Stanford Cardinal at Texas A&M Aggies: Model Line and Edge

Wed, Dec 2, 9:15 PM ETReed Arena · at Texas A&M

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Stanford and Texas A&M
STAN	This season	TA&M
0-0	Record	0-0
0-0	ATS	0-0
0-0	O/U	0-0

ATS = covered-didn’t-push · O/U = overs-unders

Model: projects TA&M 84–74 · win probability TA&M 79%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 157.9

Model edge

—

No market line yet

Public

—

No split yet for this game

The model has not beaten the closing line: with an edge of 3 or more it went 409-367 in 2025-26. Model record

What could decide it: TA&M has more of the edges

STAN 1, TA&M 5 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

Context

Tempo

About 71 possessions: STAN plays 68.1 a game (225th fastest), TA&M 73.5 (15th). Faster games mean more points

STANSmall

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: STAN 32.5%, TA&M 32.0%. Defensive: STAN 70.2%, TA&M 67.0%

TA&MSmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: STAN 35.5, TA&M 37.1. Allowed: STAN 40.3, TA&M 35.4

TA&MSmall

Shooting

Effective FG%: STAN 51.5 and allows 51.0; TA&M 53.8 and allows 50.7

TA&MSmall

TA&M offense vs STAN defense

Offense 20th of 366 against a defense 79th, on the model’s ratings

TA&MSmall

Three-pointers

STAN hits 35.2% and allows 33.0%; TA&M hits 35.9% and allows 31.8%. Threes are 44.0% and 46.2% of their shots

TA&MSmall

Home court

TA&M at home. This season: TA&M 0-0 at home, STAN 0-0 away

Even

Turnovers

Turnover rate: STAN 15.5%, TA&M 14.7%. Forced: STAN 18.0%, TA&M 18.4%

Even

STAN offense vs TA&M defense

Offense 88th of 366 against a defense 62nd, on the model’s ratings

Context

Schedule so far

STAN has played the 76th-hardest schedule, TA&M the 57th. A record against a soft schedule means less

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: STAN 27%, TA&M 25%. Transfers in: STAN 3, TA&M 7. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Sorted by how lopsided each matchup is, from national ranks. Reasons to look, not picks: the market already knows most of this.

Model vs market

	Market	Model	Model edge
Spread	—	TA&M -9.4	—
Total	—	157.9	—
Projected score	—	STAN 74.3 · TA&M 83.6

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	TA&M -5.5	—
1H total	73.8	—
1H projected score	STAN 34.2 · TA&M 39.6	—

The 1st-half model is fitted from the full-game model and past halves. ESPN has no 1st-half lines for college games, so there is no market to compare it with.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

ATS

2025-26 season

	Season	Cover	Venue	Role
STAN WWWLL	17-16	52%	5-5	—
TA&M WWLWL	19-15	56%	9-9	—

Venue/role: STAN away; TA&M home. Squares: last 5 games ATS (W covered, L didn’t), oldest first.

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
STAN OOOUO	15-18	45%	20-13
TA&M OOUUO	19-15	56%	22-12

Squares: last 5 games (O over, U under), oldest first. Tap for the score and line.

Last 10 games

2025-26

	Straight up	Spread	Over / under
STAN	6-4 60%	5-5 50%	6-4 60%
TA&M	5-5 50%	4-6 40%	4-6 40%

Wins-losses (pushes last). Spread and over / under skip games without a line.

Next 3 games

With how the last meeting with each opponent went

Stanford

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 6	vs PAC	W88–78LO
Dec 14	vs UNCO	No recent meeting

Texas A&M

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 6	vs UAPB	No recent meeting
Dec 12	vs FSU	W95–59WU

Last meeting: result, against the spread, over / under. Hover a result for its date.

ATS History · 2025-26

WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total

Stanford

33 games played

Straight up

20-13

61% wins

Against the spread

17-16

52% covers · avg +0.2 pts vs the line

Over / Under

15-18

45% overs · avg +0.8 pts vs the total

Straight up

20-1361%

W W W W L W W W L W W W W L W W L W L L L L L W W L L W W W W L L

2 straight losses2 of last 4 won

Against the spread

17-1652%

L W L W L W W W L L W W L L W W L W L L W L W W W L L L W W W L L

2 straight misses ATS2 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

15-1845%

O O U O U U U O U O U U O U U U U O U U O O U O U U U O O O O U O

3 of last 4 overno streak

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

Lines, results and totalsCover margin by game · points beyond the lineTotal margin by game · points over or under the total

Date	Opp	Result	Line	ATS	Total	O/U
Nov 4	vsPRST	W 89-79	-11.5	L −1.5	144.5	O 168
Nov 8	vsMONT	W 91-68	-12.5	W +10.5	150.5	O 159
Nov 12	vsMTST	W 77-68	-14.5	L −5.5	148.5	U 145
Nov 18	vsUL	W 93-66	-20.5	W +6.5	139.5	O 159
Nov 21	vsSEA	L 69-77	-10.5	L −18.5	152.5	U 146
Nov 27	vsMINN	W 72-68	-2.5	W +1.5	142.5	U 140
Nov 28	vsSLU	W 78-77	+1.5	W +2.5	160.5	U 155
Dec 1	vsPORT	W 94-72	-19.5	W +2.5	156.5	O 166
Dec 7	vsUNLV	L 74-75	-9.5	L −10.5	164.5	U 149
Dec 13	@SJSU	W 86-82	-8.5	L −4.5	145.5	O 168
Dec 17	vsUTA	W 76-60	-10.5	W +5.5	139.5	U 136
Dec 20	vsCOLO	W 77-68	+2.5	W +11.5	154.5	U 145
Dec 27	vsCSUN	W 88-80	-15.5	L −7.5	160.5	O 168
Dec 30	vsND	L 40-47	-6.5	L −13.5	143.5	U 87
Jan 2	vsLOU	W 80-76	+7.5	W +11.5	157.5	U 156
Jan 7	@VT	W 69-68	+3.5	W +4.5	148.5	U 137
Jan 10	@UVA	L 55-70	+12.5	L −2.5	143.5	U 125
Jan 14	vsUNC	W 95-90	+4.5	W +9.5	147.5	O 185
Jan 17	vsDUKE	L 50-80	+11.5	L −18.5	148.5	U 130
Jan 24	vsCAL	L 66-78	-4.5	L −16.5	146.5	U 144
Jan 28	@MIA	L 70-79	+9.5	W +0.5	147.5	O 149
Jan 31	@FSU	L 80-88	+3.5	L −4.5	152.5	O 168
Feb 4	vsCLEM	L 64-66	+3.5	W +1.5	138.5	U 130
Feb 7	vsGT	W 95-72	-9.5	W +13.5	151.5	O 167
Feb 11	@BC	W 70-64	-3.5	W +2.5	139.5	U 134
Feb 14	@WAKE	L 63-68	+4.5	L −0.5	150.5	U 131
Feb 21	@CAL	L 66-72	+1.5	L −4.5	149.5	U 138
Feb 25	vsPITT	W 75-67	-8.5	L −0.5	138.5	O 142
Feb 28	vsSMU	W 95-75	+1.5	W +21.5	155.5	O 170
Mar 4	@ND	W 86-78	-1.5	W +6.5	147.5	O 164
Mar 7	@NCSU	W 85-84	+9.5	W +10.5	152.5	O 169
Mar 10	vsPITT	L 63-64	-4.5	L −5.5	136.5	U 127
Apr 2	vsWVU	L 77-82	+2.5	L −2.5	135.5	O 159

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

PRST

W 89-79

−1.5

MONT

W 91-68

+10.5

MTST

W 77-68

−5.5

W 93-66

+6.5

SEA

L 69-77

−18.5

MINN

W 72-68

+1.5

SLU

W 78-77

+2.5

PORT

W 94-72

+2.5

UNLV

L 74-75

−10.5

SJSU

W 86-82

−4.5

UTA

W 76-60

+5.5

COLO

W 77-68

+11.5

CSUN

W 88-80

−7.5

L 40-47

−13.5

LOU

W 80-76

+11.5

W 69-68

+4.5

UVA

L 55-70

−2.5

UNC

W 95-90

+9.5

DUKE

L 50-80

−18.5

CAL

L 66-78

−16.5

MIA

L 70-79

+0.5

FSU

L 80-88

−4.5

CLEM

L 64-66

+1.5

W 95-72

+13.5

W 70-64

+2.5

WAKE

L 63-68

−0.5

CAL

L 66-72

−4.5

PITT

W 75-67

−0.5

SMU

W 95-75

+21.5

W 86-78

+6.5

NCSU

W 85-84

+10.5

PITT

L 63-64

−5.5

WVU

L 77-82

−2.5

covered 17didn’t cover 16avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

PRST

W 89-79

+23.5

MONT

W 91-68

+8.5

MTST

W 77-68

−3.5

W 93-66

+19.5

SEA

L 69-77

−6.5

MINN

W 72-68

−2.5

SLU

W 78-77

−5.5

PORT

W 94-72

+9.5

UNLV

L 74-75

−15.5

SJSU

W 86-82

+22.5

UTA

W 76-60

−3.5

COLO

W 77-68

−9.5

CSUN

W 88-80

+7.5

L 40-47

−56.5

LOU

W 80-76

−1.5

W 69-68

−11.5

UVA

L 55-70

−18.5

UNC

W 95-90

+37.5

DUKE

L 50-80

−18.5

CAL

L 66-78

−2.5

MIA

L 70-79

+1.5

FSU

L 80-88

+15.5

CLEM

L 64-66

−8.5

W 95-72

+15.5

W 70-64

−5.5

WAKE

L 63-68

−19.5

CAL

L 66-72

−11.5

PITT

W 75-67

+3.5

SMU

W 95-75

+14.5

W 86-78

+16.5

NCSU

W 85-84

+16.5

PITT

L 63-64

−9.5

WVU

L 77-82

+23.5

over 15under 18avg +0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin

Texas A&M

34 games played

Straight up

22-12

65% wins

Against the spread

19-15

56% covers · avg +0.6 pts vs the line

Over / Under

19-15

56% overs · avg +1.7 pts vs the total

Straight up

22-1265%

W W L L W W W W W L W W W W W W L W W W W L L L L W W L L W W L W L

2 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

19-1556%

W W L L L W L W W L W W L L W W W W W W W W L L L L W L L W W L W L

2 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

19-1556%

O O U U O O O U O O O O O U O U O U U O U O U O U U U O U O O U U O

2 of last 4 overno streak

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

Lines, results and totalsCover margin by game · points beyond the lineTotal margin by game · points over or under the total

Date	Opp	Result	Line	ATS	Total	O/U
Nov 3	vsNWST	W 98-68	-21.5	W +8.5	153.5	O 166
Nov 6	vsTXSO	W 104-70	-29.5	W +4.5	161.5	O 174
Nov 9	@OKST	L 63-87	-2.5	L −26.5	174.5	U 150
Nov 14	vsUCF	L 74-86	-10.5	L −22.5	172.5	U 160
Nov 18	vsMONT	W 86-81	-17.5	L −12.5	164.5	O 167
Nov 21	vsMAN	W 109-68	-23.5	W +17.5	162.5	O 177
Nov 25	vsMVSU	W 120-84	-42.5	L −6.5	154.5	O 204
Nov 28	vsFSU	W 95-59	+1.5	W +37.5	174.5	U 154
Dec 2	@PITT	W 81-73	-3.5	W +4.5	152.5	O 154
Dec 7	vsSMU	L 80-93	-1.5	L −14.5	164.5	O 173
Dec 14	vsJAX	W 112-75	-26.5	W +10.5	147.5	O 187
Dec 21	vsETAM	W 118-77	-28.5	W +12.5	166.5	O 195
Dec 29	vsPV	W 111-82	-29.5	L −0.5	177.5	O 193
Jan 3	vsLSU	W 75-72	-5.5	L −2.5	168.5	U 147
Jan 6	@AUB	W 90-88	+6.5	W +8.5	168.5	O 178
Jan 10	vsOU	W 83-76	-4.5	W +2.5	165.5	U 159
Jan 13	@TENN	L 82-87	+11.5	W +6.5	159.5	O 169
Jan 17	@TEX	W 74-70	+4.5	W +8.5	166.5	U 144
Jan 21	vsMSST	W 88-68	-8.5	W +11.5	163.5	U 156
Jan 24	vsSC	W 92-69	-10.5	W +12.5	155.5	O 161
Jan 31	@UGA	W 92-77	+4.5	W +19.5	173.5	U 169
Feb 4	@ALA	L 97-100	+8.5	W +5.5	180.5	O 197
Feb 7	vsFLA	L 67-86	+5.5	L −13.5	167.5	U 153
Feb 11	vsMIZ	L 85-86	-7.5	L −8.5	160.5	O 171
Feb 14	@VAN	L 69-82	+7.5	L −5.5	165.5	U 151
Feb 18	vsMISS	W 80-77	-9.5	L −6.5	157.5	U 157
Feb 21	@OU	W 75-71	-1.5	W +2.5	165.5	U 146
Feb 25	@ARK	L 84-99	+7.5	L −7.5	170.5	O 183
Feb 28	vsTEX	L 70-76	-2.5	L −8.5	159.5	U 146
Mar 3	vsUK	W 96-85	-1.5	W +9.5	162.5	O 181
Mar 7	@LSU	W 94-91	-2.5	W +0.5	161.5	O 185
Mar 12	vsOU	L 63-83	-2.5	L −22.5	162.5	U 146
Mar 19	vsSMC	W 63-50	+2.5	W +15.5	149.5	U 113
Mar 21	vsHOU	L 57-88	+10.5	L −20.5	142.5	O 145

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

NWST

W 98-68

+8.5

TXSO

W 104-70

+4.5

OKST

L 63-87

−26.5

UCF

L 74-86

−22.5

MONT

W 86-81

−12.5

MAN

W 109-68

+17.5

MVSU

W 120-84

−6.5

FSU

W 95-59

+37.5

PITT

W 81-73

+4.5

SMU

L 80-93

−14.5

JAX

W 112-75

+10.5

ETAM

W 118-77

+12.5

W 111-82

−0.5

LSU

W 75-72

−2.5

AUB

W 90-88

+8.5

W 83-76

+2.5

TENN

L 82-87

+6.5

TEX

W 74-70

+8.5

MSST

W 88-68

+11.5

W 92-69

+12.5

UGA

W 92-77

+19.5

ALA

L 97-100

+5.5

FLA

L 67-86

−13.5

MIZ

L 85-86

−8.5

VAN

L 69-82

−5.5

MISS

W 80-77

−6.5

W 75-71

+2.5

ARK

L 84-99

−7.5

TEX

L 70-76

−8.5

W 96-85

+9.5

LSU

W 94-91

+0.5

L 63-83

−22.5

SMC

W 63-50

+15.5

HOU

L 57-88

−20.5

covered 19didn’t cover 15avg +0.6 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

NWST

W 98-68

+12.5

TXSO

W 104-70

+12.5

OKST

L 63-87

−24.5

UCF

L 74-86

−12.5

MONT

W 86-81

+2.5

MAN

W 109-68

+14.5

MVSU

W 120-84

+49.5

FSU

W 95-59

−20.5

PITT

W 81-73

+1.5

SMU

L 80-93

+8.5

JAX

W 112-75

+39.5

ETAM

W 118-77

+28.5

W 111-82

+15.5

LSU

W 75-72

−21.5

AUB

W 90-88

+9.5

W 83-76

−6.5

TENN

L 82-87

+9.5

TEX

W 74-70

−22.5

MSST

W 88-68

−7.5

W 92-69

+5.5

UGA

W 92-77

−4.5

ALA

L 97-100

+16.5

FLA

L 67-86

−14.5

MIZ

L 85-86

+10.5

VAN

L 69-82

−14.5

MISS

W 80-77

−0.5

W 75-71

−19.5

ARK

L 84-99

+12.5

TEX

L 70-76

−13.5

W 96-85

+18.5

LSU

W 94-91

+23.5

L 63-83

−16.5

SMC

W 63-50

−36.5

HOU

L 57-88

+2.5

over 19under 15avg +1.7 ptslonger = bigger margin

Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.

The starting fives are even

Position by position: Stanford 1, Texas A&M 1, even 3

StanfordBetterTexas A&M

G C. Bliss TR16.8 pts · 5.1 reb · 5.9 ast Score 84

Even

G P. Haggerty TR23.4 pts · 5.3 reb · 3.8 ast Score 98

F N. Townsend TR16.6 pts · 7.3 reb · 4.4 ast Score 93

STANSmall

G J. Pope TR13.1 pts · 2.1 reb · 1.7 ast Score 78

F A. Cammann6.5 pts · 3.8 reb · 1.4 ast Score 56

TA&MBig

G T. Archie TR14.2 pts · 1.9 reb · 2.8 ast Score 91

F D. Young2.5 pts · 2.7 reb · 0.7 ast Score 26

Even

G L. Walls TR7.9 pts · 2.3 reb · 1 ast Score 37

C A. Maurer TR7.2 pts · 4.7 reb · 0.5 ast Score 70

Even

F J. Shelley TR13.9 pts · 6.6 reb · 2.6 ast Score 76

StanfordBetterTexas A&M

STAN offense88th of 366 · +0.2

Even

TA&M defense62nd of 366 · +1.2

STAN defense79th of 366 · +0.4

TA&MSmall

TA&M offense20th of 366 · +7.7

Backcourt+2.6 · 1 player

TA&MBig

Backcourt+8.6 · 4 players

Frontcourt+4.6 · 4 players

STANSmall

Frontcourt+1.7 · 1 player

Bench-0.1 · 4 players

TA&MSmall

Bench+2.5 · 5 players

Score, worst to bestSTAN betterTA&M betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers

Projected starters: college teams publish no depth chart, so these come from minutes played, and a freshman or a new starter can change them. The score is the share of ranked players at the position that player is ahead of. Numbers are this season's once a player has 30 minutes, 2025-26's before that. Bench is the next five by minutes. Tap a player for the full numbers.

Depth chart

Projected rotation by position, starters outlined

Stanford

Guards

C. Bliss40 min · TRE. Kitch1 minA. BatsonNewM. JonesNewJ. PriceNewI. RogersNew

Forwards

N. Townsend34 min · TRA. Cammann22 minD. Young15 minK. Skrinda6 minE. Stinson5 minT. Toure4 min

Centers

A. Maurer18 min · TR

Texas A&M

Guards

P. Haggerty35 min · TRJ. Pope29 min · TRT. Archie26 min · TRL. Walls24 min · TRJ. Reece24 min · TRJ. Green5 min

Forwards

J. Shelley32 min · TRM. Mgbako19 minZ. Clemence17 minC. Phillips17 min · TRJ. Vinson7 minC. McDermott4 min

In order of minutes, from rosters as of today. ESPN lists players only as guards, forwards or centers, and no injury report exists for college basketball, so a player who is out may still show here.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

Matchup stats

2025-26 · rank among 365 teams

ChartTable

Scoring

Points per game

STAN76.0 #142

TA&M86.1 #12

Points per possession

STAN1.12 #108

TA&M1.17 #43

Pace (possessions)

STAN68.1 #225

TA&M73.5 #15

Shooting

Effective FG%

STAN51.5 #173

TA&M53.8 #71

3-point %

STAN35.2 #103

TA&M35.9 #63

3-point attempt rate

STAN44.0 #89

TA&M46.2 #42

Free throw rate

STAN35.5 #165

TA&M37.1 #128

Possessions

Turnover rate

STAN15.5 #105

TA&M14.7 #48

Offensive rebound rate

STAN32.5 #109

TA&M32.0 #122

Assists per game

STAN11.8 #299

TA&M17.8 #11

Defense

Points allowed

STAN73.0 #132

TA&M78.9 #296

Points allowed per possession

STAN1.07 #136

TA&M1.08 #151

Opponent effective FG%

STAN51.0 #158

TA&M50.7 #141

Opponent 3-point %

STAN33.0 #118

TA&M31.8 #53

Turnovers forced

STAN18.0 #99

TA&M18.4 #81

Defensive rebound rate

STAN70.2 #149

TA&M67.0 #300

Steals per game

STAN7.8 #53

TA&M8.1 #34

Blocks per game

STAN3.9 #93

TA&M3.1 #210

STAN		TA&M
Scoring
76.0 #142	Points per game	86.1 #12
1.12 #108	Points per possession	1.17 #43
68.1 #225	Pace (possessions)	73.5 #15
Shooting
51.5 #173	Effective FG%	53.8 #71
35.2 #103	3-point %	35.9 #63
44.0 #89	3-point attempt rate	46.2 #42
35.5 #165	Free throw rate	37.1 #128
Possessions
15.5 #105	Turnover rate	14.7 #48
32.5 #109	Offensive rebound rate	32.0 #122
11.8 #299	Assists per game	17.8 #11
Defense
73.0 #132	Points allowed	78.9 #296
1.07 #136	Points allowed per possession	1.08 #151
51.0 #158	Opponent effective FG%	50.7 #141
33.0 #118	Opponent 3-point %	31.8 #53
18.0 #99	Turnovers forced	18.4 #81
70.2 #149	Defensive rebound rate	67.0 #300
7.8 #53	Steals per game	8.1 #34
3.9 #93	Blocks per game	3.1 #210

From the box scores. A longer bar is a better national rank, on every row; the better team's bar is solid. A green rank is near the top of Division I, a red one near the bottom. Pace and 3-point rate are styles, so they have no better side.

Stanford

20-13 in 2025-26 overall · 9-10 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs West Virginia77–82
Lvs Pitt63–64
W@ NC State85–84
W@ Notre Dame86–78
Wvs SMU95–75

A week or more of rest.

Texas A&M

22-12 in 2025-26 overall · 11-8 in conference · Southeastern Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Houston57–88
Wvs Saint Mary's63–50
Lvs Oklahoma63–83
W@ LSU94–91
Wvs Kentucky96–85

A week or more of rest.

Stanford Cardinal at Texas A&M Aggies

What could decide it: TA&M has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

ATS History · 2025-26

Stanford

Texas A&M

The starting fives are even

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Stanford

Texas A&M