Week 2 report · Sat, Sep 12 · 2026 Week 2
Arizona State
4–3 · Ours #34 enteringOur rank going into this game, from the rankings page. The board's line comes from the betting model, which sees more than this one number.
20–48FinalWe had ASU 18 – TA&M 37
AP #10Texas A&M
4–4 · Ours #7 enteringOur rank going into this game, from the rankings page. The board's line comes from the betting model, which sees more than this one number.
Win chanceOur odds before kickoff: how often each team won outright when we played the game out thousands of times from our line.TA&M 88%TA&M won
TA&M 88%TA&M wonSpreadOur last pregame odds pull, usually inside the hour before kickoff. A median of the books we track, not a sharp close. First seen at TA&M −14.5.TA&M −14.5oursOur computer's point spread for this game, built from team stats, not from the betting odds. Read it like a betting line: −7 means we have that team winning by 7. −19.8 · TA&M covered by 13.5
TotalOur last pregame odds pull, usually inside the hour before kickoff. A median of the books we track, not a sharp close. Our total was 55.1.51final 68 · over by 17
Our callThe side our number took at the early-week line, graded at that line. Line value is how far the market moved toward it by the last capture before kickoff.TA&M −14.5Wmatched the close
TA&M −14.5Wmatched the closeQuarterbacksthis game
Cutter Boley21/33 · 254 yards
- EPA / dropbackExpected points added per dropback (passes and sacks) in this game. The percentile is among every 2026 FBS quarterback game with 10+ dropbacks.
- −0.2022nd pct
- Comp %
- 63.6
- TD
- 2
- Turnovers
- 11 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 1
Marcel Reed15/25 · 163 yards
- EPA / dropbackExpected points added per dropback (passes and sacks) in this game. The percentile is among every 2026 FBS quarterback game with 10+ dropbacks.
- −0.2517th pct
- Comp %
- 60.0
- TD
- 3
- Turnovers
- 11 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 2
The matchupthis game · ▲▼ better or worse than the unit's usual · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| Arizona Stateoffense | Played like ASU +3.0Fitted from non-garbage efficiency; describes how the game was played, not who deserved it. | defenseTexas A&M | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 34th | 37.5%▼1.3 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 37.5%▲1.6 | 66th |
| 30th | −0.08▼0.04 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | −0.08▲0.04 | 70th |
| 27th | −0.17▼0.19 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | −0.17▲0.27 | 73rd |
| 51st | +0.05▲0.14 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | +0.05▼0.21 | 49th |
| 15th | 2▼1.2 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 2▲1.2 | 85th |
| Texas A&Moffense | defenseArizona State | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 39th | 38.9%▼0.8 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 38.9%▲2.5 | 61st |
| 17th | −0.18▼0.13 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | −0.18▲0.24 | 83rd |
| 21st | −0.25▼0.16 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | −0.25▲0.33 | 79th |
| 28th | −0.12▼0.12 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | −0.12▲0.18 | 72nd |
| 41st | 1▲0.5 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 1▲0.6 | 59th |
Team statsthis game · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| Arizona StateASU | Texas A&MTA&M | |
|---|---|---|
| Special teams & field position | ||
| Average startWhere the team's drives started on average. | Own 2955th | Own 4399th |
| Kicking vs expectedKickingPoints from field goals and extra points against what an average kicker makes from the same spots. | +1.0 pts75th | +0.9 pts74th |
| Drives & pace | ||
| PlaysOffensive plays outside garbage time. | 5643rd | 5438th |
| Drive pointsThe part of the final margin the offense moved the ball for (efficiency, success rate, big plays, finishing drives), in points. A margin over the opponent. | +4.665th | −4.635th |
| Turnovers & hidden points | ||
| Penalty first downsPenalty 1st downsFirst downs the team was handed by the opponent's penalties. | 127th | 251st |
| 4th downsPoints from going for it on fourth down, against what the average team gets from the same spots. | −0.4 pts26th | +0.4 pts75th |
| Return touchdownsReturn TDsDefensive and special-teams touchdowns. | 043rd | 2100th |
| Hidden pointsPoints from outside the offense's drives: turnovers, field position, kicking, fourth downs, penalty first downs, return touchdowns and safeties. A margin over the opponent. TA&M +20.1: turnovers +5.2, field position +4.7, kicking −0.1, 4th downs +1.1, penalty first downs +0.8, return touchdowns +8.3. | −20.11st | +20.1100th |
Season so far
Arizona State4–3 · 32nd-hardest schedule
Wvs Morgan State70–7covered −43.5
Lat Texas A&M20–48missed +14.5
at Texas A&M20–48missed +14.5W
at Kansas24–17covered −5.5
at Kansas24–17covered −5.5L
vs Baylor19–55missed −3.5
vs Baylor19–55missed −3.5W
vs Hawai'i30–12missed −21
vs Hawai'i30–12missed −21L
at Texas Tech25–53missed +16.5QB change mid-game
at Texas Tech25–53missed +16.5QB change mid-gameW
vs Kansas State28–17covered +1
vs Kansas State28–17covered +1Texas A&M4–4 · 14th-hardest schedule
W
vs Missouri State50–0covered −40.5
vs Missouri State50–0covered −40.5Wvs Arizona State48–20covered −14.5
vs Arizona State48–20covered −14.5L
vs Kentucky21–31missed −16.5
vs Kentucky21–31missed −16.5L
at LSU6–35missed +8.5
at LSU6–35missed +8.5W
vs Arkansas34–7covered −13.5
vs Arkansas34–7covered −13.5L
at Missouri6–27missed +3.5
at Missouri6–27missed +3.5Wvs The Citadel41–0missed −45.5
L
at Alabama20–31covered +13.5
at Alabama20–31covered +13.5Model cfb_best · uncertainty ±15.5 · run Sep 12, 10:05 AM EDT · froze at kickoff and graded as-is