East Carolina vs. Coastal Carolina: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
ECUTeam statsCCU
- Q4 4:08ECUTJ Engleman Jr. 1 Yd Run (Nick Mazzie Kick)38–0
- Q4 8:32ECUMike Wright Jr. 18 Yd Run (Nick Mazzie Kick)31–0
- Q4 13:04ECUYannick Smith 4 Yd pass from Katin Houser (Nick Mazzie Kick)24–0
- Q3 8:15ECUParker Jenkins 4 Yd Run (Nick Mazzie Kick)17–0
- Q1 1:44ECUNick Mazzie 36 Yd Field Goal 10–0
- Q1 7:26ECUYannick Smith 5 Yd pass from Katin Houser (Nick Mazzie Kick)7–0
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- CCU played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and ECU did not face the same ones. 3rd & 10.1 vs 3rd & 5.1
- PassKatin Houser 28/37, 293 YDS, 2 TD, 1 INT
- RushLondon Montgomery 15 CAR, 59 YDS
- RecAnthony Smith 11 REC, 136 YDS
- PassTad Hudson 19/39, 172 YDS, 2 INT
- RushJa'Vin Simpkins 4 CAR, 25 YDS
- RecRobby Washington 3 REC, 54 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsECU up 17 entering the 4th quarter. Across 841 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q3 8:15ECU +8%
Parker Jenkins run for 4 yds for a TD (Nick Mazzie KICK)
FAQ
What was the final score of East Carolina vs. Coastal Carolina?
East Carolina 38, Coastal Carolina 0.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (ECU) was correct.
| ECU | CCU | |
|---|---|---|
| 497 | Total yards | 239 |
| 293 | Passing yards | 172 |
| 204 | Rushing yards | 67 |
| 29 | First downs | 18 |
| 9-16 | 3rd down | 5-14 |
| 1-3 | 4th down | 0-1 |
| 28/37 | Comp/Att | 19/39 |
| 7.9 | Yards per pass | 4.4 |
| 4.2 | Yards per rush | 2.6 |
| 1 | Turnovers | 5 |
| 6-50 | Penalties | 7-55 |
| 33:55 | Possession | 26:05 |
Costliest call
Q3 1:55 CCU go for it on 4th & 15 at ECU 34. The model preferred field goal, a gap of 0.66 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 4:08ECUTJ Engleman Jr. 1 Yd Run (Nick Mazzie Kick)38–0
- Q4 8:32ECUMike Wright Jr. 18 Yd Run (Nick Mazzie Kick)31–0
- Q4 13:04ECUYannick Smith 4 Yd pass from Katin Houser (Nick Mazzie Kick)24–0
- Q3 8:15ECUParker Jenkins 4 Yd Run (Nick Mazzie Kick)17–0
- Q1 1:44ECUNick Mazzie 36 Yd Field Goal 10–0
- Q1 7:26ECUYannick Smith 5 Yd pass from Katin Houser (Nick Mazzie Kick)7–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (CCU Elo 1262, ECU Elo 1429 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects CCU +4.3 (40% to win) — 2.7 points clear of CCU's market line of +7. 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 15 · through week 2 · drive simulation
Season form — 2025
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles| ECU | CCU | |
|---|---|---|
| +7.8 (#46) | CORE overall | -16.4 (#115) |
| +2 / -5 | offense / defense | -8 / +8 |
| 2.48 | points / drive | 1.56 |
| 1.64 | allowed / drive | 2.54 |
| 19% | three-and-outs | 35% |
| -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 →