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)
UK logo
Home team (Team B)
TA&M logo
ABC| Sat 1:30 PM MT
UK logoKentucky
1-1 ยท 73.1 PWR
96%

TA&M win probability

Projected line: TA&M -9.9

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.

66QB vs QB69

-1.3 TA&M advantage โ€” 3-point index gap over Kentucky (passing EPA per play, completion rate and yards per attempt). TA&M Above average.

63WR Room vs WR Room66

-1.3 TA&M advantage โ€” 3-point index gap over Kentucky (explosive pass rate and yards per target). TA&M Above average.

64RB Room vs RB Room68

-1.7 TA&M advantage โ€” 4-point index gap over Kentucky (yards per carry, line yards and rush EPA). TA&M Above average.

64Run Blocking vs Run Defense73

-3.8 TA&M advantage โ€” 9-point index gap over Kentucky (line yards against stuff rate). TA&M Top 25 level.

65Offensive Line vs Pass Rush70

-2.1 TA&M advantage โ€” 5-point index gap over Kentucky (pass-block win rate against pressure rate). TA&M Above average.

64Pass Game vs Coverage76

-5.0 TA&M advantage โ€” 12-point index gap over Kentucky (passing EPA against coverage efficiency). TA&M Top 25 level.

56Pass Rush vs Offensive Line68

-5.0 TA&M advantage โ€” 12-point index gap over Kentucky (pressure differential in the trenches). TA&M Above average.

57Coverage vs Pass Game66

-3.8 TA&M advantage โ€” 9-point index gap over Kentucky (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.