Middle Tennessee vs. Missouri: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
MTSUTeam statsMIZ
- Q4 6:07MTSUTeam Safety19–23
- Q4 6:57MTSUJustin Olson 13 Yd pass from Nicholas Vattiato (Zeke Rankin Kick)17–23
- Q4 14:53MIZNathaniel Peat 49 Yd pass from Brady Cook (Harrison Mevis Kick)10–23
- Q3 4:58MIZTheo Wease Jr. 5 Yd pass from Brady Cook (Harrison Mevis PAT failed)10–16
- Q3 8:39MTSUZeke Rankin 25 Yd Field Goal 10–10
- Q2 0:24MIZBrady Cook 1 Yd Run (Harrison Mevis Kick)7–10
- Q2 8:14MTSUKalani Norris 3 Yd pass from Nicholas Vattiato (Zeke Rankin Kick)7–3
- Q1 5:21MIZHarrison Mevis 38 Yd Field Goal 0–3
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- MTSU lived on explosives rather than sustaining drives — a profile that vanished once those chunk plays were tackled. 12% explosive on a 32% success rate
- PassNicholas Vattiato 22/36, 219 YDS, 2 TD
- RushFrank Peasant 12 CAR, 35 YDS
- RecElijah Metcalf 5 REC, 70 YDS
- PassBrady Cook 14/19, 204 YDS, 2 TD
- RushCody Schrader 23 CAR, 84 YDS
- RecLuther Burden III 8 REC, 117 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsMIZ up 6 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,661 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q2 0:24MIZ +22%
Brady Cook run for 1 yd for a TD (Harrison Mevis KICK)
- Q2 8:14MTSU +22%
Nicholas Vattiato pass complete to Kalani Norris for 3 yds for a TD (Zeke Rankin KICK)
- Q3 4:58MIZ +19%
Brady Cook pass complete to Theo Wease Jr. for 5 yds for a TD (Harrison Mevis PAT MISSED)
- Q4 3:14MIZ +16%
Cody Schrader run for 3 yds to the MIZ 45
- Q4 6:57MTSU +14%
Nicholas Vattiato pass complete to Justin Olson for 13 yds for a TD (Zeke Rankin KICK)
- Q4 6:02MTSU +13%
Frank Peasant run for 2 yds to the MTSU 45
FAQ
What was the final score of Middle Tennessee vs. Missouri?
Middle Tennessee 19, Missouri 23.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (MIZ) was correct.
| MTSU | MIZ | |
|---|---|---|
| 285 | Total yards | 316 |
| 219 | Passing yards | 204 |
| 66 | Rushing yards | 112 |
| 16 | First downs | 21 |
| 9-18 | 3rd down | 7-13 |
| 2-3 | 4th down | 0-0 |
| 22/36 | Comp/Att | 14/19 |
| 6.1 | Yards per pass | 10.7 |
| 2.3 | Yards per rush | 2.4 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 0 |
| 6-42 | Penalties | 5-50 |
| 28:00 | Possession | 32:00 |
Costliest call
Q4 10:27 MIZ punt on 4th & 1 at MTSU 44. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 1.76 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 6:07MTSUTeam Safety19–23
- Q4 6:57MTSUJustin Olson 13 Yd pass from Nicholas Vattiato (Zeke Rankin Kick)17–23
- Q4 14:53MIZNathaniel Peat 49 Yd pass from Brady Cook (Harrison Mevis Kick)10–23
- Q3 4:58MIZTheo Wease Jr. 5 Yd pass from Brady Cook (Harrison Mevis PAT failed)10–16
- Q3 8:39MTSUZeke Rankin 25 Yd Field Goal 10–10
- Q2 0:24MIZBrady Cook 1 Yd Run (Harrison Mevis Kick)7–10
- Q2 8:14MTSUKalani Norris 3 Yd pass from Nicholas Vattiato (Zeke Rankin Kick)7–3
- Q1 5:21MIZHarrison Mevis 38 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 (MIZ Elo 1480, MTSU Elo 1340 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects MIZ -8 (71% to win) — 13.0 points clear of MTSU's market line of -21. 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| MTSU | MIZ | |
|---|---|---|
| -6.6 (#91) | CORE overall | +20.7 (#12) |
| -6 / +0 | offense / defense | +12 / -9 |
| 1.65 | points / drive | 2.80 |
| 2.17 | allowed / drive | 1.82 |
| 26% | three-and-outs | 19% |
| +5 | pass over expected | +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.
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 →