Skip to content

Cincinnati Bearcats

Big 12·2-0·
Elo
1516#62
SP+
5.9#47
FPI
6.3
AP
NR
Nextvs Miami (OH) · Wk 3Win prob 75%Model -10.6
Talent #77 (634.3)Recruiting class #588% production returning

Roster · 110 players

FR 25SO 19JR 28SR 38
#PlayerPosClHtWt
4JC French IVQBSR6'1"205
5Samaj JonesQBJR5'11"217
10Liam O'BrienQBSR6'0"210
12Brooks GoodmanQBFR6'2"212
15Will KocherQBSR6'2"205
22JJ MillerQBJR6'0"185
3Cole TabbRBJR5'8"200
6Gi'Bran PayneRBSR5'10"208
7Zylan PerryRBSR5'11"210
13Zion JohnsonRBSO5'8"192
25James LewisRBJR6'0"200
26Jayzon ThompsonRBFR5'11"195
0Isaiah JohnsonWRJR5'11"184
2Larenzo FennerWRSR6'2"183
8Cade WolfordWRJR5'10"195
9Malachi HenryWRSR6'0"205
11JV GibsonWRSR6'2"208
14Elijah JonesWRJR5'11"195
16Flynn SchieleWRSR6'4"210
17H'eij JacksonWRFR6'4"206
18Giyahni KontosisWRSO6'1"205
19Dadrien WallerWRFR6'3"205
20Joshua SmithWRFR6'5"205
27Taizaun BurnsWRSO5'10"175
80Jalen WilliamsWRFR6'5"220
89Pierce AyersWRSO5'10"185
82Ka'Maurri SmithTESO6'5"252
83Devyn ZahurskyTEJR6'4"247
84Gavin GregoryTEFR6'7"255
85Lyviel WatersTEJR6'2"245
86Kellen DavisTEJR6'3"248
87Gavin GroverTEJR6'6"255
88DaMari WitherspoonTESO6'5"245
50Evan TengesdahlOLSR6'3"325
52Austin HoaneOLFR6'5"295
55Solomon MathisOLFR6'5"275
59Jake WheelockOLJR6'4"312
61Nathan ZappitelliOLFR6'3"295
63Zac ClarkeOLJR6'6"312
66Xavier LozowickiOLSR6'5"320
67Luke GroverOLFR6'5"308
69JP SchrieberOLJR6'2"305
70Cray PaichOLSO6'5"315
71Judea MilonOLSR6'4"300
72Nolan LatulippeOLSR6'8"310
73Aiden PastorizaOLJR6'6"315
74Joe CottonOLSR6'6"320
75Marcus McGregorOLSO6'3"312
76Zach TaylorOLSO6'3"315
77Taran TyoOLSR6'3"325
78Grant EdgingtonOLSR6'4"307
79Luke CollinsOLFR6'5"305
10Patrick BauerEDGESR6'3"235
16Jaylon White-McClainEDGESR6'4"265
17Brian Simms IIIEDGESR6'3"240
24Terrell HolcombEDGESO6'1"230
34Myles HarrisonEDGESO6'2"235
54Thomas JohnsonEDGESR6'3"255
60Lance DawsonEDGEFR6'4"258
82James EarlyEDGESO6'3"257
91Drew LoganEDGESR6'4"270
93Keegan HornEDGEFR6'3"235
4Marquaze ParkerDLJR6'3"270
11Chidera OtutuDLJR6'1"300
26Cam RoetherfordDLSR6'3"280
88CD McFeeDLSO6'4"312
90Darrius SimmonsDLFR6'3"300
92Elijah GunnDLSR6'0"307
94Juan BatesDLFR6'3"290
95Josh HoughDLSR6'2"335
96Nathan NunnDLJR6'2"282
97Kamron NealDLSO6'2"268
99Jonathan RuloDLFR6'1"320
3Antwan Peek Jr.LBSR6'1"223
5Marqavious SaboorLBJR5'11"190
9Damaine WilsonLBJR6'3"235
12Filip MaciorowskiLBSR6'3"235
15Jamari JohnsonLBSO5'10"175
22Jonathan ThompsonLBSR6'2"228
23Jaidon WindomLBFR6'1"200
31Simeon ColemanLBJR5'11"225
33George LeiboldLBJR6'1"220
35Drew RobinsonLBJR6'2"195
36Evan WeinbergLBFR6'3"230
44Montay WeedonLBJR6'0"217
45Jaxon NewtonLBFR6'3"210
52Ronan CasanovaLBSR5'10"225
0Jacob FinleyCBSR6'0"190
6Zay JohnsonCBJR6'2"185
8Kenny WorthyCBJR6'0"188
13Patrick WilliamsCBSO5'10"175
14KK MeierCBSR6'0"205
21Jamarion McKinneyCBFR6'2"195
25Daniel JamesCBJR5'10"183
29Kameron HurstCBFR6'0"166
2MJ CannonSSR6'3"213
7Ty GoodwillSJR6'3"195
18Jasper BeelerSSR6'1"194
19CJ JonesSSO5'9"195
20CJ CriteSSO6'1"207
27Markell TaylorSFR5'11"210
30D'Angelo HutchinsonSSR6'3"200
32Landen SchaeferSSO6'0"185
46Xavier StarksSFR5'11"205
93Max LemastersPKSR5'6"175
99Stephen RusnakPKSR6'0"185
31Max FletcherPSR6'6"190
35Dino BeslagicPSR6'4"203
41Kenny BakerLSFR6'0"218
48Eli SteinLSSR6'3"225

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
48.0
scoring offense
Points allowed
12.5
scoring defense
Differential
+35.5
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
514.5#22
Yards / play
7.3#22
Passing yards / game
178.5#106
Rushing yards / game
336.0#4
First downs / game
24.5#31
3rd down %
56.5%#15
4th down %
66.7%#40
Time of possession
30:39#65
Defense
Yards allowed / game
314.5#64
Yards / play allowed
4.8#55
Pass yards allowed / game
195.0#64
Rush yards allowed / game
119.5#72
3rd down % allowed
24.0%#18
Sacks
4#60
Tackles for loss
10#79
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
+3#15
Takeaways
3#46
Giveaways
0#1
Penalties / game
9.0#122
Penalty yards / game
87.0#129

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

run-leaning

Cincinnati runs it: Scott Satterfield's offenses have been run-leaning across 9 seasons. The strengths are on both sides of the ball, led by 12th in the push up front. The way in is 124th at stuffing runs at the line, and they are 116th at shutting down the ground game.

On fourth down he goes for it more often than his peers do from the same spots (+5.0%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −22.0% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

Cincinnati has played 2 games against a genuinely tough 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
    #12
    projected
  • Defensehitting chunk plays
    #24
    projected
  • Offenserunning it
    #30
    projected

Projected soft spots

  • Defensegetting stopped at the line
    #124
    projected
  • Defensemoving the ball on the ground
    #116
    projected
  • Defensesacks and tackles for loss
    #114
    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
5.56.5
projected final record (now 20)
Exp. wins left
3.5
of 10 games
Bowl odds
49%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
75%
vs Miami (OH)
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.

23456789101112
final winstallest bar = 28% chance
Likeliest finish 5-7 (28%)Bowl eligible 49% · 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
QBJC French, Samaj Jones
+30.6 EPA
WRMalachi Henry, Larenzo Fenner +4
+18.2 EPA
RBGi'Bran Payne, Zylan Perry +2
+17.2 EPA
TEGavin Grover, Lyviel Waters
+5.6 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
QBJC French
~$920K
EPA +28.10.550/play51 snaps
EPA +13.40.537/play25 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)
Off0.4591st#14
Def0.1246th#75
Explosiveness
Off1.2747th#73
Def1.1767th#46
Field position
Off68.030th#97
Def77.27th#128
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off5.7193rd#11
Def3.4343rd#79
Turnovers
Won 3Lost 0
Margin +3

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
Defense
Off · pass
0.5579th#30
Off · rush
0.4089th#16

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.4088th#17
Def0.1428th#100
Passing
Off0.5577th#32
Def0.1074th#36

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
3.94#11
2nd-level / open-field
1.63 / 2.01
Power / stuff (off)
80.0% / 9.9%
Havoc — total (def)
18.3%#47
Havoc — front 7 / DB
10.7% / 7.6%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.44
Def0.09
Pass downs
Off0.47
Def0.20

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

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense0.29#170.45#260.76#38
Defense-0.11#450.32#1050.38#76

Elo Trajectory

Boston CollegeFinal
Elo rating 14801516+36 over season

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

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.4188th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.1046th
  • Offense success rate51%80th
  • Defense success rate allowed39%44th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs55%79th
  • Offense success — passing downs38%74th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs46%39th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs25%60th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.249th
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.263rd
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs1.172nd
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs1.618th

Trenches

  • Offense line yards4.196th
  • Defense line yards allowed2.934th
  • Offense highlight yards2.183rd
  • Defense highlight yards allowed0.6350th
  • Offense power success0.9085th
  • Defense power success allowed0.7543rd
  • Offense stuff rate0.0993rd
  • Defense stuff rate0.2574th

Third down

  • Third down conversion55%85th
  • Third down distance faced6.272nd
  • Third down conversion allowed24%90th
  • Third down distance forced7.968th

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half0.1569th
  • Net success rate — second half0.1060th

Drives

  • Points per drive3.480th
  • Points per drive allowed1.379th
  • Average starting field position3168th
  • Opponent starting field position2578th
  • Available yards gained51%53rd
  • Available yards allowed47%56th
  • Scoring opportunities per drive90%74th
  • Scoring opportunities allowed64%93rd
  • Points per scoring opportunity3.876th
  • Points allowed per opportunity2.078th
  • Three-and-out rate30%39th
  • Three-and-outs forced0%7th

Roster

  • Returning usage7%5th
  • Returning EPA34.818th
  • Team talent composite63445th
  • Recruiting class rank58.058th
  • Recruiting class points20058th

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 10 nationally by EPA/play
EPA/play
+0.449#14 · top 20%
Pass EPA/play
+0.546#32
Rush EPA/play
+0.398#17
Explosiveness
1.270#73
Pts/opportunity
5.71#11
Success rate
51.8%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.148 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

EPA/play allowed
+0.123#75 · average
Havoc rate (total)
18.3%#47
Front-7 havoc
10.7%
DB havoc
7.6%
Big play rate allowed
1.171#46
Success rate allowed
42.6%

Disruption comes evenly from front and secondary.

📊

Season Signature

48.0 PPG offense, 12.5 allowed — +35.5 margin/game
Points per game
48.0
Points allowed/game
12.5
Scoring margin/game
+35.5
Turnover margin
+3won 3 · lost 0
Production returning
8%
Talent rank (247)
#77

2-0 record through 2 games.

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

OFFENSE91thEXPLOSIVENESS47thFINISHING93thFIELD POS30thDEFENSE46thHAVOC66th50th100th
Offense
91th
Explosiveness
47th
Finishing
93th
Field Pos
30th
Defense
46th
Havoc
66th

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
+2.5
#62
Offense
+2.6
#50
Defense
+0.1
#71
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 10 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive3.401.27
Starting field positionown 30.8own 24.8
Available yards50.7%47.3%
Scoring opportunities90.0%63.6%
Points per opportunity3.782.00
Three-and-out rate30.0%0.0%
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
27.6%
Expected, given the spots
40.2%
Over expected
-12.6
Fourth down vs peers
+13
Fourth down vs the model
-50
All play-calling tendencies →

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

Each dot = one FBS team. Cincinnati 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 Cincinnati in 2026

by EPA/play distance
Miami (OH)SP+ -10.0
Off EPA/play +0.436Def EPA/play +0.142Elo 1259
Match
99%
NorthwesternSP+ +7.8
Off EPA/play +0.480Def EPA/play +0.128Elo 1549
Match
98%
Wake ForestSP+ +1.6
Off EPA/play +0.443Def EPA/play +0.162Elo 1516
Match
98%
Colorado StateSP+ -7.5
Off EPA/play +0.429Def EPA/play +0.088Elo 1336
Match
98%
Georgia StateSP+ -22.7
Off EPA/play +0.431Def EPA/play +0.063Elo 1241
Match
96%
HoustonSP+ +6.5
Off EPA/play +0.425Def EPA/play +0.057Elo 1514
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 · 20152026 · points per game vs an average FBS team

2015: +5.9, #50 of 1282016: -8.2, #93 of 1282017: -11.7, #102 of 1302018: +13.4, #23 of 1302019: +12.5, #25 of 1302020: +23.4, #5 of 1242021: +24.7, #4 of 1302022: +3.8, #55 of 1312023: -7.4, #93 of 1332024: +3.7, #53 of 1342025: +6.7, #50 of 1362026: +2.5, #62 of 138
20152026
Now +2.5 · #62 of 138Best +24.7 in 2021Worst -11.7 in 2017

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20262-00-0
100%
2.0+0.0
20257-65-4
54%
7.1-0.1
20245-73-6
42%
6.2-1.2
20233-91-8
25%
5.0-2.0
20229-46-2
69%
7.5+1.5
202113-19-0
93%
10.9+2.1
20209-17-0
90%
9.0-0.0
201911-37-2
79%
9.1+1.9
201811-26-2
85%
10.3+0.7
20174-82-6
33%
4.0+0.0

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

4.9%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

1-0 so far, projected to finish 6.6-5.4. Top-four bye in 0.9%. Wins the Big 12 in 2.0%.

If they finish with…

100%
0 losses
100%
1 loss
59%
2 losses
1.5%
3 losses
0.0%
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.

up 1.3 points since preseasonwon 34-15 over Boston College against an expected margin of +8, so +11.1 against the number.

  • At 3 losses they are 1.5% where the average Big 12 team is 5.0%.
  • The Big 12 takes 1.77 bids in an average season, and four or more in 1.9%.

Cincinnati’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk8vs Texas Tech12.9
  • wk13at BYU12.8
  • wk9vs Utah10.2
  • wk5at Arizona9.7
  • wk4vs Kansas State9.2
  • wk10at Houston8.9

Who to root for

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

  • wk7Arizona State over Texas Tech1.0
  • wk5New Mexico over UTEP0.8
  • wk3Kentucky over Texas A&M0.8
  • wk4Northwestern over Indiana0.7
  • wk8UCF over BYU0.7
  • wk3Rutgers over USC0.7
The full playoff picture →

Big 12

0-0 in league play, projected 3.8-5.210 of 16 by title odds
2.0%
Wins the Big 12
4.8%
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.

  • wk8Texas Tech at Cincinnati6.0
  • wk13Cincinnati at BYU5.9
  • wk9Utah at Cincinnati4.3
  • wk5Cincinnati at Arizona3.9

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

If not the playoff, then

70%
Bowl eligible
60%
Placed in a bowl
4.9%
In the playoff
35%
Season over in November

Cincinnati is 2-0 and needs 4 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 4.4% of seasons they get there and still go nowhere: there are more eligible teams than seats.

  • First Responder Bowl8.5%
  • Independence Bowl7.9%
  • Rate Bowl7.5%
  • Liberty Bowl7.2%
  • Pop-Tarts Bowl6.4%
  • Texas Bowl5.8%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 15 have sent Cincinnati a player since 2010 — 39 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of Cincinnati's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
Archbishop MoellerOH40
MiddletownOH40
Pickerington CentralOH40
WayneOH40
BolingbrookIL31
GlenvilleOH31
RainesFL31
NorcrossGA30
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.