Charlotte vs. Georgia: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
CLTTeam statsUGA
- Q3 11:46UGABo Walker 3 Yd Run (Peyton Woodring Kick)3–35
- Q2 0:01CLTLiam Boyd 42 Yd Field Goal 3–28
- Q2 3:27UGABo Walker 12 Yd Run (Peyton Woodring Kick)0–28
- Q2 11:29UGABo Walker 15 Yd Run (Peyton Woodring Kick)0–21
- Q1 0:52UGANate Frazier 7 Yd Run (Peyton Woodring Kick)0–14
- Q1 6:18UGANate Frazier 2 Yd Run (Peyton Woodring Kick)0–7
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- CLT played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and UGA did not face the same ones. 3rd & 9.0 vs 3rd & 6.1
- PassGrayson Loftis 14/27, 130 YDS, 2 INT
- RushJariel Cobb 7 CAR, 26 YDS
- RecE. Jai Mason 1 REC, 38 YDS
- PassGunner Stockton 17/21, 196 YDS, 1 INT
- RushNate Frazier 12 CAR, 54 YDS, 2 TD
- RecNoah Thomas 4 REC, 68 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsUGA up 32 entering the 4th quarter. Across 373 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
FAQ
What was the final score of Charlotte vs. Georgia?
Charlotte 3, Georgia 35.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (UGA) was correct.
| CLT | UGA | |
|---|---|---|
| 169 | Total yards | 449 |
| 130 | Passing yards | 257 |
| 39 | Rushing yards | 192 |
| 7 | First downs | 30 |
| 1-11 | 3rd down | 4-10 |
| 0-0 | 4th down | 1-2 |
| 14/27 | Comp/Att | 25/33 |
| 4.8 | Yards per pass | 7.8 |
| 2.3 | Yards per rush | 4.6 |
| 2 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 5-35 | Penalties | 2-15 |
| 23:06 | Possession | 36:54 |
Costliest call
Q3 0:40 UGA punt on 4th & 3 at UGA 48. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.58 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q3 11:46UGABo Walker 3 Yd Run (Peyton Woodring Kick)3–35
- Q2 0:01CLTLiam Boyd 42 Yd Field Goal 3–28
- Q2 3:27UGABo Walker 12 Yd Run (Peyton Woodring Kick)0–28
- Q2 11:29UGABo Walker 15 Yd Run (Peyton Woodring Kick)0–21
- Q1 0:52UGANate Frazier 7 Yd Run (Peyton Woodring Kick)0–14
- Q1 6:18UGANate Frazier 2 Yd Run (Peyton Woodring Kick)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (UGA Elo 2070, CLT Elo 1013 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects UGA -44.7 (99% to win) — 2.2 points clear of UGA's market line of -42.5. 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| CLT | UGA | |
|---|---|---|
| -33.1 (#135) | CORE overall | +20.0 (#15) |
| -23 / +10 | offense / defense | +9 / -11 |
| 0.88 | points / drive | 3.08 |
| 2.98 | allowed / drive | 1.83 |
| 40% | three-and-outs | 19% |
| +1 | pass over expected | -3 |
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 →