UTSA vs. Texas A&M: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
UTSATeam statsTA&M
- Q4 0:14UTSAAJ Wilson 34 Yd pass from Brandon Tennison (Michael Petro Kick)24–42
- Q4 7:16TA&MEJ Smith 3 Yd Run (Jared Zirkel Kick)17–42
- Q3 2:48TA&MMario Craver 22 Yd pass from Marcel Reed (Jared Zirkel Kick)17–35
- Q3 7:10TA&MTheo Melin Ohrstrom 1 Yd pass from Marcel Reed (Jared Zirkel Kick)17–28
- Q3 14:47UTSARobert Henry Jr. 75 Yd Run (Michael Petro Kick)17–21
- Q2 5:38TA&MKC Concepcion 31 Yd pass from Marcel Reed (Jared Zirkel Kick)10–21
- Q2 8:33UTSARobert Henry Jr. 15 Yd Run (Michael Petro Kick)10–14
- Q2 13:13TA&MMario Craver 24 Yd pass from Marcel Reed (Jared Zirkel Kick)3–14
- Q1 1:53UTSAMichael Petro 36 Yd Field Goal 3–7
- Q1 7:21TA&MKC Concepcion 80 Yd Punt Return (Jared Zirkel Kick)0–7
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- UTSA lived on explosives rather than sustaining drives — a profile that vanished once those chunk plays were tackled. 13% explosive on a 34% success rate
- PassOwen McCown 19/32, 121 YDS
- RushRobert Henry Jr. 16 CAR, 177 YDS, 2 TD
- RecDavid Amador II 3 REC, 41 YDS
- PassMarcel Reed 22/34, 289 YDS, 4 TD
- RushMarcel Reed 8 CAR, 39 YDS
- RecMario Craver 8 REC, 122 YDS, 2 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsTA&M up 18 entering the 4th quarter. Across 838 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q3 14:47UTSA +18%
Robert Henry Jr. run for 75 yds for a TD (Michael Petro KICK)
- Q3 7:10TA&M +14%
Marcel Reed pass complete to Theo Melin Ohrstrom for 1 yd for a TD (Jared Zirkel KICK)
- Q2 8:33UTSA +14%
Robert Henry Jr. run for 15 yds for a TD (Michael Petro KICK)
- Q1 7:21TA&M +13%
Caile Hogan punt for 42 yds, KC Concepcion returns for 80 yds for a TD (Jared Zirkel KICK)
- Q2 5:38TA&M +13%
Marcel Reed pass complete to KC Concepcion for 31 yds for a TD (Jared Zirkel KICK)
- Q2 13:13TA&M +12%
Marcel Reed pass complete to Mario Craver for 24 yds for a TD (Jared Zirkel KICK)
FAQ
What was the final score of UTSA vs. Texas A&M?
UTSA 24, Texas A&M 42.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (TA&M) was correct.
| UTSA | TA&M | |
|---|---|---|
| 373 | Total yards | 399 |
| 170 | Passing yards | 291 |
| 203 | Rushing yards | 108 |
| 17 | First downs | 17 |
| 5-16 | 3rd down | 3-11 |
| 1-1 | 4th down | 1-1 |
| 21/34 | Comp/Att | 23/36 |
| 5.0 | Yards per pass | 8.1 |
| 6.2 | Yards per rush | 4.7 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 0 |
| 4-34 | Penalties | 7-50 |
| 33:41 | Possession | 26:19 |
Costliest call
Q1 10:15 TA&M punt on 4th & 1 at TA&M 29. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 1.11 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 0:14UTSAAJ Wilson 34 Yd pass from Brandon Tennison (Michael Petro Kick)24–42
- Q4 7:16TA&MEJ Smith 3 Yd Run (Jared Zirkel Kick)17–42
- Q3 2:48TA&MMario Craver 22 Yd pass from Marcel Reed (Jared Zirkel Kick)17–35
- Q3 7:10TA&MTheo Melin Ohrstrom 1 Yd pass from Marcel Reed (Jared Zirkel Kick)17–28
- Q3 14:47UTSARobert Henry Jr. 75 Yd Run (Michael Petro Kick)17–21
- Q2 5:38TA&MKC Concepcion 31 Yd pass from Marcel Reed (Jared Zirkel Kick)10–21
- Q2 8:33UTSARobert Henry Jr. 15 Yd Run (Michael Petro Kick)10–14
- Q2 13:13TA&MMario Craver 24 Yd pass from Marcel Reed (Jared Zirkel Kick)3–14
- Q1 1:53UTSAMichael Petro 36 Yd Field Goal 3–7
- Q1 7:21TA&MKC Concepcion 80 Yd Punt Return (Jared Zirkel Kick)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (TA&M Elo 1674, UTSA Elo 1529 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects TA&M -8.2 (72% to win) — 14.8 points clear of UTSA's market line of -23. 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| UTSA | TA&M | |
|---|---|---|
| +4.7 (#58) | CORE overall | +22.7 (#9) |
| +3 / -2 | offense / defense | +12 / -11 |
| 2.63 | points / drive | 2.65 |
| 1.99 | allowed / drive | 1.67 |
| 22% | three-and-outs | 20% |
| +5 | pass over expected | +3 |
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 →