Louisville vs. Stanford: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
LOUTeam statsSTAN
- Q4 0:00STANEmmet Kenney 52 Yd Field Goal 35–38
- Q4 0:45STANEmmett Mosley V 25 Yd pass from Justin Lamson (Emmet Kenney Kick)35–35
- Q4 6:37STANEmmett Mosley V 4 Yd pass from Ashton Daniels (Emmet Kenney Kick)35–28
- Q4 9:44LOUDuke Watson 5 Yd Run (Brock Travelstead Kick)35–21
- Q3 0:07STANElic Ayomanor 13 Yd pass from Ashton Daniels (Ashton Daniels Run for Two-Point Conversion)28–21
- Q3 4:48LOUDuke Watson 68 Yd Run (Brock Travelstead Kick)28–13
- Q2 0:49LOUChris Bell 10 Yd pass from Tyler Shough (Brock Travelstead Kick)21–13
- Q2 4:06LOUDuke Watson 5 Yd Run (Brock Travelstead Kick)14–13
- Q2 6:56STANEmmet Kenney 24 Yd Field Goal 7–13
- Q1 1:11LOUDonald Chaney 1 Yd Run (Brock Travelstead Kick)7–10
- Q1 6:12STANEmmett Mosley V 62 Yd pass from Ashton Daniels (Emmet Kenney Kick)0–10
- Q1 7:59STANEmmet Kenney 41 Yd Field Goal 0–3
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- STAN 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 26/39, 270 YDS, 1 TD, 1 INT
- RushDuke Watson 11 CAR, 117 YDS, 3 TD
- RecChris Bell 9 REC, 112 YDS, 1 TD
- PassAshton Daniels 22/33, 298 YDS, 3 TD, 1 INT
- RushCole Tabb 11 CAR, 35 YDS
- RecEmmett Mosley V 13 REC, 168 YDS, 3 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsLOU up 7 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,298 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q4 0:04STAN +97%
Ashton Daniels pass complete to Emmett Mosley V for 1 yd to the LOU 46 for a 1ST down Louisville Penalty, Unsportsmanlike Conduct (Tayon Holloway) to the LOU 39 for a…
- Q4 0:45STAN +77%
Justin Lamson pass complete to Emmett Mosley V for 25 yds for a TD (Emmet Kenney KICK)
- Q4 0:31LOU +65%
Tyler Shough pass complete to Chris Bell for 8 yds to the 50 yard line
- Q2 4:06LOU +18%
Duke Watson run for 5 yds for a TD (Brock Travelstead KICK)
- Q1 6:12STAN +15%
Ashton Daniels pass complete to Emmett Mosley V for 62 yds for a TD (Emmet Kenney KICK)
- Q1 1:11LOU +15%
Donald Chaney run for 1 yd for a TD (Brock Travelstead KICK)
FAQ
What was the final score of Louisville vs. Stanford?
Louisville 35, Stanford 38.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked LOU, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| LOU | STAN | |
|---|---|---|
| 432 | Total yards | 406 |
| 270 | Passing yards | 323 |
| 162 | Rushing yards | 83 |
| 21 | First downs | 22 |
| 4-10 | 3rd down | 5-16 |
| 0-2 | 4th down | 3-3 |
| 26/39 | Comp/Att | 23/34 |
| 6.9 | Yards per pass | 9.5 |
| 6.2 | Yards per rush | 2.2 |
| 1 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 13-102 | Penalties | 3-30 |
| 24:53 | Possession | 35:07 |
Costliest call
Q1 6:23 LOU punt on 4th & 1 at LOU 21. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.90 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 0:00STANEmmet Kenney 52 Yd Field Goal 35–38
- Q4 0:45STANEmmett Mosley V 25 Yd pass from Justin Lamson (Emmet Kenney Kick)35–35
- Q4 6:37STANEmmett Mosley V 4 Yd pass from Ashton Daniels (Emmet Kenney Kick)35–28
- Q4 9:44LOUDuke Watson 5 Yd Run (Brock Travelstead Kick)35–21
- Q3 0:07STANElic Ayomanor 13 Yd pass from Ashton Daniels (Ashton Daniels Run for Two-Point Conversion)28–21
- Q3 4:48LOUDuke Watson 68 Yd Run (Brock Travelstead Kick)28–13
- Q2 0:49LOUChris Bell 10 Yd pass from Tyler Shough (Brock Travelstead Kick)21–13
- Q2 4:06LOUDuke Watson 5 Yd Run (Brock Travelstead Kick)14–13
- Q2 6:56STANEmmet Kenney 24 Yd Field Goal 7–13
- Q1 1:11LOUDonald Chaney 1 Yd Run (Brock Travelstead Kick)7–10
- Q1 6:12STANEmmett Mosley V 62 Yd pass from Ashton Daniels (Emmet Kenney Kick)0–10
- Q1 7:59STANEmmet Kenney 41 Yd Field Goal 0–3
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (STAN Elo 1158, LOU Elo 1725 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects STAN +20.3 (11% 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#44 of 120 in 2024 by biggest miss · #5 of 129 in 2024 by longest odds · #37 of 60 in 2024 by biggest poll gap.
The 2024 upset archive →| LOU | STAN | |
|---|---|---|
| +16.9 (#16) | CORE overall | -11.2 (#103) |
| +13 / -4 | offense / defense | -6 / +5 |
| 2.87 | points / drive | 1.69 |
| 2.20 | allowed / drive | 3.07 |
| 19% | three-and-outs | 28% |
| +6 | pass over expected | -2 |
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 →