Texas vs. Michigan is shaping up to be one of the most highly-anticipated games of the college football season so far.

It features a Steve Sarkisian-led Texas team that’s looking for a signature win as the Longhorns build their résumé for the College Football Playoff. On the other side, Sherrone Moore will be leading the Wolverines in his first big game as Michigan’s permanent head coach.

From a statistical profile standpoint, both of these teams were absolutely elite last season. A lot has changed — particularly for Michigan — but both programs once again have CFP aspirations.

Let’s breakdown some historical betting trends, advanced stats from Week 1 and some other useful info about these teams:

Texas vs. Michigan betting lines

Lines via DraftKings:

Spread: Texas -7.5

Total: Over/under 42.5 points

Don’t miss out on the action this fall! Here’s Saturday Tradition’s breakdown of all the best Michigan sports betting apps on the market in 2024!

Betting trends to know for Texas

Texas is…

  • 1-0 against the spread in 2024
  • 3-5 against the spread as a favorite of 6 or more points in the Sarkisian era
  • 5-5 against the spread as a road favorite in the Sarkisian era

Betting trends to know for Michigan

Michigan is…

  • 0-1 against the spread in 2024
  • 3-1 against the spread as an underdog over the past 3 seasons
  • 12-9-2 against the spread at home over the past 3 seasons

Advanced Stats preview 

Success rate will be the most important stat referenced in this section. Whether or not a play is “successful” depends on the down and distance of a given play. Here’s a breakdown of how much yardage is necessary for a play to be deemed “successful” depending on the context:

  • 1st down: Teams must gain at least 50% of required yardage
  • 2nd down: Teams must gain at least 70% of required yardage
  • 3rd or 4th down: Teams must gain 100% of required yardage

Defensively, numbers are presented as what the defense allowed the offense to achieve. So on defense, a 35% success rate is better than a 40% success rate.

Let’s dig into what success rate says about this matchup:

Rushing success rate

  • Texas rushing offense success rate: 57.1% (24th)
  • Michigan rushing defense success rate: 15.8% (7th)

For all of Texas’ concerns with running back health, the Longhorns ran the ball pretty well in Week 1 against Colorado State. That’s to be expected given the quality of the opponent, but still good to see a strong showing from Texas running backs Jaydon Blue and Jerrick Gibson. Texas has a very strong and experienced offensive line, which could also come into play in a matchup like this against another elite team.

Michigan’s defensive front was as-advertised in the opener against Fresno State. The Bulldogs had virtually no chance to run the ball against what is expected to be one of the best defensive lines in the country this season.

  • Michigan rushing offense success rate: 48.5% (50th)
  • Texas rushing defense success rate: 40% (73rd)

Offensively, Michigan probably would have liked to have been a bit more efficient in the run game against Fresno State. However, it’s not a major shock that Michigan’s rushing success rate was under 50% in the opener. The Wolverines were at 45% in that category last season en route to the national championship — which was by far the weakest part of their profile. It was interesting, however, to see Kalel Mullings have more usage and efficiency out of the backfield than Donovan Edwards.

Texas actually struggled a bit with its run defense against Colorado State from a success rate perspective. However, the Rams didn’t break any explosive runs and were overall a net-negative in the run game from an EPA perspective. I wouldn’t worry about Texas’ rushing defense yet — at least not until there’s more of a sample size here.

Passing success rate

  • Texas passing offense success rate: 61.5% (15th)
  • Michigan passing defense success rate: 42.1% (87th)

Aside from a Quinn Ewers interception, Texas’ passing game couldn’t have gone much better in the opener. Ewers is one of the best quarterbacks in college football and the Longhorns have a real group of difference-makers at the wide receiver position. Armed with Sarkisian’s scheme, Texas should continue to have an effective passing game even when facing elite defenses.

Fresno State was able to move the ball on Michigan through the air, especially on early downs. Fresno State managed an early-down success rate of 54% on passing plays, per GameOnPaper. Texas is likely to throw the ball a lot in this game, so this is a potential concern if the Wolverines aren’t better against the pass.

  • Michigan passing offense success rate: 39.3% (87th)
  • Texas passing defense success rate: 25% (29th)

Michigan surprised most people in the college football world when it started Davis Warren at quarterback against Fresno State (rather than Alex Orji). Warren is expected to be the better passer of the 2 options, but Orji is more mobile. The decision to start Warren didn’t pay off immediately — Warren threw for just 118 yards, 1 touchdown and 1 interception on 25 attempts. PFF has his average depth of target at just 8.3 yards. With that being said, it’s too small of a sample size to panic about Michigan’s offense. The Wolverines likely didn’t open up their full playbook in Week 1 with the Longhorns coming to town just a week later.

Texas’ pass defense was good last year, but not great. It showed signs of being great against Colorado State in Week 1. Michigan likely won’t be one of the best passing offenses Texas faces this year (Oklahoma and Georgia will surely be better, as will likely a couple other SEC teams on the schedule), but this matchup will still be an interesting datapoint for the Longhorns’ secondary.

1 other key: Can Michigan find explosive plays in the run game?

If Michigan can’t throw the ball (far from a certainty, but a legitimate concern at this point), then the Wolverines will need to find some explosive plays from somewhere if they hope to win a game like this. Michigan’s offense wasn’t very explosive last season, but it got away with that because it was in the 95th percentile nationally in success rate.

Against Fresno State in Week 1, Michigan was in just the 45th percentile in success rate. I don’t expect that to continue over a larger sample size in 2024, but it is at least somewhat alarming considering the step-up in competition this week. If Michigan can’t throw the ball, has a mediocre rushing success rate and can’t reliably produce explosive plays, then where exactly are the points going to come from?

From Texas’ point-of-view, this is a good matchup on paper. If the Longhorns had a weakness last season on defense, it was in the passing game. But it’s worth noting that they did lose a pair of top-40 draft picks at defensive tackle in Byron Murphy and T’Vondre Sweat this offseason. Murphy and Sweat had a tremendous impact on Texas’ defensive line, particularly in the run game.

As noted above, Colorado State was able to chip away at Texas on the ground but never landed any chunk plays. Whether or not Michigan can do so will likely go a long way toward determining the outcome of this game.

Note: All advanced stats mentioned in this story exclude garbage-time statistics and are derived from CollegeFootballData.com unless otherwise noted. Trends are via BetIQ.