SMU vs. TCU: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
SMUTeam statsTCU
- Q4 6:03TCUEric McAlister 44 Yd pass from Josh Hoover (Nate McCashland Kick)24–35
- Q4 9:18TCUEric McAlister 70 Yd pass from Josh Hoover (Nate McCashland Kick)24–28
- Q4 10:30SMUJordan Hudson 34 Yd pass from Kevin Jennings (Sam Keltner Kick)24–21
- Q3 5:54SMUYamir Knight 7 Yd pass from Kevin Jennings (Sam Keltner Kick)17–21
- Q3 10:50TCUJoseph Manjack IV 4 Yd pass from Josh Hoover (Nate McCashland Kick)10–21
- Q2 7:21SMUMatthew Hibner 9 Yd pass from Kevin Jennings (Sam Keltner Kick)10–14
- Q2 14:26TCUJeremy Payne 10 Yd pass from Josh Hoover (Nate McCashland Kick)3–14
- Q1 3:32SMUSam Keltner 28 Yd Field Goal 3–7
- Q1 8:56TCUEric McAlister 27 Yd pass from Josh Hoover (Nate McCashland Kick)0–7
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- TCU lived on explosives rather than sustaining drives — a profile that vanished once those chunk plays were tackled. 13% explosive on a 38% success rate
- PassKevin Jennings 24/38, 290 YDS, 3 TD, 2 INT
- RushTJ Harden 15 CAR, 56 YDS
- RecYamir Knight 5 REC, 69 YDS, 1 TD
- PassJosh Hoover 22/40, 379 YDS, 5 TD, 1 INT
- RushTrent Battle 7 CAR, 60 YDS
- RecEric McAlister 8 REC, 254 YDS, 3 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsTCU up 4 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,449 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q4 10:30SMU +40%
Kevin Jennings pass complete to Jordan Hudson for 34 yds for a TD (Sam Keltner KICK)
- Q4 9:18TCU +39%
Josh Hoover pass complete to Eric McAlister for 70 yds for a TD (Nate McCashland KICK)
- Q1 13:55SMU +20%
PENALTY SMU False Start (Hibner,Matthew) 5 yards from SMU33 to SMU28. NO PLAY
- Q4 8:14TCU +15%
PENALTY TCU False Start (Hughes,Ryan) 5 yards from TCU25 to TCU20. NO PLAY
- Q4 10:23TCU +14%
Jeremy Payne run for 5 yds to the TCU 30
- Q4 6:03TCU +14%
Josh Hoover pass complete to Eric McAlister for 44 yds for a TD (Nate McCashland KICK)
FAQ
What was the final score of SMU vs. TCU?
SMU 24, TCU 35.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (TCU) was correct.
| SMU | TCU | |
|---|---|---|
| 384 | Total yards | 517 |
| 290 | Passing yards | 379 |
| 94 | Rushing yards | 138 |
| 19 | First downs | 24 |
| 4-13 | 3rd down | 9-17 |
| 1-1 | 4th down | 3-4 |
| 24/38 | Comp/Att | 22/40 |
| 7.6 | Yards per pass | 9.5 |
| 3.5 | Yards per rush | 3.7 |
| 2 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 7-70 | Penalties | 9-65 |
| 28:54 | Possession | 31:06 |
Costliest call
Q2 0:01 TCU punt on 4th & 4 at SMU 48. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.43 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 6:03TCUEric McAlister 44 Yd pass from Josh Hoover (Nate McCashland Kick)24–35
- Q4 9:18TCUEric McAlister 70 Yd pass from Josh Hoover (Nate McCashland Kick)24–28
- Q4 10:30SMUJordan Hudson 34 Yd pass from Kevin Jennings (Sam Keltner Kick)24–21
- Q3 5:54SMUYamir Knight 7 Yd pass from Kevin Jennings (Sam Keltner Kick)17–21
- Q3 10:50TCUJoseph Manjack IV 4 Yd pass from Josh Hoover (Nate McCashland Kick)10–21
- Q2 7:21SMUMatthew Hibner 9 Yd pass from Kevin Jennings (Sam Keltner Kick)10–14
- Q2 14:26TCUJeremy Payne 10 Yd pass from Josh Hoover (Nate McCashland Kick)3–14
- Q1 3:32SMUSam Keltner 28 Yd Field Goal 3–7
- Q1 8:56TCUEric McAlister 27 Yd pass from Josh Hoover (Nate McCashland Kick)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (TCU Elo 1713, SMU Elo 1711 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects TCU -2.5 (58% to win) — 4.0 points clear of SMU's market line of -6.5. 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 15 · through week 2 · drive simulation
Season form — 2025
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profilesTCU leads 54–42–7 · 42% have been one-possession games
| SMU | TCU | |
|---|---|---|
| +14.6 (#27) | CORE overall | +13.2 (#31) |
| +9 / -5 | offense / defense | +6 / -7 |
| 2.63 | points / drive | 2.55 |
| 1.64 | allowed / drive | 2.13 |
| 30% | three-and-outs | 25% |
| +10 | pass over expected | +7 |
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 →