SMU

2-0AP #16
Latest
SMU game-by-game predictions: Mustangs will avenge Cal loss, but what more are they capable of? - Dallas Newsour readUpdated injury report for FSU vs SMU, several changes for Seminoles - FSU Wireour readThe Rice rivalry

ACC · Rhett Lashlee, year 5 (40-16) · Gerald J. Ford Stadium · 32,000 · 29,054 avg in 2026

The nationAP #16 · Coaches #16up 1 from last week
The model#12 CFB ZeitgeistSP+ #31 (+11.1) · FPI #24
The marketLouisville by 1.5at Louisville · our model 65% SMU · a number, not a pick

LastW 56–10 vs UC Davis · Sat Sep 12 · Kevin Jennings 337 pass yds, 5 TD, 5 rush yds

Nextat Louisville · Sat Sep 19 · 3:30 pm ET · L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium · Louisville by 1.5 · series 4-0, won the last 4 · Game preview

Updated Tue Sep 15 · through week 2

Key stats — 2026 — FBS rank
Points/game
41.5
Pts allowed/game
17.0
Total yards/gm#12 / 138 · 92nd pct
566.0
Rush yards/gm#109 / 138 · 21st pct
124.0
Pass yards/gm#2 / 138 · 99th pct
442.0
Yards allowed/gm#44 / 138 · 68th pct
278.5
Rush yds allowed/gm#78 / 138 · 44th pct
130.5
SacksT-#38 / 138 · 65th pct
5
InterceptionsT-#63 / 115 · 23rd pct
1
3rd-down conv#20 / 138 · 86th pct
54.2%
All 87 stats
Offense / Defense
Total yards
Team
1132566.0/gm9.20/play#12 / 138 · 92nd pct#8 / 69 · 89th pct#2 / 17 · 91st pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
557278.5/gm4.35/play#44 / 138 · 68th pct#36 / 69 · 49th pct#8 / 17 · 56th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush yards
Team
248124.0/gm2.02/play#109 / 138 · 21st pct#58 / 69 · 17th pct#14 / 17 · 21st pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
261130.5/gm2.04/play#78 / 138 · 44th pct#53 / 69 · 24th pct#11 / 17 · 38th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush carries
Team
5527.5/gmT-#130 / 138 · 5th pctT-#66 / 69 · 4th pct#17 / 17 · 3rd pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
6934.5/gmT-#69 / 138 · 47th pctT-#44 / 69 · 35th pctT-#9 / 17 · 47th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush TDs
Team
10.5/gmT-#123 / 138 · 8th pctT-#64 / 69 · 5th pctT-#14 / 17 · 12th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
21.0/gmT-#53 / 138 · 50th pctT-#34 / 69 · 36th pctT-#9 / 17 · 44th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Net pass yards
Team
884442.0/gm7.19/play#2 / 138 · 99th pct#2 / 69 · 98th pct#1 / 17 · 97th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
296148.0/gm2.31/play#32 / 138 · 77th pct#26 / 69 · 63rd pct#7 / 17 · 62nd pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Pass attempts
Team
6834.0/gmT-#43 / 138 · 68th pctT-#20 / 69 · 70th pct#6 / 17 · 68th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
5929.5/gmT-#66 / 138 · 52nd pct#37 / 69 · 47th pct#5 / 17 · 74th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Completions
Team
5326.5/gmT-#19 / 138 · 86th pct#8 / 69 · 89th pct#3 / 17 · 85th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
3115.5/gmT-#38 / 138 · 71st pctT-#24 / 69 · 65th pct#5 / 17 · 74th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Pass TDs
Team
105.0/gmT-#2 / 138 · 98th pctT-#2 / 69 · 96th pct#2 / 17 · 91st pct#12 / 13 · 15th pct
Opp
21.0/gmT-#45 / 138 · 57th pctT-#29 / 69 · 46th pctT-#6 / 17 · 59th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Passer rating
Team
232.7232.7#2 / 115 · 99th pct#2 / 59 · 97th pct#1 / 14 · 96th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Opp
99.199.1#15 / 91 · 84th pct#11 / 41 · 74th pct#3 / 10 · 75th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Interceptions thrown
Team
21.0/gmT-#23 / 138 · 74th pctT-#8 / 69 · 78th pctT-#3 / 17 · 76th 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
10.5/gmT-#9 / 138 · 86th pctT-#6 / 69 · 83rd pctT-#2 / 17 · 85th pct#1 / 11 · 100th pct
Tackles for loss
Team
147.0/gmT-#29 / 138 · 73rd pctT-#18 / 69 · 68th pct#4 / 17 · 79th pct#11 / 11 · 9th pct
Opp
84.0/gmT-#39 / 138 · 67th pctT-#26 / 69 · 57th pctT-#6 / 17 · 65th pct#1 / 11 · 100th pct
First downs
Team
4321.5/gmT-#68 / 138 · 50th pctT-#42 / 69 · 39th pctT-#8 / 17 · 53rd pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
2814.0/gmT-#33 / 138 · 76th pctT-#28 / 69 · 59th pctT-#6 / 17 · 65th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
3rd-down conv
Team
136.5/gmT-#37 / 138 · 68th pctT-#19 / 69 · 67th pctT-#3 / 17 · 82nd pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
42.0/gmT-#2 / 138 · 97th pctT-#2 / 69 · 95th pct#1 / 17 · 97th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
3rd-down att
Team
2412.0/gmT-#81 / 138 · 38th pctT-#39 / 69 · 42nd pctT-#12 / 17 · 29th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
2814.0/gmT-#62 / 138 · 50th pctT-#32 / 69 · 49th pctT-#7 / 17 · 59th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
4th-down conv
Team
00.0/gmT-#114 / 138 · 9th pctT-#52 / 69 · 13th pctT-#11 / 17 · 21st pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
42.0/gmT-#121 / 138 · 9th pctT-#63 / 69 · 7th pctT-#16 / 17 · 6th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
4th-down att
Team
10.5/gmT-#119 / 138 · 9th pctT-#55 / 69 · 14th pctT-#12 / 17 · 21st pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
73.5/gmT-#127 / 138 · 7th pct#67 / 69 · 4th pct#17 / 17 · 3rd pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Time of possession
Team
55:0427:32/gm#113 / 138 · 18th pct#59 / 69 · 15th pct#15 / 17 · 15th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
64:5632:28/gm#103 / 138 · 26th pct#59 / 69 · 15th pct#15 / 17 · 15th 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%
+0.94 EPA/play7240 / 5276.9767
#7 FBS		14.88
#3 FBS		2243.98597.415.61.9
1111 / 1384.6104820202.6—46.3——
Receivers
Player#GRecYdsAvgTDLong
+1.22 EPA/play326151
#67 FBS		25.22
#24 FBS		79
+1.56 EPA/play102511322.6150
+1.01 EPA/play82911112.3033
+1.99 EPA/play5267712.82
#24 FBS		30

2026 stat leaders · SMU

through 2 games

Kevin Jennings leads SMU with 767 passing yards through 2 games.

1. Kevin Jennings QB 767 passing yards
2. Yannick Smith WR 151 receiving yards
3. Jimmy Wyrick S 11 tackles
4. Jalen Hale WR 121 receiving yards
5. Alex Kilgore LB 10 tackles
How They Play · 2025

SMU fields an elite pass-first, explosive, big-play offense behind an elite defense.

Offense
83rd pct EPA/play
Run/Pass
54% pass plays
Tempo
86th pct explosiveness
Defense
92nd pct EPA allowed

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

The Savant Card · SMU · 2025

SMU reads strongest in rushing epa allowed (top 7%) and epa allowed (top 8%); the crux lives in rushing epa, where SMU sits at the 56th percentile.

offense · strengths lead

EPA / play +0.25
83rd
Success Rate +0.43
61st
Explosive Plays +1.36
86th
Rushing EPA +0.13
57th

defense · higher bar = harder to play against

EPA Allowed +0.03
92nd
Success Rate Allowed +0.39
67th
Explosive Plays Allowed +1.23
64th
Passing EPA Allowed +0.17
72nd

hidden math · special situations

Passing EPA +0.42
85th
Rushing EPA Allowed -0.06
94th
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 · SMU · 2018–present · FBS opponents

SMU is worth +5.5 points more at home than on the road.

Top third of FBS, 73rd percentile of 133 programs

78% at home, 59% away against FBS opponents since 2018 (31–9 home, 30–21 away). Interval ±3.8.

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, SMU has beaten the number by +6.0 more at home than away over 76 games — inside the ±6.7 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.

Gerald J. Ford Stadium seats 32,000 and has averaged 89% full (28,627, 26 games reported). Visitors cover a median 441 miles to get here since 2018 — 65th-longest of 135 FBS venues, inside the ordinary range. For the home side it is genuinely home ground: 37% of the 2026 roster (38 of 102 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 48 home games since 2018.

Home31–9Away30–21Edge+5.5 ±3.8Visitor trip441 mi

More in this tab

RatingsWhere the public rating systems put this team.

Model Consensus

Where the Models Rank SMU

CFB Zeitgeist

#12

+8.2

SP+

#31

+11.1

FPI

#24

+13.8

Elo

#22

1734

The national models put SMU between 22nd and 31st nationally — CFB Zeitgeist is higher on them than any of these models, at 12th.

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 · SMU

Reads like

AkronMid-AmericanSame tier of program · Same prestige band · Similarly-sized rosters up frontApp StateSun BeltSame tier of program · Same prestige band · Similarly-sized rosters up frontArizonaBig 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.

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

Historical echo

SMU’s breakout has happened before — and 3 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.

Toledo 2012–2017
fell back
North Texas 1965–1970
fell back
Auburn 1967–1972
fell back
Pittsburgh 1973–1978
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

76°F average kickoff temp; 9% of games had measurable precipitation; 9 mph average wind.

Based on 74 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