Week 5 report · Sat, Oct 3 · 2026 Week 5
Arkansas
3–4 · Ours #79 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.
7–34FinalWe had ARK 20 – TA&M 35
Texas A&M
4–4 · Ours #29 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 82%TA&M won
TA&M 82%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 −13.5oursOur 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. −15.2 · 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 55.8.50.5final 41 · under by 9.5
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 −14Wlost 0.5 to the close
TA&M −14Wlost 0.5 to the closeQuarterbacksthis game
KJ Jackson13/25 · 111 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.
- −0.2121st pct
- Comp %
- 52.0
- TD
- 1
- Turnovers
- 11 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 1
Marcel Reed13/19 · 170 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.
- +0.0241st pct
- Comp %
- 68.4
- TD
- 0
- Turnovers
- 00 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 0
The matchupthis game · ▲▼ better or worse than the unit's usual · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| Arkansasoffense | Played like TA&M +19.8Fitted from non-garbage efficiency; describes how the game was played, not who deserved it. | defenseTexas A&M | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 42nd | 40.0%▲0.7 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 40.0%▼1.3 | 58th |
| 22nd | −0.14▼0.08 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | −0.14▲0.12 | 78th |
| 23rd | −0.21▼0.17 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | −0.21▲0.32 | 77th |
| 38th | −0.04▲0.05 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | −0.04▼0.11 | 62nd |
| 41st | 1▼0.2 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 1 | 59th |
| Texas A&Moffense | defenseArkansas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 68th | 47.1%▲8.8 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 47.1%▼0.1 | 32nd |
| 77th | +0.26▲0.38 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | +0.26▼0.10 | 23rd |
| 65th | +0.22▲0.39 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | +0.22▼0.17 | 35th |
| 82nd | +0.28▲0.34 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | +0.28▼0.05 | 18th |
| 79th | 0▲1.7 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 0▼1.2 | 21st |
Team statsthis game · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| ArkansasARK | Texas A&MTA&M | |
|---|---|---|
| Special teams & field position | ||
| Average startWhere the team's drives started on average. | Own 215th | Own 3379th |
| Kicking vs expectedKickingPoints from field goals and extra points against what an average kicker makes from the same spots. | −1.4 pts18th | +2.9 pts99th |
| Drives & pace | ||
| PlaysOffensive plays outside garbage time. | 3511th | 5133rd |
| 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. | −17.811th | +17.889th |
| Turnovers & hidden points | ||
| Penalty first downsPenalty 1st downsFirst downs the team was handed by the opponent's penalties. | 372nd | 372nd |
| 4th downsPoints from going for it on fourth down, against what the average team gets from the same spots. | −1.0 pts7th | −0.4 pts26th |
| 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 +10.6: turnovers +2.6, field position +4.2, kicking +3.0, 4th downs +0.8. | −10.69th | +10.691st |
Season so far
Arkansas3–4 · 5th-hardest schedule
Wvs North Alabama31–14missed −40.5
L
at Utah10–43missed +13.5
at Utah10–43missed +13.5L
vs Georgia17–45missed +24.5
vs Georgia17–45missed +24.5W
vs Tulsa34–6covered −7
vs Tulsa34–6covered −7Lat Texas A&M7–34missed +13.5
at Texas A&M7–34missed +13.5L
vs Tennessee17–24covered +13.5
vs Tennessee17–24covered +13.5W
at Vanderbilt31–21covered +5.5
at Vanderbilt31–21covered +5.5Texas A&M4–4 · 14th-hardest schedule
W
vs Missouri State50–0covered −40.5
vs Missouri State50–0covered −40.5W
vs 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 +8.5Wvs 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_scratch · uncertainty ±15.5 · run Oct 3, 7:15 AM EDT · froze at kickoff and graded as-is