3coaching hire
Billy Napier takes over at James Madison
Billy Napier replaces Bob Chesney as James Madison's head coach.
James Madison12-2CFP #24Latest
James Madison fans are split on what comes next.
belief cooled ↓ 8.7vs prior week
Fanbase belief
Mixed
47/100 · 112 mentions
~ our readGrounding
running on emotion
6% cite a stat · 7% typical ✓ counted
~ our readVolatility
Chaotic
σ 26 pts
~ our readThe model
#18
CFB Zeitgeist · +9.0
✓ measured3Hope-Doping·Offseason
James Madison is the program that climbed out of the FCS in 2022 and was in the College Football Playoff by 2025 — a rise so fast that Harrisonburg still says it out loud just to believe it.
AP Top 25#19 AP
The grievance is the rulebook: the same sport that kept JMU out of bowls on transition technicalities, then made the Dukes climb into the Playoff anyway. Fans remember exactly who told them to wait th…
offseason · quiet
Roster Reload - James Madison
2026 snapshot - 2026-08-06Returning Production78%High continuity
Talent Composite#127 nationally247 composite 459.5
Portal Additions37Primary repair: OT
Portal Losses30Primary pressure: IOL
Draft Loss0No NFL Draft departures recorded
Recruiting Reload#80Depth class
EDGEin 5 - Ernest Willor Jr.out 5 - Sahir WestEven
CBin 4 - Jayon Harveyout 4 - Justin EaglinUpgrade
current room: 182 lbs avg (2025 roster)
WRin 5 - Jeremiah Harrisonout 2 - Landon EllisNeed Filled
current room: 194 lbs avg (2025 roster)
OTin 5 - Kaedin Masseyout 2 - Joseph SimmonsNeed Filled
IOLin 2 - Noel Portnjaginout 4 - Riley RobellStarter Risk
current room: 307 lbs avg (2025 roster)
RBin 3 - Nick Hermanout 3 - Wayne KnightEven
current room: 206 lbs avg (2025 roster)
Belief EKG
WinLoss · hover for scorePrior seasons
Approaching
30 days
until kickoff · vs Liberty · Sat Sep 5 · 16:00 UTC
The experience
James Madison is the FBS newcomer whose 2004 + 2016 + 2019 FCS national titles + 2022 FBS reclassification + 2023 11-2 Sun Belt championship game define the most-recent G5 ascent story.
Offense: StrongRun/Pass: Run-heavy, ground-controlDefense: Elite
James Madison's 2026 Season Projected to Reach 10-3 with Bowl Game Appearance
The team's strong transfer inflow and high continuity suggest a competitive season, with a focus on improving depth in key positions.
- Roster reloadJames Madison has added 37 transfers, including notable players like Ernest Willor Jr. and Jayon Harvey, while losing 30 players, indicating a net portal importer status with a reload score of "High continuity".
- ScheduleThe team's base scenario projects an 8-5 record with a bowl game appearance, while the ceiling scenario predicts a 10-3 record with a bowl game.
Data as of 2026-08-03
·
Validated against program evidence
Duke Dog is patient.
James Madison · the story right now
7 storylines developing
What James Madison's coaching hire is really about
the open questioncan a new staff change the trajectory?
coachingthis cycle~readnew
Napier, who led Florida to a 12-2 season and #19 AP ranking, inherits a 78% returning roster but faces the challenge of stabilizing a program that has had three coaches in five years.
what happenedBilly Napier took over as James Madison's head coach, replacing Bob Chesney. ✓ fact
the contextthe program's third head coach in five seasons
narrative tension · our read
coordinatorsthis cycle~readnew
Bob Chesney's second season opens with a 12-2 record and a #19 AP ranking, but coordinator changes and an uneasy fanbase signal tension ahead.
what happenedJames Madison: coordinator change reshaping a unit. ✓ fact
narrative tension · our read
portal2026-01-24~readnew
Chesney's second-year portal class targets CB and DL depth while replacing Jerald James — the Sun Belt's top-3 haul reflects a roster already built for another title run.
what happenedJames Madison signed a top-28 transfer-portal class — 37 additions headlined by Davi Belfort (QB) from UCF and Jayon Harvey (CB) from Findlay. ✓ fact
the contexta top-2 portal class in the Sun Belt this cycle
narrative tension · our read
coordinatorsthis cycle✓ factnew
James Madison: coordinator change reshaping a unit.
narrative tension · our read
garbage timethis cycle✓ factnew
Wayne Knight does NOT see a usage spike in garbage time -- his workload holds steady regardless of score, and he's also efficient in competitive snaps -- the production isn't just garbage-time padding.
narrative tension · our read
closerthis cycle~attributednew
Jobi Malary: a closer signal screened this season.
narrative tension · our read
dynastythis cycle~read★new
James Madison has reached elite-tier consistency — Bob Chesney's second season demands whether a #127 talent rank can sustain a 27-8 run as a national power.
what happenedJames Madison has climbed into dynasty-caliber territory — into the top 33% of FBS by power rating over the last three seasons, up from the top 39% a year ago. ✓ fact
the contexta 27-8 record over the last three regular seasons
narrative tension · our read
How past storylines here turned out
ReplacedJames Madison's defensive coordinator spot turned over again the following season. See who's next →
AnsweredJames Madison's climb into dynasty-caliber territory held for another season.
AnsweredJames Madison's head-coaching hire held for another season.
Died downJames Madison's offensive coordinator change has died down — no clear next chapter yet.
The story
Transfer portal snapshot
-0.1 net portal points
(raw ledger: +26.4 — unweighted, no position adjustment)WR+11.0
need not filled
OT+8.8
need not filled
DL+7.7
need not filled
LB+5.7
IOL-4.8
starter risk
QB+3.2
CB+2.4
S-2.1
P-2.0
EDGE-1.1
K-1.0
low confidence
RB-0.8
TE-0.6
Top 3 commits
2026 class
★★★☆☆
Xavier McDonald
#634 national
Profiles like a typical incoming wide receiver — 18 of his 25 closest recruiting profiles since 2018 shared the Possession Receiver archetype.~our read · projection from recruiting profile — no college snaps yet
★★★☆☆
Kamden Jennings
#774 national
★★★☆☆
Kaleb Smith
#1336 national
Profiles like a typical incoming wide receiver — 16 of his 25 closest recruiting profiles since 2018 shared the Possession Receiver archetype.~our read · projection from recruiting profile — no college snaps yet
↓
Fan confidence a bit lower than recent years
10th percentile among FBS programs
Fan vs. market↓
10th
Fan percentile
(FBS mood rank)
(FBS mood rank)
8.5
Vegas O/U wins
(82nd among FBS)
(82nd among FBS)
Market 72pp more optimistic than fan mood
Win total consensus · 3 books
Market outlook
Season expectations
Win total3 booksO/U 8.5
CFP championship#79 in field+50000
Sun Belt title#1 in market+225
Sportsbook consensus · best odds across multiple books · 2026-08-06
James Madison · Next-Season Outcome Band
James Madison · Next-Season Outcome BandFloor / Base / Ceiling
Floor 5-7
Base 8-5
Ceiling 10-3
floor5-7No postseason.
base8-5Bowl game.
ceiling10-3Bowl 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 · James Madison · Coaching Confidence
The Billy Napier story at James Madison won't sit still.
Billy Napier took over as James Madison's head coach, replacing Bob Chesney. It is the program's third head coach in five seasons. It's not the hire that's the story anymore — it's everything it set in motion. The room has bought in, but early believers have been wrong before.
near-unanimous belief
where the takes land · dot = how loud
DOUBTBELIEF
Believers4 bull takes
💬 fans: 1% volume · negative overall
Developing3 new this week
yesterday‘That could be an exciting thing’: Napier hopeful after Class of 2022 ruling — WHSV
5 days agoJMU Head Coach Billy Napier’s Salary, Career Record, Age & Resume — herosports.com
last weekBilly Napier introducing changes while balancing past success for JMU football — Roanoke Times
The cast who's driving the story · latest headline on each, attributed
Billy Napier Head coach
“JMU Head Coach Billy Napier’s Salary, Career Record, Age & Resume” — herosports.com · 2026-08-01
Bob Chesney Out
Sun Belt
“Napier returns to Sun Belt, tasked with upholding JMU’s winning tradition” — Underdog Dynasty · 2026-07-18
CFB Zeitgeist Read · our take
Napier, who led Florida to a 12-2 season and #19 AP ranking, inherits a 78% returning roster but faces the challenge of stabilizing a program that has had three coaches in five years.
Next · what to watch
The obvious story is the marquee name; the non-obvious one is roster churn — a coaching change keeps a portal and decommit window open long after the introductory presser. Watch decommitments and portal moves in the next window — that's where this is actually won or lost, not at the podium.
Source of record: Billy Napier took over as James Madison's head coach, replacing Bob Chesney — the program's third head coach in five seasons.
How each room is reacting — tap to expand
📣Believers4 bullish/hire items -- the case it's working.›
The 'this hire changes everything' takes -- new-era believers making the case early.
“‘That could be an exciting thing’: Napier hopeful after Class of 2022 ruling”
WHSV · 2026-08-05 · read ↗
“Napier returns to Sun Belt, tasked with upholding JMU’s winning tradition”
Underdog Dynasty · 2026-07-18 · read ↗
“Billy Napier best served to focus on James Madison, not Florida - The Florida Times-Union”
news · 2026-07-11 · read ↗
🧐SkepticsNo prominent dissent — the coverage runs one way.›
The 'show me the body of work' counter -- resume gaps, scheme fits, and 'not that guy' reads.
Nothing in our corpus yet — this door stays open for when there is.
💬The boards2 board mentions — too thin to call a stance. Board mood this week: negative overall · anger notable (66%).›
Only 2 of 221 board posts mention it — below our floor to call a community stance. Shown as texture, not a verdict.
"The cumulative link to the preseason rankings can be found here With today’s team being James Madison (high = 34, low = 87), we close the book"
r/CFB ~ fan take
"JMU raised cignetti up. JMU raised Chesney. Now it's time to make Napier rise again"
r/CFB ~ fan take
Board health this week (117 posts): 12% positive · 56% neutral · 32% negative. Team-level weekly mood — not specific to this event. The boards ≠ the fanbase: a self-selected vocal slice.
🔗The dominoes3 downstream moves — the hire's knock-on effects.›
Following now · James Madison · Developing Confidence
James Madison: coordinator change reshaping a unit.
James Madison: coordinator change reshaping a unit.
bullish — but with real dissent
where the takes land · dot = how loud
DOUBTBELIEF
Skeptics1 doubt take
Believers3 bull takes
💬 fans: 5% volume · negative overall
CFB Zeitgeist Read · our take
Bob Chesney's second season opens with a 12-2 record and a #19 AP ranking, but coordinator changes and an uneasy fanbase signal tension ahead.
Source of record: James Madison: coordinator change reshaping a unit.
How each room is reacting — tap to expand
📣Believers3 bullish items -- the case it's working.›
The optimistic read: momentum, and the 'this is real' takes.
“Greenberg Selected to Outland Trophy Watch List”
James Madison University Athletics · 2026-08-04 · read ↗
“UCLA Football Commitment Analysis: James Madison Transfer LB Drew Spinogatti”
247Sports · 2026-08-01 · read ↗
“East Liverpool star commits to James Madison - The Review -”
news · 2026-07-18 · read ↗
🧐Skeptics“Matt Campbell, Penn State Confident They Can Excel Where James F” — the real counter.›
The analytical counter: rankings, results, and 'the hype is ahead of the tape' takes.
“Matt Campbell, Penn State Confident They Can Excel Where James Franklin Failed”
Fox Sports CFB · 2026-07-29 · read ↗
💬The boards11 board mentions — too thin to call a stance. Board mood this week: negative overall · anger notable (66%).›
Only 11 of 221 board posts mention it — below our floor to call a community stance. Shown as texture, not a verdict.
"The cumulative link to the preseason rankings can be found here With today’s team being James Madison (high = 34, low = 87), we close the book"
r/CFB ~ fan take
"I went to JMU from 2010-2014. Does anyone remember the student who dressed like James Madison every day? I think she was the same height as him or something. Whatever happened to h"
r/jmu ~ fan take
Board health this week (117 posts): 12% positive · 56% neutral · 32% negative. Team-level weekly mood — not specific to this event. The boards ≠ the fanbase: a self-selected vocal slice.
Recent Form · last 10 games
Warming
Four of five. The board favors this trend.
Streak L1Last 5 · 4-1Last 10 · 9-1
The forecast
Opens Sep 5
vs Liberty · at home
Season line8.5 winsover -130
StrongRun-heavy, ground-controlElite
✓ fact on line · ~ our read on style
Rival pulse
Old Dominion
Hopeful+7
Royal Rivalry
Fan mood index · most recent r/cfb data
Recruiting Footprint · 2026
Recruiting Footprint · 2026
21
FL · 6VA · 3GA · 2MD · 2NC · 2DE · 1MA · 1MS · 1+3 more
FL leads the 2026 class with 6 commits. National footprint reaching 11 states.
Where they recruit · 2023-2026
79 signees across 17 states, 2023-2026. VA leads the pull.
r/cfb this year
[Postgame Thread] James Madison Defeats Appalachian State 58-10
[Postgame Thread] James Madison Defeats Weber State 45-10
Top community posts · last 12 months · r/cfb
Voter spread
60 of 66 AP voters have them ranked, final AP ballot (2025) — from #14, Alex Taylor (Wyoming Tribune Eagle), to #25, Nicole Auerbach (NBC Sports). 6 voters left them off the ballot entirely.
Individual AP Top 25 ballots, final AP ballot, 2025 — 66 voters tracked.
National spotlight
9 games with TV coverage: 5 ESPN, 1 cable, 3 streaming
Kickoff windows: 2 noon, 3 afternoon, 4 primetime
Fumble luck
14% recovery rate on their own fumbles — below the ~51% league baseline.
1 of 7 own fumbles recovered themselves, 2025 only.
Takeaway conversion
17% of tipped/broken-up passes have turned into picks — about the ~19% league average.
12 interceptions of 71 disrupted passes (59 deflected, 12 intercepted), 2025 only.
Penalty battle
105 penalties committed, 78 drawn on opponents — ceding 343 yards of field position.
1015 penalty yards committed vs. 672 drawn on opponents, 2025 season total.
The Pulse on James Madison
47
Δ -8.7 vs last wk
112
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
"Bridgeforth"
— James Madison 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
UUnderdog Dynasty
CCampus paper
BBluesky
YYouTube
What little we hear
Only 7 cohort(s) cleared the signal floor this week, so we won’t stage a split we can’t back. Here’s the honest read:
Die-hards−0.02
Millennials−0.03
Analytics crowd−0.03
Gen Z−0.03
Casuals−0.03
Bettors−0.03
National take−0.03
How James Madison fans actually talk real · top-upvoted
Rr/CFBthe room
Not sure why the NCAA didn't grandfather in athletes, just felt like an L waiting to happen
▲ 191 ▼open ↗
The crowd’s loudest take by upvotes — read for mood, not as a side. The cohort read is the measured part.
What this fanbase keeps coming back to our read · topic model
Topics are model-labeled from Reddit — a rough signal of what this fanbase is circling right now.
212 mentions · 6 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 checklight on evidence
~ our readJames Madison fans are down on the program, with a bit less hard evidence than most fanbases.
backed by facts
the mood
✓ counted We read 117 posts from James Madison fans this week.
Season storylines
Week 4
“Y’all better keep winning to make us look good. Hopefully we do the same for you.”— r/CFB
Week 15
Week 8
“Cig is immune to voodoo. He’s always had the mindset of beating opponents into the ground, not just trying to win”— r/CFB
Week 10
“Just your typical double digit conference road win, nothing to see here CFP committee”— r/CFB
Week 2
“That's how I felt about JMU's last season. A rebuilding year with a new HC who overperforms and then shits the bed late season as JMU and App trade games every season.”— r/CFB
Five Lenses
What people are saying right now
Radio, beat writers & editorial14 posts
News & campus coverage3 posts
Fanbase Health Index · James Madison · high confidence
Fanbase Health Index · James Madison · high confidenceGrowing (67)
DecliningStableGrowingSurging
On-Field — 12-2 (86% win rate)80
Volume — 546 effective signal-N85
Cohort Engagement — Divergence 0.00 — quiet35
The Lexicon
401 posts and articles vs the field · 2025 season
jmu
×48.6 the field
Signature — ≥10× the rest of college football
jmu×48.6n=57
chesney×144.2n=13
sluka×608.5n=16
Characteristic — 3–10×
cfp×6.7n=43
sun×15.1n=13
playoff×3.9n=46
half×5.0n=23
fbs×7.7n=14
Mild — <3×
offense×2.4n=68
second×4.3n=19
“JMU offense: James Madison in July of 1836”
reddit/CFB · fan post, verbatim
Fanbase Voice
651 fan mentions
Doomers
vs the 81 highest-volume fanbases - 2025 season
Key stats — 2025 — FBS rank
Points/game#9 / 138 · 94th pct37.1
Pts allowed/game#12 / 138 · 92nd pct18.4
Total yards/gm#7 / 136 · 96th pct454.9
Rush yards/gm#5 / 136 · 97th pct243.7
Pass yards/gm#66 / 136 · 52nd pct211.1
Yards allowed/gm#8 / 136 · 95th pct267.0
Rush yds allowed/gm#5 / 136 · 97th pct85.4
Sacks#18 / 136 · 88th pct35
Interceptions#22 / 136 · 85th pct14
3rd-down conv#17 / 136 · 88th pct46.7%
All 98 stats
Offense / Defense
Total yards
Team6368454.9/gm6.48/play#7 / 136 · 96th pct#6 / 70 · 93rd pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#1 / 4 · 100th pct
Opp3738267.0/gm4.42/play#8 / 136 · 95th pct#6 / 70 · 93rd pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
Rush yards
Team3412243.7/gm3.47/play#5 / 136 · 97th pct#3 / 70 · 97th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#1 / 4 · 100th pct
Opp119685.4/gm1.42/play#5 / 136 · 97th pct#5 / 70 · 94th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#3 / 4 · 50th pct
Rush carries
Team59842.7/gm#8 / 136 · 95th pct#2 / 70 · 99th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#1 / 4 · 100th pct
Opp42530.4/gm#32 / 136 · 77th pct#25 / 70 · 66th pct#2 / 14 · 93rd pct#3 / 4 · 50th pct
Rush TDs
Team382.7/gm#5 / 136 · 97th pct#3 / 70 · 97th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#1 / 4 · 100th pct
Opp90.6/gm#7 / 136 · 96th pct#7 / 70 · 91st pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
Net pass yards
Team2956211.1/gm3.01/play#66 / 136 · 52nd pct#40 / 70 · 44th pct#6 / 14 · 64th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
Opp2542181.6/gm3.01/play#36 / 136 · 74th pct#19 / 70 · 74th pct#3 / 14 · 86th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
Pass attempts
Team38527.5/gm#78 / 136 · 43rd pct#40 / 70 · 44th pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
Opp42030.0/gm#99 / 136 · 28th pct#47 / 70 · 34th pct#11 / 14 · 29th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
Completions
Team22516.1/gm#89 / 136 · 35th pct#53 / 70 · 26th pct#7 / 14 · 57th pct#3 / 4 · 50th pct
Opp21415.3/gm#25 / 136 · 82nd pct#11 / 70 · 86th pct#2 / 14 · 93rd pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
Pass TDs
Team261.9/gm#25 / 136 · 82nd pct#17 / 70 · 77th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#4 / 4 · 25th pct
Opp181.3/gm#63 / 136 · 54th pct#39 / 70 · 46th pct#5 / 14 · 71st pct#4 / 4 · 25th pct
Passer rating
Team137.9137.9#57 / 136 · 59th pct#36 / 70 · 50th pct#3 / 14 · 86th pct#3 / 4 · 50th pct
Opp111.2111.2#10 / 136 · 93rd pct#6 / 70 · 93rd pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#1 / 4 · 100th pct
Interceptions thrown
Team100.7/gm#56 / 136 · 60th pct#23 / 70 · 69th pct#9 / 14 · 43rd pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
Opp141.0/gm#104 / 136 · 24th pct#52 / 70 · 27th pct#11 / 14 · 29th pct#3 / 4 · 50th pct
Sacks (def)
Team352.5/gm#18 / 136 · 88th pct#10 / 70 · 87th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#4 / 4 · 25th pct
Opp231.6/gm#63 / 136 · 54th pct#35 / 70 · 51st pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
Tackles for loss
Team856.1/gm#20 / 136 · 86th pct#14 / 70 · 81st pct#3 / 14 · 86th pct#4 / 4 · 25th pct
Opp624.4/gm#44 / 136 · 68th pct#24 / 70 · 67th pct#5 / 14 · 71st pct#1 / 4 · 100th pct
First downs
Team31522.5/gm#12 / 136 · 92nd pct#10 / 70 · 87th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#1 / 4 · 100th pct
Opp20414.6/gm#6 / 136 · 96th pct#5 / 70 · 94th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
3rd-down conv
Team916.5/gm#8 / 136 · 95th pct#6 / 70 · 93rd pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#1 / 4 · 100th pct
Opp574.1/gm#15 / 136 · 90th pct#8 / 70 · 90th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
3rd-down att
Team19513.9/gm#14 / 136 · 90th pct#7 / 70 · 91st pct#3 / 14 · 86th pct#1 / 4 · 100th pct
Opp19513.9/gm#119 / 136 · 13th pct#62 / 70 · 13th pct#12 / 14 · 21st pct#3 / 4 · 50th pct
4th-down conv
Team110.8/gm#90 / 136 · 35th pct#49 / 70 · 31st pct#6 / 14 · 64th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
Opp120.9/gm#49 / 136 · 65th pct#23 / 70 · 69th pct#7 / 14 · 57th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
4th-down att
Team211.5/gm#93 / 136 · 32nd pct#48 / 70 · 33rd pct#7 / 14 · 57th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
Opp261.9/gm#67 / 136 · 51st pct#33 / 70 · 54th pct#10 / 14 · 36th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
Time of possession
Team479:0334:13/gm#3 / 136 · 99th pct#3 / 70 · 97th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#1 / 4 · 100th pct
Opp360:5725:47/gm#28 / 136 · 80th pct#11 / 70 · 86th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
Kicking & Punting
Field goals#94 / 135 · 31st pct14/19 (73.7%)
Extra points65/65
Punting#112 / 136 · 18th pct41.0 avg · 48 punts
Turnovers & special teams
Turnovers
Team161.1/gm#65 / 136 · 53rd pct#26 / 70 · 64th pct#10 / 14 · 36th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
Opp171.2/gm#71 / 136 · 49th pct#37 / 70 · 49th pct#5 / 14 · 71st pct#1 / 4 · 100th pct
Fumbles lost
Team60.4/gm#69 / 136 · 50th pct#28 / 70 · 61st pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
Opp30.2/gm#10 / 136 · 93rd pct#8 / 70 · 90th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#1 / 4 · 100th pct
INT return TDs
Team20.1/gm#18 / 135 · 87th pct#12 / 70 · 84th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
Opp00.0/gm#1 / 136 · 100th pct#1 / 70 · 100th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct
INT return yards
Team20014.3/gm#28 / 136 · 80th pct#16 / 70 · 79th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
Opp473.4/gm#24 / 136 · 83rd pct#13 / 70 · 83rd pct#2 / 14 · 93rd pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
Punt ret yds
Team19614.0/gm#41 / 136 · 71st pct#26 / 70 · 64th pct#5 / 14 · 71st pct#3 / 4 · 50th pct
Opp815.8/gm#45 / 136 · 68th pct#29 / 70 · 60th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#1 / 4 · 100th pct
Punt ret TDs
Team00.0/gm#43 / 135 · 69th pct#23 / 70 · 69th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#3 / 3 · 33rd pct
Opp10.1/gm#97 / 135 · 29th pct#52 / 70 · 27th pct#11 / 14 · 29th pct#1 / 3 · 100th pct
Kick ret yds
Team47834.1/gm#57 / 136 · 59th pct#23 / 70 · 69th pct#10 / 14 · 36th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
Opp58341.6/gm#109 / 136 · 21st pct#61 / 70 · 14th pct#11 / 14 · 29th pct#4 / 4 · 25th pct
Kick ret TDs
Team10.1/gm#7 / 136 · 96th pct#3 / 70 · 97th pct#3 / 14 · 86th pct
Opp00.0/gm#1 / 135 · 100th pct#1 / 70 · 100th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct
Penalty yards
Team101572.5/gm#1 / 136 · 100th pct#1 / 70 · 100th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#1 / 4 · 100th pct
Opp67248.0/gm#71 / 136 · 49th pct#42 / 70 · 41st pct#6 / 14 · 64th pct#4 / 4 · 25th pct
Other
H2 epa per play opponent#2 / 143 · 99th pct#2 / 70 · 99th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct-0.1-0.0/gm
Penalties#5 / 136 · 97th pct#3 / 70 · 97th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#1 / 4 · 100th pct1057.5/gm
Punt returns#17 / 136 · 88th pct#10 / 70 · 87th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#1 / 4 · 100th pct241.7/gm
Interceptions (def)#22 / 136 · 85th pct#14 / 70 · 81st pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct141.0/gm
H2 epa per play#26 / 142 · 82nd pct#17 / 70 · 77th pct#2 / 14 · 93rd pct0.30.0/gm
Punt ret (opp)#31 / 136 · 78th pct#21 / 70 · 71st pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#1 / 4 · 100th pct100.7/gm
H1 epa per play opponent#41 / 167 · 76th pct#25 / 70 · 66th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct0.10.0/gm
Fumbles rec (def)#46 / 136 · 67th pct#29 / 70 · 60th pct#5 / 14 · 71st pct#3 / 4 · 50th pct60.4/gm
Kick returns#56 / 136 · 60th pct#19 / 70 · 74th pct#10 / 14 · 36th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct221.6/gm
Passes intercepted opponent#64 / 136 · 54th pct#38 / 70 · 47th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct100.7/gm
H1 epa per play#69 / 162 · 58th pct#46 / 70 · 36th pct#3 / 14 · 86th pct0.20.0/gm
Penalties (opp)#73 / 136 · 47th pct#42 / 70 · 41st pct#5 / 14 · 71st pct#4 / 4 · 25th pct785.6/gm
Fourth down go rate#82 / 138 · 41st pct#42 / 70 · 41st pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct0.40.0/gm
Kick ret (opp)#104 / 136 · 24th pct#60 / 70 · 16th pct#10 / 14 · 36th pct#4 / 4 · 25th pct282.0/gm
Recruiting rating#108 / 138 · 22nd pct#69 / 70 · 3rd pct#9 / 14 · 43rd pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct138.59.9/gm
Fumbles recovered#119 / 136 · 13th pct#60 / 70 · 16th pct#12 / 14 · 21st pct#4 / 4 · 25th pct30.2/gm
Red zone pass rate#135 / 154 · 13th pct#67 / 70 · 6th pct#12 / 14 · 21st pct#6 / 8 · 38th pct0.30.0/gm
First down pass rate#141 / 215 · 35th pct#55 / 70 · 23rd pct#7 / 14 · 57th pct#5 / 10 · 60th pct0.40.0/gm
Situational
3rd-down conversion
Off46.7%#17 / 136 · 88th pct#14 / 70 · 81st pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#1 / 4 · 100th pct
Def29.2%#6 / 136 · 96th pct#4 / 70 · 96th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
4th-down conversion
Off52.4%#81 / 136 · 41st pct#48 / 70 · 33rd pct#7 / 14 · 57th pct#1 / 4 · 100th pct
Def46.2%#38 / 136 · 73rd pct#19 / 70 · 74th pct#6 / 14 · 64th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
Turnover margin#66 / 136 · 52nd pct#37 / 70 · 49th pct#7 / 14 · 57th pct#4 / 4 · 25th pct+0.07/gm
Sack rate (def)#24 / 136 · 83rd pct#15 / 70 · 80th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#4 / 4 · 25th pct8.3%
Red Zone & Drive Efficiency (2014– , play-by-play derived)
Red zone trips
Team574.1/gm#14 / 167 · 92nd pct#11 / 70 · 86th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
Opp302.1/gm#41 / 166 · 76th pct#9 / 70 · 89th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
Red zone score %
Team77.2%77.2%#90 / 167 · 47th pct#49 / 70 · 31st pct#6 / 14 · 64th pct#4 / 4 · 25th pct
Opp80.0%80.0%#95 / 166 · 43rd pct#47 / 70 · 34th pct#9 / 14 · 43rd pct#3 / 4 · 50th pct
Points / drive
Team2.50.2/gm#32 / 167 · 81st pct#24 / 70 · 67th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#3 / 4 · 50th pct
Opp1.10.1/gm#7 / 166 · 96th pct#5 / 70 · 94th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#1 / 4 · 100th pct
Yards / drive
Team40.42.9/gm#80 / 167 · 53rd pct#48 / 70 · 33rd pct#7 / 14 · 57th pct#1 / 4 · 100th pct
Opp29.62.1/gm#5 / 166 · 98th pct#3 / 70 · 97th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#3 / 4 · 50th pct
Plays / drive
Team6.20.4/gm#132 / 167 · 22nd pct#64 / 70 · 10th pct#11 / 14 · 29th pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
Opp6.10.4/gm#19 / 166 · 89th pct#6 / 70 · 93rd pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#4 / 4 · 25th pct
Three-and-out rate
Team12.9%12.9%#72 / 167 · 57th pct#40 / 70 · 44th pct#7 / 14 · 57th pct#3 / 4 · 50th pct
Opp26.8%26.8%#3 / 166 · 99th pct#2 / 70 · 99th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#3 / 4 · 50th pct
Scheme Identity (2014– , play-by-play derived)
Rush rate over expected#26 / 145 · 83rd pct#6 / 70 · 93rd pct#5 / 14 · 71st pct+6.2%+6.2%
Havoc rate
Team20.9%20.9%#7 / 140 · 96th pct#7 / 70 · 91st pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct
Opp12.5%12.5%#25 / 140 · 83rd pct#13 / 70 · 83rd pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct
Standard-downs success
Team51.6%51.6%#35 / 154 · 78th pct#25 / 70 · 66th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct
Opp36.5%36.5%#1 / 172 · 100th pct#1 / 70 · 100th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct
Passing-downs success
Team31.5%31.5%#72 / 153 · 54th pct#41 / 70 · 43rd pct#6 / 14 · 64th pct
Opp24.4%24.4%#10 / 149 · 94th pct#6 / 70 · 93rd pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct
Line yards / carry
Team3.23.2#24 / 143 · 84th pct#15 / 70 · 80th pct#3 / 14 · 86th pct
Opp2.32.3#6 / 155 · 97th pct#5 / 70 · 94th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct
Stuff rate
Team18.0%18.0%#61 / 143 · 58th pct#34 / 70 · 53rd pct#7 / 14 · 57th pct
Opp25.5%25.5%#7 / 155 · 96th pct#5 / 70 · 94th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct
Power success rate
Team76.0%76.0%#37 / 137 · 74th pct#20 / 70 · 73rd pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct
Opp51.5%51.5%#5 / 141 · 97th pct#4 / 70 · 96th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct
Efficiency
Completion %
Off58.4%#106 / 136 · 23rd pct#62 / 70 · 13th pct#9 / 14 · 43rd pct#4 / 4 · 25th pct
Def51.0%#3 / 136 · 99th pct#2 / 70 · 99th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#1 / 4 · 100th pct
Yards / attempt
Off7.7#46 / 136 · 67th pct#30 / 70 · 59th pct#2 / 14 · 93rd pct#3 / 4 · 50th pct
Def6.1#15 / 136 · 90th pct#11 / 70 · 86th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#1 / 4 · 100th pct
Yards / completion
Off13.1#21 / 136 · 85th pct#11 / 70 · 86th pct#2 / 14 · 93rd pct#2 / 4 · 75th pct
Def11.9#90 / 136 · 35th pct#54 / 70 · 24th pct#9 / 14 · 43rd pct#3 / 4 · 50th pct
Yards / carry#6 / 136 · 96th pct#5 / 70 · 94th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#1 / 4 · 100th pct5.7
Yards / play#21 / 136 · 85th pct#15 / 70 · 80th pct#2 / 14 · 93rd pct#1 / 4 · 100th pct6.48
Scoring margin#7 / 136 · 96th pct#7 / 70 · 91st pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#6 / 11 · 55th pct+18.7/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 · +0.19 EPA/play | 14 | 14 | 216 / 370 | 58.4 | 2806 #46 FBS | 7.6 | 23 #32 FBS | 8 | 138.3 | 57.9 | 7.1 | 5.1 | |
Yards by week → ScramblerMakes plays with feet when the pocket collapses. Efficiency still on the rise. All-Conference honorable mention / 2nd team — the recognition has started. 45 of 183 QBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Rush usage25.6% 62th percentile · FBS QBs, min. 80 attempts Plays like Aura Tax — perception-vs-production gap across 3 tracked snapshots, 51 mentions | |||||||||||||
| +0.04 EPA/play | 9 | 8 | 8 / 11 | 72.7 | 100 | 9.1 | 3 | 2 | 202.7 | 64.6 | — | — | |
Yards by week → | |||||||||||||
Running Backs
| Player | # | G | Car | Yds | Avg | TD | Long | 3rd Dn Use | Pass Dn Use | Stuff% | 10+% | Tgt Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Speed Merchant · +0.16 EPA/play | 3 | 14 | 207 | 1373 #7 FBS | 6.6 | 9 #65 FBS | 73 | 14.4 | 18.7 | 20 | 14.5 | 19.9% (51/256) | |
Yards by week → Speed MerchantCuts upfield fast. Designed to find the crease, not run through the line. All-Conference honorable mention / 2nd team — the recognition has started. 48 of 349 RBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Yards / carry6.7 90th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Receiving share16.2% 76th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Trait fingerprint Plays like our readBreakout: his CFB Index score went from the 57th percentile among FBS RBs to the 98th | |||||||||||||
| Workhorse · -0.09 EPA/play | 23 | 8 | 82 | 415 | 5.1 | 5 | 26 | 14.2 | 7.2 | 15 | 15 | — | |
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 Weight229 lb 94th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Receiving share1.2% bottom 6th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Plays like View Jordan Fuller's full player page | |||||||||||||
| Speed Merchant · +0.22 EPA/play | 28 | 8 | 43 | 349 | 8.1 | 4 | 73 | 5.2 | 2.9 | — | — | — | |
Yards by week → Speed MerchantCuts upfield fast. Designed to find the crease, not run through the line. 48 of 349 RBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Yards / carry8.8 100th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Rush TD rate9.3% 97th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Plays like View Jobi Malary's full player page | |||||||||||||
| +0.02 EPA/play | 6 | 11 | 34 | 195 | 5.7 | 0 | 35 | 2 | 6.8 | — | — | — | |
Yards by week → | |||||||||||||
| -0.02 EPA/play | 5 | 4 | 24 | 120 | 5 | 0 | 24 | 3.8 | 4.9 | — | — | — | |
Yards by week → | |||||||||||||
Receivers
| Player | # | G | Rec | Yds | Avg | TD | Long | 3rd Dn Use | Pass Dn Use | Tgt Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deep Threat · +1.12 EPA/play | 13 | 12 | 36 | 624 | 17.3 | 5 | 62 | 8.3 | 8.1 | 17.6% (45/256) | |
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 All-Conference honorable mention / 2nd team — the recognition has started. 100 of 558 WRs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Yards / reception17.8 88th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions EPA / play (adj)1.1 99th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions Trait fingerprint Plays like our readUnranked recruit — top-quartile production against his own recruiting profile | |||||||||||
| Deep Threat · +1.02 EPA/play | 11 | 10 | 28 | 500 | 17.9 | 5 | 76 | 5.7 | 5 | 11.7% (30/256) | |
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 / reception19.9 96th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions EPA / play (adj)1.0 98th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions Trait fingerprint Plays like View Nick DeGennaro's full player page | |||||||||||
| Possession Receiver · +0.75 EPA/play | — | 14 | 30 | 396 | 13.2 | 1 | 80 | 4.6 | 6.2 | 12.5% (32/256) | |
Yards by week → Possession Receiver· Boom-or-bustReliable target who converts on critical downs. Not flashy; consistently productive. his yards come in chunks — feast or famine The most common profile in its group this season — 332 of 558 classified this way. Played in 14 of 21 games this season · senior View Jaylan Sanchez's full player page | |||||||||||
| Possession Receiver · +0.45 EPA/play | 10 | 14 | 26 | 358 | 13.8 | 4 | 68 | 3.5 | 2.8 | 9.0% (23/256) | |
Yards by week → Possession Receiver· Boom-or-bustReliable target who converts on critical downs. Not flashy; consistently productive. his yards come in chunks — feast or famine The most common profile in its group this season — 332 of 558 classified this way. Played in 14 of 21 games this season · junior our readAscending: his CFB Index score moved from the 0th to 44th percentile among FBS WRs | |||||||||||
| Red-Zone Weapon · +0.99 EPA/play | 15 | 11 | 17 | 192 | 11.3 | 3 | 36 | 2.7 | 3.1 | 7.4% (19/256) | |
Yards by week → Red-Zone WeaponThe first read called near the goal line — size and catch radius do the rest. 12 of 223 TEs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TD rate17.6% 86th percentile · FBS TEs, min. 8 receptions Yards / reception5.8 bottom 7th percentile · FBS TEs, min. 8 receptions Trait fingerprint Plays like View Lakota Dippre's full player page | |||||||||||
| Complete TE · +0.36 EPA/play | 18 | 9 | 12 | 139 | 11.6 | 1 | 23 | 1.9 | 2.4 | 6.2% (16/256) | |
Yards by week → Complete TENo single go-to route — the receiving numbers show up inline and split out alike. The most common profile in its group this season — 177 of 223 classified this way. Played in 9 of 21 games this season · senior View Logan Kyle's full player page | |||||||||||
| +0.92 EPA/play | 17 | 5 | 8 | 85 | 10.6 | 1 | 32 | 5.9 | 3.8 | — | |
Yards by week → | |||||||||||
| +0.97 EPA/play | 8 | 5 | 7 | 81 | 11.6 | 2 | 20 | 1.5 | 0.9 | — | |
Yards by week → | |||||||||||
| +0.33 EPA/play | 12 | 6 | 7 | 73 | 10.4 | 1 | 20 | 3.5 | 2.3 | — | |
Yards by week → | |||||||||||
Defensive Line
| Player | # | G | Tot | Solo | TFL | Sack | Hur |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3-Tech Penetrator | 95 | 13 | 46 | 17 | 14 #33 FBS | 6.5 #55 FBS | 7 |
3-Tech PenetratorDisruptive interior rusher who lives in the backfield. Impact starter — above-average production for the conference. 269 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate30.4% 95th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like View Sahir West's full player page | |||||||
| 3-Tech Penetrator | 8 | 12 | 40 | 11 | 6.5 | 2 | 7 |
3-Tech PenetratorDisruptive interior rusher who lives in the backfield. Starter — over 60% of the snaps, holding the job. 269 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate16.2% 57th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like View Amar Thomas's full player page | |||||||
| 3-Tech Penetrator | 97 | 13 | 33 | 12 | 7.5 | 4.5 | 3 |
3-Tech PenetratorDisruptive interior rusher who lives in the backfield. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. 269 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate22.7% 80th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like View Aiden Gobaira's full player page | |||||||
| 3-Tech Penetrator | 9 | 13 | 31 | 13 | 7 | 5.5 | 6 |
3-Tech PenetratorDisruptive interior rusher who lives in the backfield. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. 269 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate22.6% 80th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like our readUnranked recruit — top-quartile production against his own recruiting profile | |||||||
| Two-Gap Base | 93 | 10 | 29 | 11 | 2.5 | 1 | 1 |
Two-Gap BaseStout at the point of attack — steady tackle-for-loss production without a standout pass-rush number. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. 388 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate8.6% bottom 26th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like our readAscending: his CFB Index score climbed from the 35th percentile to the 53rd among FBS IDLs | |||||||
| Two-Gap Base | — | 10 | 26 | 12 | 7 | 3 | 2 |
Two-Gap BaseStout at the point of attack — steady tackle-for-loss production without a standout pass-rush number. All-Conference honorable mention / 2nd team — the recognition has started. 388 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate26.9% 90th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like View Immanuel Bush's full player page | |||||||
| Two-Gap Base | 33 | 10 | 23 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 0 |
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 rate17.4% 61th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like our readUnranked recruit — top-quartile production against his own recruiting profile | |||||||
| Two-Gap Base | 90 | 10 | 21 | 5 | 1 | 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 10 of 21 games this season · senior our readBounce-Back: his CFB Index score shows a real arc: 62nd percentile among FBS IDLs, fell to 14th, now back up to 35th | |||||||
| 88 | 5 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Linebackers
| Player | # | G | Tot | Solo | Ast | TFL | Sack | PD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Balanced Linebacker | 5 | 13 | 96 | 34 | 62 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
Balanced LinebackerSolid in every phase without a signature dimension. All-Conference honorable mention / 2nd team — the recognition has started. 362 of 660 LBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Tackle volume96 95th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles TFL rate7.3% bottom 39th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Trait fingerprint Plays like View Trent Hendrick's full player page | |||||||||
| Coverage 'Backer | 56 | 12 | 51 | 18 | 33 | 6.5 | 1 | 3 | 0 |
Coverage 'BackerCarries tight ends and patrols the middle of the field in coverage. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. 99 of 660 LBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt PD rate5.9% 88th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles TFL rate12.7% 68th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Trait fingerprint Plays like View Drew Spinogatti's full player page | |||||||||
| Balanced Linebacker | 3 | 11 | 50 | 14 | 36 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Balanced LinebackerSolid in every phase without a signature dimension. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. 362 of 660 LBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Tackle volume50 bottom 49th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles PD rate0.0% bottom 18th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Trait fingerprint Plays like our readAscending: his CFB Index score went from the 14th percentile among FBS LBs to the 41st | |||||||||
| 46 | 9 | 13 | 7 | 6 | 2.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |
| 26 | 4 | 8 | 3 | 5 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | |
| 11 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Defensive Backs
| Player | # | G | Tot | PD | INT | TFL | Sack |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Box Safety | 13 | 13 | 71 | 5 | 1 | 4.5 | 1 |
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 volume71 92th percentile · FBS safeties, min. 15 tackles Plays like our readBreakout: his CFB Index score now sits at the 81st percentile among FBS Ss, up from the 4th | |||||||
| Rover | 7 | 13 | 65 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
RoverHits like a linebacker and still takes the ball away. All-Conference honorable mention / 2nd team — the recognition has started. 83 of 801 Ss we've classified this way this season. Season receipt PD rate10.8% 64th percentile · FBS safeties, min. 15 tackles Plays like our readUnranked recruit — top-quartile production against his own recruiting profile | |||||||
| Perimeter Tackler | 2 | 12 | 44 | 7 | 1 | 3.5 | 0 |
Perimeter TacklerTargeted often and asked to tackle in space on the perimeter. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. 42 of 270 CBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Tackle volume44 86th percentile · FBS corners, min. 10 tackles Plays like our readAscending: his CFB Index score went from the 50th percentile among FBS CBs to the 81st | |||||||
| Hybrid Nickel | 32 | 14 | 36 | 12 #8 FBS | 2 | 3 | 0 |
Hybrid NickelMoves between deep coverage and the slot — the modern positionless DB. All-Conference honorable mention / 2nd team — the recognition has started. 419 of 801 Ss we've classified this way this season. Season receipt PD rate33.3% 100th percentile · FBS safeties, min. 15 tackles Plays like our readSustained Ascent: his CFB Index score shows two real climbs in a row — 0th to 67th to 94th percentile among FBS Ss | |||||||
| Ball Hawk | 30 | 14 | 35 | 8 #45 FBS | 5 #6 FBS | 0 | 0 |
Ball Hawk· Takeaway threatReads the quarterback's eyes and takes the ball away. the kind of DB who takes it back the other way 44 of 270 CBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt PD rate22.9% 83th percentile · FBS corners, min. 10 tackles Plays like our readBreakout: his CFB Index score moved from the 31st to 99th percentile among FBS CBs | |||||||
| 21 | 10 | 12 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 16 | 5 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1 | 6 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 23 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 12 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| 22 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Kicking
| Player | # | G | FG M/A | FG% | XP M/A | Pts | Long |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steady | 5 | 14 | 14/19 | 73.7 | 65/65 | 107 | 47 |
Punting
| Player | # | G | No | Yds | Avg | Long | In20 | TB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steady | 11 | 14 | 48 | 1968 | 41 | 61 | 16 | 3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | 10 | 9 | 246 | 27.3 | 1 | 88 | |
| Possession Receiver · +0.45 EPA/play | 10 | 14 | 6 | 98 | 16.3 | 0 | 31 |
Punt Returns
| Player | # | G | No | Yds | Avg | TD | Long |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Speed Merchant · +0.16 EPA/play | 3 | 14 | 21 | 179 | 8.5 | 0 | 22 |
2025 stat leaders
final
2025 stat leaders
1.
Trent Hendrick
LB
96.0 tot (def)
2.
Wayne Knight
RB
1,373 yds (rush)
3.
Tyler Brown
S
71.0 tot (def)
4.
Alonza Barnett
QB
2,806 yds (pass)
5.
Jacob Thomas
S
65.0 tot (def)
Roster
2025
26
players carry a qualified CFB Index Score this season.
Wayne Knight
RB
#7 of 326
Justin Eaglin
CB
#9 of 364
Sahir West
EDGE
#28 of 420
Xavier Holmes
EDGE
#33 of 420
Jacob Thomas
S
#45 of 544
DJ Barksdale
CB
#31 of 364
+20 more
James Madison · 2025 schedule & results12-2Hard slateAverage opponent win rate 49% · 2 AP top-25 opponents on the schedule.
| Wk | Date | Us | Opp | Line | Opponent | Result | Record | Conf |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Aug 30 | #47 | #166 | -27.5 | Weber State | W 45–10 128 | 1-0 | 0-0 |
| 2 | Sep 5 | #54 | #36 | +15.5 | @Louisville | L 14–28 131 | 1-1 | 0-0 |
| 4 | Sep 20 | #48 | #51 | -7.5 | @Liberty | W 31–13 127 | 2-1 | 0-0 |
| 5 | Sep 27 | #39 | #83 | -16.5 | Georgia Southern | W 35–10 121 | 3-1 | 1-0 |
| 6 | Oct 4 | #33 | #157 | -18.5 | @Georgia State | W 14–7 116 | 4-1 | 2-0 |
| 7 | Oct 11 | #50 | #95 | -18.5 | Louisiana | W 24–14 134 | 5-1 | 3-0 |
| 8 | Oct 18 | #51 | #40 | -3.5 | Old Dominion | W 63–27 129 | 6-1 | 4-0 |
| 10 | Oct 29 | #38 | #62 | -7 | @Texas State | W 52–20 135 | 7-1 | 4-0 |
| 11 | Nov 8 | #24 | #84 | -13.5 | @Marshall | W 35–23 145 | 8-1 | 5-0 |
| 12 | Nov 15 | #23 | #143 | -19.5 | App State | W 58–10 141 | 9-1 | 6-0 |
| 13 | Nov 22 | #18 | #72 | -15.5 | Washington State | W 24–20 118 | 10-1 | 6-0 |
| 14 | Nov 29 | #22 | #157 | -24.5 | @Coastal Carolina | W 59–10 132 | 11-1 | 7-0 |
| Conference Championship | ||||||||
| 15 | Dec 6 | #14 | #111 | -22.5 | Troy | W 31–14 134 | 12-1 | 8-0 |
| College Football Playoff | ||||||||
| 17 | Dec 21 | #14 | #3 | +20.5 | @Oregon | L 34–51 | 12-2 | 8-0 |
Advanced box score (EPA, success rate, explosiveness)▼
| Date | Opp | Result | Yds | TO | TOP | EPA/play | Success% | Explosive% | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 21 | @Oregon | L 34–51 | — | — | — | +0.236 | 40.7% | 157.5% | Defense's roughest night |
| Dec 6 | Troy | W 31–14 | 411 | 2 | 30:34 | +0.046 | 37.7% | 122.7% | |
| Nov 29 | @Coastal Carolina | W 59–10 | 525 | 1 | 36:04 | +0.369 | 57.7% | 112.2% | Best success rate |
| Nov 22 | Washington State | W 24–20 | 319 | 1 | 25:02 | +0.127 | 40.4% | 125.0% | One-score win |
| Nov 15 | App State | W 58–10 | 627 | 1 | 42:18 | +0.298 | 50.5% | 124.2% | Blowout win |
| Nov 8 | @Marshall | W 35–23 | 409 | 1 | 28:03 | +0.172 | 38.3% | 160.6% | |
| Oct 29 | @Texas State | W 52–20 | 511 | 1 | 32:30 | +0.527 | 49.2% | 164.4% | Season-high EPA/play |
| Oct 18 | Old Dominion | W 63–27 | 624 | 1 | 41:26 | +0.396 | 49.4% | 165.4% | Most explosive |
| Oct 11 | Louisiana | W 24–14 | 483 | 3 | 36:51 | +0.189 | 47.5% | 102.8% | |
| Oct 4 | @Georgia State | W 14–7 | 292 | 0 | 31:53 | -0.012 | 40.6% | 97.4% | One-score win |
| Sep 27 | Georgia Southern | W 35–10 | 491 | 0 | 35:50 | +0.299 | 44.0% | 141.3% | |
| Sep 20 | @Liberty | W 31–13 | 446 | 1 | 33:03 | +0.248 | 48.1% | 119.1% | |
| Sep 5 | @Louisville | L 14–28 | 263 | 2 | 37:12 | -0.057 | 38.5% | 94.9% | Season-low EPA/play |
| Aug 30 | Weber State | W 45–10 | 458 | 2 | 32:27 | +0.278 | 47.9% | 132.5% | Blowout win |
| Season average (14 games) | 451 | 1.2 | +0.222 | 45.0% | 130.0% | ||||
How They Play · 2025
How They Play · 2025James Madison fields a strong run-heavy offense behind an elite, gives up the big play defense.
Opponent-adjusted percentiles vs all FBS. Bar = where this team ranks — right is better.
Team identity · competitive snaps only
How James Madison actually scores
65th percentile quality, 44th 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
James Madison's 4th-quarter offense, before and after garbage time
Raw Q4 EPA/play ranks 85th percentile in FBS. Strip out snaps taken with a blowout margin and it drops to the 24th — the correction is the finding, not a footnote.
Standard downs vs. passing downs
Does James Madison hold up once the down-and-distance turns against them?
77th percentile success on standard downs, 52nd on passing downs — a 25-point gap between the two.
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
James Madison by half
1st-half offense ranks 58th percentile in FBS; 2nd-half, 82nd — competitive snaps only, garbage time excluded from both halves.
Schedule mirage
How much of James Madison's number is the schedule?
Raw EPA/play through week 21 is 0.22; 90th percentile once opponent strength is stripped out, it's 0.08. The widest gap came in week 1: 0.28 raw vs. 0.02 adjusted.
James Madison reads strongest in success rate allowed (top 2%) and epa allowed (top 5%); the crux lives in explosive plays allowed, where James Madison sits at the 1st 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 · James Madison
Most Similar Programs · James MadisonReads Like
AkronTier 3 · Prestige T3 · Similarly-sized rosters up frontApp StateTier 3 · Prestige T3 · Similarly-sized rosters up frontArizonaTier 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 · James Madison · 2018-present
Elite
90% home win rate vs 70% on the road. margin runs +14.7 better at home. Bridgeforth Stadium seats 24,877, averaging 98% full (24,415 attendance, 24 games reported).
Home45-5Away31-13
Positional competition · RB room
The carries are split. The job isn’t.
Wayne Knight and Jordan Fuller split the carries (202/283 vs 81/283) -- but the job isn't split the same way. Wayne Knight owns the receiving work.
Wayne KnightJordan Fuller
Carries
the baseline -- every row below is tested against this split, not a flat 50/50
Inside the 5
shared -- dots touch, this room really is a committee here
Q4, leading (competitive)
shared -- dots touch, this room really is a committee here
Targets
p = 0.000 -- real, not noise
Top-5-carry share
concentration alone -- EPA/carry doesn't corroborate, read with caution
Screened 4 claims, 1 survived, 3 falsified
Positional competition · WR/TE room
The targets are split. The job isn’t.
Landon Ellis (WR) and Lakota Dippre (TE) split the targets (41/59 vs 18/59) -- but the job isn't split the same way.
Landon EllisLakota Dippre
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 alone -- EPA/target doesn't corroborate, read with caution
Screened 2 claims, 0 survived, 2 falsified
What changed
James Madison’s play-calling, before and after the change
Offense: Mike Shanahan (2022–2023) → Dean Kennedy (2024–2025)
The biggest shift: 4th-down go rate moved up 12 points. The rest held closer to steady.
1st-down pass rate
Red-zone pass rate
4th-down go rate
Defense: Lyle Hemphill (2024) → Colin Hitschler (2025)
The biggest shift: red-zone pass rate moved down 13 points. The rest held closer to steady.
1st-down pass rate
Red-zone pass rate
Season by season
How James Madison’s current staff calls plays, year over year
Offense: Dean Kennedy (2024–2025)
1st-down pass rate
2024: 46% → 2025: 39% · 7-pt range · #114 of 171 · a typical amount
Red-zone pass rate
2024: 39% → 2025: 26% · 13-pt range · #82 of 171 · a typical amount
4th-down go rate
2024: 45% → 2025: 36% · 9-pt range · #146 of 171 · less than most
Defensive identity · pass zones
What this defense gives up, by zone.
On short passes, James Madison’s defense allows a completion rate below the FBS mean (58.7% vs 65.9% league-wide, shrunk toward the mean for its 195-play sample) — stingiest, 3 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=195 short-zone plays faced, raw rate 53.8%
Venue texture
61°F average kickoff temp; 11% of games had measurable precipitation; 5 mph average wind.
Based on 35 home games with weather data.
The CFP Era
11 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
James Madison's 2014–2025 record is 119-27. The era is still being written; the CFP line is the one the program is arguing for.
All-Time Record
212-96
since 1978 · 38 seasons · .688 win rate
HOME
126-24
AWAY
74-61
NEUTRAL
12-11
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000s
2010s
2020s
Program résumé
1CFP apps
The program, in full — read the essay
James Madison moved up from the FCS in 2022, was barred from bowls for two years on transition rules, then went to the College Football Playoff in 2025. The sport kept telling the Dukes to wait their turn. They stopped waiting.
JMU earned its grievance the hard way. Three FCS national titles — 2004, 2016, 2019 — and then an FBS jump that produced an 11-2 season in year one, a Sun Belt Championship Game appearance in year two, and exactly zero bowl invitations because the rulebook said not yet. The program out-played teams that got to go bowling and watched from Harrisonburg. By the time the gate opened, the Dukes had a case ready-made and enough momentum to use it.
Bob Chesney coached JMU to a 12-2 season in 2025, an 8-0 Sun Belt record, the conference title over Troy, and a No. 19 final ranking before a 51-34 first-round Playoff loss to Oregon. Then Chesney left for UCLA — the second consecutive JMU head coach to win big in Harrisonburg and cash the ticket elsewhere. The program hired Billy Napier, former Florida and Louisiana head coach, as his replacement. Which raised, cleanly, the question the fanbase has been arguing since Curt Cignetti left for Indiana: is JMU the program, or is it the launchpad?
The 2026 season is the first real test of the machine theory. Cignetti took the formula to Indiana and won a national championship. The Dukes kept winning after he left. Chesney won a Playoff bid. The question now is whether a third coach in five years — and one with Napier's résumé — can sustain a rise that has outlived every man who built each chapter of it. If he can, Harrisonburg stops being a story about luck and starts being a model.
How they play
Built-not-bought football: fast, disciplined, a roster assembled on proven P4 contributors and portal pieces who absorb coaching immediately rather than upside projects who need time. The scheme prizes high-efficiency offense — quick reads, space-creating motion, ball distribution designed to maximize completions that become gains. On defense, the identity is preparation over personnel. The fan culture is brash and purple, a Shenandoah Valley program that has spent three years watching the sport catch up to what it already knew.
Steady
James Madison 2015–2025. Holding the line. The 10-year slope (+0.10 rungs / yr) doesn't tilt either way — the program lives at roughly Tier 3.
CFP Era · James Madison
11 seasons on file
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
down middle peak CFP year
Season Standing · 2025 · 12-2 · CFP #24 / AP #19
Season Standing · 2025 · 12-2 · CFP #24 / AP #19Ranked (25-16)
James Madison: Ranked in the AP/Coaches polls, 16-25. National relevance achieved.
R0R1R2R3R4R5R6R7R8R9
Sub-FBSBuildingBowlRankedContenderPlayoff
Sun Belt Standing · 2025
1st in the Sun Belt
James Madison sits at the top of the Sun Belt at 8-0. Everyone else is chasing.
| # | Program | Record |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | James Madison | 8-0 |
| 2 | Old Dominion | 6-2 |
| 3 | Southern Miss | 5-3 |
| 4 | Troy | 5-3 |
| 5 | Coastal Carolina | 5-4 |
| 6 | Georgia Southern | 5-4 |
| 7 | Arkansas State | 4-3 |
| 8 | Louisiana | 4-3 |
| 9 | South Alabama | 3-4 |
| 10 | Louisiana Tech | 2-0 |
| 11 | Marshall | 2-5 |
| 12 | App State | 2-7 |
| 13 | UL Monroe | 1-6 |
| 14 | Georgia State | 0-8 |
Coaching Era · James Madison
Coaching Era · James MadisonBilly Napier
Billy Napier took over from Bob Chesney for the 2026 season.
Era Billy Napier · 2026–presentPrev: Bob Chesney (2024–2025)OC: Cam AikenPrev OC: Dean Kennedy (2024–2025)DC: co-Robert Bala / co-Josh LinamPrev DC: Colin Hitschler (2025)
1
year · era
Rituals
Three gameday rituals — the ones outsiders never quite catch.
Two FCS National Championships
since 2004
JMU won two FCS national championships under two different head coaches — Mickey Matthews 2004, Mike Houston 2016 — and reached two more title games as the runner-up (2017, 2019) under Cignetti. The championships built the credibility for the 2022 FBS reclassification.
Bridgeforth Stadium Crowd
since 1975
Bridgeforth Stadium's purple-and-gold crowd + 25,000+ capacity + Shenandoah Valley geographic setting + the JMU-specific 'Duke' (named for Samuel P. Duke, the university's second president, not a bishop) identity create a venue distinct from the larger flagship-state programs. The 2022 FBS-debut sellout streak continued through 2024.
Curt Cignetti FBS Transition (2019-2023)
since 2019
Curt Cignetti's 2019-2023 tenure — coming from IUP where he won multiple D-II titles — guided JMU through the FCS championship era + 2022 FBS reclassification + 2023 11-2 Sun Belt East championship game. Cignetti's 2024 departure to Indiana (producing the Indiana 11-1 + CFP appearance) is one of the more-improbable cross-program coaching pipeline arcs in CFB.
Program memory
What this program never forgets
Most weeks vanish. These didn’t.
2004 FCS National Championship
JMU's first national title, the foundation of the dynasty identity
2024
First FBS bowl ban lifted
After two transition seasons barred from the postseason, JMU finally reaches a bowl
2025 Sun Belt title & CFP berth
A 12-2 season and the program's first Playoff appearance, a 51-34 first-round loss to Oregon
Moment of the Year · James Madison · 2025
Moment of the Year · James Madison · 2025Postseason · Lost 34-51 at Oregon
Week 17 of 2025. The single game that defined the season's arc.
Bowl / Postseason Ledger
Bowl / Postseason LedgerRecent postseason (2016-2025): 9-6
Most recent: 2025 — loss 51-34 (away). Last 5 postseason: 2-3.
20252024202320212021
Unit lineage
James Madison’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.
Offense2022–2025
2022–2023 · Mike Shanahan2024–2025 · Dean Kennedy
Hired for 2026: Cam Aiken — not yet reflected in on-field data.
Defense2022–2025
2022–2023 · Bryant Haines2024 · Lyle Hemphill2025 · Colin Hitschler
Hired for 2026: co-Robert Bala / co-Josh Linam — not yet reflected in on-field data.
Elite (≥70th pct)AveragePoor (≤30th pct)
Chronicle Visuals
Among the most continuous rosters into 2025 — 78% back, anchored by the qb room, only offense to settle.
The portal upgraded the DL room but opened a hole at EDGE.
James Madison converts recruit talent into draft picks better than its class rank suggests.
r/cfb moments
2.1k
[Postgame Thread] James Madison Defeats Appalachian State 32-28
1.9k
[Postgame Thread] Appalachian State Defeats James Madison 26-23 (OT)
983
[Postgame Thread] James Madison Defeats Morehead State 52-0
385
[Postgame Thread] James Madison Defeats Appalachian State 58-10
285
[Postgame Thread] James Madison Defeats Connecticut 44-6
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