MAC Football: Breaking Down the Conference Ahead of the 2026 Season

Entering 2026, the MAC football conference has seen a lot of change. However, with it, comes a lot of opportunity for the future. We’ll give a quick glance into the upcoming season for each team in the conference. That includes their returning starters and production, position outlook, notes for both sides of the ball, and overall thoughts about the programs this season.

Sources Used:

• Bill Connelly Returning Production
• Phil Steele College Football Preview
• Punt and Rally

MAC Football: Quick Glance Notes for 2026

Western Michigan (10-4 2025), 9.8 – 4.1 PYTHAG

• Returning Starters: 7 Offense, 3 Defense
• Portal:  17 Incoming (9 P4, 3 G6, 4 FCS), 37 Outgoing 
• Returning Production: 71-percent OFF (#8), 42-percent DEF (#102), (#102) OFF Snaps, (#103) DEF Snaps
• HC/DC/OC Changes: DC

Position Group Outlook

QB	RB	WR	OL	DL	LB	DB	ST
+	+	=	=	–	–	=	=

Notes

Offense

• The quarterback and running back positions are solid with Broc Lowry and Jalen Buckley both returning. Both were practically 1000-yard rushers last season and they also added in an Arkansas transfer to the RB room.
• Western Michigan lost their top receiver, but brought back two of the top-3 from last year. No wideout was a true stand out, as none out of the group had more than 500 yards receiving. However, they added several receivers in the portal, a mixed back from multiple divisions of college football.
• The offensive line brings back three significant players from last year. They also get back their top center, who was injured for a majority of the season. However, they lost four OL who played last season, but they still should be fine up front.

Defense

• The defensive line and linebacker groups were decimated in the offseason. The team lost all four starters in the trenches and their top two linebackers, who were also the top tacklers on the team. Departing within these groups was also a massive 37.5 sacks. They added in some P4 players from OSU, UNC, and Houston, but none were regular starters. Meanwhile, the linebacker group brings in some JUCO and FCS players .
• The defensive backfield unit looks fine, returning three fairly consistent players from the secondary last season. However, they also lost a second-team all conference defender. 

Final Thoughts

Returning the MAC football Player of the Year (Lowry), and 1000-yard rusher in Buckley is massive for the Broncos. There is good depth in the backfield, while the quarterback adds a challenging wrinkle to the run game. The offense should continue to hum, as losing their top wideout isn’t a huge blow to a run first team. Yet, the real question here is the defense. 

The defense appears like they could take a massive step back with a new coordinator and losing their MAC Defensive Player of the Year, every other defensive line starter, and their top two linebackers.

Another question for the team is pace of play. WMU ran a middle of the pack pace last season, relying on their run game and stout defense to slow teams down. Will they have to pick up the pace this season and continue to score? Will they have to pass the ball more to keep up? Their defense will likely not be able to replicate the 17.5 points per game allowed from last season.

Miami OH (7-7 2025), 7.7-6.2 PYTHAG

• Returning Starters: 6 Offense, 6 Defense
• Portal: 19 Incoming (12 P4, 6 G6, 1 FCS), 13 Outgoing 
• Returning Production: 45-percent OFF (#95), 52-percent DEF (#68), (#42) OFF Snaps, (#56) DEF Snaps
• HC/DC/OC Changes: None

Position Group Outlook

QB	RB	WR	OL	DL	LB	DB	ST
–	=	–	+	=	–	+	–

Notes

Offense

• The quarterback room is a competition between a redshirt freshman transfer, D2 QB Caleb Heavner, and returner Thomas Gotkowski. 
• The top-2 running backs are gone. In their place are a transfer from Merrimack and a part-time player from Wisconsin.
• The top-2 wideouts are also gone. However, the program brought over a few P4 receivers in the portal from OSU, UCF, and Arizona.
• Three starters come back on the offensive line, while FCS starters come in to take over the role in 2026.

Defense

• Three starters from the defensive line depart, bringing a few transfers along the trenches.
• Three senior linebackers have graduated. Yet, the program has brought in G6 transfers to fill the gaps.
• The defensive back room looks to be in good shape, even after losing their two All MAC players. A big infusion of P4 transfers helps in that regard.

Final Thoughts

The biggest question on this team is going to be quarterback play. There is a lot of limited experience in the room. And unfortunately, the experience that does return is either D2-level or a player that had a 44-percent completion rate on 86 passes last season. If the RedHawks can find a trustworthy QB, it will make quite a bit of difference. 

The running backs should be fine as long as the step up in competition isn’t too much for the Merrimack transfer (1800 rushing in 2025).  The receiving group has some P4 players coming in, but losing Perry, who was nearly a 1000 yard receiver, does hurt.

Miami does lose 23 sacks from last season and have to replace a first-team MAC player on the defensive line. Linebacker might also take a hit, losing two starters and seniors from the unit. The defensive back group looks strong, even with losing a couple of All MAC players. There are several players with P4 experience transferring in, and they still have five DBs with experience from last season.

It’s important to note as well, Miami is also losing their record-breaking kicker. This could be a difficult season of MAC football for the RedHawks.

Eastern Michigan (4-8 2025), 4.5 – 7.4 PYTHAG

• Returning Starters: 6 Offense, 6 Defense
• Portal: 12 Incoming (6 P4, 1 G6, 5 FCS), 26 Outgoing 
• Returning Production: 59-percent OFF (#52), 64-percent DEF (#15), (#115) OFF Snaps, (#81) DEF Snaps
• HC/DC/OC Changes: Co-DC’s

2026 Position Group Outlook

QB	RB	WR	OL	DL	LB	DB	ST
+	–	=	–	–	+	+	=

Notes

Offense

• The leading passer in the MAC football conference, Noah Kim, returns. He needs to take better care of the ball, but should take more positive steps this season.
• Their top two running backs, including a 1000-yard rusher, are gone. However, their top-3 receivers return.
• The offensive line is transfer heavy, losing a starter and several with playing experience. They’ve brought in a mixed bag of FCS and P4 players. Last year’s unit only gave up 11 sacks, but this seems like a rebuild. 

Defense

• The defensive line loses about half of the players from last season. JUCO and FCS players come in, but only have to replace around 10 total sacks.
• The linebacker unit mostly returns, but most missed some time last season with injury. Meanwhile, the defensive backs return six players who were part-time starters, including an All MAC player.
  

Final Thoughts

The offense should continue to move the ball through the air with Kim and several top receivers returning. The offensive line is somewhat questionable, so we will see what they can do to help the run game and in pass protection. Overall, the offense should be able to put up some points. However, the defense has many more questions compared to the offense. 

The defensive line and linebackers are going to be reliant on several JUCO players making an impact. The front seven needs to stay healthy and on the field in order to make improvements. Stopping the run and getting pressure is going to be key for the defense up front. Hopefully, the new coordinators can help with this after securing only 14 sacks last season.

Central Michigan (7-6 2025), 6.1 – 6.8 PYTHAG

• Returning Starters: 5 Offense, 3 Defense
• Portal: 13 Incoming (1 P4, 3 G6, 9 FCS), 14 Outgoing 
• Returning Production: 62-percent OFF (#36), 29-percent DEF (#131), (#16) OFF Snaps, (#129) DEF Snaps
• HC/DC/OC Changes: None

2026 Position Group Outlook

QB	RB	WR	OL	DL	LB	DB	ST
+	–	=	+	–	–	–	–

Notes

Offense

• Last year’s starting quarterback is gone, but Angel Flores is back and a much better fit for the offense due to his running threat and the offensive scheme CMU wants to run.
• The top two running backs are also gone. In response, Central Michigan has brought in a part-time player from Liberty and FCS starter from Holy Cross. However, their top wideout returns and they’ve also added in MSU transfer.
• The offensive line returns six players with staring experience and two FCS starters.

Defense

• Their top defensive lineman is gone, along with his 10.5 sacks. However, they bring in a couple of FCS transfers and return a couple other starters as well.
• The linebacker group lost their top-3 players with little experience coming in.
• Only one defensive back starter returns, bringing in several FCS players and one from Wyoming.

Final Thoughts

The offense should take some positive steps running the power spread this season. The quarterback isn’t quite a passer yet, but adds a huge running element to the offense. The running back room is questionable, but serviceable on paper while the offense returns their top wideout despite being in an offense that isn’t pass-reliant. Meanwhile, the offensive line should be a bright spot for the team. 

On defense, the defensive line and linebacker have some serious questions. They lost a DT to season-ending injury in the spring and the linebacker group basically returns no production and has very little experience. The defensive backs also look questionable with only one starter returning, with other gaps being filled in by FCS players.

Toledo (8-5 2025), 11.4 – 1.5 PYTHAG

• Returning Starters: 2 Offense, 4 Defense
• Portal: 37 Incoming (7 P4, 5 G6, 25 FCS), 40 Outgoing 
• Returning Production: 42-percent OFF (#109), 25-percent DEF (#135), (#55) OFF Snaps, (#50) DEF Snaps
• HC/DC/OC Changes: HC, OC, DC

2026 Position Group Outlook

QB	RB	WR	OL	DL	LB	DB	ST
–	–	–	–	–	–	–	=

Notes

Offense

• The starting quarterback will likely be John Alan Richter, who had 25 total pass attempts last season.
• Running back room loses all top rushers, over 1800 rushing yards, bring in Mercer, UK, and PSU transfers.
• The top-4 receivers from 2025 depart. The program brings in a couple of FCS transfers with some P4 bounce-back players.
• The offensive line looks to be completely rebuilt. There are two FCS transfers from new OC’s former team, Gardner Webb, who come in and are expected to start.

Defense

• All of last year’s defensive lineman and linebackers are gone. They’ve replaced them with players from Mercer and other programs. However, it’s a lot to replace.
• The defensive back room has been replaced by transfers. Toledo lost one starter to the NFL draft, with the rest leaving the program.

Final Thoughts

The 2026 Toledo team is basically constructed from Mercer, Gardner Webb, and other FCS transfers, with a couple of P4 guys sprinkled in. That may be great for continuity. However, makes it much harder to see their trajectory. 

The offense should probably lean on the run game, but behind this offensive line, it might be tough. The defense is basically bare cupboards, mostly composed of transfers. The secondary looks especially rough, as it is pretty much all FCS transfers that come in. This was a top defense in the G6 last season and one of the top defenses overall in the nation. That unit will likely take a huge step back this year.

Not to mention, there’s a completely new coaching staff which has very little FBS experience between the head coach and both coordinators. The range outcomes for Toledo in 2026 is wide open.

Ohio (9-4 2025), 8.2 – 4.7 PYTHAG

• Returning Starters: 1 Offense, 4 Defense
• Portal: 19 Incoming (6 P4, 3 G6, 10 FCS), 13 Outgoing 
• Returning Production: 18-percent OFF (#138), 48-percent DEF (#81), (#135) OFF Snaps, (#67) DEF Snaps 
• HC/DC/OC Changes: HC, OC, DC

2026 Position Group Outlook

QB	RB	WR	OL	DL	LB	DB	ST
–	–	–	–	=	–	=	=

Notes

Offense

• Zero starters from last year’s team return. The program also lost its starting quarterback and their replacement is a player who attempted just eight passes last season. There’s a 600-yard rusher returning, as well as a UConn transfer, but expectations in the running back room should be tempered. 
• The wideouts and offensive line are all rebuilt, too. P4 transfers come into the wide receiver room without much experience. Meanwhile, all five starters on the line are replaced with players who have zero starts in the FBS.

Defense

• One starting defensive lineman returns. The rest departed and were replaced with a mixed bag of FCS and P4 transfers.
• While the linebacker group has three returners, the defensive back group lose three. However, they’ve brought in three former FCS starters to come in.

Final Thoughts

This is a whole new coaching staff and roster overhaul. The offense looks like it could struggle until they are able to find their footing given how many players they need to replace.

The defense appears to be in better shape than the offense. There are a few starters returning and others with experience. Most of the FCS transfers coming in did have quite a bit of playing time last season. There is a new DC though, so it may take some time to mesh. Defense is probably going to have to carry the offense through some growing pains during the 2026 season. It’s hard to say what the outlook is for Ohio, but look to the early season games versus Jacksonville State and at South Alabama to help gauge their level of play.

Bowling Green (4-8 2025), 4.8 – 7.1 PYTHAG

• Returning Starters: 2 Offense, 4 Defense
• Portal: 15 Incoming (3 P4, 4 G6, 8 FCS), 25 Outgoing 
• Returning Production: 32-percent OFF (#124), 38-percent DEF (#112), (#137) OFF Snaps, (#123) DEF snaps
• HC/DC/OC Changes: Co-OC Promotion to OC, DC

2026 Position Group Outlook

QB	RB	WR	OL	DL	LB	DB	ST
+	=	–	–	+	+	+	–

Notes

Offense

• There was quite a bit of quarterback trouble last season with injuries and starts. Hunter Najm (five touchdowns, four interceptions) returns to the program. However, they also added a D2 QB from Assumption and three-year Oregon transfer.
• Their top running back returns, but no other RB came back this year. They’ve added the starting back from Charleston Southern last year who should provide spark on this unit.
• Only one receiver returns in the wideout unit. Everyone else is gone, but no one is likely a real loss. Quite a few FCS transfers are at the position this season which makes for some interesting competition.
• The program lost five senior starters from the offensive line. Only three total starts return to the group, as quite a few redshirt transfers from various levels come in.

Defense

• Their four defensive line starters left, but the two top players in sacks return. Two presumed starters come in from Louisiana and Central Michigan to help fill the holes.
• The linebacker group lost its top tackler. However, they’ve returned players with experience and bring in transfer from Purdue. They also return a player who had suffered injuries last year and should be healthy this season.

Final Thoughts

The offense is once again going to be a question. The program hasn’t named a starter as of yet. And it’s worth asking if this is too much of a leap for the players they have in that quarterback room? While the running back room should be fine, the receiving room is a huge question as well. That doesn’t even include the problems on the offensive line. Losing five seniors from last season’s team is tough to replace with the patch job they have coming in. 

The defense looks to be the better side of the ball for Bowling Green entering 2026. They were pretty stingy for BG standards last season, only allowing around 24 points per game. The defensive line lost some pieces, but bring in some decent transfers and retains some sack numbers. 

The offense will need to improve from their 20 points per game last season. And, it will be crucial for them to stay on the field and give the defense a breather every once in a while. Hopefully the newly promoted offensive coordinator can help figure that out. 

Buffalo (5-7 2025), 6.1 – 5.8 PYTHAG

• Returning Starters: 2 Offense, 4 Defense
• Portal: 18 Incoming (5 P4, 1 G6, 12 FCS), 15 Outgoing 
• Returning Production: 26-percent OFF (#130), 33-percent DEF (#128), (#131) OFF Snaps, (#110) DEF Snaps
• HC/DC/OC Changes: OC, DC

2026 Position Group Outlook

QB	RB	WR	OL	DL	LB	DB	ST
=	+	–	–	–	–	+	–

Notes

Offense

• The offense has brought in a D2 quarterback from Wingate comes in, can scramble. Only one running back returns, but they’re brought in a highly-recruited freshman in Chase Enlow. The top wideouts are gone as well, who combined for over 1700 yards and 11 touchdowns. Players from the lower level come in to help, but it’s hard to say how that group will perform.
• Just one offensive lineman with starting experience returns. The five other starters from the unit are gone. Buffalo brought in a couple of P4 players from Miami (FL) and Baylor, but only 10 starts between the three offensive lineman is not a great sign.

Defense

• The defensive line lost four starters from last season’s team (17 total sacks). Just one starter returns, while several transfers come in from lower levels of college football.
• The linebacker lost a second-team All American and seventh-round NFL draft pick Red Murdock. They’ve brought in some P4 and FCS talent, but it remains to be seen how this group looks.
• The defensive back unit lost just one starter, but added in P4 player from WVU. This is a unit that only gave up 186 through the air per game last season.

Final Thoughts

It’s hard to figure out how things may shake out for Buffalo this season. The quarterback room wasn’t exactly what they wanted last season, so there may not be a huge drop off in talent. A fair question, however, is will the level of play be overwhelming? 

The running back room should be fine, and it will be interesting to see how much Enlow plays as a freshman. Meanwhile the wideouts look questionable with both top players from last season transferring to P4 schools. In their place are FCS and D2 starters from last season. It could be interesting, but also a disaster.

The offensive line is a huge question as well. In fact, overall, the offense is a question mark. Yet, the unit only scored 24 points per game last season, so it can’t fall off too much from that. A fresh start may not be a terrible thing after all. If the QB room can play at any sort of consistent level, the offense should be more productive than last season, as long as the OL can hold up and they can find some go to skill position players.

The defense is going to need to create pressure up front and find sacks. Meanwhile, the linebacker unit is going to have to find someone reliable now that Murdock is gone. The DB room looks to be in pretty good shape and is probably the best unit on the defense. 

Special teams also go cleaned out with the LS, P, and K all leaving in some fashion. 

Kent State (5-7 2025), 3.0 – 8.9 PYTHAG

• Returning Starters: 6 Offense, 4 Defense
• Portal: 13 Incoming (4 P4, 2 G6, 7 FCS), 16 Outgoing 
• Returning Production: 57-percent OFF (#56), 39-percent DEF (#108), (#108) OFF Snaps, (#126) DEF Snaps
• HC/DC/OC Changes: None

2026 Position Group Outlook

QB	RB	WR	OL	DL	LB	DB	ST
+	–	=	+	=	–	+	+

Notes

Offense

• Dru DeShields is back at quarterback. He had over 2000 passing yards and a 18:3 touchdown-to-interception ratio. However, he only had a 56.0 completion percentage.
• The entire running back room is cleaned out and the top two wideouts are gone, too. However, All American kick returner Da’Realyst Clark moves to wide receiver this year.
• The offensive line is a patchwork job but they do bring in players with starting experience from the transfer ranks.

Defense

• Three defensive line starters exit, while a four-star Michigan State transfer comes in. The top two linebackers are out while two others return. They’ve also added several through the portal. 
• A few defensive backs have left, but this unit has added talent, too.

Final Thoughts

DeShields was a real bright spot last season and should continue this season, too. He has the ability to scramble, but was limited last year out of fear of re-injury suffered in 2024. He has a good arm, but does need to work on his accuracy. 

The running back room is a pretty big question entering 2026. Losing all of their backs isn’t ideal, but their production wasn’t astronomical by any means. Meanwhile, the wide receiver unit could be solid this year, especially with the dynamic Clark moving into the role full-time. And despite the losses, the offensive line should be somewhat improved as well. 

The defensive line isn’t in great shape, but they should be anchored by their transfer players. With that in mind, the linebacker group may be the weakest link on the unit. The defensive backs weren’t especially good last season, either. However, most of the players were young, so there could be visible growth this season, as it was trial by fire last year.

Akron (5-7 2025), 4.5 – 7.4 PYTHAG

• Returning Starters: 7 Offense, 4 Defense
• Portal: 17 Incoming (4 P4, 6 G6, 7 FCS), 19 Outgoing 
• Returning Production: 44-percent OFF (#103), 37-percent DEF (#119), (#109) OFF Snaps, (#131) DEF Snaps 
• HC/DC/OC Changes: None

2026 Position Group Outlook

QB	RB	WR	OL	DL	LB	DB	ST
=	+	=	–	–	–	=	+

Notes

Offense

• Quarterback Ben Finley exits, and Reese Poffenbarger comes in. He hasn’t really got a real shot at playing yet despite a lot of hype, and could be a nice surprise for the program.
• At running back, two players return, including their 1000-yard rusher. They’ve also added some depth from ULM and Colgate.
• Two of the top three wideouts return and they’ve also added a few transfer players at the position. There’s a good influx of talent here.
• Six total offensive lineman from last year’s team are gone. However, two players from last year, including the starting center return. Yet, almost all incoming transfers along the trenches here come from the FCS level.

Defense

• Two defensive linemen with four sacks a piece depart. Meanwhile, three of the top tacklers in the linebacker unit are gone. They’ve added some FCS and G6 transfers to try and replace lost production.
• All four defensive back starters are out. Four players who made starts return, while also bringing in four transfers from various ranks in the FBS.

Final Thoughts

The offense could surprise this season if Poffenbarger works out. Meanwhile, the running back room is solid and has some depth, and the wideouts look decent on paper. The offensive line is likely what will hold up the offense, as it is very much a makeshift unit around their captain center. 

On defense, the defensive line and linebacker units look weak. However, they do add in some transfers and bring back players with snaps from last season’s team. The defensive back room doesn’t look terrible, but they are going to need to gel quickly, especially with questions along the front seven of the defense.

Overall, the defense was respectable last season, only giving up around 28 points per game. Yet, there are quite a few questions with this group up front, only bringing back 8.5 sacks from last year and littered with somewhat inexperienced transfers this season.

Ball State (4-8 2025), 2.1 – 9.8 PYTHAG

• Returning Starters: 4 Offense, 2 Defense
• Portal: 26 Incoming (10 P4, 7 G6, 9 FCS), 18 Outgoing 
• Returning Production: 47-percent OFF (#89), 24-percent DEF (#136), (#119) OFF Snaps,  (#138) DEF Snaps
• HC/DC/OC Changes: None

2026 Position Group Outlook

QB	RB	WR	OL	DL	LB	DB	ST
=	–	+	+	–	–	+	=

Notes

Offense

• Their top passer and rusher, quarterback Kiael Kelly, is gone. Two new players transfer in, both with similar skill sets. However, it remains to be seen if they can come close to the ceiling Kelly had.
• The team’s third-leading rusher returns, but that’s not saying much considering most rushing production came from the quarterback. They did bring in a transfer to help out the room, however.
• Ball State’s second-leading wideout returns. However, everyone else departed. No one had real significant numbers at the receiver position, so it’s honestly not too much of a loss.  Bring in UTST and FAU transfers, along with a couple of other FCS players
• Most of the offensive line returns, while they manage to get a P4 transfer with some other talent mixed in.

Defense

• The top defensive linemen are all gone, along with four depth players. All other returners (and transfers) on the unit this year have one combined start at the FBS level.
• With that in mind, the top six linebackers are also gone, with some transfers coming in to replace them. 
• Like the rest of the unit, the defensive backs saw plenty of loss, two. Five players are gone, yet four who made starts last season return.

Final Thoughts

I’m not sure what to make of Ball State heading into this football season in the MAC. They heavily used the transfer portal this year, likely adding talent that fits more to what the second year head coach, Mike Uremovich, wants to do. There are quite a few players coming in from the P4 and G6 levels, which should help if they are actually here to play. 

The quarterbacks seem to fit the offensive system and there should be more help from an improving offensive line. The wideouts look fine, but the running back group doesn’t offer much relief to the QB. Yet with all that said, the defense is the real question. 

There’s a lot of turnover and inexperience on that side of the ball from a unit that already gave up 30 points per game and 400+ yards of total offense last season. While there should be some offensive progress, it will be interesting if the defense makes any strides by adding in more “athletic” players on that side of the ball. 

UMass (0-12 2025), .5 – 11.4 PYTHAG

• Returning Starters: 4 Offense, 5 Defense
• Portal: 24 Incoming (6 P4, 7 G6, 11 FCS), 19 Outgoing 
• Returning Production: 49-percent OFF (#81), 43-percent DEF (#97), (#92) OFF Snaps, (#104) DEF Snaps 
• HC/DC/OC Changes: OC

2026 Position Group Outlook

QB	RB	WR	OL	DL	LB	DB	ST
+	–	=	–	=	+	=	=

Notes

Offense

• No quarterback returns from last season. It appears to be a two-way battle between Virginia Tech transfer Pop Watson and dual threat RJ Johnson from Florida A&M.
• One rusher with 130 yards returns. Meanwhile, transfers from Marshall, Murray State, and the NAIA ranks come in. 
• The offensive line brings back 12 total starts, a converted tight end, a left tackle who missed 2025, and three transfers. The unit apparently showed extremely poorly in the spring game, giving up 5+ sacks.

Defense

• All four starting defensive line are gone, while five backups also departed. Several transfers in, most notably a few coming from the P4 ranks.
• The team’s top linebacker comes back, also adding in transfers from the G6 and FCS level.
• The defensive backs return two starters and add in two transfers (Ball State and UCF).

Final Thoughts

The quarterback play will likely take a step in the right direction regardless of who UMass decides to go with. That’s because last year was simply awful, no other way to put it. 

The rushing game should be better personnel wise. However, their production, and also the production of the quarterback, is largely going to rest on an offensive line that hasn’t had a hot start so far. The wide receivers probably aren’t worse than last year, but they will need to find a go-to option in this offense.

The defense is also extremely portal-heavy. However, it likely isn’t going to be much worse than previous years. Quite a few P4 and G6 players come in to the unit. If they play to their potential, the defense should improve after giving up nearly 40 points per game last season. 

There is definitely opportunity for improvement this year. Games versus Sacred Heart, Stonehill, and Sacramento State should be a good gauge on where this team is, especially considering they dropped a game versus Bryant at home last season.

Sacramento State (7-5 FCS 2025), 8.3 – 3.6 PYTHAG

• Returning Starters: 2 Offense, 5 Defense
• Portal: 26 Incoming (5 P4, 11 G6, 10 FCS), 21 Outgoing 
• Returning Production: 21-percent OFF (#137), 42-percent DEF (#101), (#136) OFF, (#130) DEF Snaps
• HC/DC/OC Changes: HC, OC, DC

2026 Position Group Outlook

QB	RB	WR	OL	DL	LB	DB	ST
=	–	=	–	–	+	=	–

Notes

Offense

• Carson Conklin comes back to Sacramento State after a stop at Fresno State last season at the quarterback position.
• No running backs from last year return, including their 1200-yard rusher. Instead, they brought in transfers from San Diego State, Weber State, and the JUCO level.
• The team’s top tight end returns. Unfortunately, no other significant wideout comes back. 
• All five starting offensive linemen from last year are gone. The transfers incoming reign from the P4 to the JUCO level. They did not have a great showing at the spring game, reportedly giving up several sacks.

Defense

• 40 starts are gone from the defensive line. Sac State does bring back one starter and an offensive line convert, along with multiple transfers.
• The top tackler is gone from the linebacker unit. However, they’ve brought back four part-time starters and three transfers that played at the FBS level.
• All four starting defensive backs are gone from last year’s team. Several come in from a mixed bag of levels, one being a Miami (FL) transfer.

Final Thoughts

It is hard to figure out what to expect from Sacramento State this season. There are so many moving pieces on both sides of the ball. It’s a program trying to beef up for FBS-level competition, joining a conference that is mostly centered in the midwest, and having all of the transfers come together and mesh under a new coaching staff. It’s quite the task in what will likely be a year zero rebuild. 

It doesn’t seem like this is going to be a run-first offense. Yet, with the questions at all positions (especially the offensive line) that might be for the best? Conklin isn’t a bad option at quarterback considering he has some experience at the FBS level and was with the Hornets once before.  

There are a lot of P4 and G6 transfers on the defensive side of the ball, but how much continuity will there be heading into Week 1? Everyone seems excited now; yet how many players are here to build the program up and how many are here for a bag before they hit the portal again?

All in all, it will definitely be an interesting year of football for Sacramento State in the MAC.0  If they can be competitive against the basement dwellers of the conference, that would probably be enough to consider this season a success.