Skip to content
North Texas

North Texas Mean Green

American Athletic·1-1·
Compare
Elo
1590#41
SP+
-13.2#115
FPI
-6.7
AP
NR
Next@ Texas State · Wk 3Win prob 38%Model +4.7
Talent #95 (602.1)Recruiting class #1373% production returning

Roster · 107 players

FR 18SO 20JR 15SR 54
#PlayerPosClHtWt
2Tayven JacksonQBSR6'4"212
9Chaston DittaQBSO6'0"193
10Ziondre WilliamsQBFR5'11"170
12Chris Jimerson Jr.QBSO5'10"175
1Jahiem WhiteRBSR5'7"187
4Nick OshoRBSR6'1"217
20Adarion NettlesRBFR5'8"185
22Colin PageRBSR5'11"215
29Brendon HaygoodRBSO5'10"190
36Keenan Jackson Jr.RBSO5'10"171
0Corri MillinerWRSR6'2"170
3TJ ChukwurahWRSR5'11"202
6Josiah MartinWRJR5'11"173
8Shandon KingWRSR6'2"191
11Dalton CarnesWRSR5'9"176
13Justin StevensonWRSR6'2"196
14Kyle KochWRJR6'2"199
15Andy JeanWRSR6'1"181
16James TyreWRSR5'8"171
18Lathon LatiolaisWRFR5'10"175
19Grayson O'BaraWRSR6'1"202
80Baron TiptonWRJR6'5"206
84Jackson MuckelroyWRSR6'4"211
86Zachary YangWRSO5'9"176
87Eli NikolasWRFR6'2"175
7Max ReeseTESR6'2"245
17Brec LongTESR6'4"229
82Connor VaughnTESR6'4"262
85Drew ClemensTESO6'4"225
88Victor AderungboyeTEJR6'3"247
89Jerious SingletaryTEFR6'4"210
50Jahzari PriesterOLSR6'6"325
53Dylan ShawOLSR6'4"320
54Henry FenukuOLSO6'3"310
56Austin OdetteOLFR6'5"245
57Chandler StrongOLSR6'1"288
61Drew CunninghamOLJR6'4"296
62Amarion BerryOLJR6'2"296
64Roberto RodriguezOLSO6'5"301
66Willie GoodacreOLJR6'5"335
68Keon JohnsonOLSR6'4"370
69Ryan KruegerOLSR6'2"304
70Brody HamiltonOLSO6'4"307
71Johnny Williams IVOLSR6'7"329
72Neto UmeozuluOLSR6'4"329
73Julio Madero IVOLJR6'4"320
74Francisco AdamsOLFR6'6"285
77Caden VoltaireOLFR6'7"285
78KC EkwuOLFR6'4"305
6Udoka EzeaniDLSR6'1"218
10David OnuohaDLSR6'1"239
11Steven CurtisDLSR6'5"264
15Justin BentonDLSR6'0"298
18Mo DiawaraDLSR6'4"268
23Christian LorenzoDLSR6'3"297
41Cason ApplewhiteDLFR6'4"230
42Brayden KnoxDLSO6'3"256
44Dylan WilliamsDLFR6'1"285
52Courage Osawe Jr.DLJR6'4"299
58Nolan ClarkDLSR6'2"292
88Wesley HudsonDLSR6'3"294
91Davion RhodesDLSR6'2"248
92Grady HolmesDLFR6'2"295
93Terrell WashingtonDLJR6'1"305
94Caleb LathanDLJR6'4"290
95Rudy Vargas Jr.DLSR6'2"287
96AJ BrownDLSO6'3"295
97Demetrie MorganDLSR6'5"230
98Curlee Thomas IVDLSR6'4"259
99Avion CarterDLSR6'4"270
3Zakye BarkerLBSR5'11"225
7Aaron AlexanderLBSR6'1"236
17Cedric RobertsLBJR6'1"226
30Chantz JohnsonLBSR6'1"231
34Brenden ReeseLBSO6'2"231
36Jaden ManningLBSO6'1"228
40Kailer PettijohnLBFR6'0"200
51Keelene BradleyLBSR6'3"237
53Rohan SturgeonLBFR6'3"225
1Keshawn DavilaCBSR6'1"161
5Chase CanadaCBSR5'11"187
8Caden JenkinsCBSR6'1"177
19Jaden AllenCBJR5'10"170
20Taylor StarlingCBSR5'9"181
24Peyton TaylorCBSR5'11"167
27Zach JohnsonCBSO5'10"178
32Anthony Benford IICBSR5'11"188
35Kaeden SwannCBFR6'3"167
0Brandon JonesSSO5'9"183
2Taye SeymoreSSR5'11"206
4CJ CoombesSSR6'1"212
9Cameren JenkinsSSR6'0"199
12Tyson WilsonSSR5'11"179
13Graham GillespieSSR6'1"201
14Bryce GarzaSSO6'2"195
16BJ Allen Jr.SSR6'0"198
21Jason Cross Jr.SJR6'1"178
22Julian Knox Sr.SJR6'3"220
25Ja'Bree BickhamSSO6'4"184
29Kamdon McFarlandSSR6'0"211
31Aaden LittleSFR6'1"185
48Michael Taylor IIPKFR5'8"175
90Dominic De FreitasPKSO6'0"185
37Ian RatliffPSR5'11"185
46Luke CrudgingtonPFR5'11"165
47Jacob PoffLSSO6'0"181
49Brodie ScogginsLSSO6'2"228

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
30.0
scoring offense
Points allowed
29.0
scoring defense
Differential
+1.0
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
405.5#74
Yards / play
6.1#72
Passing yards / game
238.0#61
Rushing yards / game
167.5#70
First downs / game
20.5#73
3rd down %
46.4%#47
4th down %
33.3%#99
Time of possession
34:49#15
Defense
Yards allowed / game
333.0#76
Yards / play allowed
5.6#100
Pass yards allowed / game
217.0#84
Rush yards allowed / game
116.0#68
3rd down % allowed
46.2%#116
Sacks
4#60
Tackles for loss
7#111
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
+3#15
Takeaways
4#22
Giveaways
1#21
Penalties / game
9.5#127
Penalty yards / game
76.0#121

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

balanced

North Texas is in year 1 under Neal Brown, whose offenses have been balanced. The strengths are offensive, led by 18th in the push up front. The way in is 133rd at defending the run, and they are 133rd at stuffing runs at the line.

On fourth down he goes for it about as often as his peers do from the same spots (+2.6%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −21.6% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

North Texas 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

  • Offensethe push the line gets
    #18
    projected
  • Offenserunning it
    #22
    projected
  • Offensehitting chunk plays
    #33
    projected

Projected soft spots

  • Defenserunning it
    #133
    projected
  • Defensegetting stopped at the line
    #133
    projected
  • Defenseturning trips inside the 40 into points
    #131
    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
6.7 – 4.3
projected final record (now 1–1)
Exp. wins left
5.7
of 9 games
Bowl odds
81%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
93%
vs Charlotte
Toughest
38%
vs Texas State

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 = 28% chance
Likeliest finish 7-4 (28%)Bowl eligible 81% · 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
QBTayven Jackson, Chris Jimerson Jr. +1
+27.5 EPA
WRJosiah Martin, Justin Stevenson +3
+15.7 EPA
RBJahiem White, Nick Osho +1
+9.4 EPA
TEMax Reese, Brec Long
+7.1 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
QBTayven Jackson
~$891K
EPA +25.40.446/play57 snaps
RBJahiem White
~$255K
EPA +11.60.323/play36 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)
Off0.3170th#42
Def0.1727th#101
Explosiveness
Off1.5394th#9
Def1.0980th#28
Field position
Off69.548th#72
Def63.899th#1
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off4.2958th#59
Def4.0024th#105
Turnovers
Won 4Lost 1
Margin +3

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
—
Defense
—
Off · pass
0.4669th#44
Off · rush
0.1962nd#53

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.1961st#55
Def-0.2694th#9
Passing
Off0.4668th#45
Def0.821st#137

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
3.30#41
2nd-level / open-field
1.30 / 1.18
Power / stuff (off)
100.0% / 10.7%
Havoc — total (def)
15.1%#79
Havoc — front 7 / DB
10.1% / 5.0%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.20
Def0.02
Pass downs
Off0.51
Def0.53

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

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense0.14#540.21#730.84#27
Defense0.10#1070.11#660.63#106

Elo Trajectory

@IndianaFinal
Elo rating 1639 → 1699+60 over season

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

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.2458th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.2510th
  • Offense success rate40%29th
  • Defense success rate allowed44%22nd

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs43%20th
  • Offense success — passing downs35%61st
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs46%37th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs39%13th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.487th
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.261st
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs1.290th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs1.946th

Trenches

  • Offense line yards3.047th
  • Defense line yards allowed2.564th
  • Offense highlight yards0.9142nd
  • Defense highlight yards allowed0.9537th
  • Offense power success0.5017th
  • Defense power success allowed0.7635th
  • Offense stuff rate0.1849th
  • Defense stuff rate0.1520th

Third down

  • Third down conversion46%61st
  • Third down distance faced6.755th
  • Third down conversion allowed48%13th
  • Third down distance forced7.142nd

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half0.0034th
  • Net success rate — second half-0.0227th

Drives

  • Points per drive3.074th
  • Points per drive allowed2.835th
  • Average starting field position3171st
  • Opponent starting field position3612th
  • Available yards gained60%75th
  • Available yards allowed54%44th
  • Scoring opportunities per drive80%50th
  • Scoring opportunities allowed67%87th
  • Points per scoring opportunity3.875th
  • Points allowed per opportunity4.116th
  • Three-and-out rate15%84th
  • Three-and-outs forced24%52nd

CORE

  • CORE offense5.680th
  • CORE defense4.815th
  • CORE overall0.7953rd

Roster

  • Returning usage2%1st
  • Returning EPA13.87th
  • Team talent composite60231st
  • Recruiting class rank1372nd
  • Recruiting class points1282nd

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

Pass-dominant offense performing above the national average
EPA/play
+0.307#42 · above avg
Pass EPA/play
+0.463#45
Rush EPA/play
+0.191#55
Explosiveness
1.534#9
Pts/opportunity
4.29#59
Success rate
40.4%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.271 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

Disruptive defense — allowing above-average EPA/play
EPA/play allowed
+0.169#101 · below avg
Havoc rate (total)
15.1%#79
Front-7 havoc
10.1%
DB havoc
5.0%
Big play rate allowed
1.086#28
Success rate allowed
44.2%

Disruption comes primarily from the front seven.

📊

Season Signature

30.0 PPG offense, 29.0 allowed — +1.0 margin/game
Points per game
30.0
Points allowed/game
29.0
Scoring margin/game
+1.0
Turnover margin
+3won 4 · lost 1
Production returning
3%
Talent rank (247)
#95

1-1 record through 2 games.

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

OFFENSE70thEXPLOSIVENESS94thFINISHING58thFIELD POS48thDEFENSE27thHAVOC43th50th100th
Offense
70th
Explosiveness
94th
Finishing
58th
Field Pos
48th
Defense
27th
Havoc
43th

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
#50
Offense
+9.7
#18
Defense
+4.4
#101
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 20 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive3.002.76
Starting field positionown 31.2own 36.2
Available yards60.2%53.7%
Scoring opportunities80.0%66.7%
Points per opportunity3.754.14
Three-and-out rate15.0%23.8%
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
45.0%
Expected, given the spots
53.7%
Over expected
-8.7
Fourth down vs peers
-7
Fourth down vs the model
-17
All play-calling tendencies →

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

Each dot = one FBS team. North Texas 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 North Texas in 2026

by EPA/play distance
App StateSP+ -7.2
Off EPA/play +0.297Def EPA/play +0.163Elo 1310
Match
99%
Kennesaw StateSP+ -7.4
Off EPA/play +0.307Def EPA/play +0.154Elo 1373
Match
99%
Boise StateSP+ +5.2
Off EPA/play +0.296Def EPA/play +0.182Elo 1569
Match
99%
UConnSP+ -6.3
Off EPA/play +0.303Def EPA/play +0.136Elo 1484
Match
98%
TexasSP+ +25.4
Off EPA/play +0.279Def EPA/play +0.149Elo 1913
Match
98%
MemphisSP+ +2.1
Off EPA/play +0.297Def EPA/play +0.229Elo 1566
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 · 2015–2026 · points per game vs an average FBS team

2015: -25.1, #120 of 1282016: -7.0, #92 of 1282017: -3.3, #72 of 1302018: +5.6, #39 of 1302019: -9.4, #98 of 1302020: -14.6, #111 of 1242021: -8.3, #97 of 1302022: -2.5, #74 of 1312023: -13.4, #104 of 1332024: -9.0, #96 of 1342025: +11.9, #34 of 1362026: +5.3, #50 of 138
20152026
Now +5.3 · #50 of 138Best +11.9 in 2025Worst -25.1 in 2015

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20261-10-0
50%
1.0+0.0
202512-27-1
86%
10.0+2.0
20246-73-5
46%
5.2+0.8
20235-73-5
42%
3.8+1.2
20227-76-3
50%
6.5+0.5
20216-75-3
46%
6.8-0.8
20204-63-4
40%
4.2-0.2
20194-83-5
33%
4.0+0.0
20189-45-3
69%
9.2-0.2
20179-57-2
64%
7.7+1.3

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

2.1%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

1-1 so far, projected to finish 7.7-4.5. Wins the American Athletic in 11%.

If they finish with…

62%
1 loss
10.0%
2 losses
0.0%
3 losses
0%
4 losses

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

Win out and it is 62%. One bid goes to the best champion outside the four power leagues, so running the table only enters them into that argument.

up 1.9 points since preseason — lost 16-52 to Indiana against an expected margin of −40, so +3.8 against the number.

  • At 1 loss they are 62% where the average American Athletic team is 52%.
  • The American Athletic takes 0.27 bids in an average season.
  • One bid goes to the best champion outside the P4. They take it in 2.1% of seasons, having won their league in 98% of those.

North Texas’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk11at UTSA4.5
  • wk8at Navy4.4
  • wk5at Tulsa4.2
  • wk12at Tulane3.6
  • wk3at Texas State3.3
  • wk9vs Florida Atlantic2.8

Who to root for

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

  • wk9Texas State over Boise State1.0
  • wk3Oklahoma over New Mexico1.0
  • wk12San Diego State over Boise State0.8
  • wk10Southern Miss over James Madison0.8
  • wk11Oregon State over Boise State0.7
  • wk8Washington State over Boise State0.7
The full playoff picture →

American Athletic

0-0 in league play, projected 5.1-2.94 of 14 by title odds
11%
Wins the American Athletic
23%
Reaches the title game

The American Athletic sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 40% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk11North Texas at UTSA18.0
  • wk5North Texas at Tulsa16.6
  • wk8North Texas at Navy16.0
  • wk12North Texas at Tulane14.2

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

If not the playoff, then

88%
Bowl eligible
76%
Placed in a bowl
2.1%
In the playoff
22%
Season over in November

North Texas 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 9.6% of seasons they get there and still go nowhere: there are more eligible teams than seats.

  • Gasparilla Bowl15%
  • Fenway Bowl12%
  • Military Bowl11%
  • Armed Forces Bowl9.7%
  • Birmingham Bowl9.0%
  • First Responder Bowl6.1%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 8 have sent North Texas a player since 2010 — 19 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of North Texas's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
DeSotoTX50
North ShoreTX31
Arlington MartinTX20
AtascocitaTX20
Klein CollinsTX20
Mansfield LegacyTX20
SachseTX20
FriscoTX10
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.