UTSA vs. Middle Tennessee: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
UTSATeam statsMTSU
- Q4 4:10UTSAVictor Falcon 38 Yd Field Goal 45–25
- Q4 7:11MTSUTerelle West 1 Yd Run (John Urzua Pass to CJ Windham for Two-Point Conversion)42–25
- Q3 0:52UTSADalton Sturm 1 Yd Run (Victor Falcon Kick)42–17
- Q3 10:55UTSAJarveon Williams 22 Yd Run (Victor Falcon Kick)35–17
- Q3 11:37MTSURichie James 53 Yd pass from John Urzua (Canon Rooker Kick)28–17
- Q2 0:00MTSUCanon Rooker 30 Yd Field Goal 28–10
- Q2 1:27UTSAJosh Stewart 16 Yd pass from Dalton Sturm (Victor Falcon Kick)28–7
- Q2 6:13UTSAJarveon Williams 2 Yd Run (Victor Falcon Kick)21–7
- Q1 2:14UTSAJalen Rhodes 26 Yd Run (Victor Falcon Kick)14–7
- Q1 8:47MTSUDennis Andrews 16 Yd pass from Brent Stockstill (Canon Rooker Kick)7–7
- Q1 10:12UTSAJarveon Williams 6 Yd Run (Victor Falcon Kick)7–0
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- MTSU played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and UTSA did not face the same ones. 3rd & 7.7 vs 3rd & 5.4
- PassDalton Sturm 9/19, 108 YDS, 1 TD, 1 INT
- RushJarveon Williams 21 CAR, 109 YDS, 3 TD
- RecJosh Stewart 3 REC, 38 YDS, 1 TD
- PassJohn Urzua 14/27, 161 YDS, 1 TD, 3 INT
- RushI'Tavius Mathers 15 CAR, 93 YDS
- RecRichie James 5 REC, 100 YDS, 1 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsUTSA up 25 entering the 4th quarter. Across 584 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q2 6:13UTSA +25%
Jarveon Williams run for 2 yds for a TD, (Victor Falcon KICK)
- Q1 2:14UTSA +19%
Jalen Rhodes run for 26 yds for a TD, (Victor Falcon KICK)
- Q1 10:12UTSA +18%
Jarveon Williams run for 6 yds for a TD, (Victor Falcon KICK)
- Q3 11:37MTSU +17%
John Urzua pass complete to Richie James for 53 yds for a TD, (Canon Rooker KICK)
- Q1 8:47MTSU +17%
Brent Stockstill pass complete to Dennis Andrews for 16 yds for a TD, (Canon Rooker KICK)
- Q2 1:27UTSA +16%
Dalton Sturm pass complete to Josh Stewart for 16 yds for a TD, (Victor Falcon KICK)
FAQ
What was the final score of UTSA vs. Middle Tennessee?
UTSA 45, Middle Tennessee 25.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked MTSU, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| UTSA | MTSU | |
|---|---|---|
| 378 | Total yards | 369 |
| 108 | Passing yards | 259 |
| 270 | Rushing yards | 110 |
| 24 | First downs | 19 |
| 11-19 | 3rd down | 2-12 |
| 2-2 | 4th down | 0-2 |
| 9/21 | Comp/Att | 22/38 |
| 5.1 | Yards per pass | 6.8 |
| 4.6 | Yards per rush | 3.9 |
| 2 | Turnovers | 4 |
| 3-25 | Penalties | 4-32 |
| 37:50 | Possession | 22:10 |
Costliest call
Q2 15:00 MTSU go for it on 4th & 7 at UTSA 30. The model preferred field goal, a gap of 0.32 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 4:10UTSAVictor Falcon 38 Yd Field Goal 45–25
- Q4 7:11MTSUTerelle West 1 Yd Run (John Urzua Pass to CJ Windham for Two-Point Conversion)42–25
- Q3 0:52UTSADalton Sturm 1 Yd Run (Victor Falcon Kick)42–17
- Q3 10:55UTSAJarveon Williams 22 Yd Run (Victor Falcon Kick)35–17
- Q3 11:37MTSURichie James 53 Yd pass from John Urzua (Canon Rooker Kick)28–17
- Q2 0:00MTSUCanon Rooker 30 Yd Field Goal 28–10
- Q2 1:27UTSAJosh Stewart 16 Yd pass from Dalton Sturm (Victor Falcon Kick)28–7
- Q2 6:13UTSAJarveon Williams 2 Yd Run (Victor Falcon Kick)21–7
- Q1 2:14UTSAJalen Rhodes 26 Yd Run (Victor Falcon Kick)14–7
- Q1 8:47MTSUDennis Andrews 16 Yd pass from Brent Stockstill (Canon Rooker Kick)7–7
- Q1 10:12UTSAJarveon Williams 6 Yd Run (Victor Falcon Kick)7–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (MTSU Elo 1502, UTSA Elo 1320 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects MTSU -9.7 (75% to win) — 9.8 points clear of UTSA's market line of -19.5. 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 — 2016
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles#10 of 113 in 2016 by biggest miss · #10 of 124 in 2016 by longest odds.
The 2016 upset archive →| UTSA | MTSU | |
|---|---|---|
| -2.9 (#77) | CORE overall | +0.1 (#62) |
| -4 / -1 | offense / defense | +8 / +8 |
| 2.31 | points / drive | 2.81 |
| 2.27 | allowed / drive | 2.78 |
| 34% | three-and-outs | 25% |
| -4 | pass over expected | +10 |
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 →