Week 1 · Final
0 – 50
Vegas Line
Texas A&M -38.5
Total 53.5
Model Projection
TA&M -35.0
TA&M 99.5% win · O/U 53.5
Value Edge
3.5 pt edge: MOST
Total delta 0.0
Model Rationale
Shifted by +12.3 pts toward TA&M on the 2026 2-game sample vs. the historical baseline.
- Phase
- Sample phase
- 2026 sample
- 2 games · 50%
- Historical baseline
- 50%
- Baseline margin
- TA&M -8.7
- TA&M: 8 portal additions / 3 departures — 2021–2025 archive weighted 65%, incoming portal talent +4.3 pts.
- MOST: 0 portal additions / 0 departures, first year under Casey Woods — 2021–2025 archive weighted 70%, incoming portal talent 0.0 pts.
Missouri State — Keys to Victory
1Establish the run
Texas A&M ranks #12 nationally allowing 37.0 rush yards per game — softer than their #3 pass defense.
2Contain Rueben Owens
Texas A&M's top producer this season: 77 rushing yards (RB). Their production line is the first thing Missouri State has to take away.
3Stay ahead on third down
Missouri State converts 10.0% of third downs (#132 nationally) versus Texas A&M's 50.0%. Sustaining drives is the cleanest edge on the board.
4Fix the turnover margin
Missouri State is -2 in turnover margin (1 forced, 3 lost) across 1 recorded games; Texas A&M sits at +2.
5Clear 27 points
The market total for this game is 53.5. Anything above 27 points puts Missouri State on the winning side of an even split.
Texas A&M — Keys to Victory
1Establish the run
Missouri State ranks #122 nationally allowing 236.0 rush yards per game — softer than their #110 pass defense.
2Stay ahead on third down
Texas A&M converts 50.0% of third downs (#52 nationally) versus Missouri State's 10.0%. Sustaining drives is the cleanest edge on the board.
3Protect the turnover edge
Texas A&M is +2 in turnover margin (3 forced, 1 lost) across 1 recorded games; Missouri State sits at -2.
4Clear 27 points
The market total for this game is 53.5. Anything above 27 points puts Texas A&M on the winning side of an even split.
Key Position Matchups
Quarterbacks
Marcel ReedTA&M · QB
- Passing Yds
- 233
- Completion %
- 70.0%
- Yards / Attempt
- 7.8
- TD : INT
- 2 : 0
- TD/INT Ratio
- No INTs
- Passer Rating
- 157.2
Leading Rusher
Rueben OwensTA&M · RB
- Rushing Yds
- 77
- Carries
- 17
- Yards / Carry
- 4.5
- Rushing TD
- 0
- Long
- 15
Primary Receiver
Isaiah HortonTA&M · WR
- Receiving Yds
- 76
- Receptions
- 4
- Yards / Catch
- 19.0
- Receiving TD
- 1
- Long
- 36
Defensive Leader
Noah MikhailTA&M · LB
- Tackles
- 7
- Solo
- 2
- Sacks
- 0.0
- TFL
- 0.0
- INT
- 0
Matchup Simulator
Starts from the CFB 360 projection for this exact game. Turnover swings are valued at 4.2 points each; pace scales the projected total against a 140-play baseline.
Simulated Winner
TA&M by 35.0
Baseline TA&M -35.0
Simulated Total
53.5
Baseline 53.5
Unit Edge
TA&M QB
TA&M Above average · MOST Below average
MOST passing vs TA&M coverage
| 30.0 | Passing YPG vs Pass yards allowed / G | 30.0 |
| 47.1% | Completion % vs Yards / Target allowed | 1.8 |
| 1.8 | Yards / Attempt vs Completion % allowed | 47.1% |
| 0.00:1 | TD / INT ratio vs Sack / pressure rate | 5.9% |
| -0.197 | EPA / Pass vs Defensive EPA / Pass | -0.197 |
MOST rushing vs TA&M run defense
| 37.0 | Rushing YPG vs Rush yards allowed / G | 37.0 |
| 1.6 | Yards / Carry vs Yards / Carry allowed | 1.6 |
| 1.9 | Line yards (post-contact proxy) vs Stuff rate | 25.0% |
| 25.0% | Stuffed-run rate vs Tackles for loss | 6 |
| -0.375 | EPA / Rush vs Defensive EPA / Rush | -0.375 |
TA&M passing vs MOST coverage
| 269.0 | Pass yards allowed / G vs Passing YPG | 269.0 |
| 7.1 | Yards / Target allowed vs Completion % | 65.8% |
| 65.8% | Completion % allowed vs Yards / Attempt | 7.1 |
| 5.3% | Sack / pressure rate vs TD / INT ratio | 3.00:1 |
| 0.450 | Defensive EPA / Pass vs EPA / Pass | 0.450 |
Efficiency & situational
| 10.0% | Third-down conversion | 50.0% |
| 67.0 | Total yards / game | 505.0 |
| 505.0 | Yards allowed / game | 67.0 |
| -2 | Turnover margin | +2 |
Red-zone efficiency is not published in the official feed yet, so it is left out rather than estimated.