Skip to content
UTSA

UTSA Roadrunners

American Athletic·2-0·
Compare
Elo
1522#60
SP+
2.9#59
FPI
-3.8
AP
NR
Next@ Texas · Wk 3Win prob 5%Model +24.9
Talent #72 (655.8)Recruiting class #7967% production returning

Team Leaders

Latest on UTSA

All news →

UTSA's deep ball meets Texas State's softest coverage

Matchup · 6d ago

Owen McCown produced five of UTSA's seven explosive plays

Matchup · Sep 6

Roster · 121 players

FR 35SO 26JR 28SR 31
#PlayerPosClHtWt
2Owen McCownQBSR6'1"190
11Brandon TennisonQBJR5'10"190
12Max GerlichQBFR6'3"215
16Maguire GaspersonQBFR6'0"185
18Mark WiepertQBFR6'1"210
1Will Henderson IIIRBSO5'10"185
10Brandon High Jr.RBJR5'10"215
21JC SolitaireRBSR5'9"195
22Bryson DonnellRBSR5'10"210
23Mykha GreenRBFR6'0"190
25Frankie Arthur Jr.RBSO5'10"210
28A'Marion PetersonRBJR6'0"215
37Londen BickhamRBFR6'0"200
38TJ AndrewsRBSO6'2"210
42Mason CultonRBJR5'7"190
0David Amador IIWRJR6'0"195
13Jamel Hardy Jr.WRJR6'2"195
14Mekhi AndersonWRSO5'9"170
15DJ Allen Jr.WRSR5'11"190
17James Madison IIWRSO6'3"200
19T.J. WestWRJR6'1"195
24Mekhi RiceWRSR5'8"160
26Tangoh NjohWRSO6'1"195
29Chris DupreeWRFR6'3"175
31Caleb GarciaWRSR5'9"180
33Cael MeismanWRJR6'4"215
80Wyatt SmileyWRFR6'4"180
82Prince HallWRFR6'2"200
84AJ Wilson Jr.WRSR6'2"190
87Zahn CoakleyWRJR6'1"195
59Cole RamseurTESR6'5"245
81Miles CampbellTESR6'3"240
83Will TraylorTEFR6'4"195
85Ty RupeTEFR6'7"245
86Isaiah Butler-TannerTEFR6'6"265
88Trysten LaughlinTEFR6'5"225
89Brandon Young Jr.TEJR6'5"240
50Payton WilliamsOLFR6'3"305
52Preston HuneycuttOLSO6'3"290
53Sekope WallaceOLJR6'5"305
55MJ SenegalOLJR6'4"310
57Ben RiosOLSR6'6"295
59Joseph Ugwu Jr.OLSO6'4"300
65Jarrett HenryOLJR6'5"320
66Davion HurthOLSO6'4"255
68Josiah EvansOLFR6'4"285
69Eucebio RamosOLSR6'4"315
70Deandre MarshallOLSR6'7"325
71Jaylen GarthOLSR6'5"310
72Ibrahim KebeOLFR6'7"325
73A'marion BrelandOLFR6'9"310
74Darrell JonesOLSR6'4"340
75Jonah MillerOLSR6'8"290
76Luke LapezeOLSR6'5"320
77Devron Williams Jr.OLSO6'4"310
79Daniel SimpsonOLFR6'4"300
0Jeremiah BaileyDLSR6'2"275
19Johnny Bowens IIIDLSO6'3"300
44Collins AcheampongDLSO6'7"270
47Tim Huff Jr.DLSR6'0"240
48Jacob Lopez-VeaseyDLFR6'5"255
49Hudson PickettDLFR6'1"245
88Byron PorterDLSO6'1"240
90Donald Quaite Jr.DLJR6'6"340
91Jusiah SampletonDLSR6'0"305
92Jaylan JonesDLSO6'0"300
94Eddy SmithDLSO6'6"275
95Drenon Fite IIIDLSR6'4"260
96Corey WallsDLFR6'2"250
97King JusticeDLFR6'1"300
98Jameian BuxtonDLSR6'2"325
99Tai LeonardDLSR6'3"260
1Camron CooperLBJR6'3"245
2Owen PeweeLBSR6'2"220
10Archie ChambersLBJR6'3"210
15Darion WhiteLBSR6'2"220
16Chris Bryson IILBJR6'1"200
23Brandon TuckerLBSR5'11"225
26Bryce GraysLBSR6'1"205
30Bobby BrownLBFR5'11"190
31Dylan SpencerLBSO6'5"245
32Elijah BaldwinLBSO6'7"230
33Eze OsonduLBSO6'2"230
34James Walley Jr.LBJR6'2"250
35Braeden LottLBFR6'1"210
36Tariq LaurentLBJR6'4"260
41Nate OrtegaLBSO5'11"190
46Lane RogersLBFR6'0"225
50Michael OwoeyeLBSR5'10"215
51Aden HallLBFR6'0"195
53Jamarri VinsonLBSO6'2"210
55Amare JohnsonLBJR6'1"215
56Caleb BarrowLBFR6'3"230
57Tysan BreauxLBFR5'11"210
10Lawrence Brown Jr.CBJR6'1"200
13RJ Lester Jr.CBSO6'3"180
17Asaad ChapmanCBJR6'3"195
18Ahamad ChapmanCBSO6'2"175
20Zach MorrisCBSR6'0"185
27Jakevian RodgersCBJR6'1"165
28Louie HoganCBSR6'1"170
40Baylor SmithCBFR5'10"170
11Cam Upshaw Jr.SJR6'2"200
12Marcellus WilkersonSSR6'1"210
14Joel RogersSSO6'0"200
16Willie NelsonSFR5'8"180
21Jarvse Duece DickersonSFR6'2"175
22Elijah NewellSSO5'10"190
24Willie Nelson IIISSO5'10"165
25Nate Robinson Jr.SJR6'1"200
29Xavier WaltonSSR5'10"200
35Ben BrewerSSO5'10"195
37Tristan EscobarSFR6'0"190
92Michael PetroPKJR5'10"180
98Jesse PerezPKFR5'7"135
30Caile HoganPJR6'1"210
32Jason CardenasPFR5'10"190
46Braydon DoanePFR6'2"190
43William HodgesLSJR6'2"200
44Jon Stephens IIILSFR6'3"230
—Jarvse Dickerson————

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
38.0
scoring offense
Points allowed
21.0
scoring defense
Differential
+17.0
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
461.5#35
Yards / play
7.0#32
Passing yards / game
266.5#43
Rushing yards / game
195.0#44
First downs / game
22.5#50
3rd down %
25.0%#129
4th down %
71.4%#38
Time of possession
26:46#116
Defense
Yards allowed / game
451.5#127
Yards / play allowed
5.6#97
Pass yards allowed / game
218.5#87
Rush yards allowed / game
233.0#133
3rd down % allowed
45.7%#115
Sacks
1#128
Tackles for loss
4#135
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
+5#5
Takeaways
5#9
Giveaways
0#1
Penalties / game
11.0#136
Penalty yards / game
115.0#137

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

UTSA throws it: Jeff Traylor's offenses have been pass-leaning across 6 seasons. The strengths are offensive, led by 18th at staying on schedule through the air. The way in is 126th at keeping everything in front of them.

On fourth down he goes for it more often than his peers do from the same spots (+3.6%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −15.6% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

UTSA 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

  • Offensestaying on schedule through the air
    #18
    projected
  • Offenseturning trips inside the 40 into points
    #21
    projected
  • Offensesurviving second and twelve
    #24
    projected

Projected soft spots

  • Defensehitting chunk plays
    #126
    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
7.7 – 4.3
projected final record (now 2–0)
Exp. wins left
5.7
of 10 games
Bowl odds
94%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
77%
vs Navy
Toughest
5%
vs Texas

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 = 27% chance
Likeliest finish 8-4 (27%)Bowl eligible 94% · 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
QBOwen McCown
+18.1 EPA
WRDJ Allen, TJ West +4
+17.9 EPA
RBA'Marion Peterson, Brandon High +1
+11.7 EPA
TEMiles Campbell, Brandon Young Jr. +2
+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
QBOwen McCown
~$809K
EPA +18.10.258/play70 snaps
RBWill Henderson III
~$237K
EPA +7.00.280/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)
Off0.3068th#45
Def0.0466th#47
Explosiveness
Off1.006th#130
Def1.0387th#19
Field position
Off69.042nd#80
Def75.520th#110
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off3.7336th#88
Def3.0759th#57
Turnovers
Won 5Lost 0
Margin +5

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
—
Defense
—
Off · pass
0.3352nd#67
Off · rush
0.2574th#37

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.2572nd#39
Def0.1623rd#107
Passing
Off0.3352nd#67
Def0.0283rd#24

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
3.13#65
2nd-level / open-field
0.87 / 1.94
Power / stuff (off)
80.0% / 15.4%
Havoc — total (def)
13.6%#112
Havoc — front 7 / DB
5.6% / 8.0%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.37
Def-0.01
Pass downs
Off0.11
Def0.17

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

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense0.39#80.21#730.02#130
Defense-0.08#560.14#710.42#80

Elo Trajectory

UT Rio Grande ValleyFinal
Elo rating 1522 → 1525+3 over season

Team Fingerprint · 2026 · 46 opponent-adjusted metrics · percentile vs 138 FBS teams

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.3880th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.0656th
  • Offense success rate55%91st
  • Defense success rate allowed43%26th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs63%96th
  • Offense success — passing downs26%23rd
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs45%41st
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs38%15th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.117th
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.085th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs0.8916th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs3.098th

Trenches

  • Offense line yards3.372nd
  • Defense line yards allowed3.47th
  • Offense highlight yards2.590th
  • Defense highlight yards allowed1.712th
  • Offense power success0.8065th
  • Defense power success allowed0.6754th
  • Offense stuff rate0.1566th
  • Defense stuff rate0.1310th

Third down

  • Third down conversion25%6th
  • Third down distance faced7.039th
  • Third down conversion allowed50%10th
  • Third down distance forced6.215th

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half0.1158th
  • Net success rate — second half0.0753rd

Drives

  • Points per drive2.868th
  • Points per drive allowed2.543rd
  • Average starting field position3169th
  • Opponent starting field position2765th
  • Available yards gained52%57th
  • Available yards allowed61%26th
  • Scoring opportunities per drive82%57th
  • Scoring opportunities allowed64%93rd
  • Points per scoring opportunity3.470th
  • Points allowed per opportunity3.922nd
  • Three-and-out rate36%26th
  • Three-and-outs forced9%11th

CORE

  • CORE offense1.868th
  • CORE defense0.6447th
  • CORE overall1.256th

Roster

  • Returning usage70%82nd
  • Returning EPA23487th
  • Team talent composite65648th
  • Recruiting class rank79.043rd
  • Recruiting class points18643rd

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
+0.302#45 · above avg
Pass EPA/play
+0.333#67
Rush EPA/play
+0.250#39
Explosiveness
1.004#130
Pts/opportunity
3.73#88
Success rate
52.5%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.083 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

EPA/play allowed
+0.044#47 · above avg
Havoc rate (total)
13.6%#112
Front-7 havoc
5.6%
DB havoc
8.0%
Big play rate allowed
1.028#19
Success rate allowed
42.7%

Disruption comes primarily from the secondary.

📊

Season Signature

38.0 PPG offense, 21.0 allowed — +17.0 margin/game
Points per game
38.0
Points allowed/game
21.0
Scoring margin/game
+17.0
Turnover margin
+5won 5 · lost 0
Production returning
67%
Talent rank (247)
#72

2-0 record through 2 games.

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

OFFENSE68thEXPLOSIVENESS6thFINISHING36thFIELD POS42thDEFENSE66thHAVOC19th50th100th
Offense
68th
Explosiveness
6th
Finishing
36th
Field Pos
42th
Defense
66th
Havoc
19th

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
+4.6
#53
Offense
+3.4
#44
Defense
-1.2
#66
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 11 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive2.822.46
Starting field positionown 31.0own 26.7
Available yards51.9%61.2%
Scoring opportunities81.8%63.6%
Points per opportunity3.443.86
Three-and-out rate36.4%9.1%
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
57.4%
Expected, given the spots
50.0%
Over expected
+7.3
Fourth down vs peers
+22
Fourth down vs the model
+29
All play-calling tendencies →

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

Each dot = one FBS team. UTSA 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 UTSA in 2026

by EPA/play distance
KansasSP+ +7.5
Off EPA/play +0.311Def EPA/play +0.066Elo 1473
Match
99%
ColoradoSP+ +2.1
Off EPA/play +0.302Def EPA/play +0.019Elo 1406
Match
99%
Arizona StateSP+ +8.7
Off EPA/play +0.278Def EPA/play +0.057Elo 1572
Match
98%
MissouriSP+ +12.9
Off EPA/play +0.319Def EPA/play +0.021Elo 1703
Match
98%
UCLASP+ +9.2
Off EPA/play +0.263Def EPA/play +0.045Elo 1438
Match
98%
Air ForceSP+ +1.1
Off EPA/play +0.315Def EPA/play -0.011Elo 1424
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: -16.9, #107 of 1282016: -2.9, #77 of 1282017: -5.8, #83 of 1302018: -31.5, #128 of 1302019: -23.8, #124 of 1302020: -4.7, #83 of 1242021: +1.5, #68 of 1302022: +9.0, #35 of 1312023: -0.9, #65 of 1332024: -1.4, #75 of 1342025: +4.7, #58 of 1362026: +4.6, #53 of 138
20152026
Now +4.6 · #53 of 138Best +9.0 in 2022Worst -31.5 in 2018

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20262-00-0
100%
1.4+0.6
20257-64-4
54%
6.9+0.1
20247-64-4
54%
7.5-0.5
20239-47-1
69%
9.1-0.1
202211-39-0
79%
10.4+0.6
202112-28-1
86%
9.2+2.8
20207-54-2
58%
6.3+0.7
20194-83-5
33%
3.6+0.4
20183-92-6
25%
2.6+0.4
20176-53-5
55%
6.3-0.3

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

5.3%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

1-0 so far, projected to finish 7.9-4.3. Wins the American Athletic in 15%.

If they finish with…

100%
0 losses
72%
1 loss
15%
2 losses
0.2%
3 losses
0%
4 losses

Their chance of making it at each final loss count. Better than even up to 1.

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

up 2.6 points since preseason.

  • At 1 loss they are 72% where the average American Athletic team is 52%.
  • The American Athletic takes 0.27 bids in an average season.
  • One bid goes to the best champion outside the P4. They take it in 5.3% of seasons, having won their league in 93% of those.

UTSA’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk6vs South Florida8.5
  • wk8at Tulane8.2
  • wk7vs Navy7.9
  • wk13vs Tulsa7.9
  • wk11vs North Texas7.9
  • wk10at Florida Atlantic7.8

Who to root for

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

  • wk3Oklahoma over New Mexico2.0
  • wk9Texas State over Boise State1.9
  • wk8Washington State over Boise State1.6
  • wk11UNLV over New Mexico1.5
  • wk11Oregon State over Boise State1.5
  • wk5Utah State over Boise State1.4
The full playoff picture →

American Athletic

0-0 in league play, projected 5.1-2.93 of 14 by title odds
15%
Wins the American Athletic
26%
Reaches the title game

The American Athletic sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 40% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk3UTSA at Texas22.1
  • wk6South Florida at UTSA19.1
  • wk11North Texas at UTSA19.0
  • wk13Tulsa at UTSA18.4

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

If not the playoff, then

87%
Bowl eligible
74%
Placed in a bowl
5.3%
In the playoff
21%
Season over in November

UTSA 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 7.7% of seasons they get there and still go nowhere: there are more eligible teams than seats.

  • Gasparilla Bowl19%
  • Military Bowl12%
  • Fenway Bowl9.9%
  • Armed Forces Bowl7.9%
  • Birmingham Bowl7.1%
  • First Responder Bowl5.6%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 3 have sent UTSA a player since 2010 — 7 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of UTSA's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
AtascocitaTX30
Lake TravisTX20
SachseTX20
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.