Tulane vs. Southern Miss: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
TULNTeam statsUSM
- Q3 2:03TULNChris Brazzell II 3 Yd pass from Kai Horton (Valentino Ambrosio Kick)21–3
- Q3 5:45USMAndrew Stein 28 Yd Field Goal 14–3
- Q3 10:19TULNJha'Quan Jackson 35 Yd pass from Kai Horton (Valentino Ambrosio Kick)14–0
- Q1 12:16TULNKai Horton 1 Yd Run (Valentino Ambrosio Kick)7–0
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- TULN lived on explosives rather than sustaining drives — a profile that vanished once those chunk plays were tackled. 13% explosive on a 39% success rate
- PassKai Horton 12/19, 186 YDS, 2 TD
- RushMakhi Hughes 14 CAR, 83 YDS
- RecLawrence Keys III 4 REC, 78 YDS
- PassBilly Wiles 19/33, 177 YDS
- RushRodrigues Clark 5 CAR, 17 YDS
- RecJakarius Caston 2 REC, 54 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsTULN up 18 entering the 4th quarter. Across 836 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q1 12:16TULN +11%
Kai Horton run for 1 yd for a TD (Valentino Ambrosio KICK)
- Q3 10:19TULN +8%
Kai Horton pass complete to Jha'Quan Jackson for 35 yds for a TD (Valentino Ambrosio KICK)
FAQ
What was the final score of Tulane vs. Southern Miss?
Tulane 21, Southern Miss 3.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (TULN) was correct.
| TULN | USM | |
|---|---|---|
| 314 | Total yards | 212 |
| 186 | Passing yards | 177 |
| 128 | Rushing yards | 35 |
| 18 | First downs | 14 |
| 4-11 | 3rd down | 5-16 |
| 0-1 | 4th down | 1-3 |
| 12/19 | Comp/Att | 19/34 |
| 9.8 | Yards per pass | 5.2 |
| 3.5 | Yards per rush | 1.2 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 0 |
| 4-35 | Penalties | 6-60 |
| 28:23 | Possession | 31:37 |
Costliest call
Q4 12:35 TULN punt on 4th & 19 at USM 39. The model preferred field goal, a gap of 0.44 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q3 2:03TULNChris Brazzell II 3 Yd pass from Kai Horton (Valentino Ambrosio Kick)21–3
- Q3 5:45USMAndrew Stein 28 Yd Field Goal 14–3
- Q3 10:19TULNJha'Quan Jackson 35 Yd pass from Kai Horton (Valentino Ambrosio Kick)14–0
- Q1 12:16TULNKai Horton 1 Yd Run (Valentino Ambrosio Kick)7–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (USM Elo 1267, TULN Elo 1621 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects USM +11.8 (23% to win) — 3.8 points clear of TULN's market line of +8. 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 profilesSouthern Miss leads 24–10 · 24% have been one-possession games
| TULN | USM | |
|---|---|---|
| +1.0 (#56) | CORE overall | -16.0 (#113) |
| -1 / -2 | offense / defense | -9 / +7 |
| 2.35 | points / drive | 1.53 |
| 1.90 | allowed / drive | 2.88 |
| 24% | three-and-outs | 30% |
| -4 | 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 →