Texas A&M

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.0521st
  Defense+0.0466th
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense40.7%31st
  Defense39.8%58th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1113th
  Defense+1.3031st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0944th
  Defense−0.0376th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0518th
  Defense+0.2042nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.8%26th
  Defense44.8%62nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.3%41st
  Defense26.8%67th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9636th
  Defense2.9148th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.7%59th
  Defense18.3%46th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.9%44th
  Defense17.2%69th

Percentiles among the 138 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2026

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what Texas A&M allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. W
   MOST
2. W
   ASU
3. L
   UK
4. L
   LSU
5. W
   ARK
6. L
   MIZ

Bars above the line: better than expected for Texas A&M.

Players, 2026

1. Marcel ReedQB153 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 32nd of 192 QBs
   0.41WAR0.19 to 0.60
2. Rueben Owens IIRB56 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 78th of 320 RBs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
3. Isaiah HortonWR28 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 65th of 364 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12
4. Mario CraverWR28 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 86th of 364 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.12
5. Tyler WhiteP19 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 2nd of 84 punters
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
6. David OlanoPK5 plays · +0.355 pts/play · 27th of 82 kickers
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.04
7. Jamarion MorrowRB14 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 246th of 320 RBs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
8. Ashton Bethel-RomanWR7 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 281st of 364 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares Texas A&M's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9339337th of 138Roster talent: 933, 7th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  27027011th of 138Recruiting: 270, 11th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  73%73%18th of 136Returning production: 73%, 18th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +8.0+8.046th of 138SP+ rating so far: +8.0, 46th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than Texas A&M's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.01 of the 0.07 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. vs ASUQ4 8:52 4th & 12 at TA&M 44, up 11Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.3 pts
2. vs ARKQ2 0:02 4th & 3 at ARK 39, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
3. vs UKQ4 7:20 4th & 13 at TA&M 22, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.9 pts
4. at MIZQ1 2:17 4th & 1 at TA&M 40, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs UKQ2 0:24 4th & 10 at UK 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs ASUQ2 0:03 4th & 4 at ASU 4, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs UKQ4 0:55 4th & 14 at TA&M 27, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at MIZQ4 1:09 4th & 15 at MIZ 16, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

131st of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Texas A&M's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   MOST
2. W

   ASU
3. L

   UK
4. L

   LSU
5. W

   ARK
6. L

   MIZ

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Texas A&M's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard−1.02
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.33

Game by game

• MOSTW 50-0 vs MOST99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• ASUW 48-20 vs ASU89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +14
• UKL 21-31 vs UK90% → 2%Before kickoff +40 · On the field −89: Scoreboard −60, Clock −3
• LSUL 6-35 at LSU34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −34
• ARKW 34-7 vs ARK87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +16
• MIZL 6-27 at MIZ43% → 0%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −1

Points of win probability, from Texas A&M's side.

Closest call

LSU 72-74 TA&M (2018) - Texas A&M dropped to a 5.6% win probability before pulling it out.