Louisiana Tech vs. SMU: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
LTTeam statsSMU
- Q4 8:47LTJonathan Barnes 41 Yd Field Goal 51–10
- Q3 3:53LTJonathan Barnes 43 Yd Field Goal 48–10
- Q3 10:33LTJonathan Barnes 28 Yd Field Goal 45–10
- Q2 0:15SMUTrey Quinn 9 Yd pass from Ben Hicks (Josh Williams Kick)42–10
- Q2 1:33LTKam McKnight 11 Yd pass from J'Mar Smith (Jonathan Barnes Kick)42–3
- Q2 5:12LTTeddy Veal 27 Yd pass from J'Mar Smith (Jonathan Barnes Kick)35–3
- Q2 11:31LTDarryl Lewis 23 Yd Interception Return (Jonathan Barnes Kick)28–3
- Q1 0:45LTTeddy Veal 6 Yd pass from J'Mar Smith (Jonathan Barnes Kick)21–3
- Q1 3:04SMUJosh Williams 25 Yd Field Goal 14–3
- Q1 6:50LTAmik Robertson 45 Yd Interception Return (Jonathan Barnes Kick)14–0
- Q1 7:43LTJ'Mar Smith 1 Yd Run (Jonathan Barnes Kick)7–0
How the model called it
- PassJ'Mar Smith 15/23, 216 YDS, 3 TD
- RushBoston Scott 19 CAR, 103 YDS
- RecTeddy Veal 5 REC, 118 YDS, 2 TD
- PassBen Hicks 19/34, 127 YDS, 1 TD, 3 INT
- RushBraeden West 8 CAR, 56 YDS
- RecCourtland Sutton 6 REC, 68 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsLT up 38 entering the 4th quarter. Across 183 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q1 7:43LT +18%
J'Mar Smith run for 1 yd for a TD, (Jonathan Barnes KICK)
- Q1 6:50LT +14%
Ben Hicks pass intercepted for a TD Amik Robertson return for 45 yds for a TD, (Jonathan Barnes KICK)
- Q1 0:45LT +14%
J'Mar Smith pass complete to Teddy Veal for 6 yds for a TD, (Jonathan Barnes KICK)
- Q1 3:04SMU +6%
Josh Williams 25 yd FG GOOD
- Q2 11:31LT +5%
Ben Hicks pass intercepted for a TD Darryl Lewis return for 23 yds for a TD, (Jonathan Barnes KICK)
FAQ
What was the final score of Louisiana Tech vs. SMU?
Louisiana Tech 51, SMU 10.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked SMU, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| LT | SMU | |
|---|---|---|
| 357 | Total yards | 294 |
| 216 | Passing yards | 127 |
| 141 | Rushing yards | 167 |
| 18 | First downs | 20 |
| 6-16 | 3rd down | 5-15 |
| 1-2 | 4th down | 0-0 |
| 16/27 | Comp/Att | 19/34 |
| 8.0 | Yards per pass | 3.7 |
| 3.7 | Yards per rush | 4.1 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 6 |
| 5-50 | Penalties | 5-35 |
| 30:21 | Possession | 29:39 |
Costliest call
Q4 12:26 LT punt on 4th & 1 at LT 38. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.97 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 8:47LTJonathan Barnes 41 Yd Field Goal 51–10
- Q3 3:53LTJonathan Barnes 43 Yd Field Goal 48–10
- Q3 10:33LTJonathan Barnes 28 Yd Field Goal 45–10
- Q2 0:15SMUTrey Quinn 9 Yd pass from Ben Hicks (Josh Williams Kick)42–10
- Q2 1:33LTKam McKnight 11 Yd pass from J'Mar Smith (Jonathan Barnes Kick)42–3
- Q2 5:12LTTeddy Veal 27 Yd pass from J'Mar Smith (Jonathan Barnes Kick)35–3
- Q2 11:31LTDarryl Lewis 23 Yd Interception Return (Jonathan Barnes Kick)28–3
- Q1 0:45LTTeddy Veal 6 Yd pass from J'Mar Smith (Jonathan Barnes Kick)21–3
- Q1 3:04SMUJosh Williams 25 Yd Field Goal 14–3
- Q1 6:50LTAmik Robertson 45 Yd Interception Return (Jonathan Barnes Kick)14–0
- Q1 7:43LTJ'Mar Smith 1 Yd Run (Jonathan Barnes Kick)7–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (SMU Elo 1448, LT Elo 1440 for reference), on a neutral field. That projects SMU -0.3 (52% to win) — 3.7 points clear of LT's market line of -4. 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 — 2017
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles#5 of 107 in 2017 by biggest miss · #84 of 126 in 2017 by longest odds.
The 2017 upset archive →| LT | SMU | |
|---|---|---|
| -0.7 (#66) | CORE overall | -3.3 (#73) |
| +2 / +2 | offense / defense | +7 / +10 |
| 2.38 | points / drive | 2.62 |
| 1.87 | allowed / drive | 2.88 |
| 25% | three-and-outs | 24% |
| +1 | pass over expected | +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.
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 →