Matchup Prediction
Texas A&M
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
Texas A&M entering this game.
Momentum Control
58.4%
Texas A&M wins
Lean
Game Control
58.6%
Texas A&M wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
Texas A&M -4.5
O/U 49.5
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Texas A&M
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
Auburn 2021 Schedule
Auburn's 2021 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/4 | Auburn vs Akron | -37.5W60–10 | 56.5 | W60–10 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/11 | Auburn vs Alabama State | -49.5W62–0 | 60.0 | W62–0 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/18 | Auburn at Penn State | +4.0L20–28 | 53.0 | L20–28 | U | N |
| Sat 9/25 | Auburn vs Georgia State | -27.5W34–24 | 57.5 | W34–24 | O | N |
| Sat 10/2 | Auburn at LSU | +2.5W24–19 | 57.0 | W24–19 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/9 | Auburn vs Georgia | +14.5L10–34 | 45.5 | L10–34 | U | N |
| Sat 10/16 | Auburn at Arkansas | +4.5W38–23 | 54.0 | W38–23 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/30 | Auburn vs Ole Miss | -3.0W31–20 | 67.5 | W31–20 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/6 | Auburn at Texas A&M | +4.5L3–20 | 49.5 | L3–20 | U | N |
| Sat 11/13 | Auburn vs Mississippi State | -6.0L34–43 | 51.0 | L34–43 | O | N |
| Sat 11/20 | Auburn at South Carolina | -7.0L17–21 | 45.5 | L17–21 | U | N |
| Sat 11/27 | Auburn vs Alabama | +21.0L22–24 | 57.5 | L22–24 | U | Y |
| Tue 12/28 | Auburn vs Houston | -2.0L13–17 | 51.5 | L13–17 | U | N |
Texas A&M 2021 Schedule
Texas A&M's 2021 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/4 | Texas A&M vs Kent State | -29.5W41–10 | 67.0 | W41–10 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/11 | Texas A&M vs Colorado | -17.5W10–7 | 51.0 | W10–7 | U | N |
| Sat 9/18 | Texas A&M vs New Mexico | -30.5W34–0 | 49.5 | W34–0 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/25 | Texas A&M vs Arkansas | -4.5L10–20 | 47.0 | L10–20 | U | N |
| Sat 10/2 | Texas A&M vs Mississippi State | -7.0L22–26 | 45.5 | L22–26 | O | N |
| Sat 10/9 | Texas A&M vs Alabama | +18.5W41–38 | 50.5 | W41–38 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/16 | Texas A&M at Missouri | -11.5W35–14 | 59.0 | W35–14 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/23 | Texas A&M vs South Carolina | -19.0W44–14 | 46.0 | W44–14 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/6 | Texas A&M vs Auburn | -4.5W20–3 | 49.5 | W20–3 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/13 | Texas A&M at Ole Miss | -1.0L19–29 | 57.5 | L19–29 | U | N |
| Sat 11/20 | Texas A&M vs Prairie View A&M | -41.5W52–3 | 50.0 | W52–3 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/27 | Texas A&M at LSU | -6.0L24–27 | 47.0 | L24–27 | O | N |
Advanced Stats
Advanced Analytics Matchup
Matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense) ·
2021 season
Agreement Signals — When All Metrics Agree
Elite · 83.1% ATS
PPA + PPO + SR + Havoc
All 4 Agree
→ Texas A&M
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Texas A&M
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Texas A&M
Individual Factors — Ranked by Predictive Strength
PPA Overall
Points added per play · Elite predictor
PPA Passing
Pass efficiency edge · Strong predictor
Havoc Total
Def. disruption rate · Strong predictor
TFLs, sacks, PBUs, forced fumbles — higher is better
Points Per Opp
Drive-finishing edge · Strong predictor
Success Rate
Play consistency edge · Solid predictor
Field Position
Avg start (lower=better) · Solid predictor
Avg yards from own endzone to average start — lower is better · longer bar = better field position
Advanced stats sourced from CFBD · 2021 season ·
Edges are matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense)
Power Ratings
Team Power Ratings
Overall · Offense · Defense ratings · Updated as season progresses
Power ratings updated throughout the season as results accumulate
Momentum Control (CSS)
Consecutive Scoring Sequences
Who builds scoring momentum?
Texas A&M Edge
Texas A&M +0.50
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 8 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Texas A&M Edge
Texas A&M +8.8
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.6% of games historically
Based on 8 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Texas A&M
1 — 0 sequences
✓ Predicted correctly
GC Battle
Texas A&M
57.0 — 12.3 GC score
✓ Predicted correctly
Game Result
Texas A&M won by 17
✓ Model called it
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on Texas A&M. Teams with this edge profile have covered 50.3% historically — essentially a coin flip against the spread.
ATS data is informational only. Past cover rates do not guarantee future results.
Coaching Matchup
Auburn
Bryan Harsin #1
2–1 (67%)
· Yr 1 at school
OC
Mike Bobo
Yr 1
#1
DC
Derek Mason
Yr 1
#1
Texas A&M
Jimbo Fisher #1
29–10 (74%)
· Yr 4 at school
OC
Darrell Dickey
Yr 1
#1
DC
Mike Elko
Yr 1
#1
About these metrics
Advanced Stats shows matchup-adjusted factor edges (offense vs opponent defense). Combination signals — when PPA, PPO, Success Rate, and Havoc all point the same direction — have historically predicted the SU winner in 95–97% of games and the ATS winner in 82–83% of games (2021–2025, FBS vs FBS, regular season).
Impact: Advanced Stats are the best performance based metric used to predict the outcome of games. ✓
Momentum Control (CSS) measures consecutive scoring sequences — when a team scores, holds the opponent scoreless, then scores again. Teams entering a game with a CSS edge of +1.0 or more have won 71–78% of games historically (2021–2025, FBS vs FBS).
Impact: CSS is not a predictive ATS advantage, data shows this is already considered when lines are set. ✗
Game Control (GC) measures win probability dominance — how thoroughly a team controlled the game from start to finish. Teams with a GC edge of +12 or more have won 67–76% of games historically. When both metrics agree, combined confidence is higher. When they split, treat as a lean at best.
Impact: GS is not a predictive ATS advantage, data shows this is already considered when lines are set. ✗
Power Ratings are a custom-built composite of a Teams Talent, Experience & Production, Coaching & Performance Metrics. These are updated constantly with roster changes, performance once the games start for the 2026 season, injuries the team is dealing with and scheduling situations.
Impact: There are a wide range of power ratings available, we think ours is the best, you can decide for yourself ✓
Advanced Stats shows matchup-adjusted factor edges (offense vs opponent defense). Combination signals — when PPA, PPO, Success Rate, and Havoc all point the same direction — have historically predicted the SU winner in 95–97% of games and the ATS winner in 82–83% of games (2021–2025, FBS vs FBS, regular season).
Impact: Advanced Stats are the best performance based metric used to predict the outcome of games. ✓
Momentum Control (CSS) measures consecutive scoring sequences — when a team scores, holds the opponent scoreless, then scores again. Teams entering a game with a CSS edge of +1.0 or more have won 71–78% of games historically (2021–2025, FBS vs FBS).
Impact: CSS is not a predictive ATS advantage, data shows this is already considered when lines are set. ✗
Game Control (GC) measures win probability dominance — how thoroughly a team controlled the game from start to finish. Teams with a GC edge of +12 or more have won 67–76% of games historically. When both metrics agree, combined confidence is higher. When they split, treat as a lean at best.
Impact: GS is not a predictive ATS advantage, data shows this is already considered when lines are set. ✗
Power Ratings are a custom-built composite of a Teams Talent, Experience & Production, Coaching & Performance Metrics. These are updated constantly with roster changes, performance once the games start for the 2026 season, injuries the team is dealing with and scheduling situations.
Impact: There are a wide range of power ratings available, we think ours is the best, you can decide for yourself ✓