Skip to content

Boston College Eagles

ACC·1-1·
Elo
1379#96
SP+
-7.4#95
FPI
-4.6
AP
NR
Nextvs Maine · Wk 3
Talent #71 (660.0)Recruiting class #5316% production returning

Roster · 123 players

FR 41SO 42JR 21SR 19
#PlayerPosClHtWt
7Jake ConiglioQBFR6'1"210
10Mason McKenzieQBJR6'1"200
11Femi BabalolaQBFR6'4"230
13Enzo ArjonaQBSR5'10"200
15Grayson WilsonQBFR6'3"210
18Anthony CoellnerQBFR6'2"205
2Nolan RayRBJR6'0"210
20Billy BarrettRBFR5'8"185
23Evan DickensRBJR5'10"195
24Bo MacCormack IIIRBSO5'10"200
26Sedric AddisonRBFR5'11"205
29Mekhi DoddRBFR6'0"210
33Anthony FerrucciRBJR5'7"195
35Tim LongoRBFR5'9"195
1Jaedn SkeeteWRJR6'2"200
3Dawson PoughWRSO6'0"205
4Javarius GreenWRSO5'10"205
6VJ WilkinsWRSR5'9"185
8Johnathan Montague Jr.WRSO6'2"210
9Landon WrightWRSO6'0"180
16Nedrick Boldin Jr.WRFR5'11"185
19Kelvin Brown Jr.WRFR5'10"165
32Michael LandolfiWRSO6'0"190
34Duke BrennanWRFR6'5"190
37Zach SchnorrbuschWRSO6'1"210
38Will Graves IIIWRFR6'3"195
80Reed SwansonWRJR6'6"210
81Bryce DopsonWRJR6'1"190
82DJ BigginsWRFR6'0"170
83Jackson WadeWRJR6'0"180
46Dominic DeSarnoTEFR6'4"230
48Zeke MooreTESR6'1"245
84Brady CloughTESO6'3"240
85Kaelan ChudzinskiTESO6'3"240
86Danny EdgehilleTESO6'5"255
87Cameron KossmannTEFR6'5"250
88Bryce LewisTEFR6'6"245
89DJ JohnsonTEFR6'3"240
50Owen SnivelyOLSR6'4"305
51Amir JohnsonOLJR6'4"320
52Judah PruittOLSO6'4"315
53Trevon HumphreyOLSR6'5"310
54Dean RuksnaitisOLFR6'3"280
55Robert Smith IVOLSO6'4"315
56Jani NorwoodOLSO6'4"330
57DJ WilliamsOLFR6'2"300
63Veguer Jean-JumeauOLSO6'9"305
69Marek JinOLFR6'3"290
70Reggie JacksonOLJR6'5"295
71Kristian PhillipsOLSR6'4"315
72Bruno WernerOLFR6'9"280
73Lawrence IyalekhueOLFR6'7"330
74Marc Antunes Jr.OLFR6'8"300
75Pape Abdoulaye SyOLSO6'7"320
76Tanner ChlupsaOLSO6'3"300
77Michael CrounseOLJR6'4"315
78Souleye DiawaraOLSO6'9"340
4Kris JonesDESO6'2"245
13Demetrius BallardDESO6'6"260
6Chris Marable Jr.DLJR6'3"305
8Onye NwosisiDLSR6'4"260
9Josiah GriffinDLJR6'4"265
33Dominic FunkeDLFR6'3"240
41Favor BateDLJR6'2"250
47Caden BowlingDLSO6'3"245
52Jackson CarlisleDLFR6'2"295
55Christian HudsonDLSO6'1"295
56E'Lla BoykinDLJR6'3"255
59Micah AmedeeDLSO6'3"280
79Alex DeGrieckDLSR6'4"250
88Cameron McGeeDLFR6'3"310
90KJ SampsonDLJR6'3"305
91Makai ByersonDLSO6'4"250
92Demeterius ThompsonDLFR6'4"220
93Gavin NeilDLFR6'1"290
94Jayzen FlintDLSO6'3"250
95Mac FitzgeraldDLFR6'3"270
97Chuck NnaetoDLSR6'0"300
98Israel OladipupoDLSO6'3"250
99Mason LeakDLFR6'5"225
1Anthony PalanoLBSO6'1"230
20Justin MedlockLBSR6'0"220
28Zacari ThomasLBSO6'0"215
36Bodie KahounLBSO6'2"225
37Callen BeveridgeLBFR6'3"215
42Kemori DixonLBSO6'1"225
43Griffin CollinsLBSO6'3"230
44Palaie FaoaLBJR6'1"225
50Sean HowardLBSO5'11"205
51Steve KleinLBFR6'2"200
54Juan ZabalLBSR6'1"225
0TJ GreenDBSO5'11"180
2KP PriceDBSR6'2"205
3Max TuckerDBSR5'11"190
5Marcus UptonDBSO6'1"200
7Carter DavisDBJR6'1"195
10Syair TorrenceDBSO5'10"195
11Rae Sykes Jr.DBSO6'1"210
14Ashton CunninghamDBSO5'9"170
15Gerald Green Jr.DBFR6'0"175
16Isaiah FarrisDBSR5'11"175
17Da'Jon GreenDBFR6'1"195
18Kameron HowardDBJR5'11"195
19Marcelous TownsendDBFR5'11"180
21Charleston ColdonDBFR6'0"190
23Michael MankakaDBSR6'0"190
26Njita SinkalaDBFR5'11"175
27Jordan RodriguezDBFR6'0"195
29Cameron MartinezDBSR5'10"190
30Xavier MyersDBFR6'2"190
32Charlie ComellaDBSO6'1"190
35Chandler JordanDBSO6'4"220
38Tommy Cusick IIIDBSO6'2"200
39Zach KellyDBJR5'11"190
45Max TejpaulDBFR6'1"180
46James MagerkoDBSO6'1"195
25Andy QuinnPKSO6'4"200
30Sam StonePKJR6'0"170
90Jonathan HewittPKFR6'1"180
99Luca LombardoPKSR6'0"180
96Bryce LaFollettePSR6'3"210
45John OwensLSSR6'3"250
49Cooper CrookLSSO6'5"225

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
21.5
scoring offense
Points allowed
27.5
scoring defense
Differential
-6.0
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
395.0#76
Yards / play
5.9#75
Passing yards / game
237.5#61
Rushing yards / game
157.5#77
First downs / game
21.0#64
3rd down %
32.0%#114
4th down %
40.0%#93
Time of possession
28:24#100
Defense
Yards allowed / game
361.5#92
Yards / play allowed
5.6#96
Pass yards allowed / game
157.5#39
Rush yards allowed / game
204.0#125
3rd down % allowed
37.5%#78
Sacks
4#59
Tackles for loss
9#91
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
-1#89
Takeaways
4#22
Giveaways
5#124
Penalties / game
5.5#38
Penalty yards / game
32.5#17

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

Boston College is in year 3 under Bill O'Brien. The way in is 128th at generating havoc, and they are 126th at keeping everything in front of them.

Boston College 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 soft spots

  • Defensesacks and tackles for loss
    #128
    projected
  • Defensehitting chunk plays
    #126
    projected
  • Defensesurviving second and twelve
    #123
    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 · 9 to play
3.08.0
projected final record (now 11)
Exp. wins left
2.0
of 9 games
Bowl odds
2%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
48%
vs Syracuse
Toughest
2%
vs Notre Dame

How the season could finish · 2026 · chance of each final win total · 9 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.

12345678910
final winstallest bar = 33% chance
Likeliest finish 3-8 (33%)Bowl eligible 2% · 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
QBMason McKenzie
+21.1 EPA
WRJaedn Skeete, Landon Wright +5
+20.7 EPA
RBNolan Ray, Evan Dickens +1
+4.2 EPA
TEZeke Moore, Danny Edgehille +1
-1.4 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
EPA +21.10.227/play93 snaps
RBEvan Dickens
~$172K
EPA +4.30.142/play30 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)
Off0.1018th#114
Def0.1539th#85
Explosiveness
Off1.3468th#45
Def1.3332nd#94
Field position
Off75.091st#14
Def67.290th#15
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off3.7836th#88
Def3.6934th#91
Turnovers
Won 4Lost 5
Margin -1

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
Defense
Off · pass
0.2231st#96
Off · rush
0.1243rd#79

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.1241st#82
Def0.1430th#97
Passing
Off0.2229th#98
Def0.3426th#103

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
3.05#71
2nd-level / open-field
1.48 / 0.86
Power / stuff (off)
100.0% / 19.7%
Havoc — total (def)
15.4%#76
Havoc — front 7 / DB
10.0% / 5.4%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.05
Def0.08
Pass downs
Off0.20
Def0.31

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

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense-0.16#1300.28#580.40#93
Defense0.04#960.32#1050.18#35

Elo Trajectory

@CincinnatiFinal
Elo rating 14061379-27 over season

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

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.1130th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.2424th
  • Offense success rate40%31st
  • Defense success rate allowed39%46th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs43%28th
  • Offense success — passing downs35%54th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs40%59th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs35%26th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.371st
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.341st
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs1.282nd
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs1.622nd

Trenches

  • Offense line yards3.252nd
  • Defense line yards allowed3.65th
  • Offense highlight yards0.7141st
  • Defense highlight yards allowed1.523rd
  • Offense power success1.099th
  • Defense power success allowed1.023rd
  • Offense stuff rate0.2031st
  • Defense stuff rate0.097th

Third down

  • Third down conversion31%20th
  • Third down distance faced8.87th
  • Third down conversion allowed36%50th
  • Third down distance forced6.424th

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half-0.0329th
  • Net success rate — second half0.1463rd

Drives

  • Points per drive1.331st
  • Points per drive allowed3.425th
  • Average starting field position2531st
  • Opponent starting field position3130th
  • Available yards gained47%51st
  • Available yards allowed51%43rd
  • Scoring opportunities per drive64%15th
  • Scoring opportunities allowed90%33rd
  • Points per scoring opportunity2.031st
  • Points allowed per opportunity3.824th
  • Three-and-out rate0%99th
  • Three-and-outs forced30%59th

Roster

  • Returning usage10%7th
  • Returning EPA45.825th
  • Team talent composite66049th
  • Recruiting class rank53.062nd
  • Recruiting class points20462nd

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

Balanced offense — below average EPA/play nationally
EPA/play
+0.102#114 · bottom 20%
Pass EPA/play
+0.221#98
Rush EPA/play
+0.117#82
Explosiveness
1.341#45
Pts/opportunity
3.78#88
Success rate
37.0%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.104 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

Disruptive defense — allowing above-average EPA/play
EPA/play allowed
+0.148#85 · average
Havoc rate (total)
15.4%#76
Front-7 havoc
10.0%
DB havoc
5.4%
Big play rate allowed
1.327#94
Success rate allowed
40.0%

Disruption comes primarily from the front seven.

📊

Season Signature

21.5 PPG offense, 27.5 allowed — -6.0 margin/game
Points per game
21.5
Points allowed/game
27.5
Scoring margin/game
-6.0
Turnover margin
-1won 4 · lost 5
Production returning
16%
Talent rank (247)
#71

1-1 record through 2 games.

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

OFFENSE18thEXPLOSIVENESS68thFINISHING36thFIELD POS91thDEFENSE39thHAVOC45th50th100th
Offense
18th
Explosiveness
68th
Finishing
36th
Field Pos
91th
Defense
39th
Havoc
45th

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
-5.8
#91
Offense
-4.1
#104
Defense
+1.7
#88
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 11 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive1.273.40
Starting field positionown 24.8own 30.8
Available yards47.3%50.7%
Scoring opportunities63.6%90.0%
Points per opportunity2.003.78
Three-and-out rate0.0%30.0%
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
49.2%
Expected, given the spots
56.5%
Over expected
-7.3
Fourth down vs peers
+18
Fourth down vs the model
+0
All play-calling tendencies →

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

Each dot = one FBS team. Boston College 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 Boston College in 2026

by EPA/play distance
San Diego StateSP+ +3.1
Off EPA/play +0.110Def EPA/play +0.119Elo 1518
Match
98%
WyomingSP+ -15.2
Off EPA/play +0.071Def EPA/play +0.169Elo 1300
Match
98%
South FloridaSP+ -3.1
Off EPA/play +0.141Def EPA/play +0.146Elo 1679
Match
98%
MinnesotaSP+ +9.6
Off EPA/play +0.130Def EPA/play +0.191Elo 1510
Match
97%
CaliforniaSP+ -3.4
Off EPA/play +0.057Def EPA/play +0.169Elo 1349
Match
97%
Michigan StateSP+ +1.0
Off EPA/play +0.141Def EPA/play +0.192Elo 1468
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 · 20152026 · points per game vs an average FBS team

2015: +1.8, #63 of 1282016: -3.2, #78 of 1282017: +11.0, #29 of 1302018: +3.1, #50 of 1302019: -1.8, #68 of 1302020: -1.2, #69 of 1242021: -7.1, #94 of 1302022: -8.2, #94 of 1312023: -1.5, #68 of 1332024: -1.2, #74 of 1342025: -10.0, #95 of 1362026: -5.8, #91 of 138
20152026
Now -5.8 · #91 of 138Best +11.0 in 2017Worst -10.0 in 2025

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20261-10-0
50%
0.2+0.8
20252-101-7
17%
4.6-2.6
20247-64-4
54%
7.3-0.3
20237-63-5
54%
6.0+1.0
20223-92-6
25%
3.1-0.1
20216-62-6
50%
6.4-0.4
20206-55-5
55%
5.3+0.7
20196-74-4
46%
6.7-0.7
20187-54-4
58%
7.5-0.5
20177-64-4
54%
6.9+0.1

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

0.1%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

0-1 so far, projected to finish 3.6-8.4.

If they finish with…

13%
3 losses
0.3%
4 losses

Their chance of making it at each final loss count.

down 0.5 points since preseasonlost 15-34 to Cincinnati against an expected margin of 8, so 11.1 against the number.

  • At 3 losses they are 13% where the average ACC team is 4.1%.
  • The ACC takes 1.54 bids in an average season, and four or more in 0.7%.

Boston College’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk5at SMU0.4
  • wk7vs Pittsburgh0.3
  • wk9at Duke0.3
  • wk8at Georgia Tech0.2
  • wk4vs Virginia Tech0.2
  • wk10vs Florida State0.2

Who to root for

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

  • wk5UTEP over New Mexico0.1
  • wk3Wake Forest over Miami0.1
  • wk7Kent State over South Florida0.1
  • wk2Sacred Heart over Massachusetts0.1
  • wk3Syracuse over Pittsburgh0.1
  • wk7Georgia Tech over Virginia Tech0.1
The full playoff picture →

ACC

0-0 in league play, projected 1.9-6.116 of 17 by title odds
0.1%
Wins the ACC
0.2%
Reaches the title game

The ACC sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 37% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

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

If not the playoff, then

13%
Bowl eligible
12%
Placed in a bowl
0.1%
In the playoff
88%
Season over in November

Boston College is 0-1 and needs 6 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.

  • Fenway Bowl2.5%
  • Military Bowl2.1%
  • Pinstripe Bowl1.6%
  • Birmingham Bowl1.5%
  • Pop-Tarts Bowl1.1%
  • First Responder Bowl0.9%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 13 have sent Boston College a player since 2010 — 22 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of Boston College's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
Don Bosco PrepNJ31
DeMatha CatholicMD30
GraysonGA30
NorthwesternFL21
Bergen CatholicNJ20
San ClementeCA20
Paramus CatholicNJ11
Pine ForestFL11
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.