·
Sat Nov 14, Time TBA · Kyle Field
Our call: Tennessee by 4.9 · 63% pregame win chance
63%Our win chance37%
Our win chance: Tennessee 63% · Texas A&M 37% · experimental, see how it is tested
Model comparison
10 of 10 models favor Tennessee
| Model | Says | Win chance | Use this |
|---|---|---|---|
| SP+ Tennessee +20.5 vs Texas A&M +8.3 | Tennessee by 9.7 | Tennessee 76% | Use this |
| SRS Tennessee +19.6 vs Texas A&M +9.1 | Tennessee by 8.0 | Tennessee 72% | Use this |
| Sonny Moore Tennessee +94.9 vs Texas A&M +83.7 | Tennessee by 7.2 | Tennessee 70% | Use this |
| Elo Tennessee 1879 vs Texas A&M 1717 | Tennessee by 4.0 | Tennessee 61% | Use this |
| The Margin The Margin's model | Tennessee by 3.5 | Tennessee 60% | Use this |
| Market the market's pregame margin | Tennessee by 3 | Tennessee 59% | Use this |
| ESPN FPI Tennessee +18.5 vs Texas A&M +13.0 | Tennessee by 3.0 | Tennessee 59% | Use this |
| Sagarin Tennessee +88.2 vs Texas A&M +83.7 | Tennessee by 1.8 | Tennessee 55% | Use this |
| Our model · experimental Tennessee +16.8 vs Texas A&M +13.2 | Tennessee by 1.1 | Tennessee 53% | Use this |
| Record Texas A&M 4-5, Tennessee 7-2 | Tennessee (better record) | – | Use this |
| Our call average of SP+, Elo and Our model | Tennessee by 4.9 | Tennessee 63% | Use this |
Each margin is from the same weekly ratings the team pages use: SP+ and Elo from their rating gap, the home team given 2.5 points (none at a neutral site); Our model is this site's experimental rating; Market is the margin the market expected before kickoff; ESPN FPI, SRS, Sagarin and Sonny Moore are rating gaps like SP+'s (each with its own home field), The Margin is that site's own model, and Record names the team with the better record (the home team on equal records). How these work ›
Matchup efficiency
Efficiency matchup · season to date · Texas A&M 9 games, Tennessee 9 games
Edge: Tennessee wins 4 of 5
Tennessee moves the ball better, stops plays better, is more disruptive and allows fewer big plays. Texas A&M has the edge on big plays.
-
42% Moves the ballsuccessful plays ✓44%
-
39% Stops playssuccessful plays allowed ✓38%
-
15% Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers ✓22%
-
1.144✓ Big playson offense 1.136
-
1.33 Big plays allowedon defense ✓1.08
Run game, head to head · season to date
Texas A&M's runs work 43% of the time; Tennessee's run defense allows 41%. Tennessee's runs work 48% of the time; Texas A&M's run defense allows 36%.
More numbers
| Measure | Texas A&M | Tennessee | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Off. success rate | 42.4% | 44.4% | Tennessee |
| Off. explosiveness | 1.14 | 1.14 | Texas A&M |
| Def. success rate allowed | 38.9% | 38.5% | Tennessee |
| Def. explosiveness allowed | 1.33 | 1.08 | Tennessee |
| Havoc created | 14.6% | 22.4% | Tennessee |
- Run game, success rate: Texas A&M offense 43.2% · Tennessee defense allows 41.0% · edge: even
- Run game, success rate: Tennessee offense 48.0% · Texas A&M defense allows 35.9% · edge: even
- Run game, PPA per play: Texas A&M offense +0.11 · Tennessee defense allows -0.02 · edge: Tennessee
- Run game, PPA per play: Tennessee offense +0.22 · Texas A&M defense allows -0.07 · edge: even
- Success rate: how often a play does its job, gaining enough yards to keep the offense on schedule.
- Explosiveness: how big a team's successful plays are on average; a higher number means more big gains.
- Havoc: how often the defense blows up a play with a sack, a tackle for loss, a takeaway or a pass broken up.
- PPA (predicted points added): how many points an average play is worth to the offense; above zero is good for the offense, below zero good for the defense.
How to read this
- Each row compares the two teams on one measure of how well they have played this season, offense and defense, using every game so far with garbage time (plays late in a decided game) left out.
- The run game rows pair one team's rushing offense with the other's run defense. The row goes to whichever side is further from the FBS baseline this season, the offense by how far it runs above it, the defense by how much less it allows (baseline: run success rate 42%, PPA per play +0.07, the midpoint of what FBS offenses gain and FBS defenses allow, since both also play FCS teams), so two strong sides or two weak ones are judged by which is the more so. Edges within 3 points of success rate or 0.05 PPA are even. A strong run offense against a weak run defense is where a team can control the game on the ground.
- In the five rows at the top the longer bar is the better number: bars are scaled within each row, and in the two "allowed" rows the lower number gets the longer bar.
- Success rate is the share of plays that kept the offense on schedule (half the yards needed on first down, most of them on second, all of them on third or fourth). Explosiveness is how big the successful plays were, on average, in points. Havoc is the share of the opponent's snaps the defense wrecked: a tackle for loss, a sack, a takeaway or a pass broken up.
- "Allowed" rows are what each defense gave up, so the lower value wins.
- These are not adjusted for who each team has played, so a light schedule flatters a team, and early in the season they rest on very few games.
- Metrics explained: success rate, explosiveness and havoc ›
The prediction
All 10 models favor Tennessee.
SP+ has Tennessee by 9.7, Elo has Tennessee by 4.0, Our model has Tennessee by 1.1, ESPN FPI has Tennessee by 3.0, SRS has Tennessee by 8.0, Sagarin has Tennessee by 1.8, Sonny Moore has Tennessee by 7.2, The Margin has Tennessee by 3.5, and Market has Tennessee by 3.0. They are within 8.6 points of each other.
Last 5 meetings
Tennessee leads 3–2 · last: Tennessee 20–13, 2023
| Season | Result | Site |
|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Tennessee 20–13 | Neyland Stadium |
| 2020 | Texas A&M 34–13 | Neyland Stadium |
| 2016 | Texas A&M 45–38 | Kyle Field |
| 2004 | Tennessee 38–7 | neutral site |
| 1957 | Tennessee 3–0 | neutral site |