Arizona vs. SMU: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
ARIZTeam statsSMU
- Q4 0:33ARIZCam Barmore 15 Yd pass from Noah Fifita (Michael Salgado-Medina Kick)19–24
- Q4 8:40ARIZTre Spivey 10 Yd pass from Noah Fifita (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)12–24
- Q3 2:37ARIZJavin Whatley 28 Yd pass from Noah Fifita (Two-Point Run Conversion Failed)6–24
- Q2 0:29SMUSam Keltner 24 Yd Field Goal 0–24
- Q2 9:33SMUStone Eby 1 Yd Run (Sam Keltner Kick)0–21
- Q1 4:16SMUT.J. Harden 3 Yd Run (Sam Keltner Kick)0–14
- Q1 13:58SMUT.J. Harden 1 Yd Run (Sam Keltner Kick)0–7
How the model called it
- PassNoah Fifita 28/43, 265 YDS, 3 TD, 1 INT
- RushNoah Fifita 13 CAR, 73 YDS
- RecCam Barmore 5 REC, 61 YDS, 1 TD
- PassKevin Jennings 21/32, 278 YDS, 3 INT
- RushTJ Harden 10 CAR, 40 YDS, 2 TD
- RecYamir Knight 7 REC, 104 YDS
FAQ
What was the final score of Arizona vs. SMU?
Arizona 19, SMU 24.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (SMU) was correct.
| ARIZ | SMU | |
|---|---|---|
| 441 | Total yards | 392 |
| 265 | Passing yards | 278 |
| 176 | Rushing yards | 114 |
| 26 | First downs | 18 |
| 8-16 | 3rd down | 3-10 |
| 2-5 | 4th down | 1-1 |
| 28/43 | Comp/Att | 21/32 |
| 6.2 | Yards per pass | 8.7 |
| 4.9 | Yards per rush | 3.6 |
| 1 | Turnovers | 3 |
| 6-60 | Penalties | 6-45 |
| 33:12 | Possession | 26:48 |
- Q4 0:33ARIZCam Barmore 15 Yd pass from Noah Fifita (Michael Salgado-Medina Kick)19–24
- Q4 8:40ARIZTre Spivey 10 Yd pass from Noah Fifita (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)12–24
- Q3 2:37ARIZJavin Whatley 28 Yd pass from Noah Fifita (Two-Point Run Conversion Failed)6–24
- Q2 0:29SMUSam Keltner 24 Yd Field Goal 0–24
- Q2 9:33SMUStone Eby 1 Yd Run (Sam Keltner Kick)0–21
- Q1 4:16SMUT.J. Harden 3 Yd Run (Sam Keltner Kick)0–14
- Q1 13:58SMUT.J. Harden 1 Yd Run (Sam Keltner Kick)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (SMU Elo 1851, ARIZ Elo 1689 for reference), on a neutral field. That projects SMU -6.5 (68% to win) — 4.0 points clear of SMU's market line of -2.5. 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 — 2025
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles| ARIZ | SMU | |
|---|---|---|
| +12.4 (#33) | CORE overall | +14.6 (#27) |
| +5 / -8 | offense / defense | +9 / -5 |
| 2.61 | points / drive | 2.63 |
| 1.75 | allowed / drive | 1.64 |
| 20% | three-and-outs | 30% |
| +5 | pass over expected | +10 |
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 →