Scorebook
Join
Teams / American Athletic / UTSA
Index · this season
64
at its 5-year level
Career56since 1936
Peak732021
Last 566seasons
#70 nationally · 5-1 (2-0 conf)
Résumé #27 · record ahead of its play
Schedule so far #80
Margin ±5 pts (tightens with games)
Why 64? →

UTSA Roadrunners

American Athletic · San Antonio, TX · Alamodome · Head coach Jeff Traylor
Rival
Building rivalry
8-6 all time (14 meetings since 2013)
UTSA leads
Last: lost 55-17 (2025)
Wants it back
program traits are earned from history
No recognized national titles since 1936. Counted: AP poll champion, a coaches-poll champion, or the BCS / playoff title-game winner; a split year counts for both.0national titles
Heisman Trophy winners0Heisman
Seasons finishing in the AP top 10 since 19360AP top-10
Consensus All-Americans since 19360All-Americans
NFL draft picks since 19675NFL picks
Winning percentage since 193654.8%win pct
History since 1936 · football since 2012. Every season →
Chemistry
Chem 66: typical66
Chem 60: typical
60Foundation
Chem 72: strong
72Gel
gel counts 45% so far
▲ Above its norm +13
early · #24 of 138
HC year7
Ret. starters32%
QB yrs w/ OC1
View chemistry →
Team chemistryearly · #24 of 138 FBS teams
Chem 60: typicalFoundation60+Chem 72: strongGel72=Chem 66: typicalChem66Gel counts 45% so far (it grows as games are played, up to half)
Foundationwhat the program has built · moves over seasons
Foundation60Staff stability — Coach and coordinator tenure, staff who came along, assistant turnoverStaff stability66Roster continuity — Returning starters and the lineup's experienceRoster continuity56Unit cohesion — QB & coordinator, QB & receivers, offensive line, defense: how long each unit has played togetherUnit cohesion62Administration — Athletic director continuity and coach-AD alignmentAdministration74Investment — Commitment to football: its share of the department's spending and whether that is growing, plus spending and recruitingInvestment66Fan base — How passionate and loyal the fan base is: how often it sells out, and whether it sells out games that don't matterFan base64
ContinuityClimate
Continuity · who has played and coached togetherlive

Who has played and coached together, and for how long, ranked against every FBS team at the same point of the season.

▸Staff stability
Coach and coordinator tenure, staff who came along, assistant turnover
66
Staff cohesion74
HC year 7 · OC year 1 · DC year 6
Assistant turnover57
48% of on-field staff new this season (FBS average about 45%)
▸Roster continuity
Returning starters and the lineup's experience
56
Returning core60
32% of last season's starters · FBS median 32%
Experience52
10 career starts per starter · FBS median 12
▸Unit cohesion
QB & coordinator, QB & receivers, offensive line, defense: how long each unit has played together
62
QB & coordinator55
1st season together · same as 76% of FBS teams
QB & receivers89
9.8 games started together on average · FBS median 3.9
Line cohesion32
3.1 games per linemen pair · FBS median 5.2
Defensive cohesion62
4.5 games per defensive pair · FBS median 4.5
Climate · around the programlive

The administration, money and fans around the team: athletic director continuity, willingness to invest, and crowds.

▸Administration
Athletic director continuity and coach-AD alignment
74
AD continuity74
Lisa Campos · year 9 (Wikipedia, CC BY-SA)
▸Investment
Commitment to football: its share of the department's spending and whether that is growing, plus spending and recruiting
66
Football's share77
36% of department spending goes to football
Investment trend68
+39% over three years
Football investment55
$17.9M on football (2024-25 federal report)
Recruiting spend47
$0.60M men's recruiting
Department resources52
$54M athletic department revenue
▸Fan base
How passionate and loyal the fan base is: how often it sells out, and whether it sells out games that don't matter
64
Sellouts63
sellout crowds (95%+ of capacity) at 7 of 43 home games (last 8 seasons)
Sells out anyway64
sellout crowds at 5 of 29 games that didn't matter: cupcakes, or a team expected to lose or having a losing season

Finances: U.S. Department of Education athletics disclosures, as reported by each school. Athletic directors: Wikipedia (CC BY-SA). Attendance: reported crowds vs stadium capacity.

Gelhow it is working right now · moves week to week
Gel72Playing above its parts — Results vs what its preseason projection expected, game by gamePlaying above its parts70Settled & sharp — A settled starting lineup and clean execution (penalties, turnovers) vs its own normalSettled & sharp64Alignment — Coaches and players telling the same story; the staff on one pageAlignmentsoonResilience — Confidence, and how the team sounds after adversityResiliencesoonFan & media mood — Expectations met or missed this season (preseason rank vs now), stronger for fan bases that react hard; fan and media sentiment joins laterFan & media mood87Coach security — The hard-facts hot seat, inverted: results vs expectation, recent seasons vs the program's norm, stakes, a new ADCoach security68
InternalOn-field fitExternal
Internal · how the program talkscoming

How the team talks in press conferences and interviews, each program against its own normal, so a naturally terse coach isn't read as upset. Being built program by program, Big Ten first.

▸Alignment
Coaches and players telling the same story; the staff on one page
soon
Coming: measured from press conferences and interviews.
▸Resilience
Confidence, and how the team sounds after adversity
soon
Coming: measured from press conferences and interviews.

Readings are team-level; we don't publish psychological readings of individual players.

On-field fit · how it is playing togetherlive

How the team is playing together this season: beating or missing its preseason expectation, a settled lineup, clean execution.

▸Playing above its parts
Results vs what its preseason projection expected, game by game
70
This season70
+2.4 points a game vs its preseason projection (5 games)
▸Settled & sharp
A settled starting lineup and clean execution (penalties, turnovers) vs its own normal
64
This season64
82% of starters kept game to game
External · pressure from outsidelive

Pressure from outside the building: the hard-facts hot seat now; this season's fan and media mood as it is measured.

▸Fan & media mood
Expectations met or missed this season (preseason rank vs now), stronger for fan bases that react hard; fan and media sentiment joins later
87
This season87
outside the AP poll: projected #79 preseason -> #70 in our Index now · beat rival Rice 16-14 (+6) · results 5-1 (+14, recent games count more)
▸Coach security
The hard-facts hot seat, inverted: results vs expectation, recent seasons vs the program's norm, stakes, a new AD
68
This season68
Jeff Traylor, year 7 · 83% wins so far · +2.4 pts a game vs preseason expectation · last two seasons +2% vs the program's norm

Dashed gold ring = typical (62). 20-50 is the warning zone; under 10 is a collapse. Spokes with no data yet are dashed and left out until they fill in. Chem blends the two halves, then places the blend among this season's teams.

Trend · Foundationeach program year runs Feb 1 to the title game
'1629'1753'1839'1953'2034'2163'2266'2365'2461'2566'262016 wk 1 vs Alabama State: 22 · W2016 wk 2 vs Colorado State: 22 · L2016 wk 3 vs Arizona State: 16 · L2016 wk 4 vs Old Dominion: 22 · L2016 wk 6 vs Southern Miss: 18 · W2016 wk 7 vs Rice: 15 · W2016 wk 8 vs UTEP: 28 · L2016 wk 9 vs North Texas: 25 · W2016 wk 10 vs Middle Tennessee: 24 · W2016 wk 11 vs Louisiana Tech: 25 · L2016 wk 12 vs Texas A&M: 30 · L2016 wk 13 vs Charlotte: 25 · W2016 wk 1 vs New Mexico: 29 · L2017 wk 3 vs Southern: 54 · W2017 wk 4 vs Texas State: 54 · W2017 wk 6 vs Southern Miss: 54 · L2017 wk 7 vs North Texas: 53 · L2017 wk 8 vs Rice: 53 · W2017 wk 9 vs UTEP: 54 · W2017 wk 10 vs Florida International: 51 · L2017 wk 11 vs UAB: 52 · L2017 wk 12 vs Marshall: 54 · W2017 wk 13 vs Louisiana Tech: 53 · L2018 wk 2 vs Baylor: 34 · L2018 wk 3 vs Kansas State: 35 · L2018 wk 4 vs Texas State: 40 · W2018 wk 5 vs UTEP: 39 · W2018 wk 6 vs Rice: 41 · W2018 wk 7 vs Louisiana Tech: 41 · L2018 wk 8 vs Southern Miss: 38 · L2018 wk 10 vs UAB: 35 · L2018 wk 11 vs Florida International: 34 · L2018 wk 12 vs Marshall: 32 · L2018 wk 13 vs North Texas: 39 · L2019 wk 3 vs Army: 53 · L2019 wk 4 vs North Texas: 53 · L2019 wk 6 vs UTEP: 57 · W2019 wk 7 vs UAB: 52 · L2019 wk 8 vs Rice: 54 · W2019 wk 10 vs Texas A&M: 57 · L2019 wk 11 vs Old Dominion: 55 · W2019 wk 12 vs Southern Miss: 54 · L2019 wk 13 vs Florida Atlantic: 55 · L2019 wk 14 vs Louisiana Tech: 53 · L2020 wk 3 vs Stephen F. Austin: 37 · W2020 wk 4 vs Middle Tennessee: 34 · W2020 wk 5 vs UAB: 37 · L2020 wk 6 vs BYU: 35 · L2020 wk 7 vs Army: 34 · L2020 wk 8 vs Louisiana Tech: 31 · W2020 wk 9 vs Florida Atlantic: 33 · L2020 wk 11 vs UTEP: 34 · W2020 wk 12 vs Southern Miss: 34 · W2020 wk 13 vs North Texas: 35 · W2020 wk 1 vs Louisiana: 34 · L2021 wk 2 vs Lamar: 66 · W2021 wk 3 vs Middle Tennessee: 66 · W2021 wk 4 vs Memphis: 65 · W2021 wk 5 vs UNLV: 64 · W2021 wk 6 vs Western Kentucky: 66 · W2021 wk 7 vs Rice: 63 · W2021 wk 8 vs Louisiana Tech: 64 · W2021 wk 10 vs UTEP: 64 · W2021 wk 11 vs Southern Miss: 64 · W2021 wk 12 vs UAB: 65 · W2021 wk 13 vs North Texas: 67 · L2021 wk 14 vs Western Kentucky: 63 · W2021 wk 1 vs San Diego State: 63 · L2022 wk 2 vs Army: 70 · W2022 wk 3 vs Texas: 70 · L2022 wk 4 vs Texas Southern: 70 · W2022 wk 5 vs Middle Tennessee: 70 · W2022 wk 6 vs Western Kentucky: 69 · W2022 wk 7 vs Florida International: 71 · W2022 wk 8 vs North Texas: 70 · W2022 wk 10 vs UAB: 68 · W2022 wk 11 vs Louisiana Tech: 66 · W2022 wk 12 vs Rice: 66 · W2022 wk 13 vs UTEP: 67 · W2022 wk 14 vs North Texas: 67 · W2022 wk 1 vs Troy: 66 · L2023 wk 2 vs Texas State: 67 · W2023 wk 3 vs Army: 67 · L2023 wk 4 vs Tennessee: 59 · L2023 wk 6 vs Temple: 61 · W2023 wk 7 vs UAB: 66 · W2023 wk 8 vs Florida Atlantic: 66 · W2023 wk 9 vs East Carolina: 66 · W2023 wk 10 vs North Texas: 67 · W2023 wk 11 vs Rice: 66 · W2023 wk 12 vs South Florida: 67 · W2023 wk 13 vs Tulane: 67 · L2023 wk 1 vs Marshall: 65 · W2024 wk 2 vs Texas State: 65 · L2024 wk 3 vs Texas: 64 · L2024 wk 4 vs Houston Christian: 66 · W2024 wk 5 vs East Carolina: 64 · L2024 wk 7 vs Rice: 65 · L2024 wk 8 vs Florida Atlantic: 64 · W2024 wk 9 vs Tulsa: 63 · L2024 wk 10 vs Memphis: 64 · W2024 wk 12 vs North Texas: 61 · W2024 wk 13 vs Temple: 61 · W2024 wk 14 vs Army: 63 · L2024 wk 1 vs Coastal Carolina: 61 · W2025 wk 2 vs Texas State: 69 · L2025 wk 3 vs Incarnate Word: 67 · W2025 wk 4 vs Colorado State: 67 · W2025 wk 6 vs Temple: 68 · L2025 wk 7 vs Rice: 67 · W2025 wk 8 vs North Texas: 68 · L2025 wk 10 vs Tulane: 67 · W2025 wk 11 vs South Florida: 68 · L2025 wk 12 vs Charlotte: 69 · W2025 wk 13 vs East Carolina: 69 · W2025 wk 14 vs Army: 67 · L2025 wk 1 vs Florida International: 66 · W2026 wk 2 vs Texas State: 60 · W2026 wk 3 vs Texas: 60 · L2026 wk 4 vs Colorado State: 62 · W2026 wk 5 vs Rice: 61 · W2026 wk 6 vs South Florida: 59 · W2026 wk 7 vs Navy: 60 · next gametypical 62

Every game since 2016, one continuous line; thin rules separate seasons and the chip is where each season finished. Navy dot = win, red = loss. Big drops usually mean a new staff, a new quarterback or a rebuilt line.

Trend · Gelthis season, after each game
typical 62wk 2 vs Texas State · W · on-field 60 · fan mood 69632wk 3 vs Texas · L · on-field 59 · fan mood 72643wk 4 vs Colorado State · W · on-field 69 · fan mood 80734wk 5 vs Rice · W · on-field 66 · fan mood 84735wk 6 vs South Florida · W · on-field 65 · fan mood 87736

How the team is working right now, rebuilt after each game from only the games so far: on-field fit (results vs preseason expectation, lineup settling, execution) and that week's fan & media mood. Coach security is part of today's Gel number but isn't rebuilt week by week yet. Navy frame = win, red = loss.

Continuity facts
Head coach
Year 7
at this school
Offensive coordinator
Year 1
new this season
Defensive coordinator
Year 6
at this school
HC & OC together
1 seasons
working together
QB with his OC
1 seasons
same play-caller
QB & receivers
9.8 games
started together, average
Offensive line pairs
3.1 games
started together, average
Returning starters
32%
from last season
Starter experience
10 starts
career average
Internal facts
Pressers read
soon
this season, coaches and players
Coach tone
soon
vs his own normal
"We" vs "I"
soon
share of team language
Owning mistakes
soon
vs pointing outward
Same story
soon
coaches and players agree
After losses
soon
how fast tone recovers
Leaders named
soon
players teammates point to
Newcomers
soon
transfers talked about as part of it
Openness
soon
forthcoming vs guarded
Measured from press conferences and interviews, program by program.
Climate facts
Athletic director
Lisa Campos
year 9
Football spending
$17.9M
2024-25 federal report
Spending trend
+39%
over three years
Department revenue
$54M
all sports
Recruiting spend
$0.60M
men's teams
Home crowds
—
of capacity
Staff turnover
48%
on-field staff new this season
Fan mood
soon
fans and local media
Coach & AD
soon
on the same page
Finances: U.S. Department of Education athletics disclosures. Athletic directors: Wikipedia (CC BY-SA).
Offense · games started togetherlatest lineup · 11 starters
McCown
Henderson
Amador
Wilson
Anderson
Campbell
Miller
Lapeze
Marshall
Hurth
Jones
QBOwen McCown3381911631813117
RBWill Henderson III88776316618
WRDavid Amador II1971910631712115
WRAJ Wilson Jr.1171011531610110
WRMekhi Anderson66656316416
TEMiles Campbell33333313213
OLJonah Miller11111111111
OLLuke Lapeze867663118517
OLDeandre Marshall1361210421513112
OLDavion Hurth11111111111
OLDarrell Jones1781510631712117

Each square: games the two players have started together at this school (darker = more). Gray diagonal: the player's own starts here.

Defense · games started togetherlatest lineup · 11 starters
Leonard
Buxton
Bailey
Cooper
Grays
White
Tucker
Rogers
Newell
Chapman
Chapman
DLTai Leonard168676672674
DLJameian Buxton89565562533
DLJeremiah Bailey65666662634
LBCamron Cooper76686662634
LBBryce Grays65666662634
LBDarion White65666662634
LBBrandon Tucker76666682644
DBJoel Rogers22222222211
DBElijah Newell65666662734
DBAhamad Chapman73333341372
DBAsaad Chapman43444441424

Each square: games the two players have started together at this school (darker = more). Gray diagonal: the player's own starts here.

Chemistry is Scorebook's own rating of how well a program fits together, on the same all-time 0-99 scale as our other ratings (compared with every FBS team since 2016; 62 is typical, 20-50 signals something is wrong, and single digits are reserved for true collapses; each season is compared with its own era). This early version blends continuity (who has played and coached together, and for how long; it counts most) with the climate around the program; how the program talks joins as it is measured. Within continuity, quarterback-centered pairings count most because they held up when we tested them against results. How our ratings work →