← College Football slate
Texas A&M Aggies
1-0 · #10 Elo
at
Sat, Nov 7, 12:00 AM ET
Williams-Brice Stadium
South Carolina Gamecocks
1-0 · #47 Elo
Spread —Total —Moneyline —
The read
On rating alone Texas A&M Aggies are 11.9 points better (#10 vs #47 of 240), and SC add 0.0 for home field. The clearest mismatch is the passing game: TA&M passing ranks #26, SC defends it at #73; the other way SC #108 into TA&M's #13.
Who has the edge
Rating
Clear edge
TA&M
TA&M rated 11.9 points better on Elo (#47 vs #10).
Home & rest
Even
—
SC gets 0.0 points for home field.
Passing game
Clear edge
TA&M
TA&M passing ranks #26, SC defends it at #73; the other way SC #108 into TA&M's #13.
context · not in the margin
Rushing game
Slight edge
SC
SC rushing ranks #81, TA&M defends it at #95; the other way TA&M #47 into SC's #8.
context · not in the margin
Third down & red zone
Clear edge
TA&M
TA&M third-down conversion ranks #58, SC defends it at #71; the other way SC #127 into TA&M's #1.
context · not in the margin
Form (last 5)
Clear edge
SC
SC +57.0 per game over the last five, TA&M +50.0.
context · not in the margin
Market
not priced
—
No line yet.
context · not in the margin
The margin, factor by factor
Texas A&M AggiesSouth Carolina Gamecocks
1810 Elo · #10
RatingThe Elo gap in points — the model's core read on who is better, before the situational pieces below.
TA&M +11.9 pts
1595 Elo · #47
road
Home field
not priced
home
—
Rest
even
—
−2.7 pts vs SC 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 +4.3 pts
−7.0 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.
SC +3.5 pts
W · +57.0
+20.7
SP+ (last season)Bill Connelly's SP+ from last season, the prior the college model starts each season from.
TA&M +14.8 pts
+5.9
—
MarketThe consensus spread, read as points. Compare with the model margin above it.
not priced
—
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 SC offense ranked #127
- ▸TA&M defense (#4 havoc rate) against a SC offense ranked #129
- ▸TA&M defense (#5 pass success rate allowed) against a SC offense ranked #119
- ▸SC rush explosiveness (#30) against a TA&M defense ranked #135 at stopping it
- ▸TA&M defense (#9 rush success rate allowed) against a SC offense ranked #106
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 South Carolina Gamecocks defense
ranks of 135| TA&M off | SC def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 47% | 47% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 71% | 69% | · |
| Plays / game | 65 | 63 | · |
| Possession / game | 32:30 | 32:01 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.38#26 | +0.25#73 | TA&M |
| Pass success rate | 46%#27 | 44%#106 | TA&M |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.55#66 | 1.48#41 | · |
| Yards / pass attempt | 8.3#24 | 7.0#57 | TA&M |
| Completion % | 61%#82 | 60%#47 | SC |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 0.7%#4 | 2.9%#42 | TA&M |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.16#47 | −0.06#8 | SC |
| Rush success rate | 47%#35 | 39%#39 | · |
| Rush explosiveness | 0.93#83 | 0.88#23 | SC |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 3.16#31 | 2.70#31 | · |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 16%#28 | 22%#26 | · |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 75%#49 | 68%#42 | · |
| Yards / rush | 4.9#32 | 3.8#47 | · |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.23#16 | +0.06#51 | TA&M |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.28#74 | +0.14#14 | SC |
| Third-down conversion | 41%#58 | 40%#71 | · |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 4.14#33 | 3.15#29 | · |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 11.1%#5 | 16.0%#60 | TA&M |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 1.46#93 | 1.83#15 | SC |
South Carolina Gamecocks offense vs Texas A&M Aggies defense
ranks of 135| SC off | TA&M def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 50% | 52% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 64% | 61% | · |
| Plays / game | 58 | 55 | · |
| Possession / game | 27:59 | 27:30 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.17#108 | +0.10#13 | TA&M |
| Pass success rate | 36%#119 | 33%#5 | TA&M |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.65#30 | 1.59#90 | SC |
| Yards / pass attempt | 7.9#38 | 6.0#13 | · |
| Completion % | 61%#80 | 56%#16 | TA&M |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 3.5%#103 | 3.7%#21 | TA&M |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.09#81 | +0.15#95 | · |
| Rush success rate | 39%#106 | 36%#9 | TA&M |
| Rush explosiveness | 1.07#30 | 1.29#135 | SC |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 2.89#76 | 2.67#26 | TA&M |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 17%#43 | 21%#39 | · |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 62%#123 | 75%#98 | · |
| Yards / rush | 3.3#128 | 4.2#66 | TA&M |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.07#92 | +0.07#55 | TA&M |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.14#124 | +0.22#34 | TA&M |
| Third-down conversion | 32%#127 | 22%#1 | TA&M |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 2.61#133 | 3.91#95 | TA&M |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 19.8%#129 | 21.4%#4 | TA&M |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 1.50#97 | 0.77#121 | · |
Season
| TA&M | SC | |
|---|---|---|
| 1-0 | Record | 1-0 |
| 50.0 | Points for / game | 57.0 |
| 0.0 | Points against / game | 0.0 |
| 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 | SC | |
|---|---|---|
| 1810 | Elo | 1595 |
| #10 of 240 | Rank | #47 of 240 |
| +9.7 | Offense ratingPoints per game above league average scored, opponent-adjusted. | +6.9 |
| +13.9 | Defense ratingPoints per game below league average allowed, opponent-adjusted. Positive is good. | +12.5 |
| 1355 | Strength of scheduleMean Elo of opponents faced this season. | 1230 |
Elo drives the winner call. Offense/defense ratings drive the total.
Advanced
| TA&M | SC | |
|---|---|---|
| +20.9 | SP+ (this season)Bill Connelly's SP+ rating, points above average. | +12.6 |
| 0.242 | Offense PPA / playPredicted points added per play, garbage time excluded (CFBD). | 0.099 |
| 0.126 | Defense PPA / playPPA allowed per play — lower is better. | 0.085 |
| 46% / 34% | Success rate (off / def) | 37% / 42% |
| 1.23 / 1.45 | Explosiveness (off / def) | 1.35 / 1.19 |
| 933 | Talent composite247Sports team talent composite for the current roster. | 863 |
| 73% | Returning production | 69% |
Advanced stats are from 2025 until this season has about three games. Source: CollegeFootballData.
Head to head
| 2025 | SC 30 at TA&M 31 | TA&M · SC covered |
| 2024 | TA&M 20 at SC 44 | SC · SC covered |
| 2023 | SC 17 at TA&M 30 | TA&M · SC covered |
How the margin was built
- Rating gap
- TA&M +11.9 pts
- Home field
- SC +— pts
- Rest
- Even
- Weather / roof
- — pts on the total
- Model margin
- —
- Model total
- —
Market
- Spread
- —
- Total
- —
- Moneyline
- —
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.