Skip to content
Texas A&M

Texas A&M Aggies

SEC·2-0·
Compare
Elo
1849#10
SP+
23.9#7
FPI
21.2
AP
#10
Nextvs Kentucky · Wk 3Win prob 96%Model -25.5
Talent #7 (933.0)Recruiting class #1073% production returning

Roster · 119 players

FR 30SO 27JR 25SR 37
#PlayerPosClHtWt
10Marcel ReedQBSR6'1"185
13Brady HartQBSO6'4"200
14Eli MorcosQBSO6'1"204
16Helaman CasugaQBFR6'0"213
19Paxton LandQBJR6'4"214
0KJ EdwardsRBFR5'10"197
2Jamarion MorrowRBSO5'9"200
4Rueben Owens IIRBSR5'11"215
5Carsyn BakerRBFR6'0"210
5Tiger Riden Jr.RBSO5'10"219
23DeDe MurrayRBSO5'10"219
24Ramarian TillmanRBJR5'10"217
1Mario CraverWRJR5'9"180
3Aaron GregoryWRFR6'2"191
6Terry BusseyWRJR5'10"205
7Isaiah HortonWRSR6'4"215
8Ashton Bethel-RomanWRJR6'0"193
11Kelshaun JohnsonWRSO5'11"173
17Madden WilliamsWRFR6'1"192
18TK NormanWRSO6'0"186
20Mike BrownWRFR6'0"191
38Whitaker WilliamsWRJR6'4"192
81Jayden WarrenWRFR6'1"214
83Will HargettWRSO5'9"167
85Chase BurtonWRSR5'10"187
89Kade StewartWRSO6'2"202
9Kiotti ArmstrongTESO6'5"285
15Caleb TafuaTEFR6'5"242
19KK JohnsonTEFR6'5"262
43Carter BraughTEJR6'6"255
81Luke BradenTEJR6'4"238
84Richie Anderson IIITESR6'4"265
86Evan JacobsonTEFR6'5"241
87Houston ThomasTESR6'5"252
88Micah RileyTESR6'5"263
50Isendre AhfuaOLJR6'3"342
52Blake IvyOLJR6'3"324
54Mark Nabou Jr.OLSR6'4"307
55Hunter McKinneyOLFR6'3"319
62Marcus GarciaOLSO6'3"307
64Sam RoseboroughOLFR6'3"303
65Avery MorchoOLFR6'6"298
70Robert BourdonOLJR6'6"312
71Tyree AdamsOLSR6'7"305
72Joshua MosesOLSO6'2"334
73Ashton FunkOLJR6'6"319
74Zaden KrempinOLFR6'4"298
75Wilkin FormbyOLSR6'7"320
76Trovon BaughOLSR6'4"335
77Tyler ThomasOLSO6'4"350
78Coen EcholsOLJR6'4"305
79Lamont RogersOLSO6'6"340
10Marco JonesDESO6'5"261
12Nana Boadi-OwusuDESR6'1"242
14Anto SakaDESR6'4"255
15Sam M'PembaDESR6'3"257
16Bryce Perry-WrightDEFR6'2"269
17Ryan HendersonDESR6'3"256
18T.J. SearcyDESR6'5"260
22Tristian GivensDEFR6'3"232
42Kendall JacksonDEJR6'3"260
55Samu MoalaDEFR6'4"255
98Jesse ChukwuDESR6'0"225
5DJ HicksDTSR6'3"293
11Brandon Davis-SwainDTJR6'4"307
59Chace SimsDTSO6'3"293
88DJ SandersDTSO6'3"316
92CJ MimsDTSR6'2"312
93Nathan MabonDTSO6'0"298
94Angelo McCullomDTJR6'2"317
98Jermaine KinslerDTFR6'5"311
99Landon RinkDTSO6'2"295
0Noah MikhailLBSO6'2"230
21Ray ConeyLBSR6'2"240
25Tamarion WatkinsLBFR6'3"228
27Daymion SanfordLBSR6'2"228
30TJ SmithLBJR6'1"245
32Tank KingLBFR6'0"225
33Storm MillerLBFR6'2"229
34Kyle GarvisLBJR5'10"203
43Jeremiah SearcyLBSO6'0"216
45Tommy ColliganLBSR6'1"233
46Qui BeckLBFR6'0"228
54Jordan LockhartLBJR6'1"233
2Dezz RicksCBSR6'1"193
6Julio HumphreyCBSR6'1"197
8Jordan ShawCBSR5'11"180
9Rickey Gibson IIICBSR6'0"181
16Jamar Beal-GoinesCBSO5'11"178
20Adonyss CurrieCBSO6'0"181
21Vic SingletonCBFR5'11"175
23Brandon ArringtonCBFR6'2"201
31Deyjhon PettawayCBSO5'10"182
31Loia ValadeCBFR6'0"190
86Ryan BurtinCBSR5'7"170
1Bryce AndersonDBSR5'10"186
19Bravion RogersDBSR5'11"186
24Camren HamielDBFR5'10"180
29Justin EcholsDBSR6'1"203
39Adam GrahamDBJR5'11"201
3Marcus RatcliffeSSR6'3"211
4Tawfiq ByardSSR6'1"198
7Dalton BrooksSSR6'0"202
13Myles DavisSJR6'1"203
14Tylan WilsonSFR6'1"204
22Tom Tom Johnson Jr.SSO6'1"201
26Layne GerkeSJR5'10"196
28Chance CollinsSFR6'1"201
37Peyton GaySJR5'10"199
24David OlanoPKSR5'11"177
83Colton ChmelarPKSO6'0"190
90Asher MurrayPKFR5'10"175
37Tyler WhitePSR6'3"225
38Jared WhitePSR6'3"225
95Alex AbbottPJR6'0"185
96Waylon PetersPFR6'4"214
31Shea FreibaumLSSR6'1"202
40Gray EvansLSSO6'2"237
42Boomer GrahamLSJR5'9"195

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
49.0
scoring offense
Points allowed
10.0
scoring defense
Differential
+39.0
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
380.0#85
Yards / play
5.2#110
Passing yards / game
216.0#83
Rushing yards / game
164.0#73
First downs / game
24.5#31
3rd down %
38.5%#84
4th down %
75.0%#30
Time of possession
36:30#5
Defense
Yards allowed / game
218.0#17
Yards / play allowed
4.2#36
Pass yards allowed / game
142.0#28
Rush yards allowed / game
76.0#24
3rd down % allowed
18.2%#8
Sacks
2#105
Tackles for loss
11#62
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
+5#5
Takeaways
7#3
Giveaways
2#49
Penalties / game
4.5#27
Penalty yards / game
40.0#32

Rank is national among all FBS teams (#1 = best), oriented so higher rank = better even for defensive and discipline metrics. Bars show percentile.

Scouting Report · 2026 projection

balanced

Texas A&M is in year 3 under Mike Elko, whose offenses have been balanced. The strengths are on both sides of the ball, led by 4th at keeping a clean pocket. The way in is 135th at keeping everything in front of them.

On fourth down he goes for it about as often as his peers do from the same spots (+0.6%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −28.3% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

Texas A&M has played 2 games against a genuinely tough slate, adjusted for here. That football carries about 0% of what is below; the rest is still the preseason projection.

Projected strengths

  • Offensesacks and tackles for loss
    #4
    projected
  • Defensestaying on schedule through the air
    #4
    projected
  • Defensesurviving second and twelve
    #4
    projected

Projected soft spots

  • Defensehitting chunk plays
    #135
    projected

Each bar is where this team sits in the country. Before the season has produced enough football these are PROJECTIONS — last season regressed to the mean, plus talent, returning production, recruiting and whether the staff is the same one — and the season replaces them as it is played. Head coaches only — there is no free feed for coordinators, so on a program where the head coach does not call the offense this describes the staff he hired. Play-calling identity is a style, not a grade: throwing more than the situations warrant is not better than throwing less than they warrant.

2026 Season Projection

model win prob · 9 to play
8.9 – 2.1
projected final record (now 2–0)
Exp. wins left
6.9
of 9 games
Bowl odds
100%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
96%
vs Kentucky
Toughest
54%
vs Texas

How the season could finish · 2026 · chance of each final win total · 9 games left

Every remaining game simulated from the model's win probability for it. Tallest bar is the single likeliest finish, not a prediction that it happens.

234567891011
final winstallest bar = 32% chance
Likeliest finish 9-2 (32%)Bowl eligible 100% · marked on the axis at 6

Player Value

EPA contribution by position group + estimated NIL market value (derived from position rates and on-field production — not actual deal figures).

Unit Value — Total EPA
QBMarcel Reed
+22.5 EPA
WRIsaiah Horton, Terry Bussey +4
+22.3 EPA
RBRueben Owens, Jamarion Morrow +1
+7.4 EPA
TEHouston Thomas, Richie Anderson +1
+1.6 EPA

Total EPA produced by each positional group this season. OL value is captured via the rush/pass efficiency of skill players; OL-specific EPA isn't separately reported.

Estimated NIL Market Value
ESTIMATED
QBMarcel Reed
~$859K
EPA +22.50.327/play69 snaps
RBRueben Owens
~$198K
EPA +5.20.173/play30 snaps
RBJamarion Morrow
~$166K
EPA +2.30.114/play20 snaps

Estimated from position-group market rates and on-field EPA contribution. Actual NIL valuations depend on social media following, brand fit, and market negotiations — these figures are directional only.

The Five Factors

ranked vs. FBS · bar = better
Efficiency (PPA)
Off0.2251st#68
Def-0.1091st#14
Explosiveness
Off1.0711th#123
Def1.2943rd#79
Field position
Off60.11st#137
Def72.945th#76
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off4.8271st#41
Def1.0099th#3
Turnovers
Won 7Lost 2
Margin +5

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
—
Defense
—
Off · pass
0.4062nd#53
Off · rush
0.0734th#91

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.0731st#95
Def-0.1785th#21
Passing
Off0.4062nd#53
Def-0.0190th#15

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
2.91#92
2nd-level / open-field
0.94 / 1.19
Power / stuff (off)
100.0% / 14.3%
Havoc — total (def)
24.8%#11
Havoc — front 7 / DB
17.1% / 7.6%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.19
Def-0.42
Pass downs
Off0.29
Def0.59

PPA on each down type (off vs. def).

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense0.11#640.23#650.34#103
Defense-0.26#18-0.08#250.34#69

Elo Trajectory

Missouri StateFinal
Elo rating 1748 → 1902+154 over season

Team Fingerprint · 2026 · 43 opponent-adjusted metrics · percentile vs 138 FBS teams

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.3567th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed-0.2492nd
  • Offense success rate58%88th
  • Defense success rate allowed17%97th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs62%85th
  • Offense success — passing downs50%88th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs26%90th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs0%99th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.125th
  • Defense explosiveness allowed0.9389th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs0.9025th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs1.728th

Trenches

  • Offense line yards3.985th
  • Defense line yards allowed1.688th
  • Offense highlight yards1.669th
  • Defense highlight yards allowed0.0099th
  • Offense power success1.099th
  • Defense power success allowed0.5079th
  • Offense stuff rate0.1080th
  • Defense stuff rate0.2676th

Third down

  • Third down conversion54%72nd
  • Third down distance faced6.847th
  • Third down conversion allowed18%88th
  • Third down distance forced6.529th

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half0.3080th
  • Net success rate — second half0.4997th

Drives

  • Points per drive4.489th
  • Points per drive allowed0.0098th
  • Average starting field position4298th
  • Opponent starting field position2569th
  • Available yards gained78%91st
  • Available yards allowed9%99th
  • Scoring opportunities per drive100%99th
  • Scoring opportunities allowed30%99th
  • Points per scoring opportunity4.484th
  • Points allowed per opportunity0.0099th
  • Three-and-out rate9%88th
  • Three-and-outs forced80%99th

Roster

  • Returning usage70%83rd
  • Returning EPA26791st
  • Team talent composite93396th
  • Recruiting class rank10.093rd
  • Recruiting class points28393rd

Every metric is opponent-adjusted and ranked so that higher is always better — a defensive rate that is good when low is ranked accordingly. Sack and tackle-for-loss composition are deliberately absent: their relationship to team quality is a measured null, so they carry a style rather than a rank, and they appear in the pressure signature instead.

Intelligence Report

⚡

Offensive DNA

EPA/play
+0.224#68 · average
Pass EPA/play
+0.404#53
Rush EPA/play
+0.070#95
Explosiveness
1.066#123
Pts/opportunity
4.82#41
Success rate
47.6%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.334 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

High-pressure defense — top 10 nationally in EPA/play allowed
EPA/play allowed
-0.097#14 · top 20%
Havoc rate (total)
24.8%#11
Front-7 havoc
17.1%
DB havoc
7.6%
Big play rate allowed
1.291#79
Success rate allowed
30.6%

Disruption comes primarily from the front seven.

📊

Season Signature

49.0 PPG offense, 10.0 allowed — +39.0 margin/game
Points per game
49.0
Points allowed/game
10.0
Scoring margin/game
+39.0
Turnover margin
+5won 7 · lost 2
Production returning
73%
Talent rank (247)
#7

2-0 record through 2 games.

Team Shape · percentile vs. FBS · dashed = 50th

OFFENSE51thEXPLOSIVENESS11thFINISHING71thFIELD POS1thDEFENSE91thHAVOC93th50th100th
Offense
51th
Explosiveness
11th
Finishing
71th
Field Pos
1th
Defense
91th
Havoc
93th

Each axis = national percentile rank. 100th = best in FBS, 0th = worst. Defense and Havoc are oriented so higher = better.

CORE efficiency · situation and opponent removed

Points per 100 plays above average, after the game state is regressed out of every snap and the schedule is solved out across the whole league. The version of this team’s efficiency that can be compared to a team it never played.

Overall
+27.9
#3
Offense
+11.2
#10
Defense
-16.6
#3
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 11 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive4.360.00
Starting field positionown 42.4own 24.9
Available yards77.5%9.4%
Scoring opportunities100.0%30.0%
Points per opportunity4.360.00
Three-and-out rate9.1%80.0%
Every team’s drive efficiency →

Play-calling identity

Against what the league calls from the same down, distance, field position, score and clock — so this is the staff, not the game script.

Pass rate
50.0%
Expected, given the spots
45.7%
Over expected
+4.3
Fourth down vs peers
+25
Fourth down vs the model
+0
All play-calling tendencies →

National Landscape · 2026 FBS · offense vs. defense EPA/play

Each dot = one FBS team. Texas A&M is highlighted. Tap or hover a dot for details.

ELITEDEF. FORTRESSOFF. POWERHOUSEREBUILDING-0.100.00+0.10+0.20+0.30-0.050.00+0.10+0.20Offensive EPA/play← worsebetter →Defensive EPA allowed/play← worsebetter →

Similar Programs

Teams with the closest offense + defense efficiency profile to Texas A&M in 2026

by EPA/play distance
SyracuseSP+ +2.7
Off EPA/play +0.213Def EPA/play -0.087Elo 1288
Match
99%
North Dakota StateSP+ +2.6
Off EPA/play +0.228Def EPA/play -0.075Elo 1562
Match
99%
OklahomaSP+ +21.7
Off EPA/play +0.175Def EPA/play -0.099Elo 1799
Match
97%
DelawareSP+ -7.6
Off EPA/play +0.250Def EPA/play -0.032Elo 1404
Match
96%
BaylorSP+ +4.9
Off EPA/play +0.166Def EPA/play -0.043Elo 1506
Match
95%
IowaSP+ +18.0
Off EPA/play +0.166Def EPA/play -0.040Elo 1847
Match
95%

Similarity = normalized Euclidean distance on season offensive and defensive EPA/play. Teams within ±0.02 EPA/play on both units score >90%.

Program Trajectory · CORE rating · 2015–2026 · points per game vs an average FBS team

2015: +6.0, #49 of 1282016: +11.5, #25 of 1282017: +6.1, #47 of 1302018: +17.1, #16 of 1302019: +15.3, #19 of 1302020: +18.4, #10 of 1242021: +21.1, #6 of 1302022: +6.3, #41 of 1312023: +15.4, #21 of 1332024: +14.7, #24 of 1342025: +22.7, #9 of 1362026: +27.9, #3 of 138
20152026
Now +27.9 · #3 of 138Best +27.9 in 2026Worst +6.0 in 2015

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20261-00-0
100%
1.0+0.0
202511-27-1
85%
10.5+0.5
20248-55-3
62%
8.2-0.2
20237-64-4
54%
8.4-1.4
20225-72-6
42%
4.7+0.3
20218-44-4
67%
9.0-1.0
20209-18-1
90%
8.4+0.6
20198-54-4
62%
8.0-0.0
20189-45-3
69%
9.2-0.2
20177-64-4
54%
6.5+0.5

xW = expected wins from per-game dominance. Luck = actual − expected (positive = won close games).

35%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

1-0 so far, projected to finish 8.3-3.9. Top-four bye in 12%. Wins the SEC in 7.9%.

If they finish with…

100%
0 losses
100%
1 loss
99%
2 losses
53%
3 losses
0.6%
4 losses

Their chance of making it at each final loss count. Better than even up to 3.

Win out and it is 100%. Running the table settles it.

up 3.2 points since preseason — won 50-0 over Missouri State against an expected margin of +42, so +7.6 against the number.

  • At 3 losses they are 53% where the average SEC team is 41%.
  • The SEC takes 3.83 bids in an average season, and four or more in 65%.

Texas A&M’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk4at LSU38.9
  • wk13vs Texas36.5
  • wk12at Oklahoma36.4
  • wk8at Alabama35.6
  • wk10at South Carolina33.5
  • wk11vs Tennessee31.7

Who to root for

Games Texas A&M is not in that move its odds most. Same units, much smaller scale.

  • wk12Arkansas over Texas2.6
  • wk6Kentucky over LSU2.6
  • wk13Arkansas over LSU2.5
  • wk2Colgate over Central Michigan2.2
  • wk3Ole Miss over LSU2.1
  • wk3Florida State over Alabama2.1
The full playoff picture →

SEC

0-0 in league play, projected 5.3-3.74 of 16 by title odds
7.9%
Wins the SEC
16%
Reaches the title game

The SEC sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 48% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk4Texas A&M at LSU15.1
  • wk13Texas at Texas A&M12.8
  • wk8Texas A&M at Alabama11.3
  • wk12Texas A&M at Oklahoma11.2

Points of title probability riding on each result. The whole SEC race →

If not the playoff, then

91%
Bowl eligible
57%
Placed in a bowl
35%
In the playoff
7.9%
Season over in November

Texas A&M is 1-0 and needs 5 more wins from 11 games to reach the six that make a team eligible — at most one of which may come against an FCS opponent. In 0.7% they go with five wins, as a 5-7 fill-in — which in reality is decided by academic progress rate, not by anything modelled here.

  • Citrus Bowl9.6%
  • ReliaQuest Bowl8.7%
  • Gator Bowl8.5%
  • Duke's Mayo Bowl7.6%
  • Music City Bowl6.9%
  • Texas Bowl5.8%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 10 have sent Texas A&M a player since 2010 — 35 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of Texas A&M's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
ManvelTX71
Fort Bend MarshallTX51
KatyTX50
AtascocitaTX41
AllenTX31
Cy-FairTX31
NortheastPA30
WestsideSC21
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.