Houston Christian vs. UT Martin: Final Score & Recap

ReplayCommandBoxAnalyticsMatchup

Houston Christian0-1

07

UT Martin0-1

▸0066

Final

Graham Stadium

	1	2	3	4	T
HOUS	7	0	0	0	7
UT M	14	24	21	7	66

HOUSTeam statsUT M

213Total yards707

174Pass437

39Rush270

7First downs32

3-153rd down9-15

3Turnovers1

21:38Possession38:22

Scoring plays

• Q4 13:32UT MAjay Smith 32 Yd pass from Kody Sparks (Aidan Laros Kick)7–66
• Q3 8:24UT MMarlon Cook Jr. 3 Yd pass from Kinkead Dent (Aidan Laros Kick)7–59
• Q3 10:38UT MKinkead Dent 9 Yd Run (Aidan Laros Kick)7–52
• Q3 14:47UT MNarkel Leflore 95 Yd Kickoff Return (Aidan Laros Kick)7–45
• Q2 3:12UT MAidan Laros 33 Yd Field Goal 7–38
• Q2 6:35UT MZoe Roberts 6 Yd pass from Kinkead Dent (Aidan Laros Kick)7–35
• Q2 10:56UT MShawn Hardy II 43 Yd pass from Kinkead Dent (Aidan Laros Kick)7–28
• Q2 13:30UT MSam Franklin 46 Yd Run (Aidan Laros Kick)7–21
• Q1 5:40HOUSDeuce McMillan 10 Yd pass from Colby Suits (Dillon Fedor Kick)7–14
• Q1 7:11UT MDeVonte Tanksley 34 Yd pass from Kinkead Dent (Aidan Laros Kick)0–14
• Q1 10:38UT MTrevonte Rucker 50 Yd pass from Kinkead Dent (Aidan Laros Kick)0–7

What the numbers say

• HOUS played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and UT M did not face the same ones. 3rd & 8.6 vs 3rd & 6.4

Win probability

ours solid · ESPN dashed

UT M 100%50%HOUS 100%

Kickoff155 plays →Final

Tap or hover on the chart to see play details

UT M (top)HOUS (bottom)· colored dots = scoresFinal: UT M 100%

Leaders

Houston Christian

• PassColby Suits 10/24, 142 YDS, 1 TD, 2 INT
• RushChamp Dozier 10 CAR, 44 YDS
• RecChamp Dozier 3 REC, 67 YDS

UT Martin

• PassKinkead Dent 20/27, 347 YDS, 5 TD
• RushSam Franklin 17 CAR, 127 YDS, 1 TD
• RecDeVonte Tanksley 6 REC, 120 YDS, 1 TD

Tempo

what this pace leaves on the clock

25.9sper snap · in line with the national 24.5s

fastnational avgslow

Snaps run

139

Points / snap

0.53

This exact spot, historically

empirical, no ratings

UT M up 52 entering the 4th quarter. Across 143 historically comparable game states (within ±3 pts and ±5 min, from 3,056 games):

100%

UT M went on to win

A near-lock historically

Most comparable games

WNorth Dakota State vs Western Illinois52-7WPresbyterian vs Virginia University Of Lynchburg52-0WMontana vs Morehead State59-2WGeorgia Tech vs VMI59-7WUC Davis vs Northern Colorado59-7

Fourth downs

15 calls

HOUS gave up 2.1 points to the model on fourth down.HOUS 7/9 · UT M 4/6 agreed

FAQ

What was the final score of Houston Christian vs. UT Martin?

Houston Christian 7, UT Martin 66.

Did Gridpex's model pick hit?

Yes — the model's pick (UT M) was correct.

Situational splits

what the averages hide

HOUS

UT M

21%

Success rate

57%

-0.00

EPA / pass

0.97

-0.22

EPA / rush

0.13

19%

Early-down success

54%

19%

Pass success

68%

24%

Rush success

49%

8%

Explosive play rate (15+ yds)

16%

33%

Stuffed rush rate

20%

60%

Pass rate

43%

8.6

Avg 3rd-down distance

6.4

HOUS

8.6 yards to go on 3rd down

53 scrimmage snaps

UT M

6.4 yards to go on 3rd down

86 scrimmage snaps

Team stats

the basics, from ESPN

HOUS		UT M
213	Total yards	707
174	Passing yards	437
39	Rushing yards	270
7	First downs	32
3-15	3rd down	9-15
0-1	4th down	3-3
12/28	Comp/Att	27/36
6.2	Yards per pass	12.1
1.6	Yards per rush	5.5
3	Turnovers	1
4-40	Penalties	5-40
21:38	Possession	38:22

Fourth downs

15 calls

HOUS

7/9 with the model

−2.1 pts · −0.0% win prob

UT M

4/6 with the model

−0.4 pts · −0.0% win prob

Costliest call

Q1 12:56 HOUS punt on 4th & 1 at HOUS 47. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 1.40 points.

Every call, priced (15)

Drive chart

every possession, start to finish

HOUS 2/14 scoring drives← own end zone →UT M 9/14 scoring drives

HOUSPUNT3 pl, 9 yds· own 38Q1

UT MTD7 pl, 94 yds· own 6Q1

HOUSFUM4 pl, 26 yds· own 25Q1

UT MTD6 pl, 51 yds· own 49Q1

HOUSTD4 pl, 75 yds· own 25Q1

UT MPUNT8 pl, 23 yds· own 29Q1

HOUSPUNT4 pl, 16 yds· own 20Q1

UT MTD5 pl, 70 yds· own 30Q1

HOUSDOWNS7 pl, 21 yds· own 22Q2

UT MTD1 pl, 43 yds· opp 43Q2

HOUSPUNT3 pl, -9 yds· own 25Q2

UT MTD7 pl, 52 yds· own 48Q2

HOUSPUNT3 pl, 4 yds· own 25Q2

UT MFG6 pl, 53 yds· own 31Q2

HOUSINT7 pl, 33 yds· own 25Q2

UT MEND5 pl, 32 yds· own 23Q2

HOUSTD1 pl, 0 yds· own 25Q3

UT MTD11 pl, 45 yds· opp 45Q3

HOUSPUNT3 pl, 3 yds· own 25Q3

UT MTD2 pl, 55 yds· own 45Q3

HOUSPUNT3 pl, 4 yds· own 25Q3

UT MPUNT5 pl, 18 yds· own 36Q3

HOUSINT3 pl, -1 yds· own 10Q3

UT MFUM5 pl, 40 yds· opp 40Q3

HOUSPUNT3 pl, 4 yds· own 20Q3

UT MTD5 pl, 60 yds· own 40Q3

HOUSPUNT6 pl, 33 yds· own 25Q4

UT MEND13 pl, 76 yds· own 8Q4

Scoring plays

• Q4 13:32UT MAjay Smith 32 Yd pass from Kody Sparks (Aidan Laros Kick)7–66
• Q3 8:24UT MMarlon Cook Jr. 3 Yd pass from Kinkead Dent (Aidan Laros Kick)7–59
• Q3 10:38UT MKinkead Dent 9 Yd Run (Aidan Laros Kick)7–52
• Q3 14:47UT MNarkel Leflore 95 Yd Kickoff Return (Aidan Laros Kick)7–45
• Q2 3:12UT MAidan Laros 33 Yd Field Goal 7–38
• Q2 6:35UT MZoe Roberts 6 Yd pass from Kinkead Dent (Aidan Laros Kick)7–35
• Q2 10:56UT MShawn Hardy II 43 Yd pass from Kinkead Dent (Aidan Laros Kick)7–28
• Q2 13:30UT MSam Franklin 46 Yd Run (Aidan Laros Kick)7–21
• Q1 5:40HOUSDeuce McMillan 10 Yd pass from Colby Suits (Dillon Fedor Kick)7–14
• Q1 7:11UT MDeVonte Tanksley 34 Yd pass from Kinkead Dent (Aidan Laros Kick)0–14
• Q1 10:38UT MTrevonte Rucker 50 Yd pass from Kinkead Dent (Aidan Laros Kick)0–7

Model prediction

how the number is built

One or both teams lack a power rating (often an FCS opponent), so the model prediction is low-confidence for 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 →