
Opp00.0/gm#1 / 136 · 100th pct#1 / 70 · 100th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#1 / 9 · 100th pct
INT return yards
Team1048.0/gm#79 / 136 · 43rd pct#40 / 70 · 44th pct#7 / 14 · 57th pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Opp705.4/gm#40 / 136 · 71st pct#22 / 70 · 70th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Punt ret yds
Team836.4/gm#100 / 136 · 27th pct#57 / 70 · 20th pct#10 / 14 · 36th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Opp352.7/gm#14 / 136 · 90th pct#11 / 70 · 86th pct#3 / 14 · 86th pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Punt ret TDs
Team00.0/gm#43 / 135 · 69th pct#23 / 70 · 69th pct#3 / 13 · 85th pct#6 / 11 · 55th pct
Opp00.0/gm#1 / 135 · 100th pct#1 / 70 · 100th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct#1 / 9 · 100th pct
Kick ret yds
Team826.3/gm#135 / 136 · 1st pct#69 / 70 · 3rd pct#14 / 14 · 7th pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct
Opp62247.8/gm#112 / 136 · 18th pct#61 / 70 · 14th pct#11 / 14 · 29th pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Kick ret TDs
Team00.0/gm#40 / 136 · 71st pct#17 / 70 · 77th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#1 / 9 · 100th pct
Opp10.1/gm#97 / 135 · 29th pct#53 / 70 · 26th pct#11 / 13 · 23rd pct#6 / 9 · 44th pct
Penalty yards
Team28521.9/gm#136 / 136 · 1st pct#70 / 70 · 1st pct#14 / 14 · 7th pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct
Opp48837.5/gm#10 / 136 · 93rd pct#8 / 70 · 90th pct#2 / 14 · 93rd pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Other
Fourth down go rate#3 / 138 · 99th pct#2 / 70 · 99th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct0.70.1/gm
Passes intercepted opponent#5 / 136 · 97th pct#3 / 70 · 97th pct#3 / 14 · 86th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct50.4/gm
Punt ret (opp)#17 / 136 · 88th pct#13 / 70 · 83rd pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct80.6/gm
Penalties (opp)#22 / 136 · 85th pct#15 / 70 · 80th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct634.8/gm
Fumbles recovered#33 / 136 · 76th pct#17 / 70 · 77th pct#5 / 14 · 71st pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct80.6/gm
Fumbles rec (def)#46 / 136 · 67th pct#29 / 70 · 60th pct#5 / 14 · 71st pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct60.5/gm
H1 epa per play#48 / 162 · 71st pct#36 / 70 · 50th pct#7 / 13 · 54th pct0.20.0/gm
H2 epa per play opponent#59 / 143 · 59th pct#35 / 70 · 51st pct#5 / 13 · 69th pct0.20.0/gm
H2 epa per play#78 / 142 · 46th pct#43 / 70 · 40th pct#11 / 13 · 23rd pct0.20.0/gm
Interceptions (def)#84 / 136 · 39th pct#44 / 70 · 39th pct#7 / 14 · 57th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct80.6/gm
H1 epa per play opponent#102 / 167 · 40th pct#54 / 70 · 24th pct#7 / 13 · 54th pct0.20.0/gm
Kick ret (opp)#112 / 136 · 18th pct#62 / 70 · 13th pct#12 / 14 · 21st pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct302.3/gm
Punt returns#113 / 136 · 18th pct#62 / 70 · 13th pct#11 / 14 · 29th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct100.8/gm
Recruiting rating#130 / 138 · 7th pct#70 / 70 · 1st pct#12 / 14 · 21st pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct77.25.9/gm
Kick returns#135 / 136 · 1st pct#69 / 70 · 3rd pct#14 / 14 · 7th pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct70.5/gm
Penalties#136 / 136 · 1st pct#70 / 70 · 1st pct#14 / 14 · 7th pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct342.6/gm
Red zone pass rate#151 / 154 · 3rd pct#70 / 70 · 1st pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct0.10.0/gm
First down pass rate#213 / 215 · 1st pct#70 / 70 · 1st pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct0.10.0/gm
Situational
3rd-down conversion
Off41.2%#52 / 136 · 62nd pct#31 / 70 · 57th pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Def44.8%#122 / 136 · 11th pct#65 / 70 · 9th pct#12 / 14 · 21st pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
4th-down conversion
Off69.6%#11 / 136 · 93rd pct#8 / 70 · 90th pct#2 / 14 · 93rd pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Def58.3%#92 / 136 · 33rd pct#46 / 70 · 36th pct#9 / 14 · 43rd pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Turnover margin#35 / 136 · 75th pct#20 / 70 · 73rd pct#7 / 14 · 57th pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct+0.38/gm
Sack rate (def)#128 / 136 · 7th pct#66 / 70 · 7th pct#13 / 14 · 14th pct#10 / 10 · 10th pct3.9%
Red Zone & Drive Efficiency (2014– , play-by-play derived)
Red zone trips
Team352.7/gm#113 / 167 · 33rd pct#60 / 70 · 16th pct#12 / 13 · 15th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Opp453.5/gm#120 / 166 · 28th pct#52 / 70 · 27th pct#9 / 13 · 38th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
Red zone score %
Team88.6%88.6%#21 / 167 · 88th pct#10 / 70 · 87th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Opp82.2%82.2%#110 / 166 · 34th pct#53 / 70 · 26th pct#9 / 13 · 38th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Points / drive
Team2.20.2/gm#54 / 167 · 68th pct#38 / 70 · 47th pct#8 / 13 · 46th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Opp2.30.2/gm#116 / 166 · 31st pct#61 / 70 · 14th pct#9 / 13 · 38th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Yards / drive
Team40.83.1/gm#76 / 167 · 55th pct#45 / 70 · 37th pct#11 / 13 · 23rd pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Opp43.83.4/gm#134 / 166 · 20th pct#63 / 70 · 11th pct#10 / 13 · 31st pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct
Plays / drive
Team7.60.6/gm#4 / 167 · 98th pct#1 / 70 · 100th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Opp7.20.6/gm#158 / 166 · 5th pct#68 / 70 · 4th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct
Three-and-out rate
Team7.7%7.7%#23 / 167 · 87th pct#13 / 70 · 83rd pct#5 / 13 · 69th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Opp7.8%7.8%#146 / 166 · 13th pct#69 / 70 · 3rd pct#12 / 13 · 15th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Scheme Identity (2014– , play-by-play derived)
Rush rate over expected#1 / 145 · 100th pct#1 / 70 · 100th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct+32.4%+32.4%
Havoc rate
Team12.9%12.9%#122 / 140 · 14th pct#65 / 70 · 9th pct#11 / 14 · 29th pct
Opp8.3%8.3%#5 / 140 · 97th pct#1 / 70 · 100th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct
Standard-downs success
Team46.4%46.4%#94 / 154 · 40th pct#52 / 70 · 27th pct#11 / 13 · 23rd pct
Opp50.9%50.9%#123 / 172 · 29th pct#58 / 70 · 19th pct#10 / 13 · 31st pct
Passing-downs success
Team29.8%29.8%#85 / 153 · 45th pct#48 / 70 · 33rd pct#10 / 13 · 31st pct
Opp31.7%31.7%#95 / 149 · 37th pct#46 / 70 · 36th pct#9 / 13 · 38th pct
Line yards / carry
Team3.03.0#51 / 143 · 65th pct#29 / 70 · 60th pct#7 / 13 · 54th pct
Opp3.13.1#112 / 155 · 28th pct#59 / 70 · 17th pct#10 / 13 · 31st pct
Stuff rate
Team13.2%13.2%#5 / 143 · 97th pct#2 / 70 · 99th pct#2 / 13 · 92nd pct
Opp16.2%16.2%#114 / 155 · 27th pct#59 / 70 · 17th pct#9 / 13 · 38th pct
Power success rate
Team76.1%76.1%#35 / 137 · 75th pct#20 / 70 · 73rd pct#5 / 13 · 69th pct
Opp72.2%72.2%#83 / 141 · 42nd pct#42 / 70 · 41st pct#7 / 13 · 54th pct
Efficiency
Completion %
Off54.0%#132 / 136 · 4th pct#70 / 70 · 1st pct#14 / 14 · 7th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
Def63.5%#90 / 136 · 35th pct#46 / 70 · 36th pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
Yards / attempt
Off8.3#21 / 136 · 85th pct#13 / 70 · 83rd pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Def6.9#55 / 136 · 60th pct#36 / 70 · 50th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Yards / completion
Off15.5#3 / 136 · 99th pct#1 / 70 · 100th pct#2 / 14 · 93rd pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Def10.9#34 / 136 · 76th pct#25 / 70 · 66th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Yards / carry#65 / 136 · 53rd pct#35 / 70 · 51st pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct4.4
Yards / play#119 / 136 · 13th pct#63 / 70 · 11th pct#12 / 14 · 21st pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct5.00
Scoring margin#68 / 136 · 51st pct#45 / 70 · 37th pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct+2.2/gm
FBS rankings · 2025 season · all stats vs 136 FBS programs
Player stats — 2025 season
Quarterbacks
| Player | # | G | Cmp/Att | Pct | Yds | Y/A | TD | INT | Rate | QBR | Adj ANY/A | Sack% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scrambler · +0.28 EPA/play | 3 | 13 | 47 / 87 | 54.0 | 694 | 8.0 | 4 | 3 | 129.3 | 42.6 | 7.1 | 2.2 | |
Yards by week → ScramblerMakes plays with feet when the pocket collapses. Efficiency still on the rise. Impact starter — above-average production for the conference. 45 of 183 QBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Rush usage77.8% 100th percentile · FBS QBs, min. 80 attempts Rush yards / carry4.0 80th percentile · FBS QBs, min. 80 attempts Trait fingerprint Plays like View Cale Hellums's full player page | |||||||||||||
| +0.13 EPA/play | 10 | 6 | 19 / 36 | 52.8 | 273 | 7.6 | 2 | 2 | 123.7 | 31.4 | — | — | |
Yards by week → | |||||||||||||
Running Backs
| Player | # | G | Car | Yds | Avg | TD | Long | 3rd Dn Use | Pass Dn Use | Stuff% | 10+% | Tgt Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Workhorse · -0.08 EPA/play | 8 | 8 | 74 | 335 | 4.5 | 3 | 37 | 10 | 4.6 | 6.9 | 8.3 | — | |
Yards by week → WorkhorseBuilt to take 20+ carries per game. Volume is the value. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. 52 of 349 RBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Weight220 lb 82th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Receiving share2.6% bottom 8th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Plays like View Hayden Reed's full player page | |||||||||||||
| Balanced Back · +0.05 EPA/play | 29 | 7 | 43 | 254 | 5.9 | 1 | 75 | 2.9 | 3 | — | — | — | |
Yards by week → Balanced BackPlays within the scheme — consistent production without a dominant dimension. 186 of 349 RBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Yards / carry6.1 79th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Receiving share2.3% bottom 8th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Plays like View Briggs Bartosh's full player page | |||||||||||||
| Workhorse · -0.03 EPA/play | 34 | 10 | 55 | 231 | 4.2 | 2 | 11 | 4.8 | 5.1 | 5.6 | 3.7 | — | |
Yards by week → WorkhorseBuilt to take 20+ carries per game. Volume is the value. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. 52 of 349 RBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Weight240 lb 99th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Yards / carry4.5 bottom 25th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Plays like View Carson Smith's full player page | |||||||||||||
| Workhorse · +0.18 EPA/play | 33 | 10 | 40 | 187 | 4.7 | 1 | 15 | 3.5 | 0 | — | — | — | |
Yards by week → WorkhorseBuilt to take 20+ carries per game. Volume is the value. 52 of 349 RBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt View Jake Rendina's full player pageWeight240 lb 99th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Rush TD rate2.5% bottom 26th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries | |||||||||||||
Receivers
| Player | # | G | Rec | Yds | Avg | TD | Long | 3rd Dn Use | Pass Dn Use | Tgt Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Possession Receiver · +0.13 EPA/play | 15 | 13 | 32 | 438 | 13.7 | 2 | 44 | 15.7 | 26.9 | 51.1% (47/92) | |
Yards by week → Possession ReceiverReliable target who converts on critical downs. Not flashy; consistently productive. Starter — over 60% of the snaps, holding the job. 332 of 558 WRs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Yards / reception13.4 51th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions EPA / play (adj)0.1 bottom 8th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions Trait fingerprint Plays like View Noah Short's full player page | |||||||||||
| Deep Threat · +1.57 EPA/play | 84 | 8 | 14 | 381 | 27.2 | 2 | 68 | 3.4 | 5.3 | 21.7% (20/92) | |
Yards by week → Deep Threat· Money-downStretches the field vertically. Every snap is a potential big play. lives on the sticks and moves the chains 100 of 558 WRs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Yards / reception23.7 100th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions EPA / play (adj)1.6 100th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions Trait fingerprint Plays like View Brady Anderson's full player page | |||||||||||
| +0.44 EPA/play | 27 | 9 | 11 | 133 | 12.1 | 1 | 41 | 1.5 | 3.7 | — | |
Yards by week → | |||||||||||
Defensive Line
| Player | # | G | Tot | Solo | TFL | Sack | Hur |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Two-Gap Base | 92 | 11 | 37 | 16 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
Two-Gap BaseStout at the point of attack — steady tackle-for-loss production without a standout pass-rush number. Starter — over 60% of the snaps, holding the job. 388 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate2.7% bottom 11th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like View Jack Latore's full player page | |||||||
| 3-Tech Penetrator | 99 | 12 | 28 | 12 | 7 | 3.5 | 5 |
3-Tech PenetratorDisruptive interior rusher who lives in the backfield. All-Conference honorable mention / 2nd team — the recognition has started. 269 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate25.0% 86th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like our readUnranked recruit — top-quartile production against his own recruiting profile | |||||||
| Two-Gap Base | 96 | 9 | 17 | 4 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 |
Two-Gap BaseStout at the point of attack — steady tackle-for-loss production without a standout pass-rush number. The most common profile in its group this season — 388 of 809 classified this way. Played in 9 of 21 games this season · junior View Dillon Stowers's full player page | |||||||
| Nose Anchor | 52 | 8 | 16 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Nose AnchorThe heaviest frame on the interior. Sack production is intentionally not the point of this profile. 152 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Weight310 lb 83th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like our readFading: his CFB Index score went from the 82nd percentile among FBS IDLs to the 16th | |||||||
| 3-Tech Penetrator | 98 | 9 | 15 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
3-Tech PenetratorDisruptive interior rusher who lives in the backfield. 269 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate0.0% bottom 6th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like our readAscending: his CFB Index score climbed from the 5th percentile to the 30th among FBS IDLs | |||||||
| Two-Gap Base | 62 | 6 | 13 | 3 | 0.5 | 0 | 2 |
Two-Gap BaseStout at the point of attack — steady tackle-for-loss production without a standout pass-rush number. 388 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate3.8% bottom 13th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like View Jacob Tuioti's full player page | |||||||
| 91 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | |
| 94 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | |
Linebackers
| Player | # | G | Tot | Solo | Ast | TFL | Sack | PD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sideline-to-Sideline | 51 | 13 | 112 | 65 | 47 | 4 | 0.5 | 5 | 0 |
Sideline-to-SidelineRanges from hash to hash and makes his own tackles. All-Conference honorable mention / 2nd team — the recognition has started. 102 of 660 LBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Solo tackle rate0.6 78th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Tackle volume112 99th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Trait fingerprint Plays like our readUnranked recruit — top-quartile production against his own recruiting profile | |||||||||
| Sideline-to-Sideline | 53 | 13 | 83 | 54 | 29 | 7.5 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 |
Sideline-to-SidelineRanges from hash to hash and makes his own tackles. Starter — over 60% of the snaps, holding the job. 102 of 660 LBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Solo tackle rate0.7 92th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Tackle volume83 87th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Trait fingerprint Plays like View Kalib Fortner's full player page | |||||||||
| Thumper | 40 | 11 | 52 | 25 | 27 | 8 | 4.5 | 2 | 0 |
ThumperDownhill striker who fills the run lane and blitzes off the edge. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. 97 of 660 LBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate15.4% 80th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Sack rate8.7% 87th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Trait fingerprint Plays like our readBreakout: his CFB Index score moved from the 38th to 86th percentile among FBS LBs | |||||||||
| Balanced Linebacker | 47 | 7 | 15 | 6 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Balanced LinebackerSolid in every phase without a signature dimension. 362 of 660 LBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Tackle volume15 bottom 10th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles TFL rate0.0% bottom 10th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Trait fingerprint Plays like View Noah Nixon's full player page | |||||||||
| 21 | 5 | 9 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 42 | 5 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Defensive Backs
| Player | # | G | Tot | PD | INT | TFL | Sack |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Box Safety | 30 | 12 | 79 | 7 | 1 | 1.5 | 0 |
Box SafetyLives near the line of scrimmage as a de facto extra linebacker. Impact starter — above-average production for the conference. 166 of 801 Ss we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Tackle volume79 96th percentile · FBS safeties, min. 15 tackles Plays like our readUnranked recruit — top-quartile production against his own recruiting profile our readBreakout: his CFB Index score now sits at the 86th percentile among FBS Ss, up from the 9th | |||||||
| Box Safety | 20 | 12 | 69 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 |
Box SafetyLives near the line of scrimmage as a de facto extra linebacker. Starter — over 60% of the snaps, holding the job. 166 of 801 Ss we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Tackle volume69 90th percentile · FBS safeties, min. 15 tackles Plays like our readUnranked recruit — top-quartile production against his own recruiting profile | |||||||
| Hybrid Nickel | 14 | 12 | 57 | 3 | 2 | 2.5 | 1 |
Hybrid NickelMoves between deep coverage and the slot — the modern positionless DB. Starter — over 60% of the snaps, holding the job. The most common profile in its group this season — 419 of 801 classified this way. Played in 12 of 21 games this season · senior our readUnranked recruit — top-quartile production against his own recruiting profile our readBreakout: his CFB Index score moved from the 28th to 81st percentile among FBS Ss | |||||||
| Cover Corner | 7 | 13 | 35 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Cover Corner· Takeaway threatSteady in coverage; doesn't get beat deep and rarely gives up the big play. the kind of DB who takes it back the other way The most common profile in its group this season — 141 of 270 classified this way. Played in 13 of 21 games this season · junior · 3-star, 2021 class our readFading: his CFB Index score went from the 92nd percentile among FBS CBs to the 58th | |||||||
| Cover Corner | 5 | 10 | 25 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Cover CornerSteady in coverage; doesn't get beat deep and rarely gives up the big play. The most common profile in its group this season — 141 of 270 classified this way. Played in 10 of 21 games this season · senior · 2-star, 2021 class View Justin Weaver's full player page | |||||||
| Cover Corner | 10 | 11 | 23 | 1 | 0 | 3.5 | 2 |
Cover CornerSteady in coverage; doesn't get beat deep and rarely gives up the big play. The most common profile in its group this season — 141 of 270 classified this way. Played in 11 of 21 games this season · sophomore View Cole Searight's full player page | |||||||
| Hybrid Nickel | 3 | 9 | 23 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Hybrid NickelMoves between deep coverage and the slot — the modern positionless DB. The most common profile in its group this season — 419 of 801 classified this way. Played in 9 of 21 games this season · junior View Stephen Nnadozie's full player page | |||||||
| Cover Corner | 6 | 7 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Cover CornerSteady in coverage; doesn't get beat deep and rarely gives up the big play. 141 of 270 CBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt PD rate0.0% bottom 8th percentile · FBS corners, min. 10 tackles Plays like View Jabril Williams's full player page | |||||||
| 17 | 6 | 9 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 13 | 5 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Kicking
| Player | # | G | FG M/A | FG% | XP M/A | Pts | Long |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steady | 95 | 12 | 15/20 | 75 | 35/36 | 80 | 48 |
Punting
| Player | # | G | No | Yds | Avg | Long | In20 | TB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pinner | 46 | 11 | 32 | 1380 | 43.1 | 71 | 13 | 2 |
Net average is unavailable — CFBD's punting feed carries gross yards only, with no return-yardage or touchback deduction.
Kick Returns
| Player | # | G | No | Yds | Avg | TD | Long |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -0.86 EPA/play | 23 | 8 | 5 | 82 | 16.4 | 0 | 20 |
Punt Returns
| Player | # | G | No | Yds | Avg | TD | Long |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -0.86 EPA/play | 23 | 8 | 9 | 83 | 9.2 | 0 | 32 |
2025 stat leaders
final
2025 stat leaders
1.
Andon Thomas
LB
112 tot (def)
2.
Kalib Fortner
LB
83.0 tot (def)
3.
Cale Hellums
QB
1,215 yds (rush)
4.
Collin Matteson
S
79.0 tot (def)
5.
Casey Larkin
S
69.0 tot (def)
Roster
2025
21
players carry a qualified CFB Index Score this season.
Collin Matteson
S
#80 of 544
Eric Ford
LB
#96 of 583
Casey Larkin
S
#103 of 544
Gavin Shields
S
#104 of 544
Andon Thomas
LB
#162 of 583
Cale Hellums
QB
#48 of 146
+15 more
Army · 2025 schedule & results7-6Brutal slateAverage opponent win rate 55% · 4 AP top-25 opponents on the schedule.
| Wk | Date | Us | Opp | Line | Opponent | Result | Record | Conf |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Aug 29 | #69 | #124 | -14 | Tarleton State | L 27–30 154 | 0-1 | 0-0 |
| 2 | Sep 6 | #86 | #21 | +16.5 | @Kansas State | W 24–21 125 | 1-1 | 0-0 |
| 4 | Sep 20 | #67 | #102 | +2.5 | North Texas | L 38–45 158 | 1-2 | 0-1 |
| 5 | Sep 25 | #70 | #68 | +3.5 | @East Carolina | L 6–28 137 | 1-3 | 0-2 |
| 6 | Oct 4 | #80 | #123 | -6.5 | @UAB | W 31–13 126 | 2-3 | 1-2 |
| 7 | Oct 11 | #83 | #235 | -17.5 | Charlotte | W 24–7 69 | 3-3 | 2-2 |
| 8 | Oct 18 | #85 | #64 | +10.5 | @Tulane | L 17–24 131 | 3-4 | 2-3 |
| 10 | Nov 1 | #79 | #101 | -1 | @Air Force | W 20–17 122 | 4-4 | 2-3 |
| 11 | Nov 8 | #77 | #111 | -7 | Temple | W 14–13 112 | 5-4 | 3-3 |
| 13 | Nov 22 | #85 | #135 | -9.5 | Tulsa | L 25–26 136 | 5-5 | 3-4 |
| 14 | Nov 29 | #100 | #38 | +8.5 | @UTSA | W 27–24 127 | 6-5 | 4-4 |
| 16 | Dec 13 | #86 | #51 | +3.5 | Navy (N) | L 16–17 110 | 6-6 | 4-5 |
| Bowl Season | ||||||||
| 18 | Dec 27 | #86 | #68 | -8.5 | UConn (N) | W 41–16 | 7-6 | 4-5 |
Advanced box score (EPA, success rate, explosiveness)▼
| Date | Opp | Result | Yds | TO | TOP | EPA/play | Success% | Explosive% | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 27 | UConn | W 41–16 | — | — | — | +0.506 | 61.8% | 118.5% | Season-high EPA/play |
| Dec 13 | Navy | L 16–17 | 202 | 1 | 25:25 | +0.031 | 26.1% | 149.5% | Most explosive |
| Nov 29 | @UTSA | W 27–24 | 303 | 0 | 33:07 | +0.150 | 37.7% | 121.3% | One-score win |
| Nov 22 | Tulsa | L 25–26 | 311 | 1 | 34:36 | +0.146 | 33.8% | 137.2% | One-score loss |
| Nov 8 | Temple | W 14–13 | 250 | 0 | 37:38 | +0.161 | 42.0% | 91.1% | One-score win |
| Nov 1 | @Air Force | W 20–17 | 295 | 0 | 25:56 | +0.233 | 39.3% | 133.8% | One-score win |
| Oct 18 | @Tulane | L 17–24 | 358 | 0 | 38:58 | +0.245 | 39.7% | 125.8% | Defense's roughest night |
| Oct 11 | Charlotte | W 24–7 | 355 | 1 | 37:54 | +0.149 | 53.6% | 82.7% | Best defensive stand |
| Oct 4 | @UAB | W 31–13 | 295 | 0 | 36:51 | +0.209 | 46.9% | 95.8% | |
| Sep 25 | @East Carolina | L 6–28 | 290 | 1 | 34:02 | -0.094 | 30.8% | 125.3% | Season-low EPA/play |
| Sep 20 | North Texas | L 38–45 | 488 | 3 | 32:01 | +0.354 | 50.7% | 113.3% | One-score loss |
| Sep 6 | @Kansas State | W 24–21 | 332 | 0 | 40:29 | +0.170 | 39.0% | 116.3% | One-score win |
| Aug 29 | Tarleton State | L 27–30 | 411 | 3 | 36:34 | +0.085 | 40.8% | 119.2% | One-score loss |
| Season average (13 games) | 324 | 0.8 | +0.180 | 41.7% | 117.7% | ||||
How They Play · 2025
How They Play · 2025Army fields a capable run-heavy, methodical, ball-control offense behind a leaky, bend-don't-break defense.
Opponent-adjusted percentiles vs all FBS. Bar = where this team ranks — right is better.
Team identity · competitive snaps only
How Army actually scores
57th percentile quality, 43rd percentile boom-dependency. Garbage time excluded from both axes — the same correction that changes the Q4 story below.
View all FBS teams as a table
| Team | Quality percentile | Boom-share percentile |
|---|---|---|
| Air Force | 86th | 11th |
| Akron | 12th | 89th |
| Alabama | 58th | 17th |
| App State | 35th | 47th |
| Arizona | 64th | 37th |
| Arizona State | 41st | 62nd |
| Arkansas | 90th | 12th |
| Arkansas State | 17th | 66th |
| Army | 57th | 43rd |
| Auburn | 47th | 53rd |
| BYU | 78th | 19th |
| Baylor | 69th | 25th |
| Boise State | 66th | 20th |
| Boston College | 37th | 54th |
| Bowling Green | 2nd | 98th |
| Buffalo | 11th | 88th |
| California | 28th | 48th |
| Central Michigan | 52nd | 64th |
| Cincinnati | 89th | 16th |
| Clemson | 51st | 48th |
| Coastal Carolina | 17th | 83rd |
| Colorado | 18th | 84th |
| Colorado State | 16th | 83rd |
| Delaware | 38th | 58th |
| Duke | 80th | 14th |
| East Carolina | 63rd | 36th |
| Eastern Michigan | 49th | 42nd |
| Florida | 30th | 67th |
| Florida Atlantic | 62nd | 59th |
| Florida International | 42nd | 50th |
| Florida State | 83rd | 32nd |
| Fresno State | 26th | 73rd |
| Georgia | 81st | 3rd |
| Georgia Southern | 73rd | 21st |
| Georgia State | 36th | 70th |
| Georgia Tech | 84th | 5th |
| Hawai'i | 64th | 41st |
| Houston | 27th | 65th |
| Illinois | 75th | 26th |
| Indiana | 95th | 1st |
| Iowa | 44th | 40th |
| Iowa State | 68th | 22nd |
| Jacksonville State | 54th | 38th |
| James Madison | 65th | 44th |
| Kansas | 85th | 28th |
| Kansas State | 71st | 49th |
| Kennesaw State | 56th | 30th |
| Kent State | 21st | 86th |
| Kentucky | 15th | 85th |
| LSU | 14th | 81st |
| Liberty | 43rd | 56th |
| Louisiana | 19th | 73rd |
| Louisiana Tech | 39th | 61st |
| Louisville | 48th | 64th |
| Marshall | 55th | 39th |
| Maryland | 30th | 74th |
| Memphis | 80th | 24th |
| Miami | 76th | 5th |
| Miami (OH) | 34th | 67th |
| Michigan | 67th | 33rd |
| Michigan State | 27th | 75th |
| Middle Tennessee | 39th | 52nd |
| Minnesota | 29th | 77th |
| Mississippi State | 22nd | 77th |
| Missouri | 61st | 30th |
| Missouri State | 55th | 46th |
| NC State | 86th | 23rd |
| Navy | 94th | 17th |
| Nebraska | 48th | 57th |
| Nevada | 3rd | 97th |
| New Mexico | 58th | 60th |
| New Mexico State | 9th | 87th |
| North Carolina | 13th | 89th |
| North Texas | 98th | 7th |
| Northern Illinois | 8th | 92nd |
| Northwestern | 52nd | 36th |
| Notre Dame | 99th | 20th |
| Ohio | 67th | 18th |
| Ohio State | 93rd | 4th |
| Oklahoma | 20th | 80th |
| Oklahoma State | 5th | 95th |
| Old Dominion | 83rd | 45th |
| Ole Miss | 89th | 2nd |
| Oregon | 91st | 10th |
| Oregon State | 2nd | 98th |
| Penn State | 73rd | 33rd |
| Pittsburgh | 60th | 39th |
| Purdue | 25th | 78th |
| Rice | 6th | 94th |
| Rutgers | 70th | 27th |
| SMU | 74th | 42nd |
| Sam Houston | 4th | 96th |
| San Diego State | 24th | 76th |
| San José State | 45th | 69th |
| South Alabama | 36th | 58th |
| South Carolina | 23rd | 86th |
| South Florida | 87th | 23rd |
| Southern Miss | 40th | 55th |
| Stanford | 10th | 90th |
| Syracuse | 5th | 95th |
| TCU | 72nd | 35th |
| Temple | 70th | 34th |
| Tennessee | 96th | 11th |
| Texas | 45th | 55th |
| Texas A&M | 82nd | 14th |
| Texas State | 92nd | 8th |
| Texas Tech | 77th | 31st |
| Toledo | 50th | 61st |
| Troy | 14th | 80th |
| Tulane | 79th | 15th |
| Tulsa | 20th | 70th |
| UAB | 61st | 45th |
| UCF | 33rd | 82nd |
| UCLA | 23rd | 79th |
| UConn | 95th | 13th |
| UL Monroe | 11th | 92nd |
| UNLV | 88th | 9th |
| USC | 98th | 2nd |
| UTEP | 1st | 99th |
| UTSA | 77th | 51st |
| Utah | 97th | 6th |
| Utah State | 46th | 63rd |
| Vanderbilt | 100th | 0th |
| Virginia | 59th | 27th |
| Virginia Tech | 32nd | 71st |
| Wake Forest | 42nd | 72nd |
| Washington | 92nd | 8th |
| Washington State | 33rd | 52nd |
| West Virginia | 7th | 93rd |
| Western Kentucky | 53rd | 29th |
| Western Michigan | 31st | 68th |
| Wisconsin | 0th | 100th |
| Wyoming | 8th | 91st |
Fourth-quarter reliability, corrected
Army's 4th-quarter offense, before and after garbage time
Raw Q4 EPA/play ranks 47th percentile in FBS. Strip out snaps taken with a blowout margin and it climbs to the 52nd — the correction is the finding, not a footnote.
Standard downs vs. passing downs
Does Army hold up once the down-and-distance turns against them?
37th percentile success on standard downs, 44th on passing downs — little dropoff between the two — a schedule-independent identity.
View all FBS teams as a table
| Team | Standard-downs percentile | Passing-downs percentile |
|---|---|---|
| Air Force | 82nd | 69th |
| Akron | 20th | 36th |
| Alabama | 47th | 76th |
| App State | 41st | 80th |
| Arizona | 54th | 54th |
| Arizona State | 40th | 37th |
| Arkansas | 90th | 97th |
| Arkansas State | 51st | 40th |
| Army | 37th | 44th |
| Auburn | 73rd | 24th |
| Austin Peay | 56th | 13th |
| BYU | 91st | 46th |
| Ball State | 5th | 3rd |
| Baylor | 70th | 77th |
| Boise State | 42nd | 63rd |
| Boston College | 56th | 54th |
| Bowling Green | 10th | 17th |
| Bryant | 7th | 2nd |
| Buffalo | 29th | 20th |
| California | 25th | 66th |
| Central Michigan | 57th | 11th |
| Charlotte | 7th | 7th |
| Cincinnati | 89th | 65th |
| Clemson | 49th | 34th |
| Coastal Carolina | 16th | 22nd |
| Colorado | 8th | 48th |
| Colorado State | 29th | 35th |
| Delaware | 66th | 31st |
| Duke | 82nd | 63rd |
| East Carolina | 63rd | 91st |
| Eastern Michigan | 46th | 67th |
| Florida | 52nd | 45th |
| Florida Atlantic | 44th | 61st |
| Florida International | 50th | 26th |
| Florida State | 65th | 90th |
| Fresno State | 22nd | 71st |
| Georgia | 95th | 69th |
| Georgia Southern | 64th | 84th |
| Georgia State | 22nd | 75th |
| Georgia Tech | 92nd | 89th |
| Hawai'i | 33rd | 87th |
| Houston | 61st | 29th |
| Idaho | 30th | 78th |
| Idaho State | 93rd | 14th |
| Illinois | 79th | 95th |
| Indiana | 97th | 98th |
| Iowa | 74th | 19th |
| Iowa State | 80th | 58th |
| Jacksonville State | 59th | 56th |
| James Madison | 77th | 52nd |
| Kansas | 99th | 82nd |
| Kansas State | 37th | 59th |
| Kennesaw State | 44th | 67th |
| Kent State | 15th | 5th |
| Kentucky | 62nd | 29th |
| LSU | 18th | 52nd |
| Lafayette | 0th | 12th |
| Liberty | 65th | 53rd |
| Lindenwood | 4th | 1st |
| Long Island University | 24th | 78th |
| Louisiana | 24th | 23rd |
| Louisiana Tech | 41st | 24th |
| Louisville | 84th | 32nd |
| Maine | 3rd | 18th |
| Marshall | 71st | 62nd |
| Maryland | 11th | 86th |
| Massachusetts | 5th | 9th |
| Memphis | 75th | 68th |
| Merrimack | 1st | 83rd |
| Miami | 80th | 64th |
| Miami (OH) | 33rd | 39th |
| Michigan | 73rd | 74th |
| Michigan State | 48th | 39th |
| Middle Tennessee | 69th | 47th |
| Minnesota | 35th | 33rd |
| Mississippi State | 52nd | 35th |
| Missouri | 76th | 50th |
| Missouri State | 32nd | 50th |
| Murray State | 1st | 6th |
| NC State | 58th | 71st |
| Navy | 95th | 72nd |
| Nebraska | 78th | 51st |
| Nevada | 17th | 16th |
| New Mexico | 38th | 60th |
| New Mexico State | 16th | 33rd |
| North Carolina | 14th | 30th |
| North Texas | 100th | 97th |
| Northern Illinois | 9th | 5th |
| Northwestern | 48th | 88th |
| Notre Dame | 88th | 99th |
| Ohio | 69th | 76th |
| Ohio State | 99th | 99th |
| Oklahoma | 39th | 41st |
| Oklahoma State | 14th | 7th |
| Old Dominion | 72nd | 79th |
| Ole Miss | 83rd | 95th |
| Oregon | 93rd | 55th |
| Oregon State | 54th | 25th |
| Penn State | 76th | 73rd |
| Pittsburgh | 35th | 56th |
| Purdue | 46th | 88th |
| Rice | 20th | 0th |
| Rutgers | 71st | 84th |
| SMU | 50th | 57th |
| Sam Houston | 26th | 4th |
| San Diego State | 84th | 1st |
| San José State | 68th | 70th |
| South Alabama | 53rd | 28th |
| South Carolina | 31st | 8th |
| South Carolina State | 10th | 3rd |
| South Florida | 86th | 46th |
| Southern Miss | 27th | 38th |
| Stanford | 12th | 12th |
| Syracuse | 19th | 10th |
| TCU | 63rd | 82nd |
| Temple | 85th | 22nd |
| Tennessee | 97th | 81st |
| Texas | 27th | 61st |
| Texas A&M | 88th | 59th |
| Texas State | 60th | 93rd |
| Texas Tech | 45th | 65th |
| Toledo | 67th | 42nd |
| Troy | 18th | 27th |
| Tulane | 81st | 86th |
| Tulsa | 43rd | 43rd |
| UAB | 34th | 94th |
| UCF | 39th | 20th |
| UCLA | 28th | 48th |
| UConn | 96th | 37th |
| UL Monroe | 13th | 14th |
| UNLV | 78th | 85th |
| USC | 94th | 90th |
| UT Martin | 2nd | 41st |
| UTEP | 3rd | 10th |
| UTSA | 67th | 92nd |
| Utah | 87th | 96th |
| Utah State | 31st | 49th |
| Vanderbilt | 90th | 100th |
| Virginia | 36th | 73rd |
| Virginia Tech | 59th | 21st |
| Wake Forest | 21st | 31st |
| Washington | 98th | 93rd |
| Washington State | 61st | 44th |
| West Virginia | 12th | 18th |
| Western Kentucky | 55th | 80th |
| Western Michigan | 86th | 16th |
| Wisconsin | 6th | 27th |
| Wyoming | 23rd | 15th |
Halftime identity
Army by half
1st-half offense ranks 71st percentile in FBS; 2nd-half, 46th — competitive snaps only, garbage time excluded from both halves.
Schedule mirage
How much of Army's number is the schedule?
Raw EPA/play through week 21 is 0.18; 80th percentile once opponent strength is stripped out, it's 0.06. The widest gap came in week 4: 0.20 raw vs. 0.05 adjusted.
Army reads strongest in explosive plays allowed (top 6%) and passing epa (top 8%); the crux lives in success rate allowed, where Army sits at the 13th percentile.
offense · strengths lead
defense · higher bar = harder to play against
hidden math · special situations
ELITE · 90+STRONG · 70+AVERAGE · 40-70CONCERN · 10-40BOTTOM · <10
Most Similar Programs · Army
Most Similar Programs · ArmyReads Like
AkronTier 3 · Prestige T3 · Similarly-sized rosters up frontApp StateTier 3 · Prestige T3 · Similarly-sized rosters up frontBall StateTier 3 · Prestige T3 · Similarly-sized rosters up front
Static-attribute similarity across tier, archetype, conference, and voice. Not a prediction — a calibration.
Home-Field Advantage · Army · 2018-present
Elite
76% home win rate vs 45% on the road. margin runs +14.3 better at home. Michie Stadium seats 38,000, averaging 72% full (27,356 attendance, 24 games reported).
Home38-12Away16-19
Positional competition · RB room
The carries are split. The job isn’t.
Hayden Reed and Carson Smith split the carries (70/125 vs 55/125) -- but the job isn't split the same way.
Hayden ReedCarson Smith
Carries
the baseline -- every row below is tested against this split, not a flat 50/50
Top-5-carry share
concentration alone -- EPA/carry doesn't corroborate, read with caution
Screened 1 claims, 0 survived, 1 falsified
Positional competition · WR/TE room
The targets are split. The job isn’t.
Noah Short (WR) and Parker Poloskey (TE) split the targets (47/51 vs 4/51) -- but the job isn't split the same way. Parker Poloskey produces in bigger chunks.
Noah ShortParker Poloskey
Targets
the baseline -- every row below is tested against this split, not a flat 50/50
3rd-down targets
shared -- dots touch, this room really is a committee here
Top-5-catch share
concentration and EPA/target agree -- a real boom/bust split
Screened 2 claims, 1 survived, 1 falsified
What changed
Army’s play-calling, before and after the change
Offense: Drew Thatcher (2023) → Cody Worley (2024–2025)
The biggest shift: 1st-down pass rate moved down 7 points. The rest held closer to steady.
1st-down pass rate
Red-zone pass rate
Defense: Nate Woody / co-Shiel Wood (2021) → Nate Woody (2022–2025)
The biggest shift: red-zone pass rate moved up 6 points. The rest held closer to steady.
1st-down pass rate
Red-zone pass rate
Season by season
How Army’s current staff calls plays, year over year
Offense: Cody Worley (2024–2025)
1st-down pass rate
2024: 11% → 2025: 10% · 1-pt range · #169 of 171 · less than most
Red-zone pass rate
2024: 8% → 2025: 13% · 5-pt range · #157 of 171 · less than most
4th-down go rate
2024: 67% → 2025: 65% · 1-pt range · #172 of 171 · less than most
Defense: Nate Woody (2022–2025)
1st-down pass rate
2022: 13% → 2025: 10% · 8-pt range · #127 of 189 · a typical amount
Red-zone pass rate
2022: 7% → 2025: 13% · 6-pt range · #164 of 189 · less than most
4th-down go rate
2022: 53% → 2025: 65% · 25-pt range · #37 of 188 · more than most
Defensive identity · pass zones
What this defense gives up, by zone.
On short passes, Army’s defense allows a completion rate above the FBS mean (67.2% vs 65.9% league-wide, shrunk toward the mean for its 121-play sample) — mid-pack, 95 of 133 qualifying defenses.
We won’t show a deep-ball leaderboard here: at the defense level, most teams face well under 30 rich-feed deep targets all season — too thin to tell a real tendency from noise, so we won’t guess.
Screened 133 claims, 133 survived · 2025 only, in the 399 games with the detailed play-text feed; n=121 short-zone plays faced, raw rate 68.6%
Venue texture
60°F average kickoff temp; 11% of games had measurable precipitation; 8 mph average wind.
Based on 72 home games with weather data.
The CFP Era
12 seasons inside the CFP era, no bids yet — the era the program is still trying to break into.
TRAJECTORY · quality-score line · AP rank dotted · CFP bids marked · coach regimes ribboned
Program Quality
AP Rank (inverted)
CFP Appearance
Army's 2014–2025 record is 88-62. The era is still being written; the CFP line is the one the program is arguing for.
Army-Navy Game
125 meetings since 1891 See the whole history →
Heat trajectory
Week-by-week rivalry heat isn't tracked yet for this matchup — check back as the 2026-27 season approaches and real fan-intel signal accumulates.
Fan Heat Index
Who's more worked up right now
Cross-fanbase rivalry sentiment for this matchup hasn't been measured yet this week — both sides show as neutral until real signal comes in.
Army
Awaiting
Navy
Awaiting
Army
—
Navy
—
THE LAST 5 · year-by-year
- L 2025 Loss 16–17
- L 2024 Loss 13–31
- W 2023 Win 17–11
- W 2022 Win 20–17
- L 2021 Loss 13–17
All-Time Record
732-551-51
since 1891 · 134 seasons · .548 win rate
HOME
590-259-16
AWAY
123-273-35
NEUTRAL
19-19
1890s
1900s
1910s
1920s
1930s
1940s
1950s
1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000s
2010s
2020s
The program, in full — read the essay
Army went 12-2 in 2024 and won the Commander-in-Chief's Trophy. Then they went 7-6 in 2025 and lost it back to Navy by one point. Jeff Monken is in year 12 — and December is the only scoreboard West Point truly keeps.
Army's season has a shape that no other program in the sport replicates. The early games matter. The conference record matters. But the thing the Corps of Cadets counts is Navy, played in December in an NFL stadium, with the Commander-in-Chief's Trophy at stake and every player headed for active-duty service after graduation. Doc Blanchard and Glenn Davis — Mr. Inside and Mr. Outside — won consecutive national championships in 1944 and 1945 with back-to-back Heisman Trophies on the same backfield. That is the program's golden age, and it sits at the front of West Point's football identity the way Bryant-Denny sits at Alabama's. Everything since has been measured against the discipline those teams embodied.
Monken rebuilt the modern program from irrelevance: an 11-2 in 2018, a 12-2 and a Commander-in-Chief's Trophy win in 2024, the program's best modern season. The 2025 reset was predictable in the sense that Army entered its first year in the American Conference with a new set of opponents and a roster cycling its roster of cadets. A 7-6 finish and a Fenway Bowl win over UConn were not humiliations. The 17-16 loss to Navy in December was. Annapolis has now held the Trophy two straight years. West Point measures itself against that result the way programs with different missions measure themselves against polls.
The 2026 season's specific question is whether Monken can sustain the post-2024 altitude. The 12-2 was a peak — the cadets who built it have commissioned and moved on, as they always do. The triple-option must be reinstalled with new personnel every cycle, a constraint no other program in the country navigates the same way. The internal debate — keep the option pure versus bring in more portal flexibility — will not be settled in the Long Wait. It will be settled in November and December, against Navy.
How they play
Disciplined triple-option football, run by a roster of cadets who will commission as officers: Army's offensive identity is assignment-perfect, clock-eating, and built on conditioning rather than recruiting rank. Ball control is the scheme's north star — possession time, fourth-quarter execution, and the mental precision that comes from a West Point standard of preparation. The defense plays gap-sound and disciplined. In a modern college football landscape of tempo spread and transfer-portal arms races, Army's model is a legitimate outlier — and in the right game, against the right opponent, still a genuine threat.
Steady
Army 2016–2025. Holding the line. The 10-year slope (+0.04 rungs / yr) doesn't tilt either way — the program lives at roughly Tier 3.
CFP Era · Army
12 seasons on file
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
down middle peak CFP year
Season Standing · 2025 · 7-6
Season Standing · 2025 · 7-6Bowl eligible
Army: 6+ wins, bowl access secured. The baseline of a successful FBS year.
R0R1R2R3R4R5R6R7R8R9
Sub-FBSBuildingBowlRankedContenderPlayoff
American Athletic Standing · 2025
8th in the American Athletic
Army is 8th of 14 in the American Athletic at 4-5. The path to the title is steep — the focus is on bowl access and rivalry wins.
| # | Program | Record |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Navy | 8-1 |
| 2 | Tulane | 8-1 |
| 3 | North Texas | 7-2 |
| 4 | East Carolina | 6-2 |
| 5 | South Florida | 6-2 |
| 6 | Memphis | 4-4 |
| 7 | UTSA | 4-4 |
| 8 | Army | 4-5 |
| 9 | Florida Atlantic | 3-5 |
| 10 | Temple | 3-5 |
| 11 | Rice | 2-6 |
| 12 | UAB | 2-6 |
| 13 | Tulsa | 1-7 |
| 14 | Charlotte | 0-8 |
Coaching Era · Army
Coaching Era · ArmyJeff Monken
Jeff Monken into year 13 — a multi-decade era by modern CFB standards.
Era Jeff Monken · 2014–presentOC: Cody WorleyPrev OC: Drew Thatcher (2023)DC: Daryl DixonPrev DC: Nate Woody (2022–2025)
13
years · era
Rituals
Three gameday rituals — the ones outsiders never quite catch.
Army-Navy Game
since 1890
The Army-Navy game — first played 1890, only paused for World Wars — is one of CFB's most-storied rivalries. The Cadets corps + Brigade of Midshipmen perform full march-on, the Commander-in-Chief watches in person, the game's pageantry is unmatched. Every senior plays their last college game here.
Triple-Option Offense
since 1980s
Army runs the triple-option offense as institutional identity — the wishbone-rooted scheme that academy programs can sustain with mission-defined player rotations. Jeff Monken's tenure (2014-) refined the option into a national top-10 rushing offense. No other P5 / Independent at this scale runs option.
Commander-in-Chief's Trophy
since 1972
The Commander-in-Chief's Trophy goes to the service academy with the best head-to-head record across Army-Navy-Air Force triangle. Army's 2024 win over Navy AND Air Force secured the trophy — the first since 2020. The Commander-in-Chief personally awards it at the White House.
The Chronicle
Army's defense ranks at the 95th percentile against explosive plays
Opponents managed an explosive play against Army at just the 94.6 percentile rate nationally last season — elite, and true to a program whose triple-option identity is built on controlling tempo on both sides of the ball. Go Army: the offense wasn't the only unit playing keep-away that season.
Savant card · 2025 season through postseasonArmy's biggest win of the season came against UConn in Week 18
The Black Knights' 41-16 win over UConn in Week 18 produced a bigger margin than any other game Army played that season, closing the year on the program's best number yet. On Brave Old Army Team: the final scoreline was also the loudest.
gamelog · 2025 season · wk 18Cale Hellums graded positive on 376 combined snaps for Army
Hellums produced a positive WEPA both passing (.35 across 85 plays) and rushing (.24 across 291), even with only 4 weeks and 5 mentions of measurable conversation presence. Beat Navy starts in December, but the production case for Hellums had been building well before that.
gamelog + roster archive · Cale Hellums · 2025Program memory
What this program never forgets
Most weeks vanish. These didn’t.
1945
Back-to-back national titles
Blanchard and Davis lead Army to consecutive national championships at the peak of the war years
The 2024 breakthrough
12-2, a conference championship, the Commander-in-Chief's Trophy, and a top-25 finish — the best modern Army season
The 2025 Navy loss
A 17-16 defeat to Navy hands Annapolis the Trophy and ends the season on the wound West Point feels most
Heartbreak
Moment of the Year · Army · 2025
Moment of the Year · Army · 2025Postseason · Won 41-16 vs UConn
Week 18 of 2025. Postseason win — the season-defining moment.
Bowl / Postseason Ledger
Bowl / Postseason LedgerRecent postseason (2016-2025): 6-1
Most recent: 2025 — win 41-16 (home). Last 5 postseason: 4-1.
20252024202120202018
Unit lineage
Army’s offense and defense, by coordinator
FBS-relative efficiency percentile per season (2014–2025), same population as the Coordinator Mirror board. Dashed vertical lines mark a coordinator change.
Offense2014–2025
2014–2022 · Brent Davis2023 · Drew Thatcher2024–2025 (ongoing) · Cody Worley
Defense2014–2025
2014–2018 · Jay Bateman2019 · John Loose2020 · co-Greg Gasparato / Nate Woody2021 · Nate Woody / co-Shiel Wood2022–2025 · Nate Woody
Hired for 2026: Daryl Dixon — not yet reflected in on-field data.
Elite (≥70th pct)AveragePoor (≤30th pct)
Chronicle Visuals
A heavy-turnover 2025: 25% returning (below average), with the offense the biggest question.
The portal left a hole at RB the roster still has to answer.
Army converts recruit talent into draft picks better than its class rank suggests.
r/cfb moments
3k
[Postgame Thread] Navy Defeats Army 17-13
2.6k
[Postgame Thread] Army Defeats Navy 20-17 (2OT)
2.6k
[Postgame Thread] Navy Defeats Army 17-16
1.8k
[Postgame Thread] Tarleton Defeats Army 30-27 (2OT)
1k
[Postgame Thread] Army Defeats Navy 17-11
All-time top community posts · ranked by upvotes
This page may include content derived from public news sources, social media, and fan communities. We relay these sources as-is — we are not reporting them. Sources may be summarized or quoted imperfectly; for anything that matters, go look at the original source directly. The original source may also be wrong. AI-generated content is labeled and may contain factual errors. All analysis is editorial opinion, not professional reporting. Data sources · About this site