Grambling vs. TCU: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
Grambling
TCU0-1
▸Final
TV ESPN+Amon G. Carter StadiumFair · 97°F
GRAMTeam statsTCU
210Total yards676
190Pass391
20Rush285
7First downs33
1-143rd down2-7
2Turnovers1
30:26Possession29:34
- Q4 3:24TCUA. Martin run for 10 yds, for a TD (N. McCashland KICK)7–63
- Q4 9:52TCUH. Benoit pass intercepted, T. Parks return for 67 yds, for a TD (N. McCashland KICK)7–56
- Q4 12:23TCUJ. Craig pass to K. Ashley for 15 yds, for a TD (N. McCashland KICK)7–49
- Q3 2:20TCUJ. Craig pass to Je. Scott for 52 yds, for a TD (N. McCashland KICK)7–42
- Q3 9:23TCUJ. Craig pass to K. Ashley for 29 yds, for a TD (N. McCashland KICK)7–35
- Q2 1:48TCUJo. Pitchford run for 1 yd, for a TD (N. McCashland KICK)7–28
- Q2 4:30GRAMR. Johnson pass to B. Eaton Jr. for 7 yds, for a TD (T. Caballero KICK)7–21
- Q2 8:26TCUJ. Craig pass to K. Pimpton for 9 yds, for a TD (N. McCashland KICK)0–21
- Q2 10:53TCUJ. Denman run for 1 yd, for a TD (N. McCashland KICK)0–14
- Q1 12:21TCUM. Everhart run for 8 yds, for a TD (N. McCashland KICK)0–7
How the model called it
Model line
TCU −36.2
market TCU −44.5
Against the number
TCU covered
line TCU −44.5
What the numbers say
- GRAM kept reaching scoring range and leaving points there — the drives worked, the finishes did not. 0.0 pts per trip vs 5.1
- TCU started drives roughly 13 yards closer than GRAM — a scoreboard edge that never shows up as a stat line. own 38 vs own 25
TCU favored ↑50%GRAM favored ↓
GridpexTCU 100% ESPN TCU 100%
Closing line
TCU −44.5
Closing total
56.5
Model line
TCU −36.2
Actual result
GRAM 7 – 63 TCU
DraftKings, liveTCU −44.5total 56.5
Grambling
- PassReginald Johnson 14/20, 190 YDS, 1 TD
- RushJamarion Parker 5 CAR, 9 YDS
- RecJordan Bride 4 REC, 79 YDS
TCU
- PassJaden Craig 24/31, 391 YDS, 4 TD
- RushJeremy Payne 9 CAR, 79 YDS
- RecKari Ashley 7 REC, 119 YDS, 2 TD
28.3sper snap · slower the national 24.5s
fastnational avgslow
Snaps run
125
Points / snap
0.56
FAQ
What was the final score of Grambling vs. TCU?
Grambling 7, TCU 63.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (TCU) was correct.
GRAM
TCU
0.07
EPA / play
0.23
0.17
EPA / pass
0.24
-0.03
EPA / rush
0.15
28%
Success rate
55%
0.57
Explosiveness
0.53
0.0
Pts / scoring opp
5.1
8
Scoring opps
11
25
Avg start (own yd)
38
Momentum — net EPA by quarter
Q1: TCU +1.8Q2: TCU +0.9Q3: TCU +4.9Q4: TCU +2.5
GRAM
TCU
28%
Early-down success
73%
39%
Pass success
62%
8%
Rush success
76%
7%
Explosive play rate (15+ yds)
20%
35%
Stuffed rush rate
8%
52%
Pass rate
48%
6.4
Avg 3rd-down distance
6.9
GRAM
6.4 yards to go on 3rd down
54 scrimmage snaps
TCU
6.9 yards to go on 3rd down
71 scrimmage snaps
| GRAM | TCU | |
|---|---|---|
| 210 | Total yards | 676 |
| 190 | Passing yards | 391 |
| 20 | Rushing yards | 285 |
| 7 | First downs | 33 |
| 1-14 | 3rd down | 2-7 |
| 0-0 | 4th down | 2-2 |
| 14/25 | Comp/Att | 24/32 |
| 7.6 | Yards per pass | 12.2 |
| 0.7 | Yards per rush | 7.7 |
| 2 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 7-54 | Penalties | 5-60 |
| 30:26 | Possession | 29:34 |
GRAM
6/10 with the model
−1.7 pts · −0.0% win prob
TCU
4/5 with the model
−0.4 pts · −0.0% win prob
Costliest call
Q3 7:11 GRAM punt on 4th & 1 at GRAM 34. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.62 points.
- TCUEnd Of Quarter2 plays · 9 yds · from GRAM 15 · Q4 1:11+0.0 EPA
- GRAMPunt3 plays · 5 yds · from GRAM 35 · Q4 3:24+2.3 EPA
- TCUTouchdown8 plays · 70 yds · from TCU 30 · Q4 7:26+3.4 EPA
- GRAMPunt3 plays · -1 yds · from GRAM 35 · Q4 9:52−1.1 EPA
- GRAMInterception Touchdown4 plays · 13 yds · from GRAM 35 · Q4 12:23+1.6 EPA
- TCUTouchdown8 plays · 70 yds · from TCU 30 · Q3 0:16+3.1 EPA
- GRAMPunt3 plays · 1 yds · from GRAM 35 · Q3 2:20−1.2 EPA
- TCUTouchdown1 plays · 42 yds · from GRAM 42 · Q3 2:51
- GRAMPunt3 plays · -5 yds · from GRAM 30 · Q3 4:13−1.6 EPA
- TCUPunt6 plays · 22 yds · from TCU 23 · Q3 7:03−0.2 EPA
- GRAMPunt3 plays · 9 yds · from GRAM 35 · Q3 9:23+1.7 EPA
- TCUTouchdown3 plays · 65 yds · from TCU 35 · Q3 10:25+2.5 EPA
- GRAMInterception3 plays · 2 yds · from GRAM 25 · Q3 11:12−0.9 EPA
- TCUPunt5 plays · 6 yds · from TCU 27 · Q3 13:49−1.4 EPA
- Q4 3:24TCUA. Martin run for 10 yds, for a TD (N. McCashland KICK)7–63
- Q4 9:52TCUH. Benoit pass intercepted, T. Parks return for 67 yds, for a TD (N. McCashland KICK)7–56
- Q4 12:23TCUJ. Craig pass to K. Ashley for 15 yds, for a TD (N. McCashland KICK)7–49
- Q3 2:20TCUJ. Craig pass to Je. Scott for 52 yds, for a TD (N. McCashland KICK)7–42
- Q3 9:23TCUJ. Craig pass to K. Ashley for 29 yds, for a TD (N. McCashland KICK)7–35
- Q2 1:48TCUJo. Pitchford run for 1 yd, for a TD (N. McCashland KICK)7–28
- Q2 4:30GRAMR. Johnson pass to B. Eaton Jr. for 7 yds, for a TD (T. Caballero KICK)7–21
- Q2 8:26TCUJ. Craig pass to K. Pimpton for 9 yds, for a TD (N. McCashland KICK)0–21
- Q2 10:53TCUJ. Denman run for 1 yd, for a TD (N. McCashland KICK)0–14
- Q1 12:21TCUM. Everhart run for 8 yds, for a TD (N. McCashland KICK)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtProjected spread
TCU -36.2
incl. home edge
Model pick
TCU
98% to win
Market spread
TCU -44.5
sportsbook line
Model vs market
GRAM
8.3 pts apart
Win prob: model / mkt
98%
TCU (no market)
Our model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency, with home-field advantage. That projects TCU -36.2 (98% to win) — 8.3 points clear of GRAM'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
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 →