Skip to content
TCU

TCU Horned Frogs

Big 12·1-1·
Compare
Elo
1595#39
SP+
3.9#54
FPI
4.8
AP
NR
Nextvs Arkansas State · Wk 3Win prob 88%Model -17.7
Talent #40 (730.8)Recruiting class #4722% production returning

Team Leaders

Latest on TCU

All news →

Xavier Lewis's 4.5 tackles for loss decided a five-point game

Matchup · Aug 30

Jaden Craig's First FBS Snap Comes in Dublin, Against Belichick

Matchup · Aug 26

Roster · 115 players

FR 22SO 33JR 20SR 40
#PlayerPosClHtWt
1Jaden CraigQBSR6'3"225
6Jayden MaplesQBFR6'1"200
9Jack DaultonQBFR6'2"195
11Adam SchobelQBSO6'5"210
12David PotterQBSO6'4"220
2Jon DenmanRBSO5'10"215
20G'Ivori GrahamRBFR5'9"190
23Amante MartinRBFR5'11"205
24Joe PitchfordRBJR6'2"210
26Jeremy PayneRBJR5'10"180
27Landon WalkerRBSR6'2"225
29Joseph HagmanRBSR6'0"215
31Jacob MartinezRBSO5'8"195
0Dozie EzukanmaWRJR6'3"190
3Major EverhartWRSR5'11"180
4Ace TheusWRFR5'9"170
6Jeremy ScottWRJR6'3"205
7Jordan DwyerWRSR6'0"190
13James ScottWRFR6'5"230
14Khamill PruittWRFR6'1"180
15Terry SheltonWRSO6'4"205
17Dane JonesWRSO6'0"190
18Ed SmallWRSO6'0"205
22Fletcher FierroWRJR6'1"195
32Jaden MoreheadWRSR6'0"195
80Jacobe HayesWRSO5'10"175
83Keagan CunninghamWRSR6'2"180
84Cooper ReidWRFR6'4"195
86Sutton LeeWRSR5'10"175
10Mason PetersonTESO6'4"245
12Lafayette KaiuwayTESR6'6"260
81Kari AshleyTESR6'4"225
88Ka'Morreun PimptonTESR6'6"250
89Braden BachTEFR6'5"240
50Witten Van HoyOLSO6'6"320
51Devan RobisonOLFR6'3"305
53Tobias SteppesOLJR6'6"310
55Samir CamachoOLJR6'4"295
56Ben Taylor-WhitfieldOLSR6'6"320
58Noah McKinneyOLSR6'4"325
59Jaheim BuchanonOLSR6'4"300
60Cade BennettOLSR6'4"310
61Dylan KinneyOLSR6'3"315
62Jordan BurnettOLFR6'4"325
64Jacob AhumadaOLSR6'1"315
65Logan SchramOLSO6'6"325
66Wesley HarveyOLJR6'8"305
69Gannon GaubertOLSR6'1"315
70Ryan HughesOLJR6'6"320
71Creece BristerOLSO6'5"315
72Jackson JonesOLSO6'7"310
73Kilian RegisteOLSO6'6"300
74Vincent Johnson Jr.OLFR6'5"330
77Cooper PowersOLSR6'5"310
0Zach ChapmanEDGESR6'5"265
9CJ WoodforkEDGESO6'4"245
14John SchobelEDGESO6'5"245
16Koron HaywardEDGESR6'5"245
19Jesse FordEDGEFR6'5"255
36Cheta OfiliEDGEJR6'4"245
40Oliver GunnEDGEFR6'1"235
49Anders CornEDGESO6'2"230
55Lawson WatkinsEDGESO6'3"230
94Jared MartinEDGESO6'3"240
97Paul OyewaleEDGESR6'4"265
98Carter BuckEDGEFR6'6"255
34Perry Cole Jr.DTJR6'3"310
35Tristan JohnsonDTJR6'3"295
52Blake RobinettDTSO6'4"280
90Kelten MickellDTSR6'2"295
91Floyd GuidryDTSO6'2"285
92Ansel Din-MbuhDTSR6'3"300
95Markis DealDTSR6'5"320
96Maddox FlyntDTFR6'2"285
99Brody WhatleyDTSO6'2"285
3Max CarrollLBSR6'3"230
11Michael ShortLBSR6'3"235
20Anthony WilliamsLBSO6'3"215
23Keylan AbramsLBSO6'2"215
27Michael Teason Jr.LBSR6'2"220
31Noriel DominguezLBFR6'2"240
32Dillon ArkansasLBSO6'1"210
37Hudson HooperLBSR6'2"235
38Zion JunkLBSO6'0"210
41Caleb CortezLBSR6'0"225
44Sam HaleyLBSO6'3"230
46Rhett SteppeLBJR6'2"230
1Vernon Glover Jr.CBSR6'1"195
4Gil Jackson Jr.CBSO6'3"195
12Kalen CarrollCBSR6'1"185
16Brock KingCBFR5'11"180
17Devondre McGeeCBJR6'2"190
21Teon ParksCBSR6'1"180
26Deon MaysCBSO6'1"185
28Micah StricklandCBSO6'1"180
30Max RankinCBSO5'10"190
2Jamel JohnsonSSR6'1"205
6Kylin JacksonSSR6'3"200
7Julius SimmsSSO6'2"205
13Ryan YaitesSSR6'1"200
15Devyn HidrogoSJR6'0"205
18Kaden McFaddenSJR5'11"200
22Jordan LesterSSR6'2"190
24Joseph AlbrightSSO5'11"180
25Zach TaylorSFR6'0"190
29Jason BradfordSFR6'2"200
39Jack PitchfordSFR5'11"185
42Sebastian PetersonSJR6'0"185
34Kyle LemmermannPKJR6'2"190
41Sam BisesiPKJR6'1"185
99Nate McCashlandPKSR5'10"175
48John Hoyet ChancePJR6'1"205
97Easton BlackPSR6'3"200
54Aaron BowersLSSR6'3"215
57Will TerryLSFR6'4"230

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
36.5
scoring offense
Points allowed
11.0
scoring defense
Differential
+25.5
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
478.5#32
Yards / play
6.8#37
Passing yards / game
283.0#34
Rushing yards / game
195.5#43
First downs / game
25.5#24
3rd down %
39.1%#79
4th down %
42.9%#89
Time of possession
31:18#50
Defense
Yards allowed / game
266.0#39
Yards / play allowed
4.8#54
Pass yards allowed / game
211.0#74
Rush yards allowed / game
55.0#7
3rd down % allowed
16.0%#4
Sacks
5#38
Tackles for loss
14#29
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
+2#24
Takeaways
4#22
Giveaways
2#47
Penalties / game
8.0#105
Penalty yards / game
75.0#119

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

heavily pass-leaning

TCU throws it: Sonny Dykes's offenses have been heavily pass-leaning across 10 seasons. The strengths are on both sides of the ball, led by 28th at shutting down the ground game. The way in is 109th at staying out of the backfield.

On fourth down he goes for it more often than his peers do from the same spots (+3.3%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −21.2% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

TCU has played 2 games 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

  • Defensemoving the ball on the ground
    #28
    projected
  • Offensesurviving second and twelve
    #32
    projected
  • Offensestaying on schedule through the air
    #33
    projected

Projected soft spots

  • Offensegetting stopped at the line
    #109
    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
5.3 – 6.7
projected final record (now 1–1)
Exp. wins left
4.3
of 10 games
Bowl odds
44%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
88%
vs Arkansas State
Toughest
2%
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.

1234567891011
final winstallest bar = 29% chance
Likeliest finish 5-7 (29%)Bowl eligible 44% · 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
QBJaden Craig
+19.6 EPA
WRMajor Everhart, Jeremy Scott +5
+12.2 EPA
TEKa'Morreun Pimpton, Kari Ashley
+9.3 EPA
RBJeremy Payne, Jon Denman +1
+6.6 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
QBJaden Craig
~$826K
EPA +19.60.289/play68 snaps
RBJeremy Payne
~$150K
EPA +1.70.047/play37 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)
Off0.2354th#64
Def0.0855th#62
Explosiveness
Off1.2749th#71
Def1.0486th#20
Field position
Off62.97th#129
Def74.032nd#94
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off3.9345th#76
Def2.5078th#31
Turnovers
Won 4Lost 2
Margin +2

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
—
Defense
—
Off · pass
0.3045th#76
Off · rush
0.1655th#62

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.1651st#68
Def-0.1888th#17
Passing
Off0.3045th#77
Def0.2736th#88

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
3.13#64
2nd-level / open-field
1.03 / 1.70
Power / stuff (off)
80.0% / 15.0%
Havoc — total (def)
23.2%#19
Havoc — front 7 / DB
16.1% / 7.1%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.32
Def-0.06
Pass downs
Off0.03
Def0.37

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

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense0.29#170.23#650.32#105
Defense-0.13#420.38#1190.00#11

Elo Trajectory

North CarolinaFinal
Elo rating 1613 → 1598-15 over season

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

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.2967th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed-0.0580th
  • Offense success rate51%80th
  • Defense success rate allowed33%71st

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs60%89th
  • Offense success — passing downs22%12th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs34%84th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs32%27th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.241st
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.173rd
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs1.171st
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs1.834th

Trenches

  • Offense line yards3.581st
  • Defense line yards allowed2.375th
  • Offense highlight yards1.669th
  • Defense highlight yards allowed0.0299th
  • Offense power success0.8267th
  • Defense power success allowed0.0099th
  • Offense stuff rate0.1471st
  • Defense stuff rate0.2573rd

Third down

  • Third down conversion38%34th
  • Third down distance faced6.946th
  • Third down conversion allowed17%97th
  • Third down distance forced6.626th

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half0.1979th
  • Net success rate — second half0.1779th

Drives

  • Points per drive0.8915th
  • Points per drive allowed1.474th
  • Average starting field position3486th
  • Opponent starting field position2946th
  • Available yards gained50%50th
  • Available yards allowed47%57th
  • Scoring opportunities per drive78%46th
  • Scoring opportunities allowed67%87th
  • Points per scoring opportunity1.416th
  • Points allowed per opportunity2.272nd
  • Three-and-out rate0%99th
  • Three-and-outs forced22%48th

Roster

  • Returning usage25%25th
  • Returning EPA94.346th
  • Team talent composite73172nd
  • Recruiting class rank47.066th
  • Recruiting class points21366th

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

EPA/play
+0.228#64 · average
Pass EPA/play
+0.298#77
Rush EPA/play
+0.156#68
Explosiveness
1.274#71
Pts/opportunity
3.93#76
Success rate
46.0%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.142 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

EPA/play allowed
+0.081#62 · average
Havoc rate (total)
23.2%#19
Front-7 havoc
16.1%
DB havoc
7.1%
Big play rate allowed
1.039#20
Success rate allowed
38.4%

Disruption comes primarily from the front seven.

📊

Season Signature

36.5 PPG offense, 11.0 allowed — +25.5 margin/game
Points per game
36.5
Points allowed/game
11.0
Scoring margin/game
+25.5
Turnover margin
+2won 4 · lost 2
Production returning
22%
Talent rank (247)
#40

1-1 record through 2 games.

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

OFFENSE54thEXPLOSIVENESS49thFINISHING45thFIELD POS7thDEFENSE55thHAVOC87th50th100th
Offense
54th
Explosiveness
49th
Finishing
45th
Field Pos
7th
Defense
55th
Havoc
87th

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
-0.1
#70
Offense
-3.2
#90
Defense
-3.0
#57
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 9 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive0.891.44
Starting field positionown 34.1own 28.6
Available yards49.7%46.7%
Scoring opportunities77.8%66.7%
Points per opportunity1.432.17
Three-and-out rate0.0%22.2%
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
48.4%
Expected, given the spots
52.3%
Over expected
-3.8
Fourth down vs peers
+14
Fourth down vs the model
+20
All play-calling tendencies →

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

Each dot = one FBS team. TCU 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 TCU in 2026

by EPA/play distance
OregonSP+ +23.9
Off EPA/play +0.217Def EPA/play +0.069Elo 1873
Match
99%
Coastal CarolinaSP+ -12.1
Off EPA/play +0.253Def EPA/play +0.065Elo 1270
Match
98%
Old DominionSP+ -6.2
Off EPA/play +0.245Def EPA/play +0.045Elo 1336
Match
98%
NevadaSP+ -6.1
Off EPA/play +0.190Def EPA/play +0.069Elo 1462
Match
98%
Texas TechSP+ +18.9
Off EPA/play +0.221Def EPA/play +0.125Elo 1870
Match
97%
Middle TennesseeSP+ -20.8
Off EPA/play +0.266Def EPA/play +0.097Elo 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: +13.5, #26 of 1282016: +5.4, #45 of 1282017: +22.2, #11 of 1302018: +1.7, #54 of 1302019: +9.0, #33 of 1302020: +9.9, #28 of 1242021: -0.3, #73 of 1302022: +17.1, #11 of 1312023: +9.9, #33 of 1332024: +12.5, #31 of 1342025: +13.2, #31 of 1362026: -0.1, #70 of 138
20152026
Now -0.1 · #70 of 138Best +22.2 in 2017Worst -0.3 in 2021

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20261-10-0
50%
1.4-0.4
20259-45-4
69%
8.1+0.9
20249-46-3
69%
8.9+0.1
20235-73-6
42%
6.2-1.2
202213-29-1
87%
10.3+2.7
20215-73-6
42%
5.8-0.8
20206-45-4
60%
6.2-0.2
20195-73-6
42%
6.6-1.6
20187-64-5
54%
5.6+1.4
201711-37-3
79%
10.6+0.4

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

4.0%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

0-1 so far, projected to finish 6.2-5.8. Wins the Big 12 in 3.2%.

If they finish with…

100%
1 loss
90%
2 losses
16%
3 losses
0.6%
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 8.1 points since preseason — lost 10-15 to North Carolina against an expected margin of +6, so −10.9 against the number.

  • At 2 losses they are 90% where the average Big 12 team is 56%.
  • The Big 12 takes 1.77 bids in an average season, and four or more in 1.9%.

TCU’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk13at Texas Tech12.7
  • wk5vs BYU8.6
  • wk12vs Utah8.2
  • wk10at Arizona7.2
  • wk11vs Kansas State7.2
  • wk7at Baylor6.2

Who to root for

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

  • wk10West Virginia over Texas Tech1.4
  • wk7Arizona State over Texas Tech1.3
  • wk8Cincinnati over Texas Tech1.2
  • wk5Colorado over Texas Tech1.2
  • wk12Baylor over Texas Tech1.1
  • wk3Tulane over Kansas State1.0
The full playoff picture →

Big 12

0-0 in league play, projected 4.3-4.76 of 16 by title odds
3.2%
Wins the Big 12
7.4%
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.

  • wk13TCU at Texas Tech10.0
  • wk5BYU at TCU6.8
  • wk12Utah at TCU6.3
  • wk11Kansas State at TCU5.6

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

If not the playoff, then

63%
Bowl eligible
56%
Placed in a bowl
4.0%
In the playoff
40%
Season over in November

TCU is 1-1 and needs 5 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 2.7% of seasons they get there and still go nowhere: there are more eligible teams than seats.

  • First Responder Bowl8.5%
  • Independence Bowl7.6%
  • Rate Bowl7.5%
  • Liberty Bowl7.3%
  • Pop-Tarts Bowl6.6%
  • Texas Bowl4.9%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 11 have sent TCU a player since 2010 — 24 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of TCU's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
DeSotoTX40
Lake TravisTX30
ManorTX22
John CurtisLA21
SkylineTX21
TempleTX21
Evangel Christian AcademyLA20
LancasterTX20
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.