Skip to content
Stanford

Stanford Cardinal

ACC·1-1·
Compare
Elo
1354#103
SP+
-4.7#83
FPI
-4.7
AP
NR
Next@ Duke · Wk 3Win prob 29%Model +9.1
Talent #50 (705.8)Recruiting class #3721% production returning

Roster · 113 players

FR 39SO 27JR 26SR 21
#PlayerPosClHtWt
8Davis WarrenQBSR6'2"195
9Michael Mitchell Jr.QBFR5'11"185
10Dylan RizkQBJR6'2"225
17Charlie MirerQBSR6'6"235
25Luke LevittQBSO6'2"200
27Devin MigneryQBFR5'10"215
5Chris Davis Jr.RBSO5'10"195
6Tuna AltahirRBSR6'0"230
20Micah FordRBJR6'0"220
26Sedrick IrvinRBSR5'10"205
34Champ HamptonRBJR5'10"220
0Caden HighWRSR5'10"165
2Zion RobinsonWRFR6'2"180
3Marcus BrownWRSO5'10"170
4Jordan OnovugheWRJR6'2"210
11JonAnthony HallWRFR6'1"190
13Liam ThorpeWRSO6'0"195
14Dre PollardWRFR6'1"180
15Carter ShawWRJR6'3"195
18Langdon HoraceWRFR5'11"180
19David PantelisWRSR5'11"200
22Daylen SharperWRFR6'2"210
23Nico BrownWRJR6'0"185
80Jacob ButlerWRFR5'9"170
82Tyler KuoWRJR6'3"205
86Owen van Loben SelsWRSO6'3"205
89Atticus JosephWRFR6'0"170
81Marcus MonroeTEFR6'3"220
83Reiman ZebertTEFR6'6"230
84Chico HoltTEJR6'5"255
85Zach GiulianoTEFR6'6"245
87Aiden BlackTESO6'4"240
88Benji BlackburnTEJR6'6"260
50Cash BallardOLFR6'1"280
51Ziron BrownOLSO6'3"310
52Aidan KilstromOLSR6'3"300
53Nathan MejiaOLSR6'3"305
55Simione PaleOLJR6'4"320
56Hayden GunterOLSO6'7"300
58Kahlil HouseOLJR6'5"305
59Charlie HoitinkOLSO6'4"300
60Nick FattigOLJR6'4"300
63Carson CaplanOLSO6'3"305
65Jay MillerOLFR6'4"320
66Niki ProngosOLSR6'7"315
70Blaise ThomassieOLFR6'4"290
72Dara AdeyemiOLJR6'8"300
73Charlie SymondsOLJR6'8"310
74Fisher AndersonOLSR6'7"315
79Kai GreerOLSO6'6"295
62Josh WilliamsOTSO6'4"300
95Adam ShovlinDEFR6'4"270
42Jacobi MurrayDLSO6'1"315
45Omar StaplesDLJR6'3"270
55Joe AsiainDLSO6'3"275
58Brendan DelaneyDLSO6'5"275
75Braden Marceau-OlayinkaDLJR6'3"300
94Daniel OgiozeeDLFR6'3"250
96Connor BachhuberDLSO6'5"275
97Zach RowellDLSR6'3"285
98Max MeierDLFR6'4"255
99Benedict UmehDLSO6'5"280
57Kole BriehlerDTFR6'2"280
0Jahsiah GalvanLBSR6'2"230
2Dylan StephensonLBSO6'4"235
10Sam MattinglyLBJR6'2"235
11Tevarua TafitiLBSR6'2"240
23Wassie LugolobiLBFR6'1"225
25Bo TateLBSO6'0"220
32Chase CahoonLBFR6'0"215
35Matt RoseLBSR6'2"230
36Tre WilliamsLBJR6'2"235
38Zach JohnsonLBJR6'3"230
40Mickey VaccarelloLBFR6'2"230
41Lucas ShanafeltLBFR6'3"235
43Landon McComberLBFR6'2"235
44Ernest CooperLBSR6'4"250
46Carter DavisLBFR6'4"225
48Drew CunninghamLBSO6'3"245
49Gabe KaminskiLBFR6'3"235
52Sarrel HowardLBFR6'1"230
54Preston JerneganLBSO6'2"230
88Keysaun EleazerLBFR6'6"205
90Gavin GewenigerLBJR6'4"240
4Leroy BryantCBJR6'0"185
8Cam RichardsonCBJR6'2"190
9Brandon NicholsonCBJR6'0"190
18Jason Hill Jr.CBFR5'11"160
20Xavier HarmonCBFR6'0"185
26Chris GarlandCBFR6'0"180
27Breylan ThompsonCBJR6'1"190
28Sam Neely IIICBSO5'11"185
30Jack DuckworthCBFR5'10"170
31Aaron MorrisCBJR5'11"195
34Javion RandallCBSO5'11"190
22Zaiden McDonaldDBFR6'2"195
24Lonnie McAllister IIIDBSO5'11"180
29Caleb CarsonDBFR5'11"190
33Lasiah JacksonDBFR6'3"175
3Jaylen'Dai SumlinSSO6'2"200
5Jay GreenSSR6'3"215
6Darrius DavisSJR6'0"200
15Donte UtuSFR6'1"180
17Omari GainesSFR6'2"200
21Scotty EdwardsSSR6'1"205
39Charlie EckhardtSSO6'2"205
13Emmet KenneyPKSR6'3"220
19London BironasPKFR5'10"205
92AJ SeidlerPKSO6'1"225
37Aidan FlintoftPSR6'2"210
46Hamilton SharpeLSFR6'0"215
47Alejandro ChavezLSSR6'2"225
93Peyton WarfordLSSR6'3"225

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
21.5
scoring offense
Points allowed
36.0
scoring defense
Differential
-14.5
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
391.0#79
Yards / play
5.8#82
Passing yards / game
265.5#51
Rushing yards / game
125.5#98
First downs / game
19.0#90
3rd down %
38.7%#87
4th down %
25.0%#101
Time of possession
27:10#109
Defense
Yards allowed / game
435.5#116
Yards / play allowed
6.2#109
Pass yards allowed / game
352.0#135
Rush yards allowed / game
83.5#37
3rd down % allowed
53.3%#125
Sacks
2#81
Tackles for loss
9#59
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
+3#14
Takeaways
3#30
Giveaways
0#1
Penalties / game
8.5#107
Penalty yards / game
64.5#97

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 · 2026 projection

Stanford is in year 1 under Tavita Pritchard. The strengths are defensive, led by 28th at defending the run. The way in is 132nd at running it, and they are 123rd in the push up front.

Stanford has played 2 games against an average slate, adjusted for here. That football carries about 0% of what is below; the rest is still the preseason projection.

Projected strengths

  • Defenserunning it
    #28
    projected

Projected soft spots

  • Offenserunning it
    #132
    projected
  • Offensethe push the line gets
    #123
    projected
  • Offensefirst and second down
    #121
    projected

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
3.2 – 7.8
projected final record (now 1–1)
Exp. wins left
2.2
of 9 games
Bowl odds
4%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
49%
vs Georgia Tech
Toughest
3%
vs Notre Dame

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.

12345678910
final winstallest bar = 31% chance
Likeliest finish 3-8 (31%)Bowl eligible 4% · 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
WRJordan Onovughe, Jonanthony Hall +5
+24.1 EPA
QBDavis Warren
+20.0 EPA
RBSedrick Irvin, Micah Ford
+7.5 EPA
TEBenjamin Blackburn, Aiden Black
-1.6 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
QBDavis Warren
~$830K
EPA +20.00.312/play64 snaps
RBMicah Ford
~$169K
EPA +3.10.091/play34 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)
Off0.2854th#64
Def0.2417th#115
Explosiveness
Off1.1834th#91
Def1.2945th#76
Field position
Off75.790th#15
Def74.831st#95
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off3.0925th#104
Def6.083rd#134
Turnovers
Won 3Lost 0
Margin +3

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
—
Defense
—
Off · pass
0.3249th#71
Off · rush
0.2060th#56

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.2060th#56
Def-0.0255th#62
Passing
Off0.3249th#71
Def0.4418th#113

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
2.92#87
2nd-level / open-field
0.93 / 1.13
Power / stuff (off)
83.3% / 15.6%
Havoc — total (def)
12.4%#109
Havoc — front 7 / DB
8.3% / 4.1%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.25
Def0.25
Pass downs
Off0.35
Def0.24

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

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense0.22#380.09#900.68#56
Defense-0.05#680.10#710.99#128

Elo Trajectory

Hawai'iFinal
Elo rating 1390 → 1354-36 over season

Team Fingerprint · 2026 · 43 opponent-adjusted metrics · percentile vs 138 FBS teams

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.1742nd
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.2623rd
  • Offense success rate39%29th
  • Defense success rate allowed45%24th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs46%38th
  • Offense success — passing downs23%20th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs49%31st
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs37%20th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.135th
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.334th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs0.9127th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs2.164th

Trenches

  • Offense line yards2.835th
  • Defense line yards allowed2.937th
  • Offense highlight yards0.8547th
  • Defense highlight yards allowed0.6653rd
  • Offense power success0.9276th
  • Defense power success allowed1.023rd
  • Offense stuff rate0.1841st
  • Defense stuff rate0.1426th

Third down

  • Third down conversion40%42nd
  • Third down distance faced7.621st
  • Third down conversion allowed52%17th
  • Third down distance forced6.221st

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half-0.0428th
  • Net success rate — second half-0.1023rd

Drives

  • Points per drive1.538th
  • Points per drive allowed2.833rd
  • Average starting field position2423rd
  • Opponent starting field position2568th
  • Available yards gained44%36th
  • Available yards allowed51%41st
  • Scoring opportunities per drive73%36th
  • Scoring opportunities allowed83%44th
  • Points per scoring opportunity2.134th
  • Points allowed per opportunity3.725th
  • Three-and-out rate36%27th
  • Three-and-outs forced30%62nd

Roster

  • Returning usage30%35th
  • Returning EPA47.928th
  • Team talent composite70664th
  • Recruiting class rank37.074th
  • Recruiting class points21974th

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

EPA/play
+0.278#64 · average
Pass EPA/play
+0.324#71
Rush EPA/play
+0.203#56
Explosiveness
1.182#91
Pts/opportunity
3.09#104
Success rate
43.0%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.122 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

Disciplined defense — allowing above-average EPA/play
EPA/play allowed
+0.244#115 · bottom 20%
Havoc rate (total)
12.4%#109
Front-7 havoc
8.3%
DB havoc
4.1%
Big play rate allowed
1.294#76
Success rate allowed
44.3%

Disruption comes primarily from the front seven.

📊

Season Signature

21.5 PPG offense, 36.0 allowed — -14.5 margin/game
Points per game
21.5
Points allowed/game
36.0
Scoring margin/game
-14.5
Turnover margin
+3won 3 · lost 0
Production returning
21%
Talent rank (247)
#50

1-1 record through 2 games.

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

OFFENSE54thEXPLOSIVENESS34thFINISHING25thFIELD POS90thDEFENSE17thHAVOC21th50th100th
Offense
54th
Explosiveness
34th
Finishing
25th
Field Pos
90th
Defense
17th
Havoc
21th

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
-5.3
#88
Offense
-1.9
#81
Defense
+3.4
#99
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 22 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive1.542.78
Starting field positionown 23.9own 25.1
Available yards44.4%51.2%
Scoring opportunities72.7%82.6%
Points per opportunity2.133.74
Three-and-out rate36.4%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
57.3%
Expected, given the spots
53.4%
Over expected
+3.9
Fourth down vs peers
+3
Fourth down vs the model
-29
All play-calling tendencies →

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

Each dot = one FBS team. Stanford 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 Stanford in 2026

by EPA/play distance
IllinoisSP+ +7.5
Off EPA/play +0.310Def EPA/play +0.245Elo 1595
Match
99%
Florida StateSP+ +6.9
Off EPA/play +0.242Def EPA/play +0.268Elo 1557
Match
98%
HoustonSP+ +6.5
Off EPA/play +0.312Def EPA/play +0.183Elo 1514
Match
96%
PurdueSP+ +1.2
Off EPA/play +0.351Def EPA/play +0.210Elo 1318
Match
96%
North TexasSP+ -13.2
Off EPA/play +0.307Def EPA/play +0.169Elo 1590
Match
96%
AkronSP+ -21.4
Off EPA/play +0.190Def EPA/play +0.228Elo 929
Match
96%

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 · 2015–2026 · points per game vs an average FBS team

2015: +19.3, #11 of 1282016: +8.0, #36 of 1282017: +12.0, #26 of 1302018: +5.5, #40 of 1302019: -6.0, #87 of 1302020: -4.2, #82 of 1242021: -12.2, #101 of 1302022: -10.9, #102 of 1312023: -15.4, #110 of 1332024: -11.2, #103 of 1342025: -12.6, #102 of 1362026: -5.3, #88 of 138
20152026
Now -5.3 · #88 of 138Best +19.3 in 2015Worst -15.4 in 2023

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20261-10-1
50%
1.0-0.0
20254-83-5
33%
4.5-0.5
20243-92-6
25%
3.8-0.8
20233-92-7
25%
2.6+0.4
20223-91-8
25%
2.9+0.1
20213-92-7
25%
2.8+0.2
20204-24-2
67%
1.6+2.4
20194-83-6
33%
4.2-0.2
20189-46-3
69%
7.4+1.6
20179-57-3
64%
7.9+1.1

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

0.0%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

1-1 so far, projected to finish 4.2-7.8.

If they finish with…

1.2%
3 losses
0%
4 losses

Their chance of making it at each final loss count.

down 0.5 points since preseason — won 37-27 over Hawai'i against an expected margin of +3, so −9.8 against the number.

  • At 3 losses they are 1.2% where the average ACC team is 4.1%.
  • The ACC takes 1.54 bids in an average season, and four or more in 0.7%.

Stanford’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk9at Louisville0.2
  • wk13vs SMU0.2
  • wk3at Duke0.2
  • wk11at Virginia Tech0.2
  • wk5at Wake Forest0.2
  • wk12at California0.1

Who to root for

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

  • wk6Maryland over Ohio State0.1
  • wk13Syracuse over Notre Dame0.1
  • wk12SMU over Notre Dame0.1
  • wk2Delaware over Vanderbilt0.1
  • wk5North Texas over Tulsa0.1
  • wk3Colorado State over BYU0.1
The full playoff picture →

ACC

0-1 in league play, projected 2.2-6.817 of 17 by title odds
0.0%
Wins the ACC
0.1%
Reaches the title game

The ACC sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 37% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

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

If not the playoff, then

21%
Bowl eligible
19%
Placed in a bowl
0.0%
In the playoff
81%
Season over in November

Stanford is 1-1 and needs 5 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 1.2% of seasons they get there and still go nowhere: there are more eligible teams than seats.

  • Fenway Bowl3.9%
  • Military Bowl3.3%
  • Birmingham Bowl2.3%
  • Pinstripe Bowl2.3%
  • Pop-Tarts Bowl1.6%
  • First Responder Bowl1.5%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 17 have sent Stanford a player since 2010 — 51 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of Stanford's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
Oaks ChristianCA61
Mater DeiCA60
Bishop GormanNV51
PunahouHI50
De La SalleCA31
EpiscopalVA31
FolsomCA31
San ClementeCA31
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.