Skip to content

Charlotte 49ers

American Athletic·0-2·
Elo
1182#131
SP+
-26.0#136
FPI
-17.2
AP
NR
Next@ App State · Wk 3Win prob 21%Model +12.1
Talent #104 (576.8)Recruiting class #10341% production returning

Team Leaders

Latest on Charlotte

All news

Ole Miss's deep passing meets a secondary that can't cover

Matchup · 5d ago

Cole Gonzales was responsible for 30 of Charlotte's 41 points

Matchup · 6d ago

Roster · 112 players

FR 42SO 25JR 20SR 25
#PlayerPosClHtWt
9Cole GonzalesQBSR6'0"200
10Jaylen WhiteQBFR6'0"200
12Grayson LoftisQBJR6'3"215
15Conner HarrellQBSR6'2"210
16Luke McNultyQBFR6'2"185
5Khamani AlexanderRBSO6'1"200
6D'Mariun PerteetRBJR5'10"215
7Chance WilliamsRBSR5'8"180
21Henry RutledgeRBSR5'8"185
24Jariel CobbRBSO5'10"185
27Malachi DraytonRBFR5'10"215
41Chris NajmRBFR6'0"180
0Cam PedroWRSR5'11"180
1Jaden BarnesWRSR5'8"170
2Jaylen HamptonWRSO6'2"200
4Tank BostonWRSO5'11"190
8Zyheem CollickWRSO5'11"165
11KD Hunter-GibsonWRSR6'0"190
13Caleb TuckerWRFR6'0"185
14Adam Hopkins IVWRJR6'0"180
18Seth FranklinWRJR5'10"170
20Donte NicholsonWRFR5'11"170
38Sean ManuelWRFR6'2"180
80Jeremiah HoffmanWRFR6'1"175
82Shelden GollidayWRFR6'3"180
89Derrick EleyWRSO6'0"170
3Logan MauldinTESR6'4"230
17Gus McGeeTESR6'5"250
19Brody DawyotTEFR6'5"220
81Brady RhoadsTESO6'4"230
83Grant LaskeyTESO6'5"240
85Jason JeffaresTEJR6'3"230
88Lane WadleTEJR6'4"255
50Rod GreenOLSR6'5"315
54Isaac Sikes-RasbyOLFR6'5"275
55Mathias NielsenOLSR6'3"305
56Jake AllenOLFR6'2"305
57Luke SandyOLSR6'2"305
58Mason McgillOLFR6'4"280
61Reginhard Pierre-NauOLJR6'2"305
63Callum CaryOLFR6'4"285
64O'Shea StromanOLJR6'1"290
65Nic CrujiOLSR6'4"305
66Omarion DavisOLSR6'5"305
67Dom SilviaOLSO6'6"320
68Cody TaylorOLFR6'3"310
71Amar HarperOLJR6'5"335
73Daniel PhillipsOLFR6'5"300
74J'ven WilliamsOLJR6'5"315
75Kristos FernandezOLSR6'5"300
76Isaiah BullerdickOLSR6'2"300
77Dylan Nolan-CookOLJR6'5"305
79Tristen BrownOLFR6'3"295
2Jaylon JohnsonDLSR6'4"250
7DJ BurgessDLSR6'2"270
8Calif SpencerDLJR6'3"250
9Curtis SimpsonDLSO6'4"230
14Kendal BrownDLSO6'4"235
15Ayo TifaseDLSR6'4"285
23Darius WallaceDLSO6'3"235
33Colin BusseyDLFR6'3"250
35Jamil DavisDLSO6'1"280
44Austin HerndonDLFR6'2"230
51Jamarrion SolomonDLSR6'0"270
52Kaiden BowerDLFR6'3"240
55Shaku SangarieDLJR6'2"250
77Lewis Price-LawDLFR6'4"295
85Caleb IrvingDLSO6'1"290
88D'Nas WhiteDLSO6'4"335
90Chris MortonDLFR6'3"220
94Takeo MasseyDLFR6'3"205
95Devin AncrumDLFR6'1"300
98Ehigie Aliu-OtokitiDLSR6'1"280
99Jaylen DossDLFR6'2"270
10Jerry Wall IIILBJR6'1"235
13Gavin WillisLBSR6'0"230
19Kadin SchmitzLBSR6'1"235
25Gray PattersonLBFR6'3"215
30Stellan BowmanLBSO6'0"230
32Latrell SellersLBFR6'2"210
36Parker StartzLBSO6'3"240
45Mikey DomanikLBFR6'0"205
46Will EstesLBFR6'1"210
47Leo Housel-RajacichLBFR6'1"215
0Collin GillDBJR6'0"210
1Jameel Croft Jr.DBJR6'0"210
3Dy'Lon WomackDBSO6'0"180
4Tradarius SmithDBJR6'3"190
5Jonathan PattersonDBJR6'0"195
6Nireek SharpeDBJR6'0"175
11DeQuinder Williams IIDBSO6'0"180
12CJ Clinkscales Jr.DBSR5'8"175
16Shamar McIntoshDBSO5'11"190
17Kameron ManleyDBSO5'9"170
18Chase UsherDBFR5'8"180
20Zayden Laing-TaylorDBSO5'11"190
21Maddox WestDBFR5'10"175
22Kaden CatoeDBFR6'0"170
24Josh HinesDBFR6'2"205
26Devon St. ClairDBFR6'2"190
27Kevin Beckham Jr.DBSO6'0"190
28Cornell AllenDBSO5'10"190
29Donald Smith IIIDBJR6'2"190
31Tyson CraigDBFR5'11"180
34Alchino BlakelyDBFR5'10"190
37Spencer MakuchDBFR6'0"200
84Aiden BuiPKFR5'9"160
99Charlie BirtwistlePKSO5'11"210
44Ian KellyPFR6'0"160
95Bronson LongPSR6'4"200
33Henry SearcyLSFR6'3"185
40Charlie BeckerLSFR6'2"210

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
25.0
scoring offense
Points allowed
42.0
scoring defense
Differential
-17.0
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
538.0#15
Yards / play
7.3#27
Passing yards / game
322.0#24
Rushing yards / game
216.0#39
First downs / game
21.0#66
3rd down %
64.7%#8
4th down %
50.0%#67
Time of possession
30:15#73
Defense
Yards allowed / game
400.0#106
Yards / play allowed
6.3#113
Pass yards allowed / game
132.0#32
Rush yards allowed / game
268.0#132
3rd down % allowed
53.3%#125
Sacks
2#81
Tackles for loss
7#77
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
-2#109
Takeaways
0#118
Giveaways
2#68
Penalties / game
6.0#52
Penalty yards / game
35.0#24

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

balanced

Charlotte is in year 2 under Tim Albin, whose offenses have been balanced. The strengths are on both sides of the ball, led by 1st at keeping everything in front of them. The way in is 138th at running it, and they are 138th at shutting down the ground game.

On fourth down he goes for it less often than his peers do from the same spots (−3.5%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −35.8% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

Charlotte has not played an FBS opponent yet, so this is the projection: last season regressed toward the mean, plus returning production, recruiting, talent and whether the staff is the same one.

Projected strengths

  • Defensehitting chunk plays
    #1
    projected
  • Offensehitting chunk plays
    #27
    projected

Projected soft spots

  • Offenserunning it
    #138
    projected
  • Defensemoving the ball on the ground
    #138
    projected
  • Defensefirst and second down
    #138
    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
2.010.0
projected final record (now 02)
Exp. wins left
2.0
of 10 games
Bowl odds
1%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
35%
vs Navy
Toughest
7%
vs North 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.

012345678910
final winstallest bar = 31% chance
Likeliest finish 2-10 (31%)Bowl eligible 1% · 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
WRJaden Barnes, Jaden Barnes +6
+41.3 EPA
QBCole Gonzales, Cole Gonzales
+27.1 EPA
RBHenry Rutledge, Henry Rutledge +4
+17.3 EPA
TELogan Mauldin, Logan Mauldin +6
-0.8 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
EPA +13.50.288/play47 snaps
EPA +13.50.288/play47 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)
Off0.2955th#63
Def0.387th#128
Explosiveness
Off1.4988th#17
Def1.3335th#90
Field position
Off73.477th#32
Def69.578th#31
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off2.8019th#112
Def7.001st#136
Turnovers
Won 0Lost 2
Margin -2

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
Defense
Off · pass
0.1928th#100
Off · rush
0.4082nd#25

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.4285th#22
Def0.385th#131
Passing
Off0.2637th#87
Def0.3822nd#108

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
3.43#38
2nd-level / open-field
1.56 / 2.47
Power / stuff (off)
57.1% / 15.6%
Havoc — total (def)
10.9%#121
Havoc — front 7 / DB
10.9% / 0.0%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.14
Def0.01
Pass downs
Off0.63
Def1.11

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

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense0.05#77-0.21#1221.45#7
Defense-0.27#270.58#1300.70#109

Elo Trajectory

The CitadelFinal
Elo rating 11821139-43 over season

Team Fingerprint · 2026 · 31 opponent-adjusted metrics · percentile vs 138 FBS teams

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.2958th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.3812th
  • Offense success rate46%51st
  • Defense success rate allowed48%17th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs47%41st
  • Offense success — passing downs43%74th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs49%28th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs48%9th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.585th
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.330th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs1.284th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs2.269th

Trenches

  • Offense line yards3.472nd
  • Defense line yards allowed3.125th
  • Offense highlight yards2.587th
  • Defense highlight yards allowed2.011th
  • Offense power success0.5725th
  • Defense power success allowed0.8926th
  • Offense stuff rate0.1649th
  • Defense stuff rate0.1944th

Third down

  • Third down conversion65%91st
  • Third down distance faced5.485th
  • Third down conversion allowed53%14th
  • Third down distance forced5.58th

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half0.1764th
  • Net success rate — second half-0.0726th

Roster

  • Returning usage48%56th
  • Returning EPA53.630th
  • Team talent composite57725th
  • Recruiting class rank10326th
  • Recruiting class points17726th

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
+0.286#63 · average
Pass EPA/play
+0.255#87
Rush EPA/play
+0.422#22
Explosiveness
1.490#17
Pts/opportunity
2.80#112
Success rate
46.2%

Rush efficiency edge: 0.166 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

Coverage-heavy defense — allowing above-average EPA/play
EPA/play allowed
+0.375#128 · bottom 20%
Havoc rate (total)
10.9%#121
Front-7 havoc
10.9%
DB havoc
0.0%
Big play rate allowed
1.330#90
Success rate allowed
48.4%

Disruption comes primarily from the front seven.

📊

Season Signature

25.0 PPG offense, 42.0 allowed — -17.0 margin/game
Points per game
25.0
Points allowed/game
42.0
Scoring margin/game
-17.0
Turnover margin
-2won 0 · lost 2
Production returning
41%
Talent rank (247)
#104

0-2 record through 2 games.

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

OFFENSE55thEXPLOSIVENESS88thFINISHING19thFIELD POS77thDEFENSE7thHAVOC12th50th100th
Offense
55th
Explosiveness
88th
Finishing
19th
Field Pos
77th
Defense
7th
Havoc
12th

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
-15.6
#131
Offense
-11.2
#132
Defense
+4.4
#107
Full CORE ratings →

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

Each dot = one FBS team. Charlotte 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 Charlotte in 2026

by EPA/play distance
Ole MissSP+ +13.3
Off EPA/play +0.293Def EPA/play +0.346Elo 1837
Match
98%
Texas StateSP+ -7.8
Off EPA/play +0.185Def EPA/play +0.326Elo 1441
Match
95%
Oregon StateSP+ -6.8
Off EPA/play +0.183Def EPA/play +0.312Elo 1260
Match
94%
Florida StateSP+ +6.9
Off EPA/play +0.242Def EPA/play +0.268Elo 1557
Match
94%
StanfordSP+ -4.7
Off EPA/play +0.278Def EPA/play +0.244Elo 1354
Match
93%
IllinoisSP+ +7.5
Off EPA/play +0.310Def EPA/play +0.245Elo 1595
Match
93%

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: -26.6, #123 of 1282016: -19.0, #114 of 1282017: -33.3, #129 of 1302018: -10.5, #98 of 1302019: -7.5, #91 of 1302020: -14.2, #105 of 1242021: -24.7, #121 of 1302022: -22.8, #126 of 1312023: -20.4, #126 of 1332024: -13.1, #110 of 1342025: -33.1, #135 of 1362026: -15.6, #131 of 138
20152026
Now -15.6 · #131 of 138Best -7.5 in 2019Worst -33.3 in 2017

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20260-10-0
0%
0.2-0.2
20251-110-8
8%
1.5-0.5
20245-74-4
42%
3.0+2.0
20233-92-6
25%
3.2-0.2
20223-92-6
25%
2.4+0.6
20215-73-5
42%
3.2+1.8
20202-42-2
33%
2.2-0.2
20197-65-3
54%
7.5-0.5
20185-74-4
42%
5.7-0.7
20171-111-7
8%
0.5+0.5

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

0.0%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

0-0 so far, projected to finish 1.7-10.3.

down 0.0 points since preseason.

  • The American Athletic takes 0.34 bids in an average season.
  • One bid goes to the best champion outside the P4. They take it in 0.0% of seasons, having won their league in 100% of those.

Charlotte’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk12at Tulsa0.0
  • wk5vs Memphis0.0
  • wk13vs Navy0.0
  • wk7at Temple0.0
  • wk9vs Tulane0.0
  • wk11vs East Carolina0.0

Who to root for

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

  • wk6Kent State over Western Michigan0.0
  • wk2Bowling Green over Nebraska0.0
  • wk11North Dakota State over Hawai'i0.0
  • wk3Stonehill over Massachusetts0.0
  • wk4South Alabama over Kentucky0.0
  • wk3Colorado State over BYU0.0
The full playoff picture →

American Athletic

0-0 in league play, projected 1.2-6.814 of 14 by title odds
0.1%
Wins the American Athletic
0.2%
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 33% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk2Charlotte at Ole Miss1.2

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

If not the playoff, then

2.7%
Bowl eligible
1.6%
Placed in a bowl
0.0%
In the playoff
98%
Season over in November

Charlotte 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. In 1.1% of seasons they get there and still go nowhere: there are more eligible teams than seats.

  • Armed Forces Bowl0.4%
  • Xbox Bowl0.3%
  • Birmingham Bowl0.3%

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 Charlotte a player since 2010 — 10 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of Charlotte's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
Mallard CreekNC50
St. Frances AcademyMD40
Pine ForestFL10
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.