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)
MOST logo
Home team (Team B)
TA&M logo
ABC| Sat 1:30 PM MT

Color clash detected โ€” Missouri State is shown in their alternate road accent for contrast.

MOST logoMissouri State
1-1 ยท 45.0 PWR
96%

TA&M win probability

Projected line: TA&M -27.3

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.

27QB vs QB69

-17.6 TA&M advantage โ€” 42-point index gap over Missouri State (passing EPA per play, completion rate and yards per attempt). TA&M Above average.

27WR Room vs WR Room66

-16.4 TA&M advantage โ€” 39-point index gap over Missouri State (explosive pass rate and yards per target). TA&M Above average.

29RB Room vs RB Room68

-16.4 TA&M advantage โ€” 39-point index gap over Missouri State (yards per carry, line yards and rush EPA). TA&M Above average.

31Run Blocking vs Run Defense73

-17.6 TA&M advantage โ€” 42-point index gap over Missouri State (line yards against stuff rate). TA&M Top 25 level.

35Offensive Line vs Pass Rush70

-14.7 TA&M advantage โ€” 35-point index gap over Missouri State (pass-block win rate against pressure rate). TA&M Above average.

27Pass Game vs Coverage76

-20.6 TA&M advantage โ€” 49-point index gap over Missouri State (passing EPA against coverage efficiency). TA&M Top 25 level.

36Pass Rush vs Offensive Line68

-13.4 TA&M advantage โ€” 32-point index gap over Missouri State (pressure differential in the trenches). TA&M Above average.

36Coverage vs Pass Game66

-12.6 TA&M advantage โ€” 30-point index gap over Missouri 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.