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
78.1%
Texas A&M wins
Strong
Game Control
50.6%
Texas A&M wins
Toss-up
Vegas Spread
Texas A&M -9.5
O/U 51.0
William Hill (New Jersey)
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Texas A&M
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
Auburn 2023 Schedule
Auburn's 2023 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/2 | Auburn vs Massachusetts | -35.0W59–14 | 52.0 | W59–14 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/9 | Auburn at California | -5.0W14–10 | 55.5 | W14–10 | U | N |
| Sat 9/16 | Auburn vs Samford | -37.5W45–13 | 62.0 | W45–13 | U | N |
| Sat 9/23 | Auburn at Texas A&M | +9.5L10–27 | 51.0 | L10–27 | U | N |
| Sat 9/30 | Auburn vs Georgia | +14.0L20–27 | 44.5 | L20–27 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/14 | Auburn at LSU | +11.0L18–48 | 60.0 | L18–48 | O | N |
| Sat 10/21 | Auburn vs Ole Miss | +6.5L21–28 | 55.5 | L21–28 | U | N |
| Sat 10/28 | Auburn vs Mississippi State | -6.5W27–13 | 40.0 | W27–13 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/4 | Auburn at Vanderbilt | -12.5W31–15 | 50.0 | W31–15 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/11 | Auburn at Arkansas | +2.5W48–10 | 46.5 | W48–10 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/18 | Auburn vs New Mexico State | -25.5L10–31 | 48.5 | L10–31 | U | N |
| Sat 11/25 | Auburn vs Alabama | +14.0L24–27 | 48.0 | L24–27 | O | Y |
| Sat 12/30 | Auburn vs Maryland | -4.0L13–31 | 47.5 | L13–31 | U | N |
Texas A&M 2023 Schedule
Texas A&M's 2023 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/2 | Texas A&M vs New Mexico | -37.5W52–10 | 48.5 | W52–10 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/9 | Texas A&M at Miami | -3.0L33–48 | 50.5 | L33–48 | O | N |
| Sat 9/16 | Texas A&M vs UL Monroe | -36.5W47–3 | 53.5 | W47–3 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/23 | Texas A&M vs Auburn | -9.5W27–10 | 51.0 | W27–10 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/30 | Texas A&M vs Arkansas | -6.5W34–22 | 53.5 | W34–22 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/7 | Texas A&M vs Alabama | +2.5L20–26 | 45.0 | L20–26 | O | N |
| Sat 10/14 | Texas A&M at Tennessee | +3.0L13–20 | 54.5 | L13–20 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/28 | Texas A&M vs South Carolina | -17.0W30–17 | 51.5 | W30–17 | U | N |
| Sat 11/4 | Texas A&M at Ole Miss | +3.0L35–38 | 52.5 | L35–38 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/11 | Texas A&M vs Mississippi State | -16.5W51–10 | 40.5 | W51–10 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/18 | Texas A&M vs Abilene Christian | -40.5W38–10 | 54.5 | W38–10 | U | N |
| Sat 11/25 | Texas A&M at LSU | +10.5L30–42 | 67.5 | L30–42 | O | N |
| Wed 12/27 | Texas A&M vs Oklahoma State | +4.0L23–31 | 56.0 | L23–31 | U | N |
Advanced Stats
Advanced Analytics Matchup
Matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense) ·
2023 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 · 2023 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 +2.17
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 78.1% of games historically
Based on 3 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Texas A&M Edge
Texas A&M +4.3
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 50.6% of games historically
Based on 3 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Texas A&M
2 — 0 sequences
✓ Predicted correctly
GC Battle
Texas A&M
78.0 — 9.5 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, but the GC edge is small. When metrics agree but GC is near-neutral, the agreed-upon team has covered only 46.7% of the time historically (n=224) — potentially a fade signal.
ATS data is informational only. Past cover rates do not guarantee future results.
Coaching Matchup
Auburn
Hugh Freeze #1
3–0 (100%)
· Yr 1 at school
OC
Philip Montgomery
Yr 1
#1
DC
Ron Roberts
Yr 1
#1
Texas A&M
Jimbo Fisher #1
0–0 (0%)
· Yr 1 at school
OC
Bobby Petrino
Yr 1
#1
DC
D. J. Durkin
Yr 2
#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 ✓