vanderbilt football vs texas longhorns football match player stats
The vanderbilt football vs texas longhorns football match player stats from November 1, 2025 tell the story of a remarkably close SEC contest that Texas ultimately won 34-31. The Longhorns built a 17-point lead early, Vanderbilt fought back with 21 fourth-quarter points, and the game finished with a three-point margin. At the individual level, Diego Pavia and Arch Manning both delivered efficient, mistake-free passing performances, while Eli Stowers and Ryan Wingo produced explosive receiving plays that changed the shape of the game.
Texas entered the matchup with a 7-2 record and a 4-1 SEC mark. Vanderbilt also came in at 7-2, with a 3-2 conference record. That made this more than a routine conference game. Both teams were positioned near the top half of the SEC standings, and the final score reflected how little separated them on the scoreboard.
The most striking statistical detail is that Vanderbilt actually finished with more passing yards, while Texas produced more rushing yards and a much stronger defensive pressure profile. Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia completed 27 of 38 passes for 365 yards and three touchdowns without an interception. Texas quarterback Arch Manning completed 25 of 33 attempts for 328 yards and three touchdowns, also without an interception.
Those numbers reveal why the final result cannot be explained simply by looking at total offensive production. Vanderbilt moved the ball effectively through the air, but Texas created more disruption defensively. The Longhorns recorded six sacks and 10 tackles for loss, compared with zero sacks and one tackle for loss for Vanderbilt. That difference became one of the clearest statistical separators in a three-point game.
Game Overview: Texas 34, Vanderbilt 31
The final score was Texas 34, Vanderbilt 31.
The scoring pattern is important because the game was essentially two different contests.
Texas scored 17 points in the first quarter while Vanderbilt failed to score. The Longhorns then added another seven points in the second quarter, taking a 24-10 lead into halftime. Vanderbilt responded after the break, but Texas still scored 10 points in the third quarter.
Then came Vanderbilt’s dramatic fourth-quarter response.
The Commodores scored 21 points in the final period while Texas was held scoreless. That comeback completely changed the statistical and emotional shape of the game, turning what looked like a comfortable Texas victory into a three-point finish.
Scoring by quarter
| Quarter | Vanderbilt | Texas |
| 1st | 0 | 17 |
| 2nd | 10 | 7 |
| 3rd | 0 | 10 |
| 4th | 21 | 0 |
| Final | 31 | 34 |
This scoring distribution provides an important lesson when analyzing the vanderbilt football vs texas longhorns football match player stats. A final box score can show who won, but quarter-by-quarter production explains when control shifted.
Texas dominated the opening stages. Vanderbilt then became much more productive late, particularly in the fourth quarter. The fact that Vanderbilt scored 21 points in the final period shows that the Commodores were not simply overwhelmed by Texas from start to finish.
Quarterback Comparison: Diego Pavia vs Arch Manning
Quarterback production was one of the strongest features of this matchup.
Both starting quarterbacks threw three touchdown passes. Neither quarterback threw an interception. Both exceeded 300 passing yards. Yet they reached those numbers in slightly different ways.
Diego Pavia’s passing performance
Diego Pavia completed 27 of 38 passes for 365 yards and three touchdowns.
His listed average was 9.6 yards per attempt, and his QBR was 84.4. He also contributed 43 rushing yards on 14 carries, including one rushing touchdown.
His passing line:
| Statistic | Diego Pavia |
| Completions | 27 |
| Attempts | 38 |
| Completion Rate | 71.1% |
| Passing Yards | 365 |
| Yards per Attempt | 9.6 |
| Touchdowns | 3 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| QBR | 84.4 |
| Rushing Attempts | 14 |
| Rushing Yards | 43 |
| Rushing Touchdowns | 1 |
| Long Rush | 25 yards |
Pavia’s performance stands out because Vanderbilt was able to produce substantial passing volume without relying on turnovers from the opposing defense. Completing 27 of 38 attempts meant Vanderbilt consistently converted throws into completed plays.
His 365 passing yards were also the highest passing total of the two quarterbacks.
However, the rushing line also matters. Pavia was not purely a pocket passer in this matchup. Fourteen carries for 43 yards gave Vanderbilt another source of offensive production, and his 25-yard longest run shows that he was capable of creating meaningful yardage on the ground.
The downside was a lost fumble. That turnover is particularly important in a game decided by three points.
Arch Manning’s passing performance
Arch Manning completed 25 of 33 passes for 328 yards and three touchdowns.
His listed average was 9.9 yards per attempt, while his QBR was 92.2.
| Statistic | Arch Manning |
| Completions | 25 |
| Attempts | 33 |
| Completion Rate | 75.8% |
| Passing Yards | 328 |
| Yards per Attempt | 9.9 |
| Touchdowns | 3 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| QBR | 92.2 |
Manning’s completion percentage was higher than Pavia’s, even though he attempted five fewer passes.
That efficiency becomes more meaningful when combined with the QBR figures. Manning’s 92.2 QBR was higher than Pavia’s 84.4, suggesting that his overall quarterback performance graded more strongly despite producing fewer passing yards.
The key point is that Manning did not need to throw for 365 yards to match Vanderbilt’s offensive output. Texas balanced its passing game with 100 team rushing yards, which reduced the burden on the quarterback.
Passing Efficiency and What the Numbers Reveal
The quarterback comparison is a useful example of why raw passing yards should not be treated as the only measure of quarterback performance.
Pavia threw for 365 yards. Manning threw for 328.
At first glance, that appears to favor Pavia.
But Manning completed 75.8% of his passes compared with Pavia’s 71.1%. He also posted a slightly higher yards-per-attempt figure at 9.9 compared with 9.6. Most importantly, both quarterbacks finished without an interception, while Manning had the higher reported QBR.
This is a relatively balanced quarterback comparison rather than a situation where one player clearly dominated the other.
Pavia provided more passing volume and more total individual offensive production because of his rushing contribution. Manning, meanwhile, delivered a more efficient passing line and operated within a Texas offense that generated 100 rushing yards.
That difference in offensive structure is important when interpreting the numbers.
Rushing Comparison
Texas finished with 27 team rushing attempts for 100 yards, averaging 3.7 yards per carry.
Vanderbilt recorded 24 team rushing attempts for 58 yards, averaging 2.4 yards per carry.
That is a meaningful difference.
| Team | Carries | Rushing Yards | Average | TD |
| Vanderbilt | 24 | 58 | 2.4 | 1 |
| Texas | 27 | 100 | 3.7 | 1 |
The difference was 42 rushing yards in favor of Texas.
Quintrevion Wisner leads Texas on the ground
Quintrevion Wisner was Texas’ leading rusher.
He finished with 18 carries for 75 yards, averaging 4.2 yards per carry. His longest run went for 13 yards, and he scored one rushing touchdown.
His numbers accounted for a substantial portion of Texas’ team rushing output.
Wisner’s 75 yards represented three quarters of the Longhorns’ 100 team rushing yards. That level of workload made him one of the most important non-quarterback contributors in the game.
The 4.2-yard average was also better than Texas’ overall 3.7-yard figure, indicating that the remaining rushing attempts pulled the team average down.
Pavia’s rushing contribution
Pavia’s 43 rushing yards were significant because Vanderbilt’s team total was only 58 yards.
In other words, Pavia accounted for a very large share of Vanderbilt’s rushing production.
His 14 carries also show how heavily Vanderbilt relied on its quarterback as a runner. The 25-yard long run demonstrates his ability to create explosive plays, but the overall 3.1-yard average shows that most of those carries did not generate major yardage.
This is one of the most revealing parts of the box score. Vanderbilt’s passing attack was productive, but its rushing attack struggled to generate consistent production.
Receiving Leaders: Eli Stowers and Ryan Wingo
The receiving statistics provide another major contrast.
Vanderbilt’s Eli Stowers was the game’s most productive receiver by yardage.
Stowers recorded seven receptions for 146 yards, averaging 20.9 yards per reception. He scored two touchdowns, and his longest reception went for 67 yards.
Texas’ Ryan Wingo, meanwhile, caught only two passes but finished with 89 yards and one touchdown. His average of 44.5 yards per reception shows how explosive those receptions were.
Eli Stowers’ impact
Stowers’ line was:
| Statistic | Eli Stowers |
| Receptions | 7 |
| Receiving Yards | 146 |
| Average | 20.9 |
| Touchdowns | 2 |
| Long Reception | 67 yards |
Seven catches gave Stowers both volume and efficiency.
A 20.9-yard average is especially notable because it means Vanderbilt was not simply using him as a short-yardage outlet. His production came with genuine downfield impact.
His two touchdowns also made him directly responsible for a large portion of Vanderbilt’s scoring production.
When a player combines seven receptions, 146 yards and two touchdowns, it becomes difficult to overstate his influence on the offensive side of the ball.
Ryan Wingo’s explosive production
Wingo’s statistical profile was almost the opposite.
He caught only two passes, but those two receptions produced 89 yards and one touchdown.
| Statistic | Ryan Wingo |
| Receptions | 2 |
| Receiving Yards | 89 |
| Average | 44.5 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
| Long Reception | 75 yards |
His 75-yard reception was the biggest individual receiving play listed in the game data.
This is an important distinction between volume and explosiveness.
Stowers was the more heavily involved receiver. Wingo was the more explosive receiver on a per-catch basis.
Both types of production matter. A receiver can influence a game through repeated successful completions, while another can change field position and scoring expectations with only one or two opportunities.
Team Receiving Numbers
Vanderbilt finished with 27 receptions for 365 yards and three touchdowns.
Texas finished with 25 receptions for 328 yards and three touchdowns.
| Team | Receptions | Yards | Average | TD | Long |
| Vanderbilt | 27 | 365 | 13.5 | 3 | 67 |
| Texas | 25 | 328 | 13.1 | 3 | 75 |
These figures closely mirror the quarterback comparison.
Vanderbilt had more receptions and more receiving yards. Texas had fewer receptions and fewer receiving yards, but the Longhorns produced the game’s longest listed reception at 75 yards.
The difference in total receiving yardage was 37 yards.
That is not a huge margin in a game where both teams scored more than 30 points.
The more important distinction is how those yards were distributed. Vanderbilt generated substantial production through Stowers, while Texas received an enormous efficiency boost from Wingo’s limited but explosive workload.
Defensive Statistics: The Hidden Difference
The offensive numbers make this matchup look extremely even.
The defensive numbers do not.
Vanderbilt recorded 66 total tackles, including 34 solo tackles. The Commodores had zero sacks, one tackle for loss and one pass deflection.
Texas recorded 60 total tackles, including 40 solo tackles. The Longhorns produced six sacks, 10 tackles for loss and two pass deflections.
| Defensive Statistic | Vanderbilt | Texas |
| Total Tackles | 66 | 60 |
| Solo Tackles | 34 | 40 |
| Sacks | 0 | 6 |
| Tackles for Loss | 1 | 10 |
| Pass Deflections | 1 | 2 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 0 |
This is arguably the most important statistical section of the game.
Texas recorded six times as many tackles for loss and six sacks while Vanderbilt produced none.
That type of defensive disruption can change possessions even when it does not result in interceptions.
Why sacks matter here
Vanderbilt threw for 365 yards, so it would be easy to conclude that Texas’ defense struggled.
That conclusion would miss an important part of the game.
The Longhorns were able to create pressure behind the line of scrimmage. Six sacks are a major number in a game decided by three points.
A defense can give up substantial passing yardage and still influence the outcome if it creates enough negative plays to disrupt drives.
The Texas defensive statistics suggest exactly that type of performance.
Vanderbilt’s defensive challenge
Vanderbilt recorded zero sacks and just one tackle for loss.
That does not mean the Commodores’ defense was ineffective on every snap. The team still recorded 66 tackles, including 34 solo tackles.
But the lack of backfield disruption stands out.
Against a quarterback who completed 25 of 33 attempts for 328 yards and three touchdowns, failing to record a sack made it more difficult for Vanderbilt to force Texas out of its offensive rhythm.
The lack of interceptions also meant that Vanderbilt did not receive a turnover from Manning’s passing game.
Turnovers and Ball Security
Turnovers are often decisive in close games, and this matchup provides an interesting example.
Neither team recorded an interception.
Vanderbilt’s Diego Pavia was credited with one fumble, which was lost.
Texas’ Colin Simmons was credited with zero fumbles and one fumble recovery.
That means Vanderbilt had a documented lost fumble while Texas did not lose a fumble in the supplied statistics.
In a three-point game, one possession can become extremely important.
The absence of interceptions means the quarterback comparison remained relatively clean. Both Pavia and Manning protected the football through the air.
The fumble difference, however, gave Texas an advantage in turnover-related production.
This is another reason the final score cannot be understood simply by comparing passing yards.
Special Teams Comparison
Special teams played a smaller role in the overall statistical story, but there were still notable differences.
Vanderbilt kicking
Brock Taylor went 1-for-2 on field-goal attempts, with a long of 44 yards.
He also converted both extra-point attempts for five total points.
Texas kicking
Mason Shipley went 2-for-3 on field-goal attempts, with a long of 39 yards.
He converted all four extra-point attempts and finished with 10 points.
| Statistic | Vanderbilt | Texas |
| Field Goals | 1/2 | 2/3 |
| FG Percentage | 50.0% | 66.7% |
| Long FG | 44 | 39 |
| Extra Points | 2/2 | 4/4 |
| Kicking Points | 5 | 10 |
Shipley scored five more kicking points than Taylor.
That five-point difference is significant in a game ultimately decided by three points.
It would be inaccurate to claim that special teams alone decided the contest, but Texas’ stronger kicking output clearly contributed to its final scoring total.
Punting and Field Position
Vanderbilt punter Nick Haberer recorded two punts for 102 yards, averaging 51.0 yards per punt.
His longest punt traveled 57 yards, and both punts were listed inside the 20-yard line.
Texas punter Jack Bouwmeester had one punt for 25 yards, averaging 25.0 yards, with the punt placed inside the 20.
| Statistic | Nick Haberer | Jack Bouwmeester |
| Punts | 2 | 1 |
| Punt Yards | 102 | 25 |
| Average | 51.0 | 25.0 |
| Inside 20 | 2 | 1 |
| Long | 57 | 25 |
Haberer’s numbers were particularly strong on the limited opportunities he received.
A 51.0-yard average and two punts inside the 20 show that Vanderbilt’s punting unit was capable of creating useful field-position pressure.
Texas, however, needed to punt only once according to the supplied data.
That difference is also revealing. It indicates that Texas’ offense generally avoided situations that required repeated punts.
Return Game
Vanderbilt recorded three kick returns for 66 yards, averaging 22.0 yards per return. The longest return was 32 yards.
Texas had three kick returns for 33 yards, averaging 11.0 yards per return, with an 18-yard long.
The difference was substantial.
Vanderbilt gained twice as many kick-return yards despite having the same number of returns.
Texas did have Ryan Niblett record one punt return for 12 yards. Vanderbilt had no punt returns listed.
| Return Category | Vanderbilt | Texas |
| Kick Returns | 3 | 3 |
| Kick Return Yards | 66 | 33 |
| Kick Return Average | 22.0 | 11.0 |
| Long Kick Return | 32 | 18 |
| Punt Returns | 0 | 1 |
| Punt Return Yards | 0 | 12 |
Again, this shows how evenly distributed the advantages were.
Vanderbilt had the stronger kick-return numbers. Texas had the stronger defensive numbers and slightly stronger kicking production.
What the Complete Box Score Says
When all the numbers are placed together, the game becomes much easier to understand.
Vanderbilt had the stronger passing totals.
Texas had the stronger rushing totals.
Vanderbilt had the more productive receiving leader in total yardage.
Texas had the more explosive individual reception.
Both quarterbacks threw three touchdown passes.
Neither quarterback threw an interception.
Texas created six sacks and 10 tackles for loss.
Vanderbilt created no sacks and one tackle for loss.
Vanderbilt produced more kick-return yardage.
Texas produced more kicking points.
Those differences help explain how Texas could win despite Vanderbilt posting 365 passing yards.
The Most Important Statistical Advantage
If one statistic has to be selected as the clearest separator, Texas’ six sacks stand out.
The Longhorns did not simply collect tackles. They created negative plays.
Six sacks and 10 tackles for loss indicate a defense that repeatedly disrupted Vanderbilt’s offense behind the line of scrimmage.
Vanderbilt’s offense still managed to score 31 points, so Texas did not completely shut it down.
Instead, Texas created enough disruption to prevent Vanderbilt from turning every productive passing sequence into points.
That is a subtle but important distinction.
The final score suggests a high-scoring shootout. The defensive statistics reveal that Texas was also winning important individual battles at the line of scrimmage.
The Fourth-Quarter Comeback Deserves More Attention
One of the easiest things to miss when looking only at the final score is the magnitude of Vanderbilt’s fourth-quarter comeback.
Vanderbilt scored 21 points in the fourth quarter.
Texas scored zero.
That means Vanderbilt completely controlled the scoring margin in the final period.
A team that trails by a significant margin entering the fourth quarter but finishes with 21 points has demonstrated considerable offensive resilience.
This also explains why the game ended as a three-point contest rather than a more comfortable Texas victory.
The fourth quarter changed the interpretation of the entire game.
It would be inaccurate to describe Vanderbilt as simply outplayed for four quarters. The Commodores showed that they could generate rapid scoring production late and pressure Texas all the way to the final whistle.
Comparing Total Offensive Production
The passing and rushing numbers can be combined to provide a simple picture of offensive yardage.
Vanderbilt produced 365 passing yards and 58 rushing yards.
That gives the team 423 yards across those two categories.
Texas produced 328 passing yards and 100 rushing yards.
That gives the Longhorns 428 yards.
The difference is only five yards.
This is one of the most useful insights in the entire statistical profile.
Texas won despite the total offensive yardage being almost identical.
| Category | Vanderbilt | Texas |
| Passing Yards | 365 | 328 |
| Rushing Yards | 58 | 100 |
| Combined Passing + Rushing | 423 | 428 |
Texas had only five more combined passing and rushing yards based on the supplied team totals.
That means the victory was not created by a huge overall yardage advantage.
Instead, the separation came from how the teams generated and converted those yards, including defensive pressure, kicking production, rushing efficiency and turnover-related events.
Why Pavia’s Numbers Can Be Misleading Without Context
Pavia’s 365 passing yards are impressive.
But raw yardage alone does not explain the outcome.
He also lost a fumble, was part of an offense that rushed for only 58 team yards, and faced a Texas defense that recorded six sacks.
That creates an interesting statistical tension.
Vanderbilt moved the ball through the air very well, but Texas repeatedly produced negative plays.
The result was an offense capable of generating explosive yardage while still struggling to maintain consistent efficiency across the entire game.
Pavia’s individual statistics should therefore be viewed as strong, but not as proof that Vanderbilt’s offense completely controlled the game.
Why Manning’s Numbers Matter in a Different Way
Manning’s 328 passing yards were lower than Pavia’s 365.
Yet Manning completed 75.8% of his attempts, averaged 9.9 yards per attempt and posted a 92.2 QBR.
Texas also produced 100 rushing yards.
That balance reduced the need for Manning to carry the offense through the air on every possession.
His three touchdown passes were enough to match Pavia’s total while Texas also received one rushing touchdown and 10 kicking points.
The overall offensive structure was therefore more balanced.
Manning did not need to win the passing-yardage battle. He needed to distribute the ball efficiently and avoid turnovers while Texas generated production elsewhere.
The statistical profile suggests that he accomplished that objective.
Vanderbilt’s Biggest Strengths
Several strengths are clear from the numbers.
1. Passing volume and production
Vanderbilt completed 27 passes for 365 yards.
That was the higher passing total in the game.
2. Receiving production
Eli Stowers produced 146 yards and two touchdowns.
That gave Vanderbilt a highly productive focal point in the passing game.
3. Fourth-quarter offense
Vanderbilt scored 21 points in the fourth quarter.
That late offensive surge nearly overturned the entire game.
4. Kick returns
The Commodores averaged 22.0 yards per kick return and produced 66 return yards.
5. Punting
Haberer’s 51.0-yard punting average and two punts inside the 20 were strong special teams numbers.
Texas’ Biggest Strengths
Texas also had several statistical advantages.
1. Defensive pressure
Six sacks and 10 tackles for loss were the clearest defensive advantage.
2. Rushing production
Texas gained 100 rushing yards compared with Vanderbilt’s 58.
3. Passing efficiency
Manning completed 75.8% of his passes and posted a 92.2 QBR.
4. Kicking production
Texas scored 10 kicking points compared with Vanderbilt’s five.
5. Explosive receiving
Wingo averaged 44.5 yards per reception and produced a 75-yard touchdown reception.
What the Player Stats Tell Us About the Matchup
The vanderbilt football vs texas longhorns football match player stats demonstrate why close football games require more than one statistical lens.
If you focus only on passing, Vanderbilt appears to have had the advantage.
If you focus only on rushing, Texas had the advantage.
If you focus on receiving volume, Vanderbilt led.
If you focus on explosive receiving efficiency, Texas had an impressive answer through Wingo.
If you focus on defensive disruption, Texas clearly led.
If you focus on kick returns, Vanderbilt had the edge.
If you focus on field-goal and extra-point production, Texas had the advantage.
This is exactly the kind of statistical balance that produces a three-point game.
A Practical Way to Analyze Similar College Football Box Scores
For readers who regularly analyze college football statistics, this game offers a useful framework.
Do not begin with total yards alone.
Instead, examine the box score in layers.
First, look at quarterback efficiency.
Then compare rushing production.
Next, identify the leading receivers and their average gain per reception.
After that, examine sacks and tackles for loss.
Then check turnovers.
Finally, look at special teams and scoring by quarter.
This process provides a more complete picture than simply asking which team had more yards.
Step 1: Compare completion efficiency
A quarterback who throws for fewer yards can still have a stronger overall game if he completes a higher percentage of his attempts and avoids turnovers.
Step 2: Separate rushing from passing
A team with a strong passing attack but weak rushing efficiency can become predictable.
Step 3: Look at explosive plays
A receiver with two catches for 89 yards can have a major impact even without high reception volume.
Step 4: Measure defensive disruption
Sacks and tackles for loss often reveal things that total tackles do not.
Step 5: Check scoring efficiency
Field goals and extra points can matter greatly in close games.
Step 6: Study scoring by quarter
A team that dominates one quarter but struggles in another may have a very different game story from what the final score suggests.
How to Read the Box Score Without Overreacting
Statistics should explain what happened, not replace judgment.
For example, Vanderbilt’s 365 passing yards should not automatically lead to the conclusion that its passing game was better in every respect.
Similarly, Texas’ six sacks do not mean the Longhorns completely controlled the game.
The final quarter proves otherwise.
Vanderbilt’s 21-point fourth quarter shows that the Commodores were capable of finding answers after struggling earlier.
A strong statistical analysis recognizes both realities at once.
Texas won.
Vanderbilt produced more passing yards.
Texas generated substantially more defensive pressure.
Vanderbilt mounted the stronger fourth quarter.
Both quarterbacks threw three touchdowns and no interceptions.
The game was decided by a combination of small advantages rather than one overwhelming statistical category.
Final Player Statistical Snapshot
The following summary brings the most important individual numbers together.
| Player | Team | Key Production |
| Diego Pavia | Vanderbilt | 27/38, 365 pass yards, 3 TD, 0 INT; 43 rush yards, 1 rush TD |
| Arch Manning | Texas | 25/33, 328 pass yards, 3 TD, 0 INT |
| Quintrevion Wisner | Texas | 18 carries, 75 yards, 1 TD |
| Eli Stowers | Vanderbilt | 7 receptions, 146 yards, 2 TD |
| Ryan Wingo | Texas | 2 receptions, 89 yards, 1 TD |
| Brock Taylor | Vanderbilt | 1/2 FG, 2/2 XP, 5 points |
| Mason Shipley | Texas | 2/3 FG, 4/4 XP, 10 points |
| Nick Haberer | Vanderbilt | 2 punts, 102 yards, 51.0 average |
| Jack Bouwmeester | Texas | 1 punt, 25 yards |
This table illustrates the unusual balance of the game.
Vanderbilt had major individual performances from Pavia and Stowers.
Texas countered with Manning, Wisner and Wingo, while its defense provided the most significant statistical difference.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the final score between Vanderbilt and Texas?
Texas defeated Vanderbilt 34-31 on November 1, 2025.
Who had more passing yards, Diego Pavia or Arch Manning?
Diego Pavia had more passing yards. He threw for 365 yards, while Arch Manning finished with 328 yards.
Did either quarterback throw an interception?
No. Both Diego Pavia and Arch Manning finished with three touchdown passes and zero interceptions.
Who was Vanderbilt’s leading receiver?
Eli Stowers led Vanderbilt with seven receptions for 146 yards and two touchdowns. His longest reception was 67 yards.
Who was Texas’ leading rusher?
Quintrevion Wisner led Texas with 18 carries for 75 yards and one touchdown.
Which team had the stronger defensive statistics?
Texas had the stronger pressure statistics, recording six sacks and 10 tackles for loss. Vanderbilt recorded zero sacks and one tackle for loss.
Conclusion
The vanderbilt football vs texas longhorns football match player stats paint a picture of a game that was much closer and more balanced than the final margin suggests.
Texas won 34-31, but Vanderbilt held several statistical advantages. Pavia threw for 365 yards, Stowers produced 146 receiving yards, and the Commodores scored 21 points in the fourth quarter. Vanderbilt also generated 66 kick-return yards and averaged 51.0 yards on its two punts.
Texas’ advantages were different. Manning delivered an efficient 25-of-33 passing performance for 328 yards and three touchdowns. Wisner added 75 rushing yards and a touchdown, while Wingo produced 89 yards and a touchdown on only two receptions. Most importantly, Texas’ defense recorded six sacks and 10 tackles for loss, creating the type of negative plays that do not always show up in total-yardage comparisons.
The combined offensive yardage difference was only five yards in Texas’ favor based on the supplied passing and rushing totals. That makes the final three-point result easier to understand. Texas did not win because it produced dramatically more offense. It won through a collection of smaller advantages, particularly defensive pressure, rushing efficiency, kicking production and ball-security factors.
For anyone studying this matchup, the main takeaway is simple: the box score rewards a deeper reading. Passing yards explain part of the story. Rushing efficiency, explosive plays, sacks, turnovers, special teams and quarter-by-quarter scoring explain the rest.
The game also demonstrates why individual player statistics should always be interpreted within team context. Pavia’s 365 passing yards were excellent, but Texas’ defensive pressure created six sacks. Manning’s 328 yards were lower, but Texas balanced his passing with 100 rushing yards. Stowers dominated in receiving volume, while Wingo delivered extraordinary per-catch explosiveness.
Taken together, these numbers explain how Texas finished with a 34-31 victory despite Vanderbilt producing several of the game’s most impressive individual statistical performances.
