Troy vs. UL Monroe: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
TROYTeam statsULM
- Q4 7:30TROYJoe Lott 53 Yd Interception Return (Scott Taylor Renfroe Kick)37–14
- Q4 14:12TROYScott Taylor Renfroe 26 Yd Field Goal 30–14
- Q3 0:32TROYTray Taylor 11 Yd Run (Scott Taylor Renfroe Kick)27–14
- Q3 1:20TROYScott Taylor Renfroe 41 Yd Field Goal 20–14
- Q3 9:40ULMBrandon Buckhaulter 12 Yd pass from Aidan Armenta (Hunter Herring PAT failed)17–14
- Q2 3:06TROYTray Taylor 60 Yd pass from Tucker Kilcrease (Scott Taylor Renfroe Kick)17–8
- Q2 14:55ULMNic Trujillo 7 Yd pass from Hunter Herring (Andrew Wells Run for Two-Point Conversion)10–8
- Q1 6:01TROYScott Taylor Renfroe 29 Yd Field Goal 10–0
- Q1 12:32TROYTae Meadows 20 Yd Run (Scott Taylor Renfroe Kick)7–0
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- ULM lived on explosives rather than sustaining drives — a profile that vanished once those chunk plays were tackled. 13% explosive on a 38% success rate
- PassTucker Kilcrease 13/21, 223 YDS, 1 TD
- RushTae Meadows 14 CAR, 66 YDS, 1 TD
- RecTray Taylor 2 REC, 89 YDS, 1 TD
- PassAidan Armenta 19/33, 171 YDS, 1 TD, 2 INT
- RushZach Palmer-Smith 10 CAR, 78 YDS
- RecJonathan Bibbs 4 REC, 60 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsTROY up 13 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,180 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q3 1:20TROY +14%
Scott Taylor Renfroe 41 yd FG GOOD
- Q3 9:40ULM +14%
Aidan Armenta pass complete to Brandon Buckhaulter for 12 yds for a TD (Hunter Herring PAT MISSED)
- Q3 0:32TROY +8%
Tray Taylor run for 11 yds for a TD (Scott Taylor Renfroe KICK)
- Q3 5:32ULM +6%
Makenzie Ryan punt for 45 yds, returns for 9 yds to the ULM 48
- Q3 0:32TROY +6%
PENALTY ULM UNR: Unnecessary Roughness (Langston,Seidrion) 15 yards from TROY35 to TROY50. NO PLAY
- Q3 1:01ULM +6%
Aidan Armenta pass complete to Jonathan Bibbs for 12 yds to the ULM 37 for a 1ST down
FAQ
What was the final score of Troy vs. UL Monroe?
Troy 37, UL Monroe 14.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (TROY) was correct.
| TROY | ULM | |
|---|---|---|
| 314 | Total yards | 326 |
| 223 | Passing yards | 228 |
| 91 | Rushing yards | 98 |
| 13 | First downs | 20 |
| 5-13 | 3rd down | 5-13 |
| 1-2 | 4th down | 3-4 |
| 13/21 | Comp/Att | 23/41 |
| 10.6 | Yards per pass | 5.6 |
| 2.8 | Yards per rush | 3.4 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 4 |
| 7-74 | Penalties | 4-40 |
| 26:55 | Possession | 33:05 |
Costliest call
Q3 9:40 ULM go for it on 4th & 11 at TROY 12. The model preferred field goal, a gap of 0.85 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 7:30TROYJoe Lott 53 Yd Interception Return (Scott Taylor Renfroe Kick)37–14
- Q4 14:12TROYScott Taylor Renfroe 26 Yd Field Goal 30–14
- Q3 0:32TROYTray Taylor 11 Yd Run (Scott Taylor Renfroe Kick)27–14
- Q3 1:20TROYScott Taylor Renfroe 41 Yd Field Goal 20–14
- Q3 9:40ULMBrandon Buckhaulter 12 Yd pass from Aidan Armenta (Hunter Herring PAT failed)17–14
- Q2 3:06TROYTray Taylor 60 Yd pass from Tucker Kilcrease (Scott Taylor Renfroe Kick)17–8
- Q2 14:55ULMNic Trujillo 7 Yd pass from Hunter Herring (Andrew Wells Run for Two-Point Conversion)10–8
- Q1 6:01TROYScott Taylor Renfroe 29 Yd Field Goal 10–0
- Q1 12:32TROYTae Meadows 20 Yd Run (Scott Taylor Renfroe Kick)7–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (ULM Elo 1077, TROY Elo 1471 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects ULM +13.4 (20% to win) — 8.4 points clear of TROY's market line of +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 1 · through week 1 · drive simulation
Season form — 2025
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profilesTroy leads 11–8 · 32% have been one-possession games
| TROY | ULM | |
|---|---|---|
| -16.6 (#116) | CORE overall | -15.2 (#108) |
| -13 / +4 | offense / defense | -8 / +7 |
| 1.77 | points / drive | 1.37 |
| 1.83 | allowed / drive | 2.91 |
| 30% | three-and-outs | 32% |
| +0 | pass over expected | -8 |
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 →