South Carolina vs. Missouri: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
SCTeam statsMIZ
- Q4 1:34MIZRobert Meyer 40 Yd Field Goal 20–29
- Q4 9:32MIZJamal Roberts 16 Yd Run (Beau Pribula Run for Two-Point Conversion)20–26
- Q3 0:18SCWilliam Joyce 36 Yd Field Goal 20–18
- Q3 5:34MIZAhmad Hardy 5 Yd Run (Two-Point Run Conversion Failed)17–18
- Q3 8:27SCWilliam Joyce 32 Yd Field Goal 17–12
- Q2 0:17MIZRobert Meyer 22 Yd Field Goal 14–12
- Q2 2:31SCBrian Rowe Jr. 24 Yd pass from LaNorris Sellers (William Joyce Kick)14–9
- Q2 5:54MIZRobert Meyer 23 Yd Field Goal 7–9
- Q2 11:26SCVandrevius Jacobs 49 Yd pass from LaNorris Sellers (William Joyce Kick)7–6
- Q2 14:24MIZJoshua Manning 8 Yd pass from Beau Pribula (Robert Meyer PAT failed)0–6
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- SC played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and MIZ did not face the same ones. 3rd & 13.4 vs 3rd & 5.8
- SC lived on explosives rather than sustaining drives — a profile that vanished once those chunk plays were tackled. 15% explosive on a 30% success rate
- PassLaNorris Sellers 18/28, 302 YDS, 2 TD
- RushOscar Adaway III 3 CAR, 7 YDS
- RecVandrevius Jacobs 7 REC, 128 YDS, 1 TD
- PassBeau Pribula 16/27, 171 YDS, 1 TD, 1 INT
- RushAhmad Hardy 22 CAR, 138 YDS, 1 TD
- RecMarquis Johnson 7 REC, 80 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsSC up 2 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,937 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q4 9:32MIZ +38%
Jamal Roberts run for 16 yds for a TD (B. Pribula Run For Two-point Conversion)
- Q3 5:34MIZ +25%
Ahmad Hardy run for 5 yds for a TD (Two-Point Conversion failed)
- Q2 2:31SC +23%
LaNorris Sellers pass complete to Brian Rowe Jr. for 24 yds for a TD (William Joyce KICK)
- Q2 11:26SC +18%
Vandrevius Jacobs 49 Yd pass from LaNorris Sellers (William Joyce Kick)
- Q3 0:18SC +15%
William Joyce 36 yd FG GOOD
- Q2 0:17MIZ +15%
Robert Meyer 22 yd FG GOOD
FAQ
What was the final score of South Carolina vs. Missouri?
South Carolina 20, Missouri 29.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (MIZ) was correct.
| SC | MIZ | |
|---|---|---|
| 293 | Total yards | 456 |
| 302 | Passing yards | 171 |
| -9 | Rushing yards | 285 |
| 15 | First downs | 29 |
| 3-11 | 3rd down | 7-13 |
| 0-1 | 4th down | 0-0 |
| 18/28 | Comp/Att | 16/27 |
| 10.8 | Yards per pass | 6.3 |
| -0.4 | Yards per rush | 5.9 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 14-98 | Penalties | 5-54 |
| 24:43 | Possession | 35:17 |
Costliest call
Q2 0:17 MIZ field goal on 4th & 4 at SC 4. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.34 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 1:34MIZRobert Meyer 40 Yd Field Goal 20–29
- Q4 9:32MIZJamal Roberts 16 Yd Run (Beau Pribula Run for Two-Point Conversion)20–26
- Q3 0:18SCWilliam Joyce 36 Yd Field Goal 20–18
- Q3 5:34MIZAhmad Hardy 5 Yd Run (Two-Point Run Conversion Failed)17–18
- Q3 8:27SCWilliam Joyce 32 Yd Field Goal 17–12
- Q2 0:17MIZRobert Meyer 22 Yd Field Goal 14–12
- Q2 2:31SCBrian Rowe Jr. 24 Yd pass from LaNorris Sellers (William Joyce Kick)14–9
- Q2 5:54MIZRobert Meyer 23 Yd Field Goal 7–9
- Q2 11:26SCVandrevius Jacobs 49 Yd pass from LaNorris Sellers (William Joyce Kick)7–6
- Q2 14:24MIZJoshua Manning 8 Yd pass from Beau Pribula (Robert Meyer PAT failed)0–6
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (MIZ Elo 1755, SC Elo 1645 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects MIZ -6.8 (69% to win) — 3.2 points clear of SC's market line of -10. 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 profilesMissouri leads 10–6 · 44% have been one-possession games
| SC | MIZ | |
|---|---|---|
| +5.3 (#53) | CORE overall | +20.9 (#12) |
| -1 / -7 | offense / defense | +5 / -15 |
| 1.48 | points / drive | 2.45 |
| 1.63 | allowed / drive | 1.57 |
| 27% | three-and-outs | 22% |
| -2 | 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 →