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
61.3%
Texas A&M wins
Lean
Game Control
58.3%
Texas A&M wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
Texas A&M -3.5
O/U 56.5
DraftKings
Advanced Stats
Advanced factors are split · No strong agreement signal
↓ See full breakdown
Texas A&M 2024 Schedule
Texas A&M's 2024 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 8/31 | Texas A&M vs Notre Dame | -3.0L13–23 | 47.0 | L13–23 | U | N |
| Sat 9/7 | Texas A&M vs McNeese | -48.5W52–10 | 56.5 | W52–10 | O | N |
| Sat 9/14 | Texas A&M at Florida | -4.5W33–20 | 47.0 | W33–20 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/21 | Texas A&M vs Bowling Green | -21.0W26–20 | 50.5 | W26–20 | U | N |
| Sat 9/28 | Texas A&M vs Arkansas | -6.5W21–17 | 50.5 | W21–17 | U | N |
| Sat 10/5 | Texas A&M vs Missouri | -3.0W41–10 | 47.5 | W41–10 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/19 | Texas A&M at Mississippi State | -21.0W34–24 | 55.5 | W34–24 | O | N |
| Sat 10/26 | Texas A&M vs LSU | -2.0W38–23 | 54.5 | W38–23 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/2 | Texas A&M at South Carolina | -3.0L20–44 | 43.5 | L20–44 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/16 | Texas A&M vs New Mexico State | -38.5W38–3 | 54.5 | W38–3 | U | N |
| Sat 11/23 | Texas A&M at Auburn | -2.5L41–43 | 47.0 | L41–43 | O | N |
| Sat 11/30 | Texas A&M vs Texas | +4.5L7–17 | 49.5 | L7–17 | U | N |
| Fri 12/27 | Texas A&M vs USC | -3.5L31–35 | 56.5 | L31–35 | O | N |
USC 2024 Schedule
USC's 2024 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sun 9/1 | USC vs LSU | +4.0W27–20 | 66.5 | W27–20 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/7 | USC vs Utah State | -30.5W48–0 | 62.5 | W48–0 | U | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 9/21 | USC at Michigan | -4.0L24–27 | 44.0 | L24–27 | O | N |
| Sat 9/28 | USC vs Wisconsin | -14.0W38–21 | 50.5 | W38–21 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/5 | USC at Minnesota | -8.5L17–24 | 45.5 | L17–24 | U | N |
| Sat 10/12 | USC vs Penn State | +3.5L30–33 | 51.5 | L30–33 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/19 | USC at Maryland | -6.5L28–29 | 56.5 | L28–29 | O | N |
| Fri 10/25 | USC vs Rutgers | -14.0W42–20 | 57.0 | W42–20 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/2 | USC at Washington | -2.0L21–26 | 55.0 | L21–26 | U | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/16 | USC vs Nebraska | -6.5W28–20 | 51.0 | W28–20 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/23 | USC at UCLA | -5.0W19–13 | 53.0 | W19–13 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/30 | USC vs Notre Dame | +6.5L35–49 | 52.5 | L35–49 | O | N |
| Fri 12/27 | USC vs Texas A&M | +3.5W35–31 | 56.5 | W35–31 | O | Y |
Advanced Stats
Advanced Analytics Matchup
Matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense) ·
2024 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 · 2024 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 +0.30
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 61.3% of games historically
Based on 12 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Texas A&M Edge
Texas A&M +9.2
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.3% of games historically
Based on 12 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Texas A&M
1 — 2 sequences
✓ Predicted correctly
GC Battle
USC
52.1 — 19.2 GC score
✗ Predicted incorrectly
Game Result
USC won by 4
✗ Model missed 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
Texas A&M
Mike Elko #1
0–0 (0%)
· Yr 1 at school
OC
Collin Klein
Yr 1
#1
DC
Jay Bateman
Yr 1
#1
USC
Lincoln Riley #1
19–8 (70%)
· Yr 3 at school
OC
Josh Henson
Yr 3
#1
DC
D'Anton Lynn
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 ✓