Texas A&M

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1876th
  Defense+0.0955th
• 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.
  Offense43.4%48th
  Defense43.7%49th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3189th
  Defense+1.1376th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1884th
  Defense+0.0558th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2061st
  Defense+0.1748th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.8%35th
  Defense47.8%52nd
• 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%70th
  Defense34.7%38th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1373rd
  Defense2.7866th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.5%68th
  Defense25.2%92nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.4%43rd
  Defense20.2%91st

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, 2016

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
   UCLA
2. W
   PV
3. W
   AUB
4. W
   ARK
5. W
   SC
6. W
   TENN
7. L
   ALA
8. W
   NMSU
9. L
   MSST
10. L
    MISS
11. W
    UTSA
12. L
    LSU
13. L
    KSU

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

Players, 2016

1. Trevor KnightQB345 plays · +0.226 pts/play · 50th of 218 QBs
   1.46WAR0.93 to 2.03
2. Josh ReynoldsWR77 plays · +0.267 pts/play · 11th of 417 WRs
   0.39WAR0.28 to 0.51
3. Trayveon WilliamsRB138 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 93rd of 347 RBs
   0.36WAR0.25 to 0.48
4. Keith FordRB106 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 128th of 347 RBs
   0.30WAR0.20 to 0.39
5. Jake HubenakQB87 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 149th of 218 QBs
   0.29WAR0.15 to 0.43
6. Shane TripuckaP57 plays · +0.219 pts/play · 10th of 82 punters
   0.23WAR0.12 to 0.34
7. Ricky Seals-JonesWR37 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 194th of 417 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.16
8. Daniel LaCameraPK16 plays · +0.304 pts/play · 63rd of 116 kickers
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.15

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  81581513th of 128Roster talent: 815, 13th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  26326311th of 128Recruiting: 263, 11th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  54%54%94th of 128Returning production: 54%, 94th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +12.0+12.027th of 128SP+ rating: +12.0, 27th 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, 2016

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 0.19 of the 0.26 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 UCLAQ4 0:00 4th & 10 at UCLA 40, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal8.3 pts
2. vs TENNQ4 10:36 4th & 2 at TA&M 38, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it3.7 pts
3. vs UCLAQ4 14:09 4th & 1 at UCLA 40, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.7 pts
4. at KSUQ4 14:55 4th & 4 at KSU 33, down 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it2.3 pts
5. at SCQ4 6:48 4th & 1 at TA&M 35, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
6. vs UTSAQ4 13:53 4th & 2 at UTSA 39, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.1 pts
7. vs TENNQ2 7:12 4th & 6 at TENN 38, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.8 pts
8. vs TENNQ2 11:02 4th & 3 at TENN 47, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

82nd 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

   UCLA
2. W

   PV
3. W

   AUB
4. W

   ARK
5. W

   SC
6. W

   TENN
7. L

   ALA
8. W

   NMSU
9. L

   MSST
10. L

    MISS
11. W

    UTSA
12. L

    LSU
13. L

    KSU

What moved it, 2016

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−0.01
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.30
• Timeouts−0.43
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.51

Game by game

• UCLAW 31-24 vs UCLA51% → 89%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts −18
• PVW 67-0 vs PV100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• AUBW 29-16 at AUB37% → 98%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +57, Clock +3
• ARKW 45-24 vs ARK62% → 100%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +1
• SCW 24-13 at SC82% → 98%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +28, Clock +2
• TENNW 45-38 vs TENN62% → 80%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts −20
• ALAL 14-33 at ALA13% → 1%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −18
• NMSUW 52-10 vs NMSU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• MSSTL 28-35 at MSST82% → 3%Before kickoff +32 · On the field −80: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −3
• MISSL 28-29 vs MISS72% → 5%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• UTSAW 23-10 vs UTSA96% → 99%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +8
• LSUL 39-54 vs LSU31% → 1%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −39, Clock −1
• KSUL 28-33 at KSU58% → 5%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −39, 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.