James Madison vs. Troy: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
JMUTeam statsTROY
- Q4 13:49TROYJabre Barber 24 Yd pass from Gunnar Watson (Scott Taylor Renfroe Kick)16–14
- Q3 9:32JMUCamden Wise 32 Yd Field Goal 16–7
- Q2 2:24JMUElijah Sarratt 9 Yd pass from Jordan McCloud (Camden Wise Kick)13–7
- Q2 11:10TROYDevonte Ross 14 Yd pass from Gunnar Watson (Scott Taylor Renfroe Kick)6–7
- Q2 14:06JMUCamden Wise 36 Yd Field Goal 6–0
- Q1 0:00JMUCamden Wise 28 Yd Field Goal 3–0
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- TROY lived on explosives rather than sustaining drives — a profile that vanished once those chunk plays were tackled. 16% explosive on a 32% success rate
- PassJordan McCloud 17/25, 187 YDS, 1 TD
- RushKaelon Black 13 CAR, 78 YDS
- RecElijah Sarratt 6 REC, 62 YDS, 1 TD
- PassGunnar Watson 25/46, 333 YDS, 2 TD, 1 INT
- RushKimani Vidal 11 CAR, 27 YDS
- RecChris Lewis 4 REC, 94 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsJMU up 9 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,695 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q4 0:00JMU +39%
[NHSG] Kneel down by MCCLOUD, Jordan at JMU41 (team loss of 2)
- Q4 13:49TROY +34%
Gunnar Watson pass complete to Jabre Barber for 24 yds for a TD (Scott Taylor Renfroe KICK)
- Q4 3:03TROY +28%
Gunnar Watson pass incomplete
- Q2 2:24JMU +26%
Jordan McCloud pass complete to Elijah Sarratt for 9 yds for a TD (Camden Wise KICK)
- Q2 11:10TROY +22%
Gunnar Watson pass complete to Devonte Ross for 14 yds for a TD (Scott Taylor Renfroe KICK)
- Q4 5:35JMU +21%
Ty Son Lawton run for 6 yds to the JMU 37
FAQ
What was the final score of James Madison vs. Troy?
James Madison 16, Troy 14.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (JMU) was correct.
| JMU | TROY | |
|---|---|---|
| 290 | Total yards | 321 |
| 187 | Passing yards | 333 |
| 103 | Rushing yards | -12 |
| 13 | First downs | 18 |
| 3-16 | 3rd down | 3-15 |
| 1-1 | 4th down | 2-4 |
| 17/25 | Comp/Att | 25/46 |
| 7.5 | Yards per pass | 7.2 |
| 2.6 | Yards per rush | -0.6 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 6-40 | Penalties | 6-40 |
| 33:43 | Possession | 26:17 |
Costliest call
Q1 9:56 JMU punt on 4th & 13 at TROY 35. The model preferred field goal, a gap of 1.07 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 13:49TROYJabre Barber 24 Yd pass from Gunnar Watson (Scott Taylor Renfroe Kick)16–14
- Q3 9:32JMUCamden Wise 32 Yd Field Goal 16–7
- Q2 2:24JMUElijah Sarratt 9 Yd pass from Jordan McCloud (Camden Wise Kick)13–7
- Q2 11:10TROYDevonte Ross 14 Yd pass from Gunnar Watson (Scott Taylor Renfroe Kick)6–7
- Q2 14:06JMUCamden Wise 36 Yd Field Goal 6–0
- Q1 0:00JMUCamden Wise 28 Yd Field Goal 3–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (TROY Elo 1501, JMU Elo 1595 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects TROY +1.4 (48% to win) — 4.4 points clear of JMU's market line of -3. 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 — 2023
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles| JMU | TROY | |
|---|---|---|
| +17.1 (#16) | CORE overall | +10.8 (#31) |
| +6 / -11 | offense / defense | -0 / -11 |
| 2.64 | points / drive | 2.40 |
| 1.48 | allowed / drive | 1.38 |
| 27% | three-and-outs | 23% |
| +8 | pass over expected | +6 |
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 →