South Carolina vs. Texas A&M: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
SCTeam statsTA&M
- Q4 10:47TA&MEJ Smith 4 Yd Run (Randy Bond Kick)30–31
- Q3 2:04TA&MNate Boerkircher 14 Yd pass from Marcel Reed (Randy Bond Kick)30–24
- Q3 4:18TA&MAshton Bethel-Roman 39 Yd pass from Marcel Reed (Randy Bond Kick)30–17
- Q3 11:26TA&MIzaiah Williams 27 Yd pass from Marcel Reed (Randy Bond Kick)30–10
- Q2 0:02SCWilliam Joyce 35 Yd Field Goal 30–3
- Q2 0:53SCNyck Harbor 80 Yd pass from LaNorris Sellers (Mason Love Kick)27–3
- Q2 9:32SCWilliam Joyce 41 Yd Field Goal 20–3
- Q1 0:00SCNick Barrett 17 Yd Fumble Return (William Joyce Kick)17–3
- Q1 5:28SCVandrevius Jacobs 50 Yd pass from LaNorris Sellers (William Joyce Kick)10–3
- Q1 7:55TA&MRandy Bond 40 Yd Field Goal 3–3
- Q1 11:10SCWilliam Joyce 36 Yd Field Goal3–0
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- SC played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and TA&M did not face the same ones. 3rd & 8.7 vs 3rd & 5.3
- SC lived on explosives rather than sustaining drives — a profile that vanished once those chunk plays were tackled. 17% explosive on a 36% success rate
- PassLaNorris Sellers 15/30, 246 YDS, 2 TD, 1 INT
- RushJawarn Howell 3 CAR, 30 YDS
- RecNyck Harbor 3 REC, 102 YDS, 1 TD
- PassMarcel Reed 22/39, 439 YDS, 3 TD, 2 INT
- RushRueben Owens II 8 CAR, 28 YDS
- RecKC Concepcion 7 REC, 158 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsSC up 6 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,662 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q4 1:03TA&M +39%
Kneel down by #10 M.Reed at USC33 for loss of 1 yard
- Q4 10:47TA&M +33%
PENALTY USC Offside (#90 D.Miles) 2 yards from USC03 to USC01. NO PLAY
- Q4 2:35SC +29%
No Huddle-Shotgun #16 L.Sellers pass incomplete short right to #8 N.Harbor thrown to USC21
- Q3 2:04TA&M +27%
No Huddle-Shotgun #10 M.Reed pass complete short left to #87 N.Boerkircher caught at USC03, for 14 yards to the USC00 TOUCHDOWN, 1ST DOWN
- Q1 0:00SC +20%
Nick Barrett 17 Yd Fumble Return (William Joyce Kick)
- Q1 5:28SC +17%
No Huddle-Shotgun #16 L.Sellers pass complete deep left to #4 V.Jacobs caught at TAMU06, for 50 yards to the TAMU00 TOUCHDOWN, 1ST DOWN
FAQ
What was the final score of South Carolina vs. Texas A&M?
South Carolina 30, Texas A&M 31.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (TA&M) was correct.
| SC | TA&M | |
|---|---|---|
| 388 | Total yards | 503 |
| 267 | Passing yards | 439 |
| 121 | Rushing yards | 64 |
| 15 | First downs | 23 |
| 4-15 | 3rd down | 2-11 |
| 1-3 | 4th down | 2-2 |
| 16/31 | Comp/Att | 22/39 |
| 8.6 | Yards per pass | 11.3 |
| 3.7 | Yards per rush | 2.2 |
| 1 | Turnovers | 4 |
| 8-83 | Penalties | 6-60 |
| 29:44 | Possession | 30:16 |
Costliest call
Q1 2:30 TA&M field goal on 4th & 2 at SC 27. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.48 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 10:47TA&MEJ Smith 4 Yd Run (Randy Bond Kick)30–31
- Q3 2:04TA&MNate Boerkircher 14 Yd pass from Marcel Reed (Randy Bond Kick)30–24
- Q3 4:18TA&MAshton Bethel-Roman 39 Yd pass from Marcel Reed (Randy Bond Kick)30–17
- Q3 11:26TA&MIzaiah Williams 27 Yd pass from Marcel Reed (Randy Bond Kick)30–10
- Q2 0:02SCWilliam Joyce 35 Yd Field Goal 30–3
- Q2 0:53SCNyck Harbor 80 Yd pass from LaNorris Sellers (Mason Love Kick)27–3
- Q2 9:32SCWilliam Joyce 41 Yd Field Goal 20–3
- Q1 0:00SCNick Barrett 17 Yd Fumble Return (William Joyce Kick)17–3
- Q1 5:28SCVandrevius Jacobs 50 Yd pass from LaNorris Sellers (William Joyce Kick)10–3
- Q1 7:55TA&MRandy Bond 40 Yd Field Goal 3–3
- Q1 11:10SCWilliam Joyce 36 Yd Field Goal3–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (TA&M Elo 1904, SC Elo 1637 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects TA&M -13.1 (81% to win) — 3.4 points clear of SC's market line of -16.5. That is a disagreement, not a betting edge — sides we favour have not covered at better than breakeven.
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 1 · through week 1 · drive simulation
Season form — 2025
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profilesTexas A&M leads 10–2 · 42% have been one-possession games
| SC | TA&M | |
|---|---|---|
| +5.3 (#53) | CORE overall | +22.7 (#9) |
| -1 / -7 | offense / defense | +12 / -11 |
| 1.48 | points / drive | 2.65 |
| 1.63 | allowed / drive | 1.67 |
| 27% | three-and-outs | 20% |
| -2 | 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 →