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
406.5#69
Yards / play
6.1#68
Passing yards / game
238.0#62
Rushing yards / game
168.5#64
First downs / game
20.5#74
3rd down %
46.4%#52
4th down %
33.3%#97
Time of possession
34:38#19
Defense
Yards allowed / game
333.0#78
Yards / play allowed
5.6#96
Pass yards allowed / game
217.0#84
Rush yards allowed / game
116.0#75
3rd down % allowed
46.2%#109
Sacks
4#42
Tackles for loss
7#77
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
+3#14
Takeaways
4#14
Giveaways
1#31
Penalties / game
9.5#124
Penalty yards / game
76.0#118

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 6th in the push up front. The way in is 133rd at stuffing runs at the line, and they are 132nd at shutting down the ground game.

On fourth down he goes for it about as often as his peers do from the same spots (+2.7%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −21.3% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

North Texas 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

  • Offensethe push the line gets
    #6
    projected
  • Offenserunning it
    #15
    projected

Projected soft spots

  • Defensegetting stopped at the line
    #133
    projected
  • Defensemoving the ball on the ground
    #132
    projected
  • Defenseturning trips inside the 40 into points
    #125
    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
~$925K
EPA +28.60.493/play58 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)
Off0.3163rd#52
Def0.1730th#97
Explosiveness
Off1.5392nd#12
Def1.0978th#31
Field position
Off69.139th#84
Def63.896th#6
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off4.2956th#61
Def4.0029th#98
Turnovers
Won 4Lost 1
Margin +3

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
—
Defense
—
Off · pass
0.4669th#43
Off · rush
0.1959th#57

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.1958th#58
Def-0.2689th#16
Passing
Off0.4669th#43
Def0.824th#132

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
3.30#48
2nd-level / open-field
1.30 / 1.18
Power / stuff (off)
100.0% / 10.7%
Havoc — total (def)
14.3%#92
Havoc — front 7 / DB
10.1% / 4.2%

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#560.21#700.84#33
Defense0.10#1040.11#740.63#103

Elo Trajectory

@IndianaFinal
Elo rating 1639 → 1694+55 over season

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

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.1335th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.651st
  • Offense success rate35%16th
  • Defense success rate allowed52%9th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs36%10th
  • Offense success — passing downs32%45th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs52%19th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs53%5th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.591st
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.67th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs1.391st
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs2.269th

Trenches

  • Offense line yards3.043rd
  • Defense line yards allowed2.559th
  • Offense highlight yards0.5931st
  • Defense highlight yards allowed1.521st
  • Offense power success0.007th
  • Defense power success allowed0.8042nd
  • Offense stuff rate0.1466th
  • Defense stuff rate0.1321st

Third down

  • Third down conversion40%42nd
  • Third down distance faced6.753rd
  • Third down conversion allowed56%9th
  • Third down distance forced5.47th

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half-0.1417th
  • Net success rate — second half-0.1118th

Drives

  • Points per drive1.845th
  • Points per drive allowed5.83rd
  • Average starting field position2635th
  • Opponent starting field position461st
  • Available yards gained54%64th
  • Available yards allowed78%8th
  • Scoring opportunities per drive67%25th
  • Scoring opportunities allowed89%35th
  • Points per scoring opportunity2.752nd
  • Points allowed per opportunity6.51st
  • Three-and-out rate11%81st
  • Three-and-outs forced11%23rd

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

EPA/play
+0.307#52 · average
Pass EPA/play
+0.461#43
Rush EPA/play
+0.191#58
Explosiveness
1.534#12
Pts/opportunity
4.29#61
Success rate
40.4%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.270 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

Disciplined defense — allowing above-average EPA/play
EPA/play allowed
+0.169#97 · below avg
Havoc rate (total)
14.3%#92
Front-7 havoc
10.1%
DB havoc
4.2%
Big play rate allowed
1.086#31
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

OFFENSE63thEXPLOSIVENESS92thFINISHING56thFIELD POS39thDEFENSE30thHAVOC34th50th100th
Offense
63th
Explosiveness
92th
Finishing
56th
Field Pos
39th
Defense
30th
Havoc
34th

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
-1.4
#77
Offense
+6.5
#30
Defense
+7.9
#126
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 9 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive1.785.78
Starting field positionown 25.6own 46.2
Available yards54.2%78.4%
Scoring opportunities66.7%88.9%
Points per opportunity2.676.50
Three-and-out rate11.1%11.1%
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
46.4%
Expected, given the spots
59.2%
Over expected
-12.8
Fourth down vs peers
-9
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%
HoustonSP+ +6.5
Off EPA/play +0.312Def EPA/play +0.183Elo 1514
Match
99%
UConnSP+ -6.3
Off EPA/play +0.303Def EPA/play +0.136Elo 1484
Match
98%
PurdueSP+ +1.2
Off EPA/play +0.351Def EPA/play +0.210Elo 1318
Match
97%
NC StateSP+ -0.7
Off EPA/play +0.385Def EPA/play +0.159Elo 1509
Match
96%
West VirginiaSP+ -4.4
Off EPA/play +0.319Def EPA/play +0.100Elo 1365
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: -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: -1.4, #77 of 138
20152026
Now -1.4 · #77 of 138Best +11.9 in 2025Worst -25.1 in 2015

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20260-10-0
0%
0.00.0
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).

0.1%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

0-1 so far, projected to finish 5.3-6.8. Wins the American Athletic in 1.3%.

If they finish with…

5.8%
2 losses
0%
3 losses
0%
4 losses

Their chance of making it at each final loss count.

down 0.1 points since preseason — lost 16-52 to Indiana against an expected margin of −40, so +3.8 against the number.

  • At 2 losses they are 5.8% where the average American Athletic team is 5.4%.
  • The American Athletic takes 0.34 bids in an average season.
  • One bid goes to the best champion outside the P4. They take it in 0.1% of seasons, having won their league in 100% of those.

North Texas’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk8at Navy0.4
  • wk11at UTSA0.4
  • wk5at Tulsa0.4
  • wk2vs UNLV0.4
  • wk12at Tulane0.3
  • wk3at Texas State0.3

Who to root for

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

  • wk7North Dakota State over Nevada0.2
  • wk12Charlotte over Tulsa0.1
  • wk2Stony Brook over Ball State0.1
  • wk2Texas Tech over Oregon State0.1
  • wk5Kent State over Ohio0.1
  • wk13Syracuse over Notre Dame0.1
The full playoff picture →

American Athletic

0-0 in league play, projected 3.7-4.310 of 14 by title odds
1.3%
Wins the American Athletic
3.9%
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 33% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk8North Texas at Navy4.5
  • wk5North Texas at Tulsa4.2
  • wk11North Texas at UTSA4.0
  • wk12North Texas at Tulane3.3

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

If not the playoff, then

44%
Bowl eligible
31%
Placed in a bowl
0.1%
In the playoff
69%
Season over in November

North Texas is 0-1 and needs 6 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 12% of seasons they get there and still go nowhere: there are more eligible teams than seats.

  • Armed Forces Bowl6.8%
  • Birmingham Bowl4.7%
  • Fenway Bowl4.5%
  • Myrtle Beach Bowl3.0%
  • Military Bowl2.6%
  • Xbox Bowl2.6%

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.