The SportsWire

Missouri

2026 · week 6 result vs Texas A&M

Updated Tue Oct 13, 7:55 PM CT

Next up projections

at Ole Miss

Week 7 · Sat Oct 17, 2:30 PM CT / 3:30 PM ET · Vaught-Hemingway Stadium (Oxford) · Ole Miss (FBS, SEC)

Our call: Ole Miss by 2.4Toss-up

All three models favor Ole Miss. The line, shown for comparison only, has Ole Miss by 6.0.

The average of SP+, Elo and Our model; the line is left out and kept as a benchmark. Toss-up under 3 points, Lean 3 to 7, Strong 7 and over. More ›

Big game prediction page: at Ole Miss ›

Regression watch: Flattered last game: the 21-point win ran 15 points ahead of the play. In a 2022–25 study, teams flattered by more than 7 fell about 3 points short of their season form the next game. More ›

Schedule: Played the 26th-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating +0.3); 5th-toughest remaining (+12.4). More ›

Opponents by our model's rating 6 played · 6 left
  • Week 1 vs Arkansas-Pine Bluff (-32.8) · FCS, pooled
  • Week 2 at Kansas (+7.3)
  • Week 3 vs Troy (-7.2)
  • Week 4 at Mississippi State (+10.7)
  • Week 5 vs Florida (+11.8)
  • Week 6 vs Texas A&M (+12.0)
  • Remaining:
  • Week 7 at Ole Miss (+13.6)
  • Week 9 at Arkansas (-2.4)
  • Week 10 vs Texas (+18.1)
  • Week 11 at Georgia (+23.4)
  • Week 12 vs Kentucky (+7.0)
  • Week 13 vs Oklahoma (+14.7)

Each opponent's rating from our model's week 7 snapshot, in points against an average FBS team; the averages are ranked among the 138 FBS teams. Played means through week 6. Experimental, like the Our model card.

Series: Missouri leads 7–1 · last: Missouri 38–27, 2019 · Missouri has won 6 straight

Series history 8 meetings since 1973
  • All-time: Missouri leads 7–1 (8 meetings since 1973)
  • Last meeting: Missouri 38–27, 2019, Memorial Stadium
  • Streak: Missouri has won 6 straight
  • At Vaught-Hemingway Stadium: Missouri leads 2–0 (2 meetings)
  • Biggest margins: Missouri 45–14 (1978) · Ole Miss 10–0 (1974)
  • Since 2000: Missouri leads 4–0 (4 meetings)
SeasonResultSite
2019Missouri 38–27Memorial Stadium
2013Missouri 24–10Vaught-Hemingway Stadium
2007Missouri 38–25Vaught-Hemingway Stadium
2006Missouri 34–7Memorial Stadium
RatingMissouriOle Miss
SP+ +18.0 #13 +15.9 #16
Elo 1814 1868

Projected margin for Missouri · three models and the line, side by side

SP+
-0.4
Missouri +18.0 vs Ole Miss +15.9
avg miss 10.6
closest 47/79
Elo
-4.7
Missouri 1814 vs Ole Miss 1868
avg miss 12.3
closest 33/79
Line · benchmark
-6.0
pregame line
avg miss 11.1
Our model · experimental
-2.2
Missouri +13.9 vs Ole Miss +13.6
prior 50%
avg miss 11.8
closest 14/40
How to read this
  • SP+ is a rating of how good a team is, in points better or worse than an average team, built from its play-by-play, so the gap between two teams' ratings is a projected margin.
  • Elo is a rating that goes up with every win and down with every loss, more for beating a strong team, less for beating a weak one. The gap between two ratings is divided by 25 to turn it into points.
  • The line is the pregame line, the margin the market expected, shown from Missouri's side. It is not one of the models: it is shown for comparison only, as the benchmark the models and Our call are measured against.
  • Our model is this site's own experimental rating, built from each team's play-by-play adjusted for who it has played, blended with a preseason estimate from last season, returning players and recruiting. "prior 67%" means 67 percent of the rating is still that preseason estimate; the share shrinks as games are played.
  • In SP+, Elo and our model the home team gets 2.5 points (Ole Miss); the line already includes the market's own home edge. The conversion to points is approximate.
  • "avg miss 9.8" under a card is how far that model's projections have been from the actual margins this season, on average, in points. "closest 10/39" is how many of the season's 39 finished games that model came closest on (a tie counts for every tied model); the line, a benchmark, shows its average miss only. Shown once a model has 20 finished games.
  • Our call, above the cards, is the site's prediction: the simple average of the SP+, Elo and our model margins. The pregame line is left out of it and kept as a benchmark to measure it against. Toss-up means the average is under 3 points, Lean 3 to 7, Strong 7 or more. It is made only when all three of those models have a number, and it is scored after the game like the models.
  • Each card is one method's estimate, shown side by side; when they disagree, that is worth knowing.
  • After a game, the sentence under the score shows every model and the line against the actual margin: ✓ when a model named the winner, ✗ when it did not (the line, a benchmark, gets no mark), and Closest: the model nearest the final margin among those present, never the line (an exact tie goes to the first listed). The "closest 10/39" counts keep the accuracy report's scoring of SP+ and Elo, where a tie credits both.
  • Metrics explained: the four models and their track record ›

Efficiency matchup · season to date · Missouri 6 games, Ole Miss 5 games

Edge: Missouri wins 3 of 5

Missouri stops plays better, is more disruptive and has the edge on big plays. Ole Miss moves the ball better and allows fewer big plays.

Missourilonger bar = betterOle Miss

Run game, head to head · season to date

Missouri's runs work 39% of the time; Ole Miss's run defense allows 47%. Ole Miss's runs work 52% of the time; Missouri's run defense allows 32%.

More numbers
MeasureMissouriOle MissEdge
Off. success rate42.9%52.3%Ole Miss
Off. explosiveness1.261.16Missouri
Def. success rate allowed32.9%46.7%Missouri
Def. explosiveness allowed1.381.20Ole Miss
Havoc created21.9%16.0%Missouri
  • Run game, success rate: Missouri offense 38.8% · Ole Miss defense allows 46.9% · edge: even
  • Run game, success rate: Ole Miss offense 51.6% · Missouri defense allows 31.8% · edge: even
  • Run game, PPA per play: Missouri offense +0.05 · Ole Miss defense allows +0.17 · edge: Missouri
  • Run game, PPA per play: Ole Miss offense +0.13 · Missouri defense allows -0.12 · edge: Missouri
  • 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 43%, PPA per play +0.08, 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 ›

Injuries AI-assisted 1

Gathered by an AI model from public reporting, not from CollegeFootballData. Not used in any number on this page. Verify against the linked sources.

"AI-assisted" means gathered by an AI model from public reporting. When a conference publishes an official availability list for Missouri's game (the SEC, Big Ten and ACC do, for conference games), this section shows that instead, labeled "Official report". More ›

  • Malae Fonoti RBinjuryOut
    ACL
    Noted Sat Oct 10, 9:30 AM CT.
    SEC availability report (Game Day), posted Sat Oct 10, 9:30 AM CT / 10:30 AM ET, for Texas A&M at Missouri, Sat Oct 10. Reporting: Listed on the injury report after suffering an ACL injury in Week 1 and remains out for Saturday's game.
    Sources (2): [1] [2] · as of Sat Oct 10, 9:30 AM CT / 10:30 AM ET

Coverage (AI-assisted) · 22

Gathered by an AI model from public posts, not from CollegeFootballData. Not used in any number on this page. Verify against the linked sources. Beat coverage checked Mon Oct 12, 7:30 PM CT.

6 entries about games now final not shown.

Score and result

Missouri 27, Texas A&M 6W

Game page: the call before kickoff and how each model did ›

Projected: SP+ n/a · Elo +1.5 ✓ · Our model +4.8 ✓ · the line (benchmark) +1.5 · actual +21 · Closest: Our model

Missouri was as low as 40% and won Missouri was as low as 40% and won Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 100% 50% 0% 20–6
  1. Q2 13:01 · 3rd & 4 · 59% → 78%
    (13:01) #13 A.Simmons pass complete short middle to #19 C.Lee caught at A&M29, for 32 yards to the A&M00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 12:58, 1ST DOWN #19 B.Craig kick attempt good (H: #40 B.Reus, LS: #49 B.Le Blanc)
  2. Q2 10:00 · 1st & 10 · 66% → 79%
    (10:00) No Huddle-Shotgun #20 J.Roberts rush middle for 1 yard loss to the A&M35, End Of Play
  3. Q1 · 1st & 10 · 58% → 46%
    PENALTY Mizzou Offside (#10 D.Hopkins) 5 yards from Mizzou14 to Mizzou09. NO PLAY

Home at Memorial Stadium · Sat Oct 10, 11:00 AM CT / 12:00 PM ET · vs Texas A&M (FBS, SEC)

Opponent for every game-level number: Texas A&M (FBS, SEC).

Verdict

The scoreboard flattered Missouri: the +21 margin ran 15 points ahead of the +6 implied by per-play quality (PPA (expected points added per play) -0.02 vs -0.14, success rate 37% vs 27%) (Texas A&M turned it over twice).

The verdict compares the score with the margin the plays earned. How it is reached ›

Efficiency

Edge: Missouri won 4 of 4

Missouri moved the ball better, got more from each play, hit the bigger plays and was more disruptive.

Missourilonger bar = betterTexas A&M
More numbers

Missouri ran 71 plays, Texas A&M 52. Each number is that team's offense; Texas A&M's column is also what Missouri's defense allowed.

MeasureMissouriTexas A&MEdge
PPA / play-0.02-0.14Missouri
Total PPA-1.3-7.3Missouri
Success rate36.6%26.9%Missouri
Explosiveness1.151.04Missouri
Havoc created18.9%11.8%Missouri
  • Success rate: how often a play did its job, gaining enough yards to keep the offense on schedule.
  • Explosiveness: how big a team's successful plays were on average; a higher number means more big gains.
  • Havoc: how often the defense blew up a play with a sack, a tackle for loss, a takeaway or a pass broken up. Counted from the play-by-play, so it is approximate.
  • PPA (predicted points added): how many points an average play was worth to the offense. Total PPA adds up every play, and is what the Verdict compares with the score.

How to read this

  • The four rows at the top compare the two offenses in this game; the longer bar is the better number, scaled within each row. A number at or below zero draws no bar.
  • A check marks the better side of a row. The line above the rows counts them: it describes how the game was played, not who won it.
  • Metrics explained ›
Top performers

Missouri players by cumulative PPA in this game. Usage is the share of the team's plays of that type involving the player. Receiving is passing-play PPA for non-quarterbacks.

Passing

PlayerPass usagePPA/play
Austin Simmons QB 100% -1.4 -0.05

Rushing

PlayerRush usagePPA/play
Jamal Roberts RB 80% +6.4 +0.20
Austin Simmons QB 8% +1.5 +0.50
DaMarion Fowlkes WR 2% -0.2 -0.25
Xai'Shaun Edwards RB 8% -2.4 -0.80

Receiving

PlayerTarget usagePPA/play
Cayden Lee WR 43% +6.5 +0.54
Kenric Lanier II WR 4% +1.5 +1.50
Brett Norfleet TE 7% +0.7 +0.34
DaMarion Fowlkes WR 4% +0.2 +0.21
By play type
MeasureMissouriTexas A&MEdge
Rushing PPA+0.14-0.06Missouri
Rushing success42.5%21.1%Missouri
Passing PPA-0.05-0.18Missouri
Passing success32.1%30.3%Missouri
Standard downs PPA-0.09-0.12Missouri
Standard downs success40.8%37.5%Missouri
Passing downs PPA+0.13-0.17Missouri
Passing downs success27.3%10.0%Missouri

Havoc detail — Missouri defense: TFL 1, sacks 3, takeaways 2, breakups 4 on 53 snaps. Texas A&M defense: TFL 5, sacks 0, takeaways 1, breakups 2 on 68 snaps.

Drives

A scoring opportunity is a drive that reaches the opponent's 40-yard line or scores; points per opportunity is the points those drives produced divided by their number.

◀ MissouriTexas A&M ▶
  • 12Drives12
  • 9Scoring opportunities10
  • 2.2Points per opportunity0.6
  • own 26Avg. starting field positionown 34

Recruiting

MeasureMissouriTexas A&M
2026 class rank3410
2026 class points225.09283.13
Talent composite 808.4
#19 of 138
933.0
#7 of 138
Transfer portal · 30 in, 27 out

Arrivals (30)

PlayerFrom★Elig.Date
Austin Simmons QB Ole Miss 4 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Elijah Dotson CB Michigan 4 Immediate Jan 14, 2026
Cayden Lee WR Ole Miss 4 Immediate Jan 17, 2026
Kamauryn Morgan EDGE Baylor 4 Immediate Mar 24, 2026
Jahlil Florence CB Oregon 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
Robert Woodyard Jr. LB Auburn 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Caleb Goodie WR Cincinnati 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
JaDon Blair S Notre Dame 3 Immediate Jan 7, 2026
Xai'Shaun Edwards RB Houston Christian 3 Immediate Jan 7, 2026
Kensley Louidor-Faustin S Auburn 3 Immediate Jan 7, 2026

+20 more not shown (30 total).

Departures (27)

PlayerTo★Elig.Date
Marquis Johnson WR Mississippi State 4 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Beau Pribula QB Virginia 4 Immediate Jan 13, 2026
Damon Wilson II EDGE Miami 4 Immediate Jan 22, 2026
Keiton Jones IOL Kansas State 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
Marquise Davis RB Louisville 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
Javion Hilson EDGE Virginia Tech 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
CJ Bass III S undecided 3 Withdrawn Jan 6, 2026
Caleb Flagg S UCF 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Henry Fenuku IOL North Texas 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Joshua Manning WR Kansas State 3 Immediate Jan 7, 2026

+17 more not shown (27 total).

2026 commits · 23
PlayerHometown★Rating
DJ Jones OT Venice, FL 4 0.9352
Jaxson Gates CB La Verne, CA 4 0.9068
Tajh Overton DL Owasso, OK 4 0.9051
JJ Bush LB Theodore, AL 4 0.8978
Jayden McGregory ATH Des Moines, IA 3 0.8900
Braylon Ellison IOL Boonville, MO 3 0.8885
Brysen Wessell OT Jackson, MO 3 0.8878
Jabari Brady WR Pompano Beach, FL 3 0.8867
Gavin Sidwar QB Wyndmoor, PA 3 0.8856
Brandon Anderson IOL Kennesaw, GA 3 0.8847
Keenan Harris S St. Louis, MO 3 0.8844
Khalief Canty Jr. IOL Detroit, MI 3 0.8789
Trashundon Neal CB Liberty, MO 3 0.8778
Brody Jones S Fayetteville, AR 3 0.8733
Devyon Hill-Lomax WR Edwardsville, IL 3 0.8733

+8 more not shown (23 total).

Returning production

Share of last season's production returning for Missouri in 2026.

Unit% PPAPPAUsage
Overall42.0%132.850.2%
Passing-2.3%-1.523.8%
Receiving32.9%43.342.9%
Rushing77.5%91.175.2%

A figure above 100% or below 0% is expected when last season's returning players had negative PPA in that phase, since PPA can be negative.