Vanderbilt Football vs Texas Longhorns Football Match Player Stats
The vanderbilt football vs texas longhorns football match player stats tell the story of one of the most dramatic SEC games of the 2025 season. On November 1, 2025, Texas defeated Vanderbilt 34-31 in Austin after building a 34-10 advantage and then surviving a remarkable fourth-quarter comeback. The final score was close, but the individual numbers reveal a much more detailed story about how Texas controlled the first three quarters and how Vanderbilt nearly overturned the game in the final period.
Both teams entered the game at 7-2, making the matchup especially important in the SEC race. Vanderbilt was ranked No. 9 while Texas was ranked No. 20, and the result ultimately demonstrated how quickly momentum can change in a high-level college football game.
What makes this matchup particularly interesting is that neither starting quarterback threw an interception. Diego Pavia completed 27 of 38 passes for 365 yards and three touchdowns, while Arch Manning completed 25 of 33 for 328 yards and three touchdowns. Both quarterbacks produced outstanding passing numbers, yet Texas still walked away with the victory.
The difference was not simply quarterback efficiency. Texas generated more balance on offense, created six sacks, controlled the running game more effectively, and built a huge early lead. Vanderbilt, meanwhile, became increasingly dangerous through its passing attack and nearly completed the comeback.
Vanderbilt football vs texas longhorns football match player stats
The headline numbers immediately show how evenly matched the two passing attacks were.
| Category | Vanderbilt | Texas |
| Final Score | 31 | 34 |
| Passing Yards | 365 | 328 |
| Passing TDs | 3 | 3 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 0 |
| Rushing Yards | 58 | 100 |
| Rushing TDs | 1 | 1 |
| Total Offensive Yards | 423 | 428 |
| Sacks | 0 | 6 |
| Fumbles Lost | 1 | 0 |
The most revealing statistic may actually be total offense. Vanderbilt produced 423 yards, while Texas produced 428. That means Texas won by only five total yards despite taking a 34-31 victory.
This was not a game where one offense completely overwhelmed the other statistically. Instead, Texas did a better job converting its production into points earlier in the game and created more disruption defensively.
The six-sack advantage was especially important. Vanderbilt’s offense moved the ball well when Pavia had time, but Texas repeatedly created pressure that affected the rhythm of the Commodores’ attack.
How the game unfolded
Texas established control almost immediately.
On the opening offensive play, Arch Manning connected with Ryan Wingo for a 75-yard touchdown. That instantly placed Vanderbilt in a difficult position and gave Texas the type of explosive start that can change an entire game plan.
Texas added a 39-yard Mason Shipley field goal and then another touchdown connection from Manning to CJ Baxter. By the end of the first quarter, Texas had built a 17-0 advantage.
Vanderbilt finally answered with a field goal from Brock Taylor early in the second quarter, but Texas responded with a four-yard rushing touchdown from Quintrevion Wisner.
The Commodores then found an important breakthrough just before halftime. Pavia connected with Eli Stowers for an 18-yard touchdown, cutting the deficit to 24-10 at halftime.
Texas extended the advantage in the third quarter. Manning found Emmett Mosley V for a six-yard touchdown, and Shipley later added another field goal. With Texas leading 34-10 entering the fourth quarter, the game appeared heavily tilted toward the Longhorns.
Then everything changed.
Pavia scored on a 25-yard rushing touchdown with 10:05 remaining. Less than seven minutes later, he found Stowers for a spectacular 67-yard touchdown. Vanderbilt then scored again on an eight-yard pass to Richie Hoskins with only 33 seconds left.
The Commodores had cut a 24-point deficit to three.
Vanderbilt’s final onside-kick attempt, however, did not produce the recovery it needed, allowing Texas to escape with the 34-31 win.
Arch Manning’s performance
Arch Manning delivered one of the most important performances of the game.
He completed 25 of 33 attempts for 328 yards and three touchdowns without an interception. His average of 9.9 yards per attempt shows that Texas was not simply relying on short completions to accumulate yardage.
Manning’s efficiency was especially valuable because Texas consistently turned successful passing plays into points.
Manning’s passing numbers
| 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 |
The 75.8% completion rate is particularly impressive considering Texas averaged nearly ten yards every time Manning attempted a pass.
His three touchdown passes went to three different players or scoring situations. Ryan Wingo produced the explosive 75-yard touchdown, CJ Baxter scored on a six-yard reception, and Emmett Mosley V added a six-yard touchdown.
That distribution made Texas difficult to defend.
Manning also returned to action after suffering a concussion the previous week against Mississippi State. ESPN reported that he had not practiced until Wednesday before the Vanderbilt game and remained on the SEC injury report until Friday evening.
That context makes his performance even more notable, although the statistical evaluation should still remain focused on what happened on the field.
Diego Pavia’s performance
If Texas had lost this game, Diego Pavia would have had a strong argument for being remembered as the central reason Vanderbilt came back.
Pavia completed 27 of 38 passes for 365 yards and three touchdowns. He did not throw an interception, and his 84.4 QBR reflected a highly productive passing performance.
Pavia’s passing numbers
| 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 |
Pavia actually finished with more passing yards than Manning.
That is an important reminder that quarterback statistics do not automatically identify the winning quarterback. Manning had the more favorable game result, but Pavia produced 37 more passing yards.
Pavia also contributed 43 rushing yards and a touchdown on 14 carries. His 25-yard rushing touchdown became one of the defining moments of Vanderbilt’s fourth-quarter rally.
The problem for Vanderbilt was that Pavia’s excellent production came alongside a costly lost fumble. Texas did not throw an interception, while Vanderbilt’s quarterback lost the only fumble credited to the Commodores.
That single turnover mattered in a three-point game.
Eli Stowers was Vanderbilt’s breakout weapon
Eli Stowers produced the most explosive receiving performance for Vanderbilt.
He caught seven passes for 146 yards and two touchdowns, averaging 20.9 yards per reception.
His longest reception was 67 yards, and that play became one of the most important moments of the fourth-quarter comeback.
Eli Stowers receiving stats
| Statistic | Result |
| Receptions | 7 |
| Receiving Yards | 146 |
| Average | 20.9 |
| Touchdowns | 2 |
| Long Reception | 67 yards |
Stowers accounted for 146 of Vanderbilt’s 365 passing yards.
That means he generated roughly 40% of Pavia’s passing yardage by himself. His production was not based on a large number of short receptions either. His 20.9-yard average demonstrates how strongly Vanderbilt relied on explosive plays.
Also his two touchdowns also arrived at critical moments.
The first came late in the second quarter, giving Vanderbilt momentum before halftime. The second was the 67-yard strike in the fourth quarter that brought Vanderbilt within striking distance.
From an analytical perspective, Stowers was arguably Vanderbilt’s most influential offensive player after Pavia.
Vanderbilt’s other receiving contributors
Junior Sherrill finished with five receptions for 83 yards. His 16.6-yard average gave Vanderbilt another meaningful vertical option.
Richie Hoskins also made a major contribution with five catches for 54 yards and a touchdown. His eight-yard touchdown reception with 33 seconds left brought Vanderbilt within three points.
Makhilyn Young added three receptions for 31 yards, while Cole Spence averaged 23 yards on his lone catch.
The broader receiving distribution tells us something useful about Vanderbilt’s offensive structure.
The Commodores did not rely exclusively on one receiver. Instead, Pavia spread the ball across multiple targets while Stowers served as the primary explosive threat.
That variety helped Vanderbilt move the ball consistently, particularly during the late comeback.
Texas receiving performance
Texas finished with 328 passing yards, and Ryan Wingo delivered the game’s biggest individual explosive play.
Wingo caught only two passes, but those two receptions produced 89 yards and a touchdown. His average was an extraordinary 44.5 yards per reception.
His 75-yard touchdown on the first play of the game immediately demonstrated how dangerous Texas could be vertically.
Texas leading receivers
| Player | REC | YDS | AVG | TD | LONG |
| Ryan Wingo | 2 | 89 | 44.5 | 1 | 75 |
| Emmett Mosley V | 7 | 69 | 9.9 | 1 | 18 |
| DeAndre Moore Jr. | 3 | 49 | 16.3 | 0 | 29 |
| Quintrevion Wisner | 2 | 28 | 14.0 | 0 | 17 |
| Jack Endries | 3 | 24 | 8.0 | 0 | 17 |
| Parker Livingstone | 2 | 21 | 10.5 | 0 | 11 |
Emmett Mosley V provided the volume component with seven receptions for 69 yards and a touchdown.
DeAndre Moore Jr. contributed 49 yards on three receptions, while Wisner added 28 receiving yards to his rushing production.
This is another area where Texas demonstrated offensive balance. Wingo supplied explosive efficiency, while Mosley provided reliable volume.
Quintrevion Wisner’s importance
Quintrevion Wisner was Texas’ leading rusher.
He carried the ball 18 times for 75 yards and scored a touchdown. His 4.2 yards per carry was significantly better than Vanderbilt’s team rushing average.
Wisner also caught two passes for 28 yards.
His total offensive contribution was therefore 103 yards from scrimmage.
That matters because Texas did not need Manning to carry the entire offense. Wisner provided a dependable ground component that helped Texas maintain balance.
His four-yard touchdown run in the second quarter extended Texas’ lead to 24-3 and helped establish the cushion that ultimately proved decisive.
Vanderbilt’s rushing attack
Vanderbilt finished with only 58 team rushing yards on 24 attempts, an average of 2.4 yards per carry.
That was one of the clearest statistical disadvantages in the game.
Pavia led the Commodores with 43 rushing yards and one touchdown. The quarterback accounted for a large share of Vanderbilt’s rushing production.
Sedrick Alexander managed 11 yards on five carries, while Makhilyn Young recorded seven yards on four attempts.
Vanderbilt rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | TD | Long |
| Diego Pavia | 14 | 43 | 3.1 | 1 | 25 |
| Sedrick Alexander | 5 | 11 | 2.2 | 0 | 5 |
| Makhilyn Young | 4 | 7 | 1.8 | 0 | 6 |
| AJ Newberry | 1 | -3 | -3.0 | 0 | 0 |
The limited rushing output placed additional pressure on Pavia’s passing game.
Against a defense that eventually recorded six sacks, that lack of consistent rushing efficiency made Vanderbilt’s offensive comeback even more impressive.
Texas controlled the ground game
Texas rushed for 100 yards on 27 attempts.
That was not an overwhelming rushing performance, but it was enough to create a meaningful advantage over Vanderbilt.
Wisner led with 75 yards, while CJ Baxter added 22 yards on seven carries.
Arch Manning contributed four rushing yards.
Texas rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | TD | Long |
| Quintrevion Wisner | 18 | 75 | 4.2 | 1 | 13 |
| CJ Baxter | 7 | 22 | 3.1 | 0 | 7 |
| Arch Manning | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | 4 |
The difference between 100 rushing yards and 58 rushing yards gave Texas an additional layer of offensive stability.
It also reduced the amount of pressure placed on Manning to produce every offensive yard through the air.
The defensive difference
The biggest statistical difference between the teams came on defense.
Vanderbilt recorded 66 tackles, but the Commodores did not record a sack and produced only one tackle for loss.
Texas recorded 60 tackles, six sacks, and 10 tackles for loss.
That contrast is enormous.
Texas generated five times as many tackles for loss and six times as many sacks.
In a game decided by only three points, those negative plays are extremely important.
A defense does not need to dominate every statistical category to influence the result. Creating six sacks can erase promising drives, push an offense behind the chains, and force longer third-down situations.
That appears to be exactly what happened to Vanderbilt.
Why Vanderbilt still had a chance late
The defensive numbers explain Texas’ control, but Vanderbilt’s fourth-quarter performance explains why the game became so close.
The Commodores scored 21 points in the fourth quarter.
That rally was powered by explosive passing and Pavia’s ability to create plays under pressure.
The sequence was remarkable:
- Pavia ran for a 25-yard touchdown.
- Pavia found Stowers for a 67-yard touchdown.
- Pavia connected with Hoskins for an eight-yard touchdown.
- Vanderbilt attempted an onside kick after cutting the deficit to three.
ESPN’s game recap noted that Vanderbilt went from a 34-10 deficit to within three points before the late onside kick failed to produce the required possession.
This is why the final score needs context.
A 34-31 result might suggest a back-and-forth game from start to finish. It was not.
Texas controlled the first three quarters much more effectively, while Vanderbilt produced its best football when the margin was already large.
Turnovers and hidden value
The turnover statistics were simple but important.
Vanderbilt lost one fumble, credited to Pavia. Texas had no lost fumbles and recovered one fumble.
Neither team recorded an interception.
Therefore, Texas finished with a plus-one turnover margin.
In a three-point game, that advantage cannot be ignored.
Vanderbilt’s offense generated 365 passing yards and 423 total yards, but one lost possession reduced the value of that production.
Texas protected the football while simultaneously creating pressure.
That combination is often more important than raw yardage.
Special teams also mattered
Special teams did not decide the game by themselves, but Texas received useful contributions from Mason Shipley.
Shipley made two of three field-goal attempts, with a long of 39 yards, and converted all four extra points. He finished with 10 points.
Vanderbilt kicker Brock Taylor made one of two field-goal attempts and converted both extra points for five points.
The difference was five kicking points.
In a game decided by three points, that is meaningful.
Texas also held an advantage in kick-return yardage, recording 33 yards compared with Vanderbilt’s 66. Vanderbilt’s Tre Richardson averaged 23.5 yards on two returns and had a 32-yard long.
Punting also favored Vanderbilt statistically, with Nick Haberer averaging 51.0 yards on two punts. Texas punted only once for 25 yards.
These numbers show that special teams were not one-sided across every category, but Texas converted its scoring opportunities more efficiently.
What the advanced numbers suggest
Traditional box-score statistics tell only part of the story.
A deeper look at the numbers reveals several important trends.
1. Passing efficiency was nearly identical
Manning averaged 9.9 yards per attempt.
Pavia averaged 9.6.
That is a remarkably small difference.
Both quarterbacks were highly efficient, and neither threw an interception.
The difference was therefore less about quarterback accuracy and more about how the surrounding units performed.
2. Texas was more balanced
Texas produced:
- 328 passing yards
- 100 rushing yards
- 428 total yards
Vanderbilt produced:
- 365 passing yards
- 58 rushing yards
- 423 total yards
Vanderbilt actually passed for more yards, but Texas had 42 more rushing yards.
The Longhorns’ balanced profile helped them maintain control before the late collapse.
3. Vanderbilt’s offense depended heavily on explosive passing
Stowers averaged 20.9 yards per reception.
Sherrill averaged 16.6.
The team averaged 13.5 yards per reception.
Those numbers show how much Vanderbilt’s passing game relied on gaining significant chunks of yardage.
4. Texas created more negative plays
Six sacks and 10 tackles for loss stand out.
Even though Texas allowed 365 passing yards, the defense consistently created situations that disrupted Vanderbilt’s offense.
5. The final margin hides the game script
Texas led 34-10 entering the fourth quarter.
Vanderbilt then scored 21 unanswered points.
That distinction is critical when evaluating individual performances.
Pavia’s final numbers look like those of a quarterback who controlled the game, but his best production came during the comeback after Texas had already established a commanding lead.
The most important individual performances
If the goal is to identify the players who had the greatest statistical influence, several names stand above the rest.
Arch Manning
Manning completed 25 of 33 passes for 328 yards and three touchdowns.
His ability to produce explosive plays without turning the ball over was central to Texas’ early advantage.
Diego Pavia
Pavia threw for 365 yards and three touchdowns while adding a rushing touchdown.
He was the primary reason Vanderbilt remained alive late in the game.
Eli Stowers
Stowers caught seven passes for 146 yards and two touchdowns.
His 67-yard fourth-quarter touchdown transformed the game from a potential blowout into a one-score contest.
Ryan Wingo
Wingo had only two catches, but they produced 89 yards and a touchdown.
His 75-yard opening-play touchdown was one of the game’s defining moments.
Quintrevion Wisner
Wisner rushed for 75 yards and a touchdown while adding 28 receiving yards.
His 103 yards from scrimmage gave Texas an important all-purpose contribution.
Mason Shipley
Shipley scored 10 points through field goals and extra points.
In a three-point victory, those points carry considerable weight.
What the stats say about each team’s strengths
Vanderbilt’s biggest offensive strength was explosive passing.
The Commodores were able to generate large chunks of yardage through Pavia and Stowers, and their fourth-quarter comeback demonstrated how dangerous that combination could become.
Their biggest weakness was rushing efficiency.
A 2.4-yard team rushing average made it harder to stay balanced, particularly against a Texas defense capable of generating pressure.
Texas’ biggest strength was offensive balance.
The Longhorns combined 328 passing yards with 100 rushing yards and protected the football.
Their defensive strength was pressure.
Six sacks and 10 tackles for loss created a level of disruption Vanderbilt could not consistently overcome.
Texas’ biggest weakness was its fourth-quarter defensive performance.
Allowing 21 points in the final period turned what appeared to be a comfortable victory into a near-disaster.
What fans can learn from the player statistics
The most useful lesson from this game is that box-score totals need context.
If someone only sees that Pavia threw for 365 yards and three touchdowns, they might assume Vanderbilt’s quarterback outplayed Manning.
If someone only sees that Texas won 34-31, they might assume the teams played at an even level throughout.
Neither conclusion fully explains the game.
The better approach is to examine:
- Passing efficiency
- Rushing balance
- Explosive plays
- Turnovers
- Sacks
- Tackles for loss
- Scoring distribution by quarter
- Red-zone and kicking production
- Timing of individual performances
When these numbers are combined, Texas’ victory becomes easier to understand.
The Longhorns were more effective at turning their early offensive production into a large lead, and their defense created substantially more negative plays.
Vanderbilt was more explosive through the air and produced the stronger late-game offensive performance.
Both observations can be true at the same time.
Vanderbilt football vs texas longhorns football match player stats: key takeaways
The most important conclusions from the statistical record are straightforward.
First, the quarterbacks were both excellent.
Manning completed 75.8% of his passes for 328 yards and three touchdowns. Pavia completed 71.1% for 365 yards and three touchdowns.
Second, Vanderbilt’s passing game was slightly more productive, but Texas’ offense was more balanced.
Texas gained 100 rushing yards compared with Vanderbilt’s 58.
Third, Texas’ defense made the biggest statistical difference.
Six sacks compared with zero was a major advantage.
Fourth, Vanderbilt’s fourth-quarter comeback was legitimate and statistically impressive.
The Commodores scored 21 fourth-quarter points after entering the period down 24.
Fifth, turnovers mattered.
Vanderbilt lost one fumble while Texas did not lose one.
Finally, explosive plays shaped the game.
Wingo’s 75-yard touchdown gave Texas an immediate advantage, while Stowers’ 67-yard touchdown later gave Vanderbilt a realistic chance to complete the comeback.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who won the Vanderbilt vs Texas football game?
Texas defeated Vanderbilt 34-31 on November 1, 2025. Texas led 34-10 entering the fourth quarter before Vanderbilt scored 21 points in the final period.
How many passing yards did Diego Pavia have?
Diego Pavia completed 27 of 38 passes for 365 yards, three touchdowns, and no interceptions. He also rushed for 43 yards and one touchdown.
How many passing yards did Arch Manning have?
Arch Manning completed 25 of 33 passes for 328 yards and three touchdowns without an interception. His QBR was 92.2.
Who was Vanderbilt’s leading receiver?
Eli Stowers led Vanderbilt with seven receptions for 146 yards and two touchdowns. His longest catch was 67 yards.
Who was Texas’ leading rusher?
Quintrevion Wisner led Texas with 18 carries for 75 yards and one touchdown. He also caught two passes for 28 yards.
What was the biggest defensive difference?
Texas recorded six sacks and 10 tackles for loss, while Vanderbilt recorded no sacks and one tackle for loss. That pressure advantage was one of the clearest statistical differences between the teams.
Conclusion
The vanderbilt football vs texas longhorns football match player stats reveal a game that was far more complex than the final 34-31 score suggests.
Texas won because it combined efficient quarterback play, a more productive rushing attack, superior defensive pressure, and better early-game execution. Arch Manning delivered 328 passing yards and three touchdowns, while Quintrevion Wisner added 75 rushing yards and a touchdown. Ryan Wingo’s two catches for 89 yards also demonstrated how quickly Texas could create explosive plays.
Vanderbilt’s statistics were equally impressive in several areas. Diego Pavia threw for 365 yards and three touchdowns, while Eli Stowers produced 146 receiving yards and two touchdowns. Vanderbilt’s fourth-quarter offense was outstanding, producing 21 points and reducing a 24-point deficit to only three.
The most important statistical distinction was defensive pressure. Texas recorded six sacks and 10 tackles for loss, while Vanderbilt did not record a sack. That disruption helped Texas build enough separation early to withstand Vanderbilt’s late surge.
Ultimately, the game demonstrates why individual statistics should be evaluated alongside game situation, timing, turnovers, field position, and team balance. Vanderbilt accumulated slightly more passing yardage, but Texas produced more rushing yardage, avoided a lost fumble, generated significantly more defensive pressure, and converted its early opportunities into a lead that proved just large enough to survive.
For readers researching the complete box score and game record, the official game data can be cross-checked through ESPN’s Vanderbilt vs Texas game page.
