Cincinnati vs. TCU: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
CINTeam statsTCU
- Q4 10:28TCUJeremy Payne 51 Yd Run (Nate McCashland Kick)23–45
- Q4 12:47CINCyrus Allen 35 Yd pass from Brendan Sorsby (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)23–38
- Q3 11:08TCUJoseph Manjack IV 44 Yd Pass from Josh Hoover, fumbled, Jordan Dwyer recovered in end zone (Nate McCashland Kick)17–38
- Q2 0:23TCUJeremy Payne 9 Yd Run (Nate McCashland Kick)17–31
- Q2 3:13CINStephen Rusnak 26 Yd Field Goal 17–24
- Q2 5:21TCUNate McCashland 32 Yd Field Goal 14–24
- Q2 11:27CINJeff Caldwell 14 Yd pass from Brendan Sorsby (Stephen Rusnak Kick)14–21
- Q1 0:45TCUJordan Dwyer 69 Yd pass from Josh Hoover (Nate McCashland Kick)7–21
- Q1 1:53CINEvan Pryor 26 Yd pass from Brendan Sorsby (Stephen Rusnak Kick)7–14
- Q1 5:44TCUEric McAlister 17 Yd pass from Josh Hoover (Nate McCashland Kick)0–14
- Q1 9:51TCUJoseph Manjack IV 3 Yd pass from Josh Hoover (Nate McCashland Kick)0–7
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- CIN played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and TCU did not face the same ones. 3rd & 8.2 vs 3rd & 5.2
- PassBrendan Sorsby 23/33, 282 YDS, 3 TD
- RushBrendan Sorsby 10 CAR, 59 YDS
- RecCaleb Goodie Sr. 5 REC, 67 YDS
- PassJosh Hoover 19/22, 306 YDS, 4 TD
- RushJeremy Payne 26 CAR, 174 YDS, 2 TD
- RecEric McAlister 8 REC, 101 YDS, 1 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsTCU up 21 entering the 4th quarter. Across 671 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q1 9:51TCU +16%
No Huddle-Shotgun #10 J.Hoover pass complete short middle to #14 J.Manjack IV caught at UC00, for 3 yards to the UC00 TOUCHDOWN
- Q1 0:45TCU +14%
Jordan Dwyer 69 Yd pass from Josh Hoover (Nate McCashland Kick)
- Q2 11:27CIN +13%
No Huddle-Shotgun #2 B.Sorsby pass complete short middle to #9 J.Caldwell caught at TCU00, for 14 yards to the TCU00 TOUCHDOWN, 1ST DOWN
- Q1 1:53CIN +13%
No Huddle-Shotgun #2 B.Sorsby pass complete short left to #6 E.Pryor caught at TCU10, for 26 yards to the TCU00 TOUCHDOWN, 1ST DOWN
- Q2 0:23TCU +13%
J. Payne run for 9 yds, for a TD (N. McCashland KICK)
- Q1 5:44TCU +12%
No Huddle-Shotgun #10 J.Hoover pass complete short right to #1 E.McAlister caught at UC00, for 17 yards to the UC00 TOUCHDOWN, 1ST DOWN
FAQ
What was the final score of Cincinnati vs. TCU?
Cincinnati 23, TCU 45.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (TCU) was correct.
| CIN | TCU | |
|---|---|---|
| 397 | Total yards | 544 |
| 282 | Passing yards | 306 |
| 115 | Rushing yards | 238 |
| 17 | First downs | 27 |
| 3-9 | 3rd down | 6-14 |
| 0-2 | 4th down | 3-3 |
| 23/33 | Comp/Att | 19/22 |
| 8.5 | Yards per pass | 13.9 |
| 6.1 | Yards per rush | 4.6 |
| 1 | Turnovers | 0 |
| 5-40 | Penalties | 6-45 |
| 22:05 | Possession | 37:55 |
Costliest call
Q3 8:03 TCU punt on 4th & 4 at CIN 45. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.69 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 10:28TCUJeremy Payne 51 Yd Run (Nate McCashland Kick)23–45
- Q4 12:47CINCyrus Allen 35 Yd pass from Brendan Sorsby (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)23–38
- Q3 11:08TCUJoseph Manjack IV 44 Yd Pass from Josh Hoover, fumbled, Jordan Dwyer recovered in end zone (Nate McCashland Kick)17–38
- Q2 0:23TCUJeremy Payne 9 Yd Run (Nate McCashland Kick)17–31
- Q2 3:13CINStephen Rusnak 26 Yd Field Goal 17–24
- Q2 5:21TCUNate McCashland 32 Yd Field Goal 14–24
- Q2 11:27CINJeff Caldwell 14 Yd pass from Brendan Sorsby (Stephen Rusnak Kick)14–21
- Q1 0:45TCUJordan Dwyer 69 Yd pass from Josh Hoover (Nate McCashland Kick)7–21
- Q1 1:53CINEvan Pryor 26 Yd pass from Brendan Sorsby (Stephen Rusnak Kick)7–14
- Q1 5:44TCUEric McAlister 17 Yd pass from Josh Hoover (Nate McCashland Kick)0–14
- Q1 9:51TCUJoseph Manjack IV 3 Yd pass from Josh Hoover (Nate McCashland Kick)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (TCU Elo 1602, CIN Elo 1569 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects TCU -3.7 (61% to win), essentially in line with the market.
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| CIN | TCU | |
|---|---|---|
| +6.7 (#50) | CORE overall | +13.2 (#31) |
| +12 / +5 | offense / defense | +6 / -7 |
| 2.63 | points / drive | 2.55 |
| 2.77 | allowed / drive | 2.13 |
| 31% | three-and-outs | 25% |
| +0 | pass over expected | +7 |
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 →