Skip to content
Texas State

Texas State Bobcats

Pac-12·0-2·
Compare
Elo
1441#79
SP+
-7.8#101
FPI
-7.9
AP
NR
Nextvs North Texas · Wk 3Win prob 62%Model -4.7
Talent #82 (624.8)Recruiting class #7476% production returning

Roster · 109 players

FR 40SO 15JR 33SR 21
#PlayerPosClHtWt
6Easton WebbQBFR——
8Brad JacksonQBSO6'0"197
10Shaker ReisigQBFR6'0"194
15Stone WalkerQBJR——
17Gavin ParkhurstQBFR6'3"207
0Taji AtkinsRBSO5'8"181
4Torrance Burgess Jr.RBJR5'8"176
5Jaylen JenkinsRBSR5'8"173
6Davian JacksonRBFR6'1"196
21Cole PryorRBFR5'9"178
24Juntavious HarrisRBFR——
1Chris Dawn Jr.WRSR5'9"175
2Kylen EvansWRSO6'2"200
3Zechariah SampleWRSO5'10"175
11Beau SparksWRSR5'11"181
12La'Keyleon GravesWRFR6'2"201
13Tucker CusanoWRFR6'2"205
14Jordan MartinWRSO6'1"192
20Dameon CroweWRFR5'6"160
23Xavier WarrenWRFR——
81Blake MclaneWRFR6'3"208
83Jonah JonesWRFR6'1"189
87Kris Willis Jr.WRSO5'10"186
9Arvis Battle Jr.TEFR6'4"246
16Blake SmithTESR6'4"250
18Ty StameyTEJR6'7"250
84Cole SnodgrassTESO6'5"237
85Russell CrawfordTEFR——
88Jake SimpsonTEJR6'5"246
89Jordan WilliamsTESO6'4"232
50Jaylen EarlyOLSR6'4"315
52Mikel UdengwuOLJR——
53Cameron SchultzOLJR6'4"291
54Tyler NorrisOLSO6'4"315
55Etueni RopatiOLJR6'5"321
58Aidin RhodesOLJR6'3"281
60Terrance Brown Jr.OLFR——
62Teagan LindseyOLFR——
65Eric PerkinsOLFR6'6"374
66Justin DeLeonOLJR6'3"319
67Preston WardOLFR6'2"304
68Sully BurnsOLSR6'7"327
70Ameer RossOLFR6'5"373
71William BooneOLJR6'6"351
72Kirk GildonOLFR6'6"291
74Jayden LuckettOLJR6'6"306
75Rasheed JacksonOLJR6'7"339
77Bamidele BadusiOLJR6'6"328
78Amari SmithOLJR6'6"332
79Alan GrimmeOLJR6'5"319
0Tymere JacksonDESR6'5"235
4Tae WoodyDLSR6'4"303
5DonTerry RussellDLSR6'5"228
6Jo'Laison LandryDLJR6'3"260
13Ta'Derius CollinsDLJR6'4"233
14D'Ante KeysDLFR6'3"257
18Josiah GrahamDLSR—250
30Jason PattersonDLSR6'4"229
31Cullen ThompsonDLFR6'3"220
32Javarius BellDLFR6'1"306
33Blake IsbellDLFR6'3"254
34Jonathan DavisDLJR——
35Emmanuel PeterDLSO——
38Mekhi BuchananDLJR6'5"247
40Simeon GarnerDLFR6'3"288
42Colt SparksDLFR6'3"236
44Phillip BradfordDLJR6'6"308
48Braylon YoungDLFR——
88Jussiah AliDLJR——
90Chancellor OwensDLJR6'3"296
91J.P. DeeterDLJR6'3"294
93Cam ChristianDLFR6'0"302
95Jaylen HarrisDLSR——
96Bryce CarterDLSR6'3"309
99Kaleb JamesDLJR6'4"286
10Cole NillesLBJR6'4"238
11TJ BurkhalterLBFR6'2"230
12Javante MackeyLBJR6'2"251
15Ayden JonesLBJR6'2"224
16Terrence Cooks IILBSR6'2"231
21Jordan SampleLBJR6'2"233
23Darius DavisLBFR6'2"216
28Tice WilliamsLBSO6'2"208
29Treylin PayneLBSR6'0"215
49Blaine CarverLBFR5'10"203
0Jayden LawtonDBSR6'3"193
1Amarion AtwoodDBJR6'1"182
2Trez MooreDBSR6'1"186
3Craig Royal Jr.DBSR6'2"185
7Ryan NolanDBSR5'10"187
8Cordarian PowellDBFR6'1"180
9Jayden BradleyDBFR6'1"209
17Christopher JonesDBSO6'2"189
19Michael Patterson IIIDBJR5'10"169
20Malik WillisDBJR6'2"172
22Will Mitchell IIDBSO5'10"181
24Dexter Ricks Jr.DBSR5'11"178
25Skylar LewisDBFR6'2"189
26Chase DavisDBJR6'3"197
27John SmithDBFR6'3"202
29Greg Gipson Jr.DBFR6'1"180
37Jayden FlournoyDBFR——
38Jacob BonillaPKSO5'10"167
41Dylan CunananPKJR5'9"183
43Michael JamesPKSR6'4"204
92Tom FlintoffPFR6'3"212
94Joshua SelmesPFR——
51Darian SnellLSSO6'3"218
57Lincoln PetitjeanLSFR——

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
16.5
scoring offense
Points allowed
45.0
scoring defense
Differential
-28.5
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
415.0#63
Yards / play
5.5#92
Passing yards / game
190.0#100
Rushing yards / game
225.0#36
First downs / game
22.5#51
3rd down %
54.8%#23
4th down %
25.0%#101
Time of possession
31:03#60
Defense
Yards allowed / game
457.0#124
Yards / play allowed
6.3#112
Pass yards allowed / game
309.0#128
Rush yards allowed / game
148.0#99
3rd down % allowed
46.7%#111
Sacks
1#104
Tackles for loss
11#41
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
-5#136
Takeaways
1#88
Giveaways
6#133
Penalties / game
6.0#52
Penalty yards / game
54.5#73

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

Texas State is in year 4 under G.J. Kinne, whose offenses have been balanced. The strengths are offensive, led by 6th at running it. The way in is 121st at keeping everything in front of them.

On fourth down he goes for it more often than his peers do from the same spots (+6.0%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −17.7% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

Texas State has played 2 games against a soft slate, adjusted for here. That football carries about 0% of what is below; the rest is still the preseason projection.

Projected strengths

  • Offenserunning it
    #6
    projected
  • Offensethrowing it
    #9
    projected
  • Offensesurviving second and twelve
    #10
    projected

Projected soft spots

  • Defensehitting chunk plays
    #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 · 8 to play
4.5 – 5.5
projected final record (now 0–2)
Exp. wins left
4.5
of 8 games
Bowl odds
23%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
80%
vs Colorado State
Toughest
30%
vs San Diego State

How the season could finish · 2026 · chance of each final win total · 8 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.

012345678
final winstallest bar = 28% chance
Likeliest finish 5-5 (28%)Bowl eligible 23% · 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
QBBrad Jackson
+17.6 EPA
WRChris Dawn Jr., Kylen Evans +3
+16.0 EPA
RBJaylen Jenkins, Torrance Burgess Jr. +3
+6.6 EPA
TEBlake Smith, Ty Stamey
+1.9 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
QBBrad Jackson
~$803K
EPA +17.60.270/play65 snaps
RBDavian Jackson
~$238K
EPA +7.20.300/play24 snaps
RBTorrance Burgess Jr.
~$167K
EPA +2.70.110/play25 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)
Off0.1841st#82
Def0.3310th#124
Explosiveness
Off1.1123rd#107
Def1.3237th#87
Field position
Off75.589th#16
Def65.195th#8
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off2.8320th#111
Def5.077th#128
Turnovers
Won 1Lost 6
Margin -5

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
—
Defense
—
Off · pass
0.3654th#64
Off · rush
0.1245th#76

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.1245th#76
Def0.1233rd#93
Passing
Off0.3654th#64
Def0.558th#127

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
3.37#42
2nd-level / open-field
1.07 / 2.26
Power / stuff (off)
66.7% / 13.2%
Havoc — total (def)
13.9%#100
Havoc — front 7 / DB
7.6% / 6.3%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.07
Def0.25
Pass downs
Off0.60
Def0.47

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

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense0.06#720.29#570.60#72
Defense0.11#1060.06#620.70#109

Elo Trajectory

@TexasFinal
Elo rating 1570 → 1433-137 over season

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

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.1436th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.467th
  • Offense success rate41%36th
  • Defense success rate allowed50%14th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs36%12th
  • Offense success — passing downs60%96th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs52%18th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs46%12th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.134th
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.67th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs1.047th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs1.416th

Trenches

  • Offense line yards2.623rd
  • Defense line yards allowed2.558th
  • Offense highlight yards2.484th
  • Defense highlight yards allowed1.523rd
  • Offense power success0.6029th
  • Defense power success allowed0.8042nd
  • Offense stuff rate0.2129th
  • Defense stuff rate0.2981st

Third down

  • Third down conversion57%80th
  • Third down distance faced4.396th
  • Third down conversion allowed79%1st
  • Third down distance forced6.425th

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half-0.1614th
  • Net success rate — second half-0.0530th

Drives

  • Points per drive1.641st
  • Points per drive allowed5.83rd
  • Average starting field position2313th
  • Opponent starting field position408th
  • Available yards gained46%46th
  • Available yards allowed94%1st
  • Scoring opportunities per drive44%2nd
  • Scoring opportunities allowed100%16th
  • Points per scoring opportunity3.571st
  • Points allowed per opportunity5.83rd
  • Three-and-out rate11%81st
  • Three-and-outs forced0%9th

Roster

  • Returning usage67%78th
  • Returning EPA30698th
  • Team talent composite62541st
  • Recruiting class rank74.047th
  • Recruiting class points18847th

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
+0.185#82 · average
Pass EPA/play
+0.359#64
Rush EPA/play
+0.124#76
Explosiveness
1.111#107
Pts/opportunity
2.83#111
Success rate
45.5%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.235 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

Disciplined defense — allowing above-average EPA/play
EPA/play allowed
+0.326#124 · bottom 20%
Havoc rate (total)
13.9%#100
Front-7 havoc
7.6%
DB havoc
6.3%
Big play rate allowed
1.324#87
Success rate allowed
47.6%

Disruption comes evenly from front and secondary.

📊

Season Signature

16.5 PPG offense, 45.0 allowed — -28.5 margin/game
Points per game
16.5
Points allowed/game
45.0
Scoring margin/game
-28.5
Turnover margin
-5won 1 · lost 6
Production returning
76%
Talent rank (247)
#82

0-2 record through 2 games.

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

OFFENSE41thEXPLOSIVENESS23thFINISHING20thFIELD POS89thDEFENSE10thHAVOC28th50th100th
Offense
41th
Explosiveness
23th
Finishing
20th
Field Pos
89th
Defense
10th
Havoc
28th

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
+6.5
#46
Offense
+8.2
#25
Defense
+1.6
#86
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 9 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive1.565.78
Starting field positionown 22.8own 39.8
Available yards46.5%94.5%
Scoring opportunities44.4%100.0%
Points per opportunity3.505.78
Three-and-out rate11.1%0.0%
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
52.9%
Expected, given the spots
48.3%
Over expected
+4.7
Fourth down vs peers
+9
Fourth down vs the model
+0
All play-calling tendencies →

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

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

by EPA/play distance
Oregon StateSP+ -6.8
Off EPA/play +0.183Def EPA/play +0.312Elo 1260
Match
99%
Ball StateSP+ -25.0
Off EPA/play +0.119Def EPA/play +0.321Elo 1112
Match
97%
East CarolinaSP+ -8.1
Off EPA/play +0.174Def EPA/play +0.257Elo 1477
Match
96%
Florida StateSP+ +6.9
Off EPA/play +0.242Def EPA/play +0.268Elo 1557
Match
96%
Boise StateSP+ +5.2
Off EPA/play +0.113Def EPA/play +0.277Elo 1569
Match
96%
Ole MissSP+ +13.3
Off EPA/play +0.293Def EPA/play +0.346Elo 1837
Match
95%

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: -28.5, #127 of 1282016: -38.1, #128 of 1282017: -18.9, #118 of 1302018: -11.6, #101 of 1302019: -19.6, #122 of 1302020: -13.1, #102 of 1242021: -24.1, #120 of 1302022: -15.5, #115 of 1312023: -1.0, #67 of 1332024: +4.9, #49 of 1342025: +9.4, #41 of 1362026: +6.5, #46 of 138
20152026
Now +6.5 · #46 of 138Best +9.4 in 2025Worst -38.1 in 2016

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20260-20-0
0%
0.7-0.7
20257-63-5
54%
8.8-1.8
20248-55-3
62%
8.6-0.6
20238-54-4
62%
8.5-0.5
20224-82-6
33%
4.4-0.4
20214-83-5
33%
2.4+1.6
20202-102-6
17%
2.1-0.1
20193-92-6
25%
2.8+0.2
20183-91-7
25%
5.0-2.0
20172-101-7
17%
2.3-0.3

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

0.3%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

0-1 so far, projected to finish 5.1-6.1. Wins the Pac-12 in 4.2%.

If they finish with…

53%
1 loss
9.1%
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 53%. One bid goes to the best champion outside the four power leagues, so running the table only enters them into that argument.

down 1.6 points since preseason — lost 7-59 to Texas against an expected margin of −27, so −24.7 against the number.

  • At 1 loss they are 53% where the average Pac-12 team is 71%.
  • The Pac-12 takes 0.22 bids in an average season.
  • One bid goes to the best champion outside the P4. They take it in 0.3% of seasons, having won their league in 97% of those.

Texas State’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk9at Boise State1.6
  • wk5at San Diego State1.0
  • wk2vs UTSA0.7
  • wk10at Oregon State0.7
  • wk12vs Washington State0.6
  • wk11vs Fresno State0.5

Who to root for

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

  • wk2Bowling Green over Nebraska0.3
  • wk12UAB over UTSA0.2
  • wk2Oregon over Oklahoma State0.2
  • wk8Oregon over Illinois0.2
  • wk3Oklahoma over New Mexico0.2
  • wk5North Carolina over Notre Dame0.2
The full playoff picture →

Pac-12

0-0 in league play, projected 3.0-4.06 of 8 by title odds
4.2%
Wins the Pac-12
12%
Reaches the title game

The Pac-12 sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 38% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk9Texas State at Boise State14.4
  • wk5Texas State at San Diego State9.4
  • wk10Texas State at Oregon State6.8
  • wk12Washington State at Texas State6.4

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

If not the playoff, then

40%
Bowl eligible
40%
Placed in a bowl
0.3%
In the playoff
60%
Season over in November

Texas State is 0-1 and needs 6 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.

  • Sun Bowl11%
  • Holiday Bowl10%
  • Las Vegas Bowl8.7%
  • Alamo Bowl5.8%
  • Independence Bowl3.4%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 5 have sent Texas State a player since 2010 — 13 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of Texas State's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
DeSotoTX40
ManvelTX30
MarshallTX30
Spring WestfieldTX20
BeltonTX10
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.