The vanderbilt football vs texas longhorns football match player stats from November 1, 2025, tell the story of a dramatic SEC contest that ended with the Texas Longhorns defeating the Vanderbilt Commodores 34-31. Texas built a 34-10 advantage through three quarters, but Vanderbilt produced a remarkable 21-point fourth-quarter surge that brought the game down to the final moments. Diego Pavia delivered 365 passing yards and three touchdowns for Vanderbilt, while Arch Manning threw for 328 yards and three touchdowns for Texas. The difference was not simply quarterback production. Texas generated six sacks and 10 tackles for loss, while Vanderbilt’s late offensive explosion nearly erased the impact of its earlier struggles.

This game provides an excellent example of how individual performance statistics, defensive pressure, explosive plays, and quarter-by-quarter scoring combine to determine a college football result. Although Vanderbilt finished with an impressive passing performance, Texas created enough separation during the first three quarters to withstand the comeback. The numbers below explain which players made the biggest contributions, where each team gained an advantage, and why the final score was much closer than the overall game progression initially suggested.

Vanderbilt Football vs Texas Longhorns Football Match Player Stats: Game Overview

The November 1 meeting between Vanderbilt and Texas was a significant SEC matchup featuring two teams that entered with 7-2 overall records. Texas came away with a 34-31 victory, improving its conference record to 4-1, while Vanderbilt moved to 3-2 in SEC play.

The final score reflects two very different phases of the contest. Texas controlled the opening three quarters, scoring 34 points and limiting Vanderbilt to 10. Vanderbilt then scored 21 unanswered fourth-quarter points, transforming what had looked like a comfortable Texas victory into a three-point finish.

Texas Longhorns

34

7-2 overall, 4-1 SEC

Final

November 1, 2025

VS

Vanderbilt

31

7-2 overall, 3-2 SEC

Source: ESPN game box score and matchup information supplied for this analysis.

Final score by quarter

Quarter	Texas Longhorns	Vanderbilt Commodores
First	17	0
Second	7	10
Third	10	0
Fourth	0	21
Final	34	31

Texas scored 34 points before Vanderbilt’s fourth-quarter rally began. Vanderbilt’s 21-point final period was enough to make the finish competitive, but not enough to change the result.

The quarter-by-quarter breakdown is especially useful because the final score alone does not show how the game unfolded. Texas established control early, extended its lead after halftime, and then struggled to contain Vanderbilt’s late passing attack.

Complete Team Statistics: Texas vs Vanderbilt

The team numbers show why the result was so competitive despite Texas winning by three points. Vanderbilt gained more passing yards, while Texas generated more rushing production and finished with slightly more total offense.

Team statistic	Vanderbilt	Texas
Final score	31	34
Total offensive yards	423	428
Passing yards	365	328
Rushing yards	58	100
Total plays	62	60
First downs	25	23
Third-down conversions	7/13	7/11
Fourth-down conversions	2/2	0/0
Penalties	8 for 70 yards	9 for 70 yards
Time of possession	30:59	29:01
Sacks recorded by defense	0	6
Tackles for loss	1	10

Source: Official Texas Athletics box score. Passing and rushing figures are shown separately from total offense.

What the team statistics reveal

1. Texas won the rushing battle. The Longhorns accumulated 100 rushing yards compared with Vanderbilt’s 58. That 42-yard difference helped Texas maintain a more balanced offense and reduced its dependence on passing production.
2. Vanderbilt won the passing-yardage comparison. The Commodores recorded 365 passing yards, 37 more than Texas. However, the additional passing production did not automatically translate into a victory because Texas established a significant lead before Vanderbilt’s late surge.
3. Total offense was nearly identical. Texas finished with 428 yards and Vanderbilt with 423. A five-yard difference is remarkably small in a game decided by three points. This illustrates why total yardage alone cannot explain the outcome.
4. Defensive pressure favored Texas. Six sacks and 10 tackles for loss represent a major defensive advantage. Vanderbilt recorded no sacks and just one tackle for loss in its defensive statistics. Those numbers help explain how Texas disrupted the Commodores’ offense despite allowing several explosive plays.
5. Vanderbilt converted its fourth-down opportunities. The Commodores went 2-for-2 on fourth down, while Texas did not attempt a fourth-down conversion. This suggests Vanderbilt was willing to extend possessions when the situation demanded it, although those conversions did not erase the early scoring deficit.

Quarterback Performance: Diego Pavia vs Arch Manning

The quarterbacks were central to the contest. Both threw three touchdown passes without an interception, but they produced their passing yards in different circumstances.

Diego Pavia’s passing statistics

Statistic	Diego Pavia
Completions	27
Attempts	38
Completion percentage	71.1%
Passing yards	365
Yards per attempt	9.6
Passing touchdowns	3
Interceptions	0
QBR, as supplied in the game data	84.4
Rushing attempts	14
Rushing yards	43
Rushing touchdowns	1

Pavia completed 27 of 38 passes, giving him a completion rate of approximately 71.1%. He averaged 9.6 yards per attempt and finished with 365 passing yards. His three passing touchdowns and zero interceptions demonstrate that he generated substantial production without throwing a pick.

His performance was especially important because Vanderbilt entered the fourth quarter trailing 34-10. Rather than allowing the deficit to end the contest, Pavia helped produce three consecutive touchdown drives.

The first came on a 25-yard rushing touchdown. The second was a spectacular 67-yard touchdown pass to Eli Stowers. The third was an eight-yard completion to Richie Hoskins.

These plays illustrate Pavia’s value as both a passer and a runner. A quarterback who can create yards through the air and on the ground gives an offense more options when defenses attempt to protect a lead.

His rushing contribution also mattered statistically. Pavia led Vanderbilt with 43 rushing yards and one rushing touchdown, although his 3.1 yards per carry indicate that the ground game was not consistently productive throughout the contest.

Arch Manning’s passing statistics

Statistic	Arch Manning
Completions	25
Attempts	33
Completion percentage	75.8%
Passing yards	328
Yards per attempt	9.9
Passing touchdowns	3
Interceptions	0
QBR, as supplied in the game data	92.2
Rushing attempts	1
Rushing yards	4

Manning completed 25 of 33 passes, producing a completion rate of approximately 75.8%. He averaged 9.9 yards per attempt, slightly above Pavia’s 9.6, and threw three touchdowns without an interception.

One of Manning’s most important contributions came immediately. He connected with Ryan Wingo on a 75-yard touchdown pass on Texas’ opening possession. The play established an early advantage and demonstrated Texas’ ability to score quickly without needing a long sequence of short gains.

Manning also connected with CJ Baxter for a six-yard touchdown and Emmett Mosley V for another six-yard score. These completions gave Texas three passing touchdowns from three different receivers.

The distinction between the two quarterbacks is not simply that Manning won and Pavia lost. Both were efficient in several important ways. Manning completed a greater percentage of his attempts and averaged more yards per attempt, while Pavia produced more total passing yards and added a rushing touchdown.

The game outcome depended on the wider performance of both teams, particularly Texas’ defensive pressure and its early scoring advantage.

Quarterback comparison at a glance

Metric	Pavia	Manning
Completion percentage	71.1%	75.8%
Passing yards	365	328
Passing TDs	3	3
Interceptions	0	0
Yards per attempt	9.6	9.9
Rushing yards	43	4
Rushing touchdowns	1	0

The most useful takeaway is that both quarterbacks produced strong statistical performances. Manning helped Texas build the lead, while Pavia drove Vanderbilt’s late comeback. Their contributions were different, but both were central to the game’s offensive story.

Vanderbilt Receiving Leaders: Eli Stowers Leads the Attack

Vanderbilt’s receiving production was concentrated among several players, with Eli Stowers delivering the most explosive performance.

Vanderbilt receiving statistics

Player	Receptions	Yards	Average	TDs	Long
Eli Stowers	7	146	20.9	2	67
Junior Sherrill	5	83	16.6	0	27
Richie Hoskins	5	54	10.8	1	22
Makhilyn Young	3	31	10.3	0	18
Cole Spence	1	23	23.0	0	23
Tre Richardson	2	21	10.5	0	15
AJ Newberry	1	6	6.0	0	6
Gabe Fisher	1	5	5.0	0	5
Sedrick Alexander	1	1	1.0	0	1
Chase Mitchell	1	-5	-5.0	0	-5

The listed individual receiving lines total 27 receptions for 365 yards and three touchdowns.

Eli Stowers: Vanderbilt’s leading receiver

Stowers caught seven passes for 146 yards and two touchdowns. His 20.9 yards per reception was the highest average among Vanderbilt’s main contributors with multiple catches.

His performance was decisive in the fourth quarter. The 67-yard touchdown reception cut Texas’ lead from 34-16 to 34-24 after Vanderbilt had already scored on Pavia’s rushing touchdown.

That single play changed the game’s atmosphere. Vanderbilt had struggled to score during the first and third quarters, but the connection between Pavia and Stowers demonstrated that the offense could still create a quick scoring opportunity against Texas.

Stowers’ contribution was not limited to the long touchdown. He also scored on an 18-yard reception in the second quarter. That score brought Vanderbilt to 24-10 before halftime and gave the Commodores a foothold in a game that Texas had controlled early.

His seven receptions accounted for 146 of Vanderbilt’s 365 passing yards, or approximately 40% of the team’s passing production. That level of involvement makes him the clear focal point of the receiving statistics.

Junior Sherrill provides a reliable secondary option

Sherrill finished with five catches for 83 yards, averaging 16.6 yards per reception. His 83 yards represented approximately 23% of Vanderbilt’s passing total.

Although he did not record a touchdown in the supplied receiving statistics, his production helped prevent Texas from focusing exclusively on Stowers. A secondary receiver who can generate meaningful yardage makes it harder for a defense to concentrate all its attention on one target.

Sherrill’s five catches also matched Hoskins’ reception total, giving Vanderbilt multiple players who could contribute consistently.

Richie Hoskins finishes the comeback drive

Hoskins recorded five receptions for 54 yards and a touchdown. His eight-yard touchdown reception with 33 seconds remaining brought Vanderbilt within three points.

That final scoring drive covered 89 yards over 12 plays and required Vanderbilt to sustain its offense under considerable time pressure. Hoskins’ touchdown was the culmination of that possession.

Stowers supplied the biggest explosive play, Sherrill contributed substantial receiving yardage, and Hoskins delivered the final score. Together, these players accounted for 283 receiving yards, or approximately 77.5% of Vanderbilt’s passing production.

This distribution helps explain why Vanderbilt was able to sustain its fourth-quarter comeback despite its earlier offensive difficulties.

Texas Receiving Leaders: Ryan Wingo Makes an Immediate Impact

Texas spread its passing production across several receivers. Ryan Wingo led the team in receiving yards, while Emmett Mosley V and CJ Baxter contributed touchdown receptions.

Texas receiving statistics

Player	Receptions	Yards	Average	TDs	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
Ryan Niblett	2	19	9.5	0	13
Daylan McCutcheon	2	18	9.0	0	14
CJ Baxter	1	6	6.0	1	6
Jordan Washington	1	5	5.0	0	5

Ryan Wingo’s 75-yard touchdown

Wingo caught two passes for 89 yards, averaging 44.5 yards per reception. His opening-play touchdown reception covered 75 yards and immediately placed Texas ahead 7-0.

This was an unusually concentrated receiving performance. Wingo accounted for approximately 27% of Texas’ receiving yardage on just two catches. His average was more than twice Stowers’ average, although the two receivers had very different workloads.

Wingo’s touchdown also had strategic importance. Texas scored in only 11 seconds on its opening offensive possession, creating an early lead before Vanderbilt had an opportunity to establish its own rhythm.

A quick touchdown can change play-calling decisions for the remainder of a game. The team that falls behind may need to become more aggressive, while the team in front can use its lead to influence the opponent’s risk tolerance.

Emmett Mosley V contributes a touchdown

Mosley caught seven passes for 69 yards and one touchdown. His reception total tied him for the most catches by a Texas receiver in this game.

His six-yard touchdown reception in the third quarter capped an 11-play, 93-yard drive. That possession extended Texas’ lead to 31-10 and placed additional pressure on Vanderbilt.

Mosley’s role was different from Wingo’s. Wingo delivered an explosive scoring play, while Mosley supplied more frequent involvement in the passing attack and finished a sustained drive.

DeAndre Moore Jr. and the supporting receivers

Moore recorded three receptions for 49 yards, averaging 16.3 yards per catch. His production gave Manning another useful option beyond Wingo and Mosley.

Wisner, Endries, Livingstone, Niblett, McCutcheon, Baxter, and Washington also recorded receptions. The spread of targets meant Texas could generate yardage through multiple routes and personnel combinations.

This balance is important when evaluating the passing offense. Wingo’s long touchdown dramatically influenced the team’s average yards per catch, but the remaining receivers helped Texas sustain drives and convert passing opportunities into points.

Overall, Texas recorded 328 passing yards and three passing touchdowns. Its offense was not dependent on one receiver alone, even though Wingo’s early contribution was the most explosive play of the game.

Rushing Statistics: Which Team Controlled the Ground Game?

The rushing numbers reveal one of the clearest differences between the offenses. Texas gained 100 rushing yards on 27 carries, while Vanderbilt managed 58 yards on 24 carries.

Texas averaged 3.7 yards per carry, compared with Vanderbilt’s 2.4. Although neither team dominated the ground game throughout the contest, Texas gained more consistent yardage from its running backs.

Vanderbilt rushing statistics

Player	Carries	Yards	Average	TDs	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	Not supplied
Team total	24	58	2.4	1	25

Diego Pavia’s dual-threat contribution

Pavia led Vanderbilt in rushing attempts and rushing yards. His 14 carries produced 43 yards and a touchdown, including a 25-yard scoring run in the fourth quarter.

That touchdown was important for two reasons. First, it reduced the deficit to 34-16 and gave Vanderbilt an immediate source of momentum. Second, it showed that the quarterback could create scoring opportunities without relying entirely on his receivers.

Pavia’s rushing touchdown also complemented his three passing touchdowns. His four total touchdowns made him responsible for a substantial share of Vanderbilt’s offensive scoring.

However, the overall rushing average of 2.4 yards per carry indicates that Vanderbilt did not consistently generate efficient ground production. The team’s comeback depended much more on explosive passing plays and Pavia’s ability to create opportunities than on a sustained rushing advantage.

Sedrick Alexander and Makhilyn Young

Alexander finished with five carries for 11 yards, while Young recorded four carries for seven yards. Their combined nine carries produced only 18 yards.

Those figures help explain why Vanderbilt struggled to establish a dependable rushing attack. When early-down runs produce limited gains, an offense can find itself facing longer passing situations. That makes it easier for a defense to anticipate the pass and apply pressure.

Vanderbilt nevertheless remained dangerous because Pavia and the passing game could generate large gains even when the running game was inefficient.

Texas rushing statistics

Player	Carries	Yards	Average	TDs	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
Team total	27	100	3.7	1	13

Quintrevion Wisner leads Texas on the ground

Wisner carried the ball 18 times for 75 yards and one touchdown. His 4.2 yards per carry was the best average among the primary Texas rushing contributors who handled multiple attempts.

His four-yard touchdown in the second quarter increased Texas’ lead to 24-3. That score was part of a first-half performance that placed Vanderbilt under pressure to respond before halftime.

Wisner’s 75 rushing yards represented 75% of Texas’ listed team rushing total. His workload gave the Longhorns a consistent option on the ground, even though their overall rushing average was not exceptionally high.

CJ Baxter’s contribution

Baxter recorded seven carries for 22 yards and also caught a six-yard touchdown pass. His contribution illustrates how a running back can influence a game in multiple ways.

The rushing production was moderate, but the receiving touchdown helped Texas turn a long offensive possession into points. His involvement gave Manning another short-range target near the goal line and prevented the offense from depending exclusively on wide receivers.

Why the rushing comparison matters

Texas gained 42 more rushing yards than Vanderbilt and averaged 1.3 more yards per carry. That difference helped the Longhorns produce a more balanced offensive performance.

The figures should not be interpreted as proof that Texas completely controlled every running situation. Its leading rusher averaged 4.2 yards per carry, while Vanderbilt’s quarterback remained capable of producing a significant play at any moment.

The more defensible conclusion is that Texas obtained more reliable aggregate rushing production, while Vanderbilt depended more heavily on its quarterback and passing attack.

Defensive Player Stats: Texas Creates the Biggest Statistical Advantage

The defensive statistics provide one of the strongest explanations for the final result. Texas recorded six sacks and 10 tackles for loss, compared with Vanderbilt’s zero sacks and one tackle for loss.

That difference is particularly striking because Vanderbilt passed for more yards and finished with only five fewer total offensive yards than Texas.

Texas defensive leaders

Player	Total tackles	Solo tackles	Sacks	Tackles for loss
Derek Williams Jr.	8	5	Not supplied	Not supplied
Jaylon Guilbeau	6	2	Not supplied	Not supplied
Colin Simmons	5	3	1	1.5
Anthony Hill Jr.	4	3	1	1.5
Ethan Burke	3	3	2	3

Derek Williams Jr. led Texas with eight tackles, including five solo tackles. Guilbeau contributed six total tackles, while Simmons, Hill, and Burke provided important pressure.

Ethan Burke’s two-sack performance

Burke recorded two sacks and three tackles for loss in the supplied defensive statistics. His pressure helped Texas disrupt Vanderbilt’s offensive rhythm and limit opportunities for the Commodores to establish comfortable passing situations.

A tackle for loss can have an impact beyond the yards immediately surrendered. It may turn second-and-medium into third-and-long, force a team to abandon its planned play sequence, or make a field-goal attempt less manageable.

Burke’s three tackles for loss demonstrate that his influence extended beyond one isolated play. His two sacks were also the highest sack total among the Texas defensive players listed.

Colin Simmons and Anthony Hill Jr.

Simmons recorded five total tackles, three solo tackles, one sack, and 1.5 tackles for loss. He also played a key role in the opening phase of the game by recording a strip-sack that helped Texas recover the ball near Vanderbilt’s 29-yard line.

That early turnover opportunity contributed to Texas’ fast start. Creating possession advantages is especially valuable against a capable offense because it can produce scoring opportunities without requiring a long drive.

Hill recorded four tackles, three solo tackles, one sack, and 1.5 tackles for loss. His contribution added another source of pressure and helped Texas maintain defensive disruption.

Together, these defenders contributed to a pressure package that made life more difficult for Pavia even though he ultimately produced 365 passing yards.

Vanderbilt defensive leaders

Player	Total tackles	Solo tackles	Additional production
Marlen Sewell	8	4	Team-leading tackles
Nick Rinaldi	8	3	Eight total tackles
Langston Patterson	7	3	Seven total tackles
Randon Fontenette	5	4	Five total tackles
Bryan Longwell	5	2	1 tackle for loss

Sewell and Rinaldi each recorded eight tackles, giving Vanderbilt two players with substantial defensive involvement. Patterson added seven, while Fontenette and Longwell each recorded five.

The tackle totals show that Vanderbilt had players actively involved in stopping Texas. However, tackle volume does not necessarily indicate defensive success on its own. A defense may record numerous tackles because the opponent consistently completes passes or gains short runs.

The significance of the sack differential

Texas’ six sacks compared with Vanderbilt’s zero represent a six-sack advantage. Texas also registered 10 tackles for loss against Vanderbilt’s one.

Those figures are consistent with the broader game pattern: Texas made it difficult for Vanderbilt to sustain its offense during much of the contest, even though the Commodores found solutions late.

A defense can lose statistical control of a game in the final quarter without having performed poorly for the entire afternoon. Vanderbilt’s 21-point fourth quarter illustrates how quickly the balance can change when an offense finds explosive plays and the defending team struggles to close out the contest.

Texas’ pressure advantage was substantial, but it did not prevent Vanderbilt from making the final minutes competitive.

Special Teams Statistics: Field Goals, Punting, and Returns

Special teams rarely receive the same attention as passing and rushing statistics, but they can influence field position, scoring opportunities, and the difficulty of a comeback.

Kicking comparison

Statistic	Brock Taylor, Vanderbilt	Mason Shipley, Texas
Field goals	1/2	2/3
Field-goal percentage	50.0%	66.7%
Longest successful field goal	44 yards	39 yards
Extra points	2/2	4/4
Kicking points	5	10

Shipley made two field goals and four extra points for 10 kicking points. Taylor made one field goal and two extra points for five kicking points.

The difference in kicking points was five, equal to more than the final three-point margin. That does not mean the kicking difference alone decided the contest, because the opportunities arose from different offensive possessions. It does show why field-goal execution can be important in a close game.

Texas converted field goals from 39 and 37 yards, while Vanderbilt made a 44-yard attempt. The supplied kicking summary lists the longest successful kicks as 39 yards for Texas and 44 yards for Vanderbilt.

Vanderbilt also missed a 48-yard attempt, according to the official postgame recap. That missed opportunity came during a period when Texas still held a substantial lead.

Punting statistics

Statistic	Nick Haberer, Vanderbilt	Jack Bouwmeester, Texas
Punts	2	1
Total punting yards	102	25
Average	51.0 yards	25.0 yards
Longest punt	57 yards	25 yards
Inside the 20	2	1
Touchbacks	0	0

Haberer averaged 51 yards across two punts, including a long of 57 yards. Both punts finished inside the 20-yard line, according to the supplied statistics.

Bouwmeester recorded one punt for 25 yards, also placing it inside the 20. Because Texas punted only once, its average should not be treated as a meaningful measure of its overall punting ability. A single punt provides a very small sample.

Kick returns and field position

Vanderbilt recorded three kick returns for 66 yards, averaging 22 yards per return. Tre Richardson accounted for two returns and 47 yards, including a long return of 32 yards. Dontae Carter added a 19-yard return.

Texas also recorded three kick returns but gained 33 yards, averaging 11 yards per return. Nick Townsend returned one kickoff for 18 yards, while Colton Vasek and Parker Livingstone recorded returns of 11 and four yards.

The return figures favored Vanderbilt by 33 total yards. That advantage was useful, but it did not outweigh Texas’ earlier scoring production and defensive pressure.

Texas recorded one punt return for 12 yards through Ryan Niblett. Vanderbilt recorded no punt returns in the supplied data.

Special teams therefore presented a mixed picture: Vanderbilt gained more on kick returns and averaged more per punt, while Texas generated more kicking points.

How Texas Built Its Lead and Vanderbilt Nearly Reversed It

The sequence of scoring provides a more complete understanding of the result than any single player statistic.

First quarter: Texas establishes control

Texas opened the scoring with Wingo’s 75-yard touchdown reception from Manning. Shipley’s extra point made it 7-0.

Shipley then converted a 39-yard field goal, extending the advantage to 10-0. Later in the quarter, Manning found Baxter for a six-yard touchdown, making the score 17-0.

Vanderbilt had no points in the opening quarter. Texas’ three scoring contributions came from an explosive passing play, a field goal, and another passing touchdown.

The quick start gave Texas flexibility in its offensive approach and forced Vanderbilt to play from behind.

Second quarter: Vanderbilt responds, but Texas maintains separation

Taylor’s 44-yard field goal put Vanderbilt on the scoreboard, making it 17-3. Texas responded with Wisner’s four-yard rushing touchdown, extending the margin to 24-3.

Vanderbilt then put together a long scoring drive, capped by Pavia’s 18-yard touchdown pass to Stowers. The Commodores entered halftime trailing 24-10.

The second quarter was more balanced than the first. Vanderbilt scored 10 points, while Texas added seven. However, Texas still carried a 14-point advantage into the break.

Third quarter: Texas reaches a 24-point lead

Manning connected with Mosley for a six-yard touchdown after an 11-play, 93-yard drive. Shipley later converted a 37-yard field goal.

The Longhorns entered the fourth quarter ahead 34-10. At that stage, Vanderbilt needed to score four touchdowns without allowing Texas to add points in order to win outright, or generate an equivalent combination of touchdowns and other scoring plays.

The margin was large enough that Texas could reasonably focus on limiting explosive plays and protecting its lead. Vanderbilt, meanwhile, needed urgency and efficient possessions.

Fourth quarter: Vanderbilt scores 21 unanswered points

Vanderbilt’s comeback began with Pavia’s 25-yard rushing touchdown, cutting the margin to 34-16.

Stowers then caught a 67-yard touchdown pass from Pavia. Vanderbilt converted the subsequent scoring opportunity with a two-point pass from Sherrill, bringing the score to 34-24.

After Vanderbilt forced Texas into a three-and-out, the Commodores drove 89 yards over 12 plays. Pavia found Hoskins for an eight-yard touchdown, reducing the deficit to 34-31 with 33 seconds remaining.

Vanderbilt attempted an onside kick, but the kick went out of bounds. Texas retained possession and secured the three-point victory.

The fourth quarter is the clearest evidence that a team can have a strong overall statistical performance while still losing because of an early deficit. Vanderbilt’s late offense was productive, but it had too little time to complete the comeback.

The Most Important Statistical Lessons From the Game

1. Passing yards do not automatically determine the winner

Vanderbilt outgained Texas through the air by 37 yards. Yet Texas won because the game involved more than passing production.

The Longhorns generated a 17-0 first-quarter lead, gained more rushing yards, and applied greater defensive pressure. These advantages helped offset Vanderbilt’s passing-yardage edge.

2. Explosive plays can distort averages

Wingo averaged 44.5 yards per catch on two receptions, largely because of his 75-yard touchdown. Stowers averaged 20.9 yards per reception on seven catches, with a long of 67 yards.

Both averages are useful, but neither should be considered a complete measure of receiver quality. Reception volume, down-and-distance context, touchdown production, and consistency also matter.

3. A quarterback’s total contribution includes rushing

Pavia’s 365 passing yards are impressive, but his 43 rushing yards and rushing touchdown also deserve attention.

His four total touchdowns helped Vanderbilt stay competitive late. Evaluating only passing yards would leave out a meaningful part of his offensive production.

4. Defensive pressure can coexist with a late scoring collapse

Texas recorded six sacks and 10 tackles for loss, yet Vanderbilt still scored 21 points in the fourth quarter.

That does not make the defensive statistics irrelevant. It means defensive performance should be evaluated across the full game, with attention to when pressure occurred and how effectively a defense responded to changes in offensive tempo and play selection.

5. The final minutes reveal execution under pressure

Vanderbilt’s final touchdown made the game a three-point contest, but the failed onside kick ended its opportunity to take another possession.

The result demonstrates the importance of situational execution. An effective comeback requires not only scoring quickly, but also obtaining the ball again and converting the final opportunity.

How to Read and Verify the Match Player Statistics

Accurate statistical analysis begins with understanding what each category measures. Readers comparing this game with other SEC contests should distinguish between individual production, team totals, and game situations.

The official Texas Athletics box score provides the recorded result, scoring sequence, team statistics, and individual player figures for this November 1 matchup.

Passing yards versus total offense

Passing yards measure the yardage credited to completed forward passes. Total offensive yards combine passing and rushing production under the applicable statistical conventions.

For this game, Vanderbilt’s 365 passing yards and 58 rushing yards produced 423 total offensive yards. Texas’ 328 passing yards and 100 rushing yards produced 428 total yards.

This comparison explains why Vanderbilt could lead in passing while Texas finished ahead in total offense.

Completion percentage and yards per attempt

Completion percentage measures the proportion of pass attempts completed. It is calculated by dividing completions by attempts and multiplying by 100.

Pavia’s completion percentage was 71.1%, while Manning’s was 75.8%.

Yards per attempt measures passing yardage divided by pass attempts. Pavia averaged 9.6 yards per attempt, while Manning averaged 9.9.

These figures provide a useful comparison of passing efficiency, but they do not capture every factor. Sack avoidance, turnovers, touchdown timing, and performance on important downs can all influence the result.

Tackles, sacks, and tackles for loss

A tackle records a defensive stop credited to a player. Solo tackles are made without a teammate sharing the recorded tackle, while assisted tackles involve multiple defenders.

A sack occurs when a defender brings down the passer behind the line of scrimmage on a qualifying passing play. A tackle for loss occurs when a ball carrier is stopped behind the line of scrimmage, excluding sacks from the relevant statistical category where applicable.

These measures should be read together rather than in isolation. A player with many tackles may be highly active, but a defender who consistently creates negative-yardage plays can influence the offense’s ability to sustain drives.

Understanding quarterback rating figures

The supplied game data lists a QBR of 84.4 for Pavia and 92.2 for Manning. These figures are presented as provided and should not be confused with the traditional passer rating formula, which uses a different calculation.

Quarterback rating systems may account for different elements of performance. When comparing numbers across websites, readers should confirm that the same metric is being used.

Why statistical context matters

A box score records what happened, but interpretation explains why it matters. For example, Stowers’ 146 receiving yards indicate his production, while the timing of his 67-yard touchdown explains his role in Vanderbilt’s comeback.

Likewise, Texas’ six sacks indicate defensive disruption, but the quarter-by-quarter score shows how Texas used its early advantage to reach the final period with a 24-point lead.

The most reliable analysis combines individual numbers, team totals, scoring sequence, and game context rather than treating any single statistic as a complete explanation.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Who won the Vanderbilt vs Texas football game on November 1, 2025?

The Texas Longhorns defeated the Vanderbilt Commodores 34-31. Texas led 34-10 entering the fourth quarter, but Vanderbilt scored 21 points in the final period.

2. How many passing yards did Diego Pavia record against Texas?

Diego Pavia threw for 365 yards, completing 27 of 38 attempts with three passing touchdowns and no interceptions. He also rushed for 43 yards and one touchdown.

3. What were Arch Manning’s stats against Vanderbilt?

Arch Manning completed 25 of 33 passes for 328 yards and three touchdowns without an interception. He also recorded one rushing attempt for four yards.

4. Who was Vanderbilt’s leading receiver against Texas?

Eli Stowers led Vanderbilt with seven receptions for 146 yards and two touchdowns. His longest reception covered 67 yards and resulted in a fourth-quarter touchdown.

5. Who led Texas in rushing and receiving yards?

Quintrevion Wisner led Texas in rushing with 75 yards and one touchdown on 18 carries. Ryan Wingo led the receiving group with 89 yards and one touchdown on two receptions.

6. Why did Texas win despite Vanderbilt’s passing-yardage advantage?

Texas established an early lead, gained 100 rushing yards, and recorded six sacks and 10 tackles for loss. Vanderbilt’s late comeback reduced the margin to three points, but the failed onside kick prevented another possession.

Conclusion

The vanderbilt football vs texas longhorns football match player stats reveal a game defined by explosive offense, defensive pressure, and a dramatic fourth-quarter comeback. Texas secured a 34-31 victory after building a 24-point advantage through three quarters, while Vanderbilt demonstrated remarkable resilience by scoring 21 unanswered points in the final period.

Diego Pavia finished with 365 passing yards, three passing touchdowns, and a rushing touchdown. Arch Manning recorded 328 passing yards and three touchdowns, helping Texas establish its early lead. Eli Stowers led Vanderbilt’s receivers with 146 yards and two touchdowns, while Ryan Wingo’s 75-yard opening touchdown highlighted Texas’ ability to produce explosive plays.

The team statistics provide additional context. Texas gained 100 rushing yards, recorded six sacks, and registered 10 tackles for loss. Vanderbilt accumulated 365 passing yards and generated enough late offense to make the finish uncertain, but its comeback ultimately fell short.

The central lesson from this matchup is that individual statistics become more meaningful when examined alongside the score, defensive performance, and timing of key plays. Texas did not need to dominate every statistical category to win. It needed to build a substantial lead, produce enough offensive balance, and survive Vanderbilt’s late surge.

For readers studying college football performances, this game offers a clear example of why passing numbers, rushing efficiency, defensive pressure, and situational execution should be considered together when evaluating a team’s performance.