UAB vs. Tulane: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
UABTeam statsTULN
- Q4 0:47TULNLawrence Keys III 32 Yd pass from Michael Pratt (Valentino Ambrosio Kick)23–35
- Q4 4:52UABMatt Quinn 36 Yd Field Goal 23–28
- Q3 2:50TULNAlex Bauman 14 Yd pass from Michael Pratt (Valentino Ambrosio Kick)20–28
- Q3 13:35TULNMakhi Hughes 18 Yd Run (Valentino Ambrosio Kick)20–21
- Q2 0:46TULNMakhi Hughes 1 Yd Run (Valentino Ambrosio Kick)20–14
- Q2 5:05UABMatt Quinn 48 Yd Field Goal 20–7
- Q2 10:15UABIsaiah Jacobs 17 Yd Run (Matt Quinn Kick)17–7
- Q2 13:08UABIsaiah Jacobs 2 Yd Run (Matt Quinn Kick)10–7
- Q1 2:50TULNYulkeith Brown 15 Yd Run (Valentino Ambrosio Kick)3–7
- Q1 9:19UABMatt Quinn 31 Yd Field Goal 3–0
How the model called it
- PassJacob Zeno 27/35, 236 YDS
- RushIsaiah Jacobs 18 CAR, 95 YDS, 2 TD
- RecAmare Thomas 8 REC, 99 YDS
- PassMichael Pratt 14/23, 184 YDS, 2 TD
- RushMakhi Hughes 22 CAR, 123 YDS, 2 TD
- RecLawrence Keys III 3 REC, 54 YDS, 1 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsTULN up 8 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,585 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q3 13:35TULN +23%
Makhi Hughes run for 18 yds for a TD (Valentino Ambrosio KICK)
- Q2 10:15UAB +21%
Isaiah Jacobs run for 17 yds for a TD (Matt Quinn KICK)
- Q2 0:46TULN +20%
Makhi Hughes run for 1 yd for a TD (Valentino Ambrosio KICK)
- Q3 2:50TULN +19%
Michael Pratt pass complete to Alex Bauman for 14 yds for a TD (Valentino Ambrosio KICK)
- Q2 13:08UAB +18%
Isaiah Jacobs run for 2 yds for a TD (Matt Quinn KICK)
- Q1 2:50TULN +15%
Yulkeith Brown run for 15 yds for a TD (Valentino Ambrosio KICK)
FAQ
What was the final score of UAB vs. Tulane?
UAB 23, Tulane 35.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (TULN) was correct.
| UAB | TULN | |
|---|---|---|
| 434 | Total yards | 448 |
| 264 | Passing yards | 184 |
| 170 | Rushing yards | 264 |
| 25 | First downs | 24 |
| 5-13 | 3rd down | 3-10 |
| 1-3 | 4th down | 3-3 |
| 28/36 | Comp/Att | 14/23 |
| 7.3 | Yards per pass | 8.0 |
| 4.5 | Yards per rush | 6.4 |
| 1 | Turnovers | 2 |
| 3-12 | Penalties | 5-37 |
| 30:05 | Possession | 29:55 |
Costliest call
Q1 4:51 UAB punt on 4th & 2 at UAB 19. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.43 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 0:47TULNLawrence Keys III 32 Yd pass from Michael Pratt (Valentino Ambrosio Kick)23–35
- Q4 4:52UABMatt Quinn 36 Yd Field Goal 23–28
- Q3 2:50TULNAlex Bauman 14 Yd pass from Michael Pratt (Valentino Ambrosio Kick)20–28
- Q3 13:35TULNMakhi Hughes 18 Yd Run (Valentino Ambrosio Kick)20–21
- Q2 0:46TULNMakhi Hughes 1 Yd Run (Valentino Ambrosio Kick)20–14
- Q2 5:05UABMatt Quinn 48 Yd Field Goal 20–7
- Q2 10:15UABIsaiah Jacobs 17 Yd Run (Matt Quinn Kick)17–7
- Q2 13:08UABIsaiah Jacobs 2 Yd Run (Matt Quinn Kick)10–7
- Q1 2:50TULNYulkeith Brown 15 Yd Run (Valentino Ambrosio Kick)3–7
- Q1 9:19UABMatt Quinn 31 Yd Field Goal 3–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (TULN Elo 1630, UAB Elo 1420 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects TULN -10.8 (77% to win) — 11.2 points clear of UAB's market line of -22. That is a disagreement, not a betting edge — sides we favour have not covered at better than breakeven.
Why that percentage is worth reading: across 604 graded in-season games, the calls this model put near 58% came in at 58.2%. The full calibration table is published, bin by bin. Early in the season the cold-start path runs instead and calibrates less well (Brier 0.2028 against 0.1889).
Model as of Sep 1 · through week 1 · drive simulation
Season form — 2023
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profilesTulane leads 7–6 · Tulane has won 2 straight · 46% have been one-possession games
| UAB | TULN | |
|---|---|---|
| -5.4 (#86) | CORE overall | +1.0 (#56) |
| +6 / +11 | offense / defense | -1 / -2 |
| 2.37 | points / drive | 2.35 |
| 3.34 | allowed / drive | 1.90 |
| 23% | three-and-outs | 24% |
| +1 | pass over expected | -4 |
Bold is the side ahead. CORE strips the situation from every play and solves the schedule out across the league, so these compare two teams that never met.
Key matchups
The analyst read: each team's offense splits crossed against the opponent's defense, with the edges called out.
Create a free account →You get Pro free for 6 months. No card required.
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 →