Furman vs. UCF: Final Score & Recap

ReplayCommandBoxAnalyticsMatchup

Furman0-2

▸0016

UCF0-2

0015

Final

FBC Mortgage Stadium

	1	2	3	4	T
FURM	0	7	6	3	16
UCF	7	5	3	0	15

FURMTeam statsUCF

270Total yards269

216Pass98

54Rush171

12First downs16

4-143rd down4-15

1Turnovers4

28:07Possession31:53

Scoring plays

• Q4 12:10FURMJon Croft Hollingsworth 55 Yd Field Goal 16–15
• Q3 0:11UCFMatthew Wright 29 Yd Field Goal 13–15
• Q3 10:24FURMAndrej Suttles 61 Yd pass from Reese Hannon (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)13–12
• Q2 1:10FURMErnie Cain 1 Yd Run (Jon Croft Hollingsworth Kick)7–12
• Q2 9:06UCFTeam Safety 0–12
• Q2 13:07UCFMatthew Wright 24 Yd Field Goal 0–10
• Q1 1:45UCFNick Patti 6 Yd Run (Matthew Wright Kick)0–7

How the model called it

Market line

UCF −26

Against the number

FURM covered

line UCF −26

Win probability

ours solid · ESPN dashed

UCF 100%50%FURM 100%

Kickoff160 plays →Final

Tap or hover on the chart to see play details

UCF (top)FURM (bottom)· colored dots = scoresFinal: UCF 0%

How the line closed

model vs market

Closing line

UCF −26

Closing total

—

Model line

—

Actual result

FURM 16 – 15 UCF

consensus, liveUCF −26

Leaders

Furman

• PassReese Hannon 15/29, 188 YDS, 1 TD
• RushTriston Luke 7 CAR, 34 YDS
• RecAndrej Suttles 5 REC, 113 YDS, 1 TD

UCF

• PassBo Schneider 7/11, 63 YDS, 1 INT
• RushNick Patti 14 CAR, 58 YDS, 1 TD
• RecBlake Tiralosi 5 REC, 35 YDS

Tempo

what this pace leaves on the clock

26.1sper snap · slower the national 24.5s

fastnational avgslow

Snaps run

136

Points / snap

0.23

This exact spot, historically

empirical, no ratings

UCF up 2 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,937 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):

57%

UCF went on to win

A genuinely vulnerable lead — comebacks are common

Most comparable games

WFlorida International vs Maine14-12WLehigh vs Merrimack27-21WOklahoma State vs Arizona State27-15WTennessee State vs Gardner-Webb27-25LNorthern Illinois vs Tulsa14-22

Fourth downs

20 calls

FURM gave up 1.1 points to the model on fourth down.FURM 5/8 · UCF 9/10 agreed

FAQ

What was the final score of Furman vs. UCF?

Furman 16, UCF 15.

Did Gridpex's model pick hit?

No — the model picked UCF, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.

Situational splits

what the averages hide

FURM

UCF

34%

Success rate

37%

0.13

EPA / pass

-0.26

-0.15

EPA / rush

-0.11

36%

Early-down success

39%

41%

Pass success

27%

26%

Rush success

45%

10%

Explosive play rate (15+ yds)

3%

33%

Stuffed rush rate

21%

56%

Pass rate

44%

7.1

Avg 3rd-down distance

6.9

FURM

7.1 yards to go on 3rd down

61 scrimmage snaps

UCF

6.9 yards to go on 3rd down

75 scrimmage snaps

Team stats

the basics, from ESPN

FURM		UCF
270	Total yards	269
216	Passing yards	98
54	Rushing yards	171
12	First downs	16
4-14	3rd down	4-15
0-0	4th down	0-1
16/30	Comp/Att	14/30
7.2	Yards per pass	3.3
1.9	Yards per rush	4.1
1	Turnovers	4
8-59	Penalties	3-30
28:07	Possession	31:53

Fourth downs

20 calls

FURM

5/8 with the model

−1.1 pts · −0.0% win prob

UCF

9/10 with the model

−0.2 pts · −0.0% win prob

Costliest call

Q4 8:32 FURM punt on 4th & 2 at FURM 41. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.54 points.

Every call, priced (20)

Drive chart

every possession, start to finish

FURM 4/16 scoring drives← own end zone →UCF 3/15 scoring drives

UCFPUNT5 pl, 14 yds· own 30Q1

FURMPUNT8 pl, 30 yds· own 17Q1

UCFTD13 pl, 84 yds· own 16Q1

FURMFUM0 pl, -1 yds· own 22Q1

UCFFG7 pl, 14 yds· opp 21Q1

FURMPUNT3 pl, 1 yds· own 25Q2

UCFPUNT6 pl, 24 yds· own 25Q2

FURMSAF1 pl, -10 yds· own 10Q2

UCFINT3 pl, 12 yds· own 40Q2

FURMPUNT3 pl, 6 yds· own 17Q2

UCFDOWNS4 pl, 9 yds· opp 34Q2

FURMTD9 pl, 75 yds· own 25Q2

UCFPUNT3 pl, -5 yds· own 36Q2

FURMEND1 pl, 1 yds· own 18Q2

FURMPUNT3 pl, 6 yds· own 25Q3

UCFPUNT5 pl, 14 yds· own 31Q3

FURMTD2 pl, 80 yds· own 20Q3

UCFPUNT3 pl, 3 yds· own 25Q3

FURMPUNT3 pl, 1 yds· own 19Q3

UCFINT3 pl, 13 yds· own 38Q3

FURMPUNT3 pl, -9 yds· opp 46Q3

UCFFG10 pl, 50 yds· own 38Q3

FURMFG9 pl, 27 yds· own 35Q3

UCFPUNT5 pl, 12 yds· own 25Q4

FURMPUNT3 pl, 23 yds· own 18Q4

UCFPUNT3 pl, 2 yds· own 17Q4

FURMPUNT6 pl, 20 yds· own 38Q4

UCFFUM1 pl, 16 yds· own 22Q4

FURMPUNT3 pl, -6 yds· opp 38Q4

UCFINT3 pl, 7 yds· own 10Q4

FURMEND2 pl, -4 yds· opp 37Q4

Scoring plays

• Q4 12:10FURMJon Croft Hollingsworth 55 Yd Field Goal 16–15
• Q3 0:11UCFMatthew Wright 29 Yd Field Goal 13–15
• Q3 10:24FURMAndrej Suttles 61 Yd pass from Reese Hannon (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)13–12
• Q2 1:10FURMErnie Cain 1 Yd Run (Jon Croft Hollingsworth Kick)7–12
• Q2 9:06UCFTeam Safety 0–12
• Q2 13:07UCFMatthew Wright 24 Yd Field Goal 0–10
• Q1 1:45UCFNick Patti 6 Yd Run (Matthew Wright 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.

The matchup, in context

series history + adjusted profiles

Furman were +26 — a 5% shot

#24 of 92 in 2015 by biggest miss · #2 of 108 in 2015 by longest odds.

The 2015 upset archive →

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 →