Gardner-Webb vs. East Carolina: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
Gardner-Webb0-1
East Carolina0-3
▸Final
Dowdy-Ficklen Stadium
GARDTeam statsECU
107Total yards366
30Pass184
77Rush182
11First downs23
6-153rd down7-15
5Turnovers1
27:16Possession32:44
- Q4 3:05ECUKamarro Edmonds 1 Yd Run (Andrew Conrad Kick)0–44
- Q4 7:39ECUJavious Bond 5 Yd Run (Andrew Conrad Kick)0–37
- Q3 1:55ECUKamarro Edmonds 11 Yd Run (Andrew Conrad Kick)0–30
- Q2 13:03ECUMason Garcia 2 Yd Run (Andrew Conrad Kick)0–23
- Q2 14:46ECUAndrew Conrad 44 Yd Field Goal 0–16
- Q1 2:28ECURahjai Harris 2 Yd Run (Andrew Conrad Kick)0–13
- Q1 9:18ECURahjai Harris 11 Yd pass from Alex Flinn (Andrew Conrad PAT failed)0–6
How the model called it
Market line
ECU −13
Against the number
ECU covered
line ECU −13
Kickoff155 plays →Final
Tap or hover on the chart to see play details
ECU (top)GARD (bottom)· colored dots = scoresFinal: ECU 100%
Closing line
ECU −13
Closing total
51.0
Model line
—
Actual result
GARD 0 – 44 ECU
Gardner-Webb
- PassMatthew Caldwell 7/17, 30 YDS
- RushNarii Gaither 12 CAR, 45 YDS
- RecNarii Gaither 2 REC, 9 YDS
East Carolina
- PassAlex Flinn 8/18, 94 YDS, 1 TD
- RushJavious Bond 9 CAR, 65 YDS, 1 TD
- RecJaylen Johnson 6 REC, 70 YDS
26.4sper snap · slower the national 24.5s
fastnational avgslow
Snaps run
136
Points / snap
0.32
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsECU up 30 entering the 4th quarter. Across 530 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
99%
ECU went on to win
A near-lock historically
FAQ
What was the final score of Gardner-Webb vs. East Carolina?
Gardner-Webb 0, East Carolina 44.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (ECU) was correct.
GARD
ECU
23%
Success rate
44%
-0.42
EPA / pass
-0.03
-0.15
EPA / rush
0.28
16%
Early-down success
42%
17%
Pass success
33%
27%
Rush success
52%
2%
Explosive play rate (15+ yds)
7%
35%
Stuffed rush rate
19%
39%
Pass rate
44%
7.9
Avg 3rd-down distance
8.3
GARD
7.9 yards to go on 3rd down
61 scrimmage snaps
ECU
8.3 yards to go on 3rd down
75 scrimmage snaps
| GARD | ECU | |
|---|---|---|
| 107 | Total yards | 366 |
| 30 | Passing yards | 184 |
| 77 | Rushing yards | 182 |
| 11 | First downs | 23 |
| 6-15 | 3rd down | 7-15 |
| 0-2 | 4th down | 1-1 |
| 8/21 | Comp/Att | 18/32 |
| 1.4 | Yards per pass | 5.8 |
| 1.9 | Yards per rush | 4.1 |
| 5 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 1-15 | Penalties | 5-41 |
| 27:16 | Possession | 32:44 |
GARD
5/7 with the model
−1.5 pts · −0.0% win prob
ECU
5/7 with the model
−2.5 pts · −0.0% win prob
Costliest call
Q2 7:17 ECU punt on 4th & 16 at GARD 33. The model preferred field goal, a gap of 1.45 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finishGARD 0/14 scoring drives← own end zone →ECU 7/15 scoring drives
GARDPUNT3 pl, 5 yds· own 22Q1
ECUPUNT3 pl, 0 yds· own 26Q1
GARDPUNT3 pl, 8 yds· own 39Q1
ECUTD6 pl, 72 yds· own 28Q1
GARDPUNT3 pl, 4 yds· own 26Q1
ECUTD10 pl, 45 yds· opp 45Q1
GARDFUM5 pl, -2 yds· own 21Q1
ECUFG4 pl, -8 yds· opp 19Q1
ECUTD4 pl, 14 yds· opp 14Q2
GARDDOWNS9 pl, 25 yds· own 35Q2
ECUPUNT5 pl, 27 yds· own 40Q2
GARDFUM5 pl, 18 yds· own 19Q2
ECUFUM2 pl, 18 yds· opp 35Q2
GARDPUNT5 pl, 13 yds· own 17Q2
ECUPUNT6 pl, 30 yds· own 35Q2
GARDEND2 pl, 9 yds· own 12Q2
ECUPUNT4 pl, 12 yds· own 22Q3
GARDFUM5 pl, 29 yds· own 21Q3
ECUMISS9 pl, 20 yds· opp 48Q3
GARDPUNT3 pl, -1 yds· own 28Q3
ECUTD8 pl, 66 yds· own 34Q3
GARDDOWNS10 pl, 36 yds· own 25Q3
ECUTD11 pl, 61 yds· own 39Q4
GARDPUNT3 pl, -19 yds· own 25Q4
ECUPUNT3 pl, 0 yds· opp 41Q4
GARDFUM1 pl, -1 yds· own 10Q4
ECUTD2 pl, 9 yds· opp 9Q4
GARDPUNT4 pl, 9 yds· own 35Q4
ECUEND1 pl, 0 yds· own 23Q4
- Q4 3:05ECUKamarro Edmonds 1 Yd Run (Andrew Conrad Kick)0–44
- Q4 7:39ECUJavious Bond 5 Yd Run (Andrew Conrad Kick)0–37
- Q3 1:55ECUKamarro Edmonds 11 Yd Run (Andrew Conrad Kick)0–30
- Q2 13:03ECUMason Garcia 2 Yd Run (Andrew Conrad Kick)0–23
- Q2 14:46ECUAndrew Conrad 44 Yd Field Goal 0–16
- Q1 2:28ECURahjai Harris 2 Yd Run (Andrew Conrad Kick)0–13
- Q1 9:18ECURahjai Harris 11 Yd pass from Alex Flinn (Andrew Conrad PAT failed)0–6
Model prediction
how the number is builtOne or both teams lack a power rating (often an FCS opponent), so the model prediction is low-confidence for this game.
Where this number comes from. Every projection on this page is produced by the same model, run before kickoff on opponent-adjusted efficiency, power ratings and situational data — walk-forward validated on eleven seasons and never adjusted after the fact. How the model works →