Louisville vs. Clemson: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
LOUTeam statsCLEM
- Q4 2:07CLEMPhil Mafah 1 Yd Run (Nolan Hauser Kick)33–21
- Q4 5:50LOUIsaac Brown 45 Yd Run (Brock Travelstead Kick)33–14
- Q4 6:00CLEMPhil Mafah 3 Yd Run (Nolan Hauser Kick)26–14
- Q3 3:53LOUBrock Travelstead 49 Yd Field Goal 26–7
- Q3 6:47LOUBrock Travelstead 40 Yd Field Goal 23–7
- Q3 11:45LOUBrock Travelstead 42 Yd Field Goal 20–7
- Q2 0:43LOUKeyjuan Brown 1 Yd Run (Brock Travelstead Kick)17–7
- Q2 5:42LOUTyler Shough 4 Yd Run (Brock Travelstead Kick)10–7
- Q1 0:16CLEMAntonio Williams 12 Yd pass from Cade Klubnik (Nolan Hauser Kick)3–7
- Q1 4:39LOUBrock Travelstead 21 Yd Field Goal 3–0
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- LOU played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and CLEM did not face the same ones. 3rd & 9.3 vs 3rd & 5.7
- LOU lived on explosives rather than sustaining drives — a profile that vanished once those chunk plays were tackled. 13% explosive on a 39% success rate
- PassTyler Shough 17/32, 156 YDS
- RushIsaac Brown 20 CAR, 151 YDS, 1 TD
- RecJa'Corey Brooks 4 REC, 42 YDS
- PassCade Klubnik 33/56, 228 YDS, 1 TD
- RushPhil Mafah 30 CAR, 171 YDS, 2 TD
- RecT.J. Moore 5 REC, 63 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsLOU up 19 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,038 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q2 0:43LOU +24%
Keyjuan Brown 1 Yd Run (Brock Travelstead Kick)
- Q2 5:42LOU +20%
Tyler Shough 4 Yd Run (Brock Travelstead Kick)
- Q3 11:45LOU +17%
Brock Travelstead 42 Yd Field Goal
- Q1 0:16CLEM +17%
Antonio Williams 12 Yd pass from Cade Klubnik (Nolan Hauser Kick)
- Q3 6:47LOU +9%
Brock Travelstead 40 Yd Field Goal
- Q1 4:39LOU +8%
Brock Travelstead 21 Yd Field Goal
FAQ
What was the final score of Louisville vs. Clemson?
Louisville 33, Clemson 21.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked CLEM, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| LOU | CLEM | |
|---|---|---|
| 366 | Total yards | 450 |
| 156 | Passing yards | 228 |
| 210 | Rushing yards | 222 |
| 19 | First downs | 31 |
| 4-12 | 3rd down | 11-23 |
| 0-0 | 4th down | 5-6 |
| 17/32 | Comp/Att | 33/56 |
| 4.9 | Yards per pass | 4.1 |
| 7.8 | Yards per rush | 4.9 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 0 |
| 6-35 | Penalties | 5-39 |
| 22:08 | Possession | 37:52 |
Costliest call
Q3 6:47 LOU field goal on 4th & 1 at CLEM 23. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.83 points.
- Q4 2:07CLEMPhil Mafah 1 Yd Run (Nolan Hauser Kick)33–21
- Q4 5:50LOUIsaac Brown 45 Yd Run (Brock Travelstead Kick)33–14
- Q4 6:00CLEMPhil Mafah 3 Yd Run (Nolan Hauser Kick)26–14
- Q3 3:53LOUBrock Travelstead 49 Yd Field Goal 26–7
- Q3 6:47LOUBrock Travelstead 40 Yd Field Goal 23–7
- Q3 11:45LOUBrock Travelstead 42 Yd Field Goal 20–7
- Q2 0:43LOUKeyjuan Brown 1 Yd Run (Brock Travelstead Kick)17–7
- Q2 5:42LOUTyler Shough 4 Yd Run (Brock Travelstead Kick)10–7
- Q1 0:16CLEMAntonio Williams 12 Yd pass from Cade Klubnik (Nolan Hauser Kick)3–7
- Q1 4:39LOUBrock Travelstead 21 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 (CLEM Elo 1863, LOU Elo 1681 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects CLEM -9.7 (75% to win), essentially in line with the market.
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 — 2024
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles#49 of 120 in 2024 by biggest miss · #36 of 129 in 2024 by longest odds · #16 of 60 in 2024 by biggest poll gap.
The 2024 upset archive →Clemson leads 9–1 · 50% have been one-possession games
| LOU | CLEM | |
|---|---|---|
| +16.9 (#16) | CORE overall | +13.8 (#26) |
| +13 / -4 | offense / defense | +8 / -6 |
| 2.87 | points / drive | 2.81 |
| 2.20 | allowed / drive | 1.91 |
| 19% | three-and-outs | 25% |
| +6 | pass over expected | +8 |
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 →