CFB 360 is currently a work in progress! Learn more about our unbiased ranking engine & upcoming Player Recruiting Hub

Composite projection engine

Matchup Simulator

Away team (Team A)
ASU logo
Home team (Team B)
TA&M logo
ABC| Sat 1:30 PM MT
ASU logoArizona State
1-1 ยท 72.1 PWR
96%

TA&M win probability

Projected line: TA&M -10.5

TA&M logoTexas A&M
2-0 ยท 89.0 PWR

Positional unit index โ€” 0 to 100 scale

50 = FBS average ยท 72+ = Top 25 level ยท 90+ = elite national top five. Week 3 weighting: 60% preseason roster talent + 40% live 2026 game EPA.

67QB vs QB69

-0.8 TA&M advantage โ€” 2-point index gap over Arizona State (passing EPA per play, completion rate and yards per attempt). TA&M Above average.

65WR Room vs WR Room66

-0.4 TA&M advantage โ€” 1-point index gap over Arizona State (explosive pass rate and yards per target). TA&M Above average.

62RB Room vs RB Room68

-2.5 TA&M advantage โ€” 6-point index gap over Arizona State (yards per carry, line yards and rush EPA). TA&M Above average.

58Run Blocking vs Run Defense73

-6.3 TA&M advantage โ€” 15-point index gap over Arizona State (line yards against stuff rate). TA&M Top 25 level.

59Offensive Line vs Pass Rush70

-4.6 TA&M advantage โ€” 11-point index gap over Arizona State (pass-block win rate against pressure rate). TA&M Above average.

66Pass Game vs Coverage76

-4.2 TA&M advantage โ€” 10-point index gap over Arizona State (passing EPA against coverage efficiency). TA&M Top 25 level.

55Pass Rush vs Offensive Line68

-5.5 TA&M advantage โ€” 13-point index gap over Arizona State (pressure differential in the trenches). TA&M Above average.

59Coverage vs Pass Game66

-2.9 TA&M advantage โ€” 7-point index gap over Arizona State (coverage grade against target efficiency). TA&M Above average.

Projections use opponent-adjusted efficiency, SOS, and unit-level grades derived from live 2026 team data.