Texas A&M

2-0AP #9
Latest
Texas A&M Football Coach Mike Elko Previews Missouri State Openerour readArizona State Game Week: Press Conference and Notes - Texas A&M Aggies - Official Athletics Website - 12thman.comour readThe Texas rivalry

SEC · Mike Elko, year 3 (21-7) · Kyle Field · 102,733 · 107,652 avg in 2026

The nationAP #9 · Coaches #8up 1 from last week
The model#6 CFB ZeitgeistSP+ #7 (+23.9) · FPI #8
The marketTexas A&M by 17vs Kentucky · our model 96% Texas A&M · a number, not a pick

LastW 48–20 vs Arizona State · Sat Sep 12 · Marco Jones 1 sacks, 1 TFL, 1 INT

Nextvs Kentucky · Sat Sep 19 · 3:30 pm ET · Kyle Field · Texas A&M by 17 · series 2-1, won the last 2 · Game preview

Updated Tue Sep 15 · through week 2

Key stats — 2026 — FBS rank
Points/game
49.0
Pts allowed/game
10.0
Total yards/gm#90 / 138 · 35th pct
380.0
Rush yards/gmT-#78 / 138 · 43rd pct
164.0
Pass yards/gm#86 / 138 · 38th pct
216.0
Yards allowed/gm#17 / 138 · 88th pct
218.0
Rush yds allowed/gm#23 / 138 · 84th pct
76.0
SacksT-#106 / 138 · 16th pct
2
InterceptionsT-#29 / 115 · 61st pct
2
3rd-down conv#84 / 138 · 39th pct
38.5%
All 88 stats
Offense / Defense
Total yards
Team
760380.0/gm5.24/play#90 / 138 · 35th pct#52 / 69 · 25th pct#12 / 16 · 28th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
436218.0/gm4.23/play#17 / 138 · 88th pct#16 / 69 · 78th pct#5 / 16 · 72nd pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush yards
Team
328164.0/gm2.26/playT-#78 / 138 · 43rd pctT-#41 / 69 · 41st pct#10 / 16 · 41st pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
15276.0/gm1.48/play#23 / 138 · 84th pct#20 / 69 · 72nd pct#6 / 16 · 66th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush carries
Team
8241.0/gmT-#41 / 138 · 70th pctT-#21 / 69 · 70th pct#7 / 16 · 59th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
5226.0/gmT-#12 / 138 · 91st pct#8 / 69 · 89th pct#1 / 16 · 97th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush TDs
Team
42.0/gmT-#51 / 138 · 54th pctT-#34 / 69 · 44th pct#12 / 16 · 28th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
00.0/gmT-#1 / 138 · 92nd pctT-#1 / 69 · 88th pctT-#1 / 16 · 84th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Net pass yards
Team
432216.0/gm2.98/play#86 / 138 · 38th pct#53 / 69 · 24th pct#15 / 16 · 9th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
284142.0/gm2.76/play#26 / 138 · 82nd pct#21 / 69 · 70th pct#7 / 16 · 59th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Pass attempts
Team
6331.5/gmT-#57 / 138 · 59th pctT-#31 / 69 · 55th pctT-#7 / 16 · 56th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
5125.5/gmT-#35 / 138 · 74th pctT-#21 / 69 · 69th pctT-#3 / 16 · 81st pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Completions
Team
4020.0/gmT-#62 / 138 · 54th pctT-#37 / 69 · 46th pct#10 / 16 · 41st pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
2914.5/gmT-#30 / 138 · 77th pctT-#19 / 69 · 71st pctT-#5 / 16 · 69th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Pass TDs
Team
63.0/gmT-#17 / 138 · 83rd pctT-#14 / 69 · 74th pctT-#4 / 16 · 72nd pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
21.0/gmT-#45 / 138 · 57th pctT-#29 / 69 · 46th pctT-#9 / 16 · 31st pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Passer rating
Team
146.2146.2#55 / 115 · 53rd pct#39 / 59 · 35th pct#9 / 14 · 39th pct#4 / 13 · 77th pct
Opp
112.7112.7#33 / 91 · 64th pct#24 / 41 · 43rd pct#7 / 11 · 41st pct#3 / 13 · 85th pct
Interceptions thrown
Team
10.5/gmT-#52 / 138 · 49th pctT-#25 / 69 · 53rd pctT-#8 / 16 · 44th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
21.0/gmT-#77 / 138 · 33rd pctT-#40 / 69 · 29th pctT-#6 / 16 · 38th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Sacks (def)
Team
21.0/gmT-#106 / 138 · 16th pctT-#61 / 69 · 8th pct#16 / 16 · 3rd pct#11 / 11 · 9th pct
Opp
42.0/gmT-#74 / 138 · 37th pctT-#42 / 69 · 30th pctT-#10 / 16 · 34th pct#1 / 11 · 100th pct
Tackles for loss
Team
115.5/gmT-#63 / 138 · 49th pctT-#37 / 69 · 42nd pctT-#12 / 16 · 22nd pct#11 / 11 · 9th pct
Opp
94.5/gmT-#55 / 138 · 57th pctT-#36 / 69 · 45th pctT-#8 / 16 · 50th pct#1 / 11 · 100th pct
First downs
Team
4924.5/gmT-#39 / 138 · 70th pctT-#25 / 69 · 61st pctT-#10 / 16 · 31st pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
2010.0/gm#8 / 138 · 95th pct#7 / 69 · 91st pct#3 / 16 · 84th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
3rd-down conv
Team
105.0/gmT-#71 / 138 · 44th pctT-#42 / 69 · 35th pct#11 / 16 · 34th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
42.0/gmT-#2 / 138 · 97th pctT-#2 / 69 · 95th pctT-#2 / 16 · 84th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
3rd-down att
Team
2613.0/gmT-#64 / 138 · 51st pctT-#28 / 69 · 57th pctT-#6 / 16 · 59th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
2211.0/gmT-#13 / 138 · 89th pctT-#4 / 69 · 94th pct#2 / 16 · 91st pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
4th-down conv
Team
31.5/gmT-#23 / 138 · 74th pctT-#12 / 69 · 72nd pctT-#4 / 16 · 62nd pct#12 / 13 · 15th pct
Opp
21.0/gmT-#71 / 138 · 37th pctT-#40 / 69 · 32nd pctT-#9 / 16 · 41st pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
4th-down att
Team
42.0/gmT-#47 / 138 · 60th pctT-#24 / 69 · 59th pctT-#6 / 16 · 59th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
52.5/gmT-#98 / 138 · 25th pctT-#54 / 69 · 20th pctT-#11 / 16 · 31st pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Time of possession
Team
72:5936:30/gm#15 / 138 · 89th pct#5 / 69 · 93rd pct#2 / 16 · 91st pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
47:0123:30/gm#6 / 138 · 96th pct#5 / 69 · 93rd pct#2 / 16 · 91st pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct

FBS rankings · 2026 season · all stats vs 136 FBS programs

Player stats — 2026 season
Quarterbacks
Player#GCmp/AttPctYdsY/ATDINTRateZPRQBRAdj ANY/ASack%
+0.32 EPA/play10236 / 5565.53967.25
#22 FBS		1152.355447.26.8
Running Backs
Player#GCarYdsAvgTDLongStuff%10+%
+0.16 EPA/play42271124.1115——
Receivers
Player#GRecYdsAvgTDLong
+0.32 EPA/play72710915.63
#9 FBS		36
+0.60 EPA/play6279213.1021
+0.59 EPA/play128759.42
#24 FBS		33

2026 stat leaders · Texas A&M

through 2 games

Noah Mikhail leads Texas A&M with 13 tackles through 2 games.

1. Noah Mikhail LB 13 tackles
2. Ray Coney LB 12 tackles
3. Marcel Reed QB 396 passing yards
4. Isaiah Horton WR 109 receiving yards
5. T.J. Searcy DE 8 tackles
How They Play · 2025

Texas A&M fields a strong offense behind a strong, gives up the big play defense.

Offense
78th pct EPA/play
Defense
65th pct EPA allowed
Defensive shape
11th pct at limiting explosive plays

Percentile vs all FBS, based on this season's per-game production. Bar = where this team ranks — right is better.

The Savant Card · Texas A&M · 2025

Texas A&M reads strongest in success rate allowed (top 4%) and passing epa allowed (top 10%); the crux lives in explosive plays allowed, where Texas A&M sits at the 10th percentile.

offense · strengths lead

EPA / play +0.24
78th
Success Rate +0.46
78th
Explosive Plays +1.24
43rd
Rushing EPA +0.15
65th

defense · higher bar = harder to play against

EPA Allowed +0.11
65th
Success Rate Allowed +0.33
97th
Explosive Plays Allowed +1.37
11th
Passing EPA Allowed +0.08
91st

hidden math · special situations

Passing EPA +0.39
79th
Rushing EPA Allowed +0.12
33rd
Elite · 90+Strong · 70+Average · 40-70Concern · 10-40Bottom · <10
Sources · CFBD tier-2 advanced stats · per-game production · 13 games this season · percentiles vs. up to 136 FBS peers

Home-field advantage · Texas A&M · 2018–present · FBS opponents

Texas A&M is worth +8.1 points more at home than on the road.

Top tenth of FBS, 97th percentile of 133 programs

78% at home, 39% away against FBS opponents since 2018 (39–11 home, 13–20 away). Interval ±3.7.

95% intervalmodel 2.3 · books ~3Weakest home edge in FBSStrongest

Our model gives every stadium the same flat 2.3-point home edge — per-team modelling was tested and did not survive scrutiny (why) — and the books use about 3. Against the closing line, Texas A&M has beaten the number by +3.2 more at home than away over 70 games — inside the ±5.9 that many games can resolve. Results here cannot tell the flat number apart from the building, and that is the honest reading of nearly every FBS stadium.

Kyle Field seats 102,733 and has averaged 99% full (101,484, 29 games reported). Visitors cover a median 593 miles to get here since 2018 — 28th-longest of 135 FBS venues, inside the ordinary range. For the home side it is genuinely home ground: 30% of the 2026 roster (36 of 121 located players) grew up inside 100 miles of the stadium.

Edge = half the gap between average home margin and average road margin, FBS opponents only, non-neutral games since 2018; the interval is 95%. Market line: closing spread, seasons with lines on file. Trip length is straight-line miles from the visiting team's campus to the venue, measured across all 56 home games since 2018.

Home39–11Away13–20Edge+8.1 ±3.7Visitor trip593 mi

More in this tab

Scheme claimsFive specific, testable claims about how this team plays.

Standard downs vs. passing downs

Does Texas A&M hold up once the down-and-distance turns against them?

85th percentile success on standard downs, 72nd on passing downs — little dropoff between the two — a schedule-independent identity.

Fragile off scheduleBalanced, both workStruggles even on scheduleStandard-downs reliantTexas A&MWeak on standard downsElite on standard downsFalls apart off scheduleHolds up off scheduleHawai'i18th standard · 41st passingUNLV51st standard · 7th passingStanford76th standard · 15th passingEastern Michigan52nd standard · 10th passingSan José State54th standard · 22nd passingNew Mexico State45th standard · 75th passingSacramento State23rd standard · 14th passingOklahoma State41st standard · 49th passingDuke20th standard · 29th passingFlorida State28th standard · 65th passingRutgers30th standard · 71st passingKansas70th standard · 35th passingBoston College27th standard · 56th passingNorfolk State16th standard · 9th passingLouisville96th standard · 70th passingMissouri36th standard · 85th passingMemphis69th standard · 65th passingGeorgia Southern24th standard · 45th passingOle Miss94th standard · 50th passingJacksonville State65th standard · 82nd passingNorth Dakota State86th standard · 27th passingArizona92nd standard · 86th passingUSC97th standard · 99th passingWake Forest56th standard · 97th passingTCU93rd standard · 8th passingDelaware70th standard · 31st passingUAB65th standard · 81st passingMichigan State62nd standard · 29th passingSouth Florida91st standard · 52nd passingFlorida International46th standard · 43rd passingNavy98th standard · 59th passingWisconsin13th standard · 18th passingOregon State10th standard · 38th passingSyracuse48th standard · 64th passingOhio State90th standard · 40th passingBall State12th standard · 24th passingPittsburgh30th standard · 76th passingColorado35th standard · 77th passingGeorgia Tech58th standard · 44th passingAuburn75th standard · 55th passingBaylor40th standard · 96th passingNorth Texas49th standard · 68th passingApp State44th standard · 90th passingIowa State4th standard · 23rd passingUTSA99th standard · 29th passingArkansas60th standard · 80th passingBoise State58th standard · 46th passingOregon35th standard · 33rd passingTulsa56th standard · 1st passingTulane31st standard · 2nd passingPurdue83rd standard · 88th passingMiddle Tennessee87th standard · 68th passingVanderbilt80th standard · 12th passingSan Diego State4th standard · 40th passingLSU33rd standard · 98th passingClemson1st standard · 19th passingCentral Michigan16th standard · 6th passingTexas Tech88th standard · 48th passingMichigan2nd standard · 62nd passingWestern Michigan39th standard · 20th passingOhio38th standard · 17th passingBuffalo7th standard · 14th passingTexas72nd standard · 94th passingCoastal Carolina61st standard · 52nd passingColorado State82nd standard · 91st passingWyoming65th standard · 36th passingTexas A&M85th standard · 72nd passingLiberty14th standard · 59th passingFlorida Atlantic43rd standard · 87th passingLouisiana19th standard · 92nd passingSouth Alabama50th standard · 73rd passingTroy22nd standard · 59th passingSam Houston78th standard · 61st passingNevada77th standard · 52nd passingWestern Kentucky25th standard · 34th passingWashington State8th standard · 3rd passingWashington81st standard · 4th passingCalifornia9th standard · 25th passingCharlotte73rd standard · 83rd passingTennessee65th standard · 78th passingUtah State4th standard · 93rd passing
Source CFB Zeitgeist · advanced team stats, Connelly success-rate definition
View all FBS teams as a table
TeamStandard-downs percentilePassing-downs percentile
App State44th90th
Arizona92nd86th
Arkansas60th80th
Auburn75th55th
Ball State12th24th
Baylor40th96th
Boise State58th46th
Boston College27th56th
Buffalo7th14th
California9th25th
Central Michigan16th6th
Charlotte73rd83rd
Clemson1st19th
Coastal Carolina61st52nd
Colorado35th77th
Colorado State82nd91st
Delaware70th31st
Duke20th29th
Eastern Michigan52nd10th
Florida Atlantic43rd87th
Florida International46th43rd
Florida State28th65th
Georgia Southern24th45th
Georgia Tech58th44th
Hawai'i18th41st
Iowa State4th23rd
Jacksonville State65th82nd
Kansas70th35th
LSU33rd98th
Liberty14th59th
Louisiana19th92nd
Louisville96th70th
Memphis69th65th
Michigan2nd62nd
Michigan State62nd29th
Middle Tennessee87th68th
Missouri36th85th
Navy98th59th
Nevada77th52nd
New Mexico State45th75th
Norfolk State16th9th
North Dakota State86th27th
North Texas49th68th
Ohio38th17th
Ohio State90th40th
Oklahoma State41st49th
Ole Miss94th50th
Oregon35th33rd
Oregon State10th38th
Pittsburgh30th76th
Purdue83rd88th
Rutgers30th71st
Sacramento State23rd14th
Sam Houston78th61st
San Diego State4th40th
San José State54th22nd
South Alabama50th73rd
South Florida91st52nd
Stanford76th15th
Syracuse48th64th
TCU93rd8th
Tennessee65th78th
Texas72nd94th
Texas A&M85th72nd
Texas Tech88th48th
Troy22nd59th
Tulane31st2nd
Tulsa56th1st
UAB65th81st
UNLV51st7th
USC97th99th
UTSA99th29th
Utah State4th93rd
Vanderbilt80th12th
Wake Forest56th97th
Washington81st4th
Washington State8th3rd
Western Kentucky25th34th
Western Michigan39th20th
Wisconsin13th18th
Wyoming65th36th
RatingsWhere the public rating systems put this team.

Model Consensus

Where the Models Rank Texas A&M

CFB Zeitgeist

#6

+12.2

SP+

#7

+23.9

FPI

#8

+23.1

Elo

#7

1890

The national models put Texas A&M between 7th and 8th nationally — CFB Zeitgeist is higher on them than any of these models, at 6th.

National rank of 138 FBS teams · 2026 season. SP+/FPI/SRS published; Elo & CFB Zeitgeist ranked by rating.

Comparable teamsPrograms built like this one — tier, prestige band, kind of fanbase, roster size. Not a stat match.

Most similar programs · Texas A&M

Reads like

AuburnSECSame tier of program · Similarly-sized rosters up frontTennesseeSECSame tier of program · Similarly-sized rosters up frontDelawareConference USASame tier of program · Roughly similar size up front

Matched on how the programs are built — tier, prestige band, kind of fanbase, conference, voice and roster size — not on this season's stats. A calibration, not a prediction.

ConditionsThe weather and altitude visitors have to deal with.
Venue texture

76°F average kickoff temp; 6% of games had measurable precipitation; 8 mph average wind.

Based on 84 home games with weather data.

This page may include content derived from public news sources, social media, and fan communities. We relay these sources as-is — we are not reporting them. Sources may be summarized or quoted imperfectly; for anything that matters, go look at the original source directly. The original source may also be wrong. AI-generated content is labeled and may contain factual errors. All analysis is editorial opinion, not professional reporting. Data sources · About this site