Texas A&M

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.0629th
  Defense+0.0376th
• 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.
  Offense44.1%58th
  Defense40.3%68th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1530th
  Defense+1.0890th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1169th
  Defense+0.1224th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0220th
  Defense−0.0595th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.3%57th
  Defense47.0%54th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.4%54th
  Defense27.1%91st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2594th
  Defense2.9141st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.2%88th
  Defense23.4%79th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.6%77th
  Defense2.0%54th

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, 2015

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
   ASU
2. W
   BALL
3. W
   NEV
4. W
   ARK
5. W
   MSST
6. L
   ALA
7. L
   MISS
8. W
   SC
9. L
   AUB
10. W
    WCU
11. W
    VAN
12. L
    LSU
13. L
    LOU

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

Players, 2015

1. Kyle AllenQB277 plays · +0.234 pts/play · 78th of 205 QBs
   1.21WAR0.79 to 1.63
2. Kyler MurrayQB105 plays · +0.273 pts/play · 131st of 205 QBs
   0.54WAR0.34 to 0.72
3. Josh ReynoldsWR72 plays · +0.257 pts/play · 18th of 411 WRs
   0.35WAR0.23 to 0.46
4. Jake HubenakQB65 plays · +0.241 pts/play · 162nd of 205 QBs
   0.29WAR0.21 to 0.39
5. Tra CarsonRB206 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 76th of 333 RBs
   0.29WAR0.14 to 0.46
6. Drew KaserP51 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 11th of 92 punters
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.27
7. Taylor BertoletPK23 plays · +0.398 pts/play · 20th of 115 kickers
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.24
8. Ricky Seals-JonesWR54 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 140th of 411 WRs
   0.14WAR0.07 to 0.21

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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  83083010th of 128Roster talent: 830, 10th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2742749th of 128Recruiting: 274, 9th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  57%57%69th of 127Returning production: 57%, 69th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +14.1+14.124th of 128SP+ rating: +14.1, 24th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2015

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.15 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 ASUQ3 5:19 4th & 2 at ASU 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it2.7 pts
2. vs LOUQ3 0:54 4th & 1 at TA&M 34, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
3. at MISSQ2 14:54 4th & 1 at midfield, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.1 pts
4. vs ARKQ4 10:35 4th & 7 at ARK 42, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.1 pts
5. vs MSSTQ3 4:25 4th & 3 at MSST 41, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.1 pts
6. vs ARKQ3 8:04 4th & 4 at ARK 4, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.0 pts
7. vs MSSTQ4 5:23 4th & 2 at MSST 12, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.7 pts
8. vs AUBQ4 12:31 4th & 3 at TA&M 33, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

95th 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

   ASU
2. W

   BALL
3. W

   NEV
4. W

   ARK
5. W

   MSST
6. L

   ALA
7. L

   MISS
8. W

   SC
9. L

   AUB
10. W

    WCU
11. W

    VAN
12. L

    LSU
13. L

    LOU

What moved it, 2015

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−0.42
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.18
• Timeouts+0.15
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.61

Game by game

• ASUW 38-17 vs ASU61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +1
• BALLW 56-23 vs BALL96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• NEVW 44-27 vs NEV96% → 98%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +10
• ARKW 28-21 vs ARK58% → 77%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +19
• MSSTW 30-17 vs MSST66% → 99%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +33, Possession & field position +1
• ALAL 23-41 vs ALA44% → 1%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −48, Clock −2
• MISSL 3-23 at MISS35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −1
• SCW 35-28 vs SC88% → 97%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• AUBL 10-26 vs AUB76% → 2%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −75: Scoreboard −61, Clock −3
• WCUW 41-17 vs WCU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• VANW 25-0 at VAN70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +36, Clock +1
• LSUL 7-19 at LSU37% → 2%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −2
• LOUL 21-27 vs LOU60% → 4%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −2

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.