Charlotte vs. Ole Miss: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
CLTTeam statsMISS
- Q4 7:10MISSD. Knight run for 7 yds, for a TD (L. Carneiro KICK)9–41
- Q4 9:53CLTI. Kelly 28 yd FG GOOD9–34
- Q4 14:49MISST. Chambliss pass to H. Fields for 9 yds, for a TD (L. Carneiro KICK)6–34
- Q3 1:43CLTI. Kelly 24 yd FG GOOD6–27
- Q3 10:23CLTI. Kelly 28 yd FG GOOD3–27
- Q2 0:05MISSL. Carneiro 41 yd FG GOOD0–27
- Q2 4:32MISSL. Carneiro 57 yd FG GOOD0–24
- Q2 8:39MISSK. Lacy run for 2 yds, for a TD (L. Carneiro KICK)0–21
- Q2 13:55MISST. Chambliss pass to J. Cook II for 14 yds, for a TD (L. Carneiro KICK)0–14
- Q1 10:39MISSK. Lacy run for 9 yds, for a TD (L. Carneiro KICK)0–7
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- CLT kept reaching scoring range and leaving points there — the drives worked, the finishes did not. 1.5 pts per trip vs 5.7
- MISS won this on the ground — that lane, not the scoreboard, was the story against CLT. +0.17 vs -0.27 EPA/play
- CLT lived on explosives rather than sustaining drives — a profile that vanished once those chunk plays were tackled. 12% explosive on a 40% success rate
Charlotte scored 41 last week and lost anyway. Its pass defense ranks 160th, and that is what Trinidad Chambliss walks into in Oxford.
The widest gap in this game is Ole Miss throwing the ball against Charlotte's coverage — close to three standard deviations, which is the distance between a good matchup and a category error. Charlotte's pass defense sits 160th of 185 by what it allows, so the routine third-and-6 completion becomes a chunk gain instead of a stop, and Ole Miss reaches the end zone without needing a long, clean, twelve-play drive. Everything Saturday runs downstream of that.
- PassCole Gonzales 14/21, 128 YDS, 1 INT
- RushChance Williams 9 CAR, 74 YDS
- RecDerrick Eley 2 REC, 56 YDS
- PassTrinidad Chambliss 23/26, 225 YDS, 2 TD
- RushKewan Lacy 13 CAR, 87 YDS, 2 TD
- RecDeuce Alexander 8 REC, 76 YDS
FAQ
What was the final score of Charlotte vs. Ole Miss?
Charlotte 9, Ole Miss 41.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (MISS) was correct.
| CLT | MISS | |
|---|---|---|
| 322 | Total yards | 420 |
| 179 | Passing yards | 293 |
| 143 | Rushing yards | 127 |
| 17 | First downs | 25 |
| 3-14 | 3rd down | 1-4 |
| 1-1 | 4th down | 0-0 |
| 20/28 | Comp/Att | 27/34 |
| 6.4 | Yards per pass | 8.6 |
| 4.3 | Yards per rush | 5.3 |
| 1 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 7-39 | Penalties | 7-52 |
| 37:14 | Possession | 22:46 |
Costliest call
Q2 11:55 CLT punt on 4th & 2 at CLT 33. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.25 points.
- CLTEnd Of Quarter3 plays · 9 yds · from CLT 45 · Q4 1:31−1.3 EPA
- MISSInterception6 plays · 36 yds · from MISS 4 · Q4 3:35+1.1 EPA
- CLTPunt6 plays · 30 yds · from CLT 35 · Q4 7:10−0.5 EPA
- MISSTouchdown8 plays · 70 yds · from MISS 35 · Q4 9:47+3.1 EPA
- CLTField Goal8 plays · 64 yds · from CLT 35 · Q4 14:49+4.6 EPA
- MISSTouchdown7 plays · 67 yds · from MISS 35 · Q3 1:43+3.3 EPA
- CLTField Goal12 plays · 59 yds · from CLT 34 · Q3 8:24+0.8 EPA
- MISSPunt3 plays · -11 yds · from MISS 35 · Q3 10:23−1.3 EPA
- CLTField Goal8 plays · 64 yds · from CLT 35 · Q3 15:00−1.1 EPA
- MISSField Goal2 plays · 0 yds · from CLT 38 · Q2 0:05+0.4 EPA
- CLTInterception11 plays · 43 yds · from CLT 35 · Q2 4:32+1.2 EPA
- MISSField Goal6 plays · 15 yds · from MISS 46 · Q2 6:57−0.6 EPA
- CLTPunt3 plays · -6 yds · from CLT 35 · Q2 8:39−1.1 EPA
- MISSTouchdown8 plays · 74 yds · from MISS 26 · Q2 11:45+3.1 EPA
- Q4 7:10MISSD. Knight run for 7 yds, for a TD (L. Carneiro KICK)9–41
- Q4 9:53CLTI. Kelly 28 yd FG GOOD9–34
- Q4 14:49MISST. Chambliss pass to H. Fields for 9 yds, for a TD (L. Carneiro KICK)6–34
- Q3 1:43CLTI. Kelly 24 yd FG GOOD6–27
- Q3 10:23CLTI. Kelly 28 yd FG GOOD3–27
- Q2 0:05MISSL. Carneiro 41 yd FG GOOD0–27
- Q2 4:32MISSL. Carneiro 57 yd FG GOOD0–24
- Q2 8:39MISSK. Lacy run for 2 yds, for a TD (L. Carneiro KICK)0–21
- Q2 13:55MISST. Chambliss pass to J. Cook II for 14 yds, for a TD (L. Carneiro KICK)0–14
- Q1 10:39MISSK. Lacy run for 9 yds, for a TD (L. Carneiro KICK)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (MISS Elo 1837, CLT Elo 1182 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects MISS -39.3 (100% to win) — 5.2 points clear of CLT's market line of -44.5. 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 — 2026
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles| CLT | MISS | |
|---|---|---|
| -15.6 (#131) | CORE overall | +13.3 (#26) |
| -11 / +4 | offense / defense | +14 / +1 |
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.
Ole Miss's deep passing meets a secondary that can't cover
Charlotte scored 41 last week and lost anyway. Its pass defense ranks 160th, and that is what Trinidad Chambliss walks into in Oxford.
Charlotte wins
The range of outcomes for this game. Each bar is how often the final margin lands in that range — the more it leans toward Ole Miss, the more likely Ole Miss wins.
Chambliss draws the softest coverage on his schedule
Trinidad Chambliss projects for 298 to 424 passing yards with an 87% chance of a touchdown throw, and the band is the honest form of the claim — volume projects forward, snap-for-snap efficiency does not. What raises the floor inside that band is the opponent rather than the passer. Against a secondary graded 160th of 185, the throws that normally gain eight gain twenty, and the drive that normally stalls at midfield finishes.
Deuce Alexander (28 to 89 receiving yards) and Caleb Odom (15 to 48, with a 27% touchdown chance) are beneficiaries rather than the engine, and the width of both bands says something useful: Ole Miss does not have to funnel targets to one place to move the ball. Charlotte has to cover the whole field with a unit that gave up 43 points at home a week ago.
Points allowed per drive across all FBS defenses (lower is better). Charlotte's defense is below average, better than only 0% of FBS defenses.
Charlotte's offense is genuinely a problem — just not a 47.5-point one
Two of the five unit edges in this matchup belong to the visitor. Charlotte's offense grades roughly two standard deviations ahead of Ole Miss's defense in big plays and better than a full deviation ahead in overall efficiency. That is not noise, and it showed up immediately: 41 points and scoring on 42.9% of its drives against The Citadel, from a team that averaged 14.3 points a game last season.
The other half of that game is why the number is still enormous. Charlotte went three-and-out on 35.7% of its drives and allowed 43 in a home loss, which is an offense that produces in bursts attached to a defense that cannot afford bursts. Ole Miss surrendered 38 to Louisville and won by three, so the projection is not a shutout — it is Charlotte's scoring failing to scale against this level of opponent.
Each unit matchup this season, sorted by how decisive it is — the top bar is what most tilts the game. Bars toward Ole Miss are battles it should win; toward Charlotte are ones Charlotte wins.
Staying on schedule is the quiet separator
Ole Miss scored on 53.8% of its drives and stalled out in three plays on 30.8% of them; Charlotte scored on 42.9% and stalled on 35.7%. Roughly the same yards per drive — 35.8 against 36.6 — with meaningfully different conversion. That is the on-schedule edge showing up in a box score rather than a grade, and over a full game it is worth extra possessions, which against this passing game is worth points.
Kewan Lacy projects for 79 to 174 rushing yards with an 86% touchdown chance, and that band is unusually wide for a reason: his workload depends entirely on whether the game is still competitive after halftime. Ole Miss's run-game edge is the narrowest of its three advantages, which fits; the ground game closes this out, it does not open it.
Each ingredient of our projection and the side it favors — bars toward Ole Miss are why it's the pick (home field is counted separately).
What Charlotte has to do with the ball
Conner Harrell projects for 101 to 205 passing yards with a 56% touchdown chance, a range that quietly encodes game state, trailing by four scores changes what an offense is permitted to attempt. Derrick Eley at 12 to 20 receiving yards is what a short-field, quick-game passing plan looks like on paper, and short fields are exactly what Charlotte will not be handed here.
Jariel Cobb draws the harder assignment: 12 to 32 rushing yards against an Ole Miss run defense that sits 48th of 185 by what it allows. That is where Charlotte's efficiency edge stops being an edge. Its big-play grade is real, but big plays are a variance strategy, and variance is precisely what a two-percent underdog needs; it just cannot be the plan for four quarters.
The underdog's Case is possessions, not points
Charlotte's route to the number is subtraction. Its cover criteria, control the clock, keep the giveaway column even, are more achievable than the stack Ole Miss needs, and the projection has the favorite covering only 3%, with the methodical version of this game landing short of 47.5. The 41 points last week prove the offense can stay on the field; doing it while bleeding clock is the version that matters.
The counterweight is blunt. Eighty-seven percent of the projected outcomes finish 20 points or more apart, and a one-score game sits at 4%. Charlotte does not have the coverage to make Ole Miss earn drives, and a defense that cannot get off the field turns a clock-control plan into a fiction by the second quarter.
What each side actually needs
Ole Miss needs Chambliss to hit the upper half of his range early, because a 50-12 projection assumes scoring drives that end before the fourth quarter and hand the rest to Lacy. Charlotte needs the big-play grade to be real against SEC personnel and needs the game to stay long, twelve-play drives, no giveaways, no short fields. The first thing decides the winner; the second decides whether the number holds.
Our coverage of 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 →