Texas A&M

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0633rd
  Defense+0.0769th
• 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.
  Offense40.3%35th
  Defense40.1%68th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2238th
  Defense+1.1582nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0948th
  Defense+0.0655th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1013th
  Defense+0.0985th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.5%39th
  Defense47.0%55th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.1%25th
  Defense26.9%78th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0546th
  Defense3.0943rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.6%11th
  Defense19.1%72nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.7%18th
  Defense15.8%47th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   SHSU
2. L
   APP
3. W
   MIA
4. W
   ARK
5. L
   MSST
6. L
   ALA
7. L
   SC
8. L
   MISS
9. L
   FLA
10. L
    AUB
11. W
    MASS
12. W
    LSU

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

Players, 2022

1. Devon AchaneRB204 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 14th of 384 RBs
   0.63WAR0.46 to 0.82
2. Conner WeigmanQB144 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 148th of 234 QBs
   0.33WAR0.02 to 0.64
3. Max JohnsonQB88 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 150th of 234 QBs
   0.31WAR0.15 to 0.48
4. Haynes KingQB166 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 170th of 234 QBs
   0.22WAR−0.16 to 0.62
5. Nik ConstantinouP54 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 8th of 102 punters
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.23
6. Moose Muhammad IIIWR51 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 108th of 455 WRs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.23
7. Evan StewartWR68 plays · +0.068 pts/play · 243rd of 455 WRs
   0.09WAR−0.02 to 0.20
8. Randy BondPK15 plays · +0.233 pts/play · 55th of 110 kickers
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.10

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9479474th of 129Roster talent: 947, 4th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2982983rd of 129Recruiting: 298, 3rd of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  48%48%85th of 128Returning production: 48%, 85th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.1+9.138th of 129SP+ rating: +9.1, 38th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.14 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 SCQ4 11:27 4th & 3 at TA&M 49, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. at AUBQ4 10:48 4th & 2 at AUB 31, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
3. vs MIAQ4 14:51 4th & 3 at MIA 41, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs MISSQ2 9:10 4th & 1 at TA&M 44, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. at SCQ2 13:30 4th & 2 at SC 9, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
6. vs ARKQ4 6:30 4th & 9 at ARK 36, up 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs FLAQ4 3:36 4th & 10 at TA&M 24, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at ALAQ3 11:10 4th & 1 at TA&M 34, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

124th of 131 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

   SHSU
2. L

   APP
3. W

   MIA
4. W

   ARK
5. L

   MSST
6. L

   ALA
7. L

   SC
8. L

   MISS
9. L

   FLA
10. L

    AUB
11. W

    MASS
12. W

    LSU

What moved it, 2022

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−1.56
• Clock−0.09
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.23

Game by game

• SHSUW 31-0 vs SHSU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• APPL 14-17 vs APP91% → 6%Before kickoff +41 · On the field −85: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• MIAW 17-9 vs MIA70% → 98%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +2
• ARKW 23-21 vs ARK58% → 89%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +29, Possession & field position −2
• MSSTL 24-42 at MSST44% → 1%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −40, Clock −1
• ALAL 20-24 at ALA6% → 19%Before kickoff −44 · On the field +13: Scoreboard −11, Possession & field position +2
• SCL 24-30 at SC62% → 13%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −2
• MISSL 28-31 vs MISS52% → 5%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −49, Clock −2
• FLAL 24-41 vs FLA62% → 1%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −59, Clock −3
• AUBL 10-13 at AUB51% → 5%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −3
• MASSW 20-3 vs MASS98% → 99%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +6
• LSUW 38-23 vs LSU30% → 99%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +49, 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.