Texas A&M

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.2274th
  Defense+0.2023rd
• 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.
  Offense47.8%85th
  Defense46.2%17th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2365th
  Defense+1.1667th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1361st
  Defense+0.2310th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3175th
  Defense+0.2150th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.6%86th
  Defense51.0%14th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.0%68th
  Defense35.4%29th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9653rd
  Defense3.336th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.2%65th
  Defense15.3%10th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.5%81st
  Defense1.2%2nd

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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
   SC
2. W
   LAM
3. W
   RICE
4. W
   SMU
5. W
   ARK
6. L
   MSST
7. L
   MISS
8. L
   ALA
9. W
   ULM
10. W
    AUB
11. L
    MIZ
12. L
    LSU
13. W
    WVU

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

Players, 2014

1. Kenny HillQB208 plays · +0.282 pts/play · 94th of 199 QBs
   1.10WAR0.78 to 1.40
2. Kyle AllenQB164 plays · +0.260 pts/play · 119th of 199 QBs
   0.80WAR0.52 to 1.05
3. Josh ReynoldsWR51 plays · +0.257 pts/play · 44th of 469 WRs
   0.25WAR0.16 to 0.33
4. Drew KaserP47 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 12th of 94 punters
   0.16WAR0.07 to 0.25
5. Trey WilliamsRB66 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 155th of 350 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.20
6. Tra CarsonRB107 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 155th of 350 RBs
   0.15WAR0.07 to 0.24
7. Brandon WilliamsDB59 plays · +0.117 pts/play
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.17
8. Ricky Seals-JonesWR50 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 160th of 469 WRs
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.19

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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 of the 0.18 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 ARKQ4 5:27 4th & 3 at TA&M 37, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it3.6 pts
2. vs ULMQ4 1:57 4th & 4 at ULM 39, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.1 pts
3. vs MIZQ3 7:34 4th & 1 at TA&M 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it1.7 pts
4. vs MISSQ2 10:11 4th & 1 at TA&M 36, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
5. vs LSUQ2 6:32 4th & 1 at TA&M 11, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
6. vs WVUQ3 11:33 4th & 3 at WVU 8, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
7. vs MISSQ3 13:22 4th & 1 at TA&M 45, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.0 pts
8. at AUBQ3 0:47 4th & 4 at AUB 4, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

61st of 128 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

   SC
2. W

   LAM
3. W

   RICE
4. W

   SMU
5. W

   ARK
6. L

   MSST
7. L

   MISS
8. L

   ALA
9. W

   ULM
10. W

    AUB
11. L

    MIZ
12. L

    LSU
13. W

    WVU

What moved it, 2014

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−0.11
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock+0.12
• Timeouts−0.12
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.06

Game by game

• SCW 52-28 at SC26% → 100%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +74: Scoreboard +64, Clock +3
• LAMW 73-3 vs LAM100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• RICEW 38-10 vs RICE98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• SMUW 58-6 at SMU97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• ARKW 35-28 vs ARK81% → 88%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts −13
• MSSTL 31-48 at MSST52% → 1%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −2
• MISSL 20-35 vs MISS52% → 3%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −54, Clock −2
• ALAL 0-59 at ALA18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −21
• ULMW 21-16 vs ULM97% → 96%Before kickoff +47 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +8, Timeouts +1
• AUBW 41-38 at AUB15% → 93%Before kickoff −35 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• MIZL 27-34 vs MIZ71% → 6%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −57, Clock −4
• LSUL 17-23 vs LSU45% → 6%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• WVUW 45-37 vs WVU40% → 97%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +55, Clock +4

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.