Richmond vs. North Carolina: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats

Richmond

North Carolina1-1
▸Final
Kenan Stadium
RICHTeam statsUNC
199Total yards312
75Pass119
124Rush193
15First downs16
5-133rd down6-11
3Turnovers1
37:59Possession21:59
- Q4 0:06RICHJayden Alsheskie 28 Yd Field Goal 6–41
- Q4 8:13UNCDemon June 45 Yd Run (Rece Verhoff Kick)3–41
- Q4 14:00UNCMikai Gbayor 62 Yd Fumble Return (Rece Verhoff Kick)3–34
- Q3 2:06UNCJordan Shipp 3 Yd pass from Gio Lopez (Rece Verhoff Kick)3–27
- Q2 1:11RICHJayden Alsheskie 25 Yd Field Goal 3–20
- Q2 10:01UNCGio Lopez 1 Yd Run (Rece Verhoff Kick)0–20
- Q2 14:51UNCRece Verhoff 22 Yd Field Goal 0–13
- Q1 3:22UNCJordan Shipp 29 Yd pass from Gio Lopez (Rece Verhoff Kick)0–10
- Q1 9:57UNCRece Verhoff 27 Yd Field Goal 0–3
How the model called it
Market line
UNC −24.5
Against the number
UNC covered
line UNC −24.5
Kickoff130 plays →Final
Tap or hover on the chart to see play details
UNC (top)RICH (bottom)· colored dots = scoresFinal: UNC 100%
Closing line
UNC −24.5
Closing total
47.5
Model line
—
Actual result
RICH 6 – 41 UNC
Richmond
- PassKyle Wickersham 6/8, 47 YDS
- RushAziz Foster-Powell 12 CAR, 38 YDS
- RecIsaiah Dawson 2 REC, 37 YDS
North Carolina
- PassGio Lopez 10/18, 119 YDS, 2 TD
- RushDemon June 14 CAR, 148 YDS, 1 TD
- RecJordan Shipp 4 REC, 52 YDS, 2 TD
31.2sper snap · slower the national 24.5s
fastnational avgslow
Snaps run
115
Points / snap
0.41
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsUNC up 24 entering the 4th quarter. Across 555 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
100%
UNC went on to win
A near-lock historically
FAQ
What was the final score of Richmond vs. North Carolina?
Richmond 6, North Carolina 41.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (UNC) was correct.
RICH
UNC
33%
Success rate
49%
0.01
EPA / pass
-0.16
-0.12
EPA / rush
0.33
32%
Early-down success
48%
25%
Pass success
50%
36%
Rush success
48%
2%
Explosive play rate (15+ yds)
12%
21%
Stuffed rush rate
14%
31%
Pass rate
43%
6.1
Avg 3rd-down distance
4.9
RICH
6.1 yards to go on 3rd down
64 scrimmage snaps
UNC
4.9 yards to go on 3rd down
51 scrimmage snaps
| RICH | UNC | |
|---|---|---|
| 199 | Total yards | 312 |
| 75 | Passing yards | 119 |
| 124 | Rushing yards | 193 |
| 15 | First downs | 16 |
| 5-13 | 3rd down | 6-11 |
| 1-3 | 4th down | 0-0 |
| 9/15 | Comp/Att | 10/19 |
| 5.0 | Yards per pass | 6.3 |
| 2.6 | Yards per rush | 6.2 |
| 3 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 2-8 | Penalties | 4-50 |
| 37:59 | Possession | 21:59 |
RICH
5/8 with the model
−1.7 pts · −0.0% win prob
UNC
3/5 with the model
−1.5 pts · −0.0% win prob
Costliest call
Q3 6:20 UNC punt on 4th & 1 at UNC 10. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 1.11 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finishRICH 3/12 scoring drives← own end zone →UNC 6/10 scoring drives
RICHPUNT3 pl, 9 yds· own 25Q1
UNCFG7 pl, 58 yds· own 33Q1
RICHPUNT3 pl, -6 yds· own 25Q1
UNCTD8 pl, 62 yds· own 38Q1
RICHDOWNS4 pl, 9 yds· own 16Q1
UNCFG5 pl, 21 yds· opp 25Q1
RICHPUNT3 pl, -14 yds· own 25Q2
UNCTD7 pl, 36 yds· opp 36Q2
RICHFG14 pl, 76 yds· own 17Q2
UNCPUNT6 pl, 24 yds· own 25Q2
RICHEND1 pl, -1 yds· own 17Q2
RICHDOWNS11 pl, 53 yds· own 46Q3
UNCPUNT3 pl, 9 yds· own 1Q3
RICHFUM2 pl, -8 yds· own 42Q3
UNCTD7 pl, 34 yds· opp 34Q3
RICHTD5 pl, 36 yds· own 26Q3
RICHPUNT3 pl, 7 yds· own 25Q4
UNCTD7 pl, 72 yds· own 28Q4
RICHINT1 pl, 0 yds· own 19Q4
UNCINT1 pl, 0 yds· opp 20Q4
RICHFG15 pl, 68 yds· own 21Q4
UNCEND1 pl, -1 yds· own 25Q4
- Q4 0:06RICHJayden Alsheskie 28 Yd Field Goal 6–41
- Q4 8:13UNCDemon June 45 Yd Run (Rece Verhoff Kick)3–41
- Q4 14:00UNCMikai Gbayor 62 Yd Fumble Return (Rece Verhoff Kick)3–34
- Q3 2:06UNCJordan Shipp 3 Yd pass from Gio Lopez (Rece Verhoff Kick)3–27
- Q2 1:11RICHJayden Alsheskie 25 Yd Field Goal 3–20
- Q2 10:01UNCGio Lopez 1 Yd Run (Rece Verhoff Kick)0–20
- Q2 14:51UNCRece Verhoff 22 Yd Field Goal 0–13
- Q1 3:22UNCJordan Shipp 29 Yd pass from Gio Lopez (Rece Verhoff Kick)0–10
- Q1 9:57UNCRece Verhoff 27 Yd Field Goal 0–3
Model prediction
how the number is builtOne or both teams lack a power rating (often an FCS opponent), so the model prediction is low-confidence for this game.
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 →
