Texas A&M

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1050th
  Defense+0.1145th
• 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.
  Offense39.8%21st
  Defense41.0%60th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2468th
  Defense+1.2243rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0126th
  Defense+0.0648th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2265th
  Defense+0.2033rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.0%9th
  Defense44.7%70th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.9%52nd
  Defense33.7%41st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5512th
  Defense2.8453rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.7%53rd
  Defense21.0%60th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.2%35th
  Defense17.7%68th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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. L
   UCLA
2. W
   NICH
3. W
   UL
4. W
   ARK
5. W
   SC
6. L
   ALA
7. W
   FLA
8. L
   MSST
9. L
   AUB
10. W
    UNM
11. W
    MISS
12. L
    LSU
13. L
    WAKE

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

Players, 2017

1. Nick StarkelQB179 plays · +0.320 pts/play · 72nd of 226 QBs
   1.07WAR0.66 to 1.45
2. Kellen MondQB240 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 106th of 226 QBs
   0.71WAR0.28 to 1.10
3. Trayveon WilliamsRB162 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 51st of 352 RBs
   0.40WAR0.28 to 0.53
4. Keith FordRB137 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 79th of 352 RBs
   0.34WAR0.23 to 0.45
5. Christian KirkWR90 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 81st of 426 WRs
   0.15WAR0.04 to 0.26
6. Daniel LaCameraPK17 plays · +0.418 pts/play · 34th of 110 kickers
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.19
7. Damion RatleyWR45 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 127th of 426 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.17
8. Jhamon AusbonWR59 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 146th of 426 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.16

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  80780715th of 130Roster talent: 807, 15th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2592599th of 130Recruiting: 259, 9th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  34%34%109th of 128Returning production: 34%, 109th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.4+9.436th of 128SP+ rating: +9.4, 36th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 11 clear-cut ones account for 0.25 of the 0.30 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. at MISSQ4 1:59 4th & 1 at MISS 1, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−6.0 pts
2. vs WAKEQ4 12:39 4th & 2 at WAKE 2, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.9 pts
3. at MISSQ3 1:32 4th & 2 at MISS 43, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.7 pts
4. vs MSSTQ2 10:09 4th & 1 at TA&M 40, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
5. vs SCQ2 9:12 4th & 1 at TA&M 19, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. vs SCQ3 0:59 4th & 3 at SC 28, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
7. vs SCQ3 15:00 4th & 4 at SC 37, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
8. vs WAKEQ3 8:14 4th & 3 at TA&M 49, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

41st of 130 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. L

   UCLA
2. W

   NICH
3. W

   UL
4. W

   ARK
5. W

   SC
6. L

   ALA
7. W

   FLA
8. L

   MSST
9. L

   AUB
10. W

    UNM
11. W

    MISS
12. L

    LSU
13. L

    WAKE

What moved it, 2017

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+0.09
• Clock−0.17
• Timeouts+0.24
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.20

Game by game

• UCLAL 44-45 at UCLA31% → 10%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts +2
• NICHW 24-14 vs NICH99% → 97%Before kickoff +49 · On the field −2: Scoreboard +5
• ULW 45-21 vs UL95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +8
• ARKW 50-43 at ARK42% → 74%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +21
• SCW 24-17 vs SC68% → 97%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• ALAL 19-27 vs ALA4% → 2%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −11, Clock −1
• FLAW 19-17 at FLA36% → 90%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +45, Clock +3
• MSSTL 14-35 vs MSST38% → 0%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2
• AUBL 27-42 vs AUB16% → 1%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −25, Clock −1
• UNMW 55-14 vs UNM90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +13
• MISSW 31-24 at MISS60% → 96%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +44, Clock +3
• LSUL 21-45 at LSU20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −23
• WAKEL 52-55 vs WAKE38% → 5%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −42, Clock −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.