Skip to content
Miami

Miami Hurricanes

ACC·2-0·
Compare
Elo
1930#4
SP+
24.7#5
FPI
25.4
AP
#7
Next@ Wake Forest · Wk 3Win prob 86%Model -17.2
Talent #12 (885.9)Recruiting class #937% production returning

Roster · 116 players

FR 38SO 31JR 32SR 15
#PlayerPosClHtWt
5Luke NickelQBFR6'2"220
10Darian MensahQBJR6'3"205
11Dereon ColemanQBFR6'1"175
15Judd AndersonQBSO6'7"230
18Joe BorchersQBJR6'3"230
18Vinny GonzalezQBFR6'2"200
0Girard Pringle Jr.RBSO5'10"190
2Jordan LyleRBJR6'0"205
4Mark Fletcher Jr.RBSR6'2"225
6CharMar BrownRBJR5'11"220
20Terrell Walden IIRBSR5'9"180
21Javian MalloryRBFR5'11"210
25Chris Wheatley-HumphreyRBSO6'0"200
35Jack WhitehouseRBSO5'10"195
1Malachi ToneyWRSO5'11"188
3Joshua MooreWRSO6'4"215
7Daylyn UpshawWRSO6'0"195
8Vandrevius JacobsWRJR6'0"182
12Somourian WingoWRFR6'2"190
13Vance SpaffordWRFR5'10"175
17Cam VaughnWRJR6'2"185
18Cooper BarkateWRSR6'1"195
19Milan ParrisWRFR6'5"195
22Kolby LunaWRJR6'2"215
33Nick ThomasWRSO5'8"170
37Brenden CookWRFR6'1"170
40Brennan BurtonWRSO6'0"205
81Riply LunaWRJR6'2"215
83Tyran EvansWRFR6'4"205
9Elija LoftonTEJR6'3"242
14Israel BriggsTEFR6'4"215
44Owen RuskavichTEJR6'7"255
80Hunter CarverTESO6'4"245
82Dylan ReimanTESO6'6"245
84Jack NickelTESR6'4"250
85Jackson CarverTEJR6'6"250
86Cole McConathy IITESO6'5"250
87Gavin MuellerTEFR6'5"255
88Luka GilbertTESO6'7"255
53Canon PickettOLFR6'4"325
55JJ SparksOLFR6'3"305
56Johnathan ClineOLJR6'4"315
57Rhys WoodrowOLFR6'4"315
58Ben CongdonOLFR6'8"330
63Samson OkunlolaOLJR6'6"330
64Ralph ScrogginsOLFR6'1"275
65Seuseu AlofaituliOLSO6'2"290
66Max BuchananOLSO6'4"310
70Joel ErvinOLFR6'6"330
71Jamal MeriweatherOLJR6'7"305
72Demetrius CampbellOLFR6'6"330
73Jaden WilkersonOLFR6'6"335
74Yerovi Valdes AlfonsoOLSO6'7"340
75Jacob HawksOLSO6'9"330
76Ryan RodriguezOLSR6'2"300
77Juan MinayaOLSO6'6"335
78Matthew McCoyOLSR6'6"325
79Jackson CantwellOLFR6'8"330
5Justin ScottDLJR6'4"303
8Marquise LightfootDLJR6'5"230
10Damon Wilson IIDLSR6'4"250
13Asharri CharlesDLFR6'2"230
18Armondo BlountDLJR6'4"265
31Herbert Scroggins IIIDLSO6'3"245
33Booker Pickett Jr.DLSO6'4"230
40Keshawn StancilDLFR6'4"285
42Logan NagleDLFR6'4"260
44Tyson BaconDLFR6'4"275
52Isaac ChukwurahDLFR6'2"260
55Mykah NewtonDLFR6'3"275
88DeAnthony LafayetteDLFR6'1"230
91Jarquez CarterDLSO6'1"288
92Samuel CoufalDLJR6'2"270
93Fred SainteusDLFR6'3"275
97Keona DavisDLJR6'5"280
99Ahmad Moten Sr.DLSR6'3"300
1Mohamed ToureLBSR6'2"235
4Cam PruittLBJR6'2"210
9Chase SmithLBSR6'2"240
11Kamal BonnerLBJR6'2"215
17Ezekiel Marcelin Jr.LBSO5'11"230
30Kellen Wiley Jr.LBSO6'4"235
32Justin EdwardsLBFR6'1"205
34Jordan CampbellLBFR6'1"225
38Karsten BuschLBFR6'3"235
39Casey RizziLBSO6'0"225
45Braylon LamarLBJR6'0"215
0Omar ThorntonDBJR5'11"201
2Damari BrownDBJR6'2"195
3Bryce FitzgeraldDBSO6'1"185
6Xavier LucasDBJR6'2"198
7Zechariah PoyserDBJR6'2"200
15Brody JenningsDBFR6'1"185
16Ja'Boree AntoineDBSO6'1"180
19Jaelen WatersDBFR6'1"180
20Chris Ewald Jr.DBFR6'1"175
21Camdin PortisDBFR5'11"175
23Dylan DayDBJR6'2"185
24Ethan O'ConnorDBJR6'1"180
25JJ DunniganDBFR6'3"205
27Ryan MackDBSO5'11"175
28Isaiah TaylorDBSR5'11"200
29Romanas Frederique Jr.DBJR6'0"185
35Monroe ToneyDBJR5'9"180
36Takai AzzizDBJR6'3"180
37Cortez ReddingDBFR5'11"170
43Tyler RoweDBSR5'11"185
47Stone StroudDBSO5'8"160
48Andres WilliamsDBSO5'10"175
22Jake WeinbergPKSO5'10"189
82Jack OlsenPKSR5'10"195
97Will RochaPKJR5'11"185
94Dylan JoycePSR6'2"215
96Tucker TevepaughPSO5'11"200
46Adam BookerLSSR6'4"215
59Vance DiepenbrockLSFR5'10"220

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
61.0
scoring offense
Points allowed
6.5
scoring defense
Differential
+54.5
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
702.5#1
Yards / play
10.0#1
Passing yards / game
427.0#2
Rushing yards / game
275.5#11
First downs / game
34.5#1
3rd down %
64.3%#6
4th down %
0.0%#114
Time of possession
36:47#3
Defense
Yards allowed / game
203.0#11
Yards / play allowed
3.6#12
Pass yards allowed / game
145.5#31
Rush yards allowed / game
57.5#8
3rd down % allowed
20.7%#11
Sacks
3#80
Tackles for loss
6#122
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
-3#125
Takeaways
0#129
Giveaways
3#74
Penalties / game
3.0#3
Penalty yards / game
27.5#8

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

Miami throws it: Mario Cristobal's offenses have been pass-leaning across 8 seasons. The strengths are defensive, led by 4th at holding teams to field goals. The way in is 131st at hitting chunk plays.

On fourth down he goes for it about as often as his peers do from the same spots (−0.7%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −38.5% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

Miami has played 1 game 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

  • Defenseturning trips inside the 40 into points
    #4
    projected
  • Defensethrowing it
    #6
    projected
  • Defensemoving the ball on the ground
    #6
    projected

Projected soft spots

  • Offensehitting chunk plays
    #131
    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
10.5 – 1.5
projected final record (now 2–0)
Exp. wins left
8.5
of 10 games
Bowl odds
100%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
99%
vs Central Michigan
Toughest
42%
vs Notre Dame

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 = 39% chance
Likeliest finish 11-1 (39%)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
QBDarian Mensah
+44.0 EPA
WRCooper Barkate, Joshua Moore +2
+40.3 EPA
RBMark Fletcher Jr., CharMar Brown +1
+14.2 EPA
TEElija Lofton, Gavin Mueller
+3.8 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
QBDarian Mensah
~$1.1M
EPA +44.01.129/play39 snaps
RBMark Fletcher Jr.
~$235K
EPA +6.40.278/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)
Off0.8099th#2
Def0.0173rd#38
Explosiveness
Off1.3366th#47
Def0.9199th#2
Field position
Off69.345th#77
Def78.04th#132
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off5.4089th#16
Def1.5093rd#10
Turnovers
Won 0Lost 3
Margin -3

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
—
Defense
—
Off · pass
1.1899th#2
Off · rush
0.4190th#15

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.4190th#15
Def-0.0768th#45
Passing
Off1.1899th#2
Def0.0578th#31

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
3.94#10
2nd-level / open-field
1.33 / 1.76
Power / stuff (off)
100.0% / 9.1%
Havoc — total (def)
14.2%#99
Havoc — front 7 / DB
6.2% / 8.0%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.81
Def-0.03
Pass downs
Off0.76
Def0.09

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

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense0.82#10.44#291.76#3
Defense0.03#93-0.15#200.20#40

Elo Trajectory

@StanfordFinal
Elo rating 1842 → 1930+88 over season

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

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.5598th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed-0.1087th
  • Offense success rate62%99th
  • Defense success rate allowed29%85th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs67%99th
  • Offense success — passing downs29%31st
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs40%64th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs12%99th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.367th
  • Defense explosiveness allowed0.8799th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs1.289th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs1.724th

Trenches

  • Offense line yards3.993rd
  • Defense line yards allowed2.377th
  • Offense highlight yards2.591st
  • Defense highlight yards allowed0.3978th
  • Offense power success1.099th
  • Defense power success allowed0.5078th
  • Offense stuff rate0.1283rd
  • Defense stuff rate0.2780th

Third down

  • Third down conversion69%99th
  • Third down distance faced5.396th
  • Third down conversion allowed21%94th
  • Third down distance forced8.892nd

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half0.3599th
  • Net success rate — second half0.3598th

Drives

  • Points per drive4.596th
  • Points per drive allowed0.6093rd
  • Average starting field position2734th
  • Opponent starting field position2097th
  • Available yards gained71%93rd
  • Available yards allowed35%85th
  • Scoring opportunities per drive100%99th
  • Scoring opportunities allowed70%75th
  • Points per scoring opportunity4.590th
  • Points allowed per opportunity0.8697th
  • Three-and-out rate20%64th
  • Three-and-outs forced40%88th

Roster

  • Returning usage49%59th
  • Returning EPA16867th
  • Team talent composite88692nd
  • Recruiting class rank9.094th
  • Recruiting class points28594th

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

Pass-dominant attack — top 2 nationally by EPA/play
EPA/play
+0.802#2 · elite
Pass EPA/play
+1.177#2
Rush EPA/play
+0.411#15
Explosiveness
1.328#47
Pts/opportunity
5.40#16
Success rate
71.2%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.766 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

Disciplined defense suppressing opponents below the national average
EPA/play allowed
+0.013#38 · above avg
Havoc rate (total)
14.2%#99
Front-7 havoc
6.2%
DB havoc
8.0%
Big play rate allowed
0.907#2
Success rate allowed
36.4%

Disruption comes primarily from the secondary.

📊

Season Signature

61.0 PPG offense, 6.5 allowed — +54.5 margin/game
Points per game
61.0
Points allowed/game
6.5
Scoring margin/game
+54.5
Turnover margin
-3won 0 · lost 3
Production returning
37%
Talent rank (247)
#12

2-0 record through 2 games.

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

OFFENSE99thEXPLOSIVENESS66thFINISHING89thFIELD POS45thDEFENSE73thHAVOC28th50th100th
Offense
99th
Explosiveness
66th
Finishing
89th
Field Pos
45th
Defense
73th
Havoc
28th

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
+26.8
#8
Offense
+16.1
#7
Defense
-10.8
#17
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 10 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive4.500.60
Starting field positionown 26.6own 20.1
Available yards71.1%34.6%
Scoring opportunities100.0%70.0%
Points per opportunity4.500.86
Three-and-out rate20.0%40.0%
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
55.8%
Expected, given the spots
45.6%
Over expected
+10.2
Fourth down vs peers
-1
All play-calling tendencies →

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

Each dot = one FBS team. Miami 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 Miami in 2026

by EPA/play distance
IndianaSP+ +24.1
Off EPA/play +0.655Def EPA/play +0.010Elo 2113
Match
91%
GeorgiaSP+ +28.7
Off EPA/play +0.911Def EPA/play -0.137Elo 1871
Match
89%
FloridaSP+ +18.6
Off EPA/play +0.611Def EPA/play -0.073Elo 1658
Match
87%
SMUSP+ +11.1
Off EPA/play +0.557Def EPA/play +0.037Elo 1728
Match
85%
Mississippi StateSP+ +9.4
Off EPA/play +0.586Def EPA/play -0.125Elo 1584
Match
84%
NebraskaSP+ +12.1
Off EPA/play +0.557Def EPA/play +0.077Elo 1592
Match
84%

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: +0.5, #68 of 1282016: +15.5, #14 of 1282017: +14.1, #21 of 1302018: +7.8, #34 of 1302019: +8.7, #35 of 1302020: +10.4, #27 of 1242021: +5.5, #51 of 1302022: -2.3, #73 of 1312023: +13.2, #28 of 1332024: +22.9, #8 of 1342025: +31.1, #6 of 1362026: +26.8, #8 of 138
20152026
Now +26.8 · #8 of 138Best +31.1 in 2025Worst -2.3 in 2022

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20262-01-0
100%
2.0+0.0
202513-36-2
81%
13.4-0.4
202410-36-2
77%
10.0+0.0
20237-63-5
54%
8.4-1.4
20225-73-5
42%
4.9+0.1
20217-55-3
58%
7.0+0.0
20208-37-2
73%
6.8+1.2
20196-74-4
46%
7.9-1.9
20187-64-4
54%
8.2-1.2
201710-37-2
77%
8.6+1.4

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

70%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

1-0 so far, projected to finish 11.0-1.8. Top-four bye in 32%. Wins the ACC in 57%.

If they finish with…

100%
0 losses
100%
1 loss
80%
2 losses
16%
3 losses
0.6%
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.

up 15.5 points since preseason — won 45-6 over Stanford against an expected margin of +22, so +17.1 against the number.

  • At 2 losses they are 80% where the average ACC team is 42%.
  • The ACC takes 1.57 bids in an average season, and four or more in 0.8%.

Miami’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk8vs Pittsburgh42.1
  • wk11vs Duke39.7
  • wk12vs Virginia Tech39.5
  • wk3at Wake Forest39.5
  • wk5at Clemson39.0
  • wk7vs Florida State38.9

Who to root for

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

  • wk11California over Virginia2.5
  • wk5Stanford over Wake Forest2.4
  • wk5Florida State over Virginia2.4
  • wk8California over SMU2.1
  • wk9Stanford over Louisville2.0
  • wk9Syracuse over SMU2.0
The full playoff picture →

ACC

1-0 in league play, projected 8.0-1.01 of 17 by title odds
57%
Wins the ACC
79%
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 38% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk8Pittsburgh at Miami37.1
  • wk12Virginia Tech at Miami33.8
  • wk11Duke at Miami33.5
  • wk5Miami at Clemson31.4

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

If not the playoff, then

100%
Bowl eligible
30%
Placed in a bowl
70%
In the playoff
0.2%
Season over in November

Miami 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.

  • Gator Bowl9.5%
  • Duke's Mayo Bowl7.2%
  • Holiday Bowl4.9%
  • Sun Bowl3.3%
  • Pop-Tarts Bowl2.1%
  • Pinstripe Bowl1.3%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 20 have sent Miami a player since 2010 — 88 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of Miami's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
St. Thomas AquinasFL152
Miami CentralFL100
IMG AcademyFL81
Miami ColumbusFL71
American HeritageFL62
Miami NorthwesternFL61
Booker T. WashingtonFL52
Bishop GormanNV51
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.