Our side
MoneylineSFA to win
ours 30%
Projected score
33–24
SFA – UT R
2026-11-14 · 6:00 PM
Robert and Janet Vackar Stadium · Edinburg, TX
Conference game
Early season
The books
No book has priced this game. Nothing to compare, and no ticket to build.
Series
Stephen F. Austin lead
1–0
· 1 meeting since 2025
2025 unit ranks —
last completed season, from games actually played
Run game
even
17 ranks apart
Stephen F. Austin Lumberjacks #39 rush offense
UT Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros #56 run defense
Pass game
edge UT Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros
53 ranks
Stephen F. Austin Lumberjacks #65 pass offense
UT Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros #12 pass defense
Run game
even
20 ranks apart
UT Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros #28 rush offense
Stephen F. Austin Lumberjacks #8 run defense
Pass game
even
6 ranks apart
UT Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros #22 pass offense
Stephen F. Austin Lumberjacks #28 pass defense
Stephen F. Austin Lumberjacks
Balanced · 49% run
Ball-control
UT Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros
Balanced · 52% run
Ball-control
Ranked by team-unit strength
(rush & pass offense vs. run & pass defense) across all 265
D1 teams, not by individual players. Identity, tempo and unit strength are measured from the
2025 season.
The evidence 2025 production and power ratings · supporting the number above
Who carried each team in 2025
Stephen F. Austin Lumberjacks
DB
Makai Frisby
8 tkl · 3 INT
#48 DB
K
Carlos Alvarado
6 FG · 12 XP · 30 pts
#9 K
DB
Jaiydyn Johnson
13 tkl · 3 PD
#66 DB
WR
Bugs Mortimer
8 rec · 161 yds · 2 TD
#84 WR
UT Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros
WR
Kyran Lee
18 rec · 301 yds · 2 TD
#27 WR
DB
Alijah Prosser
14 tkl · 5 PD
#68 DB
LB
Spencer Rich
27 tkl · 1.0 TFL
#72 LB
K
Brysen Gardner
6 FG · 9 XP · 27 pts
#16 K
Top-rated players from last season, ranked within their
position across D1. A grade measures what a player produced, and no
2026 game has been played yet — so this is who produced for
these programs in 2025, not a claim about who is on the field this year.
Power breakdown
Def is higher = better. The projection assumes a 2.4-pt home edge (0 at neutral sites).
Where the number comes from
Stephen F. Austin offense vs UT Rio Grande Valley defense+5.3 pts
UT Rio Grande Valley offense vs Stephen F. Austin defense-4.4 pts
Efficiency adjustment · EPA, success rate, explosiveness-1.4 pts
Power projection before adjustment-7.2
Travel · context onlyAway team travels 425 mi
The projection carries an efficiency adjustment —
a residual from season-to-date EPA, success rate and explosiveness, which earned its place by
walk-forward test (margin error 12.90 → 12.72 across seven held-out seasons).
Situational spots are shown for context, not baked in: travel, altitude and rest
were tested against 6,000+ games and the power and efficiency ratings already account for them.
Adding them again would double-count.