Texas A&M

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.1764th
  Defense+0.0575th
• 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.
  Offense43.2%61st
  Defense36.9%88th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3067th
  Defense+1.3812th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0739th
  Defense−0.0790th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3175th
  Defense+0.2441st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.8%55th
  Defense43.4%83rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.3%67th
  Defense26.3%85th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0033rd
  Defense2.4695th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.8%80th
  Defense23.4%93rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.9%67th
  Defense22.6%98th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   UNM
2. L
   MIA
3. W
   ULM
4. W
   AUB
5. W
   ARK
6. L
   ALA
7. L
   TENN
8. W
   SC
9. L
   MISS
10. W
    MSST
11. W
    ACU
12. L
    LSU
13. L
    OKST

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

Players, 2023

1. Max JohnsonQB202 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 98th of 250 QBs
   0.89WAR0.47 to 1.36
2. Le'Veon MossRB83 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 87th of 383 RBs
   0.27WAR0.20 to 0.33
3. Jaylen HendersonQB66 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 177th of 250 QBs
   0.23WAR0.09 to 0.39
4. Marcel ReedQB43 plays · +0.269 pts/play · 180th of 250 QBs
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.31
5. Ainias SmithWR46 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 100th of 457 WRs
   0.17WAR0.07 to 0.28
6. Amari DanielsRB86 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 172nd of 383 RBs
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.23
7. Conner WeigmanQB56 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 207th of 250 QBs
   0.13WAR0.00 to 0.28
8. Randy BondPK24 plays · +0.279 pts/play · 15th of 113 kickers
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.19

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9269264th of 130Roster talent: 926, 4th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2942944th of 130Recruiting: 294, 4th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  65%65%37th of 128Returning production: 65%, 37th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +15.6+15.616th of 130SP+ rating: +15.6, 16th 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, 2023

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 0.18 of the 0.25 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 ALAQ4 2:11 4th & 2 at ALA 2, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−5.4 pts
2. vs ALAQ3 2:59 4th & 1 at ALA 45, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−4.3 pts
3. vs SCQ4 11:00 4th & 1 at SC 6, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.5 pts
4. at ARKQ3 5:51 4th & 1 at TA&M 34, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
5. at MIAQ2 9:28 4th & 1 at TA&M 40, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
6. at ARKQ2 4:56 4th & 2 at ARK 30, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. vs ALAQ4 11:44 4th & 6 at ALA 45, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at MIAQ4 5:02 4th & 9 at MIA 9, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

121st of 133 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

   UNM
2. L

   MIA
3. W

   ULM
4. W

   AUB
5. W

   ARK
6. L

   ALA
7. L

   TENN
8. W

   SC
9. L

   MISS
10. W

    MSST
11. W

    ACU
12. L

    LSU
13. L

    OKST

What moved it, 2023

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−0.87
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.37

Game by game

• UNMW 52-10 vs UNM99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• MIAL 33-48 at MIA55% → 1%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −1
• ULMW 47-3 vs ULM99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• AUBW 27-10 vs AUB73% → 99%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +30
• ARKW 34-22 at ARK68% → 98%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +40, Clock +2
• ALAL 20-26 vs ALA46% → 5%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• TENNL 13-20 at TENN42% → 10%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −25, Possession & field position −3
• SCW 30-17 vs SC86% → 99%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +19
• MISSL 35-38 at MISS43% → 15%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −2
• MSSTW 51-10 vs MSST88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +15
• ACUW 38-10 vs ACU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• LSUL 30-42 at LSU21% → 4%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1
• OKSTL 23-31 at OKST54% → 6%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −36, 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.