UTEP vs. Jacksonville State: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
UTEPTeam statsJXST
- Q4 12:19UTEPKelly Akharaiyi 32 Yd pass from Gavin Hardison (Buzz Flabiano Kick)14–17
- Q3 7:47JXSTMalik Jackson 7 Yd Run (Alen Karajic Kick)7–17
- Q2 0:00UTEPDeion Hankins 1 Yd Run (Buzz Flabiano Kick)7–10
- Q2 13:26JXSTRon Wiggins 4 Yd Run (Alen Karajic Kick)0–10
- Q1 4:57JXSTAlen Karajic 41 Yd Field Goal 0–3
How the model called it
- PassGavin Hardison 17/29, 208 YDS, 1 TD, 2 INT
- RushTorrance Burgess Jr. 12 CAR, 58 YDS
- RecKelly Akharaiyi 4 REC, 102 YDS, 1 TD
- PassZion Webb 10/20, 67 YDS
- RushMalik Jackson 13 CAR, 76 YDS, 1 TD
- RecRon Wiggins 2 REC, 24 YDS
FAQ
What was the final score of UTEP vs. Jacksonville State?
UTEP 14, Jacksonville State 17.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (JXST) was correct.
| UTEP | JXST | |
|---|---|---|
| 364 | Total yards | 275 |
| 208 | Passing yards | 67 |
| 156 | Rushing yards | 208 |
| 22 | First downs | 15 |
| 3-12 | 3rd down | 7-16 |
| 1-3 | 4th down | 1-2 |
| 17/29 | Comp/Att | 10/20 |
| 7.2 | Yards per pass | 3.4 |
| 3.6 | Yards per rush | 4.7 |
| 3 | Turnovers | 0 |
| 5-55 | Penalties | 4-52 |
| 34:38 | Possession | 25:22 |
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 12:19UTEPKelly Akharaiyi 32 Yd pass from Gavin Hardison (Buzz Flabiano Kick)14–17
- Q3 7:47JXSTMalik Jackson 7 Yd Run (Alen Karajic Kick)7–17
- Q2 0:00UTEPDeion Hankins 1 Yd Run (Buzz Flabiano Kick)7–10
- Q2 13:26JXSTRon Wiggins 4 Yd Run (Alen Karajic Kick)0–10
- Q1 4:57JXSTAlen Karajic 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 (JXST Elo 1500, UTEP Elo 1369 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects JXST -7.6 (70% to win) — 8.6 points clear of JXST's market line of +1. 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 — 2023
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles| UTEP | JXST | |
|---|---|---|
| -15.3 (#109) | CORE overall | -2.8 (#77) |
| -8 / +7 | offense / defense | -10 / -8 |
| 1.58 | points / drive | 1.97 |
| 2.73 | allowed / drive | 1.43 |
| 26% | three-and-outs | 24% |
| -5 | pass over expected | -10 |
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 →