Charlotte vs. Tulane: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
CLTTeam statsTULN
- Q4 5:51TULNPatrick Durkin 52 Yd Field Goal 0–27
- Q4 13:54TULNPatrick Durkin 36 Yd Field Goal 0–24
- Q2 1:09TULNJake Retzlaff 1 Yd Run (Patrick Durkin Kick)0–21
- Q1 6:13TULNJake Retzlaff 1 Yd Run (Patrick Durkin Kick)0–14
- Q1 12:34TULNJavin Gordon 1 Yd Run (Patrick Durkin Kick)0–7
How the model called it
- PassGrayson Loftis 18/25, 140 YDS, 1 INT
- RushCameren Smith 6 CAR, 24 YDS
- RecSean Brown 5 REC, 49 YDS
- PassJake Retzlaff 28/38, 291 YDS, 2 INT
- RushJamauri McClure 11 CAR, 69 YDS
- RecAnthony Brown-Stephens 9 REC, 98 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsTULN up 21 entering the 4th quarter. Across 671 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
FAQ
What was the final score of Charlotte vs. Tulane?
Charlotte 0, Tulane 27.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (TULN) was correct.
| CLT | TULN | |
|---|---|---|
| 140 | Total yards | 463 |
| 143 | Passing yards | 312 |
| -3 | Rushing yards | 151 |
| 7 | First downs | 25 |
| 2-13 | 3rd down | 6-12 |
| 0-0 | 4th down | 0-0 |
| 20/28 | Comp/Att | 29/39 |
| 5.1 | Yards per pass | 8.0 |
| -0.1 | Yards per rush | 4.3 |
| 2 | Turnovers | 3 |
| 6-49 | Penalties | 2-25 |
| 25:44 | Possession | 34:16 |
Costliest call
Q1 0:42 CLT punt on 4th & 22 at TULN 37. The model preferred field goal, a gap of 0.51 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 5:51TULNPatrick Durkin 52 Yd Field Goal 0–27
- Q4 13:54TULNPatrick Durkin 36 Yd Field Goal 0–24
- Q2 1:09TULNJake Retzlaff 1 Yd Run (Patrick Durkin Kick)0–21
- Q1 6:13TULNJake Retzlaff 1 Yd Run (Patrick Durkin Kick)0–14
- Q1 12:34TULNJavin Gordon 1 Yd Run (Patrick Durkin Kick)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (TULN Elo 1575, CLT Elo 1035 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects TULN -24 (93% to win) — 7.0 points clear of CLT's market line of -31. 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 | TULN | |
|---|---|---|
| -33.1 (#135) | CORE overall | +7.0 (#47) |
| -23 / +10 | offense / defense | +5 / -2 |
| 0.88 | points / drive | 2.56 |
| 2.98 | allowed / drive | 2.20 |
| 40% | three-and-outs | 27% |
| +1 | pass over expected | +2 |
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 →