Four-year talent direction
Track class strength, position balance and roster needs across signing cycles.

Complete schedules, team production, player statistics, news, analytics, recruiting and program history in one fan destination.
Record: 13–2 (Schedule & Results)
Conference: SEC
Players: 63
Points For: 531
Points/Game: 35.4
Points Against: 246
Opp. Points/Game: 16.4
Season totals organized for quick comparison. Swipe horizontally for more.
| PASS CMP | PASS ATT | PASS YDS | PASS % | PASS AVG | PASS TD | PASS INT | PASS RTG | SACK | RUSH ATT | RUSH YDS | RUSH AVG | RUSH TD | REC | REC YDS | REC AVG | REC TD | PTS/G |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 186 | 303 | 2,653 | 61.4 | 8.8 | 24 | 9 | 155.1 | 0 | 650 | 3,914 | 6.0 | 42 | 186 | 2,653 | 14.3 | 24 | 35.4 |
The verified team snapshot is loading now.
| PLAYER | CAR | YDS | AVG | LNG | TD | FUM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N. Chubb? | 223 | 1345 | 6.0 | 55 | 15 | — |
| S. Michel? | 156 | 1227 | 7.9 | 75 | 16 | — |
| D. SwiftRB | 81 | 618 | 7.6 | 71 | 3 | — |
| E. Holyfield? | 50 | 293 | 5.9 | 39 | 2 | — |
| B. HerrienRB | 61 | 265 | 4.3 | 30 | 1 | — |
| J. FrommQB | 55 | 79 | 1.4 | 21 | 3 | — |
| M. HardmanWR | 8 | 61 | 7.6 | 35 | 2 | — |
| C. PayneFB | 5 | 18 | 3.6 | 7 | 0 | — |
| P. HudsonDB | 6 | 15 | 2.5 | 7 | 0 | — |
| R. RidleyWR | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 5 | 0 | — |
| B. RamseyQB | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| J. EasonQB | 3 | -12 | -4.0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| TEAM TOTALS | 650 | 3,914 | 6.0 | 75 | 42 | 0 |
| PLAYER | REC | YDS | AVG | LNG | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| J. WimsWR | 46 | 724 | 15.7 | 38 | 7 |
| T. GodwinWR | 38 | 639 | 16.8 | 59 | 6 |
| M. HardmanWR | 25 | 418 | 16.7 | 80 | 4 |
| R. RidleyWR | 14 | 218 | 15.6 | 47 | 2 |
| D. SwiftRB | 17 | 153 | 9.0 | 39 | 1 |
| I. NautaTE | 9 | 114 | 12.7 | 41 | 2 |
| C. WoernerTE | 9 | 100 | 11.1 | 50 | 0 |
| A. CrumptonWR | 5 | 96 | 19.2 | 78 | 1 |
| S. Michel? | 9 | 96 | 10.7 | 32 | 1 |
| N. Chubb? | 4 | 30 | 7.5 | 11 | 0 |
| T. SimmonsWR | 3 | 26 | 8.7 | 10 | 0 |
| J. BlazevichTE | 2 | 19 | 9.5 | 12 | 0 |
| J. HarrisTE | 2 | 12 | 6.0 | 8 | 0 |
| J. HollomanWR | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 7 | 0 |
| B. HerrienRB | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 |
| TEAM TOTALS | 186 | 2,653 | 14.3 | 80 | 24 |
| PLAYER | TOT | SOLO | AST | TFL | SACK | INT | PD | FF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R. SmithILB | 125 | 77 | — | 12.5 | 6.5 | — | 2 | — |
| J. ReedDB | 68 | 36 | — | 4.0 | 1.5 | 2 | 5 | — |
| L. CarterOLB | 58 | 28 | — | 7.5 | 4.5 | — | 0 | — |
| D. BakerDB | 43 | 30 | — | 1 | 0 | 3 | 9 | — |
| D. WalkerOLB | 38 | 25 | — | 12.5 | 4.5 | — | 0 | — |
| T. ClarkDL | 37 | 17 | — | 6.0 | 2.5 | — | 0 | — |
| A. DavisDB | 36 | 24 | — | 1.0 | 0.5 | 1 | 4 | — |
| D. Sanders? | 36 | 21 | — | 3.5 | 0 | 4 | 5 | — |
| J. LedbetterDE | 35 | 16 | — | 5.5 | 2.5 | — | 0 | — |
| J. Atkins? | 34 | 16 | — | 1 | 0 | — | 1 | — |
| D. BellamyOLB | 32 | 16 | — | 7.5 | 5.0 | — | 3 | — |
| N. PatrickILB | 32 | 11 | — | 1.5 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| T. ThompsonDT | 32 | 17 | — | 3.5 | 0 | — | 1 | — |
| R. CarterILB | 31 | 11 | — | 3 | 0.5 | — | 1 | — |
| T. McGheeDB | 24 | 14 | — | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 6 | — |
| D. MarshallLB | 23 | 12 | — | 2.5 | 1 | — | 1 | — |
| M. ParrishDB | 22 | 20 | — | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | — |
| M. RiceLB | 22 | 10 | — | 2 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| J. RochesterDL | 21 | 8 | — | 2.5 | 2 | — | 0 | — |
| R. LeCounteDB | 15 | 10 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| J. TaylorILB | 13 | 4 | — | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| W. GrantLB | 8 | 5 | — | 2.5 | 0.5 | — | 0 | — |
| M. HerringDL | 7 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| N. McBrideLB | 7 | 4 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| T. CrowderLB | 7 | 3 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| M. CarterDL | 6 | 4 | — | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| A. SpeedCB | 5 | 5 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 1 | — |
| J. Wilson? | 5 | 3 | — | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| M. HardmanWR | 5 | 4 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| M. BarnettDT | 5 | 4 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| C. PayneFB | 4 | 3 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| K. RichardsonOLB | 4 | 3 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| D. GibbsDB | 3 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| J. FrommQB | 3 | 3 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| J. StanleyWR | 3 | 3 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| C. WoernerTE | 2 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| D. Hawkins-MuckleDT | 2 | 2 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 1 | — |
| P. HudsonDB | 2 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| T. FrixLS | 2 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| T. SimmonsWR | 2 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| A. BynumOT | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| B. ClevelandOL | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| I. NautaTE | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| J. WimsWR | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| J. YoungDE | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| M. WebbDB | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| R. RidleyWR | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| S. FogartyOL | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| S. Michel? | 1 | 1 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| T. GodwinWR | 1 | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — |
| TEAM TOTALS | 869 | 481 | 0 | 85 | 32 | 12 | 43 | 0 |
| PLAYER | FGM | FGA | FG% | XPM | XPA | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R. BlankenshipPK | 20 | 23 | — | 63 | 63 | 123 |
| D. MarvinPK | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| TEAM TOTALS | 21 | 24 | 87.5 | 64 | 64 | 127 |
Joel Klatt ranks his top-10 college football teams after Week 3. In Joel Klatt's ranking after Week 3, the Georgia Bulldogs fall out of the top three despite crushing Arkansas.
READ UPDATE →NATIONAL UPDATEFacing a brutal road test in Athens, the Sooners must solve glaring offensive inconsistencies and test their defensive line depth to survive against a domina... Brent Venables did not sound confused about where Oklahoma stands heading into Athens. The defensive line depth has to prove it is real Oklahoma came into the season with a clear strength on the interior and a much less clear answer behind it. David Stone and Jayden Jackson gave the Sooners a strong starting pair, but the depth questions were obvious enough that the staff added Danny Saili and Braxton Fely when the chance came. Now those questions matter immediately. With Stone hurt and his availability for Georgia still unknown, Venables said the group looks better three weeks in than it did at the end of camp, which is the right direction if the depth is actually catching up. There's some signs that guys are getting better, and so we've got our depth OK there."
READ UPDATE →NATIONAL UPDATEHe’s Oklahoma’s top offensive linemen, and he’s only played limited snaps in the first half of the opener against UTEP. He’s dealing with a shoulder injury that cost him the… pic.
READ UPDATE →FEATURED STATTAKEThe four-game series did not disappear because either program fears the other. Nine-game conference schedules are crowding out the nonconference games fans actually recognize.
READ UPDATE →NATIONAL UPDATEGeorgia Now in Heated Battle with Rival for Flip of In-State Cornerback Recruit. The Georgia Bulldogs pursuit of this cornerback is getting interested.
READ UPDATE →NATIONAL UPDATE‘Knows He Won’t Be There’, ‘Lying’ — CFB Fans Call Out Dabo Swinney’s Stance on Playing Fewer Conference Games After Canceled Georgia Series. Clemson coach Dabo Swinney slammed the cancellation of the Tigers’ scheduled games against the Georgia Bulldogs. According to the Athens Banner-Herald, Clemson and Georgia mutually agreed to cancel four on-campus games scheduled for 2029, 2030, 2032, and 2033.
READ UPDATE →NATIONAL UPDATEWeek 3 of the 2026 college football season is complete. ESPN’s Allstate Playoff Predictor machine updated its Playoff outlook. The College Football Playoff race continues to take shape as teams begin moving deeper into conference play. ESPN’s Allstate Playoff Predictor has updated Key points from the original article: 1. Texas — 85% 2. Notre Dame — 81% 3. Miami — 78% 4. Georgia — 75% 5. Ohio State — 69% 6. Indiana — 64% 7. Alabama — 59% 8. Texas Tech — 43% 9. Ole Miss — 41% 10. Penn State — 39% 11. Utah — 35% 12. Tennessee — 33% 13. Florida — 26% 14. Michigan — 24% 15. Louisville — 22% 16. Oregon — 21% 17. Mississippi State — 20% 18. Boise State — 19% 19. James Madison — 19% 20. Pittsburgh — 18% 21. Nebraska — 17% 22. Kansas State — 16%
READ UPDATE →FEATURED STATTAKEThe Protect College Sports Act promises order. Its compensation limits, transfer rules and antitrust protection would also give schools league-level control without requiring league-level bargaining.
READ UPDATE →Track class strength, position balance and roster needs across signing cycles.
See how efficiently signed talent develops into starts, impact and wins.
Separate returning development from incoming and outgoing portal value.
Wins, efficiency and schedule strength in one timeline.
Home, road, favorite and underdog performance.
Recent form versus the long-term series story.
Drafted players by position and development path.