Skip to content
Colorado

Colorado Buffaloes

Big 12·2-0·
Compare
Elo
1406#89
SP+
2.1#64
FPI
4.9
AP
NR
Next@ Northwestern · Wk 3Win prob 16%Model +15.8
Talent #39 (731.6)Recruiting class #6714% production returning

Roster · 106 players

FR 17SO 15JR 21SR 53
#PlayerPosClHtWt
7Dominiq PonderQBSR6'5"200
10Julian LewisQBSO6'1"190
14Kaneal SweetwyneQBFR6'3"195
16Isaac WilsonQBJR6'0"210
9Richard YoungRBSR5'11"210
20DeKalon TaylorRBSR5'9"165
23JaQuail SmithRBSO5'11"170
26Damian Henderson IIRBSR6'2"205
27Bryce HicksRBJR5'9"185
28Cam NetwonRBFR5'9"185
29Micah WelchRBJR5'9"215
34Titus BautistaRBJR5'10"185
37Leonardo ValleRBSO6'1"210
47Cody JordanRBFR5'9"185
3DeAndre Moore Jr.WRSR6'0"190
4Ernest CampbellWRJR5'9"145
5Hykeem WilliamsWRSR6'2"220
6Quentin GibsonWRSO5'9"155
7Kam PerryWRSR5'9"170
8Joseph WilliamsWRJR6'2"200
13Kaleb MathisWRSR5'9"165
14Quanell Farrakhan Jr.WRSO6'1"180
17Christian WardWRFR6'3"205
18Danny ScuderoWRSR5'9"175
22Tagert BardinWRSR6'0"160
32Alex WardWRFR6'1"180
36Carson WestbrookWRJR5'11"170
80Jacob SwainWRFR6'1"185
81Braedon BrennerWRFR5'11"180
83Zayne DeSouzaTESO6'6"260
85Zach AtkinsTESR6'4"240
86Brady KopetzTESR6'4"270
87Charlie WilliamsTESR6'4"245
88Corbin LaisureTESO6'5"250
89Fisher ClementsTESR6'7"265
51Chauncey GoodenOLSO6'3"380
52Andre Roye Jr.OLSR6'6"295
53Larry Johnson IIIOLSR6'7"350
54Taj WhiteOLSR6'5"310
55Bo HughleyOLSR6'7"295
56Phillip HoustonOLSR6'5"280
57Leon BellOLSR6'8"330
58Demetrius HunterOLSR6'2"310
59Yahya AttiaOLJR6'4"340
61Aiden DeCorteOLSR6'1"300
62Sean KinneyOLJR6'2"305
65Ben GulaOLFR6'5"285
71Jayvon McFaddenOLSO6'3"295
72Xavier PayneOLFR6'7"320
73Jose SotoOLSR6'3"310
75Jayven RichardsonOLSR6'6"315
78Hudson SteberOLSO6'3"270
27Domata Peko Jr.DESR6'4"235
41Kylan SalterDESR6'2"230
49Quency WigginsDESR6'5"255
52Immanuel EzeoguDEJR6'2"240
53Toby AneneDESR6'4"260
92Sam GadieDESR6'3"235
95Yamil TalibDEJR6'2"240
96Balansama KamaraDESR6'3"260
45Vili TaufatofuaDLSR6'3"260
56Lamont Lester Jr.DLJR6'2"230
88Samu TaumanupepeDLSR6'3"375
90Tyler MooreDLJR5'10"290
91Sedrick SmithDLSR6'4"320
93Malachi BrownDLSR6'5"300
94Josiah ManuDLFR6'5"295
97Santana HopperDLSR6'2"265
99Dylan ManuelDLJR6'1"300
17Liona LefauLBSR6'1"230
35Tyler MartinezLBSR6'1"220
40Colby JohnsonLBFR6'2"195
44Gideon ESPN LampronLBSR6'0"220
44Gideon LampronLBSR6'0"220
50Rodney Colton Jr.LBFR6'1"225
51Carson CrawfordLBFR6'4"220
54Bo LaPennaLBSR6'1"235
55Gage GoldbergLBJR6'0"210
31Preston AshleyCBFR5'11"185
4Naeten MitchellDBSR5'10"175
5RJ JohnsonDBSR6'2"185
6Boo CarterDBJR5'11"200
7Randon FontenetteDBSR6'2"220
8Emory FloydDBSR6'1"195
9Jaydan HardyDBJR5'10"180
10Makari VickersDBSR6'1"190
13Jason Stokes Jr.DBJR6'2"185
15Jah Jah BoydDBJR5'11"190
18Paul OmodiaDBSR6'2"200
20Cree ThomasDBSO6'1"190
25Mojo Williams Jr.DBFR5'11"170
26Braylon EdwardsDBFR5'11"180
28Ben FinnesethDBSR6'2"205
30Justin EaglinDBSR6'1"175
32Myles WestonDBSR5'11"175
33Kole MathisDBJR5'8"140
34Drew MolinariDBJR6'1"195
39Donavon StephensDBSO5'10"170
39Cadel AyalaPKSO6'1"185
46Elliot ArnoldPKSO5'10"165
35Damon GreavesPSR6'1"190
38Daniel GerlachPSR6'0"160
45Luke WhitingLSSR6'4"225
50Trey YoungLSSO5'10"195
60Brady RadzLSSR6'2"175
64Nelson WilliamsLSFR6'3"235

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
33.0
scoring offense
Points allowed
17.0
scoring defense
Differential
+16.0
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
442.5#44
Yards / play
5.9#73
Passing yards / game
261.0#50
Rushing yards / game
181.5#61
First downs / game
22.5#50
3rd down %
43.3%#63
4th down %
80.0%#27
Time of possession
32:07#42
Defense
Yards allowed / game
330.0#75
Yards / play allowed
4.9#59
Pass yards allowed / game
241.0#104
Rush yards allowed / game
89.0#39
3rd down % allowed
43.3%#107
Sacks
6#20
Tackles for loss
17#14
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
+1#41
Takeaways
3#46
Giveaways
2#47
Penalties / game
9.5#127
Penalty yards / game
83.5#126

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

Colorado throws it: Deion Sanders's offenses have been heavily pass-leaning across 3 seasons. The strengths are offensive, led by 4th at hitting chunk plays. The way in is 132nd on first and second down, and they are 128th at moving the ball on the ground.

On fourth down he goes for it about as often as his peers do from the same spots (−0.1%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −23.2% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

Colorado 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

  • Offensehitting chunk plays
    #4
    projected

Projected soft spots

  • Offensefirst and second down
    #132
    projected
  • Offensemoving the ball on the ground
    #128
    projected
  • Offensesacks and tackles for loss
    #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
5.2 – 6.8
projected final record (now 2–0)
Exp. wins left
3.2
of 10 games
Bowl odds
39%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
57%
vs UCF
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.

23456789101112
final winstallest bar = 28% chance
Likeliest finish 5-7 (28%)Bowl eligible 39% · 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
QBJulian Lewis
+27.0 EPA
WRKamryn Perry, DeAndre Moore Jr. +4
+26.6 EPA
RBRichard Young, Damian Henderson II +3
+14.0 EPA
TECharlie Williams, Zach Atkins
+6.8 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
QBJulian Lewis
~$908K
EPA +27.00.491/play55 snaps
RBMicah Welch
~$246K
EPA +9.50.412/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)
Off0.3067th#46
Def0.0272nd#40
Explosiveness
Off1.4786th#20
Def1.4416th#116
Field position
Off69.446th#75
Def72.254th#64
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off2.9217th#115
Def1.8091st#13
Turnovers
Won 3Lost 2
Margin +1

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
—
Defense
—
Off · pass
0.5073rd#38
Off · rush
0.1550th#70

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.1550th#70
Def-0.2291st#14
Passing
Off0.5073rd#38
Def0.2538th#86

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
3.09#69
2nd-level / open-field
0.92 / 0.90
Power / stuff (off)
88.9% / 12.7%
Havoc — total (def)
25.4%#10
Havoc — front 7 / DB
16.4% / 9.0%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.14
Def-0.15
Pass downs
Off0.60
Def0.27

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

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense0.04#880.23#650.96#15
Defense-0.23#240.04#500.58#100

Elo Trajectory

@Georgia TechFinal
Elo rating 1396 → 1404+8 over season

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

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.2661st
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.0269th
  • Offense success rate42%36th
  • Defense success rate allowed35%64th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs45%31st
  • Offense success — passing downs35%62nd
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs36%77th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs33%24th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.472nd
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.420th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs1.047th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs2.272nd

Trenches

  • Offense line yards3.266th
  • Defense line yards allowed2.469th
  • Offense highlight yards0.8437th
  • Defense highlight yards allowed0.4177th
  • Offense power success0.9085th
  • Defense power success allowed0.3393rd
  • Offense stuff rate0.1279th
  • Defense stuff rate0.3999th

Third down

  • Third down conversion45%55th
  • Third down distance faced6.464th
  • Third down conversion allowed41%34th
  • Third down distance forced7.866th

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half0.0854th
  • Net success rate — second half0.0444th

Drives

  • Points per drive1.638th
  • Points per drive allowed0.6791st
  • Average starting field position3276th
  • Opponent starting field position3133rd
  • Available yards gained58%71st
  • Available yards allowed37%79th
  • Scoring opportunities per drive67%21st
  • Scoring opportunities allowed78%58th
  • Points per scoring opportunity2.338th
  • Points allowed per opportunity0.8697th
  • Three-and-out rate22%57th
  • Three-and-outs forced33%74th

Roster

  • Returning usage36%42nd
  • Returning EPA26.411th
  • Team talent composite73272nd
  • Recruiting class rank67.052nd
  • Recruiting class points19352nd

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#46 · above avg
Pass EPA/play
+0.500#38
Rush EPA/play
+0.153#70
Explosiveness
1.466#20
Pts/opportunity
2.92#115
Success rate
42.5%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.347 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

High-pressure defense suppressing opponents below the national average
EPA/play allowed
+0.019#40 · above avg
Havoc rate (total)
25.4%#10
Front-7 havoc
16.4%
DB havoc
9.0%
Big play rate allowed
1.438#116
Success rate allowed
32.7%

Disruption comes primarily from the front seven.

📊

Season Signature

33.0 PPG offense, 17.0 allowed — +16.0 margin/game
Points per game
33.0
Points allowed/game
17.0
Scoring margin/game
+16.0
Turnover margin
+1won 3 · lost 2
Production returning
14%
Talent rank (247)
#39

2-0 record through 2 games.

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

OFFENSE67thEXPLOSIVENESS86thFINISHING17thFIELD POS46thDEFENSE72thHAVOC93th50th100th
Offense
67th
Explosiveness
86th
Finishing
17th
Field Pos
46th
Defense
72th
Havoc
93th

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
-7.1
#100
Offense
-6.6
#110
Defense
+0.5
#73
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 9 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive1.560.67
Starting field positionown 31.9own 30.8
Available yards58.0%37.3%
Scoring opportunities66.7%77.8%
Points per opportunity2.330.86
Three-and-out rate22.2%33.3%
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
40.6%
Expected, given the spots
53.3%
Over expected
-12.7
Fourth down vs peers
+1
Fourth down vs the model
-29
All play-calling tendencies →

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

Each dot = one FBS team. Colorado 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 Colorado in 2026

by EPA/play distance
MissouriSP+ +12.9
Off EPA/play +0.319Def EPA/play +0.021Elo 1703
Match
99%
UTSASP+ +2.9
Off EPA/play +0.302Def EPA/play +0.044Elo 1522
Match
99%
Air ForceSP+ +1.1
Off EPA/play +0.315Def EPA/play -0.011Elo 1424
Match
98%
Arizona StateSP+ +8.7
Off EPA/play +0.278Def EPA/play +0.057Elo 1572
Match
97%
KansasSP+ +7.5
Off EPA/play +0.311Def EPA/play +0.066Elo 1473
Match
97%
UCLASP+ +9.2
Off EPA/play +0.263Def EPA/play +0.045Elo 1438
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: -3.5, #77 of 1282016: +13.8, #19 of 1282017: -11.1, #99 of 1302018: -3.6, #88 of 1302019: -4.1, #78 of 1302020: +2.3, #56 of 1242021: -17.1, #109 of 1302022: -33.5, #131 of 1312023: -3.9, #82 of 1332024: +15.0, #22 of 1342025: -11.9, #101 of 1362026: -7.1, #100 of 138
20152026
Now -7.1 · #100 of 138Best +15.0 in 2024Worst -33.5 in 2022

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20262-00-0
100%
1.5+0.5
20253-91-8
25%
3.9-0.9
20249-47-2
69%
7.5+1.5
20234-81-8
33%
3.3+0.7
20221-111-8
8%
1.0-0.0
20214-83-6
33%
3.2+0.8
20204-23-1
67%
4.1-0.1
20195-73-6
42%
4.7+0.3
20185-72-7
42%
5.3-0.3
20175-72-7
42%
4.9+0.1

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

2.5%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

1-0 so far, projected to finish 5.6-6.4. Wins the Big 12 in 0.8%.

If they finish with…

100%
1 loss
60%
2 losses
3.2%
3 losses
0%
4 losses

Their chance of making it at each final loss count. Better than even up to 2.

up 0.6 points since preseason — won 14-13 over Georgia Tech against an expected margin of −8, so +8.6 against the number.

  • At 2 losses they are 60% 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%.

Colorado’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk5vs Texas Tech8.2
  • wk7vs Utah6.7
  • wk9vs Kansas State5.6
  • wk8at Oklahoma State5.6
  • wk3at Northwestern5.2
  • wk4at Baylor5.0

Who to root for

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

  • wk11Ohio State over Northwestern0.6
  • wk4Houston over Georgia Southern0.5
  • wk6Sacramento State over Bowling Green0.5
  • wk9Texas State over Boise State0.5
  • wk6Ohio State over Maryland0.5
  • wk4Tulsa over Arkansas0.5
The full playoff picture →

Big 12

0-0 in league play, projected 3.2-5.815 of 16 by title odds
0.8%
Wins the Big 12
2.3%
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.

  • wk5Texas Tech at Colorado3.4
  • wk7Utah at Colorado2.5
  • wk8Colorado at Oklahoma State1.9
  • wk9Kansas State at Colorado1.9

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

If not the playoff, then

49%
Bowl eligible
44%
Placed in a bowl
2.5%
In the playoff
53%
Season over in November

Colorado 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 2.8% of seasons they get there and still go nowhere: there are more eligible teams than seats.

  • First Responder Bowl7.1%
  • Independence Bowl6.1%
  • Rate Bowl5.5%
  • Liberty Bowl5.0%
  • Pop-Tarts Bowl4.2%
  • Texas Bowl3.6%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 14 have sent Colorado a player since 2010 — 42 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of Colorado's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
IMG AcademyFL70
DeSotoTX51
ChaminadeCA40
Mater DeiCA40
WestlakeGA40
AllenTX30
HamiltonAZ21
Cy-FairTX20
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.