Texas A&M vs. Notre Dame: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
TA&MTeam statsND
- Q4 0:13TA&MNate Boerkircher 11 Yd pass from Marcel Reed (Randy Bond Kick)41–40
- Q4 2:53NDJeremiyah Love 12 Yd Run (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)34–40
- Q4 9:06TA&MRandy Bond 45 Yd Field Goal 34–34
- Q4 14:01NDNoah Burnette 39 Yd Field Goal 31–34
- Q3 0:44TA&MRandy Bond 43 Yd Field Goal 31–31
- Q3 8:17NDJadarian Price 17 Yd Run (Noah Burnette Kick)28–31
- Q2 1:11TA&MLe'Veon Moss 1 Yd Run (Randy Bond Kick)28–24
- Q2 5:32TA&MLe'Veon Moss 2 Yd Run (Randy Bond Kick)21–24
- Q2 9:43NDJeremiyah Love 36 Yd pass from CJ Carr (Noah Burnette Kick)14–24
- Q2 12:23TA&MLe'Veon Moss 1 Yd Run (Randy Bond Kick)14–17
- Q2 14:54NDNoah Burnette 22 Yd Field Goal 7–17
- Q1 6:30NDJadarian Price 7 Yd Run (Noah Burnette Kick)7–14
- Q1 9:33TA&MMario Craver 86 Yd pass from Marcel Reed (Randy Bond Kick)7–7
- Q1 13:06NDTae Johnson 20 Yd Return of Blocked Punt (Noah Burnette Kick)0–7
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- TA&M played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and ND did not face the same ones. 3rd & 9.6 vs 3rd & 6.5
- PassMarcel Reed 17/37, 360 YDS, 2 TD, 1 INT
- RushLe'Veon Moss 20 CAR, 81 YDS, 3 TD
- RecMario Craver 7 REC, 207 YDS, 1 TD
- PassCJ Carr 20/32, 293 YDS, 1 TD, 1 INT
- RushJeremiyah Love 23 CAR, 94 YDS, 1 TD
- RecEli Raridon 4 REC, 85 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsTied entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,332 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q4 0:13TA&M +99%
Marcel Reed pass complete to Nate Boerkircher for 11 yds for a TD (Randy Bond KICK)
- Q4 0:04ND +87%
CJ Carr pass incomplete to Malachi Fields
- Q4 2:53ND +24%
Jeremiyah Love run for 12 yds for a TD (Two-Point Conversion failed)
- Q3 8:17ND +19%
Jadarian Price run for 17 yds for a TD (Noah Burnette KICK)
- Q3 0:44TA&M +19%
Randy Bond 43 yd FG GOOD
- Q4 14:01ND +18%
Noah Burnette 39 yd FG GOOD
FAQ
What was the final score of Texas A&M vs. Notre Dame?
Texas A&M 41, Notre Dame 40.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked ND, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| TA&M | ND | |
|---|---|---|
| 488 | Total yards | 429 |
| 360 | Passing yards | 293 |
| 128 | Rushing yards | 136 |
| 24 | First downs | 23 |
| 4-11 | 3rd down | 7-15 |
| 1-1 | 4th down | 2-4 |
| 17/37 | Comp/Att | 20/32 |
| 9.7 | Yards per pass | 9.2 |
| 4.0 | Yards per rush | 3.5 |
| 1 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 13-86 | Penalties | 5-31 |
| 26:53 | Possession | 33:07 |
Costliest call
Q2 14:54 ND field goal on 4th & 4 at TA&M 4. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.34 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 0:13TA&MNate Boerkircher 11 Yd pass from Marcel Reed (Randy Bond Kick)41–40
- Q4 2:53NDJeremiyah Love 12 Yd Run (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)34–40
- Q4 9:06TA&MRandy Bond 45 Yd Field Goal 34–34
- Q4 14:01NDNoah Burnette 39 Yd Field Goal 31–34
- Q3 0:44TA&MRandy Bond 43 Yd Field Goal 31–31
- Q3 8:17NDJadarian Price 17 Yd Run (Noah Burnette Kick)28–31
- Q2 1:11TA&MLe'Veon Moss 1 Yd Run (Randy Bond Kick)28–24
- Q2 5:32TA&MLe'Veon Moss 2 Yd Run (Randy Bond Kick)21–24
- Q2 9:43NDJeremiyah Love 36 Yd pass from CJ Carr (Noah Burnette Kick)14–24
- Q2 12:23TA&MLe'Veon Moss 1 Yd Run (Randy Bond Kick)14–17
- Q2 14:54NDNoah Burnette 22 Yd Field Goal 7–17
- Q1 6:30NDJadarian Price 7 Yd Run (Noah Burnette Kick)7–14
- Q1 9:33TA&MMario Craver 86 Yd pass from Marcel Reed (Randy Bond Kick)7–7
- Q1 13:06NDTae Johnson 20 Yd Return of Blocked Punt (Noah Burnette Kick)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (ND Elo 2166, TA&M Elo 1724 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects ND -20.1 (90% to win) — 13.1 points clear of ND's market line of -7. 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#106 of 112 in 2025 by biggest miss · #68 of 129 in 2025 by longest odds · #40 of 57 in 2025 by biggest poll gap.
The 2025 upset archive →| TA&M | ND | |
|---|---|---|
| +22.7 (#9) | CORE overall | +38.3 (#2) |
| +12 / -11 | offense / defense | +20 / -18 |
| 2.65 | points / drive | 3.84 |
| 1.67 | allowed / drive | 1.28 |
| 20% | three-and-outs | 17% |
| +3 | pass over expected | +0 |
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 →