← College Football slate
Texas A&M Aggies
1-0 · #10 Elo
at
Sat, Nov 21, 12:00 AM ET
Memorial Stadium (Norman, OK)
Oklahoma Sooners
1-0 · #16 Elo
Spread OU -2.5Total 51.5Moneyline TA&M +120 · OU -142
The read
On rating alone Texas A&M Aggies are 2.1 points better (#10 vs #16 of 240), and OU add 0.0 for home field. The clearest mismatch is the passing game: TA&M passing ranks #26, OU defends it at #10; the other way OU #94 into TA&M's #13.
Who has the edge
Rating
Slight edge
TA&M
TA&M rated 2.1 points better on Elo (#16 vs #10).
Home & rest
Even
—
OU gets 0.0 points for home field.
Passing game
Clear edge
TA&M
TA&M passing ranks #26, OU defends it at #10; the other way OU #94 into TA&M's #13.
context · not in the margin
Rushing game
Even
—
OU rushing ranks #123, TA&M defends it at #95; the other way TA&M #47 into OU's #6.
context · not in the margin
Third down & red zone
Even
—
TA&M third-down conversion ranks #58, OU defends it at #3; the other way OU #84 into TA&M's #1.
context · not in the margin
Form (last 5)
Even
—
OU +51.0 per game over the last five, TA&M +50.0.
context · not in the margin
Market
Slight edge
OU
Consensus has OU by 2.5.
context · not in the margin
The margin, factor by factor
Texas A&M AggiesOklahoma Sooners
1810 Elo · #10
RatingThe Elo gap in points — the model's core read on who is better, before the situational pieces below.
TA&M +2.1 pts
1772 Elo · #16
road
Home field
not priced
home
—
Rest
even
—
−4.5 pts vs OU 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 +2.9 pts
−7.4 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.
OU +0.5 pts
W · +51.0
+20.7
SP+ (last season)Bill Connelly's SP+ from last season, the prior the college model starts each season from.
TA&M +2.4 pts
+18.3
TA&M +2.5
MarketThe consensus spread, read as points. Compare with the model margin above it.
OU +2.5 pts
OU -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 defense (#9 rush success rate allowed) against a OU offense ranked #113
- ▸TA&M defense (#4 havoc rate) against a OU offense ranked #95
- ▸TA&M defense (#26 line yards / rush allowed) against a OU offense ranked #110
- ▸TA&M defense (#1 third-down conversion allowed) against a OU offense ranked #84
- ▸TA&M defense (#13 passing ppa / play allowed) against a OU offense ranked #94
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 Oklahoma Sooners defense
ranks of 135| TA&M off | OU def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 47% | 54% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 71% | 63% | · |
| Plays / game | 65 | 60 | · |
| Possession / game | 32:30 | 30:16 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.38#26 | +0.09#10 | · |
| Pass success rate | 46%#27 | 34%#9 | · |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.55#66 | 1.50#47 | · |
| Yards / pass attempt | 8.3#24 | 6.2#22 | · |
| Completion % | 61%#82 | 59%#30 | OU |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 0.7%#4 | 2.7%#50 | TA&M |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.16#47 | −0.06#6 | OU |
| Rush success rate | 47%#35 | 30%#2 | OU |
| Rush explosiveness | 0.93#83 | 1.08#120 | TA&M |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 3.16#31 | 2.03#2 | OU |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 16%#28 | 29%#2 | · |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 75%#49 | 65%#26 | · |
| Yards / rush | 4.9#32 | 2.4#2 | OU |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.23#16 | −0.12#2 | · |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.28#74 | +0.22#35 | OU |
| Third-down conversion | 41%#58 | 28%#3 | OU |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 4.14#33 | 2.62#7 | · |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 11.1%#5 | 22.7%#3 | · |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 1.46#93 | 1.00#98 | · |
Oklahoma Sooners offense vs Texas A&M Aggies defense
ranks of 135| OU off | TA&M def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 53% | 52% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 67% | 61% | · |
| Plays / game | 63 | 55 | · |
| Possession / game | 29:44 | 27:30 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.20#94 | +0.10#13 | TA&M |
| Pass success rate | 41%#70 | 33%#5 | TA&M |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.52#85 | 1.59#90 | · |
| Yards / pass attempt | 7.1#72 | 6.0#13 | TA&M |
| Completion % | 61%#75 | 56%#16 | TA&M |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 2.1%#54 | 3.7%#21 | TA&M |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.00#123 | +0.15#95 | TA&M |
| Rush success rate | 38%#113 | 36%#9 | TA&M |
| Rush explosiveness | 0.92#86 | 1.29#135 | OU |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 2.71#110 | 2.67#26 | TA&M |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 22%#117 | 21%#39 | TA&M |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 64%#112 | 75%#98 | · |
| Yards / rush | 3.6#120 | 4.2#66 | TA&M |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.03#109 | +0.07#55 | TA&M |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.25#91 | +0.22#34 | TA&M |
| Third-down conversion | 39%#84 | 22%#1 | TA&M |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 3.77#61 | 3.91#95 | OU |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 16.7%#95 | 21.4%#4 | TA&M |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 1.23#64 | 0.77#121 | OU |
Season
| TA&M | OU | |
|---|---|---|
| 1-0 | Record | 1-0 |
| 50.0 | Points for / game | 51.0 |
| 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. | 0-1 |
| W | Last 5 | W |
Power ratings
| TA&M | OU | |
|---|---|---|
| 1810 | Elo | 1772 |
| #10 of 240 | Rank | #16 of 240 |
| +9.7 | Offense ratingPoints per game above league average scored, opponent-adjusted. | +6.5 |
| +13.9 | Defense ratingPoints per game below league average allowed, opponent-adjusted. Positive is good. | +14.2 |
| 1355 | Strength of scheduleMean Elo of opponents faced this season. | 1238 |
Elo drives the winner call. Offense/defense ratings drive the total.
Advanced
| TA&M | OU | |
|---|---|---|
| +20.9 | SP+ (this season)Bill Connelly's SP+ rating, points above average. | +18.8 |
| 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. | 0.001 |
| 46% / 34% | Success rate (off / def) | 40% / 32% |
| 1.23 / 1.45 | Explosiveness (off / def) | 1.25 / 1.32 |
| 933 | Talent composite247Sports team talent composite for the current roster. | 851 |
| 73% | Returning production | 63% |
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 +2.1 pts
- Home field
- OU +— pts
- Rest
- Even
- Weather / roof
- — pts on the total
- Model margin
- —
- Model total
- —
Market
- Spread
- OU -2.5
- Total
- 51.5
- Moneyline
- TA&M +120 · OU -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.