← College Football slate
Spread TA&M -8.5Total 55.5Moneyline TENN +285 · TA&M -360
The read
On rating alone Texas A&M Aggies are 4.4 points better (#10 vs #19 of 240), and TA&M add 0.0 for home field. The clearest mismatch is the rushing game: TENN rushing ranks #9, TA&M defends it at #95; the other way TA&M #47 into TENN's #78.
Who has the edge
Rating
Clear edge
TA&M
TA&M rated 4.4 points better on Elo (#10 vs #19).
Home & rest
Even
—
TA&M gets 0.0 points for home field.
Passing game
Slight edge
TA&M
TA&M passing ranks #26, TENN defends it at #59; the other way TENN #19 into TA&M's #13.
context · not in the margin
Rushing game
Slight edge
TENN
TENN rushing ranks #9, TA&M defends it at #95; the other way TA&M #47 into TENN's #78.
context · not in the margin
Third down & red zone
Even
—
TA&M third-down conversion ranks #58, TENN defends it at #89; the other way TENN #10 into TA&M's #1.
context · not in the margin
Form (last 5)
Slight edge
TA&M
TA&M +50.0 per game over the last five, TENN +47.0.
context · not in the margin
Market
Clear edge
TA&M
Consensus has TA&M by 8.5.
context · not in the margin
The margin, factor by factor
Tennessee VolunteersTexas A&M Aggies
1731 Elo · #19
RatingThe Elo gap in points — the model's core read on who is better, before the situational pieces below.
TA&M +4.4 pts
1810 Elo · #10
road
Home field
not priced
home
—
Rest
even
—
−2.0 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 +5.5 pts
+3.5 pts vs TENN D
W · +47.0
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 +1.5 pts
W · +50.0
+15.0
SP+ (last season)Bill Connelly's SP+ from last season, the prior the college model starts each season from.
TA&M +5.7 pts
+20.7
TENN +8.5
MarketThe consensus spread, read as points. Compare with the model margin above it.
TA&M +8.5 pts
TA&M -8.5
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
- ▸TENN power success (#2) against a TA&M defense ranked #98 at stopping it
- ▸TA&M rush success rate (#35) against a TENN defense ranked #122 at stopping it
- ▸TENN rushing ppa / play (#9) against a TA&M defense ranked #95 at stopping it
- ▸TENN points / scoring opportunity (#9) against a TA&M defense ranked #95 at stopping it
- ▸TA&M power success (#49) against a TENN defense ranked #125 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.
Tennessee Volunteers offense vs Texas A&M Aggies defense
ranks of 135| TENN off | TA&M def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 48% | 52% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 74% | 61% | · |
| Plays / game | 65 | 55 | · |
| Possession / game | 27:22 | 27:30 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.41#19 | +0.10#13 | · |
| Pass success rate | 50%#9 | 33%#5 | · |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.57#56 | 1.59#90 | TENN |
| Yards / pass attempt | 8.7#13 | 6.0#13 | · |
| Completion % | 67%#19 | 56%#16 | · |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 2.3%#64 | 3.7%#21 | TA&M |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.26#9 | +0.15#95 | TENN |
| Rush success rate | 52%#3 | 36%#9 | · |
| Rush explosiveness | 0.96#72 | 1.29#135 | TENN |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 3.10#40 | 2.67#26 | · |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 14%#11 | 21%#39 | TENN |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 85%#2 | 75%#98 | TENN |
| Yards / rush | 4.7#44 | 4.2#66 | · |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.28#3 | +0.07#55 | TENN |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.47#16 | +0.22#34 | · |
| Third-down conversion | 50%#10 | 22%#1 | · |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 4.69#9 | 3.91#95 | TENN |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 12.4%#19 | 21.4%#4 | · |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 1.15#55 | 0.77#121 | TENN |
Texas A&M Aggies offense vs Tennessee Volunteers defense
ranks of 135| TA&M off | TENN def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 47% | 49% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 71% | 69% | · |
| Plays / game | 65 | 61 | · |
| Possession / game | 32:30 | 32:38 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.38#26 | +0.22#59 | TA&M |
| Pass success rate | 46%#27 | 41%#67 | TA&M |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.55#66 | 1.53#53 | · |
| Yards / pass attempt | 8.3#24 | 7.2#70 | TA&M |
| Completion % | 61%#82 | 66%#118 | TA&M |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 0.7%#4 | 2.3%#79 | TA&M |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.16#47 | +0.12#78 | TA&M |
| Rush success rate | 47%#35 | 48%#122 | TA&M |
| Rush explosiveness | 0.93#83 | 0.85#14 | TENN |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 3.16#31 | 2.89#71 | TA&M |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 16%#28 | 20%#47 | · |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 75%#49 | 82%#125 | TA&M |
| Yards / rush | 4.9#32 | 4.1#56 | · |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.23#16 | +0.12#84 | TA&M |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.28#74 | +0.26#59 | · |
| Third-down conversion | 41%#58 | 41%#89 | TA&M |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 4.14#33 | 4.09#109 | TA&M |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 11.1%#5 | 18.4%#19 | · |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 1.46#93 | 1.54#37 | TENN |
Season
| TENN | TA&M | |
|---|---|---|
| 1-0 | Record | 1-0 |
| 56.0 | Points for / game | 50.0 |
| 9.0 | Points against / game | 0.0 |
| 1-0 / 0-0 | Home / road | 1-0 / 0-0 |
| 0-1 | Against the spread | 1-0 |
| 0-1 | Over / underOvers–unders in this team's games. A tendency, not a lean. | 0-1 |
| W | Last 5 | W |
Power ratings
| TENN | TA&M | |
|---|---|---|
| 1731 | Elo | 1810 |
| #19 of 240 | Rank | #10 of 240 |
| +11.9 | Offense ratingPoints per game above league average scored, opponent-adjusted. | +9.7 |
| +6.3 | Defense ratingPoints per game below league average allowed, opponent-adjusted. Positive is good. | +13.9 |
| 1452 | Strength of scheduleMean Elo of opponents faced this season. | 1355 |
Elo drives the winner call. Offense/defense ratings drive the total.
Advanced
| TENN | TA&M | |
|---|---|---|
| +17.3 | SP+ (this season)Bill Connelly's SP+ rating, points above average. | +20.9 |
| 0.332 | Offense PPA / playPredicted points added per play, garbage time excluded (CFBD). | 0.242 |
| 0.164 | Defense PPA / playPPA allowed per play — lower is better. | 0.126 |
| 51% / 44% | Success rate (off / def) | 46% / 34% |
| 1.27 / 1.16 | Explosiveness (off / def) | 1.23 / 1.45 |
| 886 | Talent composite247Sports team talent composite for the current roster. | 933 |
| 35% | Returning production | 73% |
Advanced stats are from 2025 until this season has about three games. Source: CollegeFootballData.
Head to head
| 2023 | TA&M 13 at TENN 20 | TENN · TENN covered |
How the margin was built
- Rating gap
- TA&M +4.4 pts
- Home field
- TA&M +— pts
- Rest
- Even
- Weather / roof
- — pts on the total
- Model margin
- —
- Model total
- —
Market
- Spread
- TA&M -8.5
- Total
- 55.5
- Moneyline
- TENN +285 · TA&M -360
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.