Missouri

2-0AP #20
Latest
Missouri and Kansas Prepare for 2026 Border Showdownour readKansas shakes off a sluggish start, crushes LIU 51-6 in its opener ahead of Border War with Missouri - The Washington Postour readThe Vanderbilt rivalry

SEC · Eli Drinkwitz, year 7 (48-29) · Memorial Stadium · 71,168 · 63,609 avg in 2026

The nationAP #20 · Coaches #22up 3 from last week
The model#39 CFB ZeitgeistSP+ #22 (+12.9) · FPI #26
The marketMissouri by 26.5vs Troy · our model 85% Missouri · a number, not a pick

LastW 38–21 at Kansas · Fri Sep 11 · Austin Simmons 292 pass yds, 3 TD, 8 rush yds

Nextvs Troy · Sat Sep 19 · 7 pm ET · Memorial Stadium · Missouri by 26.5 · series 3-1, won the last 2 · Game preview

Updated Tue Sep 15 · through week 2

Key stats — 2026 — FBS rank
Points/game
46.0
Pts allowed/game
17.5
Total yards/gm#29 / 138 · 79th pct
515.5
Rush yards/gmT-#53 / 138 · 61st pct
191.0
Pass yards/gm#22 / 138 · 84th pct
324.5
Yards allowed/gm#19 / 138 · 87th pct
226.5
Rush yds allowed/gm#36 / 138 · 74th pct
85.0
SacksT-#38 / 138 · 65th pct
5
InterceptionsT-#29 / 115 · 61st pct
2
3rd-down convT-#33 / 138 · 73rd pct
50.0%
All 80 stats
Offense / Defense
Total yards
Team
1031515.5/gm6.92/play#29 / 138 · 79th pct#19 / 69 · 73rd pct#7 / 16 · 59th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
453226.5/gm3.77/play#19 / 138 · 87th pct#18 / 69 · 75th pct#6 / 16 · 66th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush yards
Team
382191.0/gm2.56/playT-#53 / 138 · 61st pctT-#28 / 69 · 59th pctT-#8 / 16 · 50th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
17085.0/gm1.42/play#36 / 138 · 74th pct#29 / 69 · 59th pct#9 / 16 · 47th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush carries
Team
8643.0/gmT-#28 / 138 · 80th pctT-#13 / 69 · 81st pct#5 / 16 · 72nd pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
6532.5/gmT-#50 / 138 · 62nd pctT-#33 / 69 · 49th pct#9 / 16 · 47th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush TDs
Team
52.5/gmT-#35 / 138 · 70th pctT-#23 / 69 · 60th pctT-#8 / 16 · 44th pct#12 / 13 · 15th pct
Opp
10.5/gmT-#24 / 138 · 73rd pctT-#18 / 69 · 64th pctT-#6 / 16 · 59th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Net pass yards
Team
649324.5/gm4.36/play#22 / 138 · 84th pct#12 / 69 · 83rd pct#2 / 16 · 91st pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
283141.5/gm2.36/playT-#24 / 138 · 83rd pct#20 / 69 · 72nd pct#6 / 16 · 66th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Pass attempts
Team
6331.5/gmT-#57 / 138 · 59th pctT-#31 / 69 · 55th pctT-#7 / 16 · 56th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
5527.5/gm#50 / 138 · 64th pct#33 / 69 · 53rd pct#7 / 16 · 59th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Completions
Team
4522.5/gmT-#44 / 138 · 68th pct#23 / 69 · 67th pct#6 / 16 · 66th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
2512.5/gmT-#14 / 138 · 89th pctT-#10 / 69 · 86th pct#2 / 16 · 91st pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Pass TDs
Team
73.5/gmT-#11 / 138 · 91st pctT-#9 / 69 · 85th pctT-#2 / 16 · 88th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
31.5/gmT-#75 / 138 · 36th pctT-#47 / 69 · 22nd pctT-#15 / 16 · 6th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Passer rating#12 / 115 · 90th pct#12 / 59 · 81st pct#3 / 14 · 82nd pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
188.3188.3
Interceptions thrown
Team
00.0/gmT-#92 / 138 · 17th pctT-#42 / 69 · 20th pctT-#12 / 16 · 16th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
21.0/gmT-#77 / 138 · 33rd pctT-#40 / 69 · 29th pctT-#6 / 16 · 38th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Sacks (def)
Team
52.5/gmT-#38 / 138 · 65th pctT-#21 / 69 · 60th pctT-#7 / 16 · 50th pct#11 / 11 · 9th pct
Opp
10.5/gmT-#9 / 138 · 86th pctT-#6 / 69 · 83rd pctT-#2 / 16 · 81st pct#1 / 11 · 100th pct
Tackles for loss
Team
136.5/gmT-#47 / 138 · 64th pctT-#28 / 69 · 57th pctT-#9 / 16 · 44th pct#11 / 11 · 9th pct
Opp
115.5/gmT-#81 / 138 · 34th pctT-#47 / 69 · 27th pct#10 / 16 · 41st pct#1 / 11 · 100th pct
First downs
Team
5427.0/gmT-#25 / 138 · 82nd pctT-#16 / 69 · 77th pctT-#5 / 16 · 69th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
3115.5/gmT-#42 / 138 · 69th pctT-#32 / 69 · 53rd pctT-#8 / 16 · 50th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
3rd-down conv
Team
136.5/gmT-#37 / 138 · 68th pctT-#19 / 69 · 67th pctT-#6 / 16 · 59th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
63.0/gmT-#12 / 138 · 86th pctT-#10 / 69 · 80th pctT-#5 / 16 · 66th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
3rd-down att
Team
2613.0/gmT-#64 / 138 · 51st pctT-#28 / 69 · 57th pctT-#6 / 16 · 59th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
2814.0/gmT-#62 / 138 · 50th pctT-#32 / 69 · 49th pctT-#8 / 16 · 47th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
4th-down conv
Team
31.5/gmT-#23 / 138 · 74th pctT-#12 / 69 · 72nd pctT-#4 / 16 · 62nd pct#12 / 13 · 15th pct
Opp
31.5/gmT-#104 / 138 · 19th pctT-#56 / 69 · 15th pct#12 / 16 · 28th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
4th-down att
Team
31.5/gmT-#66 / 138 · 41st pctT-#35 / 69 · 43rd pctT-#9 / 16 · 44th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
63.0/gmT-#112 / 138 · 14th pctT-#59 / 69 · 10th pctT-#13 / 16 · 19th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Time of possession
Team
65:1932:40/gm#44 / 138 · 68th pct#19 / 69 · 73rd pct#5 / 16 · 72nd pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
54:4127:20/gm#35 / 138 · 75th pct#19 / 69 · 73rd pct#5 / 16 · 72nd pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct

FBS rankings · 2026 season · all stats vs 136 FBS programs

Player stats — 2026 season
Quarterbacks
Player#GCmp/AttPctYdsY/ATDINTRateZPRQBRAdj ANY/ASack%
+0.62 EPA/play13236 / 4875544
#33 FBS		11.37
#9 FBS		0218.37091.6——
-0.10 EPA/play528 / 1361.5876.700117.8—25.9——
Running Backs
Player#GCarYdsAvgTDLongStuff%10+%
Workhorse · -0.13 EPA/play20241172
#43 FBS		4.22
#43 FBS		64——
Receivers
Player#GRecYdsAvgTDLong
Jump-Ball Target · +0.89 EPA/play1214237
#13 FBS		16.93
#9 FBS		65
+0.88 EPA/play19210200
#29 FBS		202
#24 FBS		47
+1.65 EPA/play4267512.5125
+0.76 EPA/play8725367.2113

2026 stat leaders · Missouri

through 2 games

Donovan Olugbode leads Missouri with 237 receiving yards through 2 games.

1. Donovan Olugbode WR 237 receiving yards
2. Cayden Lee WR 200 receiving yards
3. Austin Simmons QB 544 passing yards
4. Jamal Roberts RB 172 rushing yards
5. Nicholas Rodriguez LB 11 tackles
How They Play · 2025

Missouri fields a strong run-heavy offense behind an elite defense.

Offense
73rd pct EPA/play
Run/Pass
60% run plays
Defense
93rd pct EPA allowed

Percentile vs all FBS, based on this season's per-game production. Bar = where this team ranks — right is better.

The Savant Card · Missouri · 2025

Missouri reads strongest in success rate allowed (top 5%) and passing epa allowed (top 5%); the crux lives in passing epa, where Missouri sits at the 15th percentile.

offense · strengths lead

EPA / play +0.20
73rd
Success Rate +0.45
72nd
Explosive Plays +1.23
37th
Rushing EPA +0.22
89th

defense · higher bar = harder to play against

EPA Allowed +0.03
93rd
Success Rate Allowed +0.34
96th
Explosive Plays Allowed +1.30
35th
Passing EPA Allowed +0.03
96th

hidden math · special situations

Passing EPA +0.14
15th
Rushing EPA Allowed +0.02
78th
Elite · 90+Strong · 70+Average · 40-70Concern · 10-40Bottom · <10
Sources · CFBD tier-2 advanced stats · per-game production · 13 games this season · percentiles vs. up to 136 FBS peers

Home-field advantage · Missouri · 2018–present · FBS opponents

Missouri is worth +5.9 points more at home than on the road.

Top third of FBS, 78th percentile of 133 programs

73% at home, 41% away against FBS opponents since 2018 (35–13 home, 16–23 away). Interval ±4.2.

95% intervalmodel 2.3 · books ~3Weakest home edge in FBSStrongest

Our model gives every stadium the same flat 2.3-point home edge — per-team modelling was tested and did not survive scrutiny (why) — and the books use about 3. Against the closing line, Missouri has beaten the number by +2.6 more at home than away over 73 games — inside the ±6.9 that many games can resolve. Results here cannot tell the flat number apart from the building, and that is the honest reading of nearly every FBS stadium.

Memorial Stadium seats 71,168 and has averaged 83% full (58,779, 30 games reported). Visitors cover a median 479 miles to get here since 2018 — 61st-longest of 135 FBS venues, inside the ordinary range. 11% of the 2026 roster (12 of 107 located players) grew up inside 100 miles of the stadium.

Edge = half the gap between average home margin and average road margin, FBS opponents only, non-neutral games since 2018; the interval is 95%. Market line: closing spread, seasons with lines on file. Trip length is straight-line miles from the visiting team's campus to the venue, measured across all 56 home games since 2018.

Home35–13Away16–23Edge+5.9 ±4.2Visitor trip479 mi

More in this tab

Scheme claimsFive specific, testable claims about how this team plays.

Fourth-quarter reliability, corrected

Missouri's 4th-quarter offense, before and after garbage time

Raw Q4 EPA/play ranks 58th percentile in FBS. Strip out snaps taken with a blowout margin and it drops to the 51st — the correction is the finding, not a footnote.

league medianRaw 4th quarter · 58th pctileCompetitive snaps only · 51st pctileWorst in FBSBest in FBS
Source CFB Zeitgeist · CFBD play-by-play, garbage-time adjusted by pre-play margin

Standard downs vs. passing downs

Does Missouri hold up once the down-and-distance turns against them?

36th percentile success on standard downs, 85th on passing downs — a 49-point gap between the two.

Fragile off scheduleBalanced, both workStruggles even on scheduleStandard-downs reliantMissouriWeak on standard downsElite on standard downsFalls apart off scheduleHolds up off scheduleHawai'i18th standard · 41st passingUNLV51st standard · 7th passingStanford76th standard · 15th passingEastern Michigan52nd standard · 10th passingSan José State54th standard · 22nd passingNew Mexico State45th standard · 75th passingSacramento State23rd standard · 14th passingOklahoma State41st standard · 49th passingDuke20th standard · 29th passingFlorida State28th standard · 65th passingRutgers30th standard · 71st passingKansas70th standard · 35th passingBoston College27th standard · 56th passingNorfolk State16th standard · 9th passingLouisville96th standard · 70th passingMissouri36th standard · 85th passingMemphis69th standard · 65th passingGeorgia Southern24th standard · 45th passingOle Miss94th standard · 50th passingJacksonville State65th standard · 82nd passingNorth Dakota State86th standard · 27th passingArizona92nd standard · 86th passingUSC97th standard · 99th passingWake Forest56th standard · 97th passingTCU93rd standard · 8th passingDelaware70th standard · 31st passingUAB65th standard · 81st passingMichigan State62nd standard · 29th passingSouth Florida91st standard · 52nd passingFlorida International46th standard · 43rd passingNavy98th standard · 59th passingWisconsin13th standard · 18th passingOregon State10th standard · 38th passingSyracuse48th standard · 64th passingOhio State90th standard · 40th passingBall State12th standard · 24th passingPittsburgh30th standard · 76th passingColorado35th standard · 77th passingGeorgia Tech58th standard · 44th passingAuburn75th standard · 55th passingBaylor40th standard · 96th passingNorth Texas49th standard · 68th passingApp State44th standard · 90th passingIowa State4th standard · 23rd passingUTSA99th standard · 29th passingArkansas60th standard · 80th passingBoise State58th standard · 46th passingOregon35th standard · 33rd passingTulsa56th standard · 1st passingTulane31st standard · 2nd passingPurdue83rd standard · 88th passingMiddle Tennessee87th standard · 68th passingVanderbilt80th standard · 12th passingSan Diego State4th standard · 40th passingLSU33rd standard · 98th passingClemson1st standard · 19th passingCentral Michigan16th standard · 6th passingTexas Tech88th standard · 48th passingMichigan2nd standard · 62nd passingWestern Michigan39th standard · 20th passingOhio38th standard · 17th passingBuffalo7th standard · 14th passingTexas72nd standard · 94th passingCoastal Carolina61st standard · 52nd passingColorado State82nd standard · 91st passingWyoming65th standard · 36th passingTexas A&M85th standard · 72nd passingLiberty14th standard · 59th passingFlorida Atlantic43rd standard · 87th passingLouisiana19th standard · 92nd passingSouth Alabama50th standard · 73rd passingTroy22nd standard · 59th passingSam Houston78th standard · 61st passingNevada77th standard · 52nd passingWestern Kentucky25th standard · 34th passingWashington State8th standard · 3rd passingWashington81st standard · 4th passingCalifornia9th standard · 25th passingCharlotte73rd standard · 83rd passingTennessee65th standard · 78th passingUtah State4th standard · 93rd passing
Source CFB Zeitgeist · advanced team stats, Connelly success-rate definition
View all FBS teams as a table
TeamStandard-downs percentilePassing-downs percentile
App State44th90th
Arizona92nd86th
Arkansas60th80th
Auburn75th55th
Ball State12th24th
Baylor40th96th
Boise State58th46th
Boston College27th56th
Buffalo7th14th
California9th25th
Central Michigan16th6th
Charlotte73rd83rd
Clemson1st19th
Coastal Carolina61st52nd
Colorado35th77th
Colorado State82nd91st
Delaware70th31st
Duke20th29th
Eastern Michigan52nd10th
Florida Atlantic43rd87th
Florida International46th43rd
Florida State28th65th
Georgia Southern24th45th
Georgia Tech58th44th
Hawai'i18th41st
Iowa State4th23rd
Jacksonville State65th82nd
Kansas70th35th
LSU33rd98th
Liberty14th59th
Louisiana19th92nd
Louisville96th70th
Memphis69th65th
Michigan2nd62nd
Michigan State62nd29th
Middle Tennessee87th68th
Missouri36th85th
Navy98th59th
Nevada77th52nd
New Mexico State45th75th
Norfolk State16th9th
North Dakota State86th27th
North Texas49th68th
Ohio38th17th
Ohio State90th40th
Oklahoma State41st49th
Ole Miss94th50th
Oregon35th33rd
Oregon State10th38th
Pittsburgh30th76th
Purdue83rd88th
Rutgers30th71st
Sacramento State23rd14th
Sam Houston78th61st
San Diego State4th40th
San José State54th22nd
South Alabama50th73rd
South Florida91st52nd
Stanford76th15th
Syracuse48th64th
TCU93rd8th
Tennessee65th78th
Texas72nd94th
Texas A&M85th72nd
Texas Tech88th48th
Troy22nd59th
Tulane31st2nd
Tulsa56th1st
UAB65th81st
UNLV51st7th
USC97th99th
UTSA99th29th
Utah State4th93rd
Vanderbilt80th12th
Wake Forest56th97th
Washington81st4th
Washington State8th3rd
Western Kentucky25th34th
Western Michigan39th20th
Wisconsin13th18th
Wyoming65th36th
Tendency driftHow this coordinator's calls have drifted since arriving.

Season by season

How Missouri’s current staff calls plays, year over year

Defense: Corey Batoon (2025–2026)
1st-down pass rate
2025: 37% → 2026: 36% · 2-pt range · #202 of 203 · less than most
Red-zone pass rate
2025: 32% → 2026: 17% · 15-pt range · #94 of 200 · a typical amount
RatingsWhere the public rating systems put this team.

Model Consensus

Where the Models Rank Missouri

CFB Zeitgeist

#39

+4.2

SP+

#22

+12.9

FPI

#26

+12.3

Elo

#28

1691

The national models put Missouri between 22nd and 28th nationally — CFB Zeitgeist is more skeptical, at 39th.

National rank of 138 FBS teams · 2026 season. SP+/FPI/SRS published; Elo & CFB Zeitgeist ranked by rating.

Comparable teamsPrograms built like this one — tier, prestige band, kind of fanbase, roster size. Not a stat match.

Most similar programs · Missouri

Reads like

App StateSun BeltSame tier of program · Same prestige band · Similarly-sized rosters up frontArizonaBig 12Same tier of program · Same prestige band · Similarly-sized rosters up frontArizona StateBig 12Same tier of program · Same prestige band · Similarly-sized rosters up front

Matched on how the programs are built — tier, prestige band, kind of fanbase, conference, voice and roster size — not on this season's stats. A calibration, not a prediction.

Historical echoPrograms whose arc bent the same way -- then what happened.

Historical echo

Missouri’s breakout has happened before — and 1 of the 4 closest programs couldn’t hold it.

Programs whose stature climbed in the same shape. The grey line is their run; the color is what came next for them.

Ohio State 1966–1971
kept climbing
Minnesota 1958–1963
fell back
Clemson 1979–1984
kept climbing
Notre Dame 1986–1991
held the gain

An analogy on the shape of a program’s Zeitgeist stature arc — not a prediction. Interim calibration, medium confidence; matched among current FBS programs at a comparable level.

ConditionsThe weather and altitude visitors have to deal with.
Venue texture

66°F average kickoff temp; 8% of games had measurable precipitation; 8 mph average wind.

Based on 84 home games with weather data.

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