Middle Tennessee vs. Marshall: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
MTSUTeam statsMRSH
- Q4 6:24MRSHHyleck Foster 22 Yd pass from Chase Litton (Amoreto Curraj Kick)17–42
- Q4 12:03MRSHJosh Knight 9 Yd pass from Chase Litton (Amoreto Curraj Kick)17–35
- Q4 13:23MRSHAnthony Anderson 15 Yd Run (Amoreto Curraj Kick)17–28
- Q3 11:13MRSHJustin Hunt 28 Yd pass from Chase Litton (Amoreto Curraj Kick)17–21
- Q2 2:56MTSUI'Tavius Mathers 1 Yd Run (Canon Rooker Kick)17–14
- Q2 9:17MRSHJustin Hunt 25 Yd pass from Chase Litton (Amoreto Curraj Kick)10–14
- Q1 0:25MTSUDennis Andrews 7 Yd pass from John Urzua (Canon Rooker Kick)10–7
- Q1 6:33MTSUCanon Rooker 38 Yd Field Goal 3–7
- Q1 12:36MRSHHyleck Foster 3 Yd Run (Amoreto Curraj Kick)0–7
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- MTSU played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and MRSH did not face the same ones. 3rd & 7.5 vs 3rd & 5.4
- MTSU lived on explosives rather than sustaining drives — a profile that vanished once those chunk plays were tackled. 13% explosive on a 32% success rate
- PassJohn Urzua 25/37, 220 YDS, 1 TD, 2 INT
- RushI'Tavius Mathers 15 CAR, 45 YDS, 1 TD
- RecRichie James 12 REC, 122 YDS
- PassChase Litton 21/37, 246 YDS, 4 TD
- RushAnthony Anderson 16 CAR, 109 YDS, 1 TD
- RecJustin Hunt 5 REC, 87 YDS, 2 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsMRSH up 4 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,449 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q3 11:13MRSH +26%
Chase Litton pass complete to Justin Hunt for 28 yds for a TD, (Amoreto Curraj KICK)
- Q4 13:23MRSH +23%
Anthony Anderson run for 15 yds for a TD, (Amoreto Curraj KICK)
- Q2 2:56MTSU +22%
I'Tavius Mathers run for 1 yd for a TD, (Canon Rooker KICK)
- Q2 9:17MRSH +22%
Chase Litton pass complete to Justin Hunt for 25 yds for a TD, (Amoreto Curraj KICK)
- Q1 0:25MTSU +19%
John Urzua pass complete to Dennis Andrews for 7 yds for a TD, (Canon Rooker KICK)
- Q1 12:36MRSH +18%
Hyleck Foster run for 3 yds for a TD, (Amoreto Curraj KICK)
FAQ
What was the final score of Middle Tennessee vs. Marshall?
Middle Tennessee 17, Marshall 42.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked MTSU, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| MTSU | MRSH | |
|---|---|---|
| 283 | Total yards | 453 |
| 220 | Passing yards | 246 |
| 63 | Rushing yards | 207 |
| 15 | First downs | 29 |
| 5-14 | 3rd down | 6-14 |
| 1-1 | 4th down | 2-3 |
| 25/37 | Comp/Att | 21/37 |
| 5.9 | Yards per pass | 6.6 |
| 2.5 | Yards per rush | 5.0 |
| 4 | Turnovers | 0 |
| 5-42 | Penalties | 3-35 |
| 27:18 | Possession | 32:42 |
Costliest call
Q1 6:33 MRSH punt on 4th & 1 at MRSH 41. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 1.10 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 6:24MRSHHyleck Foster 22 Yd pass from Chase Litton (Amoreto Curraj Kick)17–42
- Q4 12:03MRSHJosh Knight 9 Yd pass from Chase Litton (Amoreto Curraj Kick)17–35
- Q4 13:23MRSHAnthony Anderson 15 Yd Run (Amoreto Curraj Kick)17–28
- Q3 11:13MRSHJustin Hunt 28 Yd pass from Chase Litton (Amoreto Curraj Kick)17–21
- Q2 2:56MTSUI'Tavius Mathers 1 Yd Run (Canon Rooker Kick)17–14
- Q2 9:17MRSHJustin Hunt 25 Yd pass from Chase Litton (Amoreto Curraj Kick)10–14
- Q1 0:25MTSUDennis Andrews 7 Yd pass from John Urzua (Canon Rooker Kick)10–7
- Q1 6:33MTSUCanon Rooker 38 Yd Field Goal 3–7
- Q1 12:36MRSHHyleck Foster 3 Yd Run (Amoreto Curraj Kick)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (MRSH Elo 1270, MTSU Elo 1430 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects MRSH +4 (41% to win) — 5.0 points clear of MRSH's market line of +9. 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#17 of 113 in 2016 by biggest miss · #52 of 124 in 2016 by longest odds.
The 2016 upset archive →The series is level at 5–5 · 30% have been one-possession games
| MTSU | MRSH | |
|---|---|---|
| +0.1 (#62) | CORE overall | -25.1 (#124) |
| +8 / +8 | offense / defense | -12 / +13 |
| 2.81 | points / drive | 1.64 |
| 2.78 | allowed / drive | 3.14 |
| 25% | three-and-outs | 33% |
| +10 | pass over expected | +7 |
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 →