Tulane vs. Temple: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
TULNTeam statsTEM
- Q4 6:58TULNPatrick Durkin 52 Yd Field Goal 37–13
- Q4 9:55TULNJustyn Reid 4 Yd pass from Jake Retzlaff (Jake Retzlaff Pass to Anthony Brown-Stephens for Two-Point Conversion)34–13
- Q4 12:56TEMColin Chase 2 Yd pass from Evan Simon (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)26–13
- Q3 0:53TULNPatrick Durkin 42 Yd Field Goal 26–7
- Q3 9:05TULNPatrick Durkin 38 Yd Field Goal 23–7
- Q2 0:21TULNPatrick Durkin 36 Yd Field Goal 20–7
- Q2 6:36TULNJake Retzlaff 2 Yd Run (Patrick Durkin Kick)17–7
- Q1 0:27TEMPeter Clarke 3 Yd pass from Evan Simon (Carl Hardin Kick)10–7
- Q1 4:30TULNPatrick Durkin 50 Yd Field Goal 10–0
- Q1 12:33TULNShazz Preston 69 Yd pass from Jake Retzlaff (Patrick Durkin Kick)7–0
How the model called it
- PassJake Retzlaff 17/28, 231 YDS, 2 TD
- RushJamauri McClure 17 CAR, 122 YDS
- RecShazz Preston 5 REC, 96 YDS, 1 TD
- PassEvan Simon 21/32, 168 YDS, 2 TD
- RushJay Ducker 7 CAR, 17 YDS
- RecColin Chase 5 REC, 59 YDS, 1 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsTULN up 19 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,041 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
FAQ
What was the final score of Tulane vs. Temple?
Tulane 37, Temple 13.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (TULN) was correct.
| TULN | TEM | |
|---|---|---|
| 406 | Total yards | 204 |
| 231 | Passing yards | 184 |
| 175 | Rushing yards | 20 |
| 22 | First downs | 14 |
| 3-12 | 3rd down | 5-15 |
| 1-1 | 4th down | 1-2 |
| 17/29 | Comp/Att | 24/37 |
| 8.0 | Yards per pass | 5.0 |
| 4.5 | Yards per rush | 1.0 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 8-83 | Penalties | 8-73 |
| 34:21 | Possession | 25:39 |
Costliest call
Q3 9:05 TULN field goal on 4th & 1 at TEM 20. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.82 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 6:58TULNPatrick Durkin 52 Yd Field Goal 37–13
- Q4 9:55TULNJustyn Reid 4 Yd pass from Jake Retzlaff (Jake Retzlaff Pass to Anthony Brown-Stephens for Two-Point Conversion)34–13
- Q4 12:56TEMColin Chase 2 Yd pass from Evan Simon (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)26–13
- Q3 0:53TULNPatrick Durkin 42 Yd Field Goal 26–7
- Q3 9:05TULNPatrick Durkin 38 Yd Field Goal 23–7
- Q2 0:21TULNPatrick Durkin 36 Yd Field Goal 20–7
- Q2 6:36TULNJake Retzlaff 2 Yd Run (Patrick Durkin Kick)17–7
- Q1 0:27TEMPeter Clarke 3 Yd pass from Evan Simon (Carl Hardin Kick)10–7
- Q1 4:30TULNPatrick Durkin 50 Yd Field Goal 10–0
- Q1 12:33TULNShazz Preston 69 Yd pass from Jake Retzlaff (Patrick Durkin Kick)7–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (TEM Elo 1266, TULN Elo 1543 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects TEM +8.7 (29% 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 profilesThe series is level at 4–4 · Tulane has won 3 straight · 38% have been one-possession games
| TULN | TEM | |
|---|---|---|
| +7.0 (#47) | CORE overall | -11.9 (#100) |
| +5 / -2 | offense / defense | -3 / +9 |
| 2.56 | points / drive | 2.16 |
| 2.20 | allowed / drive | 3.17 |
| 27% | three-and-outs | 29% |
| +2 | pass over expected | +1 |
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 →