THIRD AND DATA

East Texas A&M game log

2026: every game, then every offensive snap for both sides.

Season
‹

Game log

Box score per game. Success is the share of runs and passes that gained 50% of the distance on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of it on 3rd and 4th, or scored.

DateOpponentResultPlaysYdsYds/playRushPass1st downs3rd down4th downTOPenPossOff successDef success
Aug 29at Mercer15–23 L703835.539–15115–31–232155–171–337–4530:1434%37%
Sep 5at Stephen F. Austin7–44 L461874.122–5613–24–131122–90–148–5520:3236%44%
Sep 12vs Northwestern State38–14 W664196.343–25414–23–165216–110–0211–11034:3544%35%
Sep 19at Tulsa0–42 L712884.132–12519–39–163164–150–317–5030:1832%53%
Sep 26at McNeese24–27 L694756.933–18921–36–286214–152–226–5831:1343%36%
Oct 3vs UT Rio Grande Valley20–17 W682724.043–14214–25–130166–150–0017–14833:1039%33%
Oct 17at Houston Christian24–43 L804105.143–17319–37–237225–161–335–7034:3839%38%
Oct 24vs Prairie View A&M19–30 L783784.826–4531–52–333259–181–217–4930:2642%45%
Oct 31vs SE Louisiana10–7 W672363.540–14716–27–89146–180–035–4930:5531%31%
Season9 games3–66153,0485.0321–1282162–294–1,76616247–1345–141973–6344:36:0138%39%

Success rate

East Texas A&M on offense, and what its defense allowed. Same rule as the table above.

Success rate by game37.9% · 39.4%
34
37
36
44
44
35
32
53
43
36
39
33
39
38
42
45
31
31
@ Mercer
@ Stephen F. Austin
Northwestern State
@ Tulsa
@ McNeese
UT Rio Grande Valley
@ Houston Christian
Prairie View A&M
SE Louisiana
@ Nicholls
@ Lamar
Incarnate Word

Against Power 4 opponents (bold): offense —, defense allows —.

Success by play

Each square is one snap, in order. Top row: East Texas A&M on offense. Bottom row: the opponent on offense, which is East Texas A&M's defense in the mirror.

Down
Play
Min to go
Player

Season, current filters:East Texas A&M offense 38% (231 of 610)Opponent offense / East Texas A&M defense 39% (227 of 576)

SuccessNot successfulTurnoverTouchdownField goalunder the square = passQuarters, aboveDrives, belowHover or tap a square for the down, distance, players and the play.
Success rate by game
0%25%50%75%100%Mercer: opponent offense 37% of 63Mercer: East Texas A&M offense 34% of 70Stephen F. Austin: opponent offense 44% of 79Stephen F. Austin: East Texas A&M offense 36% of 47Northwestern State: opponent offense 35% of 57Northwestern State: East Texas A&M offense 44% of 64Tulsa: opponent offense 53% of 68Tulsa: East Texas A&M offense 32% of 71McNeese: opponent offense 36% of 61McNeese: East Texas A&M offense 43% of 68UT Rio Grande Valley: opponent offense 33% of 60UT Rio Grande Valley: East Texas A&M offense 39% of 67Houston Christian: opponent offense 38% of 71Houston Christian: East Texas A&M offense 39% of 80Prairie View A&M: opponent offense 45% of 58Prairie View A&M: East Texas A&M offense 42% of 78SE Louisiana: opponent offense 31% of 59SE Louisiana: East Texas A&M offense 31% of 65
East Texas A&M offenseOpponent offense (East Texas A&M defense)
Success rate by player
PlayerSuccess · snaps

No player qualifies under these filters.

at Mercer

15–23 L · 70 plays to 63
East Texas A&M offense 34% (24/70)Mercer offense 37% (23/63)

at Stephen F. Austin

7–44 L · 47 plays to 79
East Texas A&M offense 36% (17/47)SFA offense 44% (35/79)

vs Northwestern State

38–14 W · 64 plays to 57
East Texas A&M offense 44% (28/64)Northwestern St. offense 35% (20/57)

at Tulsa

0–42 L · 71 plays to 68
East Texas A&M offense 32% (23/71)Tulsa offense 53% (36/68)

at McNeese

24–27 L · 68 plays to 61
East Texas A&M offense 43% (29/68)McNeese offense 36% (22/61)

vs UT Rio Grande Valley

20–17 W · 67 plays to 60
East Texas A&M offense 39% (26/67)UT Rio Grande offense 33% (20/60)

at Houston Christian

24–43 L · 80 plays to 71
East Texas A&M offense 39% (31/80)HCU offense 38% (27/71)

vs Prairie View A&M

19–30 L · 78 plays to 58
East Texas A&M offense 42% (33/78)Prairie View A&M offense 45% (26/58)

vs SE Louisiana

10–7 W · 65 plays to 59
East Texas A&M offense 31% (20/65)SE Louisiana offense 31% (18/59)