2coordinators
SMU9-4CFP #21Latest
Cautious optimism is building around SMU.
belief cooled ↓ 7.2vs prior week
Fanbase belief
Leaning up
55/100 · 48 mentions
~ our readGrounding
about average
7% cite a stat · 6% typical ✓ counted
~ our readVolatility
Chaotic
σ 30 pts
~ our readThe model
#10
CFB Zeitgeist · +11.4
✓ measured2Hope-Doping·Offseason
SMU is the only program the NCAA ever shut down entirely — and the Mustangs spent thirty years clawing back to make the inaugural 12-team College Football Playoff in their very first ACC season.
AP Top 25#25 AP
Mustang fans are done being a cautionary tale. They'll tell you SMU paid its debt twice over, made the first 12-team Playoff in year one of the ACC, and that anyone still leading with the penalty is f…
offseason · quiet
Roster Reload - SMU
2026 snapshot - 2026-08-06Returning Production50%Moderate continuity
Talent Composite#25 nationally247 composite 766.7
Portal Additions15Primary repair: CB
Portal Losses25Primary pressure: EDGE
Draft Loss1NFL Draft departures (1) — 1 with a next man up identified below
Recruiting Reload#32Development class
EDGEin 2 - Ira Singletonout 4 - Billy Walton IIIStarter Risk
current room: 257 lbs avg (2025 roster)
LBin 2 - Caden Marshallout 4 - Mark IheanachorStarter Risk
current room: 230 lbs avg (2025 roster)
TEin 3 - Theo Melin Ohrstromout 3 - Devon MartinUpgrade
current room: 248 lbs avg (2025 roster)
DLin 2 - Malcolm Alcorn-Crowderout 2 - Damarjhe LewisEven
current room: 306 lbs avg (2025 roster)
WRin 2 - Yannick Smithout 2 - Jaxson LavenderEven
current room: 189 lbs avg (2025 roster)
CBin 2 - Jayvon Thomasout 1 - Kyron ChambersUpgrade
current room: 189 lbs avg (2025 roster)
Next man up
Belief EKG
WinLoss · hover for scorePrior seasons
Approaching
32 days
until kickoff · at Florida State · Mon Sep 7 · 23:30 UTC
The experience
SMU is the Pony Express program that survived the death penalty, returned to the ACC in 2024, and went 11-3 with a CFP appearance in year one of the P5 reboot.
Offense: EliteRun/Pass: Pass-first, spreadTempo: Explosive, big-play
SMU's 2026 Season Balances Roster Volatility with Moderate Continuity and Development Class
SMU enters the 2026 season with a moderate level of roster continuity, returning 50% of its players, while also integrating a development class ranked #32 in recruiting. The team's transfer activity, including 15 incoming and 25 outgoing transfers, highlights significant roster turnover.
- Roster reloadSMU's roster features a moderate level of continuity, with 50% of players returning from the previous season, but also includes a development class ranked #32 in recruiting.
Data as of 2026-08-03
·
Validated against program evidence
Peruna is at the post.
SMU · the story right now
9 storylines developing
What SMU's program standing is really about
the open questionis this a real, durable shift in the program's tier?
dynastythis cycle~readnew
SMU has reached elite-tier consistency — Rhett Lashlee's fourth season demands whether the 29-9 run is the start of sustained dominance or a fleeting peak.
what happenedSMU has climbed into dynasty-caliber territory — into the top 8% of FBS by power rating over the last three seasons, up from the top 16% a year ago. ✓ fact
the contexta 29-9 record over the last three regular seasons
narrative tension · our read
program_outlookthis cycle~readnew
SMU enters 2026 — the 11-spot SP+ drop from 2024 raises one question: can Rhett Lashlee’s 4th season sustain the 9-4 winning record and Pony Express identity after a CFP appearance?
what happenedSMU enters 2026 rated No. 23 in 2025 SP+ (+13.4), down 11 spots from 2024. ✓ fact
narrative tension · our read
coordinatorsthis cycle✓ factnew
SMU: coordinator change reshaping a unit.
narrative tension · our read
underdogthis cycle✓ factnew
Romello Brinson 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
money downthis cycle✓ factnew
Yamir Knight is a legitimate money-down target -- his 3rd-down conversion rate ranks among the position's best, and his per-target value holds up in that spot too.
narrative tension · our read
underdogthis cycle✓ factnew
Yamir Knight 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
garbage timethis cycle~attributednew
Jordan Hudson: a garbage time merchant signal screened this season.
narrative tension · our read
deep threatthis cycle~attributednew
Romello Brinson is a real deep-ball threat -- a high share of his targets come on throws past the sticks.
narrative tension · our read
garbage timethis cycle~attributednew
TJ Harden does NOT see a usage spike in garbage time -- his workload holds steady regardless of score.
narrative tension · our read
How past storylines here turned out
AnsweredSMU's climb into dynasty-caliber territory held for another season.
Died downSMU's defensive coordinator change has died down — no clear next chapter yet.
Died downSMU's offensive coordinator change has died down — no clear next chapter yet.
Active arcs
The Offseason Ledger · SMU
5 verified updates · portal · recruiting · staff · news- Portal
QB Mabrey Mettauer transfer commits from Sam Houston
Conference USA to ACC is a significant tier jump — Lashlee gets a developmental QB arm while the depth chart behind the starter has been quietly thin since the Mustangs' move up.
- News
ACC adopts new tiebreaker system
Tiebreaker math now matters more for a program that slid 11 spots in SP+ — Lashlee's path back to the ACC title game just got a new set of rules to navigate while the roster still has pressure at EDGE.
- Recruiting
Cade Haug commits to SMU
SP+ slid 11 spots and the EDGE room was already running thin after one draft departure — Haug is a development-class add, but Lashlee needs him to be more than that if the ACC pressure test is real.
- Recruiting
Caden Palmquest commits to SMU
EDGE room was already under pressure after one draft departure — Palmquest steps into a developmental class ranked 31st nationally that needed a pass-rush piece before fall camp.
- Recruiting
Four-star CB commits to Texas
SMU just lost the Montre Jackson battle to the Longhorns — Lashlee's still building secondary depth in a class sitting 31st nationally, and one four-star corner doesn't close that gap alone.
Transfer portal snapshot
+4.7 net portal points
(raw ledger: -15.7 — unweighted, no position adjustment)EDGE-6.9
starter risk
LB-6.7
starter risk
IOL-3.6
low confidence
S-3.6
low confidence
CB+3.5
OT-3.5
low confidence
QB+3.5
low confidence
TE+3.4
K-3.0
starter risk
DL+2.6
WR+1.1
LS-1.0
low confidence
P-1.0
low confidence
RB-0.5
Top 3 commits
2026 class
★★★★☆
Christian Rhodes
#173 national
Profiles like a typical incoming running back — 13 of his 25 closest recruiting profiles since 2018 shared the Balanced Back archetype.~our read · projection from recruiting profile — no college snaps yet
★★★★☆
Drew Evers
#222 national
★★★★☆
Evan Goodwin
#324 national
→
Fan confidence in a typical range for this program right now
60th percentile among FBS programs
Fan vs. market↓
60th
Fan percentile
(FBS mood rank)
(FBS mood rank)
8.5
Vegas O/U wins
(82nd among FBS)
(82nd among FBS)
Market 22pp more optimistic than fan mood
Win total consensus · 3 books
Market outlook
Season expectations
Win total3 booksO/U 8.5
CFP championship#23 in field+10000
ACC title#2 in market+700
Sportsbook consensus · best odds across multiple books · 2026-08-06
SMU · Next-Season Outcome Band
SMU · 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 · SMU · Program power Confidence
SMU's power rating is climbing, and the numbers agree.
SMU has climbed into dynasty-caliber territory — into the top 8% of FBS by power rating over the last three seasons, up from the top 16% a year ago. It is a 29-9 record over the last three regular seasons. A real, measurable rise in the model. The room has caught up; now the schedule has to agree.
near-unanimous belief
where the takes land · dot = how loud
DOUBTBELIEF
Believers4 bull takes
🎪 drama: simmering
The saga so far3 weeks old
last weekQB Mabrey Mettauer transfer commits from Sam Houston — CFBD /player/portal
last weekQB Mabrey Mettauer transfers from Sam Houston to SMU — Portal-moves table (verified)
3 weeks agoACC adopts new tiebreaker system — Official
CFB Zeitgeist Read · our take
SMU has reached elite-tier consistency — Rhett Lashlee's fourth season demands whether the 29-9 run is the start of sustained dominance or a fleeting peak.
Next · what to watch
The non-obvious consequence of climbing the power tiers is the expectation tax: the same season that looked like a breakout last year now reads as a disappointment. Watch whether the schedule lets the run actually show up on the field.
Source of record: SMU has climbed into dynasty-caliber territory — into the top 8% of FBS by power rating over the last three seasons, up from the top 16% a year ago — a 29-9 record over the last three regular seasons.
How each room is reacting — tap to expand
🎪The circus“RETURN: Why SMU Must BRING BACK Ahmaad Moses — College Sports is” — the saga that won't quit.›
The off-field storyline driving the noise right now. Not analysis — the soap opera, and that's the point.
“RETURN: Why SMU Must BRING BACK Ahmaad Moses — College Sports is an ABSOLUTE MESS Right Now”
WBIR · 2026-08-05 · read ↗
“Explaining A Mess: How SMU is managing transfer portal after BJ Edwards departure”
on3.com · 2026-08-03 · read ↗
📣Believers4 bullish/momentum items -- the case it's working.›
The 'resurgence is real' read: the numbers are starting to back the hype.
“Bates and Williams Named To Outland Trophy Preseason Watchlist”
SMU Athletics · 2026-08-04 · read ↗
“Always College Football with Greg McElroy - ACC Tiers: Miami on TOP, SMU, Clemson & Louisville contenders | Always College Football”
ESPN · 2026-08-04 · read ↗
“Intel: LSU, Oklahoma, SMU, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech are leading for elite 2028 prospects”
on3.com · 2026-08-03 · read ↗
🧐SkepticsNo prominent dissent — the coverage runs one way.›
The 'wait and see' counter -- power shifts often get overread before the season proves them.
Nothing in our corpus yet — this door stays open for when there is.
Following now · SMU · Season outlook Confidence
SMU is a ranked program entering 2025. The tape backs it.
SMU enters 2026 rated No. 23 in 2025 SP+ (+13.4), down 11 spots from 2024. A top-25 rating means the tape backed the ranking over three seasons. Now the schedule tests whether it still does. The preview consensus leans in — but preseason ratings reward the recent past, not the season ahead.
near-unanimous belief
where the takes land · dot = how loud
DOUBTBELIEF
Believers4 bull takes
🎪 drama: simmering💬 fans: 33% volume
The saga so far3 weeks old
last weekQB Mabrey Mettauer transfer commits from Sam Houston — CFBD /player/portal
last weekQB Mabrey Mettauer transfers from Sam Houston to SMU — Portal-moves table (verified)
3 weeks agoACC adopts new tiebreaker system — Official
CFB Zeitgeist Read · our take
SMU enters 2026 — the 11-spot SP+ drop from 2024 raises one question: can Rhett Lashlee’s 4th season sustain the 9-4 winning record and Pony Express identity after a CFP appearance?
Next · what to watch
The non-obvious read on this rating isn't the number — it's the schedule. A team at this level has 2-3 games where the model says they're overmatched, and those are the games that define the narrative. Watch whether the model holds through the first month of the schedule.
Source of record: SMU enters 2026 rated No. 23 in 2025 SP+ (+13.4), down 11 spots from 2024.
How each room is reacting — tap to expand
🎪The circus“RETURN: Why SMU Must BRING BACK Ahmaad Moses — College Sports is” — the saga that won't quit.›
The off-field storyline driving the noise right now. Not analysis — the soap opera, and that's the point.
“RETURN: Why SMU Must BRING BACK Ahmaad Moses — College Sports is an ABSOLUTE MESS Right Now”
WBIR · 2026-08-05 · read ↗
“Explaining A Mess: How SMU is managing transfer portal after BJ Edwards departure”
on3.com · 2026-08-03 · read ↗
📣Believers4 bullish items -- the case it's working.›
The 'the projection is underselling us' read -- fans betting the season beats the preview number.
“Bates and Williams Named To Outland Trophy Preseason Watchlist”
SMU Athletics · 2026-08-04 · read ↗
“Always College Football with Greg McElroy - ACC Tiers: Miami on TOP, SMU, Clemson & Louisville contenders | Always College Football”
ESPN · 2026-08-04 · read ↗
“Intel: LSU, Oklahoma, SMU, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech are leading for elite 2028 prospects”
on3.com · 2026-08-03 · 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 boards33% of recent board volume — the fanbase is locked in.›
This event was in 52 of 157 board posts (33%) over the last 60 days — a fanbase consumed by it. Fan text shown verbatim, attributed to the community not the individual poster.
"I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I'm working on an independent research project about how adults in DFW build friendships, find community, and what actually helps acquai"
r/SMU ~ fan take
"Hi everyone! I am about to start applying to college and was wondering if I should pull the trigger and ED SMU. It’s my top choice. Im top 28% of my class, I’ll be going test optio"
r/SMU ~ fan take
The boards ≠ the fanbase: a vocal, self-selected slice.
Recent Form · last 10 games
Warming
Four of five. The board favors this trend.
Streak W1Last 5 · 4-1Last 10 · 7-3
The forecast
Opens Sep 7
vs Florida State · away
Season line8.5 winsover -155
ElitePass-first, spreadExplosive, big-play
✓ fact on line · ~ our read on style
Rival pulse
Rice
Hopeful+14
Mayor's Cup (TX)
TCU
Mixed+2
Battle for the Iron Skillet
Fan mood index · most recent r/cfb data
Recruiting Footprint · 2026
Recruiting Footprint · 2026
23
TX · 15CA · 5AR · 1FL · 1LA · 1
TX leads the 2026 class with 15 commits. National footprint reaching 5 states.
Where they recruit · 2023-2026
77 signees across 8 states, 2023-2026. TX leads the pull.
r/cfb this year
[Postgame Thread] TCU Defeats SMU 35-24
[Postgame Thread] SMU Defeats East Texas A&M 42-13
[Game Thread] SMU @ TCU (12:00 PM ET)
Top community posts · last 12 months · r/cfb
Voter spread
18 of 66 AP voters have them ranked, final AP ballot (2025) — from #18, Kirk Kenney (San Diego Union-Tribune), to #25, Tom Murphy (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette). 48 voters left them off the ballot entirely.
Individual AP Top 25 ballots, final AP ballot, 2025 — 66 voters tracked.
National spotlight
13 games with TV coverage: 1 national broadcast, 4 ESPN, 1 cable, 4 conference network, 3 streaming
Kickoff windows: 7 noon, 3 afternoon, 3 primetime
Fumble luck
The bounces haven't gone their way on their own fumbles: 40% recovered, vs. ~51% expected.
4 of 10 own fumbles recovered themselves; 10 of 19 forced fumbles recovered, 2025 only.
Takeaway conversion
Cashing in at a normal clip: 22% of disrupted passes intercepted, close to ~19% league-wide.
17 interceptions of 77 disrupted passes (60 deflected, 17 intercepted), 2025 only.
Penalty battle
The flags haven't favored them: 91 penalties committed vs. 92 drawn on opponents, 125 yards behind.
921 penalty yards committed vs. 796 drawn on opponents, 2025 season total.
The Pulse on SMU
55
Δ -7.2 vs last wk
48
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
"Pony Ears"
— SMU 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 6 corners
Cr/CFB
GGoogle News
LLocked On
UUnderdog Dynasty
BBluesky
YYouTube
One voice
How SMU 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
Casuals+0.17
Millennials+0.14
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.
216 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 checkmiddle of the pack
~ our readSMU fans are leaning negative, and they're backing it with about as much hard evidence as anyone.
backed by facts
the mood
✓ counted We read 183 posts from SMU fans this week.
What fans are saying
Fan claims · every quote verified verbatim
player performanceLimited signal that season
fans think Kevin is not playing as well as before
Kevin Jennings 2nd half was embarrassing. Guy needs competition in camp next year
Based on 1 comment from 1 poster across 1 thread · Jan 3, 2026 · via CFB
schedule expectationLimited signal that season
fans believe SMU can win at least 8 games this season
Our linebacker core is atrocious. I think we are good for 8-9 wins
Based on 1 comment from 1 poster across 1 thread · Sep 13, 2025 · via CFB
Five Lenses
What people are saying right now
Radio, beat writers & editorial16 posts
News & campus coverage10 posts
Rent free · r/cfb fan posts, last season
SMU fans this offseason 27% of posts bring up another team#23 of 43 saltiest · mostly about Texas
Who SMU fans can’t stop bringing up
- Texas17%
- Houston4%
- North Carolina2%
- Florida2%
- North Texas2%
share of SMU’s football posts that mention each team
SMU lives rent-free in
share of each rival fanbase’s football posts that bring up SMU
Fanbase Health Index · SMU · high confidence
Fanbase Health Index · SMU · high confidenceGrowing (62)
DecliningStableGrowingSurging
On-Field — 9-4 (69% win rate)66
Volume — 577 effective signal-N85
Cohort Engagement — Divergence 0.01 — quiet35
From the booth
Key stats — 2025 — FBS rank
Points/game#24 / 138 · 83rd pct32.2
Pts allowed/game#25 / 138 · 83rd pct20.5
Total yards/gm#35 / 136 · 75th pct417.0
Rush yards/gm#87 / 136 · 37th pct133.9
Pass yards/gm#19 / 136 · 87th pct283.1
Yards allowed/gm#102 / 136 · 26th pct395.2
Rush yds allowed/gm#20 / 136 · 86th pct112.1
Sacks#14 / 136 · 90th pct36
Interceptions#8 / 136 · 95th pct18
3rd-down conv#56 / 136 · 60th pct40.8%
All 98 stats
Offense / Defense
Total yards
Team5421417.0/gm6.30/play#35 / 136 · 75th pct#23 / 69 · 68th pct#6 / 17 · 71st pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Opp5138395.2/gm5.26/play#102 / 136 · 26th pct#58 / 69 · 17th pct#12 / 17 · 35th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Rush yards
Team1741133.9/gm2.02/play#87 / 136 · 37th pct#45 / 69 · 36th pct#10 / 17 · 47th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Opp1457112.1/gm1.49/play#20 / 136 · 86th pct#18 / 69 · 75th pct#5 / 17 · 76th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Rush carries
Team40030.8/gm#107 / 136 · 22nd pct#56 / 69 · 20th pct#13 / 17 · 29th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Opp45535.0/gm#68 / 136 · 51st pct#41 / 69 · 42nd pct#11 / 17 · 41st pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
Rush TDs
Team251.9/gm#46 / 136 · 67th pct#26 / 69 · 64th pct#7 / 17 · 65th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Opp50.4/gm#1 / 136 · 100th pct#1 / 69 · 100th pct#1 / 17 · 100th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Net pass yards
Team3680283.1/gm4.28/play#19 / 136 · 87th pct#15 / 69 · 80th pct#3 / 17 · 88th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Opp3681283.2/gm3.77/play#135 / 136 · 1st pct#68 / 69 · 3rd pct#16 / 17 · 12th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
Pass attempts
Team46035.4/gm#24 / 136 · 83rd pct#12 / 69 · 84th pct#7 / 17 · 65th pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Opp52240.2/gm#136 / 136 · 1st pct#69 / 69 · 1st pct#17 / 17 · 6th pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct
Completions
Team30523.5/gm#20 / 136 · 86th pct#14 / 69 · 81st pct#6 / 17 · 71st pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Opp31824.5/gm#135 / 136 · 1st pct#69 / 69 · 1st pct#17 / 17 · 6th pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct
Pass TDs
Team262.0/gm#25 / 136 · 82nd pct#17 / 69 · 77th pct#4 / 17 · 82nd pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Opp262.0/gm#127 / 136 · 7th pct#66 / 69 · 6th pct#16 / 17 · 12th pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Passer rating
Team144.3144.3#39 / 136 · 72nd pct#27 / 69 · 62nd pct#6 / 17 · 71st pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Opp131.6131.6#64 / 136 · 54th pct#39 / 69 · 45th pct#8 / 17 · 59th pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Interceptions thrown
Team131.0/gm#18 / 136 · 88th pct#7 / 69 · 91st pct#3 / 17 · 88th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
Opp181.4/gm#129 / 136 · 6th pct#65 / 69 · 7th pct#17 / 17 · 6th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
Sacks (def)
Team362.8/gm#14 / 136 · 90th pct#9 / 69 · 88th pct#2 / 17 · 94th pct#4 / 10 · 70th pct
Opp191.5/gm#27 / 136 · 81st pct#16 / 69 · 78th pct#4 / 17 · 82nd pct#4 / 10 · 70th pct
Tackles for loss
Team826.3/gm#26 / 136 · 82nd pct#16 / 69 · 78th pct#6 / 17 · 71st pct#6 / 10 · 50th pct
Opp725.5/gm#90 / 136 · 35th pct#50 / 69 · 29th pct#12 / 17 · 35th pct#7 / 10 · 40th pct
First downs
Team26920.7/gm#56 / 136 · 60th pct#34 / 69 · 52nd pct#8 / 17 · 59th pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Opp28221.7/gm#114 / 136 · 17th pct#62 / 69 · 12th pct#16 / 17 · 12th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
3rd-down conv
Team695.3/gm#65 / 136 · 53rd pct#32 / 69 · 55th pct#8 / 17 · 59th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Opp755.8/gm#109 / 136 · 21st pct#59 / 69 · 16th pct#14 / 17 · 24th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
3rd-down att
Team16913.0/gm#81 / 136 · 41st pct#35 / 69 · 51st pct#10 / 17 · 47th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Opp20816.0/gm#133 / 136 · 3rd pct#66 / 69 · 6th pct#16 / 17 · 12th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
4th-down conv
Team80.6/gm#116 / 136 · 15th pct#62 / 69 · 12th pct#16 / 17 · 12th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Opp211.6/gm#128 / 136 · 7th pct#65 / 69 · 7th pct#16 / 17 · 12th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
4th-down att
Team120.9/gm#136 / 136 · 1st pct#69 / 69 · 1st pct#17 / 17 · 6th pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct
Opp393.0/gm#134 / 136 · 2nd pct#67 / 69 · 4th pct#17 / 17 · 6th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
Time of possession
Team349:2526:53/gm#111 / 136 · 19th pct#58 / 69 · 17th pct#15 / 17 · 18th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Opp430:3533:07/gm#129 / 136 · 6th pct#65 / 69 · 7th pct#16 / 17 · 12th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
Kicking & Punting
Field goals#115 / 135 · 16th pct15/23 (65.2%)
Extra points50/51
Punting#87 / 136 · 37th pct42.5 avg · 55 punts
Turnovers & special teams
Turnovers
Team191.5/gm#34 / 136 · 76th pct#12 / 69 · 84th pct#5 / 17 · 76th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Opp282.2/gm#131 / 136 · 4th pct#66 / 69 · 6th pct#17 / 17 · 6th pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct
Fumbles lost
Team60.5/gm#69 / 136 · 50th pct#28 / 69 · 61st pct#11 / 17 · 41st pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Opp100.8/gm#115 / 136 · 16th pct#59 / 69 · 16th pct#14 / 17 · 24th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
INT return TDs
Team30.2/gm#4 / 135 · 98th pct#3 / 69 · 97th pct#2 / 17 · 94th pct#3 / 11 · 82nd pct
Opp00.0/gm#1 / 136 · 100th pct#1 / 69 · 100th pct#1 / 17 · 100th pct#1 / 11 · 100th pct
INT return yards
Team28722.1/gm#8 / 136 · 95th pct#5 / 69 · 94th pct#3 / 17 · 88th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
Opp836.4/gm#48 / 136 · 65th pct#25 / 69 · 65th pct#6 / 17 · 71st pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
Punt ret yds
Team16812.9/gm#53 / 136 · 62nd pct#31 / 69 · 57th pct#7 / 17 · 65th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Opp604.6/gm#30 / 136 · 79th pct#21 / 69 · 71st pct#6 / 17 · 71st pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Punt ret TDs
Team00.0/gm#43 / 135 · 69th pct#23 / 69 · 68th pct#5 / 17 · 76th pct#3 / 11 · 82nd pct
Opp00.0/gm#1 / 135 · 100th pct#1 / 69 · 100th pct#1 / 17 · 100th pct#1 / 10 · 100th pct
Kick ret yds
Team31424.2/gm#98 / 136 · 29th pct#45 / 69 · 36th pct#14 / 17 · 24th pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct
Opp64649.7/gm#113 / 136 · 18th pct#61 / 69 · 13th pct#14 / 17 · 24th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Kick ret TDs
Team00.0/gm#40 / 136 · 71st pct#17 / 69 · 77th pct#4 / 17 · 82nd pct#5 / 9 · 56th pct
Opp00.0/gm#1 / 135 · 100th pct#1 / 69 · 100th pct#1 / 17 · 100th pct#1 / 9 · 100th pct
Penalty yards
Team92170.8/gm#6 / 136 · 96th pct#1 / 69 · 100th pct#1 / 17 · 100th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Opp79661.2/gm#111 / 136 · 19th pct#62 / 69 · 12th pct#13 / 17 · 29th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
Other
Interceptions (def)#8 / 136 · 95th pct#5 / 69 · 94th pct#1 / 17 · 100th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct181.4/gm
Fumbles recovered#11 / 136 · 93rd pct#6 / 69 · 93rd pct#2 / 17 · 94th pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct100.8/gm
H1 epa per play opponent#17 / 167 · 90th pct#11 / 69 · 86th pct#3 / 17 · 88th pct0.10.0/gm
Penalties#27 / 136 · 81st pct#13 / 69 · 83rd pct#5 / 17 · 76th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct917.0/gm
First down pass rate#28 / 215 · 87th pct#4 / 69 · 96th pct#1 / 17 · 100th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct0.50.0/gm
Recruiting rating#31 / 138 · 78th pct#31 / 69 · 57th pct#6 / 17 · 71st pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct220.817.0/gm
H1 epa per play#32 / 162 · 81st pct#23 / 69 · 68th pct#6 / 17 · 71st pct0.30.0/gm
H2 epa per play opponent#38 / 143 · 74th pct#22 / 69 · 70th pct#5 / 17 · 76th pct0.10.0/gm
Red zone pass rate#39 / 154 · 75th pct#13 / 69 · 83rd pct#4 / 17 · 82nd pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct0.40.0/gm
Fumbles rec (def)#46 / 136 · 67th pct#29 / 69 · 59th pct#5 / 17 · 76th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct60.5/gm
Punt returns#61 / 136 · 56th pct#38 / 69 · 46th pct#9 / 17 · 53rd pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct171.3/gm
H2 epa per play#65 / 142 · 55th pct#34 / 69 · 52nd pct#5 / 17 · 76th pct0.20.0/gm
Punt ret (opp)#85 / 136 · 38th pct#49 / 69 · 30th pct#13 / 17 · 29th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct171.3/gm
Kick returns#88 / 136 · 36th pct#40 / 69 · 43rd pct#11 / 17 · 41st pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct171.3/gm
Passes intercepted opponent#109 / 136 · 21st pct#60 / 69 · 14th pct#15 / 17 · 18th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct131.0/gm
Penalties (opp)#116 / 136 · 15th pct#63 / 69 · 10th pct#13 / 17 · 29th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct927.1/gm
Kick ret (opp)#124 / 136 · 10th pct#65 / 69 · 7th pct#16 / 17 · 12th pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct352.7/gm
Fourth down go rate#129 / 138 · 7th pct#64 / 69 · 9th pct#16 / 17 · 12th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct0.20.0/gm
Situational
3rd-down conversion
Off40.8%#56 / 136 · 60th pct#32 / 69 · 55th pct#6 / 17 · 71st pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Def36.1%#44 / 136 · 68th pct#25 / 69 · 65th pct#7 / 17 · 65th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
4th-down conversion
Off66.7%#17 / 136 · 88th pct#11 / 69 · 86th pct#4 / 17 · 82nd pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
Def53.8%#75 / 136 · 46th pct#37 / 69 · 48th pct#9 / 17 · 53rd pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Turnover margin#14 / 136 · 90th pct#10 / 69 · 87th pct#3 / 17 · 88th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct+0.69/gm
Sack rate (def)#58 / 136 · 58th pct#37 / 69 · 48th pct#8 / 17 · 59th pct#7 / 10 · 40th pct6.9%
Red Zone & Drive Efficiency (2014– , play-by-play derived)
Red zone trips
Team413.2/gm#80 / 167 · 53rd pct#46 / 69 · 35th pct#9 / 17 · 53rd pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
Opp463.5/gm#123 / 166 · 27th pct#53 / 69 · 25th pct#11 / 17 · 41st pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Red zone score %
Team85.4%85.4%#37 / 167 · 78th pct#20 / 69 · 72nd pct#2 / 17 · 94th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Opp60.9%60.9%#3 / 166 · 99th pct#1 / 69 · 100th pct#1 / 17 · 100th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Points / drive
Team2.20.2/gm#52 / 167 · 69th pct#37 / 69 · 48th pct#7 / 17 · 65th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Opp1.40.1/gm#14 / 166 · 92nd pct#9 / 69 · 88th pct#3 / 17 · 88th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Yards / drive
Team43.73.4/gm#48 / 167 · 72nd pct#29 / 69 · 59th pct#6 / 17 · 71st pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
Opp40.23.1/gm#68 / 166 · 60th pct#33 / 69 · 54th pct#8 / 17 · 59th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Plays / drive
Team6.00.5/gm#144 / 167 · 14th pct#68 / 69 · 3rd pct#16 / 17 · 12th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Opp6.70.5/gm#112 / 166 · 33rd pct#48 / 69 · 32nd pct#12 / 17 · 35th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
Three-and-out rate
Team13.5%13.5%#81 / 167 · 52nd pct#41 / 69 · 42nd pct#8 / 17 · 59th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Opp15.5%15.5%#49 / 166 · 71st pct#26 / 69 · 64th pct#8 / 17 · 59th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Scheme Identity (2014– , play-by-play derived)
Rush rate over expected#128 / 145 · 12th pct#64 / 69 · 9th pct#15 / 17 · 18th pct-7.9%-7.9%
Havoc rate
Team19.5%19.5%#12 / 140 · 92nd pct#9 / 69 · 88th pct#3 / 17 · 88th pct
Opp16.9%16.9%#101 / 140 · 29th pct#52 / 69 · 26th pct#12 / 17 · 35th pct
Standard-downs success
Team48.1%48.1%#76 / 154 · 51st pct#42 / 69 · 41st pct#9 / 17 · 53rd pct
Opp44.4%44.4%#32 / 172 · 82nd pct#19 / 69 · 74th pct#7 / 17 · 65th pct
Passing-downs success
Team32.0%32.0%#65 / 153 · 58th pct#36 / 69 · 49th pct#8 / 17 · 59th pct
Opp33.6%33.6%#116 / 149 · 23rd pct#55 / 69 · 22nd pct#15 / 17 · 18th pct
Line yards / carry
Team2.92.9#67 / 143 · 54th pct#38 / 69 · 46th pct#7 / 17 · 65th pct
Opp2.82.8#48 / 155 · 70th pct#28 / 69 · 61st pct#8 / 17 · 59th pct
Stuff rate
Team18.9%18.9%#82 / 143 · 43rd pct#43 / 69 · 39th pct#13 / 17 · 29th pct
Opp21.8%21.8%#26 / 155 · 84th pct#14 / 69 · 81st pct#5 / 17 · 76th pct
Power success rate
Team80.6%80.6%#14 / 137 · 91st pct#9 / 69 · 88th pct#3 / 17 · 88th pct
Opp53.8%53.8%#7 / 141 · 96th pct#4 / 69 · 96th pct#1 / 17 · 100th pct
Efficiency
Completion %
Off66.3%#26 / 136 · 82nd pct#19 / 69 · 74th pct#5 / 17 · 76th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Def60.9%#58 / 136 · 58th pct#28 / 69 · 61st pct#6 / 17 · 71st pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Yards / attempt
Off8.0#35 / 136 · 75th pct#21 / 69 · 71st pct#4 / 17 · 82nd pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Def7.1#62 / 136 · 55th pct#38 / 69 · 46th pct#9 / 17 · 53rd pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
Yards / completion
Off12.1#49 / 136 · 65th pct#25 / 69 · 65th pct#5 / 17 · 76th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Def11.6#73 / 136 · 47th pct#49 / 69 · 30th pct#11 / 17 · 41st pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Yards / carry#71 / 136 · 49th pct#37 / 69 · 48th pct#8 / 17 · 59th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct4.4
Yards / play#24 / 136 · 83rd pct#17 / 69 · 77th pct#3 / 17 · 88th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct6.30
Scoring margin#23 / 136 · 84th pct#17 / 69 · 77th pct#2 / 17 · 94th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct+11.7/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% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pocket Passer · +0.32 EPA/play | 7 | 13 | 300 / 454 | 66.1 | 3641 #9 FBS | 8.0 | 26 #16 FBS | 13 | 146.6 | 64.6 | 7.3 | 3.2 | |
Yards by week → Pocket PasserBalanced passer who operates within the system, without one standout number carrying the profile. Watch-list name — on at least one major award watch list, no hardware yet — trending, not yet confirmed. 97 of 183 QBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Yards / attempt8.7 80th percentile · FBS QBs, min. 80 attempts Rush usage13.4% bottom 21th percentile · FBS QBs, min. 80 attempts Trait fingerprint Plays like View Kevin Jennings's full player page | |||||||||||||
Running Backs
| Player | # | G | Car | Yds | Avg | TD | Long | 3rd Dn Use | Pass Dn Use | Stuff% | 10+% | Tgt Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Workhorse · +0.15 EPA/play | 27 | 13 | 171 | 787 | 4.6 | 9 #65 FBS | 53 | 18.2 | 11.8 | 18.6 | 10.6 | 5.2% (21/400) | |
Yards by week → WorkhorseBuilt to take 20+ carries per game. Volume is the value. Starter — over 60% of the snaps, holding the job. 52 of 349 RBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Weight220 lb 82th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Yards / reception5.2 bottom 23th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Trait fingerprint Plays like View TJ Harden's full player page | |||||||||||||
| Satellite Back · +0.27 EPA/play | 6 | 13 | 67 | 479 | 7.1 | 4 | 87 | 6.8 | 10.5 | 16.4 | 16.4 | 5.2% (21/400) | |
Yards by week → Satellite BackDeployed as a receiver as much as a runner. Value is in space, not between the tackles. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. 50 of 349 RBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Receiving share20.2% 91th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Yards / carry8.0 96th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Trait fingerprint Plays like our readAscending: his CFB Index score now sits at the 79th percentile among FBS RBs, up from the 16th | |||||||||||||
| +0.18 EPA/play | — | 13 | 35 | 189 | 5.4 | 4 | 48 | 4.7 | 4.2 | — | — | 7.0% (28/400) | |
Yards by week → | |||||||||||||
| -0.09 EPA/play | 21 | 4 | 25 | 90 | 3.6 | 1 | 15 | 2.2 | 5.6 | — | — | — | |
Yards by week → | |||||||||||||
Receivers
| Player | # | G | Rec | Yds | Avg | TD | Long | 3rd Dn Use | Pass Dn Use | Tgt Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Slot Technician · +0.64 EPA/play | 2 | 11 | 61 | 766 | 12.6 | 6 #62 FBS | 70 | 15.3 | 14.5 | 19.8% (79/400) | |
Yards by week → Slot Technician· Boom-or-bustRuns precise routes in tight quarters. Volume player who keeps chains moving. his yards come in chunks — feast or famine All-Conference honorable mention / 2nd team — the recognition has started. 97 of 558 WRs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Reception volume61 92th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions EPA / play (adj)0.6 72th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions Trait fingerprint Plays like our readAscending: his CFB Index score moved from the 59th to 88th percentile among FBS WRs | |||||||||||
| Possession Receiver · +0.44 EPA/play | 3 | 10 | 43 | 638 | 14.8 | 3 | 75 | 11.6 | 9.6 | 14.8% (59/400) | |
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 10 of 21 games this season · senior our readAscending: his CFB Index score now sits at the 72nd percentile among FBS WRs, up from the 3rd | |||||||||||
| Slot Technician · +0.56 EPA/play | 8 | 13 | 54 | 637 | 11.8 | 5 | 61 | 10.8 | 10.9 | 16.5% (66/400) | |
Yards by week → Slot Technician· Boom-or-bustRuns precise routes in tight quarters. Volume player who keeps chains moving. his yards come in chunks — feast or famine Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. 97 of 558 WRs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Reception volume54 85th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions Yards / reception12.2 bottom 37th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions Trait fingerprint Plays like View Yamir Knight's full player page | |||||||||||
| Complete TE · +0.77 EPA/play | 88 | 11 | 31 | 436 | 14.1 | 4 | 80 | 6.6 | 9.4 | 9.2% (37/400) | |
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 / reception12.8 68th percentile · FBS TEs, min. 8 receptions Reception volume31 77th percentile · FBS TEs, min. 8 receptions Trait fingerprint View Matthew Hibner's full player page | |||||||||||
| Complete TE · +0.45 EPA/play | 82 | 12 | 27 | 322 | 11.9 | 2 | 49 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 9.8% (39/400) | |
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 12 of 21 games this season · senior · 4-star, 2022 class View R.J. Maryland's full player page | |||||||||||
| Possession Receiver · +0.44 EPA/play | 9 | 7 | 19 | 321 | 16.9 | 2 | 75 | 3.8 | 4.5 | 7.0% (28/400) | |
Yards by week → Possession ReceiverReliable target who converts on critical downs. Not flashy; consistently productive. 332 of 558 WRs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Yards / reception13.7 54th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions Reception volume19 bottom 20th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions Trait fingerprint Plays like View Jalen Cooper's full player page | |||||||||||
Defensive Line
| Player | # | G | Tot | Solo | TFL | Sack | Hur |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Finisher | 1 | 13 | 53 | 31 | 18 #4 FBS | 9 #20 FBS | 4 |
FinisherTurns pressure into sacks — when he gets there, he finishes. All-Conference honorable mention / 2nd team — the recognition has started. 16 of 200 EDGEs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Pressure-to-sack conversion0.7 89th percentile · FBS EDGE, min. 10 tackles Plays like View Isaiah Smith's full player page | |||||||
| Versatile End | 9 | 10 | 52 | 27 | 10 | 5 | 4 |
Versatile EndNo single standout number, but nothing missing either — competent across the board. Starter — over 60% of the snaps, holding the job. The most common profile in its group this season — 139 of 200 classified this way. Played in 10 of 21 games this season · senior View Cam Robertson's full player page | |||||||
| Two-Gap Base | 4 | 13 | 46 | 22 | 7 | 5.5 | 2 |
Two-Gap BaseStout at the point of attack — steady tackle-for-loss production without a standout pass-rush number. Impact starter — above-average production for the conference. The most common profile in its group this season — 388 of 809 classified this way. Played in 13 of 21 games this season · senior our readAscending: his CFB Index score climbed from the 73rd percentile to the 99th among FBS IDLs | |||||||
| Two-Gap Base | 6 | 10 | 42 | 16 | 7.5 | 5.5 | 0 |
Two-Gap BaseStout at the point of attack — steady tackle-for-loss production without a standout pass-rush number. Starter — over 60% of the snaps, holding the job. 388 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate17.9% 63th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles our readBreakout: his CFB Index score climbed from the 49th percentile to the 98th among FBS IDLs | |||||||
| Pressure Merchant | 52 | 13 | 25 | 6 | 1.5 | 0 | 8 |
Pressure MerchantCollapses the pocket even when the sack doesn't come. 23 of 200 EDGEs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Hurry rate0.3 88th percentile · FBS EDGE, min. 10 tackles Plays like our readBreakout: his CFB Index score now sits at the 48th percentile among FBS EDGEs, up from the 13th | |||||||
| Nose Anchor | 40 | 11 | 14 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
Nose AnchorThe heaviest frame on the interior. Sack production is intentionally not the point of this profile. 152 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Weight313 lb 85th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like View Keveion'ta Spears's full player page | |||||||
| Two-Gap Base | 93 | 6 | 12 | 5 | 2.5 | 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 6 of 21 games this season · sophomore · 3-star, 2023 class View Kevin Allen's full player page | |||||||
| Nose Anchor | 55 | 8 | 11 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
Nose AnchorThe heaviest frame on the interior. Sack production is intentionally not the point of this profile. 152 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Weight316 lb 88th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like View William Spencer's full player page | |||||||
| 32 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | |
| 5 | 8 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | |
Linebackers
| Player | # | G | Tot | Solo | Ast | TFL | Sack | PD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Balanced Linebacker | 28 | 13 | 69 | 26 | 43 | 3 | 0.5 | 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 13 of 21 games this season · sophomore · 3-star, 2024 class our readBreakout: his CFB Index score climbed from the 0th percentile to the 50th among FBS LBs | |||||||||
| Balanced Linebacker | 54 | 11 | 60 | 31 | 29 | 3.5 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
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 Alex Kilgore's full player page | |||||||||
| Coverage 'Backer | 29 | 13 | 44 | 22 | 22 | 4.5 | 2 | 8 | 1 |
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 rate18.2% 100th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Tackle volume44 bottom 41th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Trait fingerprint Plays like our readSustained Ascent: his CFB Index score shows two real climbs in a row — 0th to 16th to 84th percentile among FBS LBs | |||||||||
| Balanced Linebacker | 33 | 10 | 27 | 11 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Balanced LinebackerSolid in every phase without a signature dimension. 362 of 660 LBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Tackle volume27 bottom 20th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles TFL rate0.0% bottom 10th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Trait fingerprint Plays like our readFading: his CFB Index score went from the 72nd percentile among FBS LBs to the 9th | |||||||||
| Balanced Linebacker | 20 | 7 | 25 | 12 | 13 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Balanced LinebackerSolid in every phase without a signature dimension. The most common profile in its group this season — 362 of 660 classified this way. Played in 7 of 21 games this season · senior View Justin Medlock's full player page | |||||||||
Defensive Backs
| Player | # | G | Tot | PD | INT | TFL | Sack |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rover | 3 | 13 | 104 | 3 | 5 #6 FBS | 5.5 | 1 |
Rover· Takeaway threatHits like a linebacker and still takes the ball away. the kind of DB who takes it back the other way Impact starter — above-average production for the conference. 83 of 801 Ss we've classified this way this season. Season receipt PD rate2.9% bottom 25th percentile · FBS safeties, min. 15 tackles Plays like our readSustained Ascent: his CFB Index score shows two real climbs in a row — 32nd to 88th to 100th percentile among FBS Ss | |||||||
| Rover | 12 | 11 | 80 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
Rover· Takeaway threatHits like a linebacker and still takes the ball away. the kind of DB who takes it back the other way All-Conference honorable mention / 2nd team — the recognition has started. 83 of 801 Ss we've classified this way this season. Season receipt PD rate8.8% 54th percentile · FBS safeties, min. 15 tackles Plays like View Isaiah Nwokobia's full player page | |||||||
| Cover Corner | — | 11 | 37 | 4 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Cover CornerSteady in coverage; doesn't get beat deep and rarely gives up the big play. 141 of 270 CBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt PD rate10.8% bottom 39th percentile · FBS corners, min. 10 tackles Plays like View William Nettles's full player page | |||||||
| Cover Corner | 7 | 13 | 34 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Cover CornerSteady in coverage; doesn't get beat deep and rarely gives up the big play. The most common profile in its group this season — 141 of 270 classified this way. Played in 13 of 21 games this season · senior View Deuce Harmon's full player page | |||||||
| Cover Corner | 8 | 11 | 32 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
Cover CornerSteady in coverage; doesn't get beat deep and rarely gives up the big play. 141 of 270 CBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt PD rate18.8% 70th percentile · FBS corners, min. 10 tackles Plays like our readBreakout: his CFB Index score climbed from the 25th percentile to the 74th among FBS CBs | |||||||
| Cover Corner | 21 | 10 | 30 | 2 | 0 | 2.5 | 0 |
Cover CornerSteady in coverage; doesn't get beat deep and rarely gives up the big play. 141 of 270 CBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt PD rate6.7% bottom 24th percentile · FBS corners, min. 10 tackles Plays like View Kyron Chambers's full player page | |||||||
| Cover Corner | 13 | 7 | 26 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
Cover CornerSteady in coverage; doesn't get beat deep and rarely gives up the big play. The most common profile in its group this season — 141 of 270 classified this way. Played in 7 of 21 games this season · junior our readBreakout: his CFB Index score climbed from the 24th percentile to the 76th among FBS CBs | |||||||
| Centerfielder | 10 | 5 | 20 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
CenterfielderSingle-high range who erases the deep middle of the field. 133 of 801 Ss we've classified this way this season. Season receipt PD rate10.0% 60th percentile · FBS safeties, min. 15 tackles Plays like View Tyren Polley's full player page | |||||||
| Hybrid Nickel | 11 | 7 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Hybrid NickelMoves between deep coverage and the slot — the modern positionless DB. The most common profile in its group this season — 419 of 801 classified this way. Played in 7 of 21 games this season · junior View Jaden Milliner-Jones's full player page | |||||||
| 26 | 8 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 15 | 4 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| 27 | 5 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 25 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Kicking
| Player | # | G | FG M/A | FG% | XP M/A | Pts | Long |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steady | 95 | 11 | 14/20 | 70 | 36/37 | 78 | 51 |
| 41 | 2 | 1/3 | 33.3 | 12/12 | 15 | 43 |
Punting
| Player | # | G | No | Yds | Avg | Long | In20 | TB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steady | 43 | 13 | 55 | 2337 | 42.5 | 63 | 16 | 5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -0.12 EPA/play | 4 | 10 | 9 | 172 | 19.1 | 0 | 40 |
Punt Returns
| Player | # | G | No | Yds | Avg | TD | Long |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Slot Technician · +0.56 EPA/play | 8 | 13 | 16 | 168 | 10.5 | 0 | 27 |
2025 stat leaders
final
2025 stat leaders
1.
Ahmaad Moses
S
104 tot (def)
2.
Kevin Jennings
QB
3,641 yds (pass)
3.
Isaiah Nwokobia
S
80.0 tot (def)
4.
Brandon Booker
LB
69.0 tot (def)
5.
Jordan Hudson
WR
766 yds (rec)
Roster
2025
23
players carry a qualified CFB Index Score this season.
Ahmaad Moses
S
#1 of 544
Terry Webb
IDL
#6 of 330
Isaiah Smith
EDGE
#10 of 420
Jeffrey M'Ba
IDL
#12 of 330
Isaiah Nwokobia
S
#36 of 544
Jordan Hudson
WR
#65 of 485
+17 more
SMU · 2025 schedule & results9-4Brutal slateAverage opponent win rate 50% · 5 AP top-25 opponents on the schedule. 1 ranked win banked (time-of-game rank).
| Wk | Date | Us | Opp | Line | Opponent | Result | Record | Conf |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Aug 31 | #12 | #223 | -50.5 | East Texas A&M | W 42–13 141 | 1-0 | 0-0 |
| 2 | Sep 6 | #24 | #15 | -2.5 | Baylor | L 45–48 160 | 1-1 | 0-0 |
| 3 | Sep 13 | #19 | #118 | -28.5 | @Missouri State | W 28–10 135 | 2-1 | 0-0 |
| 4 | Sep 20 | #18 | #39 | +6.5 | @TCU | L 24–35 141 | 2-2 | 0-0 |
| 6 | Oct 4 | #23 | #97 | -17.5 | Syracuse | W 31–18 142 | 3-2 | 1-0 |
| 7 | Oct 11 | #23 | #99 | -19.5 | Stanford | W 34–10 127 | 4-2 | 2-0 |
| 8 | Oct 18 | #24 | #11 | +5.5 | @Clemson | W 35–24 143 | 5-2 | 3-0 |
| 9 | Oct 25 | #20 | #59 | -5.5 | @Wake Forest | L 12–13 139 | 5-3 | 3-1 |
| 10 | Nov 1 | #19 | #8 | +8.5 | MiamiTop 10 win | W 26–20 148 | 6-3 | 4-1 |
| 11 | Nov 8 | #18 | #97 | -10.5 | @Boston College | W 45–13 151 | 7-3 | 5-1 |
| 13 | Nov 22 | #12 | #29 | -4 | Louisville | W 38–6 123 | 8-3 | 6-1 |
| 14 | Nov 30 | #8 | #108 | -13.5 | @California | L 35–38 144 | 8-4 | 6-2 |
| Bowl Season | ||||||||
| 19 | Jan 3 | #10 | #37 | -2.5 | Arizona (N) | W 24–19 | 9-4 | 6-2 |
Advanced box score (EPA, success rate, explosiveness)▼
| Date | Opp | Result | Yds | TO | TOP | EPA/play | Success% | Explosive% | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 3 | Arizona | W 24–19 | — | — | — | +0.206 | 47.7% | 113.4% | One-score win |
| Nov 30 | @California | L 35–38 | 477 | 1 | 23:04 | +0.369 | 50.0% | 140.9% | Defense's roughest night |
| Nov 22 | Louisville | W 38–6 | 485 | 0 | 35:56 | +0.368 | 48.0% | 144.8% | Blowout win |
| Nov 8 | @Boston College | W 45–13 | 574 | 1 | 27:02 | +0.468 | 47.8% | 177.9% | Season-high EPA/play |
| Nov 1 | Miami | W 26–20 | 388 | 1 | 22:18 | +0.107 | 42.3% | 109.9% | One-score win |
| Oct 25 | @Wake Forest | L 12–13 | 246 | 3 | 27:38 | -0.148 | 22.1% | 80.0% | Season-low EPA/play |
| Oct 18 | @Clemson | W 35–24 | 429 | 1 | 28:45 | +0.198 | 35.2% | 171.9% | |
| Oct 11 | Stanford | W 34–10 | 370 | 0 | 23:30 | +0.342 | 43.4% | 158.4% | |
| Oct 4 | Syracuse | W 31–18 | 370 | 1 | 28:35 | +0.274 | 42.2% | 137.6% | |
| Sep 20 | @TCU | L 24–35 | 384 | 2 | 28:54 | +0.273 | 41.5% | 130.9% | |
| Sep 13 | @Missouri State | W 28–10 | 448 | 2 | 28:30 | +0.321 | 48.5% | 136.2% | |
| Sep 6 | Baylor | L 45–48 | 458 | 1 | 27:24 | +0.263 | 44.4% | 154.3% | One-score loss |
| Aug 31 | East Texas A&M | W 42–13 | 400 | 3 | 21:01 | +0.210 | 50.8% | 106.1% | Best success rate |
| Season average (13 games) | 419 | 1.3 | +0.250 | 43.4% | 135.6% | ||||
How They Play · 2025
How They Play · 2025SMU fields an elite pass-first, explosive, big-play offense behind an elite defense.
Opponent-adjusted percentiles vs all FBS. Bar = where this team ranks — right is better.
Team identity · competitive snaps only
How SMU actually scores
74th percentile quality, 42nd 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
SMU's 4th-quarter offense, before and after garbage time
Raw Q4 EPA/play ranks 92nd percentile in FBS. Strip out snaps taken with a blowout margin and it drops to the 70th — the correction is the finding, not a footnote.
Standard downs vs. passing downs
Does SMU hold up once the down-and-distance turns against them?
50th percentile success on standard downs, 57th 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
SMU by half
1st-half offense ranks 81st percentile in FBS; 2nd-half, 55th — competitive snaps only, garbage time excluded from both halves.
Schedule mirage
How much of SMU's number is the schedule?
Raw EPA/play through week 21 is 0.25; 92nd percentile once opponent strength is stripped out, it's 0.08. The widest gap came in week 2: 0.24 raw vs. 0.02 adjusted.
SMU reads strongest in rushing epa allowed (top 7%) and epa allowed (top 8%); the crux lives in rushing epa, where SMU sits at the 56th 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 · SMU
Most Similar Programs · SMUReads 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 · SMU · 2018-present
Elite
80% home win rate vs 57% on the road. margin runs +15.5 better at home. Gerald J. Ford Stadium seats 32,000, averaging 89% full (28,610 attendance, 25 games reported).
Home38-9Away29-21
Positional competition · RB room
The carries are split. The job isn’t.
TJ Harden and Chris Johnson Jr. split the carries (164/232 vs 68/232) -- but the job isn't split the same way. TJ Harden owns the receiving work; Chris Johnson Jr. produces in bigger chunks.
TJ HardenChris Johnson Jr.
Carries
the baseline -- every row below is tested against this split, not a flat 50/50
Q4, leading (competitive)
shared -- dots touch, this room really is a committee here
Targets
p = 0.007 -- real, not noise
Top-5-carry share
concentration and EPA/carry agree -- a real boom/bust split
Screened 3 claims, 2 survived, 1 falsified
Positional competition · WR/TE room
The targets are split. The job isn’t.
Jordan Hudson (WR) and R.J. Maryland (TE) split the targets (75/112 vs 37/112) -- but the job isn't split the same way. R.J. Maryland produces in bigger chunks.
Jordan HudsonR.J. Maryland
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
Garbage-time share
shared -- dots touch, this room really is a committee here
Top-5-catch share
concentration and EPA/target agree -- a real boom/bust split
Screened 3 claims, 1 survived, 2 falsified
What changed
SMU’s play-calling, before and after the change
Offense: Casey Woods / co-Jonathan Brewer / co-Rob Likens (2023) → Casey Woods / co-Garin Justice / co-Rob Likens (2024–2025)
The biggest shift: 1st-down pass rate moved up 10 points. The rest held closer to steady.
1st-down pass rate
Red-zone pass rate
Defense: Scott Symons (2022–2023) → co-Maurice Crum Jr. / Scott Symons / co-Rickey Hunley Jr. (2024–2025)
The biggest shift: 4th-down go rate moved down 20 points. The rest held closer to steady.
1st-down pass rate
Red-zone pass rate
4th-down go rate
Season by season
How SMU’s current staff calls plays, year over year
Offense: Casey Woods / co-Garin Justice / co-Rob Likens (2024–2025)
1st-down pass rate
2024: 45% → 2025: 54% · 10-pt range · #81 of 171 · a typical amount
Red-zone pass rate
2024: 33% → 2025: 44% · 11-pt range · #94 of 171 · a typical amount
4th-down go rate
2024: 22% → 2025: 23% · 1-pt range · #172 of 171 · less than most
Defense: co-Maurice Crum Jr. / Scott Symons / co-Rickey Hunley Jr. (2024–2025)
1st-down pass rate
2024: 45% → 2025: 54% · 10-pt range · #93 of 189 · a typical amount
Red-zone pass rate
2024: 33% → 2025: 44% · 11-pt range · #114 of 189 · a typical amount
4th-down go rate
2024: 22% → 2025: 23% · 1-pt range · #189 of 188 · less than most
Defensive identity · pass zones
What this defense gives up, by zone.
On short passes, SMU’s defense allows a completion rate above the FBS mean (66.8% vs 65.9% league-wide, shrunk toward the mean for its 190-play sample) — mid-pack, 86 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=190 short-zone plays faced, raw rate 67.4%
Historical echo
SMU’s breakout has happened before — and 3 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.
Toledo 2012–2017
fell back
North Texas 1965–1970
fell back
Auburn 1967–1972
fell back
Pittsburgh 1973–1978
kept climbing
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.
Venue texture
76°F average kickoff temp; 10% of games had measurable precipitation; 9 mph average wind.
Based on 73 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
SMU's 2014–2025 record is 83-67. The era is still being written; the CFP line is the one the program is arguing for.
All-Time Record
554-570-54
since 1915 · 109 seasons · .470 win rate
HOME
350-244-26
AWAY
196-316-27
NEUTRAL
8-10-1
1910s
1920s
1930s
1940s
1950s
1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000s
2010s
2020s
Program résumé
1CFP apps
The program, in full — read the essay
The NCAA shut SMU down entirely in 1987 — the only full-season death penalty in college football history. Thirty-seven years later, the Mustangs made the inaugural 12-team College Football Playoff in their first ACC season. The comeback is complete. Now they have to prove it stays.
Eric Dickerson and Craig James ran out of Dallas in the early 1980s as one of the most celebrated backfields in the sport — Pony Express, Southwest Conference titles, an 11-0-1 in 1982. The pay-for-play scandal that followed cost the program its entire 1987 season and left it in a wilderness that lasted a generation. The scar is part of the SMU story, not the whole story anymore: Rhett Lashlee and the program he inherited from Sonny Dykes finished the comeback by earning the at-large spot in the inaugural 12-team Playoff, losing 38-10 at Penn State in the first round, and proving that a program executed by the NCAA can climb back to the sport's biggest stage.
The 2025 season went 9-4 (6-2 ACC), with a 24-19 Holiday Bowl win over Arizona — a legitimate result, a real step, and not enough for a Playoff bid. The internal fracture is moving from gratitude to expectation: the faction grateful just to be back has been joined by a faction that, having seen the Playoff once, now demands the Mustangs win the ACC and go back. Dallas money and a recruiting-rich city make the demand feel plausible. The question is whether the program has the infrastructure to meet it sustainably.
What 2026 will answer is whether SMU can win the ACC outright — not just make the conference title game on a field goal, not just earn a bubble Playoff spot, but actually claim the league. The 2024 near-miss against Clemson on the final play is the measuring stick. The resurrection is complete. What comes next is harder.
How they play
Fast, aggressive, and Air-Raid-descended — Lashlee's system is built around spreading the field and attacking verticals with tempo, the Dallas-swagger offensive identity that suits a program selling itself to Texas recruits on NIL and facilities. Gerald J. Ford Stadium is modern and well-resourced; the recruiting base in the Dallas-Fort Worth corridor is among the best in the country. The Mustangs play to outscore opponents with a professional-style passing attack, backed by boosters who have learned to operate within the rules.
Rising
SMU 2016–2025. Climbing +1.4 rungs across the last 10 seasons. Slope +0.32 rungs / year — moving up the prestige scale.
CFP Era · SMU
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 · 9-4 · CFP #21 / AP #25
Season Standing · 2025 · 9-4 · CFP #21 / AP #25Ranked (25-16)
SMU: Ranked in the AP/Coaches polls, 16-25. National relevance achieved.
R0R1R2R3R4R5R6R7R8R9
Sub-FBSBuildingBowlRankedContenderPlayoff
ACC Standing · 2025
6th in the ACC
SMU sits 6th of 17 in the ACC at 6-2. Mid-conference — moves up or down depend on rivalry results and the late-season closing run.
| # | Program | Record |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Duke | 7-2 |
| 2 | Virginia | 7-3 |
| 3 | Georgia Tech | 6-2 |
| 4 | Miami | 6-2 |
| 5 | Pittsburgh | 6-2 |
| 6 | SMU | 6-2 |
| 7 | NC State | 5-4 |
| 8 | California | 4-4 |
| 9 | Clemson | 4-4 |
| 10 | Louisville | 4-4 |
| 11 | Wake Forest | 4-4 |
| 12 | Stanford | 3-5 |
| 13 | Florida State | 2-6 |
| 14 | North Carolina | 2-6 |
| 15 | Virginia Tech | 2-6 |
| 16 | Boston College | 1-7 |
| 17 | Syracuse | 1-7 |
Coaching Era · SMU
Coaching Era · SMURhett Lashlee
Rhett Lashlee has held the program for 5 seasons — the era is established.
Era Rhett Lashlee · 2022–presentPrev: Jim Leavitt (2021)OC: co-Garin Justice / co-Rob LikensPrev OC: Casey Woods / co-Garin Justice / co-Rob Likens (2024–2025)DC: co-Maurice Crum Jr. / co-Rickey Hunley Jr.Prev DC: co-Maurice Crum Jr. / Scott Symons / co-Rickey Hunley Jr. (2024–2025)
5
years · era
Rituals
Three gameday rituals — the ones outsiders never quite catch.
Pony Express Era (1979-1982)
since 1979
Eric Dickerson + Craig James as 'Pony Express' — the era that produced two future Hall of Famers, an 11-0-1 season in 1982, and the recruiting violations that triggered the NCAA death penalty in 1987. The death penalty (no football in 1987, voluntary cancellation in 1988) is the only one ever issued in CFB.
ACC Entry 2024
since 2024
The 2024 ACC entry from American Athletic, plus 11-3 + CFP appearance + Rhett Lashlee's hire — three structural resets in one cycle. The decade-long rebuild from 1987 death penalty to 2024 P5 + CFP is the defining institutional comeback arc in CFB.
Pony Ears
since 1920s
The 'Pony Ears' hand sign — two fingers extended above the head like horse ears — is the universal Mustang fan identity gesture. Used in tailgates, photographed at every recruit visit, raised after touchdowns. The simplest hand sign in CFB.
Program memory
What this program never forgets
Most weeks vanish. These didn’t.
1987
The death penalty
The NCAA cancels SMU's entire 1987 season for repeated pay-for-play violations; the program voluntarily sits out 1988 too — the only full shutdown in the sport's history
Wound
2024
ACC arrival and the Playoff
In its first ACC season SMU goes 11-3, loses the ACC title game to Clemson on a last-second field goal, and earns the final at-large spot in the inaugural 12-team College Football Playoff
2024 Playoff first round
Seeded 11th, SMU loses 38-10 at Penn State — the comeback reaches the sport's biggest stage, then runs into a blue blood
Heartbreak
Moment of the Year · SMU · 2025
Moment of the Year · SMU · 2025Postseason · Won 24-19 vs Arizona
Week 19 of 2025. Postseason win — the season-defining moment.
Bowl / Postseason Ledger
Bowl / Postseason LedgerRecent postseason (2017-2025): 1-5
Most recent: 2025 — win 24-19 (home). Last 5 postseason: 1-4.
20252024202320222019
NFL Draft Pipeline
2022–2026
NFL Draft PipelineDeveloping
6 picks last 5 cycles. Pipeline emerging.
6
picks · 0 R1
#55
Rashee Rice
Wide Receiver · 2023 · Kansas City · #3/488 final season
#105
Danny Gray
Wide Receiver · 2022 · San Francisco · #65/468 final season
#133
Matthew Hibner
Tight End · 2026 · Baltimore · #27/156 final season
Succeeded by Miles Uter · 3★
#64 all-time · 7 first-round picksthe talent factory →
Unit lineage
SMU’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 · co-Dan Morrison / co-Jason Phillips2015–2017 · Joe Craddock2018–2019 · Rhett Lashlee2020–2021 · co-A. J. Ricker / co-Garrett Riley2022 · Casey Woods2023 · Casey Woods / co-Jonathan Brewer / co-Rob Likens2024–2025 · Casey Woods / co-Garin Justice / co-Rob Likens
Hired for 2026: co-Garin Justice / co-Rob Likens — not yet reflected in on-field data.
Defense2014–2025
2014 · Tom Mason2015–2017 · Van Malone2018–2020 · Kevin Kane2021 · Jim Leavitt2022–2023 · Scott Symons2024–2025 · co-Maurice Crum Jr. / Scott Symons / co-Rickey Hunley Jr.
Hired for 2026: co-Maurice Crum Jr. / co-Rickey Hunley Jr. — not yet reflected in on-field data.
Elite (≥70th pct)AveragePoor (≤30th pct)
Chronicle Visuals
Average 2025 continuity (50% back) — qb room anchors it, offense is the stress point.
The portal left a hole at TE the roster still has to answer.
1 player drafted in 2026; the reload runs through the portal and recruiting.
SMU signs higher-rated classes than its draft yield delivers.
r/cfb moments
1.3k
[Postgame Thread] UCF Defeats SMU 41-19
1.3k
[Postgame Thread] SMU Defeats TCU 41-38
861
[Postgame Thread] SMU Defeats TCU 42-34
764
[Postgame Thread] TCU Defeats SMU 35-24
550
[Postgame Thread] BYU Defeats SMU 24-23
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