Auburn vs. Texas A&M: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
AUBTeam statsTA&M
- Q4 2:42TA&MRandy Bond 44 Yd Field Goal 10–16
- Q4 10:20AUBJackson Arnold 2 Yd Run (Alex McPherson Kick)10–13
- Q2 1:45TA&MRandy Bond 49 Yd Field Goal 3–13
- Q2 6:49TA&MRandy Bond 33 Yd Field Goal 3–10
- Q2 10:50AUBAlex McPherson 32 Yd Field Goal 3–7
- Q1 12:14TA&MLe'Veon Moss 1 Yd Run (Randy Bond Kick)0–7
How the model called it
- PassJackson Arnold 18/33, 125 YDS
- RushJeremiah Cobb 6 CAR, 28 YDS
- RecEric Singleton Jr. 5 REC, 56 YDS
- PassMarcel Reed 15/22, 207 YDS, 1 INT
- RushLe'Veon Moss 21 CAR, 139 YDS, 1 TD
- RecKC Concepcion 7 REC, 113 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsTA&M up 10 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,140 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q4 10:20AUB +31%
Jackson Arnold 2 Yd Run (Alex McPherson Kick)
- Q4 5:08TA&M +19%
Le'Veon Moss run for 20 yds to the AUB 28 for a 1ST down
- Q4 7:00AUB +16%
Jackson Arnold sacked by Taurean York for a loss of 7 yards to the AUB 6
- Q1 12:14TA&M +15%
Le'Veon Moss 1 Yd Run (Randy Bond Kick)
- Q4 10:20TA&M +13%
Le'Veon Moss run for 4 yds to the TA&M 29
- Q4 2:42TA&M +7%
Randy Bond 44 Yd Field Goal
FAQ
What was the final score of Auburn vs. Texas A&M?
Auburn 10, Texas A&M 16.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (TA&M) was correct.
| AUB | TA&M | |
|---|---|---|
| 177 | Total yards | 414 |
| 125 | Passing yards | 207 |
| 52 | Rushing yards | 207 |
| 9 | First downs | 21 |
| 0-13 | 3rd down | 3-14 |
| 0-2 | 4th down | 0-0 |
| 18/33 | Comp/Att | 15/22 |
| 3.8 | Yards per pass | 9.4 |
| 2.2 | Yards per rush | 4.4 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 10-69 | Penalties | 13-119 |
| 25:54 | Possession | 34:06 |
Costliest call
Q4 7:12 TA&M punt on 4th & 1 at TA&M 45. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 1.25 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 2:42TA&MRandy Bond 44 Yd Field Goal 10–16
- Q4 10:20AUBJackson Arnold 2 Yd Run (Alex McPherson Kick)10–13
- Q2 1:45TA&MRandy Bond 49 Yd Field Goal 3–13
- Q2 6:49TA&MRandy Bond 33 Yd Field Goal 3–10
- Q2 10:50AUBAlex McPherson 32 Yd Field Goal 3–7
- Q1 12:14TA&MLe'Veon Moss 1 Yd Run (Randy Bond Kick)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (TA&M Elo 1749, AUB Elo 1680 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects TA&M -5.2 (65% to win), essentially in line with the market.
Why that percentage is worth reading: across 604 graded in-season games, the calls this model put near 58% came in at 58.2%. The full calibration table is published, bin by bin. Early in the season the cold-start path runs instead and calibrates less well (Brier 0.2028 against 0.1889).
Model as of Sep 15 · through week 2 · drive simulation
Season form — 2025
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profilesTexas A&M leads 9–7 · 44% have been one-possession games
| AUB | TA&M | |
|---|---|---|
| +13.6 (#30) | CORE overall | +22.7 (#9) |
| +2 / -12 | offense / defense | +12 / -11 |
| 2.05 | points / drive | 2.65 |
| 1.94 | allowed / drive | 1.67 |
| 28% | three-and-outs | 20% |
| -1 | pass over expected | +3 |
Bold is the side ahead. CORE strips the situation from every play and solves the schedule out across the league, so these compare two teams that never met.
Key matchups
The analyst read: each team's offense splits crossed against the opponent's defense, with the edges called out.
Create a free account →You get Pro free for 6 months. No card required.
Where this number comes from. Every projection on this page is produced by the same model, run before kickoff on opponent-adjusted efficiency, power ratings and situational data — walk-forward validated on eleven seasons and never adjusted after the fact. How the model works →