UCLA vs. Indiana: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
UCLATeam statsIU
- Q4 11:11IUAlberto Mendoza 4 Yd Run (Nico Radicic Kick)6–56
- Q3 0:23UCLAMateen Bhaghani 30 Yd Field Goal 6–49
- Q3 4:13IUE.J. Williams Jr. 62 Yd pass from Fernando Mendoza (Nico Radicic Kick)3–49
- Q3 9:15IUFernando Mendoza 20 Yd Run (Nico Radicic Kick)3–42
- Q2 0:13IUE.J. Williams Jr. 2 Yd pass from Fernando Mendoza (Nico Radicic Kick)3–35
- Q2 1:55UCLAMateen Bhaghani 44 Yd Field Goal 3–28
- Q2 8:44IURoman Hemby 13 Yd Run (Nico Radicic Kick)0–28
- Q2 12:30IUElijah Sarratt 1 Yd pass from Fernando Mendoza (Nico Radicic Kick)0–21
- Q1 4:02IURoman Hemby 1 Yd Run (Nico Radicic Kick)0–14
- Q1 14:03IUAiden Fisher 25 Yd Interception Return (Nico Radicic Kick)0–7
How the model called it
- PassNico Iamaleava 13/27, 113 YDS, 2 INT
- RushAnthony Frias II 6 CAR, 31 YDS
- RecRico Flores Jr. 4 REC, 50 YDS
- PassFernando Mendoza 15/22, 168 YDS, 3 TD, 1 INT
- RushRoman Hemby 17 CAR, 81 YDS, 2 TD
- RecE.J. Williams Jr. 5 REC, 109 YDS, 2 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsIU up 43 entering the 4th quarter. Across 212 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
FAQ
What was the final score of UCLA vs. Indiana?
UCLA 6, Indiana 56.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (IU) was correct.
| UCLA | IU | |
|---|---|---|
| 201 | Total yards | 475 |
| 113 | Passing yards | 213 |
| 88 | Rushing yards | 262 |
| 12 | First downs | 27 |
| 1-11 | 3rd down | 12-16 |
| 1-3 | 4th down | 2-2 |
| 13/28 | Comp/Att | 19/29 |
| 4.0 | Yards per pass | 7.3 |
| 3.5 | Yards per rush | 5.6 |
| 3 | Turnovers | 2 |
| 8-82 | Penalties | 4-45 |
| 24:26 | Possession | 35:34 |
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 11:11IUAlberto Mendoza 4 Yd Run (Nico Radicic Kick)6–56
- Q3 0:23UCLAMateen Bhaghani 30 Yd Field Goal 6–49
- Q3 4:13IUE.J. Williams Jr. 62 Yd pass from Fernando Mendoza (Nico Radicic Kick)3–49
- Q3 9:15IUFernando Mendoza 20 Yd Run (Nico Radicic Kick)3–42
- Q2 0:13IUE.J. Williams Jr. 2 Yd pass from Fernando Mendoza (Nico Radicic Kick)3–35
- Q2 1:55UCLAMateen Bhaghani 44 Yd Field Goal 3–28
- Q2 8:44IURoman Hemby 13 Yd Run (Nico Radicic Kick)0–28
- Q2 12:30IUElijah Sarratt 1 Yd pass from Fernando Mendoza (Nico Radicic Kick)0–21
- Q1 4:02IURoman Hemby 1 Yd Run (Nico Radicic Kick)0–14
- Q1 14:03IUAiden Fisher 25 Yd Interception Return (Nico Radicic Kick)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (IU Elo 2017, UCLA Elo 1448 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects IU -25.2 (94% 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| UCLA | IU | |
|---|---|---|
| -6.4 (#84) | CORE overall | +35.3 (#3) |
| -2 / +4 | offense / defense | +19 / -17 |
| 1.90 | points / drive | 3.69 |
| 3.43 | allowed / drive | 0.94 |
| 21% | three-and-outs | 17% |
| +1 | 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 →