Pittsburgh

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.1447th
  Defense−0.0485th
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense42.1%39th
  Defense33.1%96th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2864th
  Defense+1.444th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0842nd
  Defense−0.2197th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2349th
  Defense+0.1551st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.6%41st
  Defense39.9%89th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.5%46th
  Defense21.7%91st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0647th
  Defense1.5699th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.5%60th
  Defense29.2%97th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.4%84th
  Defense17.9%76th

Percentiles among the 138 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2026

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what Pittsburgh allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. W
   M-OH
2. W
   UCF
3. W
   SYR
4. W
   BUCK
5. W
   VT
6. L
   UNC

Bars above the line: better than expected for Pittsburgh.

Players, 2026

1. Mason HeintschelQB116 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 65th of 192 QBs
   0.29WAR0.13 to 0.45
2. Damon Ferguson Jr.RB61 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 69th of 320 RBs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.15
3. La'Vell WrightRB45 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 78th of 320 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
4. Holden GerinerQB64 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 137th of 192 QBs
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.17
5. Cataurus HicksWR29 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 65th of 364 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.13
6. Ja'Kyrian TurnerRB39 plays · +0.068 pts/play · 191st of 320 RBs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
7. Censere LeeWR22 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 164th of 364 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
8. Carson KentTE16 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 35th of 164 TEs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares Pittsburgh's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  67567564th of 138Roster talent: 675, 64th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20320346th of 138Recruiting: 203, 46th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  40%40%67th of 136Returning production: 40%, 67th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +10.5+10.534th of 138SP+ rating so far: +10.5, 34th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than Pittsburgh's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.09 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. vs UCFQ4 2:24 4th & 1 at PITT 34, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.5 pts
2. vs UCFQ4 6:45 4th & 1 at PITT 29, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. vs UNCQ3 4:35 4th & 2 at PITT 36, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. vs UNCQ4 4:14 4th & 2 at UNC 21, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs UCFQ2 4:28 4th & 5 at UCF 44, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. vs UNCQ4 0:56 4th & 14 at PITT 25, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs UNCQ1 0:34 4th & 3 at PITT 48, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs M-OHQ2 8:20 4th & 3 at PITT 46, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

38th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Pittsburgh's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   M-OH
2. W

   UCF
3. W

   SYR
4. W

   BUCK
5. W

   VT
6. L

   UNC

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Pittsburgh's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard−0.05
• Clock−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.24

Game by game

• M-OHW 59-14 vs M-OH88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +15
• UCFW 12-7 vs UCF72% → 25%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2
• SYRW 27-13 vs SYR76% → 99%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
• BUCKW 59-0 vs BUCK100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• VTW 35-33 at VT45% → 84%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +40, Clock +4
• UNCL 17-21 vs UNC60% → 4%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3

Points of win probability, from Pittsburgh's side.

Closest call

PITT 28-27 CIN (2024) - Pittsburgh dropped to a 4.3% win probability before pulling it out.