Skip to content

UTEP Miners

Mountain West·1-1·
Elo
1163#133
SP+
-24.3#132
FPI
-19.1
AP
NR
Next@ Michigan · Wk 3Win prob 1%Model +32.7
Talent #102 (585.8)Recruiting class #92-1% production returning

Team Leaders

Latest on UTEP

All news

Noah Best held up. Michigan week is about Michael Fasusi

Matchup · Sep 5

Adebawore Stayed, and UTEP's Patchwork Line has to Block Him

Matchup · Aug 31

Roster · 110 players

FR 45SO 21JR 22SR 22
#PlayerPosClHtWt
1EJ Colson Jr.QBSO6'1"190
9Bodey WeaverQBFR6'3"200
10Chad WarnerQBFR6'2"195
12Raymond Moore IIIQBSO6'4"180
15Braesen LeonQBSO6'1"195
0Tavorus JonesRBJR5'9"205
6Elijah McCoyRBSO5'9"190
8Kam ThomasRBSR5'9"184
19Daveon SingletonRBFR5'7"156
21Jaden MooreRBJR5'10"185
22Chris HunterRBJR6'1"205
32Lamar SperlingRBJR5'8"190
2Royal CapellWRSO5'10"205
3Jaden SmithWRSR5'10"195
5Carver CheeksWRSR6'2"197
7Jaylan BrownWRSO6'1"185
13Nik HenryWRSO5'10"155
14Marcus TorresWRSO5'10"175
16Mason FergusonWRSO6'0"185
17Carmelo TaylorWRJR6'0"169
18Rafeald CampbellWRSO5'11"175
24CJ SimonWRFR6'0"165
25Zo HillWRFR5'11"165
80Jacaleb JohnsonWRFR6'0"198
81Jeremiah NashWRJR6'1"180
86JD WallaceWRFR6'3"208
4Cash CheeksTEJR6'7"235
82Judah EzinwaTESR6'3"235
84Jamal FrilotTEFR6'3"230
85Jackson StonerTEFR6'5"258
87Chance BellTEJR6'5"225
88Benny OkwuraTEFR6'4"219
89Johan CamachoTEFR6'3"217
50Isaiah MaumalangaOLSR6'5"290
51Eric Sandoval AraujoOLFR6'5"263
52Jackson BradleyOLSR6'5"305
53Tripp TownsendOLFR6'0"250
54Jaymon LambOLJR6'3"273
55Omoruyi Aliu-OtokitiOLJR6'4"315
56Brian Williams Jr.OLSO6'2"330
57Craig WydraOLSO6'4"305
58Rashad SmithOLJR6'2"320
62Eddie Lartigue Jr.OLFR6'3"300
67Jayden TrappOLSO6'3"300
70Maddox HuberOLFR6'7"300
71Preston PerkinsOLFR6'6"270
73Tyler RobertsOLFR6'8"314
74Grayson JohnsonOLJR6'9"330
75Juan Camacho Jr.OLSR6'6"285
76Diego De La CruzOLFR6'4"300
77Wesley Dallao-KubikOLFR6'5"299
78Ryder SlatonOLFR6'7"280
79Pryce McClanahanOLFR6'2"323
6Ekow TaylorDEJR6'5"220
19Sterling MilesDESR6'4"238
21Dycin DavisDEFR6'2"238
25Royce WilsonDEFR6'3"220
31Joshua ShawDEFR6'2"216
35Kofi Taylor-BarrocksDEJR6'3"230
40Jaxon SmithDESO6'7"225
1Elijah FieldsDLSR6'1"285
3Shakaun BowserDLSR6'5"255
9Oryend FisherDLJR6'6"225
11Derek BurnsDLJR6'5"254
55Leander ParrishDLFR6'3"240
88Truth HolmesDLFR6'2"293
92Justin RobertsDLFR6'2"265
93Jerrell BrasherDLJR6'1"295
94Jimmy LeonDLFR6'4"240
95DAdrian Tinney-AndersonDLFR6'2"306
96Caynan JamesDLFR6'0"284
97Shaun McDowellDLFR6'1"283
98Preston HickeyDLSR6'1"300
90Ashton CokerDTJR6'2"290
4Garrett HawkinsLBJR6'3"227
8Shay SmithLBSO6'2"215
10Jayden WilsonLBSR6'1"218
13Isaiah BogertyLBSR6'3"230
38Jalen HamiltonLBFR6'5"189
41Vashon Brunswick IILBSO6'1"215
42Copelin WindfontLBFR6'0"220
45Justin LeeLBFR6'1"225
48Japrei WaferLBFR5'10"205
0Justin ContentCBJR6'1"185
5TJ TillmanCBSO6'0"165
18Decorian ThompsonCBFR5'10"170
23Kaleb MilesCBJR5'10"190
26Darien FantroyCBFR6'2"175
15Colt MatlockDBFR6'0"176
20Grant StewartDBFR5'10"188
27LaTristan ThompsonDBSO5'10"180
29Dylan Brown-TurnerDBJR6'1"225
32Adarius HutchinsonDBFR6'2"182
2Xavier SmithSSR6'0"195
7Kode LoweSSR6'1"205
12Donavan HowardSSR6'1"200
14Chace BiddleSSR6'0"205
16Esteban GuillorySSR6'1"205
17Darnell WilliamsSSO5'11"180
22Kane White-TinsleySFR5'11"178
24Jaime GuerreroSSR6'1"185
28Tylen HockettSFR6'1"170
30Allen GantSFR6'0"190
33Josiah JonesSFR6'2"185
33Parker CushingPKSO6'0"190
48Cade HechterPKSR6'2"245
91Carlos ArreolaPKSR5'10"200
47Brady BraunPSR6'0"245
46Carson LoebLSSO6'0"210
49Ian HallLSFR6'2"215

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
25.5
scoring offense
Points allowed
30.5
scoring defense
Differential
-5.0
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
198.0#132
Yards / play
3.5#132
Passing yards / game
86.0#130
Rushing yards / game
112.0#109
First downs / game
10.0#132
3rd down %
15.4%#132
4th down %
50.0%#67
Time of possession
29:28#80
Defense
Yards allowed / game
401.0#107
Yards / play allowed
6.9#126
Pass yards allowed / game
231.0#98
Rush yards allowed / game
170.0#112
3rd down % allowed
54.5%#129
Sacks
1#104
Tackles for loss
5#106
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
-1#89
Takeaways
1#88
Giveaways
2#68
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

UTEP is in year 3 under Scotty Walden. The strengths are on both sides of the ball, led by 1st at hitting chunk plays. The way in is 137th on first and second down, and they are 137th in the push up front.

UTEP 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

  • Offensehitting chunk plays
    #1
    projected
  • Defensehitting chunk plays
    #25
    projected

Projected soft spots

  • Offensefirst and second down
    #137
    projected
  • Offensethe push the line gets
    #137
    projected
  • Offensethrowing it
    #136
    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
3.58.5
projected final record (now 11)
Exp. wins left
2.5
of 10 games
Bowl odds
4%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
84%
vs San José State
Toughest
1%
vs Michigan

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 = 33% chance
Likeliest finish 3-9 (33%)Bowl eligible 4% · 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
TECash Cheeks
+2.7 EPA
WRJaden Smith, Royal Capell +3
+0.4 EPA
RBTavorus Jones, Kam Thomas +1
-0.2 EPA
QBEJ Colson
-2.4 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
QBEJ Colson
~$420K
EPA -2.4-0.098/play24 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)
Off-0.312nd#135
Def0.514th#133
Explosiveness
Off0.872nd#135
Def1.4220th#110
Field position
Off69.950th#70
Def57.499th#1
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off0.003rd#134
Def4.6315th#118
Turnovers
Won 1Lost 2
Margin -1

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
Defense
Off · pass
-0.029th#125
Off · rush
-0.0815th#118

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off-0.0815th#118
Def0.1136th#89
Passing
Off-0.029th#125
Def1.052nd#135

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
1.73#133
2nd-level / open-field
1.05 / 0.65
Power / stuff (off)
0.0% / 30.0%
Havoc — total (def)
11.7%#115
Havoc — front 7 / DB
10.0% / 1.7%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off-0.08
Def0.33
Pass downs
Off-1.02
Def1.15

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

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense-0.45#136-0.07#1090.05#124
Defense0.08#1000.84#1351.09#131

Elo Trajectory

@OklahomaFinal
Elo rating 12561143-113 over season

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

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play-0.252nd
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.3912th
  • Offense success rate34%15th
  • Defense success rate allowed55%4th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs40%20th
  • Offense success — passing downs18%9th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs57%6th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs46%11th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness0.948th
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.254th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs0.9845th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs0.694th

Trenches

  • Offense line yards1.63rd
  • Defense line yards allowed2.940th
  • Offense highlight yards1.672nd
  • Defense highlight yards allowed0.8243rd
  • Offense power success0.007th
  • Defense power success allowed0.5768th
  • Offense stuff rate0.297th
  • Defense stuff rate0.2466th

Third down

  • Third down conversion17%4th
  • Third down distance faced7.524th
  • Third down conversion allowed55%9th
  • Third down distance forced4.01st

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half-0.1712th
  • Net success rate — second half-0.208th

Drives

  • Points per drive-0.641st
  • Points per drive allowed4.015th
  • Average starting field position3274th
  • Opponent starting field position431st
  • Available yards gained20%5th
  • Available yards allowed66%19th
  • Scoring opportunities per drive45%3rd
  • Scoring opportunities allowed91%27th
  • Points per scoring opportunity0.005th
  • Points allowed per opportunity4.415th
  • Three-and-out rate36%27th
  • Three-and-outs forced18%34th

Roster

  • Returning usage10%7th
  • Returning EPA-0.92nd
  • Team talent composite58626th
  • Recruiting class rank92.034th
  • Recruiting class points18034th

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

Balanced offense — below average EPA/play nationally
EPA/play
-0.307#135 · bottom 20%
Pass EPA/play
-0.015#125
Rush EPA/play
-0.078#118
Explosiveness
0.869#135
Pts/opportunity
0.00#134
Success rate
37.8%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.063 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

Disciplined defense — allowing above-average EPA/play
EPA/play allowed
+0.508#133 · bottom 20%
Havoc rate (total)
11.7%#115
Front-7 havoc
10.0%
DB havoc
1.7%
Big play rate allowed
1.421#110
Success rate allowed
54.5%

Disruption comes primarily from the front seven.

📊

Season Signature

25.5 PPG offense, 30.5 allowed — -5.0 margin/game
Points per game
25.5
Points allowed/game
30.5
Scoring margin/game
-5.0
Turnover margin
-1won 1 · lost 2
Production returning
-1%
Talent rank (247)
#102

1-1 record through 2 games.

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

OFFENSE2thEXPLOSIVENESS2thFINISHING3thFIELD POS50thDEFENSE4thHAVOC17th50th100th
Offense
2th
Explosiveness
2th
Finishing
3th
Field Pos
50th
Defense
4th
Havoc
17th

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
-16.9
#134
Offense
-13.4
#136
Defense
+3.5
#101
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 11 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive-0.644.00
Starting field positionown 31.5own 42.6
Available yards20.1%66.1%
Scoring opportunities45.5%90.9%
Points per opportunity0.004.40
Three-and-out rate36.4%18.2%
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
43.8%
Expected, given the spots
53.7%
Over expected
-10.0
Fourth down vs peers
-6
Fourth down vs the model
+0
All play-calling tendencies →

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

Each dot = one FBS team. UTEP 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 UTEP in 2026

by EPA/play distance
Fresno StateSP+ -7.6
Off EPA/play -0.356Def EPA/play +0.506Elo 1449
Match
98%
Northern IllinoisSP+ -22.3
Off EPA/play -0.330Def EPA/play +0.332Elo 1266
Match
91%
UL MonroeSP+ -33.2
Off EPA/play -0.154Def EPA/play +0.646Elo 1071
Match
90%
Missouri StateSP+ -24.3
Off EPA/play -0.292Def EPA/play +0.307Elo 1284
Match
89%
ClemsonSP+ +5.2
Off EPA/play -0.490Def EPA/play +0.376Elo 1541
Match
89%
WisconsinSP+ -1.5
Off EPA/play -0.105Def EPA/play +0.349Elo 1475
Match
87%

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: -26.4, #122 of 1282016: -29.9, #127 of 1282017: -35.1, #130 of 1302018: -24.6, #127 of 1302019: -28.4, #125 of 1302020: -18.1, #115 of 1242021: +3.6, #58 of 1302022: -18.5, #120 of 1312023: -15.3, #109 of 1332024: -20.3, #122 of 1342025: -26.7, #131 of 1362026: -16.9, #134 of 138
20152026
Now -16.9 · #134 of 138Best +3.6 in 2021Worst -35.1 in 2017

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20260-10-0
0%
0.0-0.0
20252-101-7
17%
2.7-0.7
20243-93-5
25%
4.5-1.5
20233-92-6
25%
4.7-1.7
20225-73-5
42%
4.5+0.5
20217-64-4
54%
8.2-1.2
20203-50-4
38%
4.0-1.0
20191-110-8
8%
1.7-0.7
20181-111-7
8%
2.6-1.6
20170-120-8
0%
0.9-0.9

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

0.0%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

0-1 so far, projected to finish 3.5-8.5.

If they finish with…

0%
3 losses
0%
4 losses

Their chance of making it at each final loss count.

down 0.0 points since preseasonlost 0-51 to Oklahoma against an expected margin of 41, so 10.5 against the number.

  • The Mountain West takes 0.23 bids in an average season.
  • One bid goes to the best champion outside the P4. They take it in 0.0% of seasons, having won their league in 100% of those.

UTEP’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk5at New Mexico0.1
  • wk12at Air Force0.0
  • wk6vs Nevada0.0
  • wk4vs Oregon State0.0
  • wk10vs Hawai'i0.0
  • wk7vs San José State0.0

Who to root for

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

  • wk2Robert Morris over Akron0.0
  • wk12UL Monroe over App State0.0
  • wk11Northwestern over Ohio State0.0
  • wk3Ball State over Liberty0.0
  • wk5UL Monroe over South Alabama0.0
  • wk12Charlotte over Tulsa0.0
The full playoff picture →

Mountain West

0-0 in league play, projected 2.3-5.79 of 10 by title odds
0.2%
Wins the Mountain West
1.1%
Reaches the title game

The Mountain West sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 35% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk5UTEP at New Mexico1.8
  • wk12UTEP at Air Force1.2

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

If not the playoff, then

13%
Bowl eligible
12%
Placed in a bowl
0.0%
In the playoff
88%
Season over in November

UTEP 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 1.2% of seasons they get there and still go nowhere: there are more eligible teams than seats.

  • Famous Idaho Potato Bowl4.0%
  • Arizona Bowl2.9%
  • Hawai'i Bowl2.9%
  • New Mexico Bowl0.8%
  • Cure Bowl0.5%
  • LA Bowl0.3%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 4 have sent UTEP a player since 2010 — 13 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of UTEP's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
AllenTX40
ManvelTX40
RockwallTX30
Cibolo SteeleTX20
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.