Memphis vs. NC State: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
MEMTeam statsNCSU
- Q2 1:28NCSUTeddy Hoffmann 40 Yd pass from CJ Bailey (Kanoah Vinesett Kick)7–31
- Q2 4:59MEMJamari Hawkins 28 Yd pass from Brendon Lewis (Gianni Spetic Kick)7–24
- Q2 8:03NCSUKanoah Vinesett 51 Yd Field Goal 0–24
- Q2 14:56NCSUWill Wilson 1 Yd Run (Kanoah Vinesett Kick)0–21
- Q1 3:21NCSUWesley Grimes 31 Yd pass from CJ Bailey (Kanoah Vinesett Kick)0–14
- Q1 11:32NCSUCJ Bailey 14 Yd Run (Kanoah Vinesett Kick)0–7
How the model called it
- PassBrendon Lewis 14/25, 106 YDS, 1 TD, 1 INT
- RushKhyair Spain 9 CAR, 65 YDS
- RecMarcello Bussey 3 REC, 34 YDS
- PassCJ Bailey 14/25, 221 YDS, 2 TD
- RushJayden Scott 19 CAR, 108 YDS
- RecWesley Grimes 3 REC, 48 YDS, 1 TD
FAQ
What was the final score of Memphis vs. NC State?
Memphis 7, NC State 31.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked MEM, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| MEM | NCSU | |
|---|---|---|
| 303 | Total yards | 337 |
| 154 | Passing yards | 221 |
| 149 | Rushing yards | 116 |
| 17 | First downs | 17 |
| 8-17 | 3rd down | 5-13 |
| 0-3 | 4th down | 0-2 |
| 20/34 | Comp/Att | 14/26 |
| 4.5 | Yards per pass | 8.5 |
| 4.1 | Yards per rush | 3.5 |
| 2 | Turnovers | 0 |
| 6-65 | Penalties | 6-56 |
| 32:37 | Possession | 27:23 |
- Q2 1:28NCSUTeddy Hoffmann 40 Yd pass from CJ Bailey (Kanoah Vinesett Kick)7–31
- Q2 4:59MEMJamari Hawkins 28 Yd pass from Brendon Lewis (Gianni Spetic Kick)7–24
- Q2 8:03NCSUKanoah Vinesett 51 Yd Field Goal 0–24
- Q2 14:56NCSUWill Wilson 1 Yd Run (Kanoah Vinesett Kick)0–21
- Q1 3:21NCSUWesley Grimes 31 Yd pass from CJ Bailey (Kanoah Vinesett Kick)0–14
- Q1 11:32NCSUCJ Bailey 14 Yd Run (Kanoah Vinesett Kick)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (NCSU Elo 1525, MEM Elo 1620 for reference), on a neutral field. That projects NCSU +3.8 (41% to win) — 8.3 points clear of MEM's market line of -4.5. 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| MEM | NCSU | |
|---|---|---|
| +2.0 (#61) | CORE overall | +7.0 (#48) |
| +4 / +2 | offense / defense | +6 / -1 |
| 2.73 | points / drive | 2.46 |
| 2.19 | allowed / drive | 2.59 |
| 20% | three-and-outs | 27% |
| +1 | pass over expected | +5 |
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 →