Texas A&M

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.2184th
  Defense+0.0757th
• 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.
  Offense46.1%80th
  Defense34.1%97th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2346th
  Defense+1.441st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1576th
  Defense+0.0937th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3281st
  Defense+0.0583rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.0%90th
  Defense41.5%91st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.1%40th
  Defense22.7%98th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1678th
  Defense2.6781st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.9%80th
  Defense20.7%72nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.1%97th
  Defense21.4%98th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   UTSA
2. W
   USU
3. W
   ND
4. W
   AUB
5. W
   MSST
6. W
   FLA
7. W
   ARK
8. W
   LSU
9. W
   MIZ
10. W
    SC
11. W
    SAM
12. L
    TEX
13. L
    MIA

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

Players, 2025

1. Marcel ReedQB402 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 25th of 231 QBs
   1.73WAR0.88 to 2.50
2. Rueben Owens IIRB112 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 135th of 365 RBs
   0.18WAR0.13 to 0.24
3. Mario CraverWR80 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 97th of 451 WRs
   0.17WAR0.03 to 0.31
4. Le'Veon MossRB65 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 175th of 365 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.18
5. KC ConcepcionWR89 plays · +0.052 pts/play · 211th of 451 WRs
   0.09WAR−0.11 to 0.27
6. Nate BoerkircherTE24 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 49th of 213 TEs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.11
7. Ashton Bethel-RomanWR35 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 251st of 451 WRs
   0.07WAR0.00 to 0.14
8. Randy BondPK16 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 88th of 112 kickers
   0.06WAR0.00 to 0.11

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9179178th of 134Roster talent: 917, 8th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2822825th of 134Recruiting: 282, 5th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  53%53%33rd of 132Returning production: 53%, 33rd of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +20.7+20.79th of 134SP+ rating: +20.7, 9th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.10 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 MIAQ4 4:02 4th & 9 at MIA 41, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
2. vs SCQ3 12:08 4th & 12 at SC 48, down 27Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.8 pts
3. at TEXQ3 10:16 4th & 2 at TA&M 30, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. vs FLAQ3 10:42 4th & 2 at FLA 8, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. vs AUBQ4 7:12 4th & 1 at TA&M 45, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. vs SCQ1 2:30 4th & 2 at SC 27, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs MIAQ3 3:33 4th & 4 at TA&M 38, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at ARKQ3 7:45 4th & 4 at ARK 11, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

32nd of 136 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

   UTSA
2. W

   USU
3. W

   ND
4. W

   AUB
5. W

   MSST
6. W

   FLA
7. W

   ARK
8. W

   LSU
9. W

   MIZ
10. W

    SC
11. W

    SAM
12. L

    TEX
13. L

    MIA

What moved it, 2025

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+2.18
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.53
• Other−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.76

Game by game

• UTSAW 42-24 vs UTSA93% → 99%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +11, Timeouts +1
• USUW 44-22 vs USU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +4
• NDW 41-40 at ND36% → 74%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• AUBW 16-10 vs AUB72% → 90%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +55, Timeouts −26
• MSSTW 31-9 vs MSST89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts −4
• FLAW 34-17 vs FLA69% → 93%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +57, Timeouts −25
• ARKW 45-42 at ARK74% → 96%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• LSUW 49-25 at LSU54% → 100%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +50, Clock +2
• MIZW 38-17 at MIZ73% → 99%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +35, Clock +1
• SCW 31-30 vs SC87% → 96%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• SAMW 48-0 vs SAM100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• TEXL 17-27 at TEX59% → 3%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −1
• MIAL 3-10 vs MIA65% → 5%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −56, 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.