UTSA
2-0American Athletic · Jeff Traylor, year 7 (55-26) · Alamodome · 36,582 · 33,403 avg in 2026
LastW 31–26 at Texas State · Sat Sep 12 · Cam Upshaw Jr. 0.5 TFL, 1 INT, 5 tackles
Nextat Texas · Sat Sep 19 · 8 pm ET · DKR-Texas Memorial Stadium · Texas by 30 · series 0-2, lost the last 2 · Game preview
Updated Tue Sep 15 · through week 2
All 88 stats
FBS rankings · 2026 season · all stats vs 136 FBS programs
| Player | # | G | Cmp/Att | Pct | Yds | Y/A | TD | INT | Rate | ZPR | QBR | Adj ANY/A | Sack% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| +0.23 EPA/play | 2 | 2 | 50 / 69 | 72.5 | 489 #48 FBS | 7.1 | 4 #36 FBS | 0 | 151.1 | 47 | 44.4 | 8.2 | 0 | |
Yards by week → | ||||||||||||||
| Player | # | G | Car | Yds | Avg | TD | Long | Stuff% | 10+% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| +0.25 EPA/play | 1 | 2 | 23 | 179 #33 FBS | 7.8 | 1 | 75 | — | — | |
Yards by week → | ||||||||||
| Player | # | G | Rec | Yds | Avg | TD | Long | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| +0.24 EPA/play | 15 | 2 | 8 | 140 | 17.5 | 1 | 62 | |
Yards by week → | ||||||||
| Possession Receiver · +0.63 EPA/play | 14 | 2 | 12 | 125 | 10.4 | 1 | 44 | |
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 — 37 of 58 classified this way. Played in 2 of 3 games this season · sophomore · 3-star, 2024 class View Mekhi Anderson's full player page | ||||||||
| +0.36 EPA/play | 84 | 2 | 11 | 125 | 11.4 | 1 | 36 | |
Yards by week → | ||||||||
| +0.57 EPA/play | — | 2 | 5 | 44 | 8.8 | 0 | 13 | |
Yards by week → | ||||||||
| Player | # | G | Tot | Solo | TFL | Sack | Hur |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 99 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | |
| — | 2 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Player | # | G | Tot | Solo | Ast | TFL | Sack | PD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coverage 'Backer | 23 | 2 | 18 | 9 | 9 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Coverage 'BackerCarries tight ends and patrols the middle of the field in coverage. 21 of 84 LBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt PD rate5.6% 76th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Sack rate0.0% bottom 26th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Trait fingerprint Plays like View Brandon Tucker Jr.'s full player page | |||||||||
| 15 | 2 | 12 | 4 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 34 | 2 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| 26 | 2 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |
| 32 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 1 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Player | # | G | Tot | PD | INT | TFL | Sack |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | 2 | 12 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 22 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 16 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| 13 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 11 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 1 #22 FBS | 0.5 | 0 | |
| 20 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 1 #22 FBS | 0.5 | 0 | |
| 17 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Player | # | G | FG M/A | FG% | XP M/A | Pts | Long |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 92 | 2 | 2/3 | 66.7 | 10/10 | 16 | 34 |
| Player | # | G | No | Yds | Avg | Long | In20 | TB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30 | 2 | 8 | 350 | 43.8 | 58 | 3 | 1 |
Net average is unavailable — CFBD's punting feed carries gross yards only, with no return-yardage or touchback deduction.
| Player | # | G | No | Yds | Avg | TD | Long |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| +0.57 EPA/play | — | 2 | 3 | 21 | 7 | 0 | 11 |
2026 stat leaders · UTSA
through 2 games
2026 stat leaders · UTSABrandon Tucker Jr. leads UTSA with 18 tackles through 2 games.
How They Play · 2025UTSA fields a strong explosive, big-play offense behind a solid, gives up the big play defense.
Percentile vs all FBS, based on this season's per-game production. Bar = where this team ranks — right is better.
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
Home-field advantage · UTSA · 2018–present · FBS opponents
UTSA is worth +7.7 points more at home than on the road.
Top tenth of FBS, 96th percentile of 133 programs
71% at home, 44% away against FBS opponents since 2018 (32–13 home, 21–27 away). Interval ±4.1.
Our model gives every stadium the same flat 2.3-point home edge — per-team modelling was tested and did not survive scrutiny (why) — and the books use about 3. Against the closing line, UTSA has beaten the number by 8.2 points more at home than away over 76 games — outside the ±6.5 that many games can resolve. This is one of the few buildings where the results say something the flat number does not.
Alamodome seats 36,582 and has averaged 70% full (25,546, 27 games reported). Visitors cover a median 504 miles to get here since 2018 — 49th-longest of 135 FBS venues, inside the ordinary range. 22% of the 2026 roster (34 of 155 located players) grew up inside 100 miles of the stadium.
Edge = half the gap between average home margin and average road margin, FBS opponents only, non-neutral games since 2018; the interval is 95%. Market line: closing spread, seasons with lines on file. Trip length is straight-line miles from the visiting team's campus to the venue, measured across all 52 home games since 2018.
More in this tab
Scheme claims
Fourth-quarter reliability, corrected
UTSA's 4th-quarter offense, before and after garbage time
Raw Q4 EPA/play ranks 96th percentile in FBS. Strip out snaps taken with a blowout margin and it climbs to the 96th — 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?
99th percentile success on standard downs, 29th on passing downs — a 70-point gap between the two.
View all FBS teams as a table
| Team | Standard-downs percentile | Passing-downs percentile |
|---|---|---|
| App State | 44th | 90th |
| Arizona | 92nd | 86th |
| Arkansas | 60th | 80th |
| Auburn | 75th | 55th |
| Ball State | 12th | 24th |
| Baylor | 40th | 96th |
| Boise State | 58th | 46th |
| Boston College | 27th | 56th |
| Buffalo | 7th | 14th |
| California | 9th | 25th |
| Central Michigan | 16th | 6th |
| Charlotte | 73rd | 83rd |
| Clemson | 1st | 19th |
| Coastal Carolina | 61st | 52nd |
| Colorado | 35th | 77th |
| Colorado State | 82nd | 91st |
| Delaware | 70th | 31st |
| Duke | 20th | 29th |
| Eastern Michigan | 52nd | 10th |
| Florida Atlantic | 43rd | 87th |
| Florida International | 46th | 43rd |
| Florida State | 28th | 65th |
| Georgia Southern | 24th | 45th |
| Georgia Tech | 58th | 44th |
| Hawai'i | 18th | 41st |
| Iowa State | 4th | 23rd |
| Jacksonville State | 65th | 82nd |
| Kansas | 70th | 35th |
| LSU | 33rd | 98th |
| Liberty | 14th | 59th |
| Louisiana | 19th | 92nd |
| Louisville | 96th | 70th |
| Memphis | 69th | 65th |
| Michigan | 2nd | 62nd |
| Michigan State | 62nd | 29th |
| Middle Tennessee | 87th | 68th |
| Missouri | 36th | 85th |
| Navy | 98th | 59th |
| Nevada | 77th | 52nd |
| New Mexico State | 45th | 75th |
| Norfolk State | 16th | 9th |
| North Dakota State | 86th | 27th |
| North Texas | 49th | 68th |
| Ohio | 38th | 17th |
| Ohio State | 90th | 40th |
| Oklahoma State | 41st | 49th |
| Ole Miss | 94th | 50th |
| Oregon | 35th | 33rd |
| Oregon State | 10th | 38th |
| Pittsburgh | 30th | 76th |
| Purdue | 83rd | 88th |
| Rutgers | 30th | 71st |
| Sacramento State | 23rd | 14th |
| Sam Houston | 78th | 61st |
| San Diego State | 4th | 40th |
| San José State | 54th | 22nd |
| South Alabama | 50th | 73rd |
| South Florida | 91st | 52nd |
| Stanford | 76th | 15th |
| Syracuse | 48th | 64th |
| TCU | 93rd | 8th |
| Tennessee | 65th | 78th |
| Texas | 72nd | 94th |
| Texas A&M | 85th | 72nd |
| Texas Tech | 88th | 48th |
| Troy | 22nd | 59th |
| Tulane | 31st | 2nd |
| Tulsa | 56th | 1st |
| UAB | 65th | 81st |
| UNLV | 51st | 7th |
| USC | 97th | 99th |
| UTSA | 99th | 29th |
| Utah State | 4th | 93rd |
| Vanderbilt | 80th | 12th |
| Wake Forest | 56th | 97th |
| Washington | 81st | 4th |
| Washington State | 8th | 3rd |
| Western Kentucky | 25th | 34th |
| Western Michigan | 39th | 20th |
| Wisconsin | 13th | 18th |
| Wyoming | 65th | 36th |
Halftime identity
UTSA by half
1st-half offense ranks 50th percentile in FBS; 2nd-half, 87th — competitive snaps only, garbage time excluded from both halves.
Tendency drift
Season by season
How UTSA’s current staff calls plays, year over year
Pass defense by zone
Pass-depth identity
What this team throws, and gives up, by depth.
On short throws (≤19 air yards), UTSA’s passing game completes a completion rate above the FBS mean (71.6% vs 68.3% league-wide, shrunk toward the mean for its 62-play sample) — mid-pack, 35 of 41 qualifying offenses.
We won’t show a deep-ball (20+ air yards) leaderboard here, on either side of the ball: even a full season of charted plays gives most teams well under 30 deep attempts — too thin to tell a real tendency from noise, so we won’t guess. Same refusal for yards-after-catch allowed and where a team’s attempts land by zone: both measured and both came back statistically indistinguishable from season-to-season noise.
Ratings
Comparable teams
Most similar programs · UTSA
Most similar programs · UTSAReads like
Matched on how the programs are built — tier, prestige band, kind of fanbase, conference, voice and roster size — not on this season's stats. A calibration, not a prediction.
Historical echo
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.
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.