Liberty vs. UTEP: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
LIBTeam statsUTEP
- Q4 11:39UTEPSkyler Locklear 13 Yd Run (Shay Smith Pass to Josh Schuchts for Two-Point Conversion)19–8
- Q3 7:27LIBJay Billingsley 41 Yd Field Goal 19–0
- Q3 11:18LIBJay Billingsley 50 Yd Field Goal 16–0
- Q2 8:25LIBJay Billingsley 29 Yd Field Goal 13–0
- Q2 14:53LIBJay Billingsley 27 Yd Field Goal 10–0
- Q1 6:21LIBEthan Vasko 2 Yd Run (Jay Billingsley Kick)7–0
How the model called it
- PassEthan Vasko 19/33, 243 YDS
- RushVaughn Blue 17 CAR, 75 YDS
- RecJulian Gray 3 REC, 63 YDS
- PassSkyler Locklear 9/17, 90 YDS, 2 INT
- RushSkyler Locklear 8 CAR, 58 YDS, 1 TD
- RecKenny Odom 3 REC, 53 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsLIB up 19 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,041 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q1 6:21LIB +16%
Ethan Vasko run for 2 yds for a TD (Jay Billingsley KICK)
- Q2 14:53LIB +7%
Jay Billingsley 27 yd FG GOOD
- Q2 8:25LIB +7%
Jay Billingsley 29 yd FG GOOD
FAQ
What was the final score of Liberty vs. UTEP?
Liberty 19, UTEP 8.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (LIB) was correct.
| LIB | UTEP | |
|---|---|---|
| 403 | Total yards | 167 |
| 243 | Passing yards | 111 |
| 160 | Rushing yards | 56 |
| 22 | First downs | 9 |
| 3-18 | 3rd down | 3-15 |
| 4-5 | 4th down | 1-2 |
| 19/33 | Comp/Att | 13/27 |
| 7.4 | Yards per pass | 4.1 |
| 3.2 | Yards per rush | 2.2 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 2 |
| 6-57 | Penalties | 3-40 |
| 39:57 | Possession | 20:03 |
Costliest call
Q2 4:58 UTEP punt on 4th & 2 at UTEP 28. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.48 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 11:39UTEPSkyler Locklear 13 Yd Run (Shay Smith Pass to Josh Schuchts for Two-Point Conversion)19–8
- Q3 7:27LIBJay Billingsley 41 Yd Field Goal 19–0
- Q3 11:18LIBJay Billingsley 50 Yd Field Goal 16–0
- Q2 8:25LIBJay Billingsley 29 Yd Field Goal 13–0
- Q2 14:53LIBJay Billingsley 27 Yd Field Goal 10–0
- Q1 6:21LIBEthan Vasko 2 Yd Run (Jay Billingsley Kick)7–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (UTEP Elo 1205, LIB Elo 1421 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects UTEP +6.2 (35% to win) — 4.7 points clear of LIB's market line of +1.5. 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| LIB | UTEP | |
|---|---|---|
| -7.1 (#88) | CORE overall | -26.7 (#131) |
| +2 / +9 | offense / defense | -26 / +1 |
| 2.25 | points / drive | 1.32 |
| 2.59 | allowed / drive | 2.36 |
| 25% | three-and-outs | 32% |
| -9 | pass over expected | -0 |
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 →