Temple vs. Duke: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
TEMTeam statsDUKE
- Q4 10:16DUKEDavis Koppenhaver 4 Yd pass from Daniel Jones (Collin Wareham Kick)27–56
- Q4 14:55DUKEBrittain Brown 4 Yd Run (Collin Wareham Kick)27–49
- Q3 2:49DUKEJake Bobo 7 Yd pass from Daniel Jones (Collin Wareham Kick)27–42
- Q3 7:28DUKET.J. Rahming 85 Yd pass from Daniel Jones (Collin Wareham Kick)27–35
- Q3 11:06DUKEDaniel Jones 1 Yd Run (Collin Wareham Kick)27–28
- Q2 1:11DUKET.J. Rahming 22 Yd pass from Daniel Jones (Collin Wareham Kick)27–21
- Q2 4:26TEMBrodrick Yancy 8 Yd pass from Anthony Russo (Will Mobley Kick)27–14
- Q2 7:42DUKEChris Taylor 34 Yd pass from Daniel Jones (Collin Wareham Kick)20–14
- Q2 10:25TEMRob Ritrovato 1 Yd Run (Will Mobley Kick)20–7
- Q1 5:42TEMDelvon Randall 52 Yd Interception Return (Will Mobley PAT failed)13–7
- Q1 8:43TEMAnthony Russo 15 Yd Run (Will Mobley Kick)7–7
- Q1 10:36DUKEQuentin Harris 2 Yd Run (Collin Wareham Kick)0–7
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- TEM played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and DUKE did not face the same ones. 3rd & 7.7 vs 3rd & 4.9
- PassAnthony Russo 25/46, 228 YDS, 1 TD, 1 INT
- RushJager Gardner 7 CAR, 34 YDS
- RecBrodrick Yancy 5 REC, 57 YDS, 1 TD
- PassDaniel Jones 30/41, 423 YDS, 5 TD, 2 INT
- RushDeon Jackson 10 CAR, 41 YDS
- RecT.J. Rahming 12 REC, 240 YDS, 2 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsDUKE up 15 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,206 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q3 7:28DUKE +28%
Daniel Jones pass complete to T.J. Rahming for 85 yds for a TD (Collin Wareham KICK)
- Q3 11:06DUKE +21%
Daniel Jones run for 1 yd for a TD (Collin Wareham KICK)
- Q3 2:49DUKE +19%
Daniel Jones pass complete to Jake Bobo for 7 yds for a TD (Collin Wareham KICK)
- Q1 10:36DUKE +17%
Quentin Harris run for 2 yds for a TD (Collin Wareham KICK)
- Q1 8:43TEM +16%
Anthony Russo run for 15 yds for a TD (Will Mobley KICK)
- Q3 3:20DUKE +12%
Daniel Jones pass complete to T.J. Rahming for a loss of 1 yard to the Temp 19 for a 1ST down lat. to Damond Philyaw-Johnson for 11 yds to the Temp 19 for a 1ST down
FAQ
What was the final score of Temple vs. Duke?
Temple 27, Duke 56.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked TEM, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| TEM | DUKE | |
|---|---|---|
| 281 | Total yards | 563 |
| 228 | Passing yards | 440 |
| 53 | Rushing yards | 123 |
| 19 | First downs | 22 |
| 6-14 | 3rd down | 10-17 |
| 0-3 | 4th down | 2-3 |
| 25/46 | Comp/Att | 32/44 |
| 5.0 | Yards per pass | 10.0 |
| 1.8 | Yards per rush | 3.2 |
| 2 | Turnovers | 3 |
| 3-35 | Penalties | 4-30 |
| 25:53 | Possession | 34:07 |
Costliest call
Q4 9:09 TEM go for it on 4th & 10 at TEM 42. The model preferred punt, a gap of 0.68 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 10:16DUKEDavis Koppenhaver 4 Yd pass from Daniel Jones (Collin Wareham Kick)27–56
- Q4 14:55DUKEBrittain Brown 4 Yd Run (Collin Wareham Kick)27–49
- Q3 2:49DUKEJake Bobo 7 Yd pass from Daniel Jones (Collin Wareham Kick)27–42
- Q3 7:28DUKET.J. Rahming 85 Yd pass from Daniel Jones (Collin Wareham Kick)27–35
- Q3 11:06DUKEDaniel Jones 1 Yd Run (Collin Wareham Kick)27–28
- Q2 1:11DUKET.J. Rahming 22 Yd pass from Daniel Jones (Collin Wareham Kick)27–21
- Q2 4:26TEMBrodrick Yancy 8 Yd pass from Anthony Russo (Will Mobley Kick)27–14
- Q2 7:42DUKEChris Taylor 34 Yd pass from Daniel Jones (Collin Wareham Kick)20–14
- Q2 10:25TEMRob Ritrovato 1 Yd Run (Will Mobley Kick)20–7
- Q1 5:42TEMDelvon Randall 52 Yd Interception Return (Will Mobley PAT failed)13–7
- Q1 8:43TEMAnthony Russo 15 Yd Run (Will Mobley Kick)7–7
- Q1 10:36DUKEQuentin Harris 2 Yd Run (Collin Wareham Kick)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (DUKE Elo 1410, TEM Elo 1716 for reference), on a neutral field. That projects DUKE +12.2 (22% to win) — 8.7 points clear of TEM's market line of +3.5. 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 — 2018
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles#19 of 109 in 2018 by biggest miss · #89 of 122 in 2018 by longest odds.
The 2018 upset archive →| TEM | DUKE | |
|---|---|---|
| +4.8 (#45) | CORE overall | -1.3 (#73) |
| +0 / -4 | offense / defense | -3 / -2 |
| 2.29 | points / drive | 1.95 |
| 1.79 | allowed / drive | 2.09 |
| 30% | three-and-outs | 27% |
| +2 | 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 →