Skip to content
Vanderbilt

Vanderbilt Commodores

SEC·2-0·
Compare
Elo
1753#19
SP+
12.1#27
FPI
7.8
AP
NR
Nextvs NC State · Wk 3Win prob 72%Model -9.2
Talent #42 (727.4)Recruiting class #3335% production returning

Roster · 117 players

FR 23SO 25JR 27SR 42
#PlayerPosClHtWt
1Blaze BerlowitzQBSR6'3"200
2Jared CurtisQBFR6'3"230
10Whit MuschampQBJR6'1"195
11Jack ElliottQBSO6'0"205
14Drew CowartQBSO6'2"208
3Jamezell LassiterRBJR5'8"192
20Izayah LeeRBFR5'11"215
22Makhilyn YoungRBSR5'10"210
23Evan HamptonRBFR6'0"215
24Gabe FieldsRBSO6'0"217
28Sedrick AlexanderRBSR5'9"207
42Jake BalisRBJR5'9"200
44Gabe FisherFBSR6'1"245
0Junior SherrillWRSR5'11"200
5Tristen BrownWRJR5'10"185
6Ja'Cory ThomasWRJR6'3"215
7Cole AdamsWRSR5'10"183
9Brycen ColemanWRJR6'5"215
13Kayleb BarnettWRSO5'8"155
15Joseph McVayWRJR6'1"200
80Claiborne RichardsWRSR5'11"186
81Kahden SmithWRFR6'2"195
84Owen CabellWRFR6'2"201
85Lebron HillWRSO6'5"190
87Ty BurdWRSR6'1"165
88Wils JacksonWRSO6'5"205
89Cameran DicksonWRSO6'0"185
8Jayvontay ConnerTEJR6'4"235
12Walter TaylorTESR6'7"235
16Cole SpenceTESR6'7"255
19Maurice VeneyTEJR6'4"270
46Palmer RileyTEFR6'5"250
49Elijah RooneyTEJR6'5"230
82Adam GehmTEFR6'6"235
86Tilden RileyTEFR6'5"217
50Gunner GivensOLSR6'5"325
51Clinton AzubuikeOLJR6'8"310
52Kevo WesleyOLSR6'4"317
54Tripp SkewesOLFR6'7"285
55George Williams-HaseotesOLFR6'3"295
56Lyndon CooperOLSR6'2"310
57Max FisherOLSR6'2"270
58Orion IrvingOLSR6'6"310
60Nate FlemingOLFR6'3"285
62CJ WilliamsOLJR6'6"331
65Micah DeBoseOLSO6'5"335
70Cade McConnellOLSR6'5"323
71Ted GregoireOLSR6'3"330
72Mitchell SmithOLFR6'6"320
73Pulelei'ite PrimusOLFR6'4"355
75Beau JohnsonOLJR6'6"305
77Michael SmithOLJR6'6"330
78Keegan WechslerOLSR6'2"295
10Brian Allen Jr.EDGESR6'3"264
17Edwin KolengeEDGESR6'3"260
19CJ JacksonEDGEJR6'4"250
29Miles CapersEDGESR6'4"249
32Mason CarterEDGEJR6'5"251
33Myles MillerEDGESO6'1"255
90Jake StanishEDGESO6'3"270
95Jace McCallumEDGEFR6'2"243
96Khalil PoteatEDGESR6'5"275
5Issa OuattaraDLSR6'7"315
49Simeon BoulwareDLJR6'5"258
53Glenn Seabrooks IIIDLJR6'3"340
55Aaron BryantDLSR6'2"320
91Noah SigdaDLSO6'4"245
92Jaylon StoneDLSR6'2"306
93Nikhil JeffersonDLSO6'1"330
94Bradley MannDLSR6'6"308
97Hayden BrayDLSR6'4"277
99Talan CarterDLSO6'1"280
15Mike DiattaDTSR6'5"295
51Cameron SteppDTFR6'3"296
59Jiaming CaoDTSO6'0"262
98Daryl CampbellDTFR6'1"280
11Bryan LongwellLBSR6'1"240
13Tate HambyLBJR6'2"208
18Josiah BroxtonLBSO5'10"220
20Jamison CurtisLBJR6'1"238
22Bryce CowanLBSR6'4"235
24Nick RinaldiLBSR6'3"240
30Austin HowardLBSO6'2"245
43Luke D'AliseLBJR6'0"204
44Daniel Vollmer Jr.LBFR6'2"215
45Ty BartholomewLBSR6'1"235
50Kene ObiLBFR6'1"221
0Cobey SellersCBSO5'11"178
2Jaylin LackeyCBJR6'0"195
4Martel HightCBSR6'0"188
6Jordan MatthewsCBSR6'2"192
16Jaylin DaviesCBSR5'11"180
23Bishop StarlingCBFR5'9"170
26Cayden DanielsCBSO6'1"189
31Jeremy Garner IICBFR6'2"155
37Jack WanzungCBSO6'0"184
42Blaine McClureCBJR6'1"185
46Mustafa DannettCBSR6'0"175
1Dontae CarterSJR6'1"196
3Carson LawrenceSSO6'2"212
7Ricardo JonesSJR6'2"200
8CJ HeardSJR5'11"210
9Jalen GilbertSSR6'0"208
12Vanzale HintonSSO6'0"196
14Jailen RuthSJR6'3"225
21Davin ChandlerSSO6'0"190
25Mason LewisSFR6'0"195
27Bradley BrownSFR6'0"185
28Thomas JonesSSO5'11"195
35Payne DanielSSR5'11"185
39Joe DanielPKFR6'4"225
47Justin DewersPKSO6'2"195
88Brock TaylorPKSR6'1"165
37Tyler EbelPSR6'4"252
79Conor WeaslerPSR6'0"187
53Stone OwensLSSO6'0"200
54Kaden SchickelLSSR6'2"210

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
31.5
scoring offense
Points allowed
17.5
scoring defense
Differential
+14.0
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
367.5#95
Yards / play
5.6#96
Passing yards / game
224.0#72
Rushing yards / game
143.5#92
First downs / game
18.5#101
3rd down %
33.3%#104
4th down %
57.1%#69
Time of possession
32:14#39
Defense
Yards allowed / game
258.0#33
Yards / play allowed
4.5#48
Pass yards allowed / game
178.0#52
Rush yards allowed / game
80.0#27
3rd down % allowed
16.0%#4
Sacks
11#2
Tackles for loss
16#18
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
+1#41
Takeaways
2#76
Giveaways
1#21
Penalties / game
7.5#90
Penalty yards / game
54.5#65

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

Vanderbilt is in year 6 under Clark Lea, whose offenses have been balanced. The strengths are offensive, led by 2nd at running it. The way in is 108th at keeping everything in front of them.

On fourth down he goes for it more often than his peers do from the same spots (+4.1%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −12.6% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

Vanderbilt 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

  • Offenserunning it
    #2
    projected
  • Offensethe push the line gets
    #2
    projected
  • Offensesurviving second and twelve
    #3
    projected

Projected soft spots

  • Defensehitting chunk plays
    #108
    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
7.3 – 4.7
projected final record (now 2–0)
Exp. wins left
5.3
of 10 games
Bowl odds
90%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
74%
vs Arkansas
Toughest
17%
vs Georgia

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 = 26% chance
Likeliest finish 7-5 (26%)Bowl eligible 90% · 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
QBBlaze Berlowitz, Jared Curtis
+25.4 EPA
TEWalter Taylor, Jayvontay Conner +1
+9.7 EPA
WRCole Adams, Junior Sherrill +4
+5.0 EPA
RBMakhilyn Young, Sedrick Alexander +2
+3.9 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
QBJared Curtis
~$824K
EPA +19.40.474/play41 snaps
QBBlaze Berlowitz
~$582K
EPA +6.00.157/play38 snaps
RBSedrick Alexander
~$194K
EPA +3.90.164/play24 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)
Off0.1221st#109
Def-0.0482nd#26
Explosiveness
Off1.1221st#109
Def1.3333rd#93
Field position
Off69.548th#72
Def75.223rd#107
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off3.1523rd#107
Def2.8865th#49
Turnovers
Won 2Lost 1
Margin +1

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
—
Defense
—
Off · pass
0.2639th#85
Off · rush
0.1244th#78

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.1243rd#79
Def0.0745th#77
Passing
Off0.2638th#86
Def0.0186th#20

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
2.97#82
2nd-level / open-field
0.95 / 0.56
Power / stuff (off)
87.5% / 15.1%
Havoc — total (def)
25.9%#8
Havoc — front 7 / DB
17.2% / 8.6%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.13
Def-0.04
Pass downs
Off0.09
Def-0.03

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

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense0.05#850.08#980.57#62
Defense-0.34#80.26#920.09#22

Elo Trajectory

Austin PeayFinal
Elo rating 1753 → 1746-7 over season

Team Fingerprint · 2026 · 46 opponent-adjusted metrics · percentile vs 138 FBS teams

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.1326th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed-0.0377th
  • Offense success rate43%41st
  • Defense success rate allowed33%72nd

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs50%58th
  • Offense success — passing downs23%16th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs45%44th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs18%91st

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.122nd
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.331st
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs0.9228th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs2.382nd

Trenches

  • Offense line yards3.041st
  • Defense line yards allowed2.655th
  • Offense highlight yards0.5621st
  • Defense highlight yards allowed1.226th
  • Offense power success0.8880th
  • Defense power success allowed0.8029th
  • Offense stuff rate0.1566th
  • Defense stuff rate0.2365th

Third down

  • Third down conversion33%21st
  • Third down distance faced6.950th
  • Third down conversion allowed16%99th
  • Third down distance forced9.699th

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half0.0342nd
  • Net success rate — second half0.1474th

Drives

  • Points per drive2.561st
  • Points per drive allowed1.085th
  • Average starting field position3794th
  • Opponent starting field position2579th
  • Available yards gained57%67th
  • Available yards allowed35%83rd
  • Scoring opportunities per drive91%79th
  • Scoring opportunities allowed69%77th
  • Points per scoring opportunity2.851st
  • Points allowed per opportunity2.271st
  • Three-and-out rate18%74th
  • Three-and-outs forced15%23rd

CORE

  • CORE offense-2.621st
  • CORE defense-1.959th
  • CORE overall-0.6644th

Roster

  • Returning usage33%41st
  • Returning EPA20378th
  • Team talent composite72770th
  • Recruiting class rank33.077th
  • Recruiting class points22577th

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
+0.116#109 · below avg
Pass EPA/play
+0.262#86
Rush EPA/play
+0.120#79
Explosiveness
1.120#109
Pts/opportunity
3.15#107
Success rate
42.2%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.142 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

High-pressure defense suppressing opponents below the national average
EPA/play allowed
-0.036#26 · top 20%
Havoc rate (total)
25.9%#8
Front-7 havoc
17.2%
DB havoc
8.6%
Big play rate allowed
1.326#93
Success rate allowed
32.8%

Disruption comes primarily from the front seven.

📊

Season Signature

31.5 PPG offense, 17.5 allowed — +14.0 margin/game
Points per game
31.5
Points allowed/game
17.5
Scoring margin/game
+14.0
Turnover margin
+1won 2 · lost 1
Production returning
35%
Talent rank (247)
#42

2-0 record through 2 games.

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

OFFENSE21thEXPLOSIVENESS21thFINISHING23thFIELD POS48thDEFENSE82thHAVOC95th50th100th
Offense
21th
Explosiveness
21th
Finishing
23th
Field Pos
48th
Defense
82th
Havoc
95th

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
+10.7
#35
Offense
+5.7
#34
Defense
-5.0
#48
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 11 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive2.541.00
Starting field positionown 36.7own 24.6
Available yards57.2%34.9%
Scoring opportunities90.9%69.2%
Points per opportunity2.802.22
Three-and-out rate18.2%15.4%
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
47.6%
Expected, given the spots
40.7%
Over expected
+6.9
Fourth down vs peers
+24
Fourth down vs the model
-20
All play-calling tendencies →

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

Each dot = one FBS team. Vanderbilt 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 Vanderbilt in 2026

by EPA/play distance
MichiganSP+ +12.2
Off EPA/play +0.125Def EPA/play -0.018Elo 1686
Match
99%
Florida InternationalSP+ -13.5
Off EPA/play +0.147Def EPA/play -0.003Elo 1385
Match
97%
TulsaSP+ -2.3
Off EPA/play +0.099Def EPA/play +0.010Elo 1268
Match
97%
IowaSP+ +18.0
Off EPA/play +0.166Def EPA/play -0.040Elo 1847
Match
97%
BaylorSP+ +4.9
Off EPA/play +0.166Def EPA/play -0.043Elo 1506
Match
97%
WashingtonSP+ +12.0
Off EPA/play +0.064Def EPA/play -0.019Elo 1762
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: -3.9, #79 of 1282016: -1.6, #71 of 1282017: +0.1, #63 of 1302018: +4.0, #48 of 1302019: -18.7, #120 of 1302020: -25.8, #120 of 1242021: -23.3, #119 of 1302022: -10.8, #101 of 1312023: -17.1, #117 of 1332024: -3.8, #79 of 1342025: +25.4, #8 of 1362026: +10.7, #35 of 138
20152026
Now +10.7 · #35 of 138Best +25.4 in 2025Worst -25.8 in 2020

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20262-00-0
100%
2.0+0.0
202510-36-2
77%
9.1+0.9
20247-63-5
54%
7.1-0.1
20232-100-8
17%
1.3+0.7
20225-72-6
42%
4.8+0.2
20212-100-8
17%
0.9+1.1
20200-90-9
0%
1.1-1.1
20193-91-7
25%
2.5+0.5
20186-73-5
46%
5.6+0.4
20175-71-7
42%
5.1-0.1

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

3.0%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

1-0 so far, projected to finish 5.7-6.3.

If they finish with…

100%
1 loss
89%
2 losses
9.1%
3 losses
0.0%
4 losses

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

down 3.8 points since preseason.

  • At 3 losses they are 9.1% where the average SEC team is 41%.
  • The SEC takes 4.08 bids in an average season, and four or more in 75%.

Vanderbilt’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk5at Georgia14.7
  • wk12at Florida10.0
  • wk11vs Alabama9.8
  • wk13vs Tennessee8.4
  • wk10at Mississippi State7.1
  • wk6vs Ole Miss6.2

Who to root for

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

  • wk13Georgia Tech over Georgia1.1
  • wk11Massachusetts over Toledo0.6
  • wk11Minnesota over Penn State0.6
  • wk3Colorado State over BYU0.6
  • wk8Miami over Pittsburgh0.6
  • wk3Florida State over Alabama0.6
The full playoff picture →

SEC

0-0 in league play, projected 3.1-5.914 of 16 by title odds
0.3%
Wins the SEC
0.8%
Reaches the title game

The SEC sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 49% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk5Vanderbilt at Georgia1.9
  • wk12Vanderbilt at Florida1.0

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

If not the playoff, then

52%
Bowl eligible
50%
Placed in a bowl
3.0%
In the playoff
47%
Season over in November

Vanderbilt 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 0.9% they go with five wins, as a 5-7 fill-in — which in reality is decided by academic progress rate, not by anything modelled here.

  • Birmingham Bowl10%
  • Liberty Bowl8.0%
  • Texas Bowl7.3%
  • Music City Bowl6.1%
  • Duke's Mayo Bowl5.0%
  • Gator Bowl3.7%

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 Vanderbilt a player since 2010 — 24 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of Vanderbilt's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
St. Thomas AquinasFL90
Cardinal GibbonsFL40
EnsworthTN30
CentralAL20
Montgomery Bell AcademyTN20
NorcrossGA20
RockwallTX20
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.