Duke

2-0

ACC · Manny Diaz, year 3 (20-9) · Wallace Wade Stadium · 40,004 · 16,113 avg in 2026

The nationunrankedAP / Coaches
The model#68 CFB ZeitgeistSP+ #45 (+6.6) · FPI #40
The marketDuke by 9.5vs Stanford · our model 76% Duke · a number, not a pick

LastW 31–27 at Illinois · Sat Sep 12 · Nate Sheppard 147 rush yds, 1 TD, 41 rec yds

Nextvs Stanford · Sat Sep 19 · 4 pm ET · Wallace Wade Stadium · Duke by 9.5 · series 1-3, lost the last 3 · Game preview

Updated Tue Sep 15 · through week 2

Key stats — 2026 — FBS rank
Points/game
24.0
Pts allowed/game
15.0
Total yards/gm#92 / 138 · 34th pct
378.5
Rush yards/gmT-#41 / 138 · 70th pct
210.0
Pass yards/gm#112 / 138 · 19th pct
168.5
Yards allowed/gm#64 / 138 · 54th pct
320.0
Rush yds allowed/gmT-#30 / 138 · 78th pct
82.5
SacksT-#80 / 138 · 33rd pct
3
InterceptionsT-#63 / 115 · 23rd pct
1
3rd-down conv#90 / 138 · 35th pct
37.0%
All 89 stats
Offense / Defense
Total yards
Team
757378.5/gm5.65/play#92 / 138 · 34th pct#54 / 69 · 22nd pct#12 / 17 · 32nd pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
640320.0/gm5.16/play#64 / 138 · 54th pct#46 / 69 · 34th pct#9 / 17 · 50th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush yards
Team
420210.0/gm3.13/playT-#41 / 138 · 70th pct#23 / 69 · 67th pct#5 / 17 · 74th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
16582.5/gm1.33/playT-#30 / 138 · 78th pctT-#24 / 69 · 65th pct#6 / 17 · 68th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush carries
Team
8442.0/gmT-#32 / 138 · 76th pctT-#16 / 69 · 76th pctT-#2 / 17 · 88th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
5829.0/gmT-#25 / 138 · 81st pctT-#19 / 69 · 72nd pct#6 / 17 · 68th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush TDs
Team
31.5/gmT-#77 / 138 · 34th pctT-#45 / 69 · 28th pctT-#9 / 17 · 41st pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
00.0/gmT-#1 / 138 · 92nd pctT-#1 / 69 · 88th pctT-#1 / 17 · 88th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Net pass yards
Team
337168.5/gm2.51/play#112 / 138 · 19th pct#63 / 69 · 9th pct#15 / 17 · 15th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
475237.5/gm3.83/play#98 / 138 · 29th pct#54 / 69 · 22nd pct#11 / 17 · 38th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Pass attempts
Team
5025.0/gmT-#101 / 138 · 26th pctT-#57 / 69 · 17th pctT-#15 / 17 · 12th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
6633.0/gm#94 / 138 · 32nd pct#48 / 69 · 31st pct#9 / 17 · 50th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Completions
Team
2814.0/gmT-#114 / 138 · 17th pctT-#62 / 69 · 10th pct#16 / 17 · 9th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
4120.5/gmT-#95 / 138 · 29th pctT-#53 / 69 · 22nd pctT-#11 / 17 · 35th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Pass TDs
Team
31.5/gmT-#72 / 138 · 41st pctT-#44 / 69 · 30th pct#10 / 17 · 44th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
31.5/gmT-#75 / 138 · 36th pctT-#47 / 69 · 22nd pctT-#10 / 17 · 35th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Passer rating#79 / 115 · 32nd pct#47 / 59 · 21st pct#9 / 14 · 39th pct#5 / 13 · 69th pct
128.4128.4
Interceptions thrown
Team
00.0/gmT-#92 / 138 · 17th pctT-#42 / 69 · 20th pctT-#11 / 17 · 21st pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
10.5/gmT-#24 / 138 · 64th pctT-#11 / 69 · 64th pctT-#4 / 17 · 53rd pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Sacks (def)
Team
31.5/gmT-#80 / 138 · 33rd pctT-#49 / 69 · 22nd pctT-#10 / 17 · 32nd pct#11 / 11 · 9th pct
Opp
10.5/gmT-#9 / 138 · 86th pctT-#6 / 69 · 83rd pctT-#2 / 17 · 85th pct#1 / 11 · 100th pct
Tackles for loss
Team
84.0/gmT-#104 / 138 · 23rd pctT-#58 / 69 · 15th pctT-#12 / 17 · 29th pct#11 / 11 · 9th pct
Opp
31.5/gmT-#3 / 138 · 97th pctT-#2 / 69 · 95th pctT-#1 / 17 · 94th pct#1 / 11 · 100th pct
First downs
Team
3919.5/gmT-#92 / 138 · 32nd pctT-#52 / 69 · 23rd pctT-#13 / 17 · 24th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
3316.5/gmT-#53 / 138 · 61st pctT-#39 / 69 · 43rd pct#8 / 17 · 56th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
3rd-down conv
Team
105.0/gmT-#71 / 138 · 44th pctT-#42 / 69 · 35th pctT-#11 / 17 · 35th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
84.0/gmT-#40 / 138 · 67th pctT-#27 / 69 · 56th pctT-#6 / 17 · 62nd pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
3rd-down att
Team
2713.5/gmT-#57 / 138 · 57th pctT-#24 / 69 · 64th pctT-#7 / 17 · 59th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
2613.0/gmT-#43 / 138 · 66th pctT-#21 / 69 · 66th pctT-#2 / 17 · 85th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
4th-down conv
Team
31.5/gmT-#23 / 138 · 74th pctT-#12 / 69 · 72nd pctT-#3 / 17 · 79th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
10.5/gmT-#26 / 138 · 66th pctT-#15 / 69 · 62nd pctT-#4 / 17 · 59th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
4th-down att
Team
63.0/gmT-#16 / 138 · 85th pctT-#8 / 69 · 86th pct#1 / 17 · 97th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
52.5/gmT-#98 / 138 · 25th pctT-#54 / 69 · 20th pctT-#13 / 17 · 24th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Time of possession
Team
63:2131:40/gm#56 / 138 · 60th pct#28 / 69 · 60th pct#7 / 17 · 62nd pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
56:3928:20/gm#47 / 138 · 66th pct#28 / 69 · 60th pct#7 / 17 · 62nd pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct

FBS rankings · 2026 season · all stats vs 136 FBS programs

Player stats — 2026 season
Quarterbacks
Player#GCmp/AttPctYdsY/ATDINTRateZPRQBRAdj ANY/ASack%
+0.27 EPA/play2228 / 4759.63377.23
#60 FBS
0140.95575.9
Running Backs
Player#GCarYdsAvgTDLongStuff%10+%
Speed Merchant · +0.38 EPA/play20259374
#2 FBS
6.33
#11 FBS
4712.124.1
Receivers
Player#GRecYdsAvgTDLong
+1.15 EPA/play62711416.3136
+0.21 EPA/play85258917.8035

2026 stat leaders · Duke

through 2 games

Nate Sheppard leads Duke with 374 rushing yards through 2 games.

1. Nate Sheppard RB 374 rushing yards
2. Nick Morris Jr. LB 15 tackles
3. Andrew Pellicciotta S 14 tackles
4. Bryce Davis DE 11 tackles
5. Jonah Burton WR 114 receiving yards
How They Play · 2025

Duke fields an elite pass-first offense behind a porous, gives up the big play defense.

Offense
83rd pct EPA/play
Run/Pass
53% pass plays
Defense
16th pct EPA allowed
Defensive shape
19th pct at limiting explosive plays

Percentile vs all FBS, based on this season's per-game production. Bar = where this team ranks — right is better.

The Savant Card · Duke · 2025

Duke reads strongest in explosive plays (top 16%) and epa / play (top 18%); the crux lives in passing epa allowed, where Duke sits at the 12th percentile.

offense · strengths lead

EPA / play +0.25
83rd
Success Rate +0.46
78th
Explosive Plays +1.35
84th
Rushing EPA +0.08
44th

defense · higher bar = harder to play against

EPA Allowed +0.22
16th
Success Rate Allowed +0.43
27th
Explosive Plays Allowed +1.34
19th
Passing EPA Allowed +0.40
12th

hidden math · special situations

Passing EPA +0.40
81st
Rushing EPA Allowed +0.10
44th
Elite · 90+Strong · 70+Average · 40-70Concern · 10-40Bottom · <10
Sources · CFBD tier-2 advanced stats · per-game production · 14 games this season · percentiles vs. up to 136 FBS peers

Home-field advantage · Duke · 2018–present · FBS opponents

Duke has had no measurable home edge — +0.0 points, home against road.

No measurable home edge, 3rd percentile of 133 programs

53% at home, 42% away against FBS opponents since 2018 (23–20 home, 19–26 away). Interval ±4.4.

95% intervalmodel 2.3 · books ~3Weakest home edge in FBSStrongest

Our model gives every stadium the same flat 2.3-point home edge — per-team modelling was tested and did not survive scrutiny (why) — and the books use about 3. Against the closing line, Duke has beaten the number by −7.5 more at home than away over 70 games — inside the ±7.8 that many games can resolve. Results here cannot tell the flat number apart from the building, and that is the honest reading of nearly every FBS stadium.

Wallace Wade Stadium seats 40,004 and has averaged 62% full (24,839, 25 games reported). Visitors cover a median 313 miles to get here since 2018 — 41st-shortest of 135 FBS venues, inside the ordinary range. For the home side it is a home crowd more than a home town: only 6% of the 2026 roster (6 of 99 located players) grew up inside 100 miles of the stadium.

Edge = half the gap between average home margin and average road margin, FBS opponents only, non-neutral games since 2018; the interval is 95%. Market line: closing spread, seasons with lines on file. Trip length is straight-line miles from the visiting team's campus to the venue, measured across all 50 home games since 2018.

Home23–20Away19–26Edge+0.0 ±4.4Visitor trip313 mi

More in this tab

Position battlesReps are split -- here's who's actually winning them.

Positional competition · RB room

The carries are split. The job isn’t.

Nate Sheppard and CJ Campbell split the carries (57/74 vs 17/74) -- but the job isn't split the same way.

Nate SheppardCJ Campbell
Carries
5717
the baseline -- every row below is tested against this split, not a flat 50/50
Q4, leading (competitive)
15/205/20
shared -- dots touch, this room really is a committee here
Targets
10/133/13
shared -- dots touch, this room really is a committee here
Top-5-carry share
35.2%81.8%
concentration alone -- EPA/carry doesn't corroborate, read with caution
Screened 3 claims, 0 survived, 3 falsified
Scheme claimsFive specific, testable claims about how this team plays.

Fourth-quarter reliability, corrected

Duke's 4th-quarter offense, before and after garbage time

Raw Q4 EPA/play ranks 3rd percentile in FBS. Strip out snaps taken with a blowout margin and it climbs to the 9th — the correction is the finding, not a footnote.

league medianRaw 4th quarter · 3rd pctileCompetitive snaps only · 9th pctileWorst in FBSBest in FBS
Source CFB Zeitgeist · CFBD play-by-play, garbage-time adjusted by pre-play margin

Standard downs vs. passing downs

Does Duke hold up once the down-and-distance turns against them?

20th percentile success on standard downs, 29th on passing downs — little dropoff between the two — a schedule-independent identity.

Fragile off scheduleBalanced, both workStruggles even on scheduleStandard-downs reliantDukeWeak on standard downsElite on standard downsFalls apart off scheduleHolds up off scheduleHawai'i18th standard · 41st passingUNLV51st standard · 7th passingStanford76th standard · 15th passingEastern Michigan52nd standard · 10th passingSan José State54th standard · 22nd passingNew Mexico State45th standard · 75th passingSacramento State23rd standard · 14th passingOklahoma State41st standard · 49th passingDuke20th standard · 29th passingFlorida State28th standard · 65th passingRutgers30th standard · 71st passingKansas70th standard · 35th passingBoston College27th standard · 56th passingNorfolk State16th standard · 9th passingLouisville96th standard · 70th passingMissouri36th standard · 85th passingMemphis69th standard · 65th passingGeorgia Southern24th standard · 45th passingOle Miss94th standard · 50th passingJacksonville State65th standard · 82nd passingNorth Dakota State86th standard · 27th passingArizona92nd standard · 86th passingUSC97th standard · 99th passingWake Forest56th standard · 97th passingTCU93rd standard · 8th passingDelaware70th standard · 31st passingUAB65th standard · 81st passingMichigan State62nd standard · 29th passingSouth Florida91st standard · 52nd passingFlorida International46th standard · 43rd passingNavy98th standard · 59th passingWisconsin13th standard · 18th passingOregon State10th standard · 38th passingSyracuse48th standard · 64th passingOhio State90th standard · 40th passingBall State12th standard · 24th passingPittsburgh30th standard · 76th passingColorado35th standard · 77th passingGeorgia Tech58th standard · 44th passingAuburn75th standard · 55th passingBaylor40th standard · 96th passingNorth Texas49th standard · 68th passingApp State44th standard · 90th passingIowa State4th standard · 23rd passingUTSA99th standard · 29th passingArkansas60th standard · 80th passingBoise State58th standard · 46th passingOregon35th standard · 33rd passingTulsa56th standard · 1st passingTulane31st standard · 2nd passingPurdue83rd standard · 88th passingMiddle Tennessee87th standard · 68th passingVanderbilt80th standard · 12th passingSan Diego State4th standard · 40th passingLSU33rd standard · 98th passingClemson1st standard · 19th passingCentral Michigan16th standard · 6th passingTexas Tech88th standard · 48th passingMichigan2nd standard · 62nd passingWestern Michigan39th standard · 20th passingOhio38th standard · 17th passingBuffalo7th standard · 14th passingTexas72nd standard · 94th passingCoastal Carolina61st standard · 52nd passingColorado State82nd standard · 91st passingWyoming65th standard · 36th passingTexas A&M85th standard · 72nd passingLiberty14th standard · 59th passingFlorida Atlantic43rd standard · 87th passingLouisiana19th standard · 92nd passingSouth Alabama50th standard · 73rd passingTroy22nd standard · 59th passingSam Houston78th standard · 61st passingNevada77th standard · 52nd passingWestern Kentucky25th standard · 34th passingWashington State8th standard · 3rd passingWashington81st standard · 4th passingCalifornia9th standard · 25th passingCharlotte73rd standard · 83rd passingTennessee65th standard · 78th passingUtah State4th standard · 93rd passing
Source CFB Zeitgeist · advanced team stats, Connelly success-rate definition
View all FBS teams as a table
TeamStandard-downs percentilePassing-downs percentile
App State44th90th
Arizona92nd86th
Arkansas60th80th
Auburn75th55th
Ball State12th24th
Baylor40th96th
Boise State58th46th
Boston College27th56th
Buffalo7th14th
California9th25th
Central Michigan16th6th
Charlotte73rd83rd
Clemson1st19th
Coastal Carolina61st52nd
Colorado35th77th
Colorado State82nd91st
Delaware70th31st
Duke20th29th
Eastern Michigan52nd10th
Florida Atlantic43rd87th
Florida International46th43rd
Florida State28th65th
Georgia Southern24th45th
Georgia Tech58th44th
Hawai'i18th41st
Iowa State4th23rd
Jacksonville State65th82nd
Kansas70th35th
LSU33rd98th
Liberty14th59th
Louisiana19th92nd
Louisville96th70th
Memphis69th65th
Michigan2nd62nd
Michigan State62nd29th
Middle Tennessee87th68th
Missouri36th85th
Navy98th59th
Nevada77th52nd
New Mexico State45th75th
Norfolk State16th9th
North Dakota State86th27th
North Texas49th68th
Ohio38th17th
Ohio State90th40th
Oklahoma State41st49th
Ole Miss94th50th
Oregon35th33rd
Oregon State10th38th
Pittsburgh30th76th
Purdue83rd88th
Rutgers30th71st
Sacramento State23rd14th
Sam Houston78th61st
San Diego State4th40th
San José State54th22nd
South Alabama50th73rd
South Florida91st52nd
Stanford76th15th
Syracuse48th64th
TCU93rd8th
Tennessee65th78th
Texas72nd94th
Texas A&M85th72nd
Texas Tech88th48th
Troy22nd59th
Tulane31st2nd
Tulsa56th1st
UAB65th81st
UNLV51st7th
USC97th99th
UTSA99th29th
Utah State4th93rd
Vanderbilt80th12th
Wake Forest56th97th
Washington81st4th
Washington State8th3rd
Western Kentucky25th34th
Western Michigan39th20th
Wisconsin13th18th
Wyoming65th36th

Halftime identity

Duke by half

1st-half offense ranks 76th percentile in FBS; 2nd-half, 1st — competitive snaps only, garbage time excluded from both halves.

league median1st half · 76th pctile2nd half · 1st pctileWorst in FBSBest in FBS
Source CFB Zeitgeist · advanced team stats, garbage-time adjusted by pre-play margin
Tendency driftHow this coordinator's calls have drifted since arriving.

Season by season

How Duke’s current staff calls plays, year over year

Offense: Jonathan Brewer (2024–2026)
1st-down pass rate
2024: 47% → 2026: 23% · 26-pt range · #4 of 184 · more than most
Red-zone pass rate
2024: 47% → 2026: 56% · 23-pt range · #18 of 182 · more than most
4th-down go rate
2024: 31% → 2025: 49% · 18-pt range · #77 of 172 · a typical amount
Defense: Jonathan Patke (2024–2026)
1st-down pass rate
2024: 47% → 2026: 23% · 26-pt range · #4 of 203 · more than most
Red-zone pass rate
2024: 47% → 2026: 56% · 23-pt range · #26 of 200 · more than most
4th-down go rate
2024: 31% → 2025: 49% · 18-pt range · #82 of 189 · a typical amount
Pass defense by zoneThe part of the field opponents keep attacking.

Pass-depth identity

What this team throws, and gives up, by depth.

On short throws (≤19 air yards), Duke’s defense allows a completion rate below the FBS mean (65.1% vs 65.2% league-wide, shrunk toward the mean for its 60-play sample) — mid-pack, 9 of 18 qualifying defenses.

We won’t show a deep-ball (20+ air yards) leaderboard here, on either side of the ball: even a full season of charted plays gives most teams well under 30 deep attempts — too thin to tell a real tendency from noise, so we won’t guess. Same refusal for yards-after-catch allowed and where a team’s attempts land by zone: both measured and both came back statistically indistinguishable from season-to-season noise.

Screened 59 claims, 59 survived · 2025+ only, charted plays (parse_status='complete'); n=60 short-zone plays, raw rate 65.0%
RatingsWhere the public rating systems put this team.

Model Consensus

Where the Models Rank Duke

CFB Zeitgeist

#68

+0.6

SP+

#45

+6.6

FPI

#40

+6.6

Elo

#38

1613

The national models put Duke between 38th and 45th nationally — CFB Zeitgeist is more skeptical, at 68th.

National rank of 138 FBS teams · 2026 season. SP+/FPI/SRS published; Elo & CFB Zeitgeist ranked by rating.

Comparable teamsPrograms built like this one — tier, prestige band, kind of fanbase, roster size. Not a stat match.

Most similar programs · Duke

Reads like

Matched on how the programs are built — tier, prestige band, kind of fanbase, conference, voice and roster size — not on this season's stats. A calibration, not a prediction.

Historical echoPrograms whose arc bent the same way -- then what happened.

Historical echo

Duke’s breakout has happened before — and 2 of the 4 closest programs couldn’t hold it.

Programs whose stature climbed in the same shape. The grey line is their run; the color is what came next for them.

Ole Miss 1953–1958
kept climbing
Rutgers 1974–1979
fell back
New Mexico 1974–1979
fell back
NC State 1959–1964
kept climbing

An analogy on the shape of a program’s Zeitgeist stature arc — not a prediction. Interim calibration, medium confidence; matched among current FBS programs at a comparable level.

ConditionsThe weather and altitude visitors have to deal with.
Venue texture

67°F average kickoff temp; 10% of games had measurable precipitation; 6 mph average wind.

Based on 77 home games with weather data.

This page may include content derived from public news sources, social media, and fan communities. We relay these sources as-is — we are not reporting them. Sources may be summarized or quoted imperfectly; for anything that matters, go look at the original source directly. The original source may also be wrong. AI-generated content is labeled and may contain factual errors. All analysis is editorial opinion, not professional reporting. Data sources · About this site