UL Monroe vs. Texas State: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
ULMTeam statsTXST
- Q4 1:44TXSTBrad Jackson 7 Yd Run (Tyler Robles Kick)14–31
- Q4 7:37ULMAidan Armenta 12 Yd Run (Jacob Chambliss Kick)14–24
- Q4 11:30TXSTBeau Sparks 16 Yd pass from Brad Jackson (Tyler Robles Kick)7–24
- Q3 3:12TXSTLincoln Pare 6 Yd pass from Brad Jackson (Tyler Robles Kick)7–17
- Q3 7:15ULMZach Palmer-Smith 14 Yd Run (Jacob Chambliss Kick)7–10
- Q3 11:10TXSTBrad Jackson 19 Yd Run (Tyler Robles Kick)0–10
- Q2 12:08TXSTTyler Robles 30 Yd Field Goal 0–3
How the model called it
- PassAidan Armenta 19/26, 166 YDS
- RushZach Palmer-Smith 15 CAR, 80 YDS, 1 TD
- RecJP Coulter 3 REC, 56 YDS
- PassBrad Jackson 25/32, 201 YDS, 2 TD, 1 INT
- RushBrad Jackson 15 CAR, 88 YDS, 2 TD
- RecBeau Sparks 10 REC, 68 YDS, 1 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsTXST up 10 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,140 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
FAQ
What was the final score of UL Monroe vs. Texas State?
UL Monroe 14, Texas State 31.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (TXST) was correct.
| ULM | TXST | |
|---|---|---|
| 300 | Total yards | 422 |
| 166 | Passing yards | 201 |
| 134 | Rushing yards | 221 |
| 19 | First downs | 26 |
| 5-13 | 3rd down | 8-14 |
| 1-2 | 4th down | 0-0 |
| 19/26 | Comp/Att | 25/32 |
| 6.4 | Yards per pass | 6.3 |
| 3.8 | Yards per rush | 5.1 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 4-50 | Penalties | 4-35 |
| 27:53 | Possession | 32:07 |
Costliest call
Q1 13:16 TXST punt on 4th & 3 at TXST 47. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.52 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 1:44TXSTBrad Jackson 7 Yd Run (Tyler Robles Kick)14–31
- Q4 7:37ULMAidan Armenta 12 Yd Run (Jacob Chambliss Kick)14–24
- Q4 11:30TXSTBeau Sparks 16 Yd pass from Brad Jackson (Tyler Robles Kick)7–24
- Q3 3:12TXSTLincoln Pare 6 Yd pass from Brad Jackson (Tyler Robles Kick)7–17
- Q3 7:15ULMZach Palmer-Smith 14 Yd Run (Jacob Chambliss Kick)7–10
- Q3 11:10TXSTBrad Jackson 19 Yd Run (Tyler Robles Kick)0–10
- Q2 12:08TXSTTyler Robles 30 Yd Field Goal 0–3
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (TXST Elo 1542, ULM Elo 1004 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects TXST -23.9 (93% to win) — 3.4 points clear of TXST's market line of -20.5. 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 profilesTexas State leads 8–6 · Texas State has won 3 straight · 50% have been one-possession games
| ULM | TXST | |
|---|---|---|
| -15.2 (#108) | CORE overall | +9.4 (#41) |
| -8 / +7 | offense / defense | +12 / +3 |
| 1.37 | points / drive | 3.21 |
| 2.91 | allowed / drive | 2.73 |
| 32% | three-and-outs | 20% |
| -8 | 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 →