Samford vs. Texas A&M: Final Score & Recap

CommandBoxAnalyticsMatchup

Samford0-1

00

Texas A&M10-0

▸0048

Final

Kyle Field

	1	2	3	4	T
SAMF	0	0	0	0	0
TA&M	21	10	7	10	48

SAMFTeam statsTA&M

77Total yards475

46Pass228

31Rush247

3First downs22

0-153rd down7-15

0Turnovers2

26:56Possession33:04

Scoring plays

• Q4 5:50TA&MPreston Landis 2 Yd Run (Jared Zirkel Kick)0–48
• Q4 14:55TA&MJared Zirkel 39 Yd Field Goal 0–41
• Q3 8:28TA&MTiger Riden Jr. 1 Yd Run (Jared Zirkel Kick)0–38
• Q2 0:03TA&MJared Zirkel 25 Yd Field Goal 0–31
• Q2 12:19TA&MAmari Daniels 1 Yd Run (Jared Zirkel Kick)0–28
• Q1 0:06TA&MAshton Bethel-Roman 58 Yd pass from Marcel Reed (Jared Zirkel Kick)0–21
• Q1 3:53TA&MKC Concepcion 6 Yd pass from Marcel Reed (Jared Zirkel Kick)0–14
• Q1 11:34TA&MAshton Bethel-Roman 3 Yd pass from Marcel Reed (Jared Zirkel Kick)0–7

How the model called it

Market line

TA&M −54

Against the number

SAMF covered

line TA&M −54

What the numbers say

• SAMF played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and TA&M did not face the same ones. 3rd & 8.7 vs 3rd & 5.7

Win probability

ours solid · ESPN dashed

SAMF aheadTA&M ahead

Cumulative margin after each quarter. Above the line = SAMF ahead, below = TA&M ahead.

GRIDPEX.COM

Play-by-play win probability isn't available for this game — scoreboard margin by quarter shown instead.

How the line closed

model vs market

Closing line

TA&M −54

Closing total

59.0

Model line

—

Actual result

SAMF 0 – 48 TA&M

Leaders

Samford

• PassQuincy Crittendon 7/16, 46 YDS
• RushC.J. Evans 9 CAR, 10 YDS
• RecPreston Bird 1 REC, 27 YDS

Texas A&M

• PassMarcel Reed 10/15, 120 YDS, 3 TD
• RushAmari Daniels 9 CAR, 106 YDS, 1 TD
• RecAshton Bethel-Roman 2 REC, 61 YDS, 2 TD

Tempo

what this pace leaves on the clock

27.3sper snap · slower the national 24.5s

fastnational avgslow

Snaps run

129

Points / snap

0.37

This exact spot, historically

empirical, no ratings

TA&M up 38 entering the 4th quarter. Across 183 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):

100%

TA&M went on to win

A near-lock historically

Most comparable games

WKansas State vs Southeast Missouri State45-0WMichigan State vs Richmond45-14WSoutheast Missouri State vs Lindenwood45-7WMontana State vs Stetson57-20WMissouri State vs Utah Tech59-14

Fourth downs

22 calls

TA&M gave up 0.4 points to the model on fourth down.SAMF 12/12 · TA&M 7/8 agreed

FAQ

What was the final score of Samford vs. Texas A&M?

Samford 0, Texas A&M 48.

Did Gridpex's model pick hit?

Yes — the model's pick (TA&M) was correct.

Situational splits

what the averages hide

SAMF

TA&M

8%

Success rate

47%

-0.10

EPA / pass

0.09

-0.33

EPA / rush

0.43

12%

Early-down success

45%

11%

Pass success

39%

7%

Rush success

55%

2%

Explosive play rate (15+ yds)

11%

43%

Stuffed rush rate

7%

38%

Pass rate

48%

8.7

Avg 3rd-down distance

5.7

SAMF

8.7 yards to go on 3rd down

48 scrimmage snaps

TA&M

5.7 yards to go on 3rd down

81 scrimmage snaps

Team stats

the basics, from ESPN

SAMF		TA&M
77	Total yards	475
46	Passing yards	228
31	Rushing yards	247
3	First downs	22
0-15	3rd down	7-15
0-0	4th down	2-2
7/17	Comp/Att	20/37
2.7	Yards per pass	6.2
1.0	Yards per rush	5.7
0	Turnovers	2
3-32	Penalties	5-50
26:56	Possession	33:04

Fourth downs

22 calls

SAMF

12/12 with the model

nothing given up

TA&M

7/8 with the model

−0.4 pts · −0.0% win prob

Costliest call

Q1 9:34 TA&M punt on 4th & 7 at SAMF 42. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.42 points.

Every call, priced (22)

Drive chart

every possession, start to finish

SAMF 0/14 scoring drives← own end zone →TA&M 8/15 scoring drives

TA&MTD7 pl, 70 yds· own 30Q1

SAMFPUNT3 pl, 3 yds· own 35Q1

TA&MPUNT3 pl, 3 yds· opp 45Q1

SAMFPUNT3 pl, -1 yds· own 5Q1

TA&MTD11 pl, 49 yds· opp 49Q1

SAMFPUNT3 pl, 6 yds· own 25Q1

TA&MTD4 pl, 79 yds· own 21Q1

SAMFPUNT3 pl, 2 yds· own 25Q1

TA&MTD4 pl, 64 yds· own 36Q2

SAMFPUNT3 pl, 4 yds· own 25Q2

TA&MINT3 pl, 11 yds· own 28Q2

SAMFPUNT3 pl, 7 yds· own 8Q2

TA&MPUNT4 pl, 2 yds· own 40Q2

SAMFPUNT3 pl, 4 yds· own 14Q2

TA&MMISS7 pl, 32 yds· own 49Q2

SAMFPUNT3 pl, 2 yds· own 20Q2

TA&MFG7 pl, 40 yds· opp 48Q2

TA&MEND0 pl, 0 yds· own 35Q2

SAMFPUNT3 pl, 0 yds· own 25Q3

TA&MTD11 pl, 59 yds· own 41Q3

SAMFMISS8 pl, 51 yds· own 25Q3

TA&MFG7 pl, 12 yds· opp 34Q3

SAMFPUNT3 pl, 5 yds· own 10Q4

TA&MPUNT3 pl, 3 yds· own 34Q4

SAMFPUNT3 pl, -5 yds· own 10Q4

TA&MTD10 pl, 50 yds· midfieldQ4

SAMFPUNT3 pl, -1 yds· own 26Q4

SAMFMISS6 pl, 12 yds· opp 33Q4

TA&MEND2 pl, 3 yds· own 21Q4

Scoring plays

• Q4 5:50TA&MPreston Landis 2 Yd Run (Jared Zirkel Kick)0–48
• Q4 14:55TA&MJared Zirkel 39 Yd Field Goal 0–41
• Q3 8:28TA&MTiger Riden Jr. 1 Yd Run (Jared Zirkel Kick)0–38
• Q2 0:03TA&MJared Zirkel 25 Yd Field Goal 0–31
• Q2 12:19TA&MAmari Daniels 1 Yd Run (Jared Zirkel Kick)0–28
• Q1 0:06TA&MAshton Bethel-Roman 58 Yd pass from Marcel Reed (Jared Zirkel Kick)0–21
• Q1 3:53TA&MKC Concepcion 6 Yd pass from Marcel Reed (Jared Zirkel Kick)0–14
• Q1 11:34TA&MAshton Bethel-Roman 3 Yd pass from Marcel Reed (Jared Zirkel Kick)0–7

Model prediction

how the number is built

One or both teams lack a power rating (often an FCS opponent), so the model prediction is low-confidence for this game.

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 →