Texas A&M

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1457th
  Defense+0.0860th
• 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.
  Offense47.6%84th
  Defense40.4%72nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.052nd
  Defense+1.2343rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0853rd
  Defense+0.0555th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2360th
  Defense+0.1165th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.1%86th
  Defense45.6%73rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.3%60th
  Defense31.6%65th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0262nd
  Defense2.5186th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.5%64th
  Defense25.6%95th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.7%48th
  Defense21.8%73rd

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, 2019

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
   TXST
2. L
   CLEM
3. W
   LAM
4. L
   AUB
5. W
   ARK
6. L
   ALA
7. W
   MISS
8. W
   MSST
9. W
   UTSA
10. W
    SC
11. L
    UGA
12. L
    LSU
13. W
    OKST

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

Players, 2019

1. Kellen MondQB363 plays · +0.236 pts/play · 30th of 228 QBs
   1.60WAR1.04 to 2.24
2. Isaiah SpillerRB131 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 175th of 349 RBs
   0.23WAR0.13 to 0.32
3. Quartney DavisWR71 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 94th of 439 WRs
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.24
4. Braden MannP43 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 5th of 100 punters
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.20
5. Jhamon AusbonWR57 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 140th of 439 WRs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.19
6. Seth SmallPK18 plays · +0.372 pts/play · 51st of 114 kickers
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
7. Kendrick RogersWR22 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 360th of 439 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.07
8. Jashaun CorbinRB16 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 288th of 349 RBs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.05

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  84984912th of 130Roster talent: 849, 12th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25625615th of 130Recruiting: 256, 15th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  65%65%56th of 130Returning production: 65%, 56th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +15.0+15.021st of 130SP+ rating: +15.0, 21st of 130 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, 2019

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 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. at UGAQ4 4:26 4th & 11 at UGA 43, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.4 pts
2. vs MSSTQ2 8:26 4th & 1 at MSST 48, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.4 pts
3. at MISSQ3 0:46 4th & 3 at TA&M 27, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)1.0 pts
4. vs SCQ3 11:42 4th & 2 at TA&M 40, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)1.0 pts
5. at MISSQ1 2:08 4th & 4 at MISS 33, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.4 pts
6. at MISSQ1 6:04 4th & 2 at MISS 6, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.3 pts
7. vs TXSTQ2 11:53 4th & 4 at TXST 39, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.2 pts
8. vs AUBQ4 5:36 4th & 6 at AUB 6, down 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

72nd 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. W

   TXST
2. L

   CLEM
3. W

   LAM
4. L

   AUB
5. W

   ARK
6. L

   ALA
7. W

   MISS
8. W

   MSST
9. W

   UTSA
10. W

    SC
11. L

    UGA
12. L

    LSU
13. W

    OKST

What moved it, 2019

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+0.08
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.22

Game by game

• TXSTW 41-7 vs TXST98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• CLEML 10-24 at CLEM14% → 1%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1
• LAMW 62-3 vs LAM100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• AUBL 20-28 vs AUB64% → 3%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• ARKW 31-27 vs ARK94% → 96%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +17, Clock +1
• ALAL 28-47 vs ALA13% → 1%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• MISSW 24-17 at MISS72% → 94%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +39, Clock +3
• MSSTW 49-30 vs MSST80% → 99%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +1
• UTSAW 45-14 vs UTSA99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• SCW 30-6 vs SC77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +27
• UGAL 13-19 at UGA20% → 3%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −1
• LSUL 7-50 at LSU12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −15
• OKSTW 24-21 vs OKST70% → 95%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28, 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.