Texas Tech vs. Utah: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
TTUTeam statsUTAH
- Q4 1:53TTUReggie Virgil 21 Yd pass from Will Hammond (Stone Harrington Kick)34–10
- Q4 3:41TTUCameron Dickey 24 Yd Run (Stone Harrington Kick)27–10
- Q4 8:29TTUTerrance Carter Jr. 24 Yd pass from Will Hammond (Stone Harrington Kick)20–10
- Q4 10:22UTAHWayshawn Parker 5 Yd Run (Dillon Curtis Kick)13–10
- Q4 12:33TTUStone Harrington 25 Yd Field Goal13–3
- Q2 0:00UTAHDillon Curtis 32 Yd Field Goal10–3
- Q2 0:48TTUStone Harrington 58 Yd Field Goal10–0
- Q1 10:13TTUCameron Dickey 1 Yd Run (Stone Harrington Kick)7–0
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- TTU played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and UTAH did not face the same ones. 3rd & 9.8 vs 3rd & 6.3
- TTU lived on explosives rather than sustaining drives — a profile that vanished once those chunk plays were tackled. 12% explosive on a 37% success rate
- PassWill Hammond 13/16, 169 YDS, 2 TD
- RushCameron Dickey 13 CAR, 67 YDS, 2 TD
- RecReggie Virgil 6 REC, 72 YDS, 1 TD
- PassDevon Dampier 25/38, 162 YDS, 2 INT
- RushNaQuari Rogers 10 CAR, 37 YDS
- RecDallen Bentley 6 REC, 75 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsTTU up 7 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,299 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q4 10:22UTAH +31%
Wayshawn Parker 5 Yd Run (Dillon Curtis Kick)
- Q4 8:29TTU +22%
Terrance Carter Jr. 24 Yd pass from Will Hammond (Stone Harrington Kick)
- Q4 12:33TTU +20%
Stone Harrington 25 Yd Field Goal
- Q1 10:13TTU +18%
Cameron Dickey 1 Yd Run (Stone Harrington Kick)
- Q4 10:22TTU +15%
Will Hammond run for 32 yds to the UTAH 43 for a 1ST down
- Q2 0:00UTAH +12%
Dillon Curtis 32 Yd Field Goal
FAQ
What was the final score of Texas Tech vs. Utah?
Texas Tech 34, Utah 10.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked UTAH, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| TTU | UTAH | |
|---|---|---|
| 484 | Total yards | 263 |
| 311 | Passing yards | 162 |
| 173 | Rushing yards | 101 |
| 20 | First downs | 16 |
| 9-17 | 3rd down | 4-14 |
| 0-0 | 4th down | 0-2 |
| 25/35 | Comp/Att | 25/38 |
| 8.9 | Yards per pass | 4.3 |
| 4.7 | Yards per rush | 3.3 |
| 2 | Turnovers | 4 |
| 14-122 | Penalties | 2-10 |
| 32:15 | Possession | 27:45 |
Costliest call
Q3 4:46 TTU punt on 4th & 9 at UTAH 39. The model preferred field goal, a gap of 0.44 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 1:53TTUReggie Virgil 21 Yd pass from Will Hammond (Stone Harrington Kick)34–10
- Q4 3:41TTUCameron Dickey 24 Yd Run (Stone Harrington Kick)27–10
- Q4 8:29TTUTerrance Carter Jr. 24 Yd pass from Will Hammond (Stone Harrington Kick)20–10
- Q4 10:22UTAHWayshawn Parker 5 Yd Run (Dillon Curtis Kick)13–10
- Q4 12:33TTUStone Harrington 25 Yd Field Goal13–3
- Q2 0:00UTAHDillon Curtis 32 Yd Field Goal10–3
- Q2 0:48TTUStone Harrington 58 Yd Field Goal10–0
- Q1 10:13TTUCameron Dickey 1 Yd Run (Stone Harrington Kick)7–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (UTAH Elo 1668, TTU Elo 1690 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects UTAH -1.5 (55% to win), essentially in line with the market.
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 1 · through week 1 · drive simulation
Season form — 2025
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles#26 of 112 in 2025 by biggest miss · #87 of 129 in 2025 by longest odds · #57 of 57 in 2025 by biggest poll gap.
The 2025 upset archive →| TTU | UTAH | |
|---|---|---|
| +33.7 (#5) | CORE overall | +29.1 (#7) |
| +4 / -30 | offense / defense | +19 / -10 |
| 2.82 | points / drive | 3.52 |
| 0.95 | allowed / drive | 1.62 |
| 23% | three-and-outs | 18% |
| +4 | pass over expected | -4 |
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 →