Skip to content
Texas Tech

Texas Tech Red Raiders

Big 12·2-0·
Compare
Elo
1870#9
SP+
18.9#14
FPI
18.4
AP
#13
Nextvs Houston · Wk 3Win prob 92%Model -19.4
Talent #29 (767.9)Recruiting class #1853% production returning

Roster · 110 players

FR 23SO 19JR 23SR 45
#PlayerPosClHtWt
4Tommy CastellanosQBSR5'10"190
10Lloyd Jones IIIQBSO6'4"215
12Stephen CannonQBFR6'2"205
15Will HammondQBJR6'2"210
16Holden PhillipsQBSO6'1"205
18Kirk FrancisQBSR6'2"205
0Quinten JoynerRBSR5'11"220
8Cameron DickeyRBJR5'10"215
20J'Koby WilliamsRBJR5'10"185
28Ashton RowdenRBFR5'11"205
32Sawyer WilkersonRBSO6'0"215
33Loic TshibanguRBSR6'0"210
35Michael Henderson IIIRBSO5'9"185
1Micah HudsonWRJR6'0"205
2Kenny JohnsonWRSR6'1"200
3Coy EakinWRSR6'2"205
6Jalen JonesWRSR5'8"180
9Donte Lee Jr.WRSR6'3"190
11Malcolm SimmonsWRJR6'0"180
13Chase CampbellWRFR6'0"200
14Bryson JonesWRSO6'3"195
17Leyton StoneWRSO6'3"200
19Michael DeverWRSO6'1"195
21Tristian GentryWRSO6'0"180
80Kai PowellWRSR5'11"185
84Imari JehielWRFR6'0"190
88Quintaelyn JoynerWRSO6'0"205
5Matt LudwigTEFR6'4"255
7Terrance Carter Jr.TESR6'2"245
83Jack EsparzaTESR6'4"245
85Jett CarpenterTESR6'3"255
89Jason LlewellynTESR6'5"250
50Patrick McMathOLSO6'4"290
51Felix OjoOLFR6'6"295
52Cash ClevelandOLJR6'2"300
53Holton HendrixOLJR6'4"310
54Jordan ChurchOLSR6'4"320
56Jerald MaysOLFR6'4"315
57Hunter ZambranoOLSR6'5"300
61Connor CartyOLSO6'4"305
65D'Anthis Upshaw Jr.OLJR6'5"305
66Jackson HildebrandOLJR6'2"295
68Ren BrownOLSO6'4"300
70Jacob PontonOLJR6'8"315
71Bryce GilmoreOLFR6'4"285
72Sheridan WilsonOLSR6'5"300
73Danilo GuberinichOLSO6'5"295
74Daniel SillOLSR6'5"310
75Garin MaleyOLSO6'5"295
76Jacob CrowOLFR6'9"310
77Elias GillenOLSO6'6"315
78Ellis DavisOLJR6'7"305
79Howard SampsonOLSR6'8"330
1Julien LaventureDLSR6'0"290
10A.J. Holmes Jr.DLSR6'3"300
51Jayden CofieldDLSR6'2"330
90Ayden JohnsonDLFR6'1"340
91Krush JohnsonDLFR6'2"300
92Bryce ButlerDLSR6'4"320
93Dylan SingletonDLSO6'5"300
96Keyshawn WilliamsDLJR6'3"315
98Mateen IbirogbaDLSR6'4"300
2Trey WhiteLBSR6'2"250
6John CurryLBSR6'2"235
8Jamond MathisLBSR6'1"250
9Corey Platt Jr.LBSR6'1"215
11Brock GolwasLBSO6'1"240
13Ben RobertsLBSR6'3"245
15Austin RomaineLBSR6'2"240
20Adam TrickLBSR6'4"250
31Cord NolanLBFR6'0"220
32LaDamion GuytonLBFR6'4"235
33Ansel NedoreLBSR6'3"260
34Kaegan AshLBFR6'0"210
35Adam HillLBJR6'1"230
36Demarcus MarksLBFR6'3"215
40Wesley SmithLBSR5'10"225
43Chris LemonsLBSR6'2"215
56Amarie FlemingLBJR6'2"230
86Sean RobinsonLBSO6'5"225
95Christian BruceLBFR6'3"270
97Charles Anderson Jr.LBJR6'6"275
99Jojo JohnsonLBSR6'2"290
4Davin MartinCBSR6'2"185
12Tarrion GrantCBJR6'2"190
14Brice PollockCBSR6'0"195
16Ashton HamptonCBJR6'0"175
17Noah LewisCBFR5'10"180
18S'Vioarean MartinCBFR6'2"200
19Cam WyattCBFR5'10"165
27Amier BoydCBSR6'2"185
29Luke HamiltonCBFR5'11"185
0Mikal Harrison-PilotSJR6'0"205
3Peyton MorganSJR6'0"185
5Oliver Miles IIISJR6'2"190
7Brenden JordanSSR6'0"205
21Miquel Dingle Jr.SSR6'2"220
22Marcus Ramon-EdwardsSSR6'3"225
23Maddox QuillerSFR6'0"205
24Malik EsquerraSJR6'3"210
25Donovan WebbSFR6'0"205
26Aaron BradshawSFR6'3"190
28Braylan McDonaldSSO6'0"190
28Jordan RogersSSR5'10"180
30Jamarn Grant IISJR6'2"205
39Jacob HandPKSR6'1"180
48Stone HarringtonPKSR6'3"210
37Ian HersheyPSR5'11"185
49Will KarollPSR6'4"215
47Rylan VaganaLSJR6'0"215

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
34.0
scoring offense
Points allowed
17.0
scoring defense
Differential
+17.0
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
411.5#72
Yards / play
5.6#94
Passing yards / game
247.5#59
Rushing yards / game
164.0#75
First downs / game
24.0#38
3rd down %
46.4%#47
4th down %
100.0%#1
Time of possession
30:54#60
Defense
Yards allowed / game
333.0#76
Yards / play allowed
5.0#69
Pass yards allowed / game
268.0#121
Rush yards allowed / game
65.0#13
3rd down % allowed
33.3%#54
Sacks
5#38
Tackles for loss
10#79
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
0#69
Takeaways
2#76
Giveaways
2#47
Penalties / game
6.0#46
Penalty yards / game
65.0#100

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

Texas Tech throws it: Joey McGuire's offenses have been pass-leaning across 4 seasons. The strengths are defensive, led by 1st at keeping opponents off schedule through the air.

On fourth down he goes for it more often than his peers do from the same spots (+10.0%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −13.3% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

Texas Tech 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

  • Defensestaying on schedule through the air
    #1
    projected
  • Defenserunning it
    #1
    projected
  • Defensefirst and second down
    #1
    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
11.7 – 0.3
projected final record (now 2–0)
Exp. wins left
9.7
of 10 games
Bowl odds
100%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
100%
vs Sam Houston
Toughest
92%
vs Houston

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 = 72% chance
Likeliest finish 12-0 (72%)Bowl eligible 100% · 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
WRCoy Eakin, Kenny Johnson +4
+22.1 EPA
QBThomas Castellanos, Will Hammond
+21.7 EPA
RBQuinten Joyner, J'Koby Williams +1
+15.8 EPA
TEJett Carpenter, Terrance Carter +1
+4.4 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
QBWill Hammond
~$793K
EPA +16.60.264/play63 snaps
RBJ'Koby Williams
~$266K
EPA +14.50.373/play39 snaps
RBCameron Dickey
~$147K
EPA +0.70.029/play23 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)
Off0.2250th#69
Def0.1245th#76
Explosiveness
Off1.1017th#115
Def1.783rd#134
Field position
Off67.222nd#108
Def76.113th#120
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off4.3661st#54
Def2.0088th#17
Turnovers
Won 2Lost 2
Margin 0

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
—
Defense
—
Off · pass
0.4063rd#52
Off · rush
0.1655th#62

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.1655th#62
Def-0.1377th#33
Passing
Off0.4061st#55
Def0.2540th#83

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
3.15#60
2nd-level / open-field
0.91 / 0.66
Power / stuff (off)
81.8% / 14.3%
Havoc — total (def)
18.7%#44
Havoc — front 7 / DB
9.0% / 9.7%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.12
Def-0.07
Pass downs
Off0.44
Def0.43

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

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense0.03#900.13#890.76#38
Defense-0.10#470.28#950.17#33

Elo Trajectory

Abilene ChristianFinal
Elo rating 1870 → 1845-25 over season

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

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.2456th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.0753rd
  • Offense success rate45%53rd
  • Defense success rate allowed28%90th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs52%64th
  • Offense success — passing downs30%38th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs27%99th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs30%35th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.124th
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.74th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs0.764th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs2.694th

Trenches

  • Offense line yards3.153rd
  • Defense line yards allowed2.937th
  • Offense highlight yards0.5620th
  • Defense highlight yards allowed0.5166th
  • Offense power success0.7961st
  • Defense power success allowed0.7543rd
  • Offense stuff rate0.1661st
  • Defense stuff rate0.1523rd

Third down

  • Third down conversion46%61st
  • Third down distance faced8.19th
  • Third down conversion allowed33%66th
  • Third down distance forced7.453rd

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half0.3092nd
  • Net success rate — second half0.0548th

Drives

  • Points per drive2.765th
  • Points per drive allowed2.058th
  • Average starting field position3590th
  • Opponent starting field position2576th
  • Available yards gained45%40th
  • Available yards allowed46%61st
  • Scoring opportunities per drive92%83rd
  • Scoring opportunities allowed75%64th
  • Points per scoring opportunity2.957th
  • Points allowed per opportunity2.757th
  • Three-and-out rate31%36th
  • Three-and-outs forced25%56th

CORE

  • CORE offense1.261st
  • CORE defense-0.4252nd
  • CORE overall1.759th

Roster

  • Returning usage57%65th
  • Returning EPA23285th
  • Team talent composite76880th
  • Recruiting class rank18.088th
  • Recruiting class points25088th

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
+0.221#69 · average
Pass EPA/play
+0.400#55
Rush EPA/play
+0.163#62
Explosiveness
1.101#115
Pts/opportunity
4.36#54
Success rate
45.6%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.237 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

EPA/play allowed
+0.125#76 · average
Havoc rate (total)
18.7%#44
Front-7 havoc
9.0%
DB havoc
9.7%
Big play rate allowed
1.783#134
Success rate allowed
27.6%

Disruption comes primarily from the secondary.

📊

Season Signature

34.0 PPG offense, 17.0 allowed — +17.0 margin/game
Points per game
34.0
Points allowed/game
17.0
Scoring margin/game
+17.0
Turnover margin
+0won 2 · lost 2
Production returning
53%
Talent rank (247)
#29

2-0 record through 2 games.

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

OFFENSE50thEXPLOSIVENESS17thFINISHING61thFIELD POS22thDEFENSE45thHAVOC69th50th100th
Offense
50th
Explosiveness
17th
Finishing
61th
Field Pos
22th
Defense
45th
Havoc
69th

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
+10.5
#36
Offense
+2.4
#53
Defense
-8.1
#29
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 13 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive2.692.00
Starting field positionown 35.1own 24.9
Available yards45.4%45.7%
Scoring opportunities92.3%75.0%
Points per opportunity2.922.67
Three-and-out rate30.8%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
45.1%
Expected, given the spots
47.0%
Over expected
-1.9
Fourth down vs peers
-0
Fourth down vs the model
-50
All play-calling tendencies →

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

Each dot = one FBS team. Texas Tech 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 Texas Tech in 2026

by EPA/play distance
TulaneSP+ -7.4
Off EPA/play +0.200Def EPA/play +0.138Elo 1529
Match
98%
TempleSP+ -4.9
Off EPA/play +0.194Def EPA/play +0.112Elo 1312
Match
98%
Southern MissSP+ -14.9
Off EPA/play +0.234Def EPA/play +0.157Elo 1350
Match
98%
San José StateSP+ -12.8
Off EPA/play +0.184Def EPA/play +0.135Elo 1413
Match
98%
TCUSP+ +3.9
Off EPA/play +0.228Def EPA/play +0.081Elo 1595
Match
97%
OregonSP+ +23.9
Off EPA/play +0.217Def EPA/play +0.069Elo 1873
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: -1.1, #72 of 1282016: -1.2, #68 of 1282017: +4.0, #55 of 1302018: -0.8, #71 of 1302019: -3.7, #74 of 1302020: +2.0, #58 of 1242021: +6.9, #49 of 1302022: +4.3, #53 of 1312023: +2.9, #52 of 1332024: +3.0, #56 of 1342025: +33.7, #5 of 1362026: +10.5, #36 of 138
20152026
Now +10.5 · #36 of 138Best +33.7 in 2025Worst -3.7 in 2019

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20262-00-0
100%
1.8+0.2
202512-28-1
86%
12.0+0.0
20248-56-3
62%
6.0+2.0
20237-65-4
54%
6.0+1.0
20228-55-4
62%
6.4+1.6
20217-63-6
54%
7.0-0.0
20204-63-6
40%
3.7+0.3
20194-82-7
33%
6.5-2.5
20185-73-6
42%
4.8+0.2
20176-73-6
46%
5.3+0.7

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

53%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

1-0 so far, projected to finish 10.4-2.1. Top-four bye in 22%. Wins the Big 12 in 31%.

If they finish with…

100%
0 losses
99%
1 loss
52%
2 losses
1.8%
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.

down 5.9 points since preseason.

  • At 2 losses they are 52% 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%.

Texas Tech’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk3vs Houston40.8
  • wk9vs Arizona40.4
  • wk10vs West Virginia40.2
  • wk13vs TCU39.9
  • wk11at Oklahoma State39.8
  • wk8at Cincinnati39.5

Who to root for

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

  • wk9Purdue over Penn State2.4
  • wk3Colorado State over BYU2.3
  • wk11Minnesota over Penn State2.1
  • wk13Arkansas over LSU2.1
  • wk10Oregon State over Texas State2.0
  • wk3New Mexico over Oklahoma1.9
The full playoff picture →

Big 12

0-0 in league play, projected 7.1-1.91 of 16 by title odds
31%
Wins the Big 12
52%
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.

  • wk3Houston at Texas Tech26.4
  • wk11Texas Tech at Oklahoma State26.1
  • wk12Texas Tech at Baylor25.5
  • wk9Arizona at Texas Tech25.3

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

If not the playoff, then

99%
Bowl eligible
45%
Placed in a bowl
53%
In the playoff
1.4%
Season over in November

Texas Tech 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.

  • Alamo Bowl15%
  • Texas Bowl9.7%
  • Pop-Tarts Bowl5.9%
  • Liberty Bowl4.2%
  • Rate Bowl3.0%
  • Independence Bowl2.3%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 8 have sent Texas Tech a player since 2010 — 18 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of Texas Tech's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
Cibolo SteeleTX40
ManorTX31
SachseTX30
FriscoTX22
Fort Bend MarshallTX21
Miami SouthridgeFL20
Lake DallasTX11
BeltonTX10
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.