Skip to content
Rutgers

Rutgers Scarlet Knights

Big Ten·0-2·
Compare
Elo
1372#100
SP+
-3.6#78
FPI
-6.9
AP
NR
Nextvs USC · Wk 3Win prob 6%Model +21.5
Talent #48 (709.0)Recruiting class #3644% production returning

Roster · 134 players

FR 25SO 28JR 32SR 49
#PlayerPosClHtWt
6Sean AshenfelderQBSO6'1"205
10AJ SuraceQBJR6'2"210
12Dylan LonerganQBSR6'2"210
15Rocco RainoneQBJR6'0"200
17Xavier StearnQBFR6'6"220
3Antwan RaymondRBJR5'11"205
9Clay TheveninRBSR5'8"195
20Ja'shon BenjaminRBSR5'9"205
22Michael Dukes IIIRBFR6'0"215
23Edd GuerrierRBJR5'8"195
26Terrell MitchellRBSO5'8"200
28Xavier WilliamsRBSO5'8"205
32Aiden GibsonRBFR6'2"215
0Dyzier CarterWRFR5'11"185
1Famah ToureWRSR6'3"220
2Ben Black IIIWRJR6'0"190
4Jourdin HoustonWRSO6'1"200
5Vernon Allen IIIWRSO6'2"200
7Dylan BraithwaiteWRSR5'9"180
8KJ DuffWRJR6'6"225
13Elias CokeWRFR6'3"220
14Sah'nye DegraffenreidtWRSO6'1"210
18Quentin ReddingWRSR5'6"165
25Trent OsbornWRJR6'3"205
39Salomon EaleyWRSO5'8"175
80Michael Thomas IIIWRSO5'11"205
83Dino KaliakmanisWRSR6'1"200
87Justice HurtWRSR6'1"190
11Logan BlakeTESR6'6"265
24Ben RothhaarTESO6'3"240
81DJ HowertonTEFR6'5"245
82Jackson GisterTEJR6'6"250
84Ryan BayoumyTESO6'2"235
85Kam AnthonyTEJR6'5"255
88Mike HigginsTESR6'5"255
89Brady OwensTEFR6'6"240
51Raymond GiacobbeOLJR6'4"285
53Hank ZilinskasOLSR6'3"305
54Everett SmallOLJR6'5"305
55Nick OliveiraOLSR6'4"320
56Tyler NeedhamOLSR6'4"305
57Isaiah CookOLSR6'2"310
58Joseph LakatosOLJR6'1"280
59James CocozzoOLFR6'4"300
60Logan AnthonyOLFR6'4"325
61Emir StinetteOLSR6'5"335
62Tyler DuellOLFR6'7"315
63Ian Asaeli Ngaue-StephensonOLFR6'3"325
66Donovan JohnsonOLFR6'3"315
67Chris VignaOLSO6'5"310
68Ryder LangsdaleOLSR6'7"305
69Kwabena AsamoahOLSR6'2"310
70Cameron GreeneOLFR6'6"315
71Jared SmithOLFR6'5"325
72Jayden ElijahOLSO6'6"305
73Terrence SalamiOLSR6'2"310
74Moshood GiwaOLSR6'6"320
75Raynor AndrewsOLJR6'6"320
76Dantae ChinOLSR6'4"320
77Kenny JonesOLJR6'4"315
78Miron GurmanOLSO6'6"290
79Justin CesaireOLSR6'4"315
0Doug Blue-EliDLSR6'3"300
8Sekou KromahDLSR6'3"275
11Malachi DavisDLSR6'4"255
14RJ Johnson Jr.DLSO6'4"255
30Elijah KingDLJR6'5"260
42DJ AllenDLSR6'7"275
48Raedyn BruensDLSO6'5"280
55Zaire AngoyDLSR6'3"300
56Anthony MoralesDLJR6'0"250
87Monte KeenerDLJR6'6"245
88Jyon SimonDLSO6'1"280
90Farell GnagoDLJR6'4"270
91Jaedin LeeDLJR6'1"305
92Jermaine PolkDLFR6'2"295
93Reece BeckDLFR6'6"255
94J'Dan BurnettDLSR6'1"255
95Joshua BlackstonDLSO6'3"300
96Keshon GriffinDLSR6'4"300
97Rinaldo Callaway IIIDLFR6'4"230
98Braxton KyleDLSO6'3"300
99Rondo PorterDLSR6'0"295
2Moses WalkerLBSR6'2"230
6Abram WrightLBSR6'1"220
10Ty MorrisLBSR6'2"235
13DJ McClaryLBSO6'1"235
17MJ JohnsonLBJR6'3"230
23Isaiah DeloatchLBSO6'0"225
33John InsingaLBSO6'1"230
36Kamar ArchieLBSO6'1"235
38Joey KopecLBFR6'2"230
41Sean AllisonLBSR6'0"235
47Tanner RaymondLBFR6'3"235
50Joe NwachukwuLBJR6'0"230
54Alex SzczesniakLBSR6'1"225
59Liam GilmoreLBJR6'4"230
1Kaj SandersDBJR6'1"200
3Latrell NoelDBSO6'3"210
4Kevyn HumesDBJR5'11"185
5Bradlee JonesDBSR6'0"185
7Kevin LevyDBJR6'0"190
9DK GilleyDBJR6'2"205
12Zahmir DawudDBSR5'11"185
15Zilan WilliamsDBSR6'1"195
16Jesse OfurieDBSR6'2"215
18Messiah TilsonDBFR6'1"185
19Davoun FuseDBSR6'4"220
20Chris JoinesDBSR6'2"200
21Devonte AndersonDBFR6'1"195
22Michael ClaytonDBSO6'0"190
24Steven MurrayDBSO6'0"185
25JJ ConyersDBFR6'2"180
26Isaiah CrumplerDBJR6'0"205
27Sage ClawgesDBSR6'4"200
28Cannon MarshallDBSO6'0"185
29Sebastian JusmaDBSR6'1"200
31Sebastian CruzDBFR5'11"185
32Brandon MurrayDBFR6'1"190
34Noah ShawDBJR6'1"195
35Mikey MunnDBJR6'1"205
37RJ WortmanDBFR6'3"215
39Tyler ChildressDBSR6'2"205
43Robbie EngelbergDBSR5'11"195
44Tariq HayerDBSO6'0"195
45Shawn PurcellDBSR6'0"185
21Riley McCannPKSR6'3"210
29Dane PizzaroPKJR6'2"200
44Jai PatelPKSR5'9"180
93Jack ScullionPKJR6'4"205
94Jakob AndersonPJR6'2"195
58Michael O'ConnorLSSR6'1"215
65Talan ShieldsLSSO6'2"200
68Matthew MurriLSSR6'0"200

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
21.0
scoring offense
Points allowed
32.5
scoring defense
Differential
-11.5
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
366.5#95
Yards / play
5.6#95
Passing yards / game
274.5#39
Rushing yards / game
92.0#129
First downs / game
18.5#100
3rd down %
30.4%#121
4th down %
60.0%#62
Time of possession
29:06#92
Defense
Yards allowed / game
399.5#111
Yards / play allowed
6.4#124
Pass yards allowed / game
224.5#98
Rush yards allowed / game
175.0#114
3rd down % allowed
34.8%#69
Sacks
2#105
Tackles for loss
7#108
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
-5#136
Takeaways
3#45
Giveaways
8#138
Penalties / game
6.0#46
Penalty yards / game
37.0#23

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

run-leaning

Rutgers runs it: Greg Schiano's offenses have been run-leaning across 6 seasons. The strengths are offensive, led by 29th at staying out of the backfield. The way in is 133rd at defending the run, and they are 128th at keeping opponents off schedule through the air.

On fourth down he goes for it about as often as his peers do from the same spots (+2.5%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −24.6% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

Rutgers has played 2 games against a genuinely tough slate, adjusted for here. That football carries about 0% of what is below; the rest is still the preseason projection.

Projected strengths

  • Offensegetting stopped at the line
    #29
    projected
  • Offensesurviving second and twelve
    #32
    projected
  • Offensestaying on schedule through the air
    #35
    projected

Projected soft spots

  • Defenserunning it
    #133
    projected
  • Defensestaying on schedule through the air
    #128
    projected
  • Defensefirst and second down
    #125
    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
2.6 – 8.4
projected final record (now 0–2)
Exp. wins left
2.6
of 9 games
Bowl odds
1%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
71%
vs Michigan State
Toughest
4%
vs Indiana

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.

0123456789
final winstallest bar = 30% chance
Likeliest finish 2-9 (30%)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
WRKJ Duff, Ben Black +2
+40.0 EPA
QBDylan Lonergan, AJ Surace
+9.7 EPA
RBAntwan Raymond, Clay Thevenin
+4.5 EPA
TELogan Blake
+0.4 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
QBDylan Lonergan
~$597K
EPA +7.60.237/play32 snaps
QBAJ Surace
~$436K
EPA +2.10.061/play35 snaps
WRKJ Duff
~$428K
EPA +30.51.326/play23 snaps
RBAntwan Raymond
~$178K
EPA +6.30.146/play43 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)
Off0.1223rd#107
Def0.2316th#116
Explosiveness
Off1.4685th#22
Def1.1864th#51
Field position
Off70.359th#57
Def70.371st#41
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off2.5511th#123
Def4.0723rd#107
Turnovers
Won 3Lost 8
Margin -5

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
—
Defense
—
Off · pass
0.4668th#45
Off · rush
-0.118th#127

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off-0.118th#127
Def0.1528th#100
Passing
Off0.4666th#48
Def0.5212th#122

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
2.76#103
2nd-level / open-field
0.79 / 0.47
Power / stuff (off)
41.7% / 22.4%
Havoc — total (def)
10.9%#127
Havoc — front 7 / DB
7.0% / 3.9%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off-0.03
Def0.14
Pass downs
Off0.53
Def0.44

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

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense-0.14#1260.28#580.31#106
Defense-0.06#630.47#1240.38#75

Elo Trajectory

MassachusettsFinal
Elo rating 1479 → 1372-107 over season

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

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.2045th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.3315th
  • Offense success rate40%31st
  • Defense success rate allowed52%9th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs41%22nd
  • Offense success — passing downs37%61st
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs56%7th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs41%15th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.693rd
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.078th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs1.276th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs2.591st

Trenches

  • Offense line yards1.97th
  • Defense line yards allowed3.412th
  • Offense highlight yards0.007th
  • Defense highlight yards allowed0.6553rd
  • Offense power success0.6029th
  • Defense power success allowed0.7149th
  • Offense stuff rate0.2516th
  • Defense stuff rate0.1736th

Third down

  • Third down conversion27%15th
  • Third down distance faced7.331st
  • Third down conversion allowed36%50th
  • Third down distance forced8.574th

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half-0.1910th
  • Net success rate — second half-0.0135th

Drives

  • Points per drive1.844th
  • Points per drive allowed3.722nd
  • Average starting field position2426th
  • Opponent starting field position414th
  • Available yards gained41%30th
  • Available yards allowed58%31st
  • Scoring opportunities per drive58%12th
  • Scoring opportunities allowed80%51st
  • Points per scoring opportunity3.063rd
  • Points allowed per opportunity4.612th
  • Three-and-out rate50%12th
  • Three-and-outs forced20%38th

Roster

  • Returning usage41%48th
  • Returning EPA16566th
  • Team talent composite70966th
  • Recruiting class rank36.074th
  • Recruiting class points22174th

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 offense — below average EPA/play nationally
EPA/play
+0.124#107 · below avg
Pass EPA/play
+0.456#48
Rush EPA/play
-0.108#127
Explosiveness
1.458#22
Pts/opportunity
2.55#123
Success rate
40.7%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.564 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

Coverage-heavy defense — allowing above-average EPA/play
EPA/play allowed
+0.234#116 · bottom 20%
Havoc rate (total)
10.9%#127
Front-7 havoc
7.0%
DB havoc
3.9%
Big play rate allowed
1.184#51
Success rate allowed
44.2%

Disruption comes evenly from front and secondary.

📊

Season Signature

21.0 PPG offense, 32.5 allowed — -11.5 margin/game
Points per game
21.0
Points allowed/game
32.5
Scoring margin/game
-11.5
Turnover margin
-5won 3 · lost 8
Production returning
44%
Talent rank (247)
#48

0-2 record through 2 games.

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

OFFENSE23thEXPLOSIVENESS85thFINISHING11thFIELD POS59thDEFENSE16thHAVOC8th50th100th
Offense
23th
Explosiveness
85th
Finishing
11th
Field Pos
59th
Defense
16th
Havoc
8th

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
-10.9
#112
Offense
+1.3
#55
Defense
+12.2
#135
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 12 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive1.753.70
Starting field positionown 24.2own 40.8
Available yards40.8%57.6%
Scoring opportunities58.3%80.0%
Points per opportunity3.004.63
Three-and-out rate50.0%20.0%
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
65.9%
Expected, given the spots
52.2%
Over expected
+13.7
Fourth down vs peers
+13
Fourth down vs the model
+25
All play-calling tendencies →

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

Each dot = one FBS team. Rutgers 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 Rutgers in 2026

by EPA/play distance
WisconsinSP+ -1.5
Off EPA/play +0.114Def EPA/play +0.235Elo 1475
Match
99%
ArkansasSP+ +3.3
Off EPA/play +0.138Def EPA/play +0.253Elo 1547
Match
99%
MinnesotaSP+ +9.6
Off EPA/play +0.130Def EPA/play +0.191Elo 1510
Match
98%
Michigan StateSP+ +1.0
Off EPA/play +0.141Def EPA/play +0.192Elo 1468
Match
97%
East CarolinaSP+ -8.1
Off EPA/play +0.174Def EPA/play +0.257Elo 1477
Match
97%
KentuckySP+ +8.5
Off EPA/play +0.155Def EPA/play +0.178Elo 1476
Match
96%

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: -11.8, #97 of 1282016: -15.3, #108 of 1282017: -11.0, #98 of 1302018: -19.9, #120 of 1302019: -18.7, #119 of 1302020: -14.3, #108 of 1242021: -18.9, #111 of 1302022: -8.3, #96 of 1312023: -2.1, #73 of 1332024: -4.8, #85 of 1342025: -4.9, #79 of 1362026: -10.9, #112 of 138
20152026
Now -10.9 · #112 of 138Best -2.1 in 2023Worst -19.9 in 2018

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20260-20-0
0%
0.8-0.8
20255-72-7
42%
5.4-0.4
20247-64-5
54%
6.8+0.2
20237-63-6
54%
6.3+0.7
20224-81-8
33%
4.9-0.9
20215-82-7
38%
4.1+0.9
20203-63-6
33%
2.0+1.0
20192-100-9
17%
1.7+0.3
20181-110-9
8%
1.2-0.2
20174-83-6
33%
3.1+0.9

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

0-1 so far, projected to finish 2.8-9.2.

down 2.2 points since preseason — lost 21-37 to Massachusetts against an expected margin of +38, so −54.0 against the number.

  • The Big Ten takes 3.19 bids in an average season, and four or more in 37%.

Rutgers’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk3vs USC0.1
  • wk9vs Michigan0.1
  • wk11vs Nebraska0.1
  • wk7at Maryland0.1
  • wk8at Northwestern0.1
  • wk10at Wisconsin0.1

Who to root for

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

  • wk2Oklahoma State over Oregon0.1
  • wk12Arkansas over Texas0.1
  • wk13Georgia Tech over Georgia0.0
  • wk7Arizona State over Texas Tech0.0
  • wk12SMU over Notre Dame0.0
  • wk9Mississippi State over Texas0.0
The full playoff picture →

Big Ten

0-0 in league play, projected 1.5-7.518 of 18 by title odds
0.0%
Wins the Big Ten
0.0%
Reaches the title game

The Big Ten sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 50% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

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

If not the playoff, then

6.1%
Bowl eligible
5.0%
Placed in a bowl
0.0%
In the playoff
95%
Season over in November

Rutgers 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.

  • LA Bowl1.1%
  • GameAbove Sports Bowl0.9%
  • Xbox Bowl0.7%
  • Rate Bowl0.5%
  • Salute to Veterans Bowl0.3%
  • Pinstripe Bowl0.3%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 7 have sent Rutgers a player since 2010 — 31 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of Rutgers's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
Don Bosco PrepNJ102
Cedar CreekNJ42
Archbishop WoodPA40
Bergen CatholicNJ40
Timber CreekNJ40
West OrangeFL30
Paramus CatholicNJ20
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.