Texas A&M Aggies
Who has played and coached together, and for how long, ranked against every FBS team at the same point of the season.
▸Staff stabilityCoach and coordinator tenure, staff who came along, assistant turnover54
▸Roster continuityReturning starters and the lineup's experience78
▸Unit cohesionQB & coordinator, QB & receivers, offensive line, defense: how long each unit has played together68
The administration, money and fans around the team: athletic director continuity, willingness to invest, and crowds.
▸AdministrationAthletic director continuity and coach-AD alignment56
▸InvestmentCommitment to football: its share of the department's spending and whether that is growing, plus spending and recruiting64
▸Fan baseHow passionate and loyal the fan base is: how often it sells out, and whether it sells out games that don't matter80
Finances: U.S. Department of Education athletics disclosures, as reported by each school. Athletic directors: Wikipedia (CC BY-SA). Attendance: reported crowds vs stadium capacity.
How the team talks in press conferences and interviews, each program against its own normal, so a naturally terse coach isn't read as upset. Being built program by program, Big Ten first.
▸AlignmentCoaches and players telling the same story; the staff on one pagesoon
▸ResilienceConfidence, and how the team sounds after adversitysoon
Readings are team-level; we don't publish psychological readings of individual players.
How the team is playing together this season: beating or missing its preseason expectation, a settled lineup, clean execution.
▸Playing above its partsResults vs what its preseason projection expected, game by game25
▸Settled & sharpA settled starting lineup and clean execution (penalties, turnovers) vs its own normal78
Pressure from outside the building: the hard-facts hot seat now; this season's fan and media mood as it is measured.
▸Fan & media moodExpectations met or missed this season (preseason rank vs now), stronger for fan bases that react hard; fan and media sentiment joins later3
▸Coach securityThe hard-facts hot seat, inverted: results vs expectation, recent seasons vs the program's norm, stakes, a new AD28
Dashed gold ring = typical (62). 20-50 is the warning zone; under 10 is a collapse. Spokes with no data yet are dashed and left out until they fill in. Chem blends the two halves, then places the blend among this season's teams.
Every game since 2016, one continuous line; thin rules separate seasons and the chip is where each season finished. Navy dot = win, red = loss. Big drops usually mean a new staff, a new quarterback or a rebuilt line.
How the team is working right now, rebuilt after each game from only the games so far: on-field fit (results vs preseason expectation, lineup settling, execution) and that week's fan & media mood. Coach security is part of today's Gel number but isn't rebuilt week by week yet. Navy frame = win, red = loss.
Reed | Owens | Horton | Craver | Bethel-Roman | Thomas | Nabou | Adams | Formby | Baugh | Rogers | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QBMarcel Reed | 26 | 10 | 5 | 13 | 17 | 1 | 17 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 |
| RBRueben Owens II | 10 | 15 | 5 | 8 | 9 | 1 | 14 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 |
| WRIsaiah Horton | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 |
| WRMario Craver | 13 | 8 | 4 | 13 | 12 | 1 | 13 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
| WRAshton Bethel-Roman | 17 | 9 | 4 | 12 | 17 | 1 | 16 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
| TEHouston Thomas | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| OLMark Nabou Jr. | 17 | 14 | 5 | 13 | 16 | 1 | 31 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 |
| OLTyree Adams | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 |
| OLWilkin Formby | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 |
| OLTrovon Baugh | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 |
| OLLamont Rogers | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Each square: games the two players have started together at this school (darker = more). Gray diagonal: the player's own starts here.
Searcy | Jones | Rink | Hicks | Sanford | Mikhail | Humphrey | Brooks | Shaw | Ratcliffe | Ricks | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DLT.J. Searcy | 17 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 11 | 4 | 4 | 15 | 4 | 16 | 17 |
| DLMarco Jones | 4 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| DLLandon Rink | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| DLDJ Hicks | 6 | 5 | 1 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 9 | 5 | 7 | 8 |
| LBDaymion Sanford | 11 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 14 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 1 | 13 | 12 |
| LBNoah Mikhail | 4 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| DBJulio Humphrey | 4 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| DBDalton Brooks | 15 | 5 | 1 | 9 | 13 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 5 | 22 | 23 |
| DBJordan Shaw | 4 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| DBMarcus Ratcliffe | 16 | 5 | 1 | 7 | 13 | 5 | 5 | 22 | 5 | 29 | 25 |
| DBDezz Ricks | 17 | 5 | 1 | 8 | 12 | 5 | 5 | 23 | 5 | 25 | 27 |
Each square: games the two players have started together at this school (darker = more). Gray diagonal: the player's own starts here.
Chemistry is Scorebook's own rating of how well a program fits together, on the same all-time 0-99 scale as our other ratings (compared with every FBS team since 2016; 62 is typical, 20-50 signals something is wrong, and single digits are reserved for true collapses; each season is compared with its own era). This early version blends continuity (who has played and coached together, and for how long; it counts most) with the climate around the program; how the program talks joins as it is measured. Within continuity, quarterback-centered pairings count most because they held up when we tested them against results. How our ratings work →