UL Monroe vs. UTEP: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
ULMTeam statsUTEP
- Q4 6:00UTEPWondame Davis Jr. 20 Yd pass from Malachi Nelson (Carlos Arreola Kick)31–25
- Q4 13:31UTEPWondame Davis Jr. 44 Yd pass from Malachi Nelson (Malachi Nelson Pass to Hahsaun Wilson for Two-Point Conversion)31–18
- Q3 5:39UTEPCarlos Arreola 27 Yd Field Goal 31–10
- Q3 7:53ULMHunter Herring 1 Yd Run (Luke Stagg Kick)31–7
- Q2 5:40ULMLuke Stagg 44 Yd Field Goal 24–7
- Q2 12:42ULMJonathan Bibbs 35 Yd pass from Aidan Armenta (Luke Stagg Kick)21–7
- Q1 2:31ULMBraylon McReynolds 40 Yd Run (Luke Stagg Kick)14–7
- Q1 7:27UTEPTrevon Tate 73 Yd pass from Malachi Nelson (Carlos Arreola Kick)7–7
- Q1 7:44ULMJake Godfrey 12 Yd pass from Aidan Armenta (Luke Stagg Kick)7–0
How the model called it
- PassAidan Armenta 8/14, 136 YDS, 2 TD
- RushBam McReynolds 18 CAR, 107 YDS, 1 TD
- RecJake Godfrey 2 REC, 49 YDS, 1 TD
- PassMalachi Nelson 22/46, 404 YDS, 3 TD, 2 INT
- RushHahsaun Wilson 10 CAR, 21 YDS
- RecTrevon Tate 7 REC, 133 YDS, 1 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsULM up 21 entering the 4th quarter. Across 671 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q4 6:00UTEP +21%
Malachi Nelson pass complete to Wondame Davis Jr. for 20 yds for a TD (Carlos Arreola KICK)
- Q1 2:31ULM +19%
Braylon McReynolds run for 40 yds for a TD (Luke Stagg KICK)
- Q2 12:42ULM +19%
Aidan Armenta pass complete to Jonathan Bibbs for 35 yds for a TD (Luke Stagg KICK)
- Q1 7:27UTEP +19%
Malachi Nelson pass complete to Trevon Tate for 73 yds for a TD (Carlos Arreola KICK)
- Q4 3:45ULM +19%
PENALTY ULM Delay Of Game (Armenta,Aidan) 5 yards from ULM48 to ULM43. NO PLAY
- Q1 7:44ULM +18%
Aidan Armenta pass complete to Jake Godfrey for 12 yds for a TD (Luke Stagg KICK)
FAQ
What was the final score of UL Monroe vs. UTEP?
UL Monroe 31, UTEP 25.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked UTEP, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| ULM | UTEP | |
|---|---|---|
| 399 | Total yards | 442 |
| 149 | Passing yards | 409 |
| 250 | Rushing yards | 33 |
| 18 | First downs | 21 |
| 2-10 | 3rd down | 8-19 |
| 0-1 | 4th down | 1-4 |
| 9/15 | Comp/Att | 23/50 |
| 9.9 | Yards per pass | 8.2 |
| 6.0 | Yards per rush | 1.2 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 2 |
| 12-98 | Penalties | 8-80 |
| 31:51 | Possession | 28:09 |
Costliest call
Q4 8:35 ULM punt on 4th & 5 at UTEP 43. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.63 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 6:00UTEPWondame Davis Jr. 20 Yd pass from Malachi Nelson (Carlos Arreola Kick)31–25
- Q4 13:31UTEPWondame Davis Jr. 44 Yd pass from Malachi Nelson (Malachi Nelson Pass to Hahsaun Wilson for Two-Point Conversion)31–18
- Q3 5:39UTEPCarlos Arreola 27 Yd Field Goal 31–10
- Q3 7:53ULMHunter Herring 1 Yd Run (Luke Stagg Kick)31–7
- Q2 5:40ULMLuke Stagg 44 Yd Field Goal 24–7
- Q2 12:42ULMJonathan Bibbs 35 Yd pass from Aidan Armenta (Luke Stagg Kick)21–7
- Q1 2:31ULMBraylon McReynolds 40 Yd Run (Luke Stagg Kick)14–7
- Q1 7:27UTEPTrevon Tate 73 Yd pass from Malachi Nelson (Carlos Arreola Kick)7–7
- Q1 7:44ULMJake Godfrey 12 Yd pass from Aidan Armenta (Luke Stagg Kick)7–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (UTEP Elo 1248, ULM Elo 1116 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects UTEP -7.7 (71% to win) — 2.2 points clear of UTEP's market line of -5.5. 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 15 · through week 2 · drive simulation
Season form — 2025
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles| ULM | UTEP | |
|---|---|---|
| -15.2 (#108) | CORE overall | -26.7 (#131) |
| -8 / +7 | offense / defense | -26 / +1 |
| 1.37 | points / drive | 1.32 |
| 2.91 | allowed / drive | 2.36 |
| 32% | three-and-outs | 32% |
| -8 | pass over expected | -0 |
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 →