Skip to content

Houston Cougars

Big 12·2-0·
Elo
1514#64
SP+
6.5#46
FPI
6.5
AP
#22
Next@ Texas Tech · Wk 3Win prob 8%Model +19.4
Talent #57 (695.9)Recruiting class #3881% production returning

Team Leaders

Latest on Houston

All news

Conner Weigman produced 11 of Houston's 13 explosive plays

Matchup · 6d ago

The 4.3 points between our Houston number and the market are offseason arithmetic

Matchup · Aug 31

Roster · 116 players

FR 30SO 24JR 20SR 42
#PlayerPosClHtWt
1Conner WeigmanQBSR6'3"210
5Keisean HendersonQBFR6'5"195
13Canon ToonQBFR6'3"195
15Jake SockQBSR6'2"190
17Luke CarneyQBSO6'2"205
18Ryan SmithQBFR6'0"180
6Re'Shaun Sanford IIRBJR5'9"190
16JayShon RidgleRBJR6'0"197
21Makhi HughesRBSR6'0"210
23John HebertRBFR5'11"180
25DJ ButlerRBJR6'0"190
32Nehemiah WarmateRBSO6'0"190
37Zane SmithRBSO5'9"235
0Amare ThomasWRSR6'0"205
2Koby YoungWRJR6'0"180
3Harvey Broussard IIIWRSR6'3"185
4Trent WalkerWRSR6'2"195
8Tyson TurnerWRJR6'2"215
10Jaquise MartinWRSO5'10"180
12Stephon JohnsonWRSR6'2"190
14Muizz TounkaraWRSO6'3"210
22Dorian BarnesWRFR5'8"155
27Braeden RobinsonWRFR6'0"180
46Jeffrey Strozier Jr.WRSR5'6"160
81Jeremiah BushnellWRFR6'1"195
82Jack NewhouseWRFR6'4"230
83Keavon RobertsWRFR6'5"185
84Samuel PadgittWRSR6'2"195
9Patrick OvermyerTESR6'5"240
19Kaleb ThomasTEJR6'4"250
85Traville Frederick Jr.TEJR6'3"240
86Wyatt HerbelTESO6'3"220
87Luke McGaryTESR6'4"250
88Jacory ThurmanTESO6'4"240
89Jaivion MartinTEFR6'4"250
50Aaron WolfordOLFR6'4"310
52Anthony BoswellOLJR6'2"301
53Ronnell McLainOLJR6'4"325
54Rhett GrayOLFR6'8"310
55Demetris Dean IIOLSO6'4"300
56Shadre HurstOLSR6'2"304
57Hayden WrightOLSO6'5"285
62Ricardo CordovaOLJR6'0"270
66McKenzie AgnelloOLSR6'4"314
67Hingano HautauOLSR6'6"325
68Sean TerrellOLSO6'5"295
70Larry CrawfordOLSR6'5"300
71Noah AbebeOLFR6'4"300
72RJ LeeOLSO6'8"335
73Drew TerrillOLSR6'6"300
77Troy PlessOLFR6'5"320
79Alvin EboseleOLSR6'6"312
9Ashton PorterDLSR6'3"280
18Khalil LaufauDLSR6'3"290
45Chance BryantDLSO6'2"255
47DK MaysDLSO6'4"250
49Darius WashingtonDLSO6'6"265
50Ejiro EgodogbareDLSR6'3"310
51Hunter JonesDLSR6'2"280
55Isaiah BroughtonDLFR6'4"340
88Xavier FlemingDLFR6'1"305
90De'Marion ThomasDLSR6'2"340
91Kaleb WalkerDLFR6'2"275
92Travis BuhakeDLSO6'2"290
94Carmello BrooksDLSO6'3"275
96Eythan ThompsonDLSO6'3"330
98Myles ParkerDLSR6'1"325
99Quindario LeeDLSR6'5"295
1Jaden YatesLBSR6'1"225
4Brandon Mack IILBSR6'4"255
10Latreveon McCutchinLBSR6'3"245
12Sione FotuLBSR6'0"230
17Christian BrathwaiteLBJR6'2"220
19Miller MaloneLBJR6'2"220
25Carmycah GlassLBSR6'4"230
30Richmond UgochukwuLBSO6'2"220
31Tristan JacksonLBSO6'0"215
34Bryson CastileLBFR6'2"210
35Tyler CovarLBFR6'2"225
36Liam RileyLBFR6'1"215
43Sheldon RiceLBSO6'3"250
48Grayson BoekerLBSO6'3"220
53Tanner CovarLBFR6'2"195
0Javion WhiteDBJR5'11"190
2Jalen MayoDBSR6'2"190
3JD RhymDBSR6'2"190
5Will JamesDBSR6'0"185
6Jordan AllenDBSR5'11"200
8Kentrell WebbDBSR5'11"190
13C.J. DouglasDBSR5'11"200
14Paris Melvin Jr.DBFR5'11"185
20James Henderson IIIDBFR6'1"175
21Myles RowserDBSR6'1"195
22Zaylen CormierDBSO5'11"190
23Alvin Williamson Jr.DBJR6'0"200
24Keany ParksDBSR6'1"180
26Jamaal ShawDBSR6'1"200
27Mudassir AbdullahDBFR6'0"175
28Kenzy WestDBSO6'0"185
29Javen HolmesDBFR6'2"205
32Isaac RichardsonDBFR6'1"200
33Johnsley BarbasDBJR5'11"190
37Elijah YoungDBSR5'10"175
38Johnathan Joseph Jr.DBFR5'10"190
40Kvion RobersonDBFR6'1"180
41Thompson BennettDBFR6'1"190
42Austin AndersonDBJR6'3"185
44Rodney Thomas IIDBFR6'1"180
49Jonathan DimasPKJR5'10"185
94Evan NoelPKSO6'1"165
96Zac YoakamPKSR5'8"195
62Jack RaneyPSR6'3"210
91Liam DoughertyPJR6'2"205
47Anthony SaragusaLSJR6'2"265
64Jack Carson-WentzLSSR6'2"210
69Weston EdwardsLSJR6'2"215

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
55.0
scoring offense
Points allowed
13.0
scoring defense
Differential
+42.0
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
533.0#16
Yards / play
7.4#23
Passing yards / game
305.0#30
Rushing yards / game
228.0#34
First downs / game
24.0#40
3rd down %
53.8%#26
4th down %
100.0%#1
Time of possession
30:50#63
Defense
Yards allowed / game
402.0#108
Yards / play allowed
5.5#90
Pass yards allowed / game
376.0#136
Rush yards allowed / game
26.0#4
3rd down % allowed
26.7%#31
Sacks
4#42
Tackles for loss
4#114
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
-2#109
Takeaways
0#118
Giveaways
2#68
Penalties / game
10.0#128
Penalty yards / game
65.0#98

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

heavily run-leaning

Houston runs it: Willie Fritz's offenses have been heavily run-leaning across 11 seasons. The strengths are on both sides of the ball, led by 10th at keeping everything in front of them. The way in is 112th at running it.

On fourth down he goes for it more often than his peers do from the same spots (+4.5%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −14.0% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

Houston has played 1 game 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

  • Defensehitting chunk plays
    #10
    projected
  • Offensestaying on schedule through the air
    #24
    projected
  • Defensesurviving second and twelve
    #28
    projected

Projected soft spots

  • Offenserunning it
    #112
    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 · 10 to play
9.12.9
projected final record (now 20)
Exp. wins left
7.1
of 10 games
Bowl odds
100%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
91%
vs Georgia Southern
Toughest
8%
vs Texas Tech

How the season could finish · 2026 · chance of each final win total · 10 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.

23456789101112
final winstallest bar = 32% chance
Likeliest finish 9-3 (32%)Bowl eligible 100% · 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
QBConner Weigman, Keisean Henderson
+28.0 EPA
WRTrent Walker, Amare Thomas +1
+17.6 EPA
RBMakhi Hughes, Re'Shaun Sanford II +1
+14.2 EPA
TEPatrick Overmyer
+8.6 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
EPA +27.30.535/play51 snaps
RBMakhi Hughes
~$238K
EPA +7.30.272/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)
Off0.3166th#48
Def0.1826th#103
Explosiveness
Off1.2548th#72
Def1.3431st#96
Field position
Off70.558th#58
Def77.79th#126
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off3.3829th#98
Def4.2020th#110
Turnovers
Won 3Lost 2
Margin +1

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
Defense
Off · pass
0.4464th#51
Off · rush
0.1858th#59

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.1856th#61
Def-0.0760th#56
Passing
Off0.4463rd#52
Def0.2936th#89

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
3.33#44
2nd-level / open-field
1.20 / 1.75
Power / stuff (off)
85.7% / 15.0%
Havoc — total (def)
21.6%#32
Havoc — front 7 / DB
8.1% / 13.5%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.13
Def0.18
Pass downs
Off0.76
Def0.19

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

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense-0.01#930.46#310.83#34
Defense0.18#1190.24#950.10#25

Elo Trajectory

Oregon StateFinal
Elo rating 15081521+13 over season

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

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.3164th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.1829th
  • Offense success rate50%66th
  • Defense success rate allowed41%39th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs51%50th
  • Offense success — passing downs48%85th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs47%38th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs31%41st

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.358th
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.328th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs0.9436th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs2.161st

Trenches

  • Offense line yards3.364th
  • Defense line yards allowed2.843rd
  • Offense highlight yards1.874th
  • Defense highlight yards allowed0.0099th
  • Offense power success0.8673rd
  • Defense power success allowed0.5079th
  • Offense stuff rate0.1555th
  • Defense stuff rate0.052nd

Third down

  • Third down conversion54%72nd
  • Third down distance faced7.236th
  • Third down conversion allowed27%74th
  • Third down distance forced7.455th

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half0.1150th
  • Net success rate — second half0.0647th

Drives

  • Points per drive3.174th
  • Points per drive allowed2.149th
  • Average starting field position3060th
  • Opponent starting field position2384th
  • Available yards gained65%79th
  • Available yards allowed45%62nd
  • Scoring opportunities per drive100%99th
  • Scoring opportunities allowed70%75th
  • Points per scoring opportunity3.165th
  • Points allowed per opportunity3.043rd
  • Three-and-out rate18%73rd
  • Three-and-outs forced20%38th

Roster

  • Returning usage60%72nd
  • Returning EPA24389th
  • Team talent composite69659th
  • Recruiting class rank38.073rd
  • Recruiting class points21973rd

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
+0.312#48 · above avg
Pass EPA/play
+0.439#52
Rush EPA/play
+0.176#61
Explosiveness
1.254#72
Pts/opportunity
3.38#98
Success rate
50.0%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.263 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

High-pressure defense — allowing above-average EPA/play
EPA/play allowed
+0.183#103 · below avg
Havoc rate (total)
21.6%#32
Front-7 havoc
8.1%
DB havoc
13.5%
Big play rate allowed
1.341#96
Success rate allowed
40.5%

Disruption comes primarily from the secondary.

📊

Season Signature

55.0 PPG offense, 13.0 allowed — +42.0 margin/game
Points per game
55.0
Points allowed/game
13.0
Scoring margin/game
+42.0
Turnover margin
+1won 3 · lost 2
Production returning
81%
Talent rank (247)
#57

2-0 record through 2 games.

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

OFFENSE66thEXPLOSIVENESS48thFINISHING29thFIELD POS58thDEFENSE26thHAVOC77th50th100th
Offense
66th
Explosiveness
48th
Finishing
29th
Field Pos
58th
Defense
26th
Havoc
77th

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
+7.0
#43
Offense
+5.0
#36
Defense
-1.9
#60
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 11 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive3.092.10
Starting field positionown 29.5own 23.2
Available yards64.9%44.7%
Scoring opportunities100.0%70.0%
Points per opportunity3.093.00
Three-and-out rate18.2%20.0%
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
44.3%
Expected, given the spots
42.4%
Over expected
+1.9
Fourth down vs peers
-4
Fourth down vs the model
+0
All play-calling tendencies →

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

Each dot = one FBS team. Houston 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 Houston in 2026

by EPA/play distance
North TexasSP+ -13.2
Off EPA/play +0.307Def EPA/play +0.169Elo 1590
Match
99%
App StateSP+ -7.2
Off EPA/play +0.297Def EPA/play +0.163Elo 1310
Match
99%
PurdueSP+ +1.2
Off EPA/play +0.351Def EPA/play +0.210Elo 1318
Match
98%
UConnSP+ -6.3
Off EPA/play +0.303Def EPA/play +0.136Elo 1484
Match
97%
IllinoisSP+ +7.5
Off EPA/play +0.310Def EPA/play +0.245Elo 1595
Match
97%
StanfordSP+ -4.7
Off EPA/play +0.278Def EPA/play +0.244Elo 1354
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 · 20152026 · points per game vs an average FBS team

2015: +8.0, #42 of 1282016: +9.5, #31 of 1282017: +5.3, #50 of 1302018: +0.3, #61 of 1302019: -4.0, #76 of 1302020: +1.1, #63 of 1242021: +10.8, #32 of 1302022: +4.8, #50 of 1312023: -8.5, #95 of 1332024: -7.9, #92 of 1342025: -0.9, #65 of 1362026: +7.0, #43 of 138
20152026
Now +7.0 · #43 of 138Best +10.8 in 2021Worst -8.5 in 2023

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20261-00-0
100%
1.0+0.0
202510-36-3
77%
7.1+2.9
20244-83-6
33%
5.0-1.0
20234-82-7
33%
2.8+1.2
20228-55-3
62%
8.0+0.0
202112-28-1
86%
10.8+1.2
20203-53-3
38%
3.4-0.4
20194-82-6
33%
3.4+0.6
20188-55-3
62%
7.9+0.1
20177-55-3
58%
8.3-1.3

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

6.5%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

1-0 so far, projected to finish 7.5-4.6. Top-four bye in 1.0%. Wins the Big 12 in 3.2%.

If they finish with…

100%
0 losses
94%
1 loss
25%
2 losses
0.7%
3 losses
0.0%
4 losses

Their chance of making it at each final loss count. Better than even up to 1.

Win out and it is 100%. Running the table settles it.

down 2.5 points since preseasonwon 33-20 over Oregon State against an expected margin of +15, so 2.4 against the number.

  • At 2 losses they are 25% where the average Big 12 team is 46%.
  • The Big 12 takes 1.61 bids in an average season, and four or more in 1.0%.

Houston’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk3at Texas Tech20.4
  • wk8at Utah12.2
  • wk6at Kansas State11.7
  • wk11at Colorado9.5
  • wk10vs Cincinnati8.9
  • wk13vs Baylor8.7

Who to root for

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

  • wk2Oregon State over Texas Tech2.2
  • wk9Arizona over Texas Tech1.5
  • wk13TCU over Texas Tech1.4
  • wk12Baylor over Texas Tech1.4
  • wk5Colorado over Texas Tech1.4
  • wk11Oregon State over Boise State1.3
The full playoff picture →

Big 12

0-0 in league play, projected 4.7-4.36 of 16 by title odds
3.2%
Wins the Big 12
8.9%
Reaches the title game

The Big 12 sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 45% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk3Houston at Texas Tech11.8
  • wk8Houston at Utah6.1
  • wk6Houston at Kansas State5.8
  • wk11Houston at Colorado4.6

Points of title probability riding on each result. The whole Big 12 race →

If not the playoff, then

83%
Bowl eligible
71%
Placed in a bowl
6.5%
In the playoff
22%
Season over in November

Houston is 1-0 and needs 5 more wins from 11 games to reach the six that make a team eligible — at most one of which may come against an FCS opponent. In 5.2% of seasons they get there and still go nowhere: there are more eligible teams than seats.

  • Texas Bowl9.6%
  • Pop-Tarts Bowl9.3%
  • Alamo Bowl9.1%
  • Liberty Bowl8.9%
  • Rate Bowl8.1%
  • Independence Bowl7.8%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 14 have sent Houston a player since 2010 — 39 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of Houston's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
John TylerTX62
North ShoreTX41
AtascocitaTX40
Fort Bend MarshallTX40
BeltonTX31
LancasterTX31
Spring WestfieldTX31
ManvelTX30
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.