← College Football slate
Arizona State Sun Devils
1-0 · #42 Elo
at
Sat, Sep 12, 12:00 PM ET
Kyle Field · 86° · 17 mph wind · Sunny
Texas A&M Aggies
1-0 · #10 Elo
Spread TA&M -14.5Total 50.5Moneyline ASU +470 · TA&M -6503 books · best ASU +550 fanduel · TA&M -650 draftkings
WinnerProbability the picked team wins, from a normal on the model's predicted margin. Backtested and calibrated: when it says 65%, it has been right about 63–65% of the time.Strong
TA&M -650
80%
model margin TA&M by 14.3
SpreadWhich side the model's margin lands on versus the spread. A lean, not a proven edge: against closing NFL lines the model covers about 49% in backtest, so this is tracked in public rather than sold.Coin flip
ASU +14.5
50%
0.2 pts from the number
TotalModel total (scoring ratings + weather + roof) versus the posted total. Same caveat as the spread: a lean, tracked in public.Lean +
Under 50.5
51%
model total 46.9
The read
On rating alone Texas A&M Aggies are 11.2 points better (#10 vs #42 of 240), and TA&M add 3.1 for home field. The clearest mismatch is the third down & red zone: TA&M third-down conversion ranks #58, ASU defends it at #42; the other way ASU #124 into TA&M's #1. The model lands on TA&M by 14.3, essentially the market's number — no spread lean. On the total the model sees 46.9 against 50.5, with weather taking 1.8 off.
Who has the edge
Model: TA&M by 14.3 · market TA&M by 14.5
Rating
Clear edge
TA&M
TA&M rated 11.2 points better on Elo (#10 vs #42).
Home & rest
Clear edge
TA&M
TA&M gets 3.1 points for home field.
Passing game
Slight edge
TA&M
TA&M passing ranks #26, ASU defends it at #32; the other way ASU #67 into TA&M's #13.
context · not in the margin
Rushing game
Slight edge
ASU
ASU rushing ranks #72, TA&M defends it at #95; the other way TA&M #47 into ASU's #28.
context · not in the margin
Third down & red zone
Clear edge
TA&M
TA&M third-down conversion ranks #58, ASU defends it at #42; the other way ASU #124 into TA&M's #1.
context · not in the margin
Form (last 5)
Clear edge
ASU
TA&M +50.0 per game over the last five, ASU +63.0.
context · not in the margin
Market
Clear edge
TA&M
Consensus has TA&M by 14.5; the model says TA&M by 14.3.
context · not in the margin
The margin, factor by factor
Model: TA&M by 14.3 · market TA&M by 14.5
Arizona State Sun DevilsTexas A&M Aggies
1608 Elo · #42
RatingThe Elo gap in points — the model's core read on who is better, before the situational pieces below.
TA&M +11.2 pts
1810 Elo · #10
road
Home field
TA&M +3.1 pts
home
7d
Rest
even
7d
−11.3 pts vs TA&M D
Offense vs defenseEach offense's scoring rating against the other defense's — what drives the model total. Shown as an edge, though the winner call runs on Elo.
TA&M +14.3 pts
+3.0 pts vs ASU D
W · +63.0
Form (last 5)Average margin over the last five games. Already inside the ratings — listed so you can see when recent form and the rating disagree.
ASU +6.5 pts
W · +50.0
ASU +14.5
MarketThe consensus spread, read as points. Compare with the model margin above it.
TA&M +14.5 pts
TA&M -14.5
Bars are in points toward the favored side. Blue factors are inside the model's margin; grey ones are context it does not add on top (form and offense/defense are already in the ratings; injuries beyond the quarterback are not priced).
Dissect the matchup
CollegeFootballData, garbage time excluded · 2025 season (last season until three games are in)Biggest mismatches
- ▸TA&M defense (#1 third-down conversion allowed) against a ASU offense ranked #124
- ▸TA&M defense (#5 pass success rate allowed) against a ASU offense ranked #100
- ▸TA&M defense (#4 havoc rate) against a ASU offense ranked #98
- ▸TA&M defense (#16 completion % allowed) against a ASU offense ranked #106
- ▸TA&M interception rate (#4) against a ASU defense ranked #94 at stopping it
A mismatch is a rank gap of at least a fifth of the league between an offense and the defense it faces on the same measure. Descriptive rows (pass rate, pace, direction) are shown for reading the game, not ranked. ▲▼ mark where the last three games sit clearly above or below the season number, in the direction that helps that side.
Arizona State Sun Devils offense vs Texas A&M Aggies defense
ranks of 135| ASU off | TA&M def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 47% | 52% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 68% | 61% | · |
| Plays / game | 71 | 55 | · |
| Possession / game | 31:33 | 27:30 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.25#67 | +0.10#13 | TA&M |
| Pass success rate | 39%#100 | 33%#5 | TA&M |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.59#46 | 1.59#90 | ASU |
| Yards / pass attempt | 6.8#93 | 6.0#13 | TA&M |
| Completion % | 58%#106 | 56%#16 | TA&M |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 1.9%#43 | 3.7%#21 | · |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.11#72 | +0.15#95 | · |
| Rush success rate | 43%#74 | 36%#9 | TA&M |
| Rush explosiveness | 0.97#63 | 1.29#135 | ASU |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 2.86#81 | 2.67#26 | TA&M |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 20%#87 | 21%#39 | TA&M |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 63%#117 | 75%#98 | · |
| Yards / rush | 5.1#25 | 4.2#66 | ASU |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.08#90 | +0.07#55 | TA&M |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.26#85 | +0.22#34 | TA&M |
| Third-down conversion | 33%#124 | 22%#1 | TA&M |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 3.37#102 | 3.91#95 | · |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 16.8%#98 | 21.4%#4 | TA&M |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 1.62#108 | 0.77#121 | · |
Texas A&M Aggies offense vs Arizona State Sun Devils defense
ranks of 135| TA&M off | ASU def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 47% | 54% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 71% | 68% | · |
| Plays / game | 65 | 67 | · |
| Possession / game | 32:30 | 28:27 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.38#26 | +0.17#32 | · |
| Pass success rate | 46%#27 | 40%#51 | · |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.55#66 | 1.48#40 | · |
| Yards / pass attempt | 8.3#24 | 6.6#44 | · |
| Completion % | 61%#82 | 60%#48 | ASU |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 0.7%#4 | 2.0%#94 | TA&M |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.16#47 | +0.03#28 | · |
| Rush success rate | 47%#35 | 42%#63 | TA&M |
| Rush explosiveness | 0.93#83 | 0.92#46 | ASU |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 3.16#31 | 2.72#36 | · |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 16%#28 | 21%#34 | · |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 75%#49 | 71%#62 | · |
| Yards / rush | 4.9#32 | 3.6#29 | · |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.23#16 | +0.05#42 | · |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.28#74 | +0.20#28 | ASU |
| Third-down conversion | 41%#58 | 36%#42 | · |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 4.14#33 | 3.46#51 | · |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 11.1%#5 | 18.8%#15 | · |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 1.46#93 | 1.15#85 | · |
Season
| ASU | TA&M | |
|---|---|---|
| 1-0 | Record | 1-0 |
| 70.0 | Points for / game | 50.0 |
| 7.0 | Points against / game | 0.0 |
| 1-0 / 0-0 | Home / road | 1-0 / 0-0 |
| 1-0 | Against the spread | 1-0 |
| 1-0 | Over / underOvers–unders in this team's games. A tendency, not a lean. | 0-1 |
| W | Last 5 | W |
Power ratings
| ASU | TA&M | |
|---|---|---|
| 1608 | Elo | 1810 |
| #42 of 240 | Rank | #10 of 240 |
| +2.6 | Offense ratingPoints per game above league average scored, opponent-adjusted. | +9.7 |
| +6.8 | Defense ratingPoints per game below league average allowed, opponent-adjusted. Positive is good. | +13.9 |
| — | Strength of scheduleMean Elo of opponents faced this season. | 1355 |
Elo drives the winner call. Offense/defense ratings drive the total.
Advanced
| ASU | TA&M | |
|---|---|---|
| — | SP+ (this season)Bill Connelly's SP+ rating, points above average. | +20.9 |
| 0.136 | Offense PPA / playPredicted points added per play, garbage time excluded (CFBD). | 0.242 |
| 0.100 | Defense PPA / playPPA allowed per play — lower is better. | 0.126 |
| 40% / 41% | Success rate (off / def) | 46% / 34% |
| 1.26 / 1.22 | Explosiveness (off / def) | 1.23 / 1.45 |
| — | Talent composite247Sports team talent composite for the current roster. | 933 |
| — | Returning production | 73% |
Advanced stats are from 2025 until this season has about three games. Source: CollegeFootballData.
Head to head
No meetings in our history.
How the margin was built
- Rating gap
- TA&M +11.2 pts
- Home field
- TA&M +3.1 pts
- Rest
- Even
- Weather / roof
- -1.8 pts on the total
- Model margin
- TA&M by 14.3
- Model total
- 46.9 vs 50.5
Market · 3 books
- Spread
- TA&M -14.5
- Total
- 50.5
- Moneyline
- ASU +470 · TA&M -650
- Best price
- ASU +550 fanduel · TA&M -650 draftkings
| Book | TA&M spread | Total | ASU ML | TA&M ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| draftkings | -14.5 (-110) | 50.5 (-112/-108) | +470 | -650 |
| fanduel | — | — | +550 | -820 |
| hardrockbet | — | — | +450 | -650 |
Spreadopened TA&M -14.5 · now TA&M -14.5
Totalopened 50.5 · now 50.5
Consensus of the books we track, hourly, since we first priced the game. The arrow on the spread is from the home side: ▲ means the home side is laying more.
Informational only. Winner probabilities are backtested and calibrated; spread and total calls are tracked leans. 21+, 1-800-GAMBLER.