The SportsWire

Texas A&M

2026 · week 6 result vs Missouri

Updated Tue Oct 13, 7:56 PM CT

Next up projections

vs The Citadel

Week 7 · Sat Oct 17, 12:00 PM CT / 1:00 PM ET · Kyle Field (College Station) · The Citadel (FCS, Southern)

Our model favors Texas A&M.

No call for this game: The Citadel plays in the FCS, and SP+ and Elo rate FBS teams only.

Game page: vs The Citadel ›

Regression watch: Undersold last game: the play ran 15 points ahead of the 21-point loss. In a 2022–25 study, teams undersold by more than 7 beat their season form by about 1.7 points the next game. More ›

Schedule: Played the 13th-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating +3.6); 34th-toughest remaining (+7.9). More ›

Opponents by our model's rating 6 played · 6 left
  • Week 1 vs Missouri State (-15.9)
  • Week 2 vs Arizona State (+0.7)
  • Week 3 vs Kentucky (+7.0)
  • Week 4 at LSU (+18.5)
  • Week 5 vs Arkansas (-2.4)
  • Week 6 at Missouri (+13.9)
  • Remaining:
  • Week 7 vs The Citadel (-32.8) · FCS, pooled
  • Week 8 at Alabama (+25.5)
  • Week 10 at South Carolina (+8.8)
  • Week 11 vs Tennessee (+13.1)
  • Week 12 at Oklahoma (+14.7)
  • Week 13 vs Texas (+18.1)

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: Texas A&M leads 1–0 · last: Texas A&M 35–3, 2006

Series history 1 meeting since 2006
  • All-time: Texas A&M leads 1–0 (1 meeting since 2006)
  • Last meeting: Texas A&M 35–3, 2006, Kyle Field
  • Streak: none
  • At Kyle Field: Texas A&M leads 1–0 (1 meeting)
  • Biggest margins: Texas A&M 35–3 (2006) · The Citadel has not won
  • Since 2000: Texas A&M leads 1–0 (1 meeting)
SeasonResultSite
2006Texas A&M 35–3Kyle Field
RatingTexas A&MThe Citadel
SP+ +8.0 #46 n/a
Elo 1733 n/a

Projected margin for Texas A&M · three models and the line, side by side

SP+
n/a
rating missing
avg miss 10.6
closest 47/79
Elo
n/a
rating missing
avg miss 12.3
closest 33/79
Line · benchmark
n/a
no pregame line
avg miss 11.1
Our model · experimental
+47.3
Texas A&M +12.0 vs The Citadel -32.8
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 Texas A&M'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 (Texas A&M); 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 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 ›

Injuries AI-assisted 2

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 Texas A&M's game (the SEC, Big Ten and ACC do, for conference games), this section shows that instead, labeled "Official report". More ›

  • Terry Bussey WRinjuryOut
    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: Out for the season after an injury on the opening kickoff versus Kentucky and will travel with the team before later surgery.
    Sources (2): [1] [2] · as of Sat Oct 10, 9:30 AM CT / 10:30 AM ET
  • Tiger Riden Jr. RBinjuryOut
    Noted Wed Oct 7, 6:44 AM CT.
    Elko announced in August that he is out for the year due to injury.
    Sources (2): [1] [2] · as of Wed Oct 7, 6:44 AM CT / 7:44 AM ET

Coverage (AI-assisted) · 58

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 Tue Oct 13, 7:30 PM CT.

8 entries about games now final not shown.

Score and result

Texas A&M 6, Missouri 27L

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

Texas A&M was as high as 60% and lost Texas A&M was as high as 60% and lost Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 100% 50% 0% 6–20
  1. Q2 13:01 · 3rd & 4 · 41% → 22%
    (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 · 34% → 21%
    (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 · 42% → 54%
    PENALTY Mizzou Offside (#10 D.Hopkins) 5 yards from Mizzou14 to Mizzou09. NO PLAY

Away at Memorial Stadium · Sat Oct 10, 11:00 AM CT / 12:00 PM ET · vs Missouri (FBS, SEC)

Opponent for every game-level number: Missouri (FBS, SEC).

Verdict

The scoreboard undersold Texas A&M: the -21 margin ran 15 points behind the -6 implied by per-play quality (PPA (expected points added per play) -0.14 vs -0.02, success rate 27% vs 37%) (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.

Texas A&Mlonger bar = betterMissouri
More numbers

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

MeasureTexas A&MMissouriEdge
PPA / play-0.14-0.02Missouri
Total PPA-7.3-1.3Missouri
Success rate26.9%36.6%Missouri
Explosiveness1.041.15Missouri
Havoc created11.8%18.9%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

Texas A&M 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
Marcel Reed QB 100% -6.1 -0.18

Rushing

PlayerRush usagePPA/play
Jamarion Morrow RB 32% +2.4 +0.39
Marcel Reed QB 21% -0.4 -0.10
KJ Edwards RB 32% -1.1 -0.19
Rueben Owens RB 16% -2.1 -0.69

Receiving

PlayerTarget usagePPA/play
TK Norman WR 6% +2.6 +1.32
Ashton Bethel-Roman WR 9% +2.5 +0.84
Jayden Warren WR 3% +0.2 +0.19
Richie Anderson TE 6% +0.2 +0.11
By play type
MeasureTexas A&MMissouriEdge
Rushing PPA-0.06+0.14Missouri
Rushing success21.1%42.5%Missouri
Passing PPA-0.18-0.05Missouri
Passing success30.3%32.1%Missouri
Standard downs PPA-0.12-0.09Missouri
Standard downs success37.5%40.8%Missouri
Passing downs PPA-0.17+0.13Missouri
Passing downs success10.0%27.3%Missouri

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

◀ Texas A&MMissouri ▶
  • 12Drives12
  • 10Scoring opportunities9
  • 0.6Points per opportunity2.2
  • own 34Avg. starting field positionown 26

Recruiting

MeasureTexas A&MMissouri
2026 class rank1034
2026 class points283.13225.09
Talent composite 933.0
#7 of 138		 808.4
#19 of 138
Transfer portal · 19 in, 21 out

Arrivals (19)

PlayerFrom★Elig.Date
Anto Saka EDGE Northwestern 4 Immediate Jan 7, 2026
Wilkin Formby OT Alabama 4 Immediate Jan 7, 2026
Rickey Gibson III CB Tennessee 4 Immediate Jan 8, 2026
Isaiah Horton WR Alabama 4 Immediate Jan 11, 2026
Houston Thomas TE UTSA 3 Immediate Jan 3, 2026
Ray Coney LB Tulsa 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Tawfiq Byard S Colorado 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Coen Echols IOL LSU 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Richie Anderson TE Fresno State 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
David Olano K Illinois 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026

+9 more not shown (19 total).

Departures (21)

PlayerTo★Elig.Date
Amari Niblack TE undecided 4 Immediate Dec 28, 2025
Theo Melin Ohrstrom TE SMU 4 Immediate Jan 12, 2026
Dealyn Evans DL Mississippi State 4 Immediate Jan 13, 2026
Bryce Anderson S undecided 4 Withdrawn Jan 14, 2026
Izaiah Williams WR Kansas State 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
Cobey Sellers CB Vanderbilt 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Miles O'Neill QB North Carolina 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Rylan Kennedy EDGE Florida State 3 Immediate Jan 7, 2026
Solomon Williams EDGE California 3 Immediate Jan 9, 2026
Jordan Pride S Southern Miss 3 Immediate Jan 10, 2026

+11 more not shown (21 total).

2026 commits · 27
PlayerHometown★Rating
Brandon Arrington CB San Diego, CA 5 0.9948
KJ Edwards RB Carthage, TX 4 0.9783
Bryce Perry-Wright DL Buford, GA 4 0.9705
Aaron Gregory WR Douglasville, GA 4 0.9580
Tristian Givens EDGE Columbus, GA 4 0.9393
Vic Singleton CB Toledo, OH 4 0.9393
Sam Roseborough IOL Clearwater, FL 4 0.9385
Jayden Warren WR Rosharon, TX 4 0.9344
Camren Hamiel S Goodyear, AZ 4 0.9343
Carsyn Baker RB Fairburn, GA 4 0.9211
Madden Williams WR Bellflower, CA 4 0.9211
Tylan Wilson S Pascagoula, MS 4 0.9201
Chance Collins S Arlington, TX 4 0.9151
Helaman Casuga QB Draper, UT 4 0.9071
KK Johnson TE Missouri City, TX 4 0.9056

+12 more not shown (27 total).

Returning production

Share of last season's production returning for Texas A&M in 2026.

Unit% PPAPPAUsage
Overall72.8%266.670.2%
Passing97.2%102.594.2%
Receiving60.5%107.155.0%
Rushing68.1%56.960.4%

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.