UTSA vs. Texas State: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
UTSATeam statsTXST
- Q4 0:14UTSABrandon High Jr. 25 Yd Run (Michael Petro Kick)31–26
- Q4 4:36TXSTJacob Bonilla 26 Yd Field Goal 24–26
- Q4 11:54UTSAA'Marion Peterson 2 Yd Run (Michael Petro Kick)24–23
- Q3 0:00TXSTChris Dawn Jr. 13 Yd pass from Brad Jackson (Dylan Cunanan PAT failed)17–23
- Q3 7:46UTSAMichael Petro 34 Yd Field Goal 17–17
- Q3 13:01UTSAMekhi Anderson 44 Yd pass from David Amador II (Michael Petro Kick)14–17
- Q2 0:00TXSTJacob Bonilla 51 Yd Field Goal 7–17
- Q2 7:16TXSTBrad Jackson 6 Yd Run (Jacob Bonilla Kick)7–14
- Q2 13:09TXSTDavian Jackson 16 Yd Run (Jacob Bonilla Kick)7–7
- Q1 4:54UTSABrandon Young Jr. 1 Yd pass from Owen McCown (Michael Petro Kick)7–0
How the model called it
Texas State won the last meeting and grades better on last season's ledger; the throwing game is where that stops mattering.
Texas State won the last meeting on the road, 43-36, and on last season's ledger it is the better team: #24 in adjusted efficiency against UTSA's #57, six points per 100 plays apart. UTSA is projected to win 30-25 anyway. Its explosive passing against this Texas State secondary is a four-standard-deviation gap, the widest edge on the field.
Cumulative margin after each quarter. Above the line = UTSA ahead, below = TXST ahead.
Play-by-play win probability isn't available for this game — scoreboard margin by quarter shown instead.
- PassOwen McCown 28/42, 214 YDS, 1 TD
- RushWill Henderson III 14 CAR, 80 YDS
- RecMekhi Anderson 5 REC, 83 YDS, 1 TD
- PassBrad Jackson 17/30, 192 YDS, 1 TD, 2 INT
- RushTorrance Burgess Jr. 17 CAR, 149 YDS
- RecKylen Evans 5 REC, 96 YDS
FAQ
What was the final score of UTSA vs. Texas State?
UTSA 31, Texas State 26.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked TXST, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| UTSA | TXST | |
|---|---|---|
| 398 | Total yards | 481 |
| 258 | Passing yards | 192 |
| 140 | Rushing yards | 289 |
| 22 | First downs | 27 |
| 3-15 | 3rd down | 9-17 |
| 5-6 | 4th down | 0-1 |
| 29/43 | Comp/Att | 17/30 |
| 6.0 | Yards per pass | 6.4 |
| 4.5 | Yards per rush | 5.8 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 3 |
| 11-115 | Penalties | 9-90 |
| 28:20 | Possession | 31:40 |
- Q4 0:14UTSABrandon High Jr. 25 Yd Run (Michael Petro Kick)31–26
- Q4 4:36TXSTJacob Bonilla 26 Yd Field Goal 24–26
- Q4 11:54UTSAA'Marion Peterson 2 Yd Run (Michael Petro Kick)24–23
- Q3 0:00TXSTChris Dawn Jr. 13 Yd pass from Brad Jackson (Dylan Cunanan PAT failed)17–23
- Q3 7:46UTSAMichael Petro 34 Yd Field Goal 17–17
- Q3 13:01UTSAMekhi Anderson 44 Yd pass from David Amador II (Michael Petro Kick)14–17
- Q2 0:00TXSTJacob Bonilla 51 Yd Field Goal 7–17
- Q2 7:16TXSTBrad Jackson 6 Yd Run (Jacob Bonilla Kick)7–14
- Q2 13:09TXSTDavian Jackson 16 Yd Run (Jacob Bonilla Kick)7–7
- Q1 4:54UTSABrandon Young Jr. 1 Yd pass from Owen McCown (Michael Petro Kick)7–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (TXST Elo 1441, UTSA Elo 1522 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects TXST -4.6 (61% to win) — 3.1 points clear of TXST's market line of -1.5. 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 profiles| UTSA | TXST | |
|---|---|---|
| +4.7 (#52) | CORE overall | +6.5 (#46) |
| +3 / -2 | offense / defense | +8 / +2 |
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.
UTSA's deep ball meets Texas State's softest coverage
Texas State won the last meeting and grades better on last season's ledger; the throwing game is where that stops mattering.
UTSA 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 UTSA, the more likely UTSA wins.
The gap that doesn't close
Owen McCown projects for 203 to 315 passing yards with a 93% chance of a touchdown, against a pass defense that sits 152nd of 185 by what it allows. The chunk-play edge is the headline. The staying-on-schedule edge, +2.57 to UTSA, is what makes it repeatable: an offense that avoids second-and-long never hands this secondary the obvious passing downs.
Each unit matchup this season, sorted by how decisive it is — the top bar is what most tilts the game. Bars toward UTSA are battles it should win; toward Texas State are ones Texas State wins.
The ground game is a complement. Will Henderson III's band runs 36 to 100 rushing yards with a 37% touchdown chance, wide enough that UTSA cannot plan on him carrying a scoring drive. What UTSA does own on the ground is short yardage, +1.46, which matters at the goal line and on fourth-and-two, where a passing edge stops helping.
Texas State's answer runs entirely through the air
Brad Jackson draws the sturdiest unit in the game, a UTSA pass defense 70th of 185 by what it allows, and still projects for 189 to 280 yards with a 78% touchdown chance. The passing game, +1.62, is the only unit edge Texas State holds. Beau Sparks at 56 to 119 receiving yards and a 52% touchdown chance is the closest thing either side has to a red-zone certainty.
Behind that, the margins get thin fast. Chris Dawn Jr. projects for 45 to 113 yards, Kylen Evans 18 to 39. On the ground, Jaylen Jenkins sits at 15 to 42 rushing yards and Torrance Burgess Jr. at 16 to 31, bands that top out around one good drive. No run projection worth respecting, against a defense already ahead on down-and-distance, leaves a single lever, and UTSA can sit on it.
Last week cut both Ways, and not the way the scores read
Texas State lost 7-59 at Texas and went three-and-out on only 18.2% of eleven drives. It moved the ball and then stopped, scoring on 18.2% of them, a finishing failure rather than a functional one. UTSA's 45-16 win over UT Rio Grande Valley scored on half of twelve drives at 42.8 yards a drive, but went three-and-out on 33.3%. That is a boom-or-bust offense against an opponent that should never have produced either.
Texas State keeps beating its own roster
Texas State ranks 82nd in talent and 49th in results, the biggest overachiever in this matchup, and the recruiting advantage UTSA carries into Saturday is narrow enough to explain almost none of the projected margin. Counting stars underrates this team, which is how it won 43-36 as the less-regarded roster a year ago.
National recruiting-talent rank vs our on-field power rank. Bigger bar = bigger overachiever.
That #24 describes 2025. Texas State has one blowout loss since; UTSA has one win over an overmatched opponent.
Each ingredient of our projection and the side it favors — bars toward UTSA are why it's the pick (home field is counted separately).
How Texas State takes it back
The path is the one they already walked: Jackson and Sparks converting inside the twenty at the rate their projections imply, and UTSA's offense repeating the 33.3% three-and-out rate it posted last week against far lesser competition. Texas State's win probability is 38%, and our projection gives a one-score finish a little better than a one-in-three chance. The game is closer to live than a 62% favorite usually looks.
UTSA's job: throw at the coverage that ranks 152nd of 185, stay ahead of the sticks, and convert the short-yardage edge into touchdowns instead of field goals in a game projected past 64 points. Texas State has to make the rematch a possession fight and get its receivers loose against the sturdiest unit on the field.
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 →