2coordinators
UTSA7-6Latest
The Texas State rivalryUTSA: coordinator change reshaping a unit.our read
UTSA fans are split on what comes next.
belief cooled ↓ 10.7vs prior week
Fanbase belief
Mixed
51/100 · 71 mentions
~ our readGrounding
running on emotion
0% cite a stat · 7% typical ✓ counted
~ our readVolatility
Chaotic
σ 23 pts
~ our readThe model
#27
CFB Zeitgeist · +7.2
✓ measured2Hope-Doping·Offseason
UTSA is the program San Antonio willed into existence in a decade — no football before 2011, a 12-2 ranked season by 2021, and a third straight bowl win to prove the city's team is permanent.
Title DroughtSince 2021 · 4 yrs
The fanbase's chip isn't aimed at a rival or the media — it's the founding insult, the years outsiders assumed San Antonio's seventh-largest-city market would never field a real team. Every bowl win i…
offseason · quiet
Roster Reload - UTSA
2026 snapshot - 2026-08-06Returning Production96%High continuity
Talent Composite#65 nationally247 composite 662.1
Portal Additions22Primary repair: EDGE
Portal Losses23Primary pressure: DL
Draft Loss0No NFL Draft departures recorded
Recruiting Reload#79Depth class
EDGEin 6 - Collins Acheampongout 3 - Nnanna AnyanwuNeed Filled
DLin 2 - Eddy Smithout 5 - Chidera OtutuStarter Risk
current room: 289 lbs avg (2025 roster)
Sin 3 - Joel Rogersout 3 - Brandon Jacob Jr.Downgrade
current room: 184 lbs avg (2025 roster)
WRin 3 - James Madison IIout 3 - Devin McCuinEven
current room: 189 lbs avg (2025 roster)
TEin 2 - Miles Campbellout 3 - Houston ThomasEven
current room: 240 lbs avg (2025 roster)
CBin 0out 2 - Davin MartinStarter Risk
current room: 181 lbs avg (2025 roster)
Belief EKG
WinLoss · hover for scorePrior seasons
Approaching
30 days
until kickoff · vs UT Rio Grande Valley · Sat Sep 5 · 19:30 UTC
The experience
UTSA is the American Athletic program whose 2011 program founding + 2021 12-2 Jeff Traylor Conference USA championship + Alamodome NFL-grade venue define what most-recent-FBS-newcomer-ascent looks like.
Offense: StrongTempo: Explosive, big-playDefense: Solid
UTSA's 2026 season hinges on high continuity and balanced portal churn
With a returning total of 96% and a balanced transfer profile, UTSA is positioned for a competitive season. The team's depth class recruiting rank of #79 and moderate freshman injection may limit ceiling potential.
- Roster reloadUTSA maintains high continuity with 96% returning players and a balanced portal churn, evidenced by 22 transfers in and 23 out.
Data as of 2026-08-03
·
Validated against program evidence
Rowdy the Roadrunner is patient.
UTSA · the story right now
11 storylines developing
What UTSA's coordinator hires is really about
the open questiondo the new coordinators fit the roster?
coordinatorsthis cycle✓ factnew
UTSA: coordinator change reshaping a unit.
narrative tension · our read
underdogthis cycle✓ factnew
David Amador II produces at a notably higher rate when his team is an underdog than when favored, and his per-target value rises too, not just raw catches.
narrative tension · our read
money downthis cycle✓ factnew
Devin Mccuin 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
deep threatthis cycle~attributednew
David Amador II is used almost exclusively underneath -- a low share of his targets are downfield shots.
narrative tension · our read
deep threatthis cycle~attributednew
Devin Mccuin is used almost exclusively underneath -- a low share of his targets are downfield shots.
narrative tension · our read
deep threatthis cycle~attributednew
Houston Thomas is used almost exclusively underneath -- a low share of his targets are downfield shots.
narrative tension · our read
deep threatthis cycle~attributednew
Jamel Hardy is used almost exclusively underneath -- a low share of his targets are downfield shots.
narrative tension · our read
closerthis cycle~attributednew
Will Henderson III: a closer signal screened this season.
narrative tension · our read
garbage timethis cycle~attributednew
Will Henderson III: a garbage time merchant signal screened this season.
narrative tension · our read
program_outlookthis cycle~readnew
UTSA enters 2025 at No. 62 in SP+ — the 7-6 record and top-quintile returning production under Jeff Traylor challenge the gap between SP+ and on-field reality.
what happenedUTSA enters 2025 rated No. 62 in SP+ (+3.7). ✓ fact
the contexttop-quintile returning production in FBS — 1% of production comes back
narrative tension · our read
program_outlookthis cycle~readnew
UTSA enters 2026 — the 7-6 record and top-quintile returning production contrast with the 62nd SP+ rank, highlighting the tension between momentum and the challenge of sustaining it under Jeff Traylor.
what happenedUTSA enters 2026 rated No. 62 in 2025 SP+ (+3.7). ✓ fact
the contexttop-quintile returning production in FBS — 1% of production comes back
narrative tension · our read
The story
The Offseason Ledger · UTSA
1 verified update · portal · recruiting · staff · news- Portal
QB Mark Wiepert transfers from Oregon to UTSA
Lugo's gone and the portal board had zero QB additions — Wiepert doesn't have to be a star, he just has to be the guy Traylor can hand a rising SP+ offense to while everyone else is still figuring out the AAC.
Transfer portal snapshot
-3.7 net portal points
(raw ledger: -8.8 — unweighted, no position adjustment)DL-8.0
starter risk
EDGE+7.5
need not filled
CB-7.2
starter risk
OT+4.4
need not filled
RB+3.6
low confidence
P-3.5
low confidence
S-3.4
TE-1.4
WR-0.6
IOL-0.2
LB+0.0
QB+0.0
Top 3 commits
2026 class
★★★☆☆
Asaad Chapman
#7 national
★★★☆☆
Archie Chambers
#13 national
Profiles like a typical incoming linebacker — 11 of his 25 closest recruiting profiles since 2018 shared the Balanced Linebacker archetype.~our read · projection from recruiting profile — no college snaps yet
★★★☆☆
Jarvse Dickerson
#921 national
Projects: Hybrid Nickel — 12 of his 25 closest recruiting profiles since 2018 shared the Hybrid Nickel archetype.~our read · projection from recruiting profile — no college snaps yet
→
Fan confidence in a typical range for this program right now
35th percentile among FBS programs
Fan vs. market↓
35th
Fan percentile
(FBS mood rank)
(FBS mood rank)
7.5
Vegas O/U wins
(60th among FBS)
(60th among FBS)
Market 25pp more optimistic than fan mood
Win total consensus · 3 books
Market outlook
Season expectations
Win total3 booksO/U 7.5
CFP championship#103 in field+100000
AAC title#2 in market+450
Sportsbook consensus · best odds across multiple books · 2026-08-06
UTSA · Next-Season Outcome Band
UTSA · 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 · UTSA · Season outlook Confidence
UTSA enters the season in the middle of the pack. That's the whole tension.
UTSA enters 2025 rated No. 62 in SP+ (+3.7). It is top-quintile returning production in FBS — 1% of production comes back. SP+ describes what the program HAS done, not what it will do. The season is the field test. The preview consensus leans in — but preseason ratings reward the recent past, not the season ahead.
The saga so far~1 month old
4 weeks agoQB Mark Wiepert transfer commits from Oregon — CFBD /player/portal
4 weeks agoQB Mark Wiepert transfers from Oregon to UTSA — Portal-moves table (verified)
CFB Zeitgeist Read · our take
UTSA enters 2025 at No. 62 in SP+ — the 7-6 record and top-quintile returning production under Jeff Traylor challenge the gap between SP+ and on-field reality.
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: UTSA enters 2025 rated No. 62 in SP+ (+3.7) — top-quintile returning production in FBS — 1% of production comes back.
How each room is reacting — tap to expand
📣Believers2 bullish items -- the case it's working.›
The 'the projection is underselling us' read -- fans betting the season beats the preview number.
“UTSA Athletics announces 2026 Hall of Fame Class”
UTSA Athletics · 2026-08-05 · read ↗
“Robles wins Santo Domingo 2026 Central American and Caribbean Games with Puerto Rican U20 squad”
UTSA Athletics · 2026-08-04 · read ↗
“Veteran Owen McCown leads UTSA into first day of preseason practice - San Antonio Express-News”
news · 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 boards26% of recent board volume — the fanbase is locked in. Board mood this week: mostly neutral · anger notable (28%).›
This event was in 151 of 589 board posts (26%) over the last 60 days — a fanbase consumed by it. Fan text shown verbatim, attributed to the community not the individual poster.
"For staff, students, and faculty. Especially incoming freshman with no car… remember that you can get unlimited rides using the VIA bus system for FREE when you activate it using y"
r/UTSA ~ fan take
"Anybody got a random refund is it the fafsa refund meaning I don’t have to pay anything or what else is it?? Got this random refund in June"
r/UTSA ~ fan take
Board health this week (75 posts): 15% positive · 72% neutral · 13% negative. Team-level weekly mood — not specific to this event. The boards ≠ the fanbase: a self-selected vocal slice.
Following now · UTSA · Season outlook Confidence
UTSA enters the season in the middle of the pack. That's the whole tension.
UTSA enters 2026 rated No. 62 in 2025 SP+ (+3.7). It is top-quintile returning production in FBS — 1% of production comes back. SP+ describes what the program HAS done, not what it will do. The season is the field test. The preview consensus leans in — but preseason ratings reward the recent past, not the season ahead.
The saga so far~1 month old
4 weeks agoQB Mark Wiepert transfer commits from Oregon — CFBD /player/portal
4 weeks agoQB Mark Wiepert transfers from Oregon to UTSA — Portal-moves table (verified)
CFB Zeitgeist Read · our take
UTSA enters 2026 — the 7-6 record and top-quintile returning production contrast with the 62nd SP+ rank, highlighting the tension between momentum and the challenge of sustaining it under Jeff Traylor.
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: UTSA enters 2026 rated No. 62 in 2025 SP+ (+3.7) — top-quintile returning production in FBS — 1% of production comes back.
How each room is reacting — tap to expand
📣Believers2 bullish items -- the case it's working.›
The 'the projection is underselling us' read -- fans betting the season beats the preview number.
“UTSA Athletics announces 2026 Hall of Fame Class”
UTSA Athletics · 2026-08-05 · read ↗
“Robles wins Santo Domingo 2026 Central American and Caribbean Games with Puerto Rican U20 squad”
UTSA Athletics · 2026-08-04 · read ↗
“Veteran Owen McCown leads UTSA into first day of preseason practice - San Antonio Express-News”
news · 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 boards26% of recent board volume — the fanbase is locked in. Board mood this week: mostly neutral · anger notable (28%).›
This event was in 151 of 589 board posts (26%) over the last 60 days — a fanbase consumed by it. Fan text shown verbatim, attributed to the community not the individual poster.
"For staff, students, and faculty. Especially incoming freshman with no car… remember that you can get unlimited rides using the VIA bus system for FREE when you activate it using y"
r/UTSA ~ fan take
"Anybody got a random refund is it the fafsa refund meaning I don’t have to pay anything or what else is it?? Got this random refund in June"
r/UTSA ~ fan take
Board health this week (75 posts): 15% positive · 72% 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
Mixed
Three of five. Trending up, not yet hot.
Streak W1Last 5 · 3-2Last 10 · 6-4
The forecast
Opens Sep 5
vs UT Rio Grande Valley · at home
Season line7.5 winsover -125
StrongExplosive, big-playSolid
✓ fact on line · ~ our read on style
Rival pulse
Texas State
Hopeful+12
I-35 Rivalry
Fan mood index · most recent r/cfb data
Recruiting Footprint · 2026
Recruiting Footprint · 2026
20
TX · 13AL · 1CA · 1LA · 1MS · 1OK · 1SD · 1UT · 1
TX leads the 2026 class with 13 commits. National footprint reaching 8 states.
Where they recruit · 2023-2026
73 signees across 17 states, 2023-2026. TX leads the pull.
r/cfb this year
[Postgame Thread] UTSA Defeats FIU 57-20
[Postgame Thread] USF Defeats UTSA 55-23
[Game Thread] First Responder Bowl: UTSA vs. FIU (8:00 PM ET)
Top community posts · last 12 months · r/cfb
National spotlight
6 games with TV coverage: 4 ESPN, 1 cable, 1 streaming
Kickoff windows: 6 primetime
Fumble luck
Recovering 60% of their own fumbles — running hot vs. the ~51% league rate.
6 of 10 own fumbles recovered themselves; 7 of 14 forced fumbles recovered, 2025 only.
Takeaway conversion
Converting 17% of pass disruptions into takeaways — right in line with the ~19% league rate.
8 interceptions of 48 disrupted passes (40 deflected, 8 intercepted), 2025 only.
Penalty battle
Losing the penalty battle: 95 penalties committed vs. 84 drawn on opponents, a 113-yard deficit.
893 penalty yards committed vs. 780 drawn on opponents, 2025 season total.
The Pulse on UTSA
51
Δ -10.7 vs last wk
71
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
"UTSA"
— UTSA fanbase · recurring line
Fanbase Signals
Cohort Divergence0 pctSpread between sub-fanbase cohorts in the Pulse window.
The Fever Year
Position = mood · width = volume · color = the kind of feeling
Inside the fanbase — all 9 corners
Cr/CFB
GGoogle News
UUnderdog Dynasty
CCampus paper
RRowdy Talk
BBluesky
YYouTube
One voice
+0.00whole-room sentiment · cool our read
Every cohort from the die-hards to the analytics crowd lands within 0.01 of each other — a rare consensus. The loudest voice in the room:
UUnderdog DynastyBeat · article
Ryder Burton looks to build on iconic upset as Uab’s QB1
underdogdynasty.com →How UTSA fans actually talk real · top-upvoted
Rr/CFBthe room
Someone probably went to a range and forgot it in their pocket before washing their clothes. Why is this a big deal?
▲ 69 ▼open ↗
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
Die-hards−0.12
Casuals−0.13
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.
321 mentions · 7 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 readUTSA fans are split right down the middle, with almost nothing concrete behind it yet.
backed by facts
the mood
✓ counted We read 75 posts from UTSA fans this week.
Fanbase divided: 52% believers, 48% skeptics
Fan opinions split nearly 50/50 right now · See all divided fanbases →
Five Lenses
What people are saying right now
Radio, beat writers & editorial14 posts
News & campus coverage13 posts
Rent free · r/cfb fan posts, last season
UTSA fans this offseason 14% of posts bring up another team▲1pp saltier#33 of 43 saltiest · mostly about Texas
Fanbase Health Index · UTSA · high confidence
Fanbase Health Index · UTSA · high confidenceGrowing (61)
DecliningStableGrowingSurging
On-Field — 7-6 (54% win rate)60
Volume — 826 effective signal-N88
Cohort Engagement — Divergence 0.00 — quiet35
Key stats — 2025 — FBS rank
Points/game#13 / 138 · 91st pct35.5
Pts allowed/game#91 / 138 · 35th pct28.8
Total yards/gm#33 / 136 · 76th pct421.3
Rush yards/gm#49 / 136 · 65th pct174.1
Pass yards/gm#42 / 136 · 70th pct247.2
Yards allowed/gm#83 / 136 · 40th pct372.8
Rush yds allowed/gm#76 / 136 · 45th pct150.1
Sacks#76 / 136 · 45th pct24
Interceptions#54 / 136 · 61st pct11
3rd-down conv#71 / 136 · 49th pct39.7%
All 98 stats
Offense / Defense
Total yards
Team5477421.3/gm6.15/play#33 / 136 · 76th pct#22 / 70 · 70th pct#5 / 14 · 71st pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Opp4847372.8/gm5.70/play#83 / 136 · 40th pct#51 / 70 · 29th pct#7 / 14 · 57th pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Rush yards
Team2263174.1/gm2.54/play#49 / 136 · 65th pct#24 / 70 · 67th pct#9 / 14 · 43rd pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Opp1951150.1/gm2.30/play#76 / 136 · 45th pct#48 / 70 · 33rd pct#6 / 14 · 64th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Rush carries
Team44434.2/gm#74 / 136 · 46th pct#34 / 70 · 53rd pct#10 / 14 · 36th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Opp45535.0/gm#68 / 136 · 51st pct#41 / 70 · 43rd pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
Rush TDs
Team211.6/gm#63 / 136 · 54th pct#35 / 70 · 51st pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Opp161.2/gm#45 / 136 · 68th pct#31 / 70 · 57th pct#2 / 14 · 93rd pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Net pass yards
Team3214247.2/gm3.61/play#42 / 136 · 70th pct#25 / 70 · 66th pct#6 / 14 · 64th pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Opp2896222.8/gm3.41/play#85 / 136 · 38th pct#48 / 70 · 33rd pct#7 / 14 · 57th pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Pass attempts
Team44734.4/gm#29 / 136 · 79th pct#16 / 70 · 79th pct#3 / 14 · 86th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
Opp39530.4/gm#78 / 136 · 43rd pct#38 / 70 · 47th pct#10 / 14 · 36th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Completions
Team29822.9/gm#22 / 136 · 85th pct#15 / 70 · 80th pct#3 / 14 · 86th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
Opp23718.2/gm#63 / 136 · 54th pct#27 / 70 · 63rd pct#7 / 14 · 57th pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Pass TDs
Team342.6/gm#3 / 136 · 99th pct#2 / 70 · 99th pct#2 / 14 · 93rd pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Opp262.0/gm#127 / 136 · 7th pct#66 / 70 · 7th pct#13 / 14 · 14th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Passer rating
Team147.2147.2#30 / 136 · 79th pct#22 / 70 · 70th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
Opp139.8139.8#102 / 136 · 26th pct#54 / 70 · 24th pct#7 / 14 · 57th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Interceptions thrown
Team70.5/gm#97 / 136 · 29th pct#47 / 70 · 34th pct#9 / 14 · 43rd pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Opp110.8/gm#76 / 136 · 45th pct#38 / 70 · 47th pct#10 / 14 · 36th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Sacks (def)
Team241.8/gm#76 / 136 · 45th pct#45 / 70 · 37th pct#6 / 14 · 64th pct#8 / 10 · 30th pct
Opp211.6/gm#47 / 136 · 66th pct#27 / 70 · 63rd pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#1 / 10 · 100th pct
Tackles for loss
Team775.9/gm#43 / 136 · 69th pct#26 / 70 · 64th pct#5 / 14 · 71st pct#9 / 10 · 20th pct
Opp755.8/gm#105 / 136 · 24th pct#58 / 70 · 19th pct#11 / 14 · 29th pct#5 / 10 · 60th pct
First downs
Team28321.8/gm#41 / 136 · 71st pct#25 / 70 · 66th pct#7 / 14 · 57th pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Opp24819.1/gm#60 / 136 · 57th pct#37 / 70 · 49th pct#2 / 14 · 93rd pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
3rd-down conv
Team695.3/gm#65 / 136 · 53rd pct#32 / 70 · 56th pct#11 / 14 · 29th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Opp644.9/gm#46 / 136 · 67th pct#26 / 70 · 64th pct#3 / 14 · 86th pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
3rd-down att
Team17413.4/gm#61 / 136 · 56th pct#27 / 70 · 63rd pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Opp18514.2/gm#100 / 136 · 27th pct#52 / 70 · 27th pct#9 / 14 · 43rd pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
4th-down conv
Team131.0/gm#68 / 136 · 51st pct#37 / 70 · 49th pct#11 / 14 · 29th pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Opp151.2/gm#83 / 136 · 40th pct#41 / 70 · 43rd pct#3 / 14 · 86th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
4th-down att
Team282.2/gm#50 / 136 · 64th pct#26 / 70 · 64th pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Opp342.6/gm#116 / 136 · 15th pct#59 / 70 · 17th pct#9 / 14 · 43rd pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
Time of possession
Team414:1231:52/gm#31 / 136 · 78th pct#15 / 70 · 80th pct#5 / 14 · 71st pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Opp365:4828:08/gm#37 / 136 · 74th pct#14 / 70 · 81st pct#6 / 14 · 64th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
Kicking & Punting
Field goals#26 / 135 · 81st pct17/20 (85.0%)
Extra points57/57
Punting#47 / 136 · 66th pct44.5 avg · 55 punts
Turnovers & special teams
Turnovers
Team120.9/gm#113 / 136 · 18th pct#56 / 70 · 21st pct#10 / 14 · 36th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
Opp181.4/gm#79 / 136 · 43rd pct#41 / 70 · 43rd pct#9 / 14 · 43rd pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
Fumbles lost
Team50.4/gm#91 / 136 · 34th pct#41 / 70 · 43rd pct#11 / 14 · 29th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
Opp70.5/gm#71 / 136 · 49th pct#41 / 70 · 43rd pct#5 / 14 · 71st pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
INT return TDs
Team20.2/gm#18 / 135 · 87th pct#12 / 70 · 84th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct#2 / 10 · 90th pct
Opp20.2/gm#105 / 136 · 24th pct#57 / 70 · 20th pct#11 / 14 · 29th pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
INT return yards
Team15411.8/gm#45 / 136 · 68th pct#25 / 70 · 66th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Opp1259.6/gm#78 / 136 · 43rd pct#41 / 70 · 43rd pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Punt ret yds
Team1199.2/gm#76 / 136 · 45th pct#49 / 70 · 31st pct#5 / 14 · 71st pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Opp28221.7/gm#129 / 136 · 6th pct#67 / 70 · 6th pct#14 / 14 · 7th pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct
Punt ret TDs
Team00.0/gm#43 / 135 · 69th pct#23 / 70 · 69th pct#3 / 13 · 85th pct#3 / 10 · 80th pct
Opp20.2/gm#128 / 135 · 6th pct#67 / 70 · 6th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct#9 / 9 · 11th pct
Kick ret yds
Team21816.8/gm#116 / 136 · 15th pct#58 / 70 · 19th pct#13 / 14 · 14th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
Opp60946.8/gm#111 / 136 · 19th pct#61 / 70 · 14th pct#10 / 14 · 36th pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Kick ret TDs
Team00.0/gm#40 / 136 · 71st pct#17 / 70 · 77th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#3 / 11 · 82nd pct
Opp10.1/gm#97 / 135 · 29th pct#53 / 70 · 26th pct#11 / 13 · 23rd pct#8 / 9 · 22nd pct
Penalty yards
Team89368.7/gm#11 / 136 · 93rd pct#5 / 70 · 94th pct#2 / 14 · 93rd pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Opp78060.0/gm#107 / 136 · 22nd pct#61 / 70 · 14th pct#11 / 14 · 29th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Other
Penalties#17 / 136 · 88th pct#5 / 70 · 94th pct#2 / 14 · 93rd pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct957.3/gm
Red zone pass rate#17 / 154 · 90th pct#6 / 70 · 93rd pct#2 / 13 · 92nd pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct0.50.0/gm
H1 epa per play#21 / 162 · 88th pct#16 / 70 · 79th pct#5 / 13 · 69th pct0.30.0/gm
Passes intercepted opponent#23 / 136 · 84th pct#11 / 70 · 86th pct#6 / 14 · 64th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct70.5/gm
Fumbles rec (def)#25 / 136 · 82nd pct#17 / 70 · 77th pct#3 / 14 · 86th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct50.4/gm
Fourth down go rate#25 / 138 · 83rd pct#9 / 70 · 89th pct#8 / 13 · 46th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct0.50.0/gm
H2 epa per play#36 / 142 · 75th pct#23 / 70 · 69th pct#6 / 13 · 62nd pct0.20.0/gm
Punt returns#44 / 136 · 68th pct#27 / 70 · 63rd pct#2 / 14 · 93rd pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct191.5/gm
Fumbles recovered#49 / 136 · 65th pct#19 / 70 · 74th pct#9 / 14 · 43rd pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct70.5/gm
H1 epa per play opponent#53 / 167 · 69th pct#30 / 70 · 59th pct#3 / 13 · 85th pct0.10.0/gm
Interceptions (def)#54 / 136 · 61st pct#27 / 70 · 63rd pct#5 / 14 · 71st pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct110.8/gm
First down pass rate#86 / 215 · 60th pct#30 / 70 · 59th pct#3 / 13 · 85th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct0.50.0/gm
Penalties (opp)#91 / 136 · 34th pct#54 / 70 · 24th pct#10 / 14 · 36th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct846.5/gm
Kick ret (opp)#100 / 136 · 27th pct#58 / 70 · 19th pct#9 / 14 · 43rd pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct272.1/gm
H2 epa per play opponent#105 / 143 · 27th pct#53 / 70 · 26th pct#10 / 13 · 31st pct0.20.0/gm
Kick returns#106 / 136 · 23rd pct#50 / 70 · 30th pct#12 / 14 · 21st pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct141.1/gm
Recruiting rating#107 / 138 · 23rd pct#69 / 70 · 3rd pct#7 / 14 · 57th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct138.810.7/gm
Punt ret (opp)#116 / 136 · 15th pct#62 / 70 · 13th pct#13 / 14 · 14th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct221.7/gm
Situational
3rd-down conversion
Off39.7%#71 / 136 · 49th pct#41 / 70 · 43rd pct#9 / 14 · 43rd pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Def34.6%#29 / 136 · 79th pct#16 / 70 · 79th pct#2 / 14 · 93rd pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
4th-down conversion
Off46.4%#107 / 136 · 22nd pct#59 / 70 · 17th pct#13 / 14 · 14th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Def44.1%#27 / 136 · 81st pct#15 / 70 · 80th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Turnover margin#27 / 136 · 81st pct#17 / 70 · 77th pct#6 / 14 · 64th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct+0.46/gm
Sack rate (def)#88 / 136 · 36th pct#50 / 70 · 30th pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#9 / 10 · 20th pct6.1%
Red Zone & Drive Efficiency (2014– , play-by-play derived)
Red zone trips
Team493.8/gm#43 / 167 · 75th pct#28 / 70 · 61st pct#6 / 13 · 62nd pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Opp393.0/gm#78 / 166 · 54th pct#29 / 70 · 60th pct#3 / 13 · 85th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Red zone score %
Team75.5%75.5%#103 / 167 · 39th pct#55 / 70 · 23rd pct#11 / 13 · 23rd pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct
Opp84.6%84.6%#125 / 166 · 25th pct#57 / 70 · 20th pct#11 / 13 · 23rd pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Points / drive
Team2.20.2/gm#55 / 167 · 68th pct#38 / 70 · 47th pct#9 / 13 · 38th pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Opp1.90.1/gm#74 / 166 · 56th pct#42 / 70 · 41st pct#6 / 13 · 62nd pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Yards / drive
Team43.73.4/gm#50 / 167 · 71st pct#31 / 70 · 57th pct#8 / 13 · 46th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
Opp38.02.9/gm#44 / 166 · 74th pct#24 / 70 · 67th pct#3 / 13 · 85th pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Plays / drive
Team6.40.5/gm#106 / 167 · 37th pct#54 / 70 · 24th pct#12 / 13 · 15th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Opp6.10.5/gm#22 / 166 · 87th pct#6 / 70 · 93rd pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Three-and-out rate
Team12.3%12.3%#63 / 167 · 63rd pct#33 / 70 · 54th pct#8 / 13 · 46th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Opp14.9%14.9%#62 / 166 · 63rd pct#33 / 70 · 54th pct#5 / 13 · 69th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
Scheme Identity (2014– , play-by-play derived)
Rush rate over expected#108 / 145 · 26th pct#51 / 70 · 29th pct#11 / 13 · 23rd pct-4.2%-4.2%
Havoc rate
Team17.5%17.5%#34 / 140 · 76th pct#25 / 70 · 66th pct#3 / 14 · 86th pct
Opp17.0%17.0%#103 / 140 · 27th pct#54 / 70 · 24th pct#11 / 14 · 29th pct
Standard-downs success
Team50.0%50.0%#49 / 154 · 69th pct#32 / 70 · 56th pct#7 / 13 · 54th pct
Opp45.6%45.6%#49 / 172 · 72nd pct#27 / 70 · 63rd pct#5 / 13 · 69th pct
Passing-downs success
Team38.0%38.0%#13 / 153 · 92nd pct#10 / 70 · 87th pct#3 / 13 · 85th pct
Opp27.9%27.9%#32 / 149 · 79th pct#19 / 70 · 74th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Line yards / carry
Team2.92.9#74 / 143 · 49th pct#40 / 70 · 44th pct#10 / 13 · 31st pct
Opp2.82.8#60 / 155 · 62nd pct#36 / 70 · 50th pct#5 / 13 · 69th pct
Stuff rate
Team19.7%19.7%#92 / 143 · 36th pct#48 / 70 · 33rd pct#11 / 13 · 23rd pct
Opp18.9%18.9%#72 / 155 · 54th pct#41 / 70 · 43rd pct#4 / 13 · 77th pct
Power success rate
Team71.0%71.0%#66 / 137 · 53rd pct#37 / 70 · 49th pct#8 / 13 · 46th pct
Opp64.3%64.3%#38 / 141 · 74th pct#19 / 70 · 74th pct#3 / 13 · 85th pct
Efficiency
Completion %
Off66.7%#20 / 136 · 86th pct#15 / 70 · 80th pct#3 / 14 · 86th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Def60.0%#42 / 136 · 70th pct#21 / 70 · 71st pct#2 / 14 · 93rd pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Yards / attempt
Off7.2#68 / 136 · 51st pct#42 / 70 · 41st pct#9 / 14 · 43rd pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Def7.3#82 / 136 · 40th pct#50 / 70 · 30th pct#5 / 14 · 71st pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Yards / completion
Off10.8#102 / 136 · 26th pct#55 / 70 · 23rd pct#11 / 14 · 29th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Def12.2#105 / 136 · 24th pct#59 / 70 · 17th pct#9 / 14 · 43rd pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
Yards / carry#24 / 136 · 83rd pct#15 / 70 · 80th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct5.1
Yards / play#31 / 136 · 78th pct#21 / 70 · 71st pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct6.15
Scoring margin#43 / 136 · 69th pct#32 / 70 · 56th pct#5 / 14 · 71st pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct+6.7/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 Surgeon · +0.26 EPA/play | 13 | 13 | 276 / 409 | 67.5 | 2990 #38 FBS | 7.3 | 30 #6 FBS | 7 | 149.7 | 55.8 | 7.5 | 3.3 | |
Yards by week → Pocket SurgeonHigh-percentage passer who protects the ball. Loses the matchup on improvisation. Watch-list name — on at least one major award watch list, no hardware yet — trending, not yet confirmed. 12 of 183 QBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Completion %67.9% 79th percentile · FBS QBs, min. 80 attempts Rush usage9.9% bottom 13th percentile · FBS QBs, min. 80 attempts Trait fingerprint Plays like View Owen McCown's full player page | |||||||||||||
| +3.34 EPA/play | 17 | 6 | 20 / 34 | 58.8 | 199 | 5.9 | 2 | 0 | 127.4 | 63.8 | — | — | |
Yards by week → | |||||||||||||
Running Backs
| Player | # | G | Car | Yds | Avg | TD | Long | 3rd Dn Use | Pass Dn Use | Stuff% | 10+% | Tgt Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Speed Merchant · +0.22 EPA/play | 20 | 11 | 151 | 1045 #34 FBS | 6.9 | 9 #65 FBS | 76 | 21.3 | 24.5 | 17.3 | 16 | 5.9% (23/391) | |
Yards by week → Speed MerchantCuts upfield fast. Designed to find the crease, not run through the line. Starter — over 60% of the snaps, holding the job. 48 of 349 RBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Yards / carry7.1 94th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Rush TD rate6.0% 74th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Trait fingerprint Plays like our readAscending: his CFB Index score now sits at the 93rd percentile among FBS RBs, up from the 70th | |||||||||||||
| Speed Merchant · +0.18 EPA/play | 27 | 13 | 125 | 866 #68 FBS | 6.9 | 6 | 59 | 10.1 | 10.9 | 13.6 | 17.8 | 5.9% (23/391) | |
Yards by week → Speed MerchantCuts upfield fast. Designed to find the crease, not run through the line. Starter — over 60% of the snaps, holding the job. 48 of 349 RBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Yards / carry6.9 93th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Yards / reception6.9 bottom 41th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Trait fingerprint Plays like View Will Henderson III's full player page | |||||||||||||
| Balanced Back · -0.22 EPA/play | 28 | 10 | 49 | 177 | 3.6 | 3 | 14 | 6.2 | 3.3 | — | — | — | |
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. 186 of 349 RBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Yards / carry3.8 bottom 7th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Receiving share3.9% bottom 12th percentile · FBS RBs, min. 40 carries Plays like View A'Marion Peterson's full player page | |||||||||||||
| 22 | 5 | 20 | 84 | 4.2 | 1 | 28 | 4.7 | 6.3 | — | — | — | ||
Yards by week → | |||||||||||||
Receivers
| Player | # | G | Rec | Yds | Avg | TD | Long | 3rd Dn Use | Pass Dn Use | Tgt Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Slot Technician · +0.39 EPA/play | 14 | 12 | 65 | 726 | 11.2 | 8 #23 FBS | 52 | 10.4 | 10.2 | 22.0% (86/391) | |
Yards by week → Slot Technician· Money-downRuns precise routes in tight quarters. Volume player who keeps chains moving. lives on the sticks and moves the chains 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 volume65 95th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions TD rate12.3% 73th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions Trait fingerprint Plays like our readAscending: his CFB Index score moved from the 62nd to 86th percentile among FBS WRs | |||||||||||
| Possession Receiver · +0.60 EPA/play | 84 | 11 | 30 | 523 | 17.4 | 4 | 77 | 5.6 | 4.8 | 11.5% (45/391) | |
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 11 of 21 games this season · junior View AJ Wilson's full player page | |||||||||||
| Slot Technician · +0.35 EPA/play | 18 | 11 | 45 | 443 | 9.8 | 4 | 45 | 6.5 | 8.9 | 13.6% (53/391) | |
Yards by week → Slot TechnicianRuns precise routes in tight quarters. Volume player who keeps chains moving. 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 volume45 71th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions Plays like View David Amador II's full player page | |||||||||||
| Complete TE · +0.32 EPA/play | 88 | 12 | 34 | 347 | 10.2 | 2 | 32 | 5.2 | 5.8 | 11.5% (45/391) | |
Yards by week → Complete TENo single go-to route — the receiving numbers show up inline and split out alike. All-Conference honorable mention / 2nd team — the recognition has started. The most common profile in its group this season — 177 of 223 classified this way. Played in 12 of 21 games this season · junior · 3-star, 2022 class View Houston Thomas's full player page | |||||||||||
| Complete TE · +0.31 EPA/play | 89 | 13 | 27 | 344 | 12.7 | 5 | 45 | 15.5 | 4.5 | 10.2% (40/391) | |
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 13 of 21 games this season · sophomore · 3-star, 2023 class View Patrick Overmyer's full player page | |||||||||||
| Possession Receiver · +0.68 EPA/play | 15 | 7 | 20 | 189 | 9.4 | 3 | 43 | 5.4 | 6.5 | 5.1% (20/391) | |
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 7 of 21 games this season · junior View DJ Allen's full player page | |||||||||||
| Possession Receiver · +0.14 EPA/play | 13 | 8 | 13 | 132 | 10.2 | 1 | 39 | 4.7 | 7.0 | 5.1% (20/391) | |
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 / reception7.5 bottom 5th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions EPA / play (adj)0.1 bottom 10th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions Trait fingerprint Plays like View Jamel Hardy's full player page | |||||||||||
| Move TE · +0.57 EPA/play | 80 | 6 | 10 | 100 | 10 | 1 | 26 | 2.8 | 5.4 | — | |
Yards by week → Move TELined up out wide as often as inline. Creates mismatches downfield. 34 of 223 TEs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Yards / reception15.6 89th percentile · FBS TEs, min. 8 receptions Reception volume10 bottom 16th percentile · FBS TEs, min. 8 receptions Trait fingerprint Plays like View Dan Dishman's full player page | |||||||||||
| +0.64 EPA/play | 33 | 7 | 5 | 66 | 13.2 | 1 | 20 | 0 | 5.5 | — | |
Yards by week → | |||||||||||
| +0.52 EPA/play | 11 | 5 | 5 | 57 | 11.4 | 1 | 23 | 0 | 1.1 | — | |
Yards by week → | |||||||||||
| 82 | 6 | 5 | 34 | 6.8 | 0 | 17 | 0 | 2.9 | — | ||
Yards by week → | |||||||||||
Defensive Line
| Player | # | G | Tot | Solo | TFL | Sack | Hur |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Two-Gap Base | 90 | 11 | 28 | 11 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 0 |
Two-Gap BaseStout at the point of attack — steady tackle-for-loss production without a standout pass-rush number. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. 388 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate8.9% bottom 28th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like View Chidera Otutu's full player page | |||||||
| 3-Tech Penetrator | 94 | 8 | 16 | 9 | 6 | 3 | 3 |
3-Tech PenetratorDisruptive interior rusher who lives in the backfield. 269 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate37.5% 99th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like View Kenny Ozowalu's full player page | |||||||
| 3-Tech Penetrator | 35 | 11 | 15 | 9 | 7.5 | 2.5 | 2 |
3-Tech PenetratorDisruptive interior rusher who lives in the backfield. 269 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate50.0% 100th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like our readBreakout: his CFB Index score moved from the 5th to 70th percentile among FBS IDLs | |||||||
| 3-Tech Penetrator | 99 | 8 | 14 | 9 | 3.5 | 0 | 1 |
3-Tech PenetratorDisruptive interior rusher who lives in the backfield. 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 View Tai Leonard's full player page | |||||||
| Nose Anchor | 88 | 8 | 13 | 3 | 1.5 | 1 | 2 |
Nose AnchorThe heaviest frame on the interior. Sack production is intentionally not the point of this profile. 152 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Weight325 lb 93th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like View Cameron Blaylock's full player page | |||||||
| Nose Anchor | 98 | 9 | 12 | 4 | 1 | 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 Weight325 lb 93th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like View Jameian Buxton's full player page | |||||||
| 3-Tech Penetrator | 42 | 7 | 10 | 5 | 4 | 1.5 | 2 |
3-Tech PenetratorDisruptive interior rusher who lives in the backfield. 269 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate40.0% 100th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like View Daemian Wimberly's full player page | |||||||
| 97 | 5 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| 19 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | |
| 95 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
Linebackers
| Player | # | G | Tot | Solo | Ast | TFL | Sack | PD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sideline-to-Sideline | 17 | 13 | 93 | 57 | 36 | 7.5 | 2 | 2 | 3 #56 FBS |
Sideline-to-SidelineRanges from hash to hash and makes his own tackles. Starter — over 60% of the snaps, holding the job. 102 of 660 LBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Solo tackle rate0.6 85th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Tackle volume93 93th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Trait fingerprint Plays like our readUnranked recruit — top-quartile production against his own recruiting profile | |||||||||
| Sideline-to-Sideline | 10 | 9 | 44 | 27 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Sideline-to-SidelineRanges from hash to hash and makes his own tackles. 102 of 660 LBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Solo tackle rate0.6 86th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Plays like View Kendrick Blackshire's full player page | |||||||||
| Sideline-to-Sideline | 40 | 11 | 35 | 22 | 13 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Sideline-to-SidelineRanges from hash to hash and makes his own tackles. 102 of 660 LBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Solo tackle rate0.6 88th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles PD rate0.0% bottom 18th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Trait fingerprint Plays like View Brandon Tucker Jr.'s full player page | |||||||||
| Balanced Linebacker | 13 | 12 | 28 | 13 | 15 | 4 | 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 volume28 bottom 21th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Sack rate0.0% bottom 23th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Trait fingerprint Plays like our readFading: his CFB Index score now sits at the 23rd percentile among FBS LBs, up from the 85th | |||||||||
| Balanced Linebacker | 12 | 11 | 27 | 15 | 12 | 2.5 | 1 | 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 PD rate3.7% 65th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Trait fingerprint Plays like View Marcellus Wilkerson's full player page | |||||||||
| Sideline-to-Sideline | 26 | 10 | 22 | 13 | 9 | 2.5 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Sideline-to-SidelineRanges from hash to hash and makes his own tackles. 102 of 660 LBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Solo tackle rate0.6 80th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Tackle volume22 bottom 15th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Trait fingerprint Plays like View Bryce Grays's full player page | |||||||||
| Thumper | 33 | 8 | 21 | 17 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 1 | 0 |
ThumperDownhill striker who fills the run lane and blitzes off the edge. 97 of 660 LBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate33.3% 100th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Sack rate23.8% 100th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Trait fingerprint Plays like View Nnanna Anyanwu's full player page | |||||||||
| Thumper | 31 | 10 | 20 | 9 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
ThumperDownhill striker who fills the run lane and blitzes off the edge. 97 of 660 LBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate0.0% bottom 10th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Tackle volume20 bottom 14th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Trait fingerprint Plays like View Vic Shaw's full player page | |||||||||
| Thumper | 34 | 7 | 19 | 12 | 7 | 5.5 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
ThumperDownhill striker who fills the run lane and blitzes off the edge. 97 of 660 LBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate28.9% 100th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles PD rate10.5% 100th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Trait fingerprint Plays like our readAscending: his CFB Index score moved from the 2nd to 37th percentile among FBS LBs | |||||||||
| 24 | 5 | 11 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 16 | 6 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 44 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Defensive Backs
| Player | # | G | Tot | PD | INT | TFL | Sack |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hybrid Nickel | 18 | 13 | 62 | 8 #45 FBS | 1 | 0.5 | 0 |
Hybrid NickelMoves between deep coverage and the slot — the modern positionless DB. Starter — over 60% of the snaps, holding the job. 419 of 801 Ss we've classified this way this season. Season receipt PD rate12.9% 74th percentile · FBS safeties, min. 15 tackles Plays like View Jimmy Wyrick's full player page | |||||||
| Hybrid Nickel | 15 | 13 | 51 | 3 | 3 #56 FBS | 2.5 | 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 13 of 21 games this season · senior our readAscending: his CFB Index score climbed from the 33rd percentile to the 75th among FBS Ss | |||||||
| Press Corner | 30 | 8 | 26 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Press CornerLong and physical; jams receivers off their route at the line. 43 of 270 CBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Height6'2" 87th percentile · FBS corners, min. 10 tackles Plays like View Davin Martin's full player page | |||||||
| Hybrid Nickel | 14 | 10 | 25 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 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 10 of 21 games this season · senior View Jer'Marius Lewis's full player page | |||||||
| Cover Corner | 28 | 9 | 25 | 5 | 0 | 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 9 of 21 games this season · junior View KK Meier's full player page | |||||||
| Cover Corner | 27 | 10 | 23 | 4 | 0 | 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 rate17.4% 65th percentile · FBS corners, min. 10 tackles Plays like View Jakevian Rodgers's full player page | |||||||
| Press Corner | — | 5 | 13 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Press CornerLong and physical; jams receivers off their route at the line. 43 of 270 CBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Height6'2" 87th percentile · FBS corners, min. 10 tackles Plays like View Ahamad Chapman's full player page | |||||||
| 22 | 5 | 13 | 1 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | |
| 11 | 7 | 13 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| Cover Corner | 39 | 7 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 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 rate10.0% bottom 36th percentile · FBS corners, min. 10 tackles Plays like View Lawrence Brown's full player page | |||||||
| 20 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 29 | 4 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 25 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Kicking
| Player | # | G | FG M/A | FG% | XP M/A | Pts | Long |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Automatic | 92 | 13 | 17/20 | 85 | 56/56 | 107 | 45 |
Punting
| Player | # | G | No | Yds | Avg | Long | In20 | TB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steady | 20 | 13 | 54 | 2408 | 44.6 | 60 | 18 | 3 |
Net average is unavailable — CFBD's punting feed carries gross yards only, with no return-yardage or touchback deduction.
Kick Returns
| Player | # | G | No | Yds | Avg | TD | Long |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| +0.64 EPA/play | 33 | 7 | 6 | 130 | 21.7 | 0 | 27 |
Punt Returns
| Player | # | G | No | Yds | Avg | TD | Long |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Slot Technician · +0.35 EPA/play | 18 | 11 | 11 | 66 | 6 | 0 | 20 |
| 82 | 6 | 7 | 51 | 7.3 | 0 | 40 |
2025 stat leaders
final
2025 stat leaders
1.
Shadrach Banks
LB
93.0 tot (def)
2.
Owen McCown
QB
2,990 yds (pass)
3.
Robert Henry
RB
1,045 yds (rush)
4.
Jimmy Wyrick
S
62.0 tot (def)
5.
Devin Mccuin
WR
726 yds (rec)
Roster
2025
27
players carry a qualified CFB Index Score this season.
Shadrach Banks
LB
#35 of 583
Robert Henry
RB
#24 of 326
Will Henderson III
RB
#44 of 326
Devin Mccuin
WR
#77 of 485
Chidera Otutu
IDL
#75 of 330
Tyan Milton
S
#139 of 544
+21 more
UTSA · 2025 schedule & results7-6Brutal slateAverage opponent win rate 53% · 4 AP top-25 opponents on the schedule.
| Wk | Date | Us | Opp | Line | Opponent | Result | Record | Conf |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Aug 30 | #15 | #13 | +24 | @Texas A&M | L 24–42 126 | 0-1 | 0-0 |
| 2 | Sep 6 | #11 | #78 | -4.5 | Texas State | L 36–43 140 | 0-2 | 0-0 |
| 3 | Sep 13 | #12 | #145 | -21 | Incarnate Word | W 48–20 142 | 1-2 | 0-0 |
| 4 | Sep 21 | #19 | #120 | -5.5 | @Colorado State | W 17–16 135 | 2-2 | 0-0 |
| 6 | Oct 4 | #32 | #82 | -6.5 | @Temple | L 21–27 124 | 2-3 | 0-1 |
| 7 | Oct 11 | #44 | #110 | -9.5 | Rice | W 61–13 128 | 3-3 | 1-1 |
| 8 | Oct 18 | #29 | #90 | +3.5 | @North Texas | L 17–55 138 | 3-4 | 1-2 |
| 10 | Oct 30 | #49 | #66 | +6 | Tulane | W 48–26 130 | 4-4 | 2-2 |
| 11 | Nov 7 | #46 | #13 | +14 | @South Florida | L 23–55 132 | 4-5 | 2-3 |
| 12 | Nov 15 | #52 | #240 | -17.5 | @Charlotte | W 28–7 75 | 5-5 | 3-3 |
| 13 | Nov 22 | #52 | #39 | +2.5 | East Carolina | W 58–24 137 | 6-5 | 4-3 |
| 14 | Nov 29 | #38 | #100 | -8.5 | Army | L 24–27 127 | 6-6 | 4-4 |
| Bowl Season | ||||||||
| 18 | Dec 27 | #48 | #98 | -7 | Florida International (N) | W 57–20 | 7-6 | 4-4 |
Advanced box score (EPA, success rate, explosiveness)▼
| Date | Opp | Result | Yds | TO | TOP | EPA/play | Success% | Explosive% | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 27 | Florida International | W 57–20 | — | — | — | +0.242 | 48.0% | 131.0% | Blowout win |
| Nov 29 | Army | L 24–27 | 386 | 1 | 26:53 | +0.042 | 37.7% | 139.0% | One-score loss |
| Nov 22 | East Carolina | W 58–24 | 458 | 0 | 37:29 | +0.303 | 47.9% | 114.1% | Blowout win |
| Nov 15 | @Charlotte | W 28–7 | 521 | 2 | 31:14 | +0.218 | 59.7% | 106.2% | Best success rate |
| Nov 7 | @South Florida | L 23–55 | 381 | 2 | 39:47 | +0.092 | 40.0% | 123.7% | Blowout loss |
| Oct 30 | Tulane | W 48–26 | 523 | 0 | 36:55 | +0.299 | 48.6% | 135.7% | |
| Oct 18 | @North Texas | L 17–55 | 329 | 3 | 26:21 | +0.026 | 41.4% | 118.3% | Season-low EPA/play |
| Oct 11 | Rice | W 61–13 | 437 | 0 | 27:25 | +0.321 | 43.9% | 170.4% | Best defensive stand |
| Oct 4 | @Temple | L 21–27 | 304 | 2 | 32:19 | +0.135 | 45.1% | 94.2% | One-score loss |
| Sep 21 | @Colorado State | W 17–16 | 345 | 2 | 26:27 | +0.070 | 30.5% | 143.1% | One-score win |
| Sep 13 | Incarnate Word | W 48–20 | 442 | 0 | 34:12 | +0.361 | 45.6% | 131.4% | Season-high EPA/play |
| Sep 6 | Texas State | L 36–43 | 497 | 0 | 30:23 | +0.268 | 43.4% | 157.0% | One-score loss |
| Aug 30 | @Texas A&M | L 24–42 | 373 | 0 | 33:41 | +0.231 | 34.4% | 177.9% | Most explosive |
| Season average (13 games) | 416 | 1.0 | +0.201 | 43.6% | 134.0% | ||||
How They Play · 2025
How They Play · 2025UTSA fields a strong explosive, big-play offense behind a solid, 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 UTSA actually scores
77th percentile quality, 51st 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
UTSA's 4th-quarter offense, before and after garbage time
Raw Q4 EPA/play ranks 58th percentile in FBS. Strip out snaps taken with a blowout margin and it climbs to the 92nd — the correction is the finding, not a footnote.
Standard downs vs. passing downs
Does UTSA hold up once the down-and-distance turns against them?
67th percentile success on standard downs, 92nd on passing downs — a 25-point gap between the two.
View all FBS teams as a table
| Team | Standard-downs percentile | Passing-downs percentile |
|---|---|---|
| Air Force | 82nd | 69th |
| Akron | 20th | 36th |
| Alabama | 47th | 76th |
| App State | 41st | 80th |
| Arizona | 54th | 54th |
| Arizona State | 40th | 37th |
| Arkansas | 90th | 97th |
| Arkansas State | 51st | 40th |
| Army | 37th | 44th |
| Auburn | 73rd | 24th |
| Austin Peay | 56th | 13th |
| BYU | 91st | 46th |
| Ball State | 5th | 3rd |
| Baylor | 70th | 77th |
| Boise State | 42nd | 63rd |
| Boston College | 56th | 54th |
| Bowling Green | 10th | 17th |
| Bryant | 7th | 2nd |
| Buffalo | 29th | 20th |
| California | 25th | 66th |
| Central Michigan | 57th | 11th |
| Charlotte | 7th | 7th |
| Cincinnati | 89th | 65th |
| Clemson | 49th | 34th |
| Coastal Carolina | 16th | 22nd |
| Colorado | 8th | 48th |
| Colorado State | 29th | 35th |
| Delaware | 66th | 31st |
| Duke | 82nd | 63rd |
| East Carolina | 63rd | 91st |
| Eastern Michigan | 46th | 67th |
| Florida | 52nd | 45th |
| Florida Atlantic | 44th | 61st |
| Florida International | 50th | 26th |
| Florida State | 65th | 90th |
| Fresno State | 22nd | 71st |
| Georgia | 95th | 69th |
| Georgia Southern | 64th | 84th |
| Georgia State | 22nd | 75th |
| Georgia Tech | 92nd | 89th |
| Hawai'i | 33rd | 87th |
| Houston | 61st | 29th |
| Idaho | 30th | 78th |
| Idaho State | 93rd | 14th |
| Illinois | 79th | 95th |
| Indiana | 97th | 98th |
| Iowa | 74th | 19th |
| Iowa State | 80th | 58th |
| Jacksonville State | 59th | 56th |
| James Madison | 77th | 52nd |
| Kansas | 99th | 82nd |
| Kansas State | 37th | 59th |
| Kennesaw State | 44th | 67th |
| Kent State | 15th | 5th |
| Kentucky | 62nd | 29th |
| LSU | 18th | 52nd |
| Lafayette | 0th | 12th |
| Liberty | 65th | 53rd |
| Lindenwood | 4th | 1st |
| Long Island University | 24th | 78th |
| Louisiana | 24th | 23rd |
| Louisiana Tech | 41st | 24th |
| Louisville | 84th | 32nd |
| Maine | 3rd | 18th |
| Marshall | 71st | 62nd |
| Maryland | 11th | 86th |
| Massachusetts | 5th | 9th |
| Memphis | 75th | 68th |
| Merrimack | 1st | 83rd |
| Miami | 80th | 64th |
| Miami (OH) | 33rd | 39th |
| Michigan | 73rd | 74th |
| Michigan State | 48th | 39th |
| Middle Tennessee | 69th | 47th |
| Minnesota | 35th | 33rd |
| Mississippi State | 52nd | 35th |
| Missouri | 76th | 50th |
| Missouri State | 32nd | 50th |
| Murray State | 1st | 6th |
| NC State | 58th | 71st |
| Navy | 95th | 72nd |
| Nebraska | 78th | 51st |
| Nevada | 17th | 16th |
| New Mexico | 38th | 60th |
| New Mexico State | 16th | 33rd |
| North Carolina | 14th | 30th |
| North Texas | 100th | 97th |
| Northern Illinois | 9th | 5th |
| Northwestern | 48th | 88th |
| Notre Dame | 88th | 99th |
| Ohio | 69th | 76th |
| Ohio State | 99th | 99th |
| Oklahoma | 39th | 41st |
| Oklahoma State | 14th | 7th |
| Old Dominion | 72nd | 79th |
| Ole Miss | 83rd | 95th |
| Oregon | 93rd | 55th |
| Oregon State | 54th | 25th |
| Penn State | 76th | 73rd |
| Pittsburgh | 35th | 56th |
| Purdue | 46th | 88th |
| Rice | 20th | 0th |
| Rutgers | 71st | 84th |
| SMU | 50th | 57th |
| Sam Houston | 26th | 4th |
| San Diego State | 84th | 1st |
| San José State | 68th | 70th |
| South Alabama | 53rd | 28th |
| South Carolina | 31st | 8th |
| South Carolina State | 10th | 3rd |
| South Florida | 86th | 46th |
| Southern Miss | 27th | 38th |
| Stanford | 12th | 12th |
| Syracuse | 19th | 10th |
| TCU | 63rd | 82nd |
| Temple | 85th | 22nd |
| Tennessee | 97th | 81st |
| Texas | 27th | 61st |
| Texas A&M | 88th | 59th |
| Texas State | 60th | 93rd |
| Texas Tech | 45th | 65th |
| Toledo | 67th | 42nd |
| Troy | 18th | 27th |
| Tulane | 81st | 86th |
| Tulsa | 43rd | 43rd |
| UAB | 34th | 94th |
| UCF | 39th | 20th |
| UCLA | 28th | 48th |
| UConn | 96th | 37th |
| UL Monroe | 13th | 14th |
| UNLV | 78th | 85th |
| USC | 94th | 90th |
| UT Martin | 2nd | 41st |
| UTEP | 3rd | 10th |
| UTSA | 67th | 92nd |
| Utah | 87th | 96th |
| Utah State | 31st | 49th |
| Vanderbilt | 90th | 100th |
| Virginia | 36th | 73rd |
| Virginia Tech | 59th | 21st |
| Wake Forest | 21st | 31st |
| Washington | 98th | 93rd |
| Washington State | 61st | 44th |
| West Virginia | 12th | 18th |
| Western Kentucky | 55th | 80th |
| Western Michigan | 86th | 16th |
| Wisconsin | 6th | 27th |
| Wyoming | 23rd | 15th |
Halftime identity
UTSA by half
1st-half offense ranks 88th percentile in FBS; 2nd-half, 75th — competitive snaps only, garbage time excluded from both halves.
Schedule mirage
How much of UTSA's number is the schedule?
Raw EPA/play through week 21 is 0.20; 79th percentile once opponent strength is stripped out, it's 0.06. The widest gap came in week 3: 0.29 raw vs. 0.06 adjusted.
UTSA reads strongest in explosive plays (top 21%) and success rate allowed (top 29%); the crux lives in explosive plays allowed, where UTSA sits at the 6th 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 · UTSA
Most Similar Programs · UTSAReads 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 · UTSA · 2018-present
Elite
74% home win rate vs 42% on the road. margin runs +18.4 better at home. Alamodome seats 36,582, averaging 69% full (25,244 attendance, 26 games reported).
Home38-13Away20-27
Positional competition · RB room
The carries are split. The job isn’t.
Robert Henry and Will Henderson III split the carries (148/269 vs 121/269) -- but the job isn't split the same way. Will Henderson III gets the clock-killing work.
Robert HenryWill Henderson III
Carries
the baseline -- every row below is tested against this split, not a flat 50/50
Q4, leading (competitive)
p = 0.008 -- real, not noise
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
Screened 3 claims, 1 survived, 2 falsified
Positional competition · WR/TE room
The targets are split. The job isn’t.
Devin Mccuin (WR) and Houston Thomas (TE) split the targets (82/126 vs 44/126) -- but the job isn't split the same way.
Devin MccuinHouston Thomas
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
Top-5-catch share
concentration alone -- EPA/target doesn't corroborate, read with caution
Screened 3 claims, 0 survived, 3 falsified
What changed
UTSA’s play-calling, before and after the change
Offense: co-Matt Mattox / co-Will Stein (2022) → Justin Burke (2023–2025)
Play-calling barely moved on the change — every rate held within a few points.
1st-down pass rate
Red-zone pass rate
Defense: co-Jess Loepp / Rod Wright (2021) → Jess Loepp (2022–2025)
Play-calling barely moved on the change — every rate held within a few points.
1st-down pass rate
Red-zone pass rate
Season by season
How UTSA’s current staff calls plays, year over year
Offense: Justin Burke (2023–2025)
1st-down pass rate
2023: 45% → 2025: 46% · 2-pt range · #167 of 171 · less than most
Red-zone pass rate
2023: 40% → 2025: 51% · 10-pt range · #111 of 171 · a typical amount
4th-down go rate
2023: 39% → 2025: 48% · 14-pt range · #106 of 171 · a typical amount
Defense: Jess Loepp (2022–2025)
1st-down pass rate
2022: 47% → 2025: 46% · 2-pt range · #183 of 189 · less than most
Red-zone pass rate
2022: 46% → 2025: 51% · 10-pt range · #132 of 189 · a typical amount
4th-down go rate
2022: 42% → 2025: 48% · 14-pt range · #109 of 188 · a typical amount
Defensive identity · pass zones
What this defense gives up, by zone.
On short passes, UTSA’s defense allows a completion rate below the FBS mean (64.0% vs 65.9% league-wide, shrunk toward the mean for its 129-play sample) — mid-pack, 29 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=129 short-zone plays faced, raw rate 62.0%
Historical echo
UTSA’s breakout has happened before — and the 4 closest all held onto theirs.
Programs whose stature climbed in the same shape. The grey line is their run; the color is what came next for them.
Mississippi State 1974–1979
kept climbing
Arizona 1982–1987
kept climbing
Penn State 1958–1963
kept climbing
Western Michigan 1975–1980
held the gain
An analogy on the shape of a program’s Zeitgeist stature arc — not a prediction. Interim calibration, medium confidence; matched among current FBS programs at a comparable level.
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
UTSA's 2014–2025 record is 79-70. The era is still being written; the CFP line is the one the program is arguing for.
All-Time Record
98-87
since 2011 · 15 seasons · .529 win rate
HOME
60-32
AWAY
36-51
NEUTRAL
2-4
2010s
2020s
The program, in full — read the essay
UTSA played its first football game in 2011. By 2021, Jeff Traylor had the Roadrunners at 12-2, Conference USA champions, ranked #24 nationally. By 2025, they needed a 57-20 blowout in a bowl game just to get to seven wins. The rocket ship has leveled off.
The founding story is still the most important fact about UTSA, because no other program has it. San Antonio — the seventh-largest city in the country, without an FBS team until 2011 — willed a football program into existence inside the Alamodome, an NFL-grade indoor stadium that was already there waiting for the team to catch up to it. Larry Coker coached the first game. 56,000 people showed up. Jeff Traylor took what Coker started and turned it into something real: back-to-back seasons of 12-2 and 11-3, a Conference USA title, a top-25 ranking, and the single most credible "new program" story in FBS history.
The 2025 season went 7-6 (4-4 AAC), and UTSA had to beat FIU 57-20 in the First Responder Bowl to get there. Traylor returns for 2026, and Owen McCown is back at quarterback, so this isn't a coaching reset or a personnel emergency. It is, however, a real question about whether the program that peaked at 12-2 has built enough infrastructure to sustain that level — or whether the 2021-2022 run was the ceiling rather than the floor. UTSA reaffirmed its American Athletic Conference commitment amid conference realignment chatter, which means the Roadrunners' path runs through the league they're in, not through a bigger one.
The 2026 question is whether Traylor can rebuild the margin — from 7-6 back toward double digits — in a league that has gotten more competitive around them. The Alamodome is larger than any program of this age needs. The city is there. What's unresolved is whether the team can climb back to the level that made San Antonio believe the ceiling was higher.
How they play
UTSA plays fast, Texas-recruiting-rich offense built on the San Antonio market's genuine talent depth — a spread attack with designed QB movement, a receiver corps assembled from the metro's prep pipeline, and a pace-of-play that rewards athletes over systems. Traylor's program philosophy is build-through-Texas: mine the city, develop within the AAC, and trust that the market eventually outgrows the conference. Owen McCown gives the offense a veteran arm to operate from. The defensive identity is the 2026 construction project.
Steady
UTSA 2016–2025. Holding the line. The 10-year slope (+0.12 rungs / yr) doesn't tilt either way — the program lives at roughly Tier 3.
CFP Era · UTSA
12 seasons on file
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
down middle peak CFP year
Season Standing · 2025 · 7-6
Season Standing · 2025 · 7-6Bowl eligible
UTSA: 6+ wins, bowl access secured. The baseline of a successful FBS year.
R0R1R2R3R4R5R6R7R8R9
Sub-FBSBuildingBowlRankedContenderPlayoff
American Athletic Standing · 2025
7th in the American Athletic
UTSA is 7th of 14 in the American Athletic at 4-4. The path to the title is steep — the focus is on bowl access and rivalry wins.
| # | Program | Record |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Navy | 8-1 |
| 2 | Tulane | 8-1 |
| 3 | North Texas | 7-2 |
| 4 | East Carolina | 6-2 |
| 5 | South Florida | 6-2 |
| 6 | Memphis | 4-4 |
| 7 | UTSA | 4-4 |
| 8 | Army | 4-5 |
| 9 | Florida Atlantic | 3-5 |
| 10 | Temple | 3-5 |
| 11 | Rice | 2-6 |
| 12 | UAB | 2-6 |
| 13 | Tulsa | 1-7 |
| 14 | Charlotte | 0-8 |
Coaching Era · UTSA
Coaching Era · UTSAJeff Traylor
Jeff Traylor has held the program for 7 seasons — the era is established.
Era Jeff Traylor · 2020–presentPrev: Frank Wilson (2016–2017)OC: Rick BowiePrev OC: Justin Burke (2023–2025)DC: Jess LoeppPrev DC: co-Jess Loepp / Rod Wright (2021)
7
years · era
Rituals
Three gameday rituals — the ones outsiders never quite catch.
2011 Program Founding
since 2011
UTSA football began in 2011 — one of the most-recent FBS-level program creations. The program played FCS independent 2011, FBS independent 2012, then C-USA 2013, then AAC 2023. The 2011 founding-from-scratch + rapid ascent to AAC competitive cycles + 2021 12-win season make UTSA's institutional story unique among modern FBS newcomers.
Jeff Traylor 2021 Run
since 2021
Jeff Traylor's 2021 12-2 + Conference USA championship + Frisco Bowl + #24 final AP rank — coming off the 2020 pandemic-era hiring — became the program's all-time peak. Traylor's program-building methodology + the Birds Up identity + the recruiting reach into Texas opened the modern era. The 2022 Conference USA championship + 2023 AAC entry continued the trajectory.
Alamodome NFL-Grade Venue
since 1993
UTSA plays home games at the Alamodome — the 64,000-capacity downtown San Antonio dome venue. The dome roof + NFL-grade infrastructure + downtown setting + Spurs / Riverwalk cultural overlap create a venue distinct from any other G5 program. The Alamodome hosting tradition (multiple Alamo Bowls, Final Fours) gives UTSA permanent venue prestige.
Program memory
What this program never forgets
Most weeks vanish. These didn’t.
2011
First-ever game
UTSA plays its first football game in the Alamodome in front of 56,000 — a city's team comes to life
2021
Conference USA championship
A 12-2 season and the program's first conference title, capped by a top-25 ranking
2025
First Responder Bowl rout
A 57-20 win over FIU for a third straight bowl victory, salvaging a winning season
Moment of the Year · UTSA · 2025
Moment of the Year · UTSA · 2025Postseason · Won 57-20 vs Florida International
Week 18 of 2025. Postseason win — the season-defining moment.
Bowl / Postseason Ledger
Bowl / Postseason LedgerRecent postseason (2016-2025): 3-4
Most recent: 2025 — win 57-20 (home). Last 5 postseason: 3-2.
20252024202320222021
NFL Draft Pipeline
2022–2025
NFL Draft PipelineDeveloping
3 picks last 5 cycles. Pipeline emerging.
3
picks · 0 R1
#134
Spencer Burford
Offensive Tackle · 2022 · San Francisco
#153
Tariq Woolen
Cornerback · 2022 · Seattle · #83/321 final season
#169
Zah Frazier
Cornerback · 2025 · Chicago · #2/327 final season
#155 all-time · 1 first-round picksthe talent factory →
Unit lineage
UTSA’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
2014–2015 · Kevin Brown2016–2017 · Frank Scelfo2018 · Al Borges2019 · Jeff Kastl2020–2021 · Barry Lunney Jr.2022 · co-Matt Mattox / co-Will Stein2023–2025 · Justin Burke
Hired for 2026: Rick Bowie — not yet reflected in on-field data.
Defense2014–2025
2014–2015 · Neal Neathery2016–2017 · Pete Golding2018–2019 · Jason Rollins2020 · Tyrone Nix2021 · co-Jess Loepp / Rod Wright2022–2025 (ongoing) · Jess Loepp
Elite (≥70th pct)AveragePoor (≤30th pct)
Chronicle Visuals
Among the most continuous rosters into 2025 — 96% back, anchored by the qb room, only offense to settle.
The portal upgraded the EDGE room but opened a hole at P.
1 player drafted in 2025; the reload runs through the portal and recruiting.
UTSA signs higher-rated classes than its draft yield delivers.
r/cfb moments
1.6k
[Postgame Thread] UTSA Defeats UAB 33-31
1.2k
[Postgame Thread] UTSA Defeats WKU 49-41
700
[Postgame Thread] UTSA Defeats FIU 57-20
581
[Postgame Thread] UTSA Defeats Memphis 31-28
394
[Postgame Thread] UTSA Defeats Rice 45-0
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