Tennessee vs. Georgia Tech: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
TENNTeam statsGT
- Q4 1:30TENNDaune Morris 47 Yd Run (Cooper Ranvier Kick)45–24
- Q4 1:39GTJustice Haynes 2 Yd Run (Aidan Birr Kick)38–24
- Q4 4:25TENNDeSean Bishop 29 Yd Run (Cooper Ranvier Kick)38–17
- Q3 7:10GTJustice Haynes 2 Yd pass from Alberto Mendoza (Aidan Birr Kick)31–17
- Q3 11:41TENNDeSean Bishop 17 Yd Run (Cooper Ranvier Kick)31–10
- Q2 4:21TENNBraylon Staley 20 Yd pass from Faizon Brandon (Cooper Ranvier Kick)24–10
- Q2 11:24TENNDejuan Lane 41 Yd Interception Return (Cooper Ranvier Kick)17–10
- Q2 14:01TENNCooper Ranvier 32 Yd Field Goal 10–10
- Q1 5:49GTElgin Sessions 3 Yd Return of Blocked Punt (Aidan Birr Kick)7–10
- Q1 6:33GTAidan Birr 30 Yd Field Goal 7–3
- Q1 12:22TENNEthan Davis 25 Yd pass from Faizon Brandon (Cooper Ranvier Kick)7–0
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- GT kept reaching scoring range and leaving points there — the drives worked, the finishes did not. 1.3 pts per trip vs 3.9
Georgia Tech scored on 27.3% of its drives against Colorado, and now it meets the defense best equipped to take away power football.
Tennessee is favored by 13.5 on the road, and the cleanest reason has nothing to do with points scored. Georgia Tech's short-yardage and power running against the Tennessee front grades at minus-3.30 standard deviations — nothing else on this board is within two sigma of it. Take away a team's ability to convert third-and-2 and you never have to stop anything else; the drive chart does the rest of the work by itself.
- PassFaizon Brandon 10/21, 148 YDS, 2 TD
- RushDeSean Bishop 20 CAR, 147 YDS, 2 TD
- RecRadarious Jackson 3 REC, 64 YDS
- PassAlberto Mendoza 26/40, 221 YDS, 1 TD, 2 INT
- RushJustice Haynes 14 CAR, 81 YDS, 1 TD
- RecKevin Roche Jr. 6 REC, 66 YDS
- Q2 11:24TENN +17%
Shotgun #15 A.Mendoza pass intercepted by #10 D.Lane at GT 41 #10 D.Lane return 41 yards to the GT 00 TOUCHDOWN
- Q1 5:49GT +16%
Elgin Sessions 3 Yd Return of Blocked Punt (Aidan Birr Kick)
- Q1 12:22TENN +14%
No Huddle-Shotgun #11 F.Brandon pass complete short middle to #0 E.Davis caught at GT 11, for 25 yards to the GT 00 TOUCHDOWN, 1ST DOWN
- Q2 6:17TENN +11%
#47 A.Bacchetta punt 35 yards to the UT 45 blocked by #2 X.Gilliam
- Q2 14:01TENN +8%
#28 C.Ranvier field goal attempt from 32 yards GOOD
- Q1 6:33GT +6%
#33 A.Birr field goal attempt from 30 yards GOOD PENALTY UT Offside declined
FAQ
What was the final score of Tennessee vs. Georgia Tech?
Tennessee 45, Georgia Tech 24.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (TENN) was correct.
| TENN | GT | |
|---|---|---|
| 447 | Total yards | 356 |
| 148 | Passing yards | 221 |
| 299 | Rushing yards | 135 |
| 24 | First downs | 25 |
| 8-14 | 3rd down | 7-13 |
| 1-1 | 4th down | 0-2 |
| 10/21 | Comp/Att | 26/40 |
| 7.0 | Yards per pass | 5.5 |
| 6.6 | Yards per rush | 4.4 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 2 |
| 14-142 | Penalties | 5-46 |
| 28:48 | Possession | 31:12 |
Costliest call
Q3 3:21 TENN punt on 4th & 3 at GT 42. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 1.08 points.
- GTEnd of Game5 plays · 39 yds · from GT 35 · Q4 1:22+1.6 EPA
- TENNTouchdown1 plays · 47 yds · from TENN 35 · Q4 1:38
- GTTouchdown8 plays · 75 yds · from GT 35 · Q4 4:25+1.7 EPA
- TENNTouchdown3 plays · 23 yds · from GT 23 · Q4 4:43+0.0 EPA
- GTDowns4 plays · -7 yds · from GT 30 · Q4 6:26+3.0 EPA
- TENNPunt11 plays · 12 yds · from TENN 14 · Q4 13:30+5.0 EPA+2% WP
- GTDowns9 plays · 66 yds · from GT 20 · Q3 3:21−1.7 EPA−1% WP
- TENNPunt8 plays · 33 yds · from TENN 35 · Q3 7:10+1.9 EPA+1% WP
- GTTouchdown9 plays · 75 yds · from GT 35 · Q3 11:41+5.2 EPA+3% WP
- TENNTouchdown8 plays · 75 yds · from TENN 35 · Q3 15:00+3.9 EPA+5% WP
- TENNEnd of Half2 plays · 4 yds · from TENN 29 · Q2 0:29−0.9 EPA
- GTInterception9 plays · 52 yds · from GT 35 · Q2 4:21+0.3 EPA−1% WP
- TENNTouchdown6 plays · 55 yds · from TENN 45 · Q2 6:07−0.9 EPA
- GTPunt3 plays · 4 yds · from GT 16 · Q2 7:40−0.7 EPA−11% WP
- Q4 1:30TENNDaune Morris 47 Yd Run (Cooper Ranvier Kick)45–24
- Q4 1:39GTJustice Haynes 2 Yd Run (Aidan Birr Kick)38–24
- Q4 4:25TENNDeSean Bishop 29 Yd Run (Cooper Ranvier Kick)38–17
- Q3 7:10GTJustice Haynes 2 Yd pass from Alberto Mendoza (Aidan Birr Kick)31–17
- Q3 11:41TENNDeSean Bishop 17 Yd Run (Cooper Ranvier Kick)31–10
- Q2 4:21TENNBraylon Staley 20 Yd pass from Faizon Brandon (Cooper Ranvier Kick)24–10
- Q2 11:24TENNDejuan Lane 41 Yd Interception Return (Cooper Ranvier Kick)17–10
- Q2 14:01TENNCooper Ranvier 32 Yd Field Goal 10–10
- Q1 5:49GTElgin Sessions 3 Yd Return of Blocked Punt (Aidan Birr Kick)7–10
- Q1 6:33GTAidan Birr 30 Yd Field Goal 7–3
- Q1 12:22TENNEthan Davis 25 Yd pass from Faizon Brandon (Cooper Ranvier Kick)7–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (GT Elo 1553, TENN Elo 1691 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects GT +8.3 (30% to win) — 4.2 points clear of GT's market line of +12.5. 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 — 2026
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profilesTennessee leads 25–17–2 · Tennessee has won 2 straight · 45% have been one-possession games
| TENN | GT | |
|---|---|---|
| +12.7 (#30) | CORE overall | +6.8 (#44) |
| +9 / -3 | offense / defense | +3 / -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.
Georgia Tech's Short-yardage offense meets its worst matchup
Georgia Tech scored on 27.3% of its drives against Colorado, and now it meets the defense best equipped to take away power football.
Tennessee wins
The range of outcomes for this game. Each bar is how often the final margin lands in that range — the more it leans toward Tennessee, the more likely Tennessee wins.
The 42-41 game is a memory, not evidence
Every broadcast and every fan thread will open with the 2017 trip here, when Tennessee escaped 42-41. It is the only shared history these programs have, and it cuts against a two-touchdown number in shape rather than in substance: neither roster has anything to do with that night. What survives is a reminder that this building has hosted a game that stayed live to the final possession, not any read on who is better in 2026.
Georgia Tech's opener was the matchup sheet in miniature
Georgia Tech lost 13-14 at home to Colorado eight days ago, and the box score reads like a scouting report written in advance. Eleven possessions, points on 27.3% of them, three-and-outs on 45.5%, 26.7 yards gained per drive. An offense stalling that early never reaches the short-yardage downs where Tennessee's edge is widest — it is already punting on second-and-long, which is a worse problem than losing the third-and-1.
The staying-on-schedule matchup runs the same direction at minus-1.64 sigma, and overall efficiency at minus-1.41. Those are three measurements of one problem: Georgia Tech has to win first and second down to have an offense at all, and this is the defense built to deny exactly that. It is also how a 13.5-point favorite gets to its number without needing a single explosive play or a short field.
Each unit matchup this season, sorted by how decisive it is — the top bar is what most tilts the game. Bars toward Tennessee are battles it should win; toward Georgia Tech are ones Georgia Tech wins.
Points allowed per drive across all FBS defenses (lower is better). Tennessee's defense is one of the best in the country — better than 100% of FBS defenses.
Tech's defense isn't why Tech lost its opener
The half of the opener that gets skipped: Georgia Tech held Colorado to a one-point win and still lost. Its best matchup on Saturday is explosive passing, where it grades a full 1.16 sigma ahead of the Tennessee offense. That matters because the chunk plays are what turn a 13.5-point spread into a 24-point one, and they are the likeliest thing on the field to get denied.
The same edge cuts the other way for Georgia Tech's own passing game. Jordan Allen projects for 16 to 52 receiving yards into a Tennessee secondary that sits 27th of 185 by what it allows — a band that wide, that low, is the honest read on a receiver who has to win against coverage while his offense is behind schedule. Tech's throw game is not the equalizer here; its defense is.
Tennessee's only clean edge is on the ground, so that's the plan
Tennessee grades ahead by 0.92 sigma running the football and behind throwing it, which narrows the script considerably. DeSean Bishop projects for 60 to 116 rushing yards with a 73% chance of finding the end zone — the widest and most valuable band on either side. The gap between the low and high end of that range is roughly the gap between a competitive fourth quarter and a game decided before it.
The receiving projections tell the same story from the other angle. Braylon Staley lands between 37 and 101 yards with a 39% touchdown chance, Mike Matthews between 38 and 96 at 28%, Ethan Davis between 22 and 70 at 30%. Three overlapping bands, none of them a workload — that is what a passing game looks like when it faces the one unit its opponent grades up in, and it argues for handing the ball off.
The 56-9 win over Furman is worth what an FCS opener is worth, but one number inside it is worth carrying forward: Tennessee went three-and-out on 38.5% of its possessions while scoring on 61.5% and gaining 47.8 yards per drive. That is a boom-or-nothing rhythm produced against an overmatched defense, and against a Georgia Tech unit that just held a Power Four opponent to a one-point night, the empty half of it gets longer.
The best argument for Georgia Tech is a year old
Adjust for situation and schedule and Georgia Tech graded 28th through 2025 with Tennessee 69th, six points per 100 plays apart — in the underdog's favor. That is genuinely the strongest card on this side of the table and also the least verified: it is last season's ledger, and the Colorado game did nothing to confirm it carried into this roster. Take it at face value and 13.5 is too many. Watch the opener and it isn't.
Each ingredient of our projection and the side it favors — bars toward Tennessee are why it's the pick (home field is counted separately).
Resolving that tension is the whole handicap. One team's case rests on what it did last November; the other's rests on a September afternoon against an FCS opponent. Neither is clean evidence, which is why the projection sits at 33-25 rather than somewhere emphatic, and why Georgia Tech's win probability of 33% is a real number rather than a courtesy; this is a clear favorite, not a settled one.
How Georgia Tech keeps this inside the number
The dog's path is narrow but concrete: control the clock, keep the turnover margin even, and force Tennessee to earn 13 points a quarter without the deep shot. Malachi Hosley projecting at 28 to 78 rushing yards with a 41% touchdown chance is not a workload that wins a game outright, but it is enough to bleed a possession off the board if the early-down runs stay ahead of the sticks.
Those criteria are more achievable than what Tennessee needs stacked on top of each other, and the projection reflects it: the favorite covers 13.5 only about a third of the time in this spot, landing roughly six points short of the number. Our projection gives a one-score finish a bit better than a one-in-three chance, and the under only about one in four, a methodical Tennessee win with points on the board is the central case.
So: Tennessee wins by keeping the ball on the ground, staying on schedule, and forcing Georgia Tech into third-and-4-plus, where the minus-3.30 power edge never gets a chance to be contested. Georgia Tech's version requires the opposite, early-down efficiency it has not shown since last season, plus the explosive-pass denial its defense is genuinely graded for. The total sits at 55.2 either way; this is not a game that ends in the teens.
Our coverage of this game
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 →