Rice vs. Louisiana: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
RICETeam statsUL
- Q3 1:45ULWalker Howard 25 Yd Run (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)14–12
- Q2 0:26ULTony Sterner 51 Yd Field Goal 14–6
- Q2 3:38RICEAaron Turner 17 Yd Run (Enock Gota Kick)14–3
- Q2 14:34RICEQuinton Jackson 1 Yd Run (Enock Gota Kick)7–3
- Q1 6:04ULTony Sterner 47 Yd Field Goal 0–3
How the model called it
- PassChase Jenkins 7/9, 45 YDS
- RushQuinton Jackson 22 CAR, 119 YDS, 1 TD
- RecDrayden Dickmann 3 REC, 44 YDS
- PassWalker Howard 10/22, 88 YDS, 1 INT
- RushBill Davis 11 CAR, 58 YDS
- RecShelton Sampson Jr. 4 REC, 59 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsRICE up 2 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,937 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q1 10:43UL +64%
PENALTY RIC Illegal Substitution 5 yards from RIC26 to RIC21. NO PLAY
- Q4 2:17RICE +37%
Daelen Alexander run for no gain to the UL 2
- Q4 1:17UL +26%
No Huddle-Shotgun Beale,Daniel pass incomplete deep right to Williams,Robert thrown to UL 48 PENALTY RIC Pass Interference (Crump,Khary) 15 yards from UL 20 to UL 35,…
- Q4 8:16RICE +19%
Alex Bacchetta punt for 38 yds, fair catch by Robert Williams at the UL 26
- Q4 6:20UL +18%
Quinton Jackson run for 2 yds to the UL 33
- Q4 8:07UL +18%
Zylan Perry run for no gain to the UL 26
FAQ
What was the final score of Rice vs. Louisiana?
Rice 14, Louisiana 12.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked UL, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| RICE | UL | |
|---|---|---|
| 251 | Total yards | 239 |
| 45 | Passing yards | 88 |
| 206 | Rushing yards | 151 |
| 18 | First downs | 16 |
| 5-12 | 3rd down | 7-15 |
| 0-1 | 4th down | 0-2 |
| 7/9 | Comp/Att | 10/28 |
| 5.0 | Yards per pass | 3.1 |
| 3.7 | Yards per rush | 4.9 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 2 |
| 8-90 | Penalties | 6-44 |
| 36:24 | Possession | 23:36 |
Costliest call
Q3 6:54 RICE punt on 4th & 7 at UL 41. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.47 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q3 1:45ULWalker Howard 25 Yd Run (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)14–12
- Q2 0:26ULTony Sterner 51 Yd Field Goal 14–6
- Q2 3:38RICEAaron Turner 17 Yd Run (Enock Gota Kick)14–3
- Q2 14:34RICEQuinton Jackson 1 Yd Run (Enock Gota Kick)7–3
- Q1 6:04ULTony Sterner 47 Yd Field Goal 0–3
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (UL Elo 1474, RICE Elo 1326 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects UL -8.3 (72% to win) — 2.7 points clear of RICE's market line of -11. 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#91 of 112 in 2025 by biggest miss · #45 of 129 in 2025 by longest odds.
The 2025 upset archive →| RICE | UL | |
|---|---|---|
| -26.8 (#132) | CORE overall | -20.6 (#126) |
| -20 / +7 | offense / defense | -8 / +13 |
| 1.40 | points / drive | 2.09 |
| 3.09 | allowed / drive | 2.56 |
| 38% | three-and-outs | 31% |
| -24 | pass over expected | -9 |
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 →