UTSA
University of Texas at San Antonio · 2025 · American Athletic
UTSA went 7-6 and was ranked 64th in the FanBoardHQ CFP Rankings (blended resume and efficiency). Their 41st-ranked offense was the engine, backed by a 65th-ranked defense. They passed the ball on 55% of offensive plays with a 49th-ranked passing attack and ran the ball on the remaining 45% of plays with a 28th-ranked rushing attack.
Quadrant record
By opponent strength, adjusted for where the game was played.
Projected wins
Per-game win probabilities combined across the full schedule.
The resume
Every game on the schedule. Click a row for the game breakdown (played) or the matchup projection (upcoming).
| Wk | Opponent | Conf | Opp rank | Result | Exp. margin | Win prob | GameScore | Quad |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | @ Texas A&M | SEC | #7 | L 24–42 | -18.7 | 0% | -0.6 | Q1 |
| 2 | vs Texas State | Sun Belt | #79 | L 36–43 | +5.9 | 0% | -9.8 | Q4 |
| 3 | vs Incarnate Word | Southland | — | W 48–20 | +27.9 | 100% | 8.9 | Q4 |
| 4 | @ Colorado State | Mountain West | #130 | W 17–16 | +16.4 | 100% | -13.1 | Q4 |
| 6 | @ Temple | American Athletic | #93 | L 21–27 | +7.4 | 0% | -5.6 | Q4 |
| 7 | vs Rice | American Athletic | #106 | W 61–13 | +21.9 | 100% | 16.4 | Q4 |
| 8 | @ North Texas | American Athletic | #21 | L 17–55 | -13.7 | 0% | -13.5 | Q1 |
| 10 | vs Tulane | American Athletic | #26 | W 48–26 | +0.6 | 100% | 29.6 | Q3 |
| 11 | @ South Florida | American Athletic | #30 | L 23–55 | -14.2 | 0% | -32.2 | Q1 |
| 12 | @ Charlotte | American Athletic | #135 | W 28–7 | +24.1 | 100% | 5.9 | Q4 |
| 13 | vs East Carolina | American Athletic | #42 | W 58–24 | -1.6 | 100% | 34.2 | Q3 |
| 14 | vs Army | American Athletic | #67 | L 24–27 | +4.0 | 0% | -5.9 | Q4 |
| Postseason | ||||||||
| — | vs FIU | Conference USA | #89 | W 57–20 | +15.0 | 100% | 18.4 | Q4 |
13 played · 7-6. Expected margin and gamescore use the latest ratings — a completed game shows what the model would say now, not that week.
The season
The model’s read on UTSA, recomputed after every week. Toggle between overall, offensive, and defensive efficiency (each with a dot for that week’s game) or the FanBoardHQ CFP rank.
Passing & rushing
Opponent-adjusted, FBS-only. The bar is the blended Eff rank — EPA/play (scoring value), success rate (staying on schedule), and yards/play (explosiveness), each standardized against the FBS field. The three ranks below each bar are those components, so you can see what's driving it.
Their offense vs. what their defense allows.
Scored vs. allowed, all regular-season games.
What kind of team is this?
Every team by offensive and defensive efficiency (points/game vs. an average team, higher is better on both). Click a dot for that team.
Field position 40th · Finishing 39th
Field position 99th · Finishing 63rd
2.65 points per drive on offense, 2.01 allowed — starting, on average, at their own 32.
Play-calling & efficiency
What the offense did, by quarter and by down — raw, not opponent-adjusted.
| Quarter (att.) | Pass / rush | Success | Yd/play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1(218) | 56% / 44% | 50% | 7.0 |
| Q2(267) | 57% / 43% | 50% | 6.3 |
| Q3(179) | 45% / 55% | 37% | 6.9 |
| Q4(195) | 48% / 52% | 39% | 5.3 |
| Down (att.) | Avg. to go | Success | Yd/play |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1st(170) | 10.0 | 54% | 7.1 |
| 2nd(169) | 8.1 | 46% | 8.0 |
| 3rd(89) | 8.2 | 33% | 4.9 |
| 4th(20) | 6.2 | 40% | 4.7 |
| All (448) | — | 46% | 6.9 |
| Down (att.) | Avg. to go | Success | Yd/play |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1st(211) | 9.9 | 40% | 5.8 |
| 2nd(113) | 7.2 | 43% | 5.3 |
| 3rd(79) | 6.2 | 52% | 6.1 |
| 4th(8) | 3.0 | 75% | 10.3 |
| All (411) | — | 44% | 5.8 |
UTSA, all games.