← College Football slate
Texas A&M Aggies
1-0 · #10 Elo
at
Sat, Oct 24, 12:00 AM ET
Bryant-Denny Stadium
Alabama Crimson Tide
1-0 · #15 Elo
Spread ALA -2.5Total 54.5Moneyline TA&M +120 · ALA -142
The read
On rating alone Texas A&M Aggies are 1.9 points better (#10 vs #15 of 240), and ALA add 0.0 for home field. The clearest mismatch is the rushing game: TA&M rushing ranks #47, ALA defends it at #65; the other way ALA #114 into TA&M's #95.
Who has the edge
Rating
Slight edge
TA&M
TA&M rated 1.9 points better on Elo (#15 vs #10).
Home & rest
Even
—
ALA gets 0.0 points for home field.
Passing game
Even
—
TA&M passing ranks #26, ALA defends it at #17; the other way ALA #37 into TA&M's #13.
context · not in the margin
Rushing game
Slight edge
TA&M
TA&M rushing ranks #47, ALA defends it at #65; the other way ALA #114 into TA&M's #95.
context · not in the margin
Third down & red zone
Even
—
TA&M third-down conversion ranks #58, ALA defends it at #51; the other way ALA #46 into TA&M's #1.
context · not in the margin
Form (last 5)
Clear edge
TA&M
ALA +38.0 per game over the last five, TA&M +50.0.
context · not in the margin
Market
Slight edge
ALA
Consensus has ALA by 2.5.
context · not in the margin
The margin, factor by factor
Texas A&M AggiesAlabama Crimson Tide
1810 Elo · #10
RatingThe Elo gap in points — the model's core read on who is better, before the situational pieces below.
TA&M +1.9 pts
1776 Elo · #15
road
Home field
not priced
home
—
Rest
even
—
−2.6 pts vs ALA 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 +1.2 pts
−3.8 pts vs TA&M D
W · +50.0
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.
TA&M +6.0 pts
W · +38.0
+20.7
SP+ (last season)Bill Connelly's SP+ from last season, the prior the college model starts each season from.
TA&M +5.9 pts
+14.8
TA&M +2.5
MarketThe consensus spread, read as points. Compare with the model margin above it.
ALA +2.5 pts
ALA -2.5
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 interception rate (#4) against a ALA defense ranked #130 at stopping it
- ▸ALA turnovers / game (#15) against a TA&M defense ranked #121 at stopping it
- ▸TA&M defense (#9 rush success rate allowed) against a ALA offense ranked #102
- ▸TA&M defense (#26 line yards / rush allowed) against a ALA offense ranked #108
- ▸TA&M defense (#39 stuff rate forced) against a ALA offense ranked #108
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.
Texas A&M Aggies offense vs Alabama Crimson Tide defense
ranks of 135| TA&M off | ALA def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 47% | 48% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 71% | 65% | · |
| Plays / game | 65 | 56 | · |
| Possession / game | 32:30 | 28:25 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.38#26 | +0.11#17 | · |
| Pass success rate | 46%#27 | 38%#33 | · |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.55#66 | 1.51#49 | · |
| Yards / pass attempt | 8.3#24 | 6.4#31 | · |
| Completion % | 61%#82 | 62%#72 | · |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 0.7%#4 | 1.3%#130 | TA&M |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.16#47 | +0.10#65 | · |
| Rush success rate | 47%#35 | 39%#31 | · |
| Rush explosiveness | 0.93#83 | 1.00#90 | · |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 3.16#31 | 2.81#53 | · |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 16%#28 | 19%#66 | TA&M |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 75%#49 | 75%#100 | TA&M |
| Yards / rush | 4.9#32 | 3.7#37 | · |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.23#16 | −0.01#19 | · |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.28#74 | +0.25#53 | · |
| Third-down conversion | 41%#58 | 37%#51 | · |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 4.14#33 | 3.65#66 | TA&M |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 11.1%#5 | 17.7%#26 | · |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 1.46#93 | 1.33#58 | ALA |
Alabama Crimson Tide offense vs Texas A&M Aggies defense
ranks of 135| ALA off | TA&M def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 56% | 52% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 70% | 61% | · |
| Plays / game | 61 | 55 | · |
| Possession / game | 31:35 | 27:30 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.35#37 | +0.10#13 | · |
| Pass success rate | 45%#33 | 33%#5 | TA&M |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.57#53 | 1.59#90 | ALA |
| Yards / pass attempt | 7.6#53 | 6.0#13 | TA&M |
| Completion % | 66%#33 | 56%#16 | · |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 2.1%#56 | 3.7%#21 | TA&M |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.02#114 | +0.15#95 | · |
| Rush success rate | 40%#102 | 36%#9 | TA&M |
| Rush explosiveness | 0.83#122 | 1.29#135 | · |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 2.73#108 | 2.67#26 | TA&M |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 21%#108 | 21%#39 | TA&M |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 67%#99 | 75%#98 | · |
| Yards / rush | 3.4#126 | 4.2#66 | TA&M |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.11#68 | +0.07#55 | · |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.40#29 | +0.22#34 | · |
| Third-down conversion | 42%#46 | 22%#1 | TA&M |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 4.04#38 | 3.91#95 | ALA |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 13.5%#39 | 21.4%#4 | TA&M |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 0.87#15 | 0.77#121 | ALA |
Season
| TA&M | ALA | |
|---|---|---|
| 1-0 | Record | 1-0 |
| 50.0 | Points for / game | 48.0 |
| 0.0 | Points against / game | 10.0 |
| 1-0 / 0-0 | Home / road | 1-0 / 0-0 |
| 1-0 | Against the spread | 1-0 |
| 0-1 | Over / underOvers–unders in this team's games. A tendency, not a lean. | 1-0 |
| W | Last 5 | W |
Power ratings
| TA&M | ALA | |
|---|---|---|
| 1810 | Elo | 1776 |
| #10 of 240 | Rank | #15 of 240 |
| +9.7 | Offense ratingPoints per game above league average scored, opponent-adjusted. | +10.1 |
| +13.9 | Defense ratingPoints per game below league average allowed, opponent-adjusted. Positive is good. | +12.3 |
| 1355 | Strength of scheduleMean Elo of opponents faced this season. | 1623 |
Elo drives the winner call. Offense/defense ratings drive the total.
Advanced
| TA&M | ALA | |
|---|---|---|
| +20.9 | SP+ (this season)Bill Connelly's SP+ rating, points above average. | +17.6 |
| 0.242 | Offense PPA / playPredicted points added per play, garbage time excluded (CFBD). | 0.198 |
| 0.126 | Defense PPA / playPPA allowed per play — lower is better. | 0.082 |
| 46% / 34% | Success rate (off / def) | 43% / 38% |
| 1.23 / 1.45 | Explosiveness (off / def) | 1.27 / 1.24 |
| 933 | Talent composite247Sports team talent composite for the current roster. | 974 |
| 73% | Returning production | 26% |
Advanced stats are from 2025 until this season has about three games. Source: CollegeFootballData.
Head to head
| 2023 | ALA 26 at TA&M 20 | ALA · ALA covered |
How the margin was built
- Rating gap
- TA&M +1.9 pts
- Home field
- ALA +— pts
- Rest
- Even
- Weather / roof
- — pts on the total
- Model margin
- —
- Model total
- —
Market
- Spread
- ALA -2.5
- Total
- 54.5
- Moneyline
- TA&M +120 · ALA -142
Per-book prices appear once the multi-book feed has this game (about a week out).
Informational only. Winner probabilities are backtested and calibrated; spread and total calls are tracked leans. 21+, 1-800-GAMBLER.