Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors Auburn,
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
58.4%
Auburn wins
Lean
Game Control
58.3%
Texas A&M wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
Auburn -1.5
O/U 48.0
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
Advanced factors are split · No strong agreement signal
↓ See full breakdown
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 |
Auburn 2022 Schedule
Auburn's 2022 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/3 | Auburn vs Mercer | -30.0W42–16 | 51.5 | W42–16 | O | N |
| Sat 9/10 | Auburn vs San José State | -24.0W24–16 | 48.5 | W24–16 | U | N |
| Sat 9/17 | Auburn vs Penn State | +2.5L12–41 | 47.5 | L12–41 | O | N |
| Sat 9/24 | Auburn vs Missouri | -7.5W17–14 | 51.0 | W17–14 | U | N |
| Sat 10/1 | Auburn vs LSU | +8.0L17–21 | 44.5 | L17–21 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/8 | Auburn at Georgia | +27.5L10–42 | 49.5 | L10–42 | O | N |
| Sat 10/15 | Auburn at Ole Miss | +15.5L34–48 | 55.5 | L34–48 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/29 | Auburn vs Arkansas | +4.0L27–41 | 60.0 | L27–41 | O | N |
| Sat 11/5 | Auburn at Mississippi State | +12.5L33–39 | 50.5 | L33–39 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/12 | Auburn vs Texas A&M | -1.5W13–10 | 48.0 | W13–10 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/19 | Auburn vs Western Kentucky | -5.0W41–17 | 54.0 | W41–17 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/26 | Auburn at Alabama | +22.0L27–49 | 51.0 | L27–49 | 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
Split
Metrics disagree
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?
Auburn Edge
Auburn +0.07
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 +5.1
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.3% of games historically
Based on 9 games 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
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
Auburn
Bryan Harsin #1
6–7 (46%)
· Yr 2 at school
OC
Eric Kiesau
Yr 1
#1
DC
Jeff Schmedding
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 ✓