2offseason
Rutgers win total fell from 5 to 3.5 (-1.5 wins) between May 2026 and Jun 2026.
Schiano's sixth season arrives with a 5-7 record and win total dip from 5 to 3.5 — a historic program's reset now faces its first real test.
Rutgers5-7No consensus around Rutgers right now — the fanbase is genuinely divided.
belief cooled ↓ 1.5vs prior week
Fanbase belief
Mixed
51/100 · 401 mentions
~ our readGrounding
running on emotion
6% cite a stat · 7% typical ✓ counted
~ our readVolatility
Chaotic
σ 23 pts
~ our readThe model
#75
CFB Zeitgeist · +0.2
✓ measured2Hope-Doping·Offseason
Rutgers held the first college football game in history — November 6, 1869, against Princeton — and ever since has been the program that gave the sport to the world and then watched the world get better at it.
Standard GapThe school that invented the game, against a present where 'almost bowl-…
Rutgers fans are weary of being the Big Ten's welcome mat — the school the blue bloods schedule for a comfortable Saturday. They'll remind you who held the first game ever, and that the founder doesn'…
offseason · quiet
Roster Reload - Rutgers
2026 snapshot - 2026-08-06Returning Production67%High continuity
Talent Composite#53 nationally247 composite 689.2
Portal Additions15Primary repair: CB
Portal Losses15Primary pressure: WR
Draft Loss1NFL Draft departures (1) — 1 with a next man up identified below
Recruiting Reload#36Development class
CBin 4 - Bradlee Jonesout 3 - Bo MascoeUpgrade
current room: 194 lbs avg (2025 roster)
LBin 2 - Ty Morrisout 2 - Talibi KabaEven
current room: 229 lbs avg (2025 roster)
EDGEin 2 - Malachi Davisout 2 - Jordan WalkerEven
OTin 1 - Everett Smallout 2 - Taj WhiteDowngrade
DLin 2 - Rondo Porterout 1 - Darold DeNgoheUpgrade
current room: 273 lbs avg (2025 roster)
RBin 1 - Clay Theveninout 2 - Samuel Brown VEven
current room: 203 lbs avg (2025 roster)
Next man up
Belief EKG
WinLoss · hover for scorePrior seasonsWire eventStory arc
Approaching
28 days
until kickoff · vs Massachusetts · Thu Sep 3 · 22:00 UTC
The experience
Rutgers is the program that played the first-ever college football game — November 6, 1869 vs Princeton — and whose Greg Schiano-second-era Big Ten reset answers what historic-program-resurrected looks like.
Offense: StrongTempo: Methodical, ball-controlDefense: Poor
Rutgers poised for moderate improvement in 2026
With a balanced transfer portal churn and high continuity, Rutgers is expected to finish with a bowl-eligible record.
- Roster reloadRutgers has a returning total percentage of 67% and a transfer profile labeled as 'Balanced portal churn'.
Data as of 2026-08-03
·
Validated against program evidence
The Scarlet Knight stands at attention.
Rutgers · the story right now
10 storylines developing
What Rutgers's offseason is really about
the open questionwhere does it go from here?
market_swing2026-06-18~readnew
Schiano's sixth season arrives with a 5-7 record and win total dip from 5 to 3.5 — a historic program's reset now faces its first real test.
what happenedRutgers win total fell from 5 to 3.5 (-1.5 wins) between May 2026 and Jun 2026. ✓ fact
the contextwin total down 1.5 from 5.0 to 3.5
narrative tension · our read
garbage timethis cycle✓ factnew
Antwan Raymond 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
underdogthis cycle✓ factnew
Ian Strong 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
deep threatthis cycle✓ factnew
KJ Duff is a real deep-ball threat -- a high share of his targets come on throws past the sticks, and he catches those deep shots at a plus rate.
narrative tension · our read
short yardagethis cycle~attributednew
Antwan Raymond: a short yardage signal screened this season.
narrative tension · our read
garbage timethis cycle~attributednew
DT Sheffield: a garbage time merchant signal screened this season.
narrative tension · our read
garbage timethis cycle~attributednew
KJ Duff: a garbage time merchant signal screened this season.
narrative tension · our read
program_outlookthis cycle~readnew
Rutgers collapsed 30 spots in SP+ — the steepest drop in the Big Ten this cycle, and Schiano's job is to prove it's not structural with just 5-7 production returning.
what happenedRutgers enters 2025 rated No. 72 in SP+ (+1.0), down 30 spots from 2024. ✓ fact
narrative tension · our read
coordinatorsthis cycle~readnew
Greg Schiano begins his sixth season with a 5-7 losing record hanging over Rutgers, whose historic identity clashes with its current middle-tier status in the Big Ten.
what happenedRutgers: coordinator change reshaping a unit. ✓ fact
narrative tension · our read
coordinatorsthis cycle✓ factnew
Rutgers: coordinator change reshaping a unit.
narrative tension · our read
How past storylines here turned out
ReplacedRutgers's defensive coordinator spot turned over again the following season. See who's next →
The Offseason Ledger · Rutgers
6 verified updates · portal · recruiting · staff · news- Recruiting
Aiden Gibson flips to Rutgers
Penn State's recruiting problem just got a name attached to it — a four-star flip to Rutgers, in the Big Ten, hits different when Schiano's class is already sitting at #33 and the WR room needed this kind of upside.
- News
Messiah Tilson rises on depth chart
Pressure at receiver was already real before KJ Duff took center stage at Big Ten Media Days — Tilson climbing the depth chart is Schiano's internal answer to a room that can't afford another wasted development cycle.
- Portal
LB Sean Allison transfer commits from Drake
Pioneer League linebacker to Big Ten — quiet pull, the kind of evaluation that makes Schiano's defense work.
- News
Win total: 5 → 4.5 (▼0.5)
Win total slid from 5 to 4.5 without a clear public catalyst — worth watching as the offseason firms up.
- News
Win total: 3.5 → 5 (▲1.5)
5 → 3.5 → 5 in one offseason — the market's bouncing on Schiano because nobody agrees whether a #33 class and one draft departure is a foundation or just noise in the Big Ten meat grinder.
- News
Win total: 5 → 3.5 (▼1.5)
A 1.5-win drop on a team that lost one draft pick and ranked 33rd in class — the market isn't buying the WR pressure as solved, and Schiano's rebuild ceiling is getting priced accordingly.
Transfer portal snapshot
+2.1 net portal points
(raw ledger: -3.2 — unweighted, no position adjustment)WR-6.2
starter risk
QB+3.6
low confidence
TE+3.6
low confidence
OT-3.5
DL+3.3
RB-3.3
CB+2.9
IOL-2.5
LB-0.9
EDGE-0.1
Top 3 commits
2026 class
★★★★☆
Aiden Gibson
#313 national
Projects: Workhorse — 10 of his 25 closest recruiting profiles since 2018 shared the Workhorse archetype.~our read · projection from recruiting profile — no college snaps yet
★★★★☆
Dyzier Carter
#316 national
Profiles like a typical incoming wide receiver — 17 of his 25 closest recruiting profiles since 2018 shared the Possession Receiver archetype.~our read · projection from recruiting profile — no college snaps yet
★★★★☆
Rinaldo Callaway
#379 national
→
Fan confidence in a typical range for this program right now
34th percentile among FBS programs
Fan vs. market↑
34th
Fan percentile
(FBS mood rank)
(FBS mood rank)
4.5
Vegas O/U wins
(11th among FBS)
(11th among FBS)
Fans 23pp more bullish than market implies
Win total consensus · 2 books
Market outlook
Season expectations
Win total2 booksO/U 4.5▲1.5 since Jun 2026
CFP championship#73 in field+40000
Big Ten title#17 in market+25000
Sportsbook consensus · best odds across multiple books · 2026-08-06
Rutgers · Next-Season Outcome Band
Rutgers · Next-Season Outcome BandFloor / Base / Ceiling
Floor 6-7
Base 9-4
Ceiling 11-2
floor6-7Bowl game.
base9-4Bowl game.
ceiling11-2Bowl 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 · Rutgers · Market Confidence
Rutgers's win total dropped 1.5 wins. That's not noise from Vegas — that's a position change.
Rutgers win total fell from 5 to 3.5 (-1.5 wins) between May 2026 and Jun 2026. It is win total down 1.5 from 5.0 to 3.5. The market moved and the room hasn't caught up. Low discourse on a line move usually means the signal hit before the narrative did. Discourse is thin — the market moved faster than the reaction.
The saga so far~5 months old
last weekMessiah Tilson rises on depth chart — Reported
2 weeks agoWin total: 5 → 4.5 (▼0.5)
4 weeks agoAiden Gibson flips to Rutgers — Reported
Jun 19Win total: 3.5 → 5 (▲1.5)
Jun 18Win total: 5 → 3.5 (▼1.5)
CFB Zeitgeist Read · our take
Schiano's sixth season arrives with a 5-7 record and win total dip from 5 to 3.5 — a historic program's reset now faces its first real test.
Next · what to watch
Win total moves are the sharpest signal the market sends in the offseason. They don't reflect fan enthusiasm — they reflect information: roster losses, schedule difficulty, injury reports, and coaching staff changes that haven't hit the beat press yet. One-win adjustments are deliberate, not rounding. Watch whether the line moves again — markets don't stop at one adjustment when the signal changes. The boards are already there — one thread raises exactly this.
Source of record: Rutgers win total fell from 5 to 3.5 (-1.5 wins) between May 2026 and Jun 2026 — win total down 1.5 from 5.0 to 3.5.
How each room is reacting — tap to expand
📣Believers0 bullish/market items -- the case it's working.›
The 'market knows something fans don't' read -- when odds move, it's on information.
“Rutgers Football Legend Marco Battaglia Named to 1990’s Sporting News All-Decade Team”
On the Banks · 2026-08-06 · read ↗
“Rutgers Football Announces Premium Seating Location “Touchdown Terrace””
Yahoo Sports · 2026-08-05 · read ↗
“Wednesday Rutgers football training camp report: A new-look defense is taking shape”
247Sports · 2026-08-05 · read ↗
🧐SkepticsNo prominent dissent — the coverage runs one way.›
The 'markets overcorrect' counter -- lines move on noise too; the receipts may not hold.
Nothing in our corpus yet — this door stays open for when there is.
💬The boards20% of recent board volume — the fanbase is locked in. Board mood this week: mostly neutral · anger notable (27%).›
This event was in 318 of 1614 board posts (20%) over the last 60 days — a fanbase consumed by it. Fan text shown verbatim, attributed to the community not the individual poster.
"This is my 1st math class at rutgers. I already have experience with calc 1,2,3 but which professor would be the best as a first timer in college this fall semester. 01:640:250 Sof"
r/rutgers ~ fan take
"hi!! is anyone studying abroad this winter 2026-27? i recently transferred to rutgers and winter is really the only time i have to study abroad with my crazy schedule. would love t"
r/rutgers ~ fan take
Board health this week (416 posts): 8% positive · 79% neutral · 13% negative. Team-level weekly mood — not specific to this event. The boards ≠ the fanbase: a self-selected vocal slice.
Following now · Rutgers · Season outlook Confidence
Rutgers's numbers fell sharply. The model sees a program under real pressure.
Rutgers enters 2025 rated No. 72 in SP+ (+1.0), down 30 spots from 2024. SP+ reflects three years of tape; a drop this steep is structural, not noise. The recovery window is open but the room knows it. The coverage is thin. Quiet preseasons end two ways.
The saga so far~5 months old
last weekMessiah Tilson rises on depth chart — Reported
2 weeks agoWin total: 5 → 4.5 (▼0.5)
4 weeks agoAiden Gibson flips to Rutgers — Reported
Jun 19Win total: 3.5 → 5 (▲1.5)
Jun 18Win total: 5 → 3.5 (▼1.5)
CFB Zeitgeist Read · our take
Rutgers collapsed 30 spots in SP+ — the steepest drop in the Big Ten this cycle, and Schiano's job is to prove it's not structural with just 5-7 production returning.
Next · what to watch
The non-obvious consequence of a steep fall isn't one bad year — it's the recruiting and portal feedback loop. A 'they're down' narrative accelerates the attrition that drove the decline. Watch whether the model holds through the first month of the schedule. The boards are already there — one thread raises exactly this.
Source of record: Rutgers enters 2025 rated No. 72 in SP+ (+1.0), down 30 spots from 2024.
How each room is reacting — tap to expand
📣Believers0 bullish items -- the case it's working.›
The 'the projection is underselling us' read -- fans betting the season beats the preview number.
“Rutgers Football Legend Marco Battaglia Named to 1990’s Sporting News All-Decade Team”
On the Banks · 2026-08-06 · read ↗
“Rutgers Football Announces Premium Seating Location “Touchdown Terrace””
Yahoo Sports · 2026-08-05 · read ↗
“Wednesday Rutgers football training camp report: A new-look defense is taking shape”
247Sports · 2026-08-05 · read ↗
🧐SkepticsNo prominent dissent — the coverage runs one way.›
The 'the model has seen the tape' counter -- efficiency ratings reward what a program has actually done, not hope.
Nothing in our corpus yet — this door stays open for when there is.
💬The boards20% of recent board volume — the fanbase is locked in. Board mood this week: mostly neutral · anger notable (27%).›
This event was in 318 of 1614 board posts (20%) over the last 60 days — a fanbase consumed by it. Fan text shown verbatim, attributed to the community not the individual poster.
"This is my 1st math class at rutgers. I already have experience with calc 1,2,3 but which professor would be the best as a first timer in college this fall semester. 01:640:250 Sof"
r/rutgers ~ fan take
"hi!! is anyone studying abroad this winter 2026-27? i recently transferred to rutgers and winter is really the only time i have to study abroad with my crazy schedule. would love t"
r/rutgers ~ fan take
Board health this week (416 posts): 8% positive · 79% neutral · 13% negative. Team-level weekly mood — not specific to this event. The boards ≠ the fanbase: a self-selected vocal slice.
Recent Form · last 10 games
Cooling
Two of five. Schedule has caught up.
Streak L2Last 5 · 2-3Last 10 · 3-7
The forecast
Opens Sep 3
vs Massachusetts · at home
Season line4.5 winsover -160
StrongMethodical, ball-controlPoor
✓ fact on line · ~ our read on style
Rival pulse
Maryland
Bullish+31
Maryland-Rutgers
Fan mood index · most recent r/cfb data
Recruiting Footprint · 2026
Recruiting Footprint · 2026
26
PA · 5FL · 4VA · 3GA · 2NC · 2NJ · 2OH · 2AZ · 1+5 more
PA leads the 2026 class with 5 commits. National footprint reaching 13 states.
Where they recruit · 2023-2026
102 signees across 20 states, 2023-2026. FL leads the pull.
r/cfb this year
[Postgame Thread] Rutgers Defeats Norfolk State 60-10
Top community posts · last 12 months · r/cfb
National spotlight
11 games with TV coverage: 3 national broadcast, 2 cable, 6 conference network
Kickoff windows: 4 noon, 5 afternoon, 2 primetime
Fumble luck
The bounces haven't gone their way on their own fumbles: 43% recovered, vs. ~51% expected.
3 of 7 own fumbles recovered themselves; 6 of 11 forced fumbles recovered, 2025 only.
Takeaway conversion
Cashing in at a normal clip: 18% of disrupted passes intercepted, close to ~19% league-wide.
5 interceptions of 28 disrupted passes (23 deflected, 5 intercepted), 2025 only.
Penalty battle
The flags have favored them: 59 penalties drawn on opponents vs. 49 committed, 164 yards to the good.
391 penalty yards committed vs. 555 drawn on opponents, 2025 season total.
The Pulse on Rutgers
51
Δ -1.5 vs last wk
401
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
"Birthplace of CFB"
— Rutgers fanbase · recurring line
Fanbase Signals
Cohort Divergence1 pctSpread between sub-fanbase cohorts in the Pulse window.
The Fever Year
Position = mood · width = volume · color = the kind of feeling
Inside the fanbase — all 12 corners
Cr/CFB
GGoogle News
OOn The Banks
CCampus paper
BBluesky
YYouTube
One voice
+0.00whole-room sentiment · cool our read
Every cohort from the die-hards to the analytics crowd lands within 0.02 of each other — a rare consensus. The loudest voice in the room:
OOn The BanksBeat · article
Wisconsin Coach Luke Fickell: another hot seat opponent
onthebanks.com →How Rutgers 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.
The room, end to end
skeptical
buying in
Media−0.04
Bettors−0.06
Cohort sentiment is a source-weighted model read — never a quote pinned to a person.
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.
1240 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 readRutgers fans are leaning negative, with a bit less hard evidence than most fanbases.
backed by facts
the mood
✓ counted We read 416 posts from Rutgers fans this week.
What fans are saying
Fan claims · every quote verified verbatim
program directionWidely held among fans that season
fans believe the team is stuck in mediocrity
Dude is like the ultimate example of P5 college football purgatory: will probably never get the team to the next level of achievement, but has done too well to easily justify firing.
Our famously defensive oriented coach had one of the worst defenses of his career this year, possibly THE worst. You get the 2023 defense with this year's offense and we're probably 9-3.
Based on 2 comments from 2 posters across 2 threads · Aug 29, 2025–Nov 30, 2025 · via CFB
program directionLimited signal that season
fans believe the offense must score more points than usual to win
i don't even know how much they can do about it at this point. we're going to need the offense to help keep us in games if we want to find 3 more wins this year.
we're going to need the offense to help keep us in games if we want to find 3 more wins this year.
Based on 2 comments from 1 poster across 1 thread · Sep 13, 2025 · via CFB
Show all 3
program directionWidely held among fans
fans believe Greg Schiano has made changes to the coaching staff
Rutgers' Greg Schiano calls his 5-7 unacceptable last season, and feels he's fixed it. Says the emphasis is on better ball security and forcing turnovers, cites the hiring of new DC Travis Johansen.
Based on 1 comment across 1 thread · Jul 28, 2026
Season storylines
Week 1
“See, if they lost I could've stopped caring about this season. But now I have to deal with 11 more weeks of this.”— r/CFB
Week 9
“This game was a Sickos masterpiece. I'd say to hang it in the Louvre but it would just get stolen. Hugh Freeze get ready to learn multimillion dollar buyout”— r/CFB
Week 2
“Sorry, Vols fans. As a Bills fan I know that feeling of: 1. Missing a game winning kick wide right 2. Unable to beat a particular red opponent when it counts”— r/CFB
Week 5
“ODU-JMU will be the de facto Sun Belt title game. I will be shocked if anyone besides those two teams wins the conference.”— r/CFB
Week 7
“I don't have any extra couches laying around but if we win I'll burn some of the brush around my property tomorrow in your honor.”— r/CFB
Five Lenses
What people are saying right now
Radio, beat writers & editorial16 posts
The broader fanbase6 posts
News & campus coverage12 posts
CFB analyst takes2 posts
Rent free · r/cfb fan posts, last season
Rutgers fans this offseason 7% of posts bring up another team▼1pp quieter#39 of 43 saltiest · mostly about Penn State
Who Rutgers fans can’t stop bringing up
share of Rutgers’s football posts that mention each team
Fanbase Health Index · Rutgers · high confidence
Fanbase Health Index · Rutgers · high confidenceGrowing (62)
DecliningStableGrowingSurging
On-Field — 5-7 (42% win rate)50
Volume — 3171 effective signal-N100
Cohort Engagement — Divergence 0.01 — quiet35
The Lexicon
426 posts and articles vs the field · 2025 season
schiano
×318.8 the field
Signature — ≥10× the rest of college football
schiano×318.8n=25
Characteristic — 3–10×
defense×4.0n=156
greg×57.1n=16
Mild — <3×
offense×2.3n=65
stop×3.8n=11
special×3.2n=13
looks×3.0n=14
start×2.7n=12
nil×2.3n=15
defensive×2.3n=13
“Jeez, I'm not used to a crap defense from Schiano.”
reddit/CFB · fan post, verbatim
Fanbase Voice
320 fan mentions
Measured
vs the 81 highest-volume fanbases - 2025 season
Key stats — 2025 — FBS rank
Points/game#55 / 138 · 61st pct28.7
Pts allowed/game#118 / 138 · 15th pct31.8
Total yards/gm#66 / 136 · 52nd pct407.6
Rush yards/gm#91 / 136 · 34th pct141.5
Pass yards/gm#46 / 136 · 67th pct266.1
Yards allowed/gm#108 / 136 · 21st pct434.0
Rush yds allowed/gm#128 / 136 · 7th pct211.1
Sacks#135 / 136 · 1st pct11
Interceptions#117 / 136 · 15th pct5
3rd-down conv#41 / 136 · 71st pct42.5%
All 98 stats
Offense / Defense
Total yards
Team4891407.6/gm5.80/play#66 / 136 · 52nd pct#39 / 69 · 45th pct#7 / 18 · 67th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
Opp5208434.0/gm7.68/play#108 / 136 · 21st pct#63 / 69 · 10th pct#18 / 18 · 6th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Rush yards
Team1698141.5/gm2.01/play#91 / 136 · 34th pct#48 / 69 · 32nd pct#12 / 18 · 39th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Opp2533211.1/gm3.74/play#128 / 136 · 7th pct#67 / 69 · 4th pct#18 / 18 · 6th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Rush carries
Team46538.8/gm#58 / 136 · 58th pct#23 / 69 · 68th pct#7 / 18 · 67th pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Opp36630.5/gm#2 / 136 · 99th pct#1 / 69 · 100th pct#1 / 18 · 100th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Rush TDs
Team191.6/gm#76 / 136 · 45th pct#43 / 69 · 39th pct#11 / 18 · 44th pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Opp252.1/gm#105 / 136 · 24th pct#60 / 69 · 14th pct#15 / 18 · 22nd pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Net pass yards
Team3193266.1/gm3.79/play#46 / 136 · 67th pct#26 / 69 · 64th pct#5 / 18 · 78th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Opp2675222.9/gm3.95/play#54 / 136 · 61st pct#29 / 69 · 59th pct#9 / 18 · 56th pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Pass attempts
Team37831.5/gm#82 / 136 · 40th pct#41 / 69 · 42nd pct#8 / 18 · 61st pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
Opp31226.0/gm#6 / 136 · 96th pct#2 / 69 · 99th pct#2 / 18 · 94th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
Completions
Team23419.5/gm#77 / 136 · 44th pct#42 / 69 · 41st pct#12 / 18 · 39th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Opp20417.0/gm#18 / 136 · 88th pct#6 / 69 · 93rd pct#3 / 18 · 89th pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Pass TDs
Team221.8/gm#48 / 136 · 65th pct#30 / 69 · 58th pct#8 / 18 · 61st pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Opp231.9/gm#107 / 136 · 22nd pct#57 / 69 · 19th pct#15 / 18 · 22nd pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Passer rating
Team149.4149.4#25 / 136 · 82nd pct#18 / 69 · 75th pct#8 / 18 · 61st pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Opp157.2157.2#131 / 136 · 4th pct#68 / 69 · 3rd pct#18 / 18 · 6th pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct
Interceptions thrown
Team70.6/gm#97 / 136 · 29th pct#47 / 69 · 33rd pct#11 / 18 · 44th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Opp50.4/gm#15 / 136 · 90th pct#10 / 69 · 87th pct#3 / 18 · 89th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Sacks (def)
Team110.9/gm#135 / 136 · 1st pct#68 / 69 · 3rd pct#17 / 18 · 11th pct#10 / 10 · 10th pct
Opp383.2/gm#126 / 136 · 8th pct#63 / 69 · 10th pct#18 / 18 · 6th pct#10 / 10 · 10th pct
Tackles for loss
Team473.9/gm#129 / 136 · 6th pct#67 / 69 · 4th pct#17 / 18 · 11th pct#10 / 10 · 10th pct
Opp695.8/gm#75 / 136 · 46th pct#39 / 69 · 45th pct#15 / 18 · 22nd pct#5 / 10 · 60th pct
First downs
Team27923.2/gm#45 / 136 · 68th pct#26 / 69 · 64th pct#6 / 18 · 72nd pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Opp24920.8/gm#63 / 136 · 54th pct#37 / 69 · 48th pct#13 / 18 · 33rd pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
3rd-down conv
Team685.7/gm#72 / 136 · 48th pct#36 / 69 · 49th pct#11 / 18 · 44th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Opp463.8/gm#2 / 136 · 99th pct#2 / 69 · 99th pct#1 / 18 · 100th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
3rd-down att
Team16013.3/gm#110 / 136 · 20th pct#49 / 69 · 30th pct#10 / 18 · 50th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Opp1149.5/gm#1 / 136 · 100th pct#1 / 69 · 100th pct#1 / 18 · 100th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
4th-down conv
Team211.8/gm#10 / 136 · 93rd pct#4 / 69 · 96th pct#1 / 18 · 100th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Opp110.9/gm#32 / 136 · 77th pct#14 / 69 · 81st pct#6 / 18 · 72nd pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
4th-down att
Team342.8/gm#21 / 136 · 85th pct#8 / 69 · 90th pct#1 / 18 · 100th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Opp151.2/gm#1 / 136 · 100th pct#1 / 69 · 100th pct#1 / 18 · 100th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Time of possession
Team390:2232:32/gm#56 / 136 · 60th pct#27 / 69 · 62nd pct#8 / 18 · 61st pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Opp329:3827:28/gm#2 / 136 · 99th pct#1 / 69 · 100th pct#1 / 18 · 100th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Kicking & Punting
Field goals#107 / 135 · 21st pct13/19 (68.4%)
Extra points39/41
Punting#49 / 136 · 65th pct44.2 avg · 33 punts
Turnovers & special teams
Turnovers
Team110.9/gm#121 / 136 · 12th pct#59 / 69 · 16th pct#12 / 18 · 39th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
Opp110.9/gm#22 / 136 · 85th pct#12 / 69 · 84th pct#5 / 18 · 78th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Fumbles lost
Team40.3/gm#112 / 136 · 18th pct#53 / 69 · 25th pct#12 / 18 · 39th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Opp60.5/gm#49 / 136 · 65th pct#23 / 69 · 68th pct#7 / 18 · 67th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
INT return TDs
Team00.0/gm#76 / 135 · 44th pct#39 / 69 · 45th pct#9 / 18 · 56th pct#7 / 11 · 45th pct
Opp00.0/gm#1 / 136 · 100th pct#1 / 69 · 100th pct#1 / 18 · 100th pct#1 / 11 · 100th pct
INT return yards
Team1089.0/gm#74 / 136 · 46th pct#37 / 69 · 48th pct#8 / 18 · 61st pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Opp252.1/gm#10 / 136 · 93rd pct#5 / 69 · 94th pct#1 / 18 · 100th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Punt ret yds
Team917.6/gm#97 / 136 · 29th pct#55 / 69 · 22nd pct#13 / 18 · 33rd pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Opp594.9/gm#24 / 136 · 83rd pct#17 / 69 · 77th pct#5 / 18 · 78th pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Punt ret TDs
Team30.2/gm#1 / 135 · 100th pct#1 / 69 · 100th pct#1 / 18 · 100th pct#1 / 11 · 100th pct
Opp00.0/gm#1 / 135 · 100th pct#1 / 69 · 100th pct#1 / 18 · 100th pct#1 / 9 · 100th pct
Kick ret yds
Team18915.8/gm#128 / 136 · 7th pct#66 / 69 · 6th pct#18 / 18 · 6th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Opp46738.9/gm#82 / 136 · 40th pct#50 / 69 · 29th pct#14 / 18 · 28th pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Kick ret TDs
Team00.0/gm#40 / 136 · 71st pct#17 / 69 · 77th pct#6 / 18 · 72nd pct#4 / 9 · 67th pct
Opp10.1/gm#97 / 135 · 29th pct#53 / 69 · 25th pct#11 / 18 · 44th pct#6 / 10 · 50th pct
Penalty yards
Team39132.6/gm#133 / 136 · 3rd pct#68 / 69 · 3rd pct#17 / 18 · 11th pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct
Opp55546.2/gm#27 / 136 · 81st pct#15 / 69 · 80th pct#10 / 18 · 50th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
Other
Punt ret (opp)#4 / 136 · 98th pct#4 / 69 · 96th pct#2 / 18 · 94th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct50.4/gm
Fourth down go rate#10 / 138 · 93rd pct#4 / 69 · 96th pct#1 / 18 · 100th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct0.50.0/gm
Fumbles rec (def)#13 / 136 · 91st pct#9 / 69 · 88th pct#5 / 18 · 78th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct40.3/gm
Penalties (opp)#15 / 136 · 90th pct#10 / 69 · 87th pct#7 / 18 · 67th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct594.9/gm
Passes intercepted opponent#23 / 136 · 84th pct#11 / 69 · 86th pct#3 / 18 · 89th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct70.6/gm
Recruiting rating#33 / 138 · 77th pct#33 / 69 · 54th pct#10 / 18 · 50th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct218.618.2/gm
H2 epa per play#34 / 142 · 77th pct#21 / 69 · 71st pct#6 / 18 · 72nd pct0.20.0/gm
Red zone pass rate#43 / 154 · 73rd pct#16 / 69 · 78th pct#5 / 18 · 78th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct0.40.0/gm
Fumbles recovered#49 / 136 · 65th pct#19 / 69 · 74th pct#4 / 18 · 83rd pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct70.6/gm
H1 epa per play#56 / 162 · 66th pct#40 / 69 · 43rd pct#9 / 18 · 56th pct0.20.0/gm
First down pass rate#74 / 215 · 66th pct#24 / 69 · 67th pct#7 / 18 · 67th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct0.50.0/gm
Kick ret (opp)#92 / 136 · 33rd pct#54 / 69 · 23rd pct#13 / 18 · 33rd pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct252.1/gm
Interceptions (def)#117 / 136 · 15th pct#57 / 69 · 19th pct#14 / 18 · 28th pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct50.4/gm
Kick returns#118 / 136 · 14th pct#56 / 69 · 20th pct#14 / 18 · 28th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct110.9/gm
Penalties#130 / 136 · 5th pct#65 / 69 · 7th pct#15 / 18 · 22nd pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct494.1/gm
Punt returns#132 / 136 · 4th pct#69 / 69 · 1st pct#18 / 18 · 6th pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct60.5/gm
H2 epa per play opponent#139 / 143 · 4th pct#69 / 69 · 1st pct#18 / 18 · 6th pct0.40.0/gm
H1 epa per play opponent#150 / 167 · 11th pct#69 / 69 · 1st pct#18 / 18 · 6th pct0.30.0/gm
Situational
3rd-down conversion
Off42.5%#41 / 136 · 71st pct#26 / 69 · 64th pct#11 / 18 · 44th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Def40.4%#84 / 136 · 39th pct#44 / 69 · 38th pct#10 / 18 · 50th pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
4th-down conversion
Off61.8%#30 / 136 · 79th pct#20 / 69 · 72nd pct#5 / 18 · 78th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Def73.3%#130 / 136 · 5th pct#67 / 69 · 4th pct#18 / 18 · 6th pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct
Turnover margin#72 / 136 · 48th pct#40 / 69 · 43rd pct#13 / 18 · 33rd pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct+0.00/gm
Sack rate (def)#131 / 136 · 4th pct#66 / 69 · 6th pct#17 / 18 · 11th pct#10 / 10 · 10th pct3.5%
Red Zone & Drive Efficiency (2014– , play-by-play derived)
Red zone trips
Team564.7/gm#16 / 167 · 91st pct#11 / 69 · 86th pct#4 / 18 · 83rd pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Opp544.5/gm#157 / 166 · 6th pct#68 / 69 · 3rd pct#18 / 18 · 6th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Red zone score %
Team71.4%71.4%#123 / 167 · 27th pct#63 / 69 · 10th pct#16 / 18 · 17th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
Opp77.8%77.8%#75 / 166 · 55th pct#34 / 69 · 52nd pct#10 / 18 · 50th pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Points / drive
Team2.40.2/gm#36 / 167 · 79th pct#27 / 69 · 62nd pct#8 / 18 · 61st pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Opp2.70.2/gm#139 / 166 · 17th pct#68 / 69 · 3rd pct#18 / 18 · 6th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Yards / drive
Team48.74.1/gm#13 / 167 · 93rd pct#10 / 69 · 87th pct#4 / 18 · 83rd pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Opp47.54.0/gm#150 / 166 · 10th pct#66 / 69 · 6th pct#18 / 18 · 6th pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct
Plays / drive
Team7.60.6/gm#5 / 167 · 98th pct#1 / 69 · 100th pct#1 / 18 · 100th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Opp6.20.5/gm#33 / 166 · 81st pct#10 / 69 · 87th pct#2 / 18 · 94th pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Three-and-out rate
Team16.7%16.7%#119 / 167 · 29th pct#57 / 69 · 19th pct#15 / 18 · 22nd pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct
Opp10.9%10.9%#122 / 166 · 27th pct#60 / 69 · 14th pct#15 / 18 · 22nd pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Scheme Identity (2014– , play-by-play derived)
Rush rate over expected#89 / 145 · 39th pct#39 / 69 · 45th pct#11 / 18 · 44th pct-2.3%-2.3%
Havoc rate
Team12.6%12.6%#125 / 140 · 11th pct#66 / 69 · 6th pct#17 / 18 · 11th pct
Opp16.1%16.1%#88 / 140 · 38th pct#44 / 69 · 38th pct#15 / 18 · 22nd pct
Standard-downs success
Team51.0%51.0%#44 / 154 · 72nd pct#30 / 69 · 58th pct#11 / 18 · 44th pct
Opp54.9%54.9%#148 / 172 · 15th pct#67 / 69 · 4th pct#16 / 18 · 17th pct
Passing-downs success
Team36.4%36.4%#22 / 153 · 86th pct#16 / 69 · 78th pct#9 / 18 · 56th pct
Opp34.5%34.5%#122 / 149 · 19th pct#59 / 69 · 16th pct#12 / 18 · 39th pct
Line yards / carry
Team3.03.0#58 / 143 · 60th pct#32 / 69 · 55th pct#10 / 18 · 50th pct
Opp3.33.3#124 / 155 · 21st pct#62 / 69 · 12th pct#15 / 18 · 22nd pct
Stuff rate
Team15.6%15.6%#29 / 143 · 80th pct#16 / 69 · 78th pct#7 / 18 · 67th pct
Opp18.4%18.4%#78 / 155 · 50th pct#42 / 69 · 41st pct#6 / 18 · 72nd pct
Power success rate
Team73.3%73.3%#50 / 137 · 64th pct#28 / 69 · 61st pct#7 / 18 · 67th pct
Opp67.7%67.7%#54 / 141 · 62nd pct#26 / 69 · 64th pct#7 / 18 · 67th pct
Efficiency
Completion %
Off61.9%#69 / 136 · 50th pct#44 / 69 · 38th pct#13 / 18 · 33rd pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Def65.4%#112 / 136 · 18th pct#56 / 69 · 20th pct#13 / 18 · 33rd pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
Yards / attempt
Off8.4#19 / 136 · 87th pct#12 / 69 · 84th pct#6 / 18 · 72nd pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Def8.6#130 / 136 · 5th pct#67 / 69 · 4th pct#17 / 18 · 11th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
Yards / completion
Off13.6#13 / 136 · 91st pct#6 / 69 · 93rd pct#2 / 18 · 94th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Def13.1#126 / 136 · 8th pct#65 / 69 · 7th pct#17 / 18 · 11th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Yards / carry#113 / 136 · 18th pct#56 / 69 · 20th pct#16 / 18 · 17th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct3.7
Yards / play#60 / 136 · 57th pct#36 / 69 · 49th pct#9 / 18 · 56th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct5.80
Scoring margin#95 / 136 · 31st pct#56 / 69 · 20th pct#14 / 18 · 28th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct-3.2/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% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vertical Passer · +0.28 EPA/play | 16 | 12 | 229 / 368 | 62.2 | 3124 #29 FBS | 8.5 | 20 #42 FBS | 7 | 147.7 | 59.9 | 7.5 | 8.5 | |
Yards by week → Vertical PasserElite arm talent, pushing downfield. Completion rate is the variable. Impact starter — above-average production for the conference. 9 of 183 QBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Yards / attempt9.4 92th percentile · FBS QBs, min. 80 attempts Rush yards / carry-0.3 bottom 18th percentile · FBS QBs, min. 80 attempts Trait fingerprint Plays like View Athan Kaliakmanis's full player page | |||||||||||||
Running Backs
| Player | # | G | Car | Yds | Avg | TD | Long | 3rd Dn Use | Pass Dn Use | Stuff% | 10+% | Tgt Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Balanced Back · +0.23 EPA/play | 3 | 12 | 244 | 1241 #14 FBS | 5.1 | 13 #25 FBS | 51 | 22.7 | 17.5 | 16.0 | 14.0 | 6.9% (25/361) | |
Yards by week → Balanced BackPlays within the scheme — consistent production without a dominant dimension. All-Conference honorable mention / 2nd team — the recognition has started. 186 of 349 RBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Yards / carry5.9 65th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Yards / reception12.5 93th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Trait fingerprint Plays like our readBreakout: his CFB Index score now sits at the 98th percentile among FBS RBs, up from the 47th | |||||||||||||
| Balanced Back · +0.10 EPA/play | 20 | 10 | 68 | 328 | 4.8 | 2 | 19 | 8.7 | 7.3 | 7.2 | 13.0 | — | |
Yards by week → Balanced BackPlays within the scheme — consistent production without a dominant dimension. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. The most common profile in its group this season — 186 of 349 classified this way. Played in 10 of 21 games this season · junior · 3-star, 2023 class View Ja'shon Benjamin's full player page | |||||||||||||
| +0.18 EPA/play | 5 | 3 | 22 | 119 | 5.4 | 0 | 22 | 0 | 4.8 | — | — | — | |
Yards by week → | |||||||||||||
Receivers
| Player | # | G | Rec | Yds | Avg | TD | Long | 3rd Dn Use | Pass Dn Use | Tgt Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deep Threat · +0.76 EPA/play | 8 | 12 | 60 | 1084 #10 FBS | 18.1 | 7 #38 FBS | 72 | 9.3 | 15.8 | 26.3% (95/361) | |
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 / reception18.2 90th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions Reception volume60 92th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions Trait fingerprint Plays like our readBreakout: his CFB Index score climbed from the 51st percentile to the 97th among FBS WRs | |||||||||||
| Possession Receiver · +0.57 EPA/play | 9 | 10 | 52 | 762 | 14.7 | 5 | 45 | 11.8 | 15.2 | 22.4% (81/361) | |
Yards by week → Possession ReceiverReliable target who converts on critical downs. Not flashy; consistently productive. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. 332 of 558 WRs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Yards / reception15.8 74th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions Reception volume52 83th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions Trait fingerprint Plays like View Ian Strong's full player page | |||||||||||
| Possession Receiver · +0.58 EPA/play | — | 12 | 44 | 577 | 13.1 | 5 | 54 | 11.3 | 12 | 19.7% (71/361) | |
Yards by week → Possession ReceiverReliable target who converts on critical downs. Not flashy; consistently productive. The most common profile in its group this season — 332 of 558 classified this way. Played in 12 of 21 games this season · senior View DT Sheffield's full player page | |||||||||||
| Complete TE · +0.36 EPA/play | 12 | 11 | 26 | 236 | 9.1 | 0 | 39 | 5.3 | 5.3 | 10.5% (38/361) | |
Yards by week → Complete TENo single go-to route — the receiving numbers show up inline and split out alike. 177 of 223 TEs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Yards / reception13.3 73th percentile · FBS TEs, min. 8 receptions TD rate0.0% bottom 10th percentile · FBS TEs, min. 8 receptions Trait fingerprint Plays like View Kenny Fletcher's full player page | |||||||||||
| +0.42 EPA/play | 2 | 10 | 8 | 119 | 14.9 | 1 | 37 | 5.1 | 6.1 | 4.7% (17/361) | |
Yards by week → | |||||||||||
| Complete TE · +0.08 EPA/play | 18 | 9 | 17 | 102 | 6 | 0 | 12 | 2.4 | 4.4 | 6.1% (22/361) | |
Yards by week → Complete TENo single go-to route — the receiving numbers show up inline and split out alike. 177 of 223 TEs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Yards / reception6.7 bottom 10th percentile · FBS TEs, min. 8 receptions EPA / play (adj)0.1 bottom 10th percentile · FBS TEs, min. 8 receptions Trait fingerprint Plays like View Colin Weber's full player page | |||||||||||
Defensive Line
| Player | # | G | Tot | Solo | TFL | Sack | Hur |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3-Tech Penetrator | 99 | 12 | 37 | 16 | 10 | 2.5 | 10 |
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 rate27.0% 90th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like our readFading: his CFB Index score moved from the 100th to 77th percentile among FBS IDLs | |||||||
| 3-Tech Penetrator | 94 | 12 | 28 | 9 | 7 | 2.5 | 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 rate25.0% 86th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like our readFading: his CFB Index score went from the 98th percentile among FBS IDLs to the 72nd | |||||||
| Two-Gap Base | 14 | 11 | 25 | 13 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
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 11 of 21 games this season · senior · 3-star, 2021 class View Jordan Thompson's full player page | |||||||
| Two-Gap Base | 1 | 11 | 25 | 12 | 2.5 | 1 | 3 |
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 11 of 21 games this season · senior View Jordan Walker's full player page | |||||||
| Two-Gap Base | 55 | 9 | 14 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
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 rate0.0% bottom 6th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like our readAscending: his CFB Index score moved from the 14th to 26th percentile among FBS IDLs | |||||||
| Two-Gap Base | 96 | 9 | 12 | 8 | 1.5 | 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 · senior · 3-star, 2021 class View Keshon Griffin's full player page | |||||||
| 92 | 4 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| 90 | 8 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | |
| 97 | 5 | 6 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | |
| 91 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Linebackers
| Player | # | G | Tot | Solo | Ast | TFL | Sack | PD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Balanced Linebacker | 8 | 12 | 67 | 33 | 34 | 5.5 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
Balanced LinebackerSolid in every phase without a signature dimension. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. The most common profile in its group this season — 362 of 660 classified this way. Played in 12 of 21 games this season · senior · 3-star, 2022 class View Dariel Djabome's full player page | |||||||||
| Balanced Linebacker | 6 | 11 | 53 | 26 | 27 | 0.5 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Balanced LinebackerSolid in every phase without a signature dimension. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. The most common profile in its group this season — 362 of 660 classified this way. Played in 11 of 21 games this season · junior · 3-star, 2023 class View Abram Wright's full player page | |||||||||
| Coverage 'Backer | 2 | 4 | 17 | 7 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Coverage 'BackerCarries tight ends and patrols the middle of the field in coverage. 99 of 660 LBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt PD rate5.9% 88th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Tackle volume17 bottom 12th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Trait fingerprint Plays like View Moses Walker's full player page | |||||||||
| 4 | 6 | 12 | 5 | 7 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 13 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Defensive Backs
| Player | # | G | Tot | PD | INT | TFL | Sack |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Box Safety | 9 | 12 | 77 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 |
Box Safety· Takeaway threatLives near the line of scrimmage as a de facto extra linebacker. the kind of DB who takes it back the other way Impact starter — above-average production for the conference. 166 of 801 Ss we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Tackle volume77 95th percentile · FBS safeties, min. 15 tackles Plays like View Jett Elad's full player page | |||||||
| Box Safety | 5 | 12 | 64 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 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 volume64 85th percentile · FBS safeties, min. 15 tackles Plays like View Kaj Sanders's full player page | |||||||
| Hybrid Nickel | 3 | 12 | 48 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
Hybrid Nickel· Takeaway threatMoves between deep coverage and the slot — the modern positionless DB. the kind of DB who takes it back the other way Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. The most common profile in its group this season — 419 of 801 classified this way. Played in 12 of 21 games this season · junior · 3-star, 2023 class View Bo Mascoe's full player page | |||||||
| Hybrid Nickel | 7 | 12 | 43 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
Hybrid NickelMoves between deep coverage and the slot — the modern positionless DB. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. 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 readBounce-Back: his CFB Index score shows a real arc: 55th percentile among FBS Ss, fell to 10th, now back up to 72nd | |||||||
| Hybrid Nickel | 10 | 12 | 39 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
Hybrid NickelMoves between deep coverage and the slot — the modern positionless DB. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. 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 readFading: his CFB Index score moved from the 88th to 30th percentile among FBS Ss | |||||||
| 21 | 6 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 20 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 16 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 24 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 38 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Kicking
| Player | # | G | FG M/A | FG% | XP M/A | Pts | Long |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steady | 44 | 12 | 13/18 | 72.2 | 37/39 | 76 | 51 |
| 29 | 2 | 0/1 | 0 | 2/2 | 2 | 0 |
Punting
| Player | # | G | No | Yds | Avg | Long | In20 | TB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steady | 94 | 11 | 33 | 1460 | 44.2 | 68 | 10 | 1 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| +0.42 EPA/play | 2 | 10 | 7 | 125 | 17.9 | 0 | 29 |
2025 stat leaders
final
2025 stat leaders
1.
KJ Duff
WR
1,084 yds (rec)
2.
Antwan Raymond
RB
1,241 yds (rush)
3.
Jett Elad
DB
77.0 tot (def)
4.
Dariel Djabome
LB
67.0 tot (def)
5.
Kaj Sanders
DB
64.0 tot (def)
Roster
2025
19
players carry a qualified CFB Index Score this season.
Antwan Raymond
RB
#9 of 326
KJ Duff
WR
#19 of 485
Jett Elad
S
#92 of 544
Ian Strong
WR
#87 of 485
Athan Kaliakmanis
QB
#36 of 146
DT Sheffield
WR
#148 of 485
+13 more
Rutgers · 2025 schedule & results5-7Brutal slateAverage opponent win rate 56% · 5 AP top-25 opponents on the schedule.
| Wk | Date | Us | Opp | Line | Opponent | Result | Record | Conf |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Aug 28 | #66 | #61 | -15.5 | Ohio | W 34–31 122 | 1-0 | 0-0 |
| 2 | Sep 6 | #64 | #32 | -15.5 | Miami (OH) | W 45–17 122 | 2-0 | 0-0 |
| 3 | Sep 13 | #58 | #246 | -45.5 | Norfolk State | W 60–10 130 | 3-0 | 0-0 |
| 4 | Sep 20 | #62 | #33 | +2 | Iowa | L 28–38 126 | 3-1 | 0-1 |
| 5 | Sep 27 | #57 | #28 | +4 | @Minnesota | L 28–31 133 | 3-2 | 0-2 |
| 7 | Oct 11 | #53 | #28 | +9.5 | @Washington | L 19–38 133 | 3-3 | 0-3 |
| 8 | Oct 18 | #60 | #3 | +18.5 | Oregon | L 10–56 129 | 3-4 | 0-4 |
| 9 | Oct 25 | #85 | #109 | +2.5 | @Purdue | W 27–24 126 | 4-4 | 1-4 |
| 10 | Nov 1 | #81 | #44 | +13 | @Illinois | L 13–35 141 | 4-5 | 1-5 |
| 11 | Nov 8 | #86 | #83 | -1.5 | Maryland | W 35–20 126 | 5-5 | 2-5 |
| 13 | Nov 22 | #84 | #1 | +28.5 | @Ohio State | L 9–42 115 | 5-6 | 2-6 |
| 14 | Nov 29 | #87 | #10 | +14 | Penn State | L 36–40 118 | 5-7 | 2-7 |
Advanced box score (EPA, success rate, explosiveness)▼
| Date | Opp | Result | Yds | TO | TOP | EPA/play | Success% | Explosive% | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 29 | Penn State | L 36–40 | 533 | 1 | 32:24 | +0.286 | 53.0% | 133.8% | One-score loss |
| Nov 22 | @Ohio State | L 9–42 | 147 | 1 | 27:11 | -0.119 | 33.9% | 89.6% | Season-low EPA/play |
| Nov 8 | Maryland | W 35–20 | 485 | 2 | 34:58 | +0.316 | 51.4% | 130.8% | |
| Nov 1 | @Illinois | L 13–35 | 312 | 0 | 27:25 | +0.153 | 42.7% | 126.5% | |
| Oct 25 | @Purdue | W 27–24 | 543 | 1 | 36:58 | +0.242 | 48.7% | 122.8% | One-score win |
| Oct 18 | Oregon | L 10–56 | 202 | 3 | 32:07 | -0.108 | 29.4% | 106.8% | Defense's roughest night |
| Oct 11 | @Washington | L 19–38 | 493 | 1 | 30:12 | +0.104 | 39.0% | 132.7% | |
| Sep 27 | @Minnesota | L 28–31 | 393 | 1 | 31:05 | +0.209 | 50.7% | 121.8% | One-score loss |
| Sep 20 | Iowa | L 28–38 | 400 | 1 | 31:06 | +0.253 | 44.3% | 114.5% | |
| Sep 13 | Norfolk State | W 60–10 | 563 | 0 | 36:05 | +0.460 | 53.1% | 134.8% | Season-high EPA/play |
| Sep 6 | Miami (OH) | W 45–17 | 421 | 0 | 39:06 | +0.274 | 53.2% | 110.6% | Best success rate |
| Aug 28 | Ohio | W 34–31 | 399 | 0 | 31:45 | +0.328 | 50.0% | 118.0% | One-score win |
| Season average (12 games) | 408 | 0.9 | +0.200 | 45.8% | 120.2% | ||||
How They Play · 2025
How They Play · 2025Rutgers fields a strong methodical, ball-control offense behind a porous, 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 Rutgers actually scores
70th percentile quality, 27th 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
Rutgers's 4th-quarter offense, before and after garbage time
Raw Q4 EPA/play ranks 84th percentile in FBS. Strip out snaps taken with a blowout margin and it drops to the 62nd — the correction is the finding, not a footnote.
Standard downs vs. passing downs
Does Rutgers hold up once the down-and-distance turns against them?
71st percentile success on standard downs, 84th 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
Rutgers by half
1st-half offense ranks 66th percentile in FBS; 2nd-half, 77th — competitive snaps only, garbage time excluded from both halves.
Schedule mirage
How much of Rutgers's number is the schedule?
Raw EPA/play through week 21 is 0.20; 69th percentile once opponent strength is stripped out, it's 0.05. The widest gap came in week 1: 0.33 raw vs. 0.03 adjusted.
Rutgers reads strongest in success rate (top 21%) and passing epa (top 26%); the crux lives in rushing epa allowed, where Rutgers 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 · Rutgers
Most Similar Programs · RutgersReads 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 · Rutgers · 2018-present
Strong
38% home win rate vs 31% on the road. margin runs +9.5 better at home. SHI Stadium seats 52,454, averaging 94% full (49,226 attendance, 26 games reported).
Home20-32Away13-28
Positional competition · RB room
The carries are split. The job isn’t.
Antwan Raymond and Ja'shon Benjamin split the carries (245/314 vs 69/314) -- but the job isn't split the same way. Antwan Raymond gets the goal line.
Antwan RaymondJa'shon Benjamin
Carries
the baseline -- every row below is tested against this split, not a flat 50/50
Inside the 5
p = 0.012 -- real, not noise
Q4, leading (competitive)
shared -- dots touch, this room really is a committee here
Targets
shared -- dots touch, this room really is a committee here
Top-5-carry share
concentration alone -- EPA/carry doesn't corroborate, read with caution
See it develop week by week
Inside-the-5 share, week by week (weeks both players actually played the role)
Screened 4 claims, 1 survived, 3 falsified
Positional competition · WR/TE room
The targets are split. The job isn’t.
KJ Duff (WR) and Kenny Fletcher (TE) split the targets (92/130 vs 38/130) -- but the job isn't split the same way.
KJ DuffKenny Fletcher
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
Inside the 10
shared -- dots touch, this room really is a committee here
Garbage-time share
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 4 claims, 0 survived, 4 falsified
What changed
Rutgers’s play-calling, before and after the change
Offense: Sean Gleeson (2020–2022) → Kirk Ciarrocca (2023–2025)
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: Joe Harasymiak (2022–2024) → co-Robb Smith / co-Zach Sparber (2025)
The biggest shift: 1st-down pass rate moved up 11 points. The rest held closer to steady.
1st-down pass rate
Red-zone pass rate
Season by season
How Rutgers’s current staff calls plays, year over year
Offense: Kirk Ciarrocca (2023–2025)
1st-down pass rate
2023: 35% → 2025: 46% · 11-pt range · #60 of 171 · a typical amount
Red-zone pass rate
2023: 36% → 2025: 43% · 7-pt range · #136 of 171 · less than most
4th-down go rate
2023: 37% → 2025: 55% · 18-pt range · #82 of 171 · a typical amount
Defensive identity · pass zones
What this defense gives up, by zone.
On short passes, Rutgers’s defense allows a completion rate below the FBS mean (64.7% vs 65.9% league-wide, shrunk toward the mean for its 100-play sample) — mid-pack, 40 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=100 short-zone plays faced, raw rate 63.0%
Venue texture
62°F average kickoff temp; 8% of games had measurable precipitation; 7 mph average wind.
Based on 76 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
Rutgers's 2014–2025 record is 52-92. The era is still being written; the CFP line is the one the program is arguing for.
All-Time Record
523-599-25
since 1869 · 151 seasons · .455 win rate
HOME
315-232-14
AWAY
187-360-11
NEUTRAL
21-7
1860s
1870s
1880s
1890s
1900s
1910s
1920s
1930s
1940s
1950s
1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000s
2010s
2020s
The program, in full — read the essay
Rutgers played the first college football game in history — November 6, 1869, in New Brunswick, against Princeton. The sport traces itself to that day. The program that started everything is still looking for its first Big Ten title.
The marker on the Rutgers campus notes where the first game was played. Every New Jersey fan knows the date. It is the program's permanent identity: the founder, the one without which none of the rest of it exists. The sport grew up around that origin story and left Rutgers on the margins of it for most of a century — until Greg Schiano arrived, built an 11-2 team in 2006, and briefly made Piscataway must-watch television. Ray Rice ran for 1,794 yards that season. Rutgers rallied from 25-7 down to beat No. 3 Louisville 28-25 and the crowd stormed the field.
Schiano left, came back in 2020, and has been building a second time. The 2025 season went 5-7 (2-7 Big Ten), and the defense collapsed badly enough that Schiano cleared out the defensive staff in the offseason. A bowl bid against Georgia Southern was declined. The patience in Piscataway is not infinite; the Big Ten was supposed to raise the ceiling, and the ceiling has been slow to rise. The internal fracture is honest: one side treasures the 1869 identity and trusts Schiano to finish what he started; the other wants wins the conference actually counts.
What 2026 will answer is whether Schiano's second-era rebuild has enough left to produce a signature Big Ten season. The founder does not need permission to belong in this league. But the league only recognizes results.
How they play
Schiano-ball: physical, defense-first, and culture-obsessed. The program identity is toughness before talent — Schiano's two eras have both been defined by installing a standard of conditioning and program cohesion before chasing stars. Special teams are a genuine priority, not an afterthought. The 2025 defensive collapse is the anomaly that demands correction; the base identity, when it's working, is a Big Ten-caliber unit that makes offensive drives expensive.
Steady
Rutgers 2016–2025. Holding the line. The 10-year slope (+0.15 rungs / yr) doesn't tilt either way — the program lives at roughly Tier 1.
CFP Era · Rutgers
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 · 5-7
Season Standing · 2025 · 5-7FBS sub-.500
Rutgers: Below .500 in FBS play. The rebuild bar.
R0R1R2R3R4R5R6R7R8R9
Sub-FBSBuildingBowlRankedContenderPlayoff
Big Ten Standing · 2025
14th in the Big Ten
Rutgers is 14th of 18 in the Big Ten at 2-7. The path to the title is steep — the focus is on bowl access and rivalry wins.
| # | Program | Record |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Indiana | 11-0 |
| 2 | Ohio State | 9-1 |
| 3 | Oregon | 8-2 |
| 4 | Michigan | 7-2 |
| 5 | USC | 7-2 |
| 6 | Iowa | 6-3 |
| 7 | Illinois | 5-4 |
| 8 | Minnesota | 5-4 |
| 9 | Washington | 5-4 |
| 10 | Nebraska | 4-5 |
| 11 | Northwestern | 4-5 |
| 12 | Penn State | 3-6 |
| 13 | UCLA | 3-6 |
| 14 | Rutgers | 2-7 |
| 15 | Wisconsin | 2-7 |
| 16 | Maryland | 1-8 |
| 17 | Michigan State | 1-8 |
| 18 | Purdue | 0-9 |
Coaching Era · Rutgers
Coaching Era · RutgersGreg Schiano
Greg Schiano has held the program for 7 seasons — the era is established.
Era Greg Schiano · 2020–presentPrev: Chris Ash (2016–2017)OC: Kirk CiarroccaPrev OC: Sean Gleeson (2020–2022)DC: Travis JohansenPrev DC: co-Robb Smith / co-Zach Sparber (2025)
7
years · era
Rituals
Three gameday rituals — the ones outsiders never quite catch.
First College Football Game (Nov 6, 1869)
since 1869
Rutgers beat Princeton 6-4 at College Field in New Brunswick on November 6, 1869 — the first-ever intercollegiate football game. The 25-player-per-side rules differed from modern football; the game's status as 'football's birthplace' is the program's permanent + unique historical anchor. No other program can claim this.
Greg Schiano Two Eras (2001-2011 + 2020-present)
since 2001
Greg Schiano's first tenure (2001-2011) produced the 2006 11-2 + Texas Bowl championship — the modern peak. His Tampa Bay Buccaneers detour (2012-2013) + Ohio State assistant tenure (2016-2018) ended with the 2020 return to Rutgers. The second era (2020-) has rebuilt the program from a 2-10 floor through bowl-eligibility cycles.
Chop Tradition
since 2000s
Rutgers 'Chop' — the choreographed defensive-team gesture + chant — is the program's modern identity marker. Borrowed from Atlanta Braves-style tomahawk-chop visuals, adapted to Rutgers's scarlet identity. The chop signals defensive stops + recruiting-class commitments.
Program memory
What this program never forgets
Most weeks vanish. These didn’t.
1869
The first college football game
Rutgers beats Princeton 6-4 in New Brunswick — the first game in the sport's history
2006
Pandemonium in Piscataway
Undefeated, 15th-ranked Rutgers rallies from 25-7 down to beat No. 3 Louisville 28-25 on a late Jeremy Ito field goal; fans storm the field
The 2006 Texas Bowl
Rutgers wins the first bowl in program history, capping an 11-2 breakthrough season
Moment of the Year · Rutgers · 2025
Moment of the Year · Rutgers · 2025Lost 9-42 at Ohio State
Week 13 of 2025. A reckoning loss — the data point the next season must answer.
Bowl / Postseason Ledger
Bowl / Postseason LedgerRecent postseason (2014-2024): 2-2
Most recent: 2024 — loss 44-41 (away). Last 5 postseason: 2-2.
2024202320212014
NFL Draft Pipeline
2022–2026
NFL Draft PipelineSteady
8 picks last 5 cycles. Reliable mid-tier pipeline.
8
picks · 0 R1
#43
Max Melton
Cornerback · 2024 · Arizona · #34/339 final season
#202
Christian Braswell
Cornerback · 2023 · Jacksonville · #39/322 final season
#212
Robert Longerbeam
Cornerback · 2025 · Baltimore · #48/327 final season
#87 all-time · 3 first-round picksthe talent factory →
Unit lineage
Rutgers’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 · Ralph Friedgen2015 · Ben McDaniels2016 · Drew Mehringer2017 · Jerry Kill2018–2019 · John McNulty2020–2022 · Sean Gleeson2023–2025 (ongoing) · Kirk Ciarrocca
Defense2014–2025
2014–2015 · Joe Rossi2016 · Jay Niemann2017 · co-Bill Busch / Jay Niemann2018 · Jay Niemann2019 · Andy Buh / co-Noah Joseph2020–2021 · Robb Smith2022–2024 · Joe Harasymiak2025 · co-Robb Smith / co-Zach Sparber
Hired for 2026: Travis Johansen — not yet reflected in on-field data.
Elite (≥70th pct)AveragePoor (≤30th pct)
Chronicle Visuals
Among the most continuous rosters into 2025 — 67% back, anchored by the qb room, only offense to settle.
The portal upgraded the QB room but opened a hole at LB.
1 player drafted in 2026; the reload runs through the portal and recruiting.
Rutgers sits where recruit talent and draft yield largely match.
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