Pittsburgh

2-0
Latest
The West Virginia rivalryPittsburgh enters 2026 rated No. 36 in 2025 SP+ (+8.4), up 14 spots from 2024.our read

ACC · Pat Narduzzi, year 12 (82-61) · Acrisure Stadium · 68,400 · 44,927 avg in 2026

The nationunrankedAP / Coaches
The model#49 CFB ZeitgeistSP+ #32 (+10.1) · FPI #29
The marketPittsburgh by 10vs Syracuse · our model 81% Pittsburgh · a number, not a pick

LastW 12–7 vs UCF · Sat Sep 12 · Braylan Lovelace 1 sacks, 1 TFL, 6 tackles

Nextvs Syracuse · Thu Sep 17 · 7:30 pm ET · Acrisure Stadium · Pittsburgh by 10 · series 45-33-3, won the last 2 · Game preview

Updated Tue Sep 15 · through week 2

Key stats — 2026 — FBS rank
Points/game
35.5
Pts allowed/game
10.5
Total yards/gm#37 / 138 · 74th pct
480.5
Rush yards/gm#102 / 138 · 26th pct
134.5
Pass yards/gm#12 / 138 · 92nd pct
346.0
Yards allowed/gm#26 / 138 · 82nd pct
247.5
Rush yds allowed/gm#3 / 138 · 98th pct
24.0
SacksT-#38 / 138 · 65th pct
5
InterceptionsT-#63 / 115 · 23rd pct
1
3rd-down convT-#64 / 138 · 53rd pct
42.9%
All 84 stats
Offense / Defense
Total yards
Team
961480.5/gm6.54/play#37 / 138 · 74th pct#25 / 69 · 64th pct#6 / 17 · 68th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
495247.5/gm4.46/play#26 / 138 · 82nd pct#23 / 69 · 67th pct#5 / 17 · 74th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush yards
Team
269134.5/gm1.83/play#102 / 138 · 26th pct#52 / 69 · 25th pct#11 / 17 · 38th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
4824.0/gm0.43/play#3 / 138 · 98th pct#3 / 69 · 96th pct#1 / 17 · 97th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush carries
Team
7437.0/gmT-#73 / 138 · 47th pctT-#39 / 69 · 43rd pctT-#8 / 17 · 53rd pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
4321.5/gm#2 / 138 · 99th pct#2 / 69 · 98th pct#1 / 17 · 97th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush TDs
Team
21.0/gmT-#106 / 138 · 18th pctT-#56 / 69 · 14th pct#13 / 17 · 26th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
10.5/gmT-#24 / 138 · 73rd pctT-#18 / 69 · 64th pctT-#5 / 17 · 65th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Net pass yards
Team
692346.0/gm4.71/play#12 / 138 · 92nd pct#6 / 69 · 92nd pct#3 / 17 · 85th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
447223.5/gm4.03/play#91 / 138 · 34th pct#51 / 69 · 27th pct#10 / 17 · 44th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Pass attempts
Team
7336.5/gmT-#29 / 138 · 79th pct#14 / 69 · 80th pct#5 / 17 · 74th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
6834.0/gmT-#97 / 138 · 29th pctT-#49 / 69 · 28th pctT-#10 / 17 · 41st pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Completions
Team
5226.0/gmT-#21 / 138 · 84th pctT-#9 / 69 · 87th pct#4 / 17 · 79th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
3919.5/gmT-#80 / 138 · 39th pctT-#47 / 69 · 30th pctT-#9 / 17 · 47th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Pass TDs
Team
73.5/gmT-#11 / 138 · 91st pctT-#9 / 69 · 85th pct#4 / 17 · 79th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
21.0/gmT-#45 / 138 · 57th pctT-#29 / 69 · 46th pctT-#6 / 17 · 59th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Passer rating#17 / 115 · 86th pct#15 / 59 · 75th pct#4 / 14 · 75th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
179.8179.8
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
52.5/gmT-#38 / 138 · 65th pctT-#21 / 69 · 60th pctT-#4 / 17 · 71st pct#11 / 11 · 9th pct
Opp
21.0/gmT-#33 / 138 · 67th pctT-#20 / 69 · 62nd pctT-#5 / 17 · 68th pct#1 / 11 · 100th pct
Tackles for loss
Team
115.5/gmT-#63 / 138 · 49th pctT-#37 / 69 · 42nd pctT-#6 / 17 · 65th pct#11 / 11 · 9th pct
Opp
73.5/gmT-#30 / 138 · 76th pctT-#18 / 69 · 70th pctT-#4 / 17 · 76th pct#1 / 11 · 100th pct
First downs
Team
4824.0/gmT-#46 / 138 · 65th pctT-#31 / 69 · 54th pct#5 / 17 · 74th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
2311.5/gmT-#12 / 138 · 91st pctT-#11 / 69 · 83rd pct#4 / 17 · 79th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
3rd-down conv
Team
126.0/gmT-#53 / 138 · 59th pctT-#29 / 69 · 54th pctT-#5 / 17 · 59th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
73.5/gmT-#29 / 138 · 76th pctT-#20 / 69 · 67th pct#5 / 17 · 74th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
3rd-down att
Team
2814.0/gmT-#45 / 138 · 64th pctT-#19 / 69 · 70th pct#6 / 17 · 68th 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
21.0/gmT-#51 / 138 · 51st pctT-#28 / 69 · 49th pctT-#6 / 17 · 65th 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
42.0/gmT-#47 / 138 · 60th pctT-#24 / 69 · 59th pctT-#6 / 17 · 62nd pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
42.0/gmT-#80 / 138 · 36th pctT-#42 / 69 · 32nd pctT-#11 / 17 · 35th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Time of possession
Team
70:0835:04/gm#23 / 138 · 84th pct#8 / 69 · 89th pct#2 / 17 · 91st pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
49:5224:56/gm#14 / 138 · 90th pct#8 / 69 · 89th pct#2 / 17 · 91st 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%
+0.47 EPA/play6249 / 7070665
#10 FBS		9.57
#9 FBS		0182.86744.111.02.8
Running Backs
Player#GCarYdsAvgTDLongStuff%10+%
-0.07 EPA/play26226813.1113——
Receivers
Player#GRecYdsAvgTDLong
+0.38 EPA/play328178
#40 FBS		22.2153
+1.20 EPA/play102710414.9135
+2.01 EPA/play4268013.3127
18277310.4117
+1.92 EPA/play8225408110

2026 stat leaders · Pittsburgh

through 2 games

Mason Heintschel leads Pittsburgh with 665 passing yards through 2 games.

1. Mason Heintschel QB 665 passing yards
2. Cataurus Hicks WR 178 receiving yards
3. Cruce Brookins DB 9 tackles
4. Josh Guerrier DB 9 tackles
5. Censere Lee WR 104 receiving yards
How They Play · 2025

Pittsburgh fields a capable pass-first, explosive, big-play offense behind an elite, gives up the big play defense.

Offense
50th pct EPA/play
Run/Pass
52% pass plays
Tempo
81st pct explosiveness
Defense
81st pct EPA allowed
Defensive shape
6th 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 · Pittsburgh · 2025

Pittsburgh reads strongest in rushing epa allowed (top 5%) and success rate allowed (top 7%); the crux lives in explosive plays allowed, where Pittsburgh sits at the 6th percentile.

offense · strengths lead

EPA / play +0.17
50th
Success Rate +0.40
27th
Explosive Plays +1.34
81st
Rushing EPA +0.06
34th

defense · higher bar = harder to play against

EPA Allowed +0.07
81st
Success Rate Allowed +0.35
93rd
Explosive Plays Allowed +1.40
6th
Passing EPA Allowed +0.23
53rd

hidden math · special situations

Passing EPA +0.31
63rd
Rushing EPA Allowed -0.07
95th
Elite · 90+Strong · 70+Average · 40-70Concern · 10-40Bottom · <10
Sources · CFBD tier-2 advanced stats · per-game production · 13 games this season · percentiles vs. up to 136 FBS peers

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

Pittsburgh is worth +2.3 points more at home than on the road.

Bottom third of FBS, 21st percentile of 133 programs

62% at home, 51% away against FBS opponents since 2018 (30–18 home, 21–20 away). Interval ±4.0.

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, Pittsburgh has beaten the number by +3.0 more at home than away over 73 games — inside the ±7.0 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.

Acrisure Stadium seats 68,400 and has averaged 75% full (51,586, 29 games reported). Visitors cover a median 329 miles to get here since 2018 — 46th-shortest of 135 FBS venues, inside the ordinary range. 20% of the 2026 roster (22 of 110 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 55 home games since 2018.

Home30–18Away21–20Edge+2.3 ±4.0Visitor trip329 mi

More in this tab

Scheme claimsFive specific, testable claims about how this team plays.

Standard downs vs. passing downs

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

30th percentile success on standard downs, 76th on passing downs — a 46-point gap between the two.

Fragile off scheduleBalanced, both workStruggles even on scheduleStandard-downs reliantPittsburghWeak 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
Tendency driftHow this coordinator's calls have drifted since arriving.

Season by season

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

Offense: Kade Bell (2024–2026)
1st-down pass rate
2024: 47% → 2026: 43% · 4-pt range · #160 of 184 · less than most
Red-zone pass rate
2024: 58% → 2025: 60% · 2-pt range · #180 of 182 · less than most
4th-down go rate
2024: 18% → 2025: 43% · 25-pt range · #35 of 172 · more than most
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), Pittsburgh’s passing game completes a completion rate above the FBS mean (69.3% vs 68.3% league-wide, shrunk toward the mean for its 61-play sample) — mid-pack, 25 of 41 qualifying offenses.

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=61 short-zone plays, raw rate 70.5%
RatingsWhere the public rating systems put this team.

Model Consensus

Where the Models Rank Pittsburgh

CFB Zeitgeist

#49

+3.3

SP+

#32

+10.1

FPI

#29

+11.6

Elo

#31

1678

The national models put Pittsburgh between 29th and 32nd nationally — CFB Zeitgeist is more skeptical, at 49th.

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 · Pittsburgh

Reads like

BYUBig 12Same tier of program · Same prestige band · Similarly-sized rosters up frontMinnesotaBig TenSame tier of program · Same prestige band · Similarly-sized rosters up frontOklahoma StateBig 12Same tier of program · Same prestige band · Similarly-sized rosters up front

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.

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

63°F average kickoff temp; 11% of games had measurable precipitation; 8 mph average wind.

Based on 83 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