Skip to content
UCLA

UCLA Bruins

Big Ten·2-0·
Compare
Elo
1438#80
SP+
9.2#36
FPI
5.1
AP
NR
Nextvs Purdue · Wk 3Win prob 70%Model -8.5
Talent #25 (774.5)Recruiting class #6257% production returning

Roster · 120 players

FR 39SO 20JR 27SR 34
#PlayerPosClHtWt
9Nico IamaleavaQBJR6'5"215
10Madden IamaleavaQBFR6'2"197
14Ty DieffenbachQBJR6'6"227
17Colton GuminoQBFR6'0"196
18DJ BordeauxQBFR6'2"200
3Wayne KnightRBSR5'7"193
6Anthony WoodsRBSR5'11"192
21Jaivian ThomasRBSR5'10"198
22Dylan LeeRBSO6'0"216
32Troy LeigberRBJR6'0"211
33Karson CoxRBFR5'11"213
0Leland SmithWRSR6'4"218
1Aidan MizellWRJR6'1"177
2Brian Rowe Jr.WRSO5'11"168
4Semaj MorganWRSR5'9"174
7Mikey MatthewsWRSR5'8"182
11Landon EllisWRSR6'2"217
12Jace BrownWRFR6'2"203
15Marcus HarrisWRFR6'0"192
20Shane RosenthalWRFR5'11"192
23Jackson MeehanWRSR5'8"172
24Jonah SmithWRFR6'0"185
46Markus KierWRFR6'2"190
48Major PrideWRFR6'2"203
81Kenneth Moore IIIWRFR5'10"172
83Russell WeirWRSO6'1"201
86Jalen Saint PaulWRSO5'11"185
44Peter BarioTEJR6'2"241
47Harry LodgeTESR6'7"247
82Noah Fox-FloresTESO6'3"244
85Brayden LoftinTESR6'4"231
87Dylan SimsTEFR6'5"232
88Stevie Amar Jr.TEFR6'2"236
89Josh PhiferTEJR6'5"258
51Riley RobellOLJR6'2"284
52Carter SweazieOLSR6'1"342
54Derek OsmanOLSR6'3"315
55Eugene BrooksOLSO6'3"348
58Jaylan JeffersOLSR6'5"313
61Lucas HickeyOLFR6'3"290
62Michael PriceOLFR6'5"297
63Zaheer YoungOLSO6'5"290
64Sam YoonOLSR6'5"315
65Hall SchmidtOLSR6'6"317
66Jensen SomervilleOLSO6'8"321
67Cam JensenOLFR6'7"283
68Jordan DavisOLSR6'4"328
69Cooper JavorskyOLFR6'3"307
70Caleb WalkerOLSR6'4"311
71Sean Na'aOLJR6'3"308
72K.D. ArnoldOLSR6'6"304
73Quinn BuckeyOLFR6'6"306
74Julian ArmellaOLSR6'6"333
75Nehemiah JohnsonOLFR6'4"342
76Mack IndestadOLSR6'8"311
77JD DeanOLFR6'4"289
78Michael McDonaldOLSO6'4"353
11Nico DavillierDLSR6'2"274
15Sahir WestDLSO6'3"279
24Cole CogshellDLSO6'3"249
29Robert James IIIDLFR6'2"302
33Dallin HaveaDLSO6'1"247
44Ashton SandersDLJR6'1"296
54Ty PartlowDLFR6'4"254
55A.J. FuimaonoDLJR6'3"315
59Gavin BlumDLSO6'2"279
88Grant BuckeyDLJR6'5"266
90Amier WashingtonDLJR6'2"286
92Darold DeNgoheDLJR6'2"312
94Marcus AlmadaDLFR6'3"294
95Tyson FordDLJR6'4"321
96James MoffatDLFR6'4"260
97Aiden GobairaDLSR6'4"261
99Maxwell RoyDLFR6'3"320
0Donavyn PellotLBJR6'1"226
5Trent HendrickLBSR6'0"234
9Jalen WoodsLBSR6'1"224
10Sammy OmosighoLBSR6'2"239
17Lucien HollandLBFR6'3"215
19Ryan McCullochLBJR6'2"258
20Scott TaylorLBSO6'4"241
36Wyatt MosierLBJR6'1"226
39Anthony SaccaLBFR6'3"242
40Mone MalafuLBJR6'1"252
41Jewelous WallsLBSO6'2"191
49Malaki Soliai-TuiLBFR5'11"231
53Jacob ReisLBSO5'11"217
56Drew SpinogattiLBSR6'0"229
57Matt MuasauLBFR6'0"240
1Scooter JacksonDBSR5'11"191
2Rodrick PleasantDBJR5'10"175
3Robert Stafford IIIDBJR5'11"189
4Cole MartinDBJR5'8"185
6Tao JohnsonDBSR6'0"194
7Aaron WilliamsDBJR6'1"183
12Malik HartfordDBJR6'2"193
14LaRue Zamorano IIIDBFR6'2"198
18Osiris GilbertDBSO5'9"179
21Dante LovettDBJR6'0"198
22Ty LeeDBJR6'2"204
23Jhase McMillanDBSO5'9"170
25Kuron Jabari Jr.DBFR6'0"191
26CJ LavenderDBFR5'11"183
27Ta'Shawn JamesDBJR6'0"211
28Mason RiveraDBSR6'0"190
30Zeke JohnsonDBFR6'1"202
31Chase ColemanDBFR6'2"166
32Derrick BarksdaleDBSR5'8"181
35Logan HirouDBFR6'0"193
37Joshua DixonDBJR5'11"193
43Brett BarryDBSO5'11"184
45Jamier JohnsonDBSR5'11"190
15Mateen BhaghaniPKSR6'0"178
31Mateo OroscoPKFR6'0"173
19Lennox MillerPFR6'4"222
35Curtis GerrandPSO6'0"186
45Chase BarryPSR6'3"205
30Halakilangi Muagututi'aLSFR5'11"237
44Giancarlo CereghinoLSFR6'0"204
50Salem Abdul-WahabLSSR6'1"255

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
36.5
scoring offense
Points allowed
17.0
scoring defense
Differential
+19.5
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
461.0#43
Yards / play
8.5#10
Passing yards / game
184.0#103
Rushing yards / game
277.0#17
First downs / game
20.0#78
3rd down %
54.5%#24
4th down %
——
Time of possession
25:11#126
Defense
Yards allowed / game
410.0#110
Yards / play allowed
4.7#62
Pass yards allowed / game
291.0#124
Rush yards allowed / game
119.0#77
3rd down % allowed
52.4%#124
Sacks
2#81
Tackles for loss
6#91
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
+2#22
Takeaways
3#30
Giveaways
1#31
Penalties / game
12.0#136
Penalty yards / game
110.0#135

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

UCLA is in year 1 under Bob Chesney. The strengths are defensive, led by 5th at keeping everything in front of them. The way in is 134th at shutting down the ground game, and they are 131st on early downs defensively.

UCLA 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

  • Defensehitting chunk plays
    #5
    projected

Projected soft spots

  • Defensemoving the ball on the ground
    #134
    projected
  • Defensefirst and second down
    #131
    projected
  • Defensesurviving second and twelve
    #129
    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
7.2 – 4.8
projected final record (now 2–0)
Exp. wins left
5.2
of 10 games
Bowl odds
90%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
91%
vs Nevada
Toughest
7%
vs Oregon

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 7-5 (29%)Bowl eligible 90% · 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
RBWayne Knight, Anthony Woods +1
+17.7 EPA
WRSemaj Morgan, Mikey Matthews +2
+12.8 EPA
QBNico Iamaleava
+3.8 EPA
TEJosh Phifer
-1.0 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
QBNico Iamaleava
~$494K
EPA +3.80.132/play29 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)
Off0.4279th#30
Def0.1341st#82
Explosiveness
Off1.2547th#73
Def1.4812th#121
Field position
Off59.31st#137
Def78.74th#132
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off4.7569th#44
Def4.8012th#122
Turnovers
Won 3Lost 1
Margin +2

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
—
Defense
—
Off · pass
0.0312th#121
Off · rush
0.7599th#1

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.7599th#2
Def-0.0761st#54
Passing
Off0.0312th#122
Def0.3132nd#94

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
4.81#2
2nd-level / open-field
2.03 / 3.69
Power / stuff (off)
100.0% / 3.4%
Havoc — total (def)
19.1%#49
Havoc — front 7 / DB
9.0% / 10.1%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.52
Def-0.05
Pass downs
Off0.04
Def0.44

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

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense0.64#6-0.23#1240.60#72
Defense0.00#83-0.33#141.01#129

Elo Trajectory

@CaliforniaUSC
Elo rating 1381 → 1438+57 over season

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

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.4277th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.1337th
  • Offense success rate57%82nd
  • Defense success rate allowed34%61st

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs67%93rd
  • Offense success — passing downs18%12th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs34%78th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs33%34th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.357th
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.517th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs1.283rd
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs1.832nd

Trenches

  • Offense line yards4.899th
  • Defense line yards allowed2.558th
  • Offense highlight yards3.796th
  • Defense highlight yards allowed0.3370th
  • Offense power success1.099th
  • Defense power success allowed0.6761st
  • Offense stuff rate0.0396th
  • Defense stuff rate0.2152nd

Third down

  • Third down conversion45%52nd
  • Third down distance faced7.235th
  • Third down conversion allowed60%4th
  • Third down distance forced7.761st

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half0.2776th
  • Net success rate — second half0.1564th

Drives

  • Points per drive3.578th
  • Points per drive allowed1.470th
  • Average starting field position4095th
  • Opponent starting field position2292nd
  • Available yards gained59%73rd
  • Available yards allowed39%76th
  • Scoring opportunities per drive92%79th
  • Scoring opportunities allowed50%96th
  • Points per scoring opportunity3.879th
  • Points allowed per opportunity2.847th
  • Three-and-out rate33%36th
  • Three-and-outs forced25%53rd

Roster

  • Returning usage64%74th
  • Returning EPA10852nd
  • Team talent composite77482nd
  • Recruiting class rank62.055th
  • Recruiting class points19755th

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

Run-first offense performing above the national average
EPA/play
+0.420#30 · above avg
Pass EPA/play
+0.026#122
Rush EPA/play
+0.746#2
Explosiveness
1.251#73
Pts/opportunity
4.75#44
Success rate
56.6%

Rush efficiency edge: 0.720 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

EPA/play allowed
+0.133#82 · average
Havoc rate (total)
19.1%#49
Front-7 havoc
9.0%
DB havoc
10.1%
Big play rate allowed
1.484#121
Success rate allowed
33.7%

Disruption comes primarily from the secondary.

📊

Season Signature

36.5 PPG offense, 17.0 allowed — +19.5 margin/game
Points per game
36.5
Points allowed/game
17.0
Scoring margin/game
+19.5
Turnover margin
+2won 3 · lost 1
Production returning
57%
Talent rank (247)
#25

2-0 record through 2 games.

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

OFFENSE79thEXPLOSIVENESS47thFINISHING69thFIELD POS1thDEFENSE41thHAVOC65th50th100th
Offense
79th
Explosiveness
47th
Finishing
69th
Field Pos
1th
Defense
41th
Havoc
65th

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
+12.9
#29
Offense
+8.6
#22
Defense
-4.3
#48
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 12 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive3.501.42
Starting field positionown 39.8own 21.7
Available yards59.2%39.1%
Scoring opportunities91.7%50.0%
Points per opportunity3.822.83
Three-and-out rate33.3%25.0%
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
46.2%
Expected, given the spots
43.3%
Over expected
+2.8
Fourth down vs peers
-1
All play-calling tendencies →

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

Each dot = one FBS team. UCLA 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 UCLA in 2026

by EPA/play distance
TexasSP+ +25.4
Off EPA/play +0.451Def EPA/play +0.142Elo 1913
Match
98%
San Diego StateSP+ +3.1
Off EPA/play +0.391Def EPA/play +0.113Elo 1518
Match
98%
MemphisSP+ +2.1
Off EPA/play +0.394Def EPA/play +0.106Elo 1566
Match
98%
Wake ForestSP+ +1.6
Off EPA/play +0.443Def EPA/play +0.163Elo 1516
Match
98%
NC StateSP+ -0.7
Off EPA/play +0.385Def EPA/play +0.159Elo 1509
Match
98%
Middle TennesseeSP+ -20.8
Off EPA/play +0.402Def EPA/play +0.087Elo 1276
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: +12.0, #29 of 1282016: +7.6, #37 of 1282017: -0.5, #64 of 1302018: -0.5, #67 of 1302019: -10.3, #102 of 1302020: +11.3, #24 of 1242021: +14.8, #19 of 1302022: +13.2, #21 of 1312023: +9.3, #34 of 1332024: +7.2, #41 of 1342025: -6.4, #84 of 1362026: +12.9, #29 of 138
20152026
Now +12.9 · #29 of 138Best +14.8 in 2021Worst -10.3 in 2019

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20261-00-0
100%
1.0+0.0
20253-93-6
25%
3.2-0.2
20245-73-6
42%
5.2-0.2
20238-54-5
62%
8.6-0.6
20229-46-3
69%
9.8-0.8
20218-46-3
67%
8.8-0.8
20203-43-4
43%
5.3-2.3
20194-84-5
33%
3.6+0.4
20183-93-6
25%
4.0-1.0
20176-74-5
46%
6.4-0.4

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

10%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

1-0 so far, projected to finish 7.3-4.7. Top-four bye in 1.3%. Wins the Big Ten in 1.0%.

If they finish with…

100%
0 losses
99%
1 loss
53%
2 losses
1.5%
3 losses
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 5.6 points since preseason — won 45-24 over California against an expected margin of −0, so +21.0 against the number.

  • At 2 losses they are 53% where the average Big Ten team is 72%.
  • The Big Ten takes 3.19 bids in an average season, and four or more in 37%.

UCLA’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk6at Oregon28.5
  • wk13vs USC18.8
  • wk12at Michigan18.0
  • wk10at Minnesota14.3
  • wk4at Maryland14.1
  • wk11vs Illinois13.7

Who to root for

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

  • wk2Oklahoma State over Oregon1.5
  • wk13Washington over Oregon1.3
  • wk11California over Virginia1.3
  • wk8Illinois over Oregon1.3
  • wk10Michigan State over Michigan1.2
  • wk2Akron over Robert Morris1.2
The full playoff picture →

Big Ten

0-0 in league play, projected 4.8-4.29 of 18 by title odds
1.0%
Wins the Big Ten
3.4%
Reaches the title game

The Big Ten sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 50% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk6UCLA at Oregon4.8
  • wk13USC at UCLA2.3
  • wk12UCLA at Michigan1.9
  • wk10UCLA at Minnesota1.6

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

If not the playoff, then

80%
Bowl eligible
69%
Placed in a bowl
10%
In the playoff
21%
Season over in November

UCLA 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 1.3% of seasons they get there and still go nowhere: there are more eligible teams than seats.

  • Las Vegas Bowl8.9%
  • Pinstripe Bowl8.2%
  • Music City Bowl8.1%
  • Rate Bowl8.0%
  • GameAbove Sports Bowl7.5%
  • ReliaQuest Bowl7.4%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 17 have sent UCLA a player since 2010 — 82 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of UCLA's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
St. John BoscoCA131
Mater DeiCA92
Oaks ChristianCA82
Junipero SerraCA81
CrespiCA51
Long Beach PolyCA51
LibertyNV50
SaguaroAZ50
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.