Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors Texas A&M,
while Game Control favors Ole Miss.
Split signals historically show weaker predictive confidence — treat as a toss-up.
⚡ Split Signal — Metrics Disagree
Momentum Control
61.3%
Texas A&M wins
Lean
Game Control
50.6%
Ole Miss wins
Toss-up
Vegas Spread
Ole Miss -3.0
O/U 52.5
Bovada
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Texas A&M
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
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 |
Ole Miss 2023 Schedule
Ole Miss's 2023 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/2 | Ole Miss vs Mercer | -35.0W73–7 | 59.5 | W73–7 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/9 | Ole Miss at Tulane | -8.0W37–20 | 64.0 | W37–20 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/16 | Ole Miss vs Georgia Tech | -17.0W48–23 | 61.5 | W48–23 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/23 | Ole Miss at Alabama | +7.0L10–24 | 56.0 | L10–24 | U | N |
| Sat 9/30 | Ole Miss vs LSU | +3.0W55–49 | 67.0 | W55–49 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/7 | Ole Miss vs Arkansas | -13.0W27–20 | 61.5 | W27–20 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/21 | Ole Miss at Auburn | -6.5W28–21 | 55.5 | W28–21 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/28 | Ole Miss vs Vanderbilt | -24.0W33–7 | 62.0 | W33–7 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/4 | Ole Miss vs Texas A&M | -3.0W38–35 | 52.5 | W38–35 | O | N |
| Sat 11/11 | Ole Miss at Georgia | +11.0L17–52 | 59.0 | L17–52 | O | N |
| Sat 11/18 | Ole Miss vs UL Monroe | -35.5W35–3 | 59.5 | W35–3 | U | N |
| Thu 11/23 | Ole Miss at Mississippi State | -11.0W17–7 | 56.0 | W17–7 | U | N |
| Sat 12/30 | Ole Miss vs Penn State | +5.5W38–25 | 53.0 | W38–25 | O | Y |
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 +0.39
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 61.3% of games historically
Based on 7 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Ole Miss Edge
Ole Miss +2.8
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 50.6% of games historically
Based on 8 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Tie
1 — 1 sequences
✗ Predicted incorrectly
GC Battle
Ole Miss
64.9 — 15.8 GC score
✓ Predicted correctly
Game Result
Ole Miss won by 3
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
0–0 (0%)
· Yr 1 at school
OC
Bobby Petrino
Yr 1
#1
DC
D. J. Durkin
Yr 2
#1
Ole Miss
Lane Kiffin #1
26–13 (67%)
· Yr 4 at school
OC
John David Baker
Yr 1
#1
DC
Pete Golding
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 ✓