Skip to content
Texas

Texas Longhorns

SEC·2-0·
Compare
Elo
1913#5
SP+
25.4#4
FPI
30.3
AP
#4
Nextvs UTSA · Wk 3Win prob 95%Model -24.9
Talent #2 (985.2)Recruiting class #772% production returning

Roster · 111 players

FR 42SO 16JR 28SR 25
#PlayerPosClHtWt
6Dia BellQBFR6'3"206
9Karle Lacey Jr.QBFR6'0"188
16Arch ManningQBJR6'4"222
19MJ MorrisQBSR6'1"201
25Luke DunhamQBSO6'3"182
0Raleek BrownRBSR5'9"193
2Hollywood SmothersRBJR5'11"193
5Derrek CooperRBFR6'1"212
11Michael Terry IIIRBFR6'3"229
21Ryan NiblettRBJR5'10"189
28Jett WalkerRBFR6'1"224
31James SimonRBFR5'11"208
33Carson BergerRBJR5'11"200
1Ryan WingoWRJR6'2"214
3Emmett Mosley VWRJR6'2"199
4Jermaine Bishop Jr.WRFR6'0"166
7Kaliq LockettWRFR6'2"181
8Cam ColemanWRJR6'3"204
13Kohen BrownWRFR6'0"202
14Chris StewartWRFR6'0"184
17Daylan McCutcheonWRSO5'11"183
18Sterling BerkhalterWRSR6'3"196
35Rett AndersenWRSR5'11"193
39Evan EnderlinWRFR6'2"185
86Hudson PowellWRJR6'6"198
89Ty BoatrightWRSR6'0"180
15Michael MasunasTESR6'5"259
48Bryce ChambersTESR6'1"219
81Nick TownsendTESO6'3"250
82Ridge BarkerTEJR6'4"239
83Spencer ShannonTEJR6'7"260
85Emaree WinstonTESO6'1"245
87Will RandleTEJR6'4"249
88Charlie JilekTEFR6'5"238
50Laurence Seymore IIIOLSR6'2"316
51John Turntine IIIOLFR6'4"295
54Cole HutsonOLSR6'5"308
56Dylan SikorskiOLSO6'4"335
58Devin ColemanOLFR6'5"340
62Connor RobertsonOLSR6'4"316
64Robert SweeneyOLSR6'5"297
68Paris PattersonOLJR6'5"354
69Brooks Kieschnick Jr.OLSR6'3"268
70Kaden SchererOLFR6'6"291
71Melvin SianiOLSR6'6"317
72Nicolas RobertsonOLFR6'3"349
73Brandon BakerOLJR6'4"315
74Trevor GoosbyOLJR6'7"325
75Jaydon ChatmanOLJR6'4"330
76Jackson ChristianOLFR6'5"308
77Andre CojoeOLSO6'6"339
78Jordan ColemanOLFR6'5"356
79Jonte NewmanOLFR6'4"310
1Colin SimmonsEDGEJR6'3"246
19Zina UmeozuluEDGESO6'5"272
40Lance JacksonEDGESO6'5"274
46Smith OrogboEDGEFR6'4"238
80Brinley TitaEDGEFR6'2"252
92Colton VasekEDGEJR6'5"252
94Jamarion CarltonEDGEFR6'5"280
99Richard WesleyEDGEFR6'4"258
15Justus TerryDLSO6'5"289
33Myron CharlesDLFR6'4"312
52James JohnsonDLFR6'3"279
53Isaiah ColemanDLFR6'1"299
55Elijah AliDLFR6'4"306
88Maraad WatsonDLJR6'3"333
90Josiah SharmaDLFR6'4"341
93Hero KanuDLSR6'5"309
95Ian GeffrardDLSR6'5"375
96Zion WilliamsDLFR6'4"370
97Alex JanuaryDLJR6'5"308
3Rasheem BilesLBSR6'1"222
14Brad SpenceLBSR6'2"249
16Tyler AtkinsonLBFR6'1"219
18Kosi OkpalaLBFR6'3"235
28Justin CryerLBSR6'1"241
30Rocky CummingsLBFR6'4"227
32Brady SarkisianLBSR6'1"225
37Jonathan CunninghamLBFR6'2"198
43Eric GarzaLBJR5'11"212
44Markus BoswellLBSO6'1"228
45Darius SnowLBSR6'1"219
0John Meredith IIIDBFR6'2"185
2Derek Williams Jr.DBJR6'2"199
4Jelani McDonaldDBSR6'2"201
5Bo MascoeDBSR5'11"199
6Kobe BlackDBJR6'2"202
8Kade PhillipsDBSO6'0"191
9Jonah WilliamsDBSO6'3"210
11Samari MatthewsDBFR6'1"197
13Zelus HicksDBFR6'2"183
17Xavier FilsaimeDBJR6'1"193
21Hayward Howard Jr.DBFR6'2"182
23Jordon Johnson-RubellDBJR5'10"212
24Warren RobersonDBJR6'0"189
25Toray DavisDBFR6'1"197
27Wardell MackDBSO6'0"183
29Graceson LittletonDBSO6'0"182
31Yaheim RileyDBFR5'11"187
35McCoy BruceDBJR5'10"184
36Nick HudsonDBSR5'10"179
41Ziky UmeozuluDBSO6'3"208
48Jackson DuffeyDBJR5'11"180
44Gianni SpeticPKSR6'3"221
46Spencer BarnettPKSO6'0"215
49Jake CollettPKFR6'0"182
43Mac ChiumentoPSR6'4"228
45Mikey BukauskasPFR6'2"210
42Trott O'NealLSFR6'1"224
47Trey DubucLSJR6'1"213

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
41.5
scoring offense
Points allowed
15.0
scoring defense
Differential
+26.5
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
516.0#25
Yards / play
7.4#24
Passing yards / game
360.0#8
Rushing yards / game
156.0#71
First downs / game
26.0#26
3rd down %
73.3%#2
4th down %
100.0%#1
Time of possession
29:34#79
Defense
Yards allowed / game
349.0#83
Yards / play allowed
5.0#70
Pass yards allowed / game
188.0#66
Rush yards allowed / game
161.0#104
3rd down % allowed
57.1%#134
Sacks
2#81
Tackles for loss
8#67
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
+2#22
Takeaways
3#30
Giveaways
1#31
Penalties / game
4.0#19
Penalty yards / game
35.0#24

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

pass-leaning

Texas throws it: Steve Sarkisian's offenses have been pass-leaning across 5 seasons. The strengths are on both sides of the ball, led by 12th at stuffing runs at the line. The way in is 113th at staying out of the backfield.

On fourth down he goes for it about as often as his peers do from the same spots (+1.7%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −19.9% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

Texas has played 1 game 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

  • Defensegetting stopped at the line
    #12
    projected
  • Offensehitting chunk plays
    #13
    projected
  • Defensesacks and tackles for loss
    #13
    projected

Projected soft spots

  • Offensegetting stopped at the line
    #113
    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
9.4 – 2.6
projected final record (now 2–0)
Exp. wins left
7.4
of 10 games
Bowl odds
100%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
95%
vs UTSA
Toughest
46%
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 = 29% chance
Likeliest finish 10-2 (29%)Bowl eligible 100% · 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
QBArch Manning
+24.2 EPA
WRCam Coleman, Emmett Mosley V +2
+22.0 EPA
RBRaleek Brown, Daylan Smothers +1
+5.9 EPA
TESpencer Shannon, Emaree Winston +1
+1.7 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
QBArch Manning
~$877K
EPA +24.20.808/play30 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)
Off0.4584th#23
Def0.1439th#84
Explosiveness
Off1.6396th#7
Def1.1866th#48
Field position
Off60.24th#132
Def77.611th#123
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off5.7889th#16
Def1.7585th#22
Turnovers
Won 3Lost 1
Margin +2

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
—
Defense
—
Off · pass
0.9997th#5
Off · rush
0.0226th#102

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.0226th#102
Def-0.1272nd#40
Passing
Off0.9997th#5
Def0.4320th#110

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
2.10#126
2nd-level / open-field
0.79 / 1.63
Power / stuff (off)
80.0% / 37.5%
Havoc — total (def)
20.5%#40
Havoc — front 7 / DB
15.1% / 5.5%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.33
Def-0.08
Pass downs
Off0.68
Def0.95

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

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense-0.03#99-0.06#1081.70#5
Defense-0.04#740.15#770.87#123

Elo Trajectory

Texas State@Texas A&M
Elo rating 1784 → 1913+129 over season

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

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.4679th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.1434th
  • Offense success rate50%66th
  • Defense success rate allowed41%37th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs52%56th
  • Offense success — passing downs46%79th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs36%72nd
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs60%1st

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.694th
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.164th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs1.389th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs2.274th

Trenches

  • Offense line yards2.521st
  • Defense line yards allowed2.657th
  • Offense highlight yards1.564th
  • Defense highlight yards allowed2.48th
  • Offense power success0.8063rd
  • Defense power success allowed0.6067th
  • Offense stuff rate0.298th
  • Defense stuff rate0.2152nd

Third down

  • Third down conversion79%98th
  • Third down distance faced6.464th
  • Third down conversion allowed57%7th
  • Third down distance forced4.33rd

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half0.1659th
  • Net success rate — second half0.0546th

Drives

  • Points per drive5.898th
  • Points per drive allowed1.662nd
  • Average starting field position4095th
  • Opponent starting field position2388th
  • Available yards gained94%99th
  • Available yards allowed46%55th
  • Scoring opportunities per drive100%99th
  • Scoring opportunities allowed44%98th
  • Points per scoring opportunity5.897th
  • Points allowed per opportunity3.532nd
  • Three-and-out rate0%99th
  • Three-and-outs forced11%23rd

Roster

  • Returning usage58%70th
  • Returning EPA18874th
  • Team talent composite98599th
  • Recruiting class rank7.096th
  • Recruiting class points29196th

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
+0.451#23 · top 20%
Pass EPA/play
+0.991#5
Rush EPA/play
+0.023#102
Explosiveness
1.628#7
Pts/opportunity
5.78#16
Success rate
50.0%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.968 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

High-pressure defense — allowing above-average EPA/play
EPA/play allowed
+0.142#84 · average
Havoc rate (total)
20.5%#40
Front-7 havoc
15.1%
DB havoc
5.5%
Big play rate allowed
1.183#48
Success rate allowed
42.9%

Disruption comes primarily from the front seven.

📊

Season Signature

41.5 PPG offense, 15.0 allowed — +26.5 margin/game
Points per game
41.5
Points allowed/game
15.0
Scoring margin/game
+26.5
Turnover margin
+2won 3 · lost 1
Production returning
72%
Talent rank (247)
#2

2-0 record through 2 games.

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

OFFENSE84thEXPLOSIVENESS96thFINISHING89thFIELD POS4thDEFENSE39thHAVOC72th50th100th
Offense
84th
Explosiveness
96th
Finishing
89th
Field Pos
4th
Defense
39th
Havoc
72th

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
+17.3
#18
Offense
+9.6
#17
Defense
-7.8
#25
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 9 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive5.781.56
Starting field positionown 39.8own 22.8
Available yards94.5%46.5%
Scoring opportunities100.0%44.4%
Points per opportunity5.783.50
Three-and-out rate0.0%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
53.7%
Expected, given the spots
48.5%
Over expected
+5.1
Fourth down vs peers
+30
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 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 in 2026

by EPA/play distance
Wake ForestSP+ +1.6
Off EPA/play +0.443Def EPA/play +0.163Elo 1516
Match
99%
NorthwesternSP+ +7.8
Off EPA/play +0.480Def EPA/play +0.128Elo 1549
Match
98%
UCLASP+ +9.2
Off EPA/play +0.420Def EPA/play +0.133Elo 1438
Match
98%
NebraskaSP+ +12.1
Off EPA/play +0.493Def EPA/play +0.118Elo 1592
Match
98%
UtahSP+ +13.0
Off EPA/play +0.472Def EPA/play +0.182Elo 1817
Match
98%
ArmySP+ +2.2
Off EPA/play +0.424Def EPA/play +0.188Elo 1527
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: +1.0, #67 of 1282016: +3.8, #52 of 1282017: +9.1, #34 of 1302018: +11.5, #28 of 1302019: +14.7, #22 of 1302020: +13.7, #19 of 1242021: +8.6, #46 of 1302022: +20.2, #8 of 1312023: +26.0, #7 of 1332024: +29.1, #5 of 1342025: +14.3, #28 of 1362026: +17.3, #18 of 138
20152026
Now +17.3 · #18 of 138Best +29.1 in 2024Worst +1.0 in 2015

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20261-00-0
100%
0.9+0.1
202510-36-2
77%
8.8+1.2
202413-37-2
81%
12.3+0.7
202312-29-1
86%
11.3+0.7
20228-56-3
62%
9.8-1.8
20215-73-6
42%
5.6-0.6
20207-35-3
70%
6.3+0.7
20198-55-4
62%
7.7+0.3
201810-47-3
71%
9.3+0.7
20177-65-4
54%
7.5-0.5

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

57%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

1-0 so far, projected to finish 9.0-3.3. Top-four bye in 30%. Wins the SEC in 18%.

If they finish with…

100%
0 losses
100%
1 loss
100%
2 losses
87%
3 losses
8.2%
4 losses

Their chance of making it at each final loss count. Better than even up to 3.

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

up 19.3 points since preseason — won 59-7 over Texas State against an expected margin of +27, so +24.7 against the number.

  • At 3 losses they are 87% where the average SEC team is 41%.
  • The SEC takes 3.83 bids in an average season, and four or more in 65%.

Texas’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk2vs Ohio State39.2
  • wk7vs Florida38.9
  • wk6at Oklahoma38.8
  • wk9vs Mississippi State38.7
  • wk8vs Ole Miss38.1
  • wk13at Texas A&M37.9

Who to root for

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

  • wk6Maryland over Ohio State4.0
  • wk12Nebraska over Ohio State3.4
  • wk5Arkansas over Texas A&M3.2
  • wk8Auburn over LSU2.7
  • wk4Illinois over Ohio State2.6
  • wk13Arkansas over LSU2.6
The full playoff picture →

SEC

0-0 in league play, projected 6.4-2.63 of 16 by title odds
18%
Wins the SEC
31%
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.

  • wk11Texas at LSU24.7
  • wk13Texas at Texas A&M20.3
  • wk6Texas at Oklahoma18.6
  • wk4Texas at Tennessee18.3

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

If not the playoff, then

95%
Bowl eligible
38%
Placed in a bowl
57%
In the playoff
4.5%
Season over in November

Texas 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 0.5% 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.

  • Citrus Bowl8.0%
  • ReliaQuest Bowl7.4%
  • Gator Bowl6.1%
  • Duke's Mayo Bowl5.1%
  • Music City Bowl4.3%
  • Texas Bowl3.0%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 13 have sent Texas a player since 2010 — 38 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of Texas's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
DeSotoTX71
TempleTX42
AtascocitaTX31
John TylerTX31
SachseTX31
Lake TravisTX30
North ShoreTX30
SkylineTX30
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.