Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors App State,
while Game Control favors Texas A&M.
Split signals historically show weaker predictive confidence — treat as a toss-up.
⚡ Split Signal — Metrics Disagree
Momentum Control
80.6%
App State wins
Strong
Game Control
76%
Texas A&M wins
Strong
Vegas Spread
Texas A&M -18
O/U 54.0
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
PPA + Success Rate agree → App State
· 73.9% ATS historically
↓ See full breakdown
App State 2022 Schedule
App State's 2022 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/3 | App State vs North Carolina | -3.0L61–63 | 56.0 | L61–63 | O | N |
| Sat 9/10 | App State at Texas A&M | +18.0W17–14 | 54.0 | W17–14 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/17 | App State vs Troy | -14.0W32–28 | 52.0 | W32–28 | O | N |
| Sat 9/24 | App State vs James Madison | -6.0L28–32 | 57.0 | L28–32 | O | N |
| Sat 10/1 | App State vs The Citadel | -39.0W49–0 | 54.5 | W49–0 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/8 | App State at Texas State | -19.5L24–36 | 54.5 | L24–36 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Wed 10/19 | App State vs Georgia State | -9.5W42–17 | 60.5 | W42–17 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/29 | App State vs Robert Morris | -50.0W42–3 | 59.5 | W42–3 | U | N |
| Thu 11/3 | App State at Coastal Carolina | -3.0L28–35 | 65.5 | L28–35 | U | N |
| Sat 11/12 | App State at Marshall | -2.0L21–28 | 47.5 | L21–28 | O | N |
| Sat 11/19 | App State vs Old Dominion | -16.5W27–14 | 50.5 | W27–14 | U | N |
| Sat 11/26 | App State at Georgia Southern | -6.5L48–51 | 66.0 | L48–51 | O | N |
Texas A&M 2022 Schedule
Texas A&M's 2022 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/3 | Texas A&M vs Sam Houston | -36.5W31–0 | 54.0 | W31–0 | U | N |
| Sat 9/10 | Texas A&M vs App State | -18.0L14–17 | 54.0 | L14–17 | U | N |
| Sat 9/17 | Texas A&M vs Miami | -6.5W17–9 | 45.5 | W17–9 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/24 | Texas A&M vs Arkansas | -1.5W23–21 | 51.0 | W23–21 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/1 | Texas A&M at Mississippi State | +4.0L24–42 | 45.0 | L24–42 | O | N |
| Sat 10/8 | Texas A&M at Alabama | +24.0L20–24 | 48.0 | L20–24 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/22 | Texas A&M at South Carolina | -3.0L24–30 | 44.5 | L24–30 | O | N |
| Sat 10/29 | Texas A&M vs Ole Miss | +3.0L28–31 | 55.5 | L28–31 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/5 | Texas A&M vs Florida | -1.5L24–41 | 53.5 | L24–41 | O | N |
| Sat 11/12 | Texas A&M at Auburn | +1.5L10–13 | 48.0 | L10–13 | U | N |
| Sat 11/19 | Texas A&M vs Massachusetts | -32.0W20–3 | 46.0 | W20–3 | U | N |
| Sat 11/26 | Texas A&M vs LSU | +10.0W38–23 | 47.5 | W38–23 | O | Y |
Advanced Stats
Advanced Analytics Matchup
Matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense) ·
2022 season
Agreement Signals — When All Metrics Agree
Elite · 83.1% ATS
PPA + PPO + SR + Havoc
Split
Metrics disagree
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
Split
Metrics disagree
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ App State
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 · 2022 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?
App State Edge
App State +2.00
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 80.6% of games historically
Based on 1 game this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Texas A&M Edge
Texas A&M +63.3
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 76% of games historically
Based on 1 game this season
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
CSS and GC disagree on this matchup. When the metrics split, historical cover rates are essentially random — treat this as a coin flip against the spread.
ATS data is informational only. Past cover rates do not guarantee future results.
Coaching Matchup
App State
Shawn Clark #1
20–7 (74%)
· Yr 3 at school
OC
Kevin Barbay
Yr 1
#1
DC
Dale Jones
Yr 2
#1
Texas A&M
Jimbo Fisher #1
34–14 (71%)
· Yr 5 at school
OC
Darrell Dickey
Yr 2
#1
DC
D. J. Durkin
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: Momentum Control is a great measure for predicting game outcome but NOT an 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: Game Control is another great measure for predicting game outcome but NOT an 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: Momentum Control is a great measure for predicting game outcome but NOT an 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: Game Control is another great measure for predicting game outcome but NOT an 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 ✓