Texas A&M

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.0766th
• 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.
  Offense45.2%74th
  Defense37.9%86th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1714th
  Defense+1.455th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1468th
  Defense+0.0465th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1537th
  Defense+0.0969th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.1%71st
  Defense42.1%90th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.7%69th
  Defense30.4%50th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3084th
  Defense2.5593rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.4%82nd
  Defense24.5%95th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.8%93rd
  Defense20.6%94th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   ND
2. W
   MCN
3. W
   FLA
4. W
   BGSU
5. W
   ARK
6. W
   MIZ
7. W
   MSST
8. W
   LSU
9. L
   SC
10. W
    NMSU
11. L
    AUB
12. L
    TEX
13. L
    USC

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

Players, 2024

1. Marcel ReedQB284 plays · +0.232 pts/play · 77th of 232 QBs
   1.24WAR0.73 to 1.82
2. Conner WeigmanQB111 plays · +0.220 pts/play · 135th of 232 QBs
   0.46WAR0.25 to 0.65
3. Le'Veon MossRB113 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 52nd of 373 RBs
   0.38WAR0.30 to 0.46
4. Amari DanielsRB116 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 113th of 373 RBs
   0.26WAR0.17 to 0.35
5. Randy BondPK17 plays · +0.323 pts/play · 29th of 114 kickers
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.15
6. Cyrus AllenWR17 plays · +0.257 pts/play · 174th of 452 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.13
7. EJ SmithRB34 plays · +0.081 pts/play · 288th of 373 RBs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
8. Tre WatsonTE20 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 80th of 221 TEs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.09

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9159157th of 131Roster talent: 915, 7th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2832834th of 131Recruiting: 283, 4th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  57%57%43rd of 130Returning production: 57%, 43rd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +17.0+17.013th of 131SP+ rating: +17.0, 13th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 10 clear-cut ones account for 0.29 of the 0.33 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 USCQ4 12:09 4th & 1 at USC 43, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it5.8 pts
2. vs USCQ2 4:09 4th & 14 at USC 20, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal5.3 pts
3. vs NDQ4 6:23 4th & 1 at TA&M 24, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it4.7 pts
4. vs USCQ3 2:15 4th & 4 at USC 31, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it3.2 pts
5. vs USCQ2 8:38 4th & 1 at USC 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it2.1 pts
6. vs BGSUQ4 7:15 4th & 2 at BGSU 25, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.7 pts
7. at SCQ3 5:38 4th & 1 at TA&M 34, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.6 pts
8. at MSSTQ4 3:40 4th & 1 at TA&M 43, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

95th of 134 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

   ND
2. W

   MCN
3. W

   FLA
4. W

   BGSU
5. W

   ARK
6. W

   MIZ
7. W

   MSST
8. W

   LSU
9. L

   SC
10. W

    NMSU
11. L

    AUB
12. L

    TEX
13. L

    USC

What moved it, 2024

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+0.64
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.19
• Timeouts+0.27
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.56

Game by game

• NDL 13-23 vs ND60% → 3%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• MCNW 52-10 vs MCN100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• FLAW 33-20 at FLA57% → 98%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• BGSUW 26-20 vs BGSU92% → 97%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +14
• ARKW 21-17 vs ARK71% → 93%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +3
• MIZW 41-10 vs MIZ54% → 100%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +1
• MSSTW 34-24 at MSST93% → 96%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +17, Clock +1
• LSUW 38-23 vs LSU58% → 99%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +1
• SCL 20-44 at SC64% → 0%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −50, Clock −1
• NMSUW 38-3 vs NMSU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• AUBL 41-43 at AUB52% → 23%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −29: Timeouts +23, Scoreboard −22
• TEXL 7-17 vs TEX36% → 4%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2
• USCL 31-35 vs USC56% → 96%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +46, Clock +3

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.