Skip to content

Auburn Tigers

SEC·2-0·
Elo
1613#35
SP+
7.0#43
FPI
10.8
AP
NR
Nextvs Florida · Wk 3Win prob 51%Model -0.3
Talent #18 (828.2)Recruiting class #3114% production returning

Roster · 112 players

FR 22SO 46JR 18SR 26
#PlayerPosClHtWt
3Locklan HewlettQBSO6'1"200
10Tristan Ti'aQBSO6'2"217
11Will MyersQBSO5'8"190
16John ColvinQBJR6'3"200
17Byrum BrownQBSR6'3"235
19Rhys BrushQBFR6'2"195
21Tae MeadowsRBSR5'10"200
22Alvin HendersonRBSO5'9"202
23Jeremiah CobbRBSR5'11"205
24Nykahi DavenportRBSO6'0"212
25Cole GambleRBSO6'1"203
26Christian BurnetteRBJR5'11"200
29Omar Mabson IIRBSO5'9"215
30Bryson WashingtonRBJR6'0"210
36Stuart AndrewsRBFR5'9"185
4Jeremiah KogerWRSO6'3"213
5Chas NimrodWRSR6'2"200
6Bryce CainWRSO5'10"165
8Christian NeptuneWRSO5'11"190
9DeShawn SpencerWRFR5'11"175
11Keshaun SingletonWRJR6'3"220
12Brady MarcheseWRFR6'1"190
13Kory PettigrewWRSO6'1"195
15Brian Williams Jr.WRFR6'4"210
18Sam TurnerWRSO6'1"210
80Will UptonWRJR5'9"185
86Jack EllenburgWRFR6'4"205
89Jake WhiteWRSO5'10"190
1Jonathan EcholsTESO6'6"235
19Jake JohnsonTESR6'6"245
40Hunter OusleyTESO6'2"245
82Arlis BoardinghamTESR6'3"250
83Xavier NewsomTESO6'6"265
84Ryan GheaTESO6'5"250
85Hunter HerringTESR6'5"235
87DJ Broughton Jr.TEFR6'5"240
50TJ HedrickOLSO6'4"315
51Kail EllisOLSO6'4"315
52Deryc PlazzOLSO6'4"320
55Kenneth McManus IVOLSO6'2"315
56Cole SkinnerOLSR6'5"322
57Harrison ClemmerOLJR6'0"279
58John Henry FlattOLSO6'6"310
60Cade BarnettOLJR6'5"300
65Stanton RamilOLJR6'7"313
69Jacob StrandOLSR6'5"310
70Parker PritchettOLFR6'5"315
71Tai BusterOLSO6'3"319
72Cole BestOLSR6'4"322
73Mykall Lundy-FosterOLFR6'4"315
74Jacobe' WardOLSO6'4"340
75Bear McWhorterOLFR6'4"315
76Jack LeyrerOLSR6'5"314
77Wilson ZiererOLFR6'6"315
78Mason MathisOLFR6'6"320
79Jo SimmonsOLSR6'5"330
40Chris WellsDEFR6'3"227
15Da'Shawn WomackEDGESR6'5"265
18J.J. FaulkEDGESO6'3"260
29Jaquez WilkesEDGEFR6'4"245
31Joe PhillipsEDGESO6'2"250
41Jared SmithEDGESO6'6"260
90Nate JohnsonEDGESR6'5"263
10Walter Mathis Jr.DLSO6'2"290
11Darrion SmithDLSO6'2"263
13Chris MurrayDLSR6'3"256
35Dallas Walker IVDLSR6'3"345
91Tavian BranchDLFR6'4"320
94Cody SiglerDLSR6'2"308
95Jourdin CrawfordDLSO6'0"330
96Malik AutryDLSO6'5"320
98Corey WellsDLFR6'5"325
99Saint FarriorDLJR6'3"340
6De'marcus RiddickLBJR6'2"225
9Elijah MelendezLBSO6'0"240
16Bryce DeasLBSO6'1"225
17Xavier AtkinsLBJR6'0"210
24Shadarius ToodleLBFR6'3"235
42Coleman GranberryLBJR5'11"210
44Adam Balogoun-AliLBFR6'2"230
45Antonio MelendezLBJR5'11"241
51Michael Matthews-CantyLBJR6'3"235
52William Grier McDuffieLBSO6'1"217
4Rayshawn PleasantCBSR5'11"200
12Blake WoodbyCBSO5'11"185
14Shamar ArnouxCBSO6'2"195
19Scrap RichardsonCBSO6'0"195
21Gavin JenkinsCBSO6'2"190
22Andre Jordan Jr.CBSR6'1"185
27Devin WilliamsCBSO5'9"168
33Kamari ToddCBSO6'1"175
46Grey ReebalsCBSO5'11"188
0Sylvester Smith-ReedSSR6'0"195
1Champ AnthonySSR5'11"195
3AnQuon FegansSSO6'0"200
5Eric WintersSSO6'0"215
8Kaleb HarrisSJR6'1"204
20Jacoby MathewsSSR6'1"205
23Fred Gaskin IIISJR5'10"202
25Damonte TabbSFR6'2"192
26Wayne HenrySFR5'10"175
28Shadrick Toodle Jr.SJR6'4"210
32Cade CarlsonSSO6'1"210
38Alex McPhersonPKSR5'9"165
41Connor GibbsPKSR5'10"185
93Charley SchwingerPKJR6'2"175
14Hudson KaakPSR6'1"222
37John McGuirePSO6'1"202
39Max BourkePFR6'4"215
47Travis WakefieldLSFR6'2"215
49Hudson PowellLSSR6'3"225
64Benton CanteyLSSO5'8"217

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
30.0
scoring offense
Points allowed
12.0
scoring defense
Differential
+18.0
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
499.5#24
Yards / play
6.2#61
Passing yards / game
263.0#47
Rushing yards / game
236.5#24
First downs / game
27.5#14
3rd down %
51.5%#31
4th down %
66.7%#40
Time of possession
30:09#75
Defense
Yards allowed / game
328.5#73
Yards / play allowed
4.2#32
Pass yards allowed / game
252.0#116
Rush yards allowed / game
76.5#23
3rd down % allowed
34.3%#63
Sacks
5#38
Tackles for loss
14#29
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
0#69
Takeaways
4#22
Giveaways
4#104
Penalties / game
8.0#105
Penalty yards / game
60.0#85

Rank is national among all FBS teams (#1 = best), oriented so higher rank = better even for defensive and discipline metrics. Bars show percentile.

Scouting Report · 2 games in

balanced

Auburn is in year 1 under Alex Golesh, whose offenses have been balanced. The strengths are defensive, led by 7th at defending the run. The way in is 113th at throwing it, and they are 110th at hitting chunk plays.

On fourth down he goes for it more often than his peers do from the same spots (+5.1%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −21.6% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

Auburn has played 2 games against an average slate, adjusted for here. That football carries about 25% of what is below; the rest is still the preseason projection.

Strengths

  • Defenserunning it
    -0.26
    #7 of 138
  • Defensethe push the line gets
    2.11
    #9 of 138
  • Defensefirst and second down
    41%
    #24 of 138

Soft spots

  • Offensethrowing it
    +0.16
    #113 of 138
  • Offensehitting chunk plays
    1.19
    #110 of 138

Each bar is where this team sits in the country. Before the season has produced enough football these are PROJECTIONS — last season regressed to the mean, plus talent, returning production, recruiting and whether the staff is the same one — and the season replaces them as it is played. Head coaches only — there is no free feed for coordinators, so on a program where the head coach does not call the offense this describes the staff he hired. Play-calling identity is a style, not a grade: throwing more than the situations warrant is not better than throwing less than they warrant.

2026 Season Projection

model win prob · 9 to play
5.45.6
projected final record (now 20)
Exp. wins left
3.4
of 9 games
Bowl odds
47%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
66%
vs Arkansas
Toughest
9%
vs Ole Miss

How the season could finish · 2026 · chance of each final win total · 9 games left

Every remaining game simulated from the model's win probability for it. Tallest bar is the single likeliest finish, not a prediction that it happens.

234567891011
final winstallest bar = 28% chance
Likeliest finish 5-6 (28%)Bowl eligible 47% · marked on the axis at 6

Player Value

EPA contribution by position group + estimated NIL market value (derived from position rates and on-field production — not actual deal figures).

Unit Value — Total EPA
QBByrum Brown
+22.7 EPA
WRChas Nimrod, Keshaun Singleton +4
+20.6 EPA
RBJeremiah Cobb, Bryson Washington +1
+7.9 EPA
TEJake Johnson, Arlis Boardingham +1
-0.5 EPA

Total EPA produced by each positional group this season. OL value is captured via the rush/pass efficiency of skill players; OL-specific EPA isn't separately reported.

Estimated NIL Market Value
ESTIMATED
QBByrum Brown
~$742K
EPA +22.70.237/play96 snaps
EPA +3.30.121/play27 snaps

Estimated from position-group market rates and on-field EPA contribution. Actual NIL valuations depend on social media following, brand fit, and market negotiations — these figures are directional only.

The Five Factors

ranked vs. FBS · bar = better
Efficiency (PPA)
Off0.1735th#90
Def-0.0177th#32
Explosiveness
Off1.1936th#89
Def1.1372nd#40
Field position
Off70.360th#56
Def77.95th#131
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off3.1924th#105
Def3.0064th#50
Turnovers
Won 4Lost 4
Margin 0

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
Defense
Off · pass
0.1620th#111
Off · rush
0.2366th#47

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.2366th#48
Def-0.2693rd#11
Passing
Off0.1618th#113
Def0.2246th#75

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
3.40#35
2nd-level / open-field
1.26 / 1.36
Power / stuff (off)
87.5% / 16.4%
Havoc — total (def)
19.3%#39
Havoc — front 7 / DB
9.9% / 9.3%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.09
Def-0.15
Pass downs
Off0.36
Def0.39

PPA on each down type (off vs. def).

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense-0.07#108-0.03#1140.69#45
Defense-0.19#31-0.03#380.20#40

Elo Trajectory

BaylorFinal
Elo rating 16131678+65 over season

Team Fingerprint · 2026 · 46 opponent-adjusted metrics · percentile vs 138 FBS teams

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.1636th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed-0.0579th
  • Offense success rate45%53rd
  • Defense success rate allowed37%53rd

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs49%49th
  • Offense success — passing downs35%64th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs42%55th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs23%69th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.237th
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.083rd
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs0.9430th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs2.055th

Trenches

  • Offense line yards3.475th
  • Defense line yards allowed2.566th
  • Offense highlight yards1.464th
  • Defense highlight yards allowed0.0595th
  • Offense power success0.8676th
  • Defense power success allowed0.5369th
  • Offense stuff rate0.1850th
  • Defense stuff rate0.1627th

Third down

  • Third down conversion50%77th
  • Third down distance faced7.621st
  • Third down conversion allowed35%58th
  • Third down distance forced6.628th

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half-0.0323rd
  • Net success rate — second half0.1882nd

Drives

  • Points per drive2.355th
  • Points per drive allowed0.6592nd
  • Average starting field position2843rd
  • Opponent starting field position2293rd
  • Available yards gained60%74th
  • Available yards allowed38%77th
  • Scoring opportunities per drive95%86th
  • Scoring opportunities allowed70%76th
  • Points per scoring opportunity2.441st
  • Points allowed per opportunity1.488th
  • Three-and-out rate14%85th
  • Three-and-outs forced30%68th

CORE

  • CORE offense0.3953rd
  • CORE defense-5.987th
  • CORE overall6.373rd

Roster

  • Returning usage20%21st
  • Returning EPA35.820th
  • Team talent composite82888th
  • Recruiting class rank31.078th
  • Recruiting class points22678th

Every metric is opponent-adjusted and ranked so that higher is always better — a defensive rate that is good when low is ranked accordingly. Sack and tackle-for-loss composition are deliberately absent: their relationship to team quality is a measured null, so they carry a style rather than a rank, and they appear in the pressure signature instead.

Intelligence Report

Offensive DNA

Run-first offense — below average EPA/play nationally
EPA/play
+0.171#90 · average
Pass EPA/play
+0.158#113
Rush EPA/play
+0.227#48
Explosiveness
1.187#89
Pts/opportunity
3.19#105
Success rate
44.8%

Rush efficiency edge: 0.069 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

High-pressure defense suppressing opponents below the national average
EPA/play allowed
-0.007#32 · above avg
Havoc rate (total)
19.3%#39
Front-7 havoc
9.9%
DB havoc
9.3%
Big play rate allowed
1.132#40
Success rate allowed
37.9%

Disruption comes evenly from front and secondary.

📊

Season Signature

30.0 PPG offense, 12.0 allowed — +18.0 margin/game
Points per game
30.0
Points allowed/game
12.0
Scoring margin/game
+18.0
Turnover margin
+0won 4 · lost 4
Production returning
14%
Talent rank (247)
#18

2-0 record through 2 games.

Team Shape · percentile vs. FBS · dashed = 50th

OFFENSE35thEXPLOSIVENESS36thFINISHING24thFIELD POS60thDEFENSE77thHAVOC72th50th100th
Offense
35th
Explosiveness
36th
Finishing
24th
Field Pos
60th
Defense
77th
Havoc
72th

Each axis = national percentile rank. 100th = best in FBS, 0th = worst. Defense and Havoc are oriented so higher = better.

CORE efficiency · situation and opponent removed

Points per 100 plays above average, after the game state is regressed out of every snap and the schedule is solved out across the whole league. The version of this team’s efficiency that can be compared to a team it never played.

Overall
+14.7
#29
Offense
+2.6
#49
Defense
-12.1
#10
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 21 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive2.290.65
Starting field positionown 27.6own 22.3
Available yards59.6%37.5%
Scoring opportunities95.2%69.6%
Points per opportunity2.401.38
Three-and-out rate14.3%30.4%
Every team’s drive efficiency →

Play-calling identity

Against what the league calls from the same down, distance, field position, score and clock — so this is the staff, not the game script.

Pass rate
51.2%
Expected, given the spots
50.1%
Over expected
+1.1
Fourth down vs peers
+23
Fourth down vs the model
-14
All play-calling tendencies →

National Landscape · 2026 FBS · offense vs. defense EPA/play

Each dot = one FBS team. Auburn is highlighted. Tap or hover a dot for details.

ELITEDEF. FORTRESSOFF. POWERHOUSEREBUILDING-0.100.00+0.10+0.20+0.30-0.050.00+0.10+0.20Offensive EPA/play← worsebetter →Defensive EPA allowed/play← worsebetter →

Similar Programs

Teams with the closest offense + defense efficiency profile to Auburn in 2026

by EPA/play distance
Iowa StateSP+ +3.1
Off EPA/play +0.178Def EPA/play -0.004Elo 1586
Match
100%
PittsburghSP+ +10.1
Off EPA/play +0.193Def EPA/play -0.009Elo 1681
Match
99%
Florida InternationalSP+ -13.5
Off EPA/play +0.147Def EPA/play -0.003Elo 1385
Match
98%
IowaSP+ +18.0
Off EPA/play +0.166Def EPA/play -0.040Elo 1847
Match
98%
BaylorSP+ +4.9
Off EPA/play +0.166Def EPA/play -0.043Elo 1506
Match
98%
MichiganSP+ +12.2
Off EPA/play +0.125Def EPA/play -0.018Elo 1686
Match
97%

Similarity = normalized Euclidean distance on season offensive and defensive EPA/play. Teams within ±0.02 EPA/play on both units score >90%.

Program Trajectory · CORE rating · 20152026 · points per game vs an average FBS team

2015: +8.3, #40 of 1282016: +14.3, #16 of 1282017: +28.1, #6 of 1302018: +17.2, #15 of 1302019: +25.5, #9 of 1302020: +2.0, #59 of 1242021: +15.3, #15 of 1302022: +11.2, #26 of 1312023: +0.4, #59 of 1332024: +13.2, #29 of 1342025: +13.6, #30 of 1362026: +14.7, #29 of 138
20152026
Now +14.7 · #29 of 138Best +28.1 in 2017Worst +0.4 in 2023

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20262-00-0
100%
1.5+0.5
20255-71-7
42%
6.6-1.6
20245-72-6
42%
7.2-2.2
20236-73-5
46%
6.4-0.4
20225-72-6
42%
6.7-1.7
20216-73-5
46%
6.3-0.3
20206-56-4
55%
4.7+1.3
20199-45-3
69%
9.2-0.2
20188-53-5
62%
8.6-0.6
201710-47-2
71%
9.7+0.3

xW = expected wins from per-game dominance. Luck = actual − expected (positive = won close games).

4.3%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

2-0 so far, projected to finish 6.3-5.7. Top-four bye in 0.6%.

If they finish with…

100%
1 loss
95%
2 losses
16%
3 losses
0.0%
4 losses

Their chance of making it at each final loss count. Better than even up to 2.

down 3.6 points since preseasonwon 17-16 over Baylor against an expected margin of +8, so 6.7 against the number.

  • At 3 losses they are 16% where the average SEC team is 41%.
  • The SEC takes 4.08 bids in an average season, and four or more in 75%.

Auburn’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk7at Georgia14.6
  • wk13at Alabama12.7
  • wk8vs LSU12.2
  • wk5at Tennessee10.9
  • wk3vs Florida9.5
  • wk9at Ole Miss8.5

Who to root for

Games Auburn is not in that move its odds most. Same units, much smaller scale.

  • wk4Illinois over Ohio State1.2
  • wk13Georgia Tech over Georgia1.0
  • wk4Texas over Tennessee0.9
  • wk5Vanderbilt over Georgia0.8
  • wk5Samford over UAB0.8
  • wk12Baylor over Texas Tech0.8
The full playoff picture →

SEC

0-0 in league play, projected 3.3-5.713 of 16 by title odds
0.4%
Wins the SEC
1.2%
Reaches the title game

The SEC sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 49% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk7Auburn at Georgia2.2
  • wk13Auburn at Alabama1.3
  • wk8LSU at Auburn1.3
  • wk5Auburn at Tennessee1.2

Points of title probability riding on each result. The whole SEC race →

If not the playoff, then

66%
Bowl eligible
63%
Placed in a bowl
4.3%
In the playoff
33%
Season over in November

Auburn is 2-0 and needs 4 more wins from 10 games to reach the six that make a team eligible — at most one of which may come against an FCS opponent. In 1.3% they go with five wins, as a 5-7 fill-in — which in reality is decided by academic progress rate, not by anything modelled here.

  • Birmingham Bowl11%
  • Liberty Bowl9.6%
  • Texas Bowl9.5%
  • Music City Bowl8.3%
  • Duke's Mayo Bowl6.7%
  • Gator Bowl5.4%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 13 have sent Auburn a player since 2010 — 36 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of Auburn's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
AuburnAL60
CarverGA51
St. Frances AcademyMD50
CallawayGA41
OxfordAL32
HooverAL30
ArmwoodFL20
Cedar GroveGA20
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.