Rutgers

0-2

Big Ten · Greg Schiano, year 7 (31-43) · SHI Stadium · 52,454 · 42,454 avg in 2026

The nationunrankedAP / Coaches
The model#87 CFB ZeitgeistSP+ #78 (-3.6) · FPI #98
The marketUSC by 24.5vs USC · our model 22% Rutgers · a number, not a pick

LastL 21–28 at Boston College · Fri Sep 11 · Moses Walker 1 sacks, 1 TFL, 2 INT

Nextvs USC · Sat Sep 19 · 3:30 pm ET · SHI Stadium · USC by 24.5 · series 0-1 · Game preview

Updated Tue Sep 15 · through week 2

Key stats — 2026 — FBS rank
Points/game
21.0
Pts allowed/game
32.5
Total yards/gm#98 / 138 · 29th pct
366.5
Rush yards/gmT-#131 / 138 · 5th pct
92.0
Pass yards/gm#47 / 138 · 66th pct
274.5
Yards allowed/gm#104 / 138 · 25th pct
399.5
Rush yds allowed/gm#107 / 138 · 23rd pct
175.0
SacksT-#106 / 138 · 16th pct
2
InterceptionsT-#29 / 115 · 61st pct
2
3rd-down convT-#121 / 138 · 12th pct
30.4%
All 87 stats
Offense / Defense
Total yards
Team
733366.5/gm5.60/play#98 / 138 · 29th pct#58 / 69 · 17th pct#14 / 18 · 25th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
799399.5/gm6.44/play#104 / 138 · 25th pct#63 / 69 · 9th pct#16 / 18 · 14th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush yards
Team
18492.0/gm1.40/playT-#131 / 138 · 5th pct#68 / 69 · 2nd pct#17 / 18 · 8th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
350175.0/gm2.82/play#107 / 138 · 23rd pct#65 / 69 · 7th pct#17 / 18 · 8th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush carries
Team
6633.0/gmT-#96 / 138 · 28th pctT-#47 / 69 · 29th pctT-#10 / 18 · 42nd pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
7336.5/gmT-#88 / 138 · 36th pct#52 / 69 · 25th pct#12 / 18 · 36th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush TDs
Team
00.0/gmT-#134 / 138 · 2nd pct#69 / 69 · 1st pct#18 / 18 · 3rd pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
31.5/gmT-#86 / 138 · 31st pctT-#57 / 69 · 15th pct#16 / 18 · 14th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Net pass yards
Team
549274.5/gm4.19/play#47 / 138 · 66th pct#29 / 69 · 59th pct#9 / 18 · 53rd pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
449224.5/gm3.62/play#93 / 138 · 33rd pct#52 / 69 · 25th pct#16 / 18 · 14th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Pass attempts
Team
6532.5/gmT-#49 / 138 · 64th pct#24 / 69 · 66th pct#9 / 18 · 53rd pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
5125.5/gmT-#35 / 138 · 74th pctT-#21 / 69 · 69th pct#10 / 18 · 47th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Completions
Team
4020.0/gmT-#62 / 138 · 54th pctT-#37 / 69 · 46th pct#12 / 18 · 36th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
3718.5/gmT-#70 / 138 · 49th pctT-#41 / 69 · 40th pct#15 / 18 · 19th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Pass TDs
Team
63.0/gmT-#17 / 138 · 83rd pctT-#14 / 69 · 74th pctT-#5 / 18 · 69th pct#12 / 13 · 15th pct
Opp
42.0/gmT-#103 / 138 · 19th pctT-#62 / 69 · 8th pctT-#15 / 18 · 14th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Passer rating
Team
156.8156.8#42 / 115 · 64th pct#28 / 59 · 53rd pct#9 / 16 · 47th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Opp
144.9144.9#70 / 91 · 24th pct#38 / 41 · 9th pct#10 / 13 · 31st pct
Interceptions thrown
Team
73.5/gmT-#1 / 138 · 99th pct#1 / 69 · 99th pct#1 / 18 · 97th pct#10 / 13 · 31st pct
Opp
21.0/gmT-#77 / 138 · 33rd pctT-#40 / 69 · 29th pctT-#10 / 18 · 33rd pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Sacks (def)
Team
21.0/gmT-#106 / 138 · 16th pctT-#61 / 69 · 8th pctT-#14 / 18 · 17th pct#11 / 11 · 9th pct
Opp
84.0/gmT-#133 / 138 · 4th pct#69 / 69 · 1st pct#18 / 18 · 3rd pct#1 / 11 · 100th pct
Tackles for loss
Team
73.5/gmT-#111 / 138 · 16th pctT-#61 / 69 · 10th pct#15 / 18 · 19th pct#11 / 11 · 9th pct
Opp
126.0/gmT-#102 / 138 · 24th pctT-#56 / 69 · 15th pctT-#16 / 18 · 8th pct#1 / 11 · 100th pct
First downs
Team
3718.5/gmT-#102 / 138 · 25th pctT-#59 / 69 · 14th pct#14 / 18 · 25th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
3919.5/gmT-#86 / 138 · 37th pctT-#54 / 69 · 21st pct#15 / 18 · 19th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
3rd-down conv
Team
73.5/gmT-#117 / 138 · 13th pctT-#63 / 69 · 7th pctT-#16 / 18 · 11th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
84.0/gmT-#40 / 138 · 67th pctT-#27 / 69 · 56th pctT-#7 / 18 · 56th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
3rd-down att
Team
2311.5/gmT-#91 / 138 · 30th pctT-#43 / 69 · 34th pctT-#12 / 18 · 33rd pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
2311.5/gmT-#19 / 138 · 84th pctT-#6 / 69 · 89th pctT-#4 / 18 · 72nd pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
4th-down conv
Team
63.0/gmT-#2 / 138 · 99th pctT-#1 / 69 · 99th pct#1 / 18 · 97th pct#11 / 13 · 23rd pct
Opp
21.0/gmT-#71 / 138 · 37th pctT-#40 / 69 · 32nd pctT-#11 / 18 · 31st pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
4th-down att
Team
105.0/gmT-#1 / 138 · 99th pct#1 / 69 · 99th pct#1 / 18 · 97th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
21.0/gmT-#20 / 138 · 74th pctT-#10 / 69 · 72nd pctT-#5 / 18 · 61st pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Time of possession
Team
58:1129:06/gm#98 / 138 · 29th pct#49 / 69 · 30th pct#12 / 18 · 36th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
61:4930:54/gm#88 / 138 · 37th pct#49 / 69 · 30th pct#12 / 18 · 36th 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%
-0.09 EPA/play10224 / 3666.73078.54
#36 FBS
4152.757.1
+0.06 EPA/play12116 / 2955.22428.323127.320.4
Running Backs
Player#GCarYdsAvgTDLongStuff%10+%
Balanced Back · +0.03 EPA/play3241176
#35 FBS
4.3022
Receivers
Player#GRecYdsAvgTDLong
Deep Threat · +1.17 EPA/play8217333
#2 FBS
19.65
#1 FBS
78
+0.13 EPA/play429829.1021

2026 stat leaders · Rutgers

through 2 games

KJ Duff leads Rutgers with 333 receiving yards through 2 games.

1. KJ Duff WR 333 receiving yards
2. Chris Joines DB 12 tackles
3. Antwan Raymond RB 176 rushing yards
4. Jessie Ofurie DB 11 tackles
5. Bradlee Jones DB 10 tackles
How They Play · 2025

Rutgers fields a strong methodical, ball-control offense behind a porous, gives up the big play defense.

Offense
69th pct EPA/play
Tempo
79th pct success, 27th explosiveness
Defense
2nd pct EPA allowed
Defensive shape
15th 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 · Rutgers · 2025

Rutgers reads strongest in success rate (top 21%) and passing epa (top 26%); the crux lives in rushing epa allowed, where Rutgers sits at the 1st percentile.

offense · strengths lead

EPA / play +0.20
69th
Success Rate +0.46
79th
Explosive Plays +1.20
27th
Rushing EPA +0.07
39th

defense · higher bar = harder to play against

EPA Allowed +0.30
2nd
Success Rate Allowed +0.47
6th
Explosive Plays Allowed +1.35
15th
Passing EPA Allowed +0.41
9th

hidden math · special situations

Passing EPA +0.37
75th
Rushing EPA Allowed +0.25
1st
Elite · 90+Strong · 70+Average · 40-70Concern · 10-40Bottom · <10
Sources · CFBD tier-2 advanced stats · per-game production · 12 games this season · percentiles vs. up to 136 FBS peers

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

Rutgers is worth +2.4 points more at home than on the road.

Bottom third of FBS, 23rd percentile of 133 programs

33% at home, 31% away against FBS opponents since 2018 (16–33 home, 13–29 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, Rutgers has beaten the number by +1.2 more at home than away over 74 games — inside the ±6.9 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.

SHI Stadium seats 52,454 and has averaged 93% full (48,975, 27 games reported). Visitors cover a median 496 miles to get here since 2018 — 51st-longest of 135 FBS venues, inside the ordinary range. For the home side it is genuinely home ground: 43% of the 2026 roster (53 of 124 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 53 home games since 2018.

Home16–33Away13–29Edge+2.4 ±4.4Visitor trip496 mi

More in this tab

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

Fourth-quarter reliability, corrected

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

Raw Q4 EPA/play ranks 80th percentile in FBS. Strip out snaps taken with a blowout margin and it drops to the 54th — the correction is the finding, not a footnote.

league medianRaw 4th quarter · 80t…Competitive snaps only · 54th 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 Rutgers hold up once the down-and-distance turns against them?

30th percentile success on standard downs, 71st on passing downs — a 41-point gap between the two.

Fragile off scheduleBalanced, both workStruggles even on scheduleStandard-downs reliantRutgersWeak 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

Rutgers by half

1st-half offense ranks 14th percentile in FBS; 2nd-half, 16th — competitive snaps only, garbage time excluded from both halves.

league median1st half · 14th…2nd half · 16th pc…Worst 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 Rutgers’s current staff calls plays, year over year

Offense: Kirk Ciarrocca (2023–2026)
1st-down pass rate
2023: 35% → 2026: 52% · 17-pt range · #27 of 184 · more than most
Red-zone pass rate
2023: 36% → 2026: 35% · 8-pt range · #142 of 182 · less than most
4th-down go rate
2023: 37% → 2025: 55% · 18-pt range · #82 of 172 · a typical amount
RatingsWhere the public rating systems put this team.

Model Consensus

Where the Models Rank Rutgers

CFB Zeitgeist

#87

-1.5

SP+

#78

-3.6

FPI

#98

-7.3

Elo

#97

1371

The national models put Rutgers between 78th and 98th nationally — CFB Zeitgeist agrees, slotting them 87th.

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 · Rutgers

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.

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

63°F average kickoff temp; 8% of games had measurable precipitation; 7 mph average wind.

Based on 78 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