Skip to content

Tennessee Volunteers

SEC·2-0·
Elo
1691#25
SP+
19.9#12
FPI
15.3
AP
#18
Nextvs Kennesaw State · Wk 3Win prob 91%Model -20.4
Talent #13 (885.9)Recruiting class #835% production returning

Roster · 112 players

FR 42SO 34JR 18SR 18
#PlayerPosClHtWt
8Ryan StaubQBJR6'1"204
11Faizon BrandonQBFR6'4"225
12George MacIntyreQBFR6'6"208
13Mason PhillipsQBFR6'1"188
2Justin BakerRBSO5'10"210
6Javin GordonRBSO5'10"212
17Daune MorrisRBSO5'10"200
18DeSean BishopRBJR5'10"215
24Hunter BarnesRBSR6'0"200
34Will RajeckiRBFR5'11"208
1Travis Smith Jr.WRSO6'3"215
3Radarious JacksonWRSO6'2"208
4Mike MatthewsWRJR6'1"198
5TK KeysWRFR6'2"198
9Joakim DodsonWRFR6'0"197
14Braylon StaleyWRSO6'0"190
19Tyreek KingWRFR5'11"175
26Doren SachaWRJR6'1"180
29Jack-Henry JakobikWRJR6'4"198
30Jacolby CooperWRFR6'0"170
31Lane CopeWRFR5'9"180
35Ben PetermannWRFR6'3"208
36Nathan RobertsWRJR6'4"209
38Brayden CarrollWRFR6'1"188
81Ian DuarteWRJR5'10"181
85Luke ThompsonWRFR6'1"193
88Deon HardinWRSR6'0"189
0Ethan DavisTEJR6'5"247
7DaSaahn BrameTESO6'5"240
44Drake MartinezTESR6'3"245
80Cole HarrisonTESO6'5"239
82Trent ThomasTEJR6'5"252
87Luca WolfTEFR6'5"255
51Jeremias HeardOLSO6'8"335
55Antoni OgumoroOLSO6'4"320
56Sam PendletonOLJR6'4"315
58Nic MooreOLFR6'3"313
59Charlie Powell IIIOLFR6'3"314
60Thomas StormOLFR6'4"281
63Jeremy George-ElOLFR6'4"310
65Michael KostantonovOLSO6'4"322
66Kamari BlairOLFR6'6"290
69Donovan HaslamOLSR6'3"350
70David Sanders Jr.OLSO6'6"310
71Ed BakerOLFR6'4"322
72Jesse PerryOLSO6'6"320
74Shamurad UmarovOLJR6'7"321
75Wendell Moe Jr.OLSR6'2"330
77Ory WilliamsOLSO6'8"330
78Gage GintherOLSO6'5"310
79Gabriel OsendaOLFR6'8"330
2Xavier GilliamDLSO6'2"305
5Daevin HobbsDLSR6'4"290
9Mariyon DyeDLSO6'5"270
17Ethan UtleyDLSO6'4"287
18Tyree WeathersbyDLJR6'5"268
19Nathan RobinsonDLJR6'7"295
26JJ FinchDLFR6'3"293
33Jordan NormanDLJR6'4"265
35Carson GentleDLSO6'3"265
36Carter GoodenDLFR6'4"267
37Kedric Golston IIDLFR6'3"243
39Darryl RiversDLFR6'5"287
44Christian GassDLFR6'3"245
47Isaiah CampbellDLSO6'4"295
55Mike Bethea IIDLSR6'1"221
56Zach GrovesDLFR6'4"250
59Dereon AlbertDLFR6'1"309
85CJ EdwardsDLFR6'3"230
87Nuk SimmonsDLFR6'3"300
95Breeze CarterDLFR6'3"255
97Hezekiah HarrisDLFR6'6"248
99Charles House IIIDLFR6'3"290
0Amare CampbellLBSR6'0"230
7Arion CarterLBSR6'1"238
11Jordan BurnsLBSO6'1"227
12Jaedon HarmonLBSO6'0"225
13Edwin SpillmanLBSO6'1"225
22Jeremiah TelanderLBSR6'2"235
27Jadon PerlotteLBSO6'4"214
28Brayden RouseLBFR6'3"225
50Ryan ScottLBSO6'1"220
51TJ WhiteLBFR6'2"237
57Grier ShortLBSO6'1"222
1TJ MetcalfDBSR6'1"205
3Tre Poteat IIIDBSO6'0"192
4Ty RedmondDBSO6'3"200
6Qua MossDBSR5'10"188
8Jadais RichardDBSR6'1"202
10Dejuan LaneDBJR6'2"215
14Kayin LeeDBSR5'11"190
15Edrees FarooqDBJR6'0"202
20Tevis MetcalfDBSO5'10"202
21Jamyan TheodoreDBFR6'0"173
23Sidney WaltonDBSO6'1"197
24Dylan LewisDBSO6'0"197
25Tim MerrittDBSO6'1"194
29Isaiah HardgeDBJR5'10"182
30Javonte SmithDBFR6'0"183
31Joel WyattDBFR6'4"210
34Zay AndersonDBFR6'0"175
38Jowell CombayDBFR6'1"200
40KJ McClainDBFR6'0"188
42DJ BurksDBSR6'0"196
43Jackson MathewsDBSO6'0"196
28Cooper RanvierPKSO6'2"199
93Grady DangerfieldPKFR6'0"215
94Josh TurbyvillePKSR6'2"195
98Jackson RossPSR6'4"203
99Logan FoleyPFR6'6"234
48Bennett BradyLSSR6'1"210
53Blake HowardLSJR6'2"222

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
50.5
scoring offense
Points allowed
16.5
scoring defense
Differential
+34.0
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
638.0#5
Yards / play
8.6#9
Passing yards / game
309.0#28
Rushing yards / game
329.0#5
First downs / game
29.0#12
3rd down %
45.5%#58
4th down %
66.7%#45
Time of possession
32:02#48
Defense
Yards allowed / game
221.0#30
Yards / play allowed
3.8#29
Pass yards allowed / game
43.0#1
Rush yards allowed / game
178.0#117
3rd down % allowed
26.7%#31
Sacks
6#12
Tackles for loss
12#33
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
-2#109
Takeaways
0#118
Giveaways
2#68
Penalties / game
7.0#79
Penalty yards / game
60.0#84

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

Tennessee is in year 6 under Josh Heupel, whose offenses have been balanced. The strengths are offensive, led by 5th at moving the ball on the ground.

On fourth down he goes for it more often than his peers do from the same spots (+4.3%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −12.4% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

Tennessee has not played an FBS opponent yet, so this is the projection: last season regressed toward the mean, plus returning production, recruiting, talent and whether the staff is the same one.

Projected strengths

  • Offensemoving the ball on the ground
    #5
    projected
  • Offensefirst and second down
    #8
    projected
  • Offensegetting stopped at the line
    #8
    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
6.85.2
projected final record (now 20)
Exp. wins left
4.8
of 10 games
Bowl odds
83%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
91%
vs Kennesaw State
Toughest
13%
vs Texas A&M

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 = 28% chance
Likeliest finish 7-5 (28%)Bowl eligible 83% · 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
QBFaizon Brandon
+18.3 EPA
RBDeSean Bishop, Daune Morris +1
+7.4 EPA
TEEthan Davis, Trent Thomas
+4.5 EPA
WRMike Matthews, Braylon Staley +1
+4.4 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 +18.30.705/play26 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)
Off0.5090th#15
Def-0.2396th#6
Explosiveness
Off1.4280th#28
Def1.2849th#71
Field position
Off70.558th#58
Def71.066th#48
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off6.1396th#7
Def1.6787th#19
Turnovers
Won 0Lost 2
Margin -2

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
Defense
Off · pass
0.6384th#23
Off · rush
0.4386th#20

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.4385th#21
Def0.2510th#124
Passing
Off0.6384th#23
Def-0.5599th#2

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
3.81#20
2nd-level / open-field
1.57 / 1.33
Power / stuff (off)
75.0% / 10.0%
Havoc — total (def)
26.7%#8
Havoc — front 7 / DB
21.7% / 5.0%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.44
Def-0.32
Pass downs
Off0.72
Def-0.11

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

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense0.21#410.90#20.76#45
Defense-0.44#8-0.35#130.51#89

Elo Trajectory

Furman@Vanderbilt
Elo rating 16911691+0 over season

Team Fingerprint · 2026 · 31 opponent-adjusted metrics · percentile vs 138 FBS teams

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.5791st
  • Defense EPA/play allowed-0.1382nd
  • Offense success rate58%86th
  • Defense success rate allowed25%88th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs62%88th
  • Offense success — passing downs38%65th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs30%86th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs17%82nd

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.362nd
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.258th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs1.287th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs1.727th

Trenches

  • Offense line yards3.882nd
  • Defense line yards allowed3.033rd
  • Offense highlight yards2.585th
  • Defense highlight yards allowed2.29th
  • Offense power success0.8369th
  • Defense power success allowed0.0099th
  • Offense stuff rate0.1177th
  • Defense stuff rate0.2877th

Third down

  • Third down conversion50%66th
  • Third down distance faced5.974th
  • Third down conversion allowed29%69th
  • Third down distance forced8.880th

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half0.2672nd
  • Net success rate — second half0.4196th

Roster

  • Returning usage37%43rd
  • Returning EPA18673rd
  • Team talent composite88691st
  • Recruiting class rank8.095th
  • Recruiting class points29195th

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 attack — top 11 nationally by EPA/play
EPA/play
+0.501#15 · top 20%
Pass EPA/play
+0.632#23
Rush EPA/play
+0.427#21
Explosiveness
1.421#28
Pts/opportunity
6.13#7
Success rate
48.9%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.205 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

High-pressure defense — top 5 nationally in EPA/play allowed
EPA/play allowed
-0.234#6 · elite
Havoc rate (total)
26.7%#8
Front-7 havoc
21.7%
DB havoc
5.0%
Big play rate allowed
1.282#71
Success rate allowed
19.4%

Disruption comes primarily from the front seven.

📊

Season Signature

50.5 PPG offense, 16.5 allowed — +34.0 margin/game
Points per game
50.5
Points allowed/game
16.5
Scoring margin/game
+34.0
Turnover margin
-2won 0 · lost 2
Production returning
35%
Talent rank (247)
#13

2-0 record through 2 games.

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

OFFENSE90thEXPLOSIVENESS80thFINISHING96thFIELD POS58thDEFENSE96thHAVOC95th50th100th
Offense
90th
Explosiveness
80th
Finishing
96th
Field Pos
58th
Defense
96th
Havoc
95th

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
+12.7
#30
Offense
+9.3
#18
Defense
-3.4
#56
Full CORE ratings →

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

Each dot = one FBS team. Tennessee 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 Tennessee in 2026

by EPA/play distance
Kennesaw StateSP+ -7.4
Off EPA/play +0.486Def EPA/play -0.253Elo 1373
Match
99%
Notre DameSP+ +26.8
Off EPA/play +0.464Def EPA/play -0.225Elo 2021
Match
98%
Southern MissSP+ -14.9
Off EPA/play +0.523Def EPA/play -0.178Elo 1350
Match
97%
Virginia TechSP+ +12.4
Off EPA/play +0.457Def EPA/play -0.147Elo 1421
Match
95%
Air ForceSP+ +1.1
Off EPA/play +0.371Def EPA/play -0.215Elo 1424
Match
94%
Ohio StateSP+ +30.0
Off EPA/play +0.647Def EPA/play -0.222Elo 1986
Match
93%

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: +17.2, #16 of 1282016: +9.3, #32 of 1282017: -6.6, #86 of 1302018: -2.9, #82 of 1302019: +6.5, #38 of 1302020: -1.8, #72 of 1242021: +18.7, #9 of 1302022: +24.1, #6 of 1312023: +19.8, #13 of 1332024: +17.7, #13 of 1342025: +15.0, #26 of 1362026: +12.7, #30 of 138
20152026
Now +12.7 · #30 of 138Best +24.1 in 2022Worst -6.6 in 2017

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20261-00-0
100%
1.0+0.0
20258-54-4
62%
9.2-1.2
202410-36-2
77%
9.8+0.2
20239-44-4
69%
8.8+0.2
202211-26-2
85%
9.7+1.3
20217-64-4
54%
8.1-1.1
20203-73-7
30%
3.3-0.3
20198-55-3
62%
7.6+0.4
20185-72-6
42%
4.4+0.6
20174-80-8
33%
3.4+0.6

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

22%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

0-0 so far, projected to finish 7.5-4.6. Top-four bye in 6.7%. Wins the SEC in 4.3%.

If they finish with…

100%
0 losses
100%
1 loss
97%
2 losses
32%
3 losses
0.2%
4 losses

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

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

down 0.6 points since preseason.

  • At 3 losses they are 32% where the average SEC team is 41%.
  • The SEC takes 3.83 bids in an average season, and four or more in 65%.

Tennessee’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk4vs Texas34.6
  • wk12vs LSU33.3
  • wk11at Texas A&M32.7
  • wk7vs Alabama29.3
  • wk8at South Carolina28.6
  • wk13at Vanderbilt23.9

Who to root for

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

  • wk4Delaware over Virginia2.0
  • wk12Arkansas over Texas1.9
  • wk10West Virginia over Texas Tech1.9
  • wk5Mississippi State over Alabama1.9
  • wk2Delaware over Vanderbilt1.8
  • wk8Auburn over LSU1.8
The full playoff picture →

SEC

0-0 in league play, projected 4.8-4.28 of 16 by title odds
4.3%
Wins the SEC
10%
Reaches the title game

The SEC sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 48% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk4Texas at Tennessee9.8
  • wk12LSU at Tennessee9.3
  • wk11Tennessee at Texas A&M8.5
  • wk7Alabama at Tennessee7.1

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

If not the playoff, then

81%
Bowl eligible
60%
Placed in a bowl
22%
In the playoff
18%
Season over in November

Tennessee 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 0.8% they go with five wins, as a 5-7 fill-in — which in reality is decided by academic progress rate, not by anything modelled here.

  • Gator Bowl7.8%
  • Duke's Mayo Bowl7.6%
  • ReliaQuest Bowl7.5%
  • Music City Bowl7.5%
  • Citrus Bowl7.1%
  • Texas Bowl6.9%

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 Tennessee a player since 2010 — 27 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of Tennessee's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
Knoxville CatholicTN81
Montgomery Bell AcademyTN51
EnsworthTN40
Peachtree RidgeGA30
North GwinnettGA21
Greater Atlanta Christian SchoolGA20
MariettaGA20
NortheastPA11
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.