Skip to content
Arizona State

Arizona State Sun Devils

Big 12·1-1·
Compare
Elo
1572#45
SP+
8.7#38
FPI
7.5
AP
NR
Nextvs Kansas · Wk 3Win prob 60%Model -4.2
Talent #45 (722.0)Recruiting class #4016% production returning

Roster · 107 players

FR 18SO 26JR 29SR 34
#PlayerPosClHtWt
2Jake FetteQBFR6'1"190
8Cutter BoleyQBJR6'5"220
12Mikey KeeneQBSR5'11"200
13Cameron DyerQBSO6'3"230
1Kyson BrownRBSR6'1"210
6Marquis GillisRBSR6'0"220
21Grayson RigdonRBSO5'11"200
22Jason Brown Jr.RBJR5'9"185
23Demarius RobinsonRBSO5'9"180
24David AvitRBJR5'11"235
25Cardae MackRBFR5'10"215
3Reed HarrisWRSR6'5"220
4Omarion MillerWRSR6'2"215
5Derek EusebioWRSR5'9"190
7Raiden Vines-BrightWRSO6'0"200
9Cory Butler Jr.WRSO5'9"180
16Jaren HamiltonWRSR6'0"200
17Michael TollefsonWRSO6'1"205
18Jalen MossWRSR6'1"180
80Plas JohnsonWRJR6'0"165
81Uriah NelomsWRSO6'4"215
82Chance AblesWRSO6'2"185
84Jeremiah JohnsonWRFR6'1"205
89Harry HassmannWRSO6'1"185
0AJ IaTESO6'6"265
15Khamari AndersonTESR6'5"255
19Landen MireeTEFR6'3"255
44Kristian IngmanTEJR6'5"255
85Anthony MillerTESR6'5"265
87James GiggeyTEJR6'4"265
88Hayden VercherTEFR6'4"245
50Marques UiniOLFR6'4"310
52Manamo'ui MutiOLSO6'7"305
53Rob LapuahoOLSO6'6"350
54Desean Bryant Jr.OLSO6'5"265
55Niniva NicholsonOLFR6'3"305
56Cortavius TisabyOLFR6'6"285
57Filiva'a LokotuiOLFR6'5"275
58Tana Alo-TupuolaOLJR6'1"335
59Maki StewartOLSO6'5"340
64Wade HeltonOLJR6'4"310
69Brent HeltonOLJR6'4"315
70Jalen KlemmOLSR6'6"300
71Makua PuleOLSR6'3"320
72Doughless TelomaOLSR6'5"380
73Terrell KimOLJR6'3"335
74Siosaia LapuahoOLJR6'6"325
75Jarmaine MitchellOLJR6'8"320
76Champ WestbrooksOLJR6'5"300
77Matai JeffersonOLSO6'4"360
78Luke BaklenkoOLSR6'7"305
79Xander RuggeroliOLJR6'6"310
3Albert Smith IIIDEJR6'1"232
4Emar'rion WinstonDLSR6'3"265
5Roman PitreDLSR6'5"265
9Jalen ThompsonDLSR6'3"265
10Clayton SmithDLSR6'4"260
17Joshua ShanklinDLSR6'3"250
36Salesi ManuDLJR6'3"240
44Kirt VakalahiDLJR6'6"275
55Ramar WilliamsDLJR6'3"260
84Landen AndersonDLFR6'3"315
88Daeshon MorganDLSO6'3"295
90Hyrum VaeonoDLSO6'2"305
91Rashad McKenzieDLSR6'5"315
92Zac SwansonDLSR6'5"295
93MyKeil GardnerDLSR6'2"300
95Jeffrey MannsDLJR6'2"310
96Sinei TengeiDLFR6'3"250
97Blazen Lono-WongDLSR6'4"305
98Julian HugoDLFR6'4"275
99C.J. FiteDLSR6'2"310
8Martell HughesLBJR6'2"230
13Prayer Young-BlackgoatLBJR6'3"235
18Ramere DavisLBJR6'1"220
22Owen LongLBJR6'1"225
30Zyrus FiaseuLBSR6'0"235
34Oscar Aguilar Jr.LBFR6'1"225
43Mason MardenLBFR6'3"230
45Tristan BaconLBSO6'1"235
48Lee FuimaonoLBSO6'1"230
54Isaiah IosefaLBSO6'0"230
15Joseph SmithCBSO6'1"180
29Nasir StephensCBJR5'11"185
0Rodney Bimage Jr.DBJR6'0"185
1Ashton StampsDBSR6'0"190
2Lyrik RawlsDBSR6'1"215
7Montana WarrenDBSR6'0"205
16Nigel PringleDBSO6'1"175
19Daquwan DunnDBFR6'0"180
21Kyan McDonaldDBJR5'11"185
23Jessiah McGrewDBSO6'2"200
24Jalen WilliamsDBFR5'11"180
25Caleb ChesterDBSO6'1"180
28Davis KinneyDBFR5'11"185
31Zeth ThuesDBFR5'11"200
35Antoine Belgrave-ShorterDBJR6'0"200
6Adrian WilsonSSR6'0"215
12Ben Alefaio-LiliiSSO6'0"205
14Xavier SkowronSSO6'0"195
20Maurice WilliamsSJR6'1"210
26Carston KiefferPKSR5'9"185
32Carson SmithPKSR5'11"180
31Kanyon FloydPJR6'0"185
35Nick McLartyPSR6'7"245
39Tyler WigglesworthLSSR5'10"215
43Grayson CurtisLSSR6'0"220

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
45.0
scoring offense
Points allowed
27.5
scoring defense
Differential
+17.5
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
525.0#15
Yards / play
7.8#15
Passing yards / game
343.0#8
Rushing yards / game
182.0#58
First downs / game
24.0#38
3rd down %
36.4%#92
4th down %
62.5%#58
Time of possession
29:56#81
Defense
Yards allowed / game
221.5#17
Yards / play allowed
4.1#29
Pass yards allowed / game
124.5#14
Rush yards allowed / game
97.0#49
3rd down % allowed
25.0%#22
Sacks
4#60
Tackles for loss
7#111
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
-4#133
Takeaways
1#109
Giveaways
5#124
Penalties / game
6.5#61
Penalty yards / game
42.0#37

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

Arizona State is in year 4 under Kenny Dillingham, whose offenses have been balanced. The strengths are defensive, led by 30th at defending the run.

On fourth down he goes for it more often than his peers do from the same spots (+8.3%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −7.3% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

Arizona State has played 1 game 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

  • Defenserunning it
    #30
    projected
  • Defensegetting stopped at the line
    #33
    projected
  • Defensesacks and tackles for loss
    #33
    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
5.6 – 6.4
projected final record (now 1–1)
Exp. wins left
4.6
of 10 games
Bowl odds
52%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
74%
vs Oklahoma State
Toughest
3%
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.

1234567891011
final winstallest bar = 27% chance
Likeliest finish 6-6 (27%)Bowl eligible 52% · 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
WRJalen Moss, Omarion Miller +2
+35.3 EPA
QBCutter Boley
+31.2 EPA
RBMarquis Gillis, Kyson Brown +2
+12.5 EPA
TEKhamari Anderson, AJ Ia +1
+3.6 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
QBCutter Boley
~$954K
EPA +31.20.487/play64 snaps
WRReed Harris
~$417K
EPA +28.31.414/play20 snaps
WROmarion Miller
~$259K
EPA +5.10.221/play23 snaps
RBKyson Brown
~$231K
EPA +5.40.256/play21 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)
Off0.2863rd#52
Def0.0664th#51
Explosiveness
Off1.4685th#21
Def1.0190th#15
Field position
Off67.826th#102
Def66.990th#15
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off3.9345th#77
Def4.1018th#113
Turnovers
Won 1Lost 5
Margin -4

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
—
Defense
—
Off · pass
0.3959th#57
Off · rush
0.1655th#62

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.1653rd#65
Def0.0155th#62
Passing
Off0.3959th#57
Def0.1661st#55

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
3.10#68
2nd-level / open-field
1.52 / 1.84
Power / stuff (off)
85.7% / 22.7%
Havoc — total (def)
14.0%#105
Havoc — front 7 / DB
7.0% / 7.0%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off-0.06
Def0.09
Pass downs
Off1.17
Def-0.01

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

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense-0.10#1160.68#90.62#54
Defense0.11#111-0.09#250.19#38

Elo Trajectory

Morgan StateFinal
Elo rating 1572 → 1531-41 over season

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

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.2762nd
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.0265th
  • Offense success rate46%57th
  • Defense success rate allowed34%69th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs48%43rd
  • Offense success — passing downs42%84th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs43%50th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs14%98th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.592nd
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.090th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs1.174th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs2.377th

Trenches

  • Offense line yards2.938th
  • Defense line yards allowed2.653rd
  • Offense highlight yards1.774th
  • Defense highlight yards allowed0.8345th
  • Offense power success0.7553rd
  • Defense power success allowed0.8324th
  • Offense stuff rate0.1936th
  • Defense stuff rate0.1518th

Third down

  • Third down conversion40%41st
  • Third down distance faced6.366th
  • Third down conversion allowed25%86th
  • Third down distance forced7.039th

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half0.2685th
  • Net success rate — second half-0.0326th

Drives

  • Points per drive0.467th
  • Points per drive allowed2.831st
  • Average starting field position2953rd
  • Opponent starting field position404th
  • Available yards gained38%25th
  • Available yards allowed45%64th
  • Scoring opportunities per drive54%5th
  • Scoring opportunities allowed83%41st
  • Points per scoring opportunity2.955th
  • Points allowed per opportunity3.431st
  • Three-and-out rate15%82nd
  • Three-and-outs forced42%90th

Roster

  • Returning usage14%10th
  • Returning EPA37.621st
  • Team talent composite72268th
  • Recruiting class rank40.072nd
  • Recruiting class points21772nd

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#52 · average
Pass EPA/play
+0.392#57
Rush EPA/play
+0.160#65
Explosiveness
1.463#21
Pts/opportunity
3.93#77
Success rate
50.5%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.233 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

EPA/play allowed
+0.057#51 · average
Havoc rate (total)
14.0%#105
Front-7 havoc
7.0%
DB havoc
7.0%
Big play rate allowed
1.011#15
Success rate allowed
35.7%

Disruption comes evenly from front and secondary.

📊

Season Signature

45.0 PPG offense, 27.5 allowed — +17.5 margin/game
Points per game
45.0
Points allowed/game
27.5
Scoring margin/game
+17.5
Turnover margin
-4won 1 · lost 5
Production returning
16%
Talent rank (247)
#45

1-1 record through 2 games.

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

OFFENSE63thEXPLOSIVENESS85thFINISHING45thFIELD POS26thDEFENSE64thHAVOC24th50th100th
Offense
63th
Explosiveness
85th
Finishing
45th
Field Pos
26th
Defense
64th
Havoc
24th

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
+11.1
#32
Offense
+2.3
#54
Defense
-8.8
#25
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 13 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive0.462.83
Starting field positionown 29.2own 39.8
Available yards37.5%44.7%
Scoring opportunities53.8%83.3%
Points per opportunity2.863.40
Three-and-out rate15.4%41.7%
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
56.4%
Expected, given the spots
53.6%
Over expected
+2.8
Fourth down vs peers
-16
Fourth down vs the model
-100
All play-calling tendencies →

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

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

by EPA/play distance
UCLASP+ +9.2
Off EPA/play +0.263Def EPA/play +0.045Elo 1438
Match
99%
UTSASP+ +2.9
Off EPA/play +0.302Def EPA/play +0.044Elo 1522
Match
98%
Coastal CarolinaSP+ -12.1
Off EPA/play +0.253Def EPA/play +0.065Elo 1270
Match
98%
KansasSP+ +7.5
Off EPA/play +0.311Def EPA/play +0.066Elo 1473
Match
98%
Old DominionSP+ -6.2
Off EPA/play +0.245Def EPA/play +0.045Elo 1336
Match
98%
Middle TennesseeSP+ -20.8
Off EPA/play +0.266Def EPA/play +0.097Elo 1276
Match
98%

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: +3.6, #57 of 1282016: -14.9, #107 of 1282017: -3.0, #70 of 1302018: +0.9, #59 of 1302019: +1.3, #55 of 1302020: +10.9, #25 of 1242021: +14.8, #18 of 1302022: -2.9, #75 of 1312023: -12.7, #103 of 1332024: +16.5, #19 of 1342025: +8.2, #44 of 1362026: +11.1, #32 of 138
20152026
Now +11.1 · #32 of 138Best +16.5 in 2024Worst -14.9 in 2016

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20261-10-0
50%
1.0+0.0
20258-56-3
62%
6.2+1.8
202411-38-2
79%
10.7+0.3
20233-92-7
25%
3.6-0.6
20223-92-7
25%
5.4-2.4
20218-56-3
62%
9.2-1.2
20202-22-2
50%
2.7-0.7
20198-54-5
62%
5.1+2.9
20187-65-4
54%
5.6+1.4
20177-66-3
54%
7.7-0.7

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

1.5%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

0-1 so far, projected to finish 5.4-6.6. Wins the Big 12 in 1.1%.

If they finish with…

81%
2 losses
9.9%
3 losses
0.4%
4 losses

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

down 2.6 points since preseason.

  • At 2 losses they are 81% where the average Big 12 team is 56%.
  • The Big 12 takes 1.77 bids in an average season, and four or more in 1.9%.

Arizona State’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk7at Texas Tech7.0
  • wk9at BYU5.4
  • wk13at Arizona3.5
  • wk8vs Kansas State3.4
  • wk11at UCF2.9
  • wk12vs Oklahoma State2.7

Who to root for

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

  • wk10West Virginia over Texas Tech0.8
  • wk3Colorado State over BYU0.6
  • wk13TCU over Texas Tech0.6
  • wk6Kent State over Western Michigan0.5
  • wk13Georgia Tech over Georgia0.5
  • wk5Middle Tennessee over Kansas0.4
The full playoff picture →

Big 12

0-0 in league play, projected 3.6-5.412 of 16 by title odds
1.1%
Wins the Big 12
2.8%
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 46% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk7Arizona State at Texas Tech5.3
  • wk9Arizona State at BYU4.1
  • wk8Kansas State at Arizona State2.5
  • wk13Arizona State at Arizona2.5

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

If not the playoff, then

47%
Bowl eligible
42%
Placed in a bowl
1.5%
In the playoff
56%
Season over in November

Arizona State 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 3.1% of seasons they get there and still go nowhere: there are more eligible teams than seats.

  • First Responder Bowl7.2%
  • Independence Bowl6.2%
  • Rate Bowl5.5%
  • Liberty Bowl4.8%
  • Pop-Tarts Bowl3.8%
  • Xbox Bowl3.6%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 11 have sent Arizona State a player since 2010 — 40 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of Arizona State's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
Long Beach PolyCA100
SaguaroAZ80
Junipero SerraCA70
ChandlerAZ32
CalabasasCA20
CentennialCA20
LakelandFL20
Oaks ChristianCA20
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.