Utah State vs. Vanderbilt: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
USUTeam statsVAN
- Q4 0:55USUJaven Jacobs 6 Yd pass from Jacob Conover (Tanner Rinker Kick)35–55
- Q4 5:21VANMakhilyn Young 15 Yd Run (Justin Dewers Kick)28–55
- Q4 8:23USUBrady Boyd 14 Yd pass from Jacob Conover (Tanner Rinker Kick)28–48
- Q3 1:19VANRichie Hoskins 53 Yd pass from Diego Pavia (Brock Taylor Kick)21–48
- Q3 4:13VANBrock Taylor 31 Yd Field Goal 21–41
- Q3 9:32VANEli Stowers 10 Yd pass from Diego Pavia (Brock Taylor Kick)21–38
- Q2 0:00VANBrock Taylor 46 Yd Field Goal 21–31
- Q2 0:20USUBraden Pegan 9 Yd pass from Bryson Barnes (Tanner Rinker Kick)21–28
- Q2 1:20VANJunior Sherrill 18 Yd pass from Diego Pavia (Brock Taylor Kick)14–28
- Q2 2:18VANJunior Sherrill 18 Yd pass from Diego Pavia (Brock Taylor Kick)14–21
- Q2 6:14VANDiego Pavia 6 Yd Run (Brock Taylor Kick)14–14
- Q2 11:22USUJosh Sterzer 10 Yd pass from Bryson Barnes (Tanner Rinker Kick)14–7
- Q1 1:29VANJunior Sherrill 21 Yd pass from Diego Pavia (Brock Taylor Kick)7–7
- Q1 7:45USUMiles Davis 18 Yd pass from Bryson Barnes (Tanner Rinker Kick)7–0
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- USU played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and VAN did not face the same ones. 3rd & 8.3 vs 3rd & 4.6
- PassBryson Barnes 15/22, 161 YDS, 3 TD
- RushJaven Jacobs 4 CAR, 63 YDS
- RecBroc Lane 7 REC, 98 YDS
- PassDiego Pavia 26/34, 321 YDS, 5 TD, 1 INT
- RushDiego Pavia 9 CAR, 79 YDS, 1 TD
- RecJunior Sherrill 6 REC, 91 YDS, 3 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsVAN up 27 entering the 4th quarter. Across 532 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
FAQ
What was the final score of Utah State vs. Vanderbilt?
Utah State 35, Vanderbilt 55.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (VAN) was correct.
| USU | VAN | |
|---|---|---|
| 393 | Total yards | 543 |
| 274 | Passing yards | 321 |
| 119 | Rushing yards | 222 |
| 21 | First downs | 31 |
| 5-14 | 3rd down | 5-8 |
| 0-1 | 4th down | 0-0 |
| 28/38 | Comp/Att | 26/35 |
| 7.2 | Yards per pass | 9.2 |
| 4.8 | Yards per rush | 7.4 |
| 1 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 3-30 | Penalties | 6-65 |
| 26:43 | Possession | 33:17 |
Costliest call
Q3 8:00 USU go for it on 4th & 7 at USU 28. The model preferred punt, a gap of 0.67 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 0:55USUJaven Jacobs 6 Yd pass from Jacob Conover (Tanner Rinker Kick)35–55
- Q4 5:21VANMakhilyn Young 15 Yd Run (Justin Dewers Kick)28–55
- Q4 8:23USUBrady Boyd 14 Yd pass from Jacob Conover (Tanner Rinker Kick)28–48
- Q3 1:19VANRichie Hoskins 53 Yd pass from Diego Pavia (Brock Taylor Kick)21–48
- Q3 4:13VANBrock Taylor 31 Yd Field Goal 21–41
- Q3 9:32VANEli Stowers 10 Yd pass from Diego Pavia (Brock Taylor Kick)21–38
- Q2 0:00VANBrock Taylor 46 Yd Field Goal 21–31
- Q2 0:20USUBraden Pegan 9 Yd pass from Bryson Barnes (Tanner Rinker Kick)21–28
- Q2 1:20VANJunior Sherrill 18 Yd pass from Diego Pavia (Brock Taylor Kick)14–28
- Q2 2:18VANJunior Sherrill 18 Yd pass from Diego Pavia (Brock Taylor Kick)14–21
- Q2 6:14VANDiego Pavia 6 Yd Run (Brock Taylor Kick)14–14
- Q2 11:22USUJosh Sterzer 10 Yd pass from Bryson Barnes (Tanner Rinker Kick)14–7
- Q1 1:29VANJunior Sherrill 21 Yd pass from Diego Pavia (Brock Taylor Kick)7–7
- Q1 7:45USUMiles Davis 18 Yd pass from Bryson Barnes (Tanner Rinker Kick)7–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (VAN Elo 1741, USU Elo 1442 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects VAN -14.4 (83% to win) — 9.1 points clear of USU's market line of -23.5. 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| USU | VAN | |
|---|---|---|
| -4.1 (#77) | CORE overall | +25.4 (#8) |
| -1 / +3 | offense / defense | +28 / +2 |
| 2.33 | points / drive | 3.85 |
| 2.43 | allowed / drive | 2.40 |
| 31% | three-and-outs | 16% |
| +4 | pass over expected | +5 |
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 →