Troy vs. Army: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
TROYTeam statsARMY
- Q3 10:09TROYScott Taylor Renfroe 43 Yd Field Goal 19–0
- Q2 0:38TROYChris Lewis 52 Yd pass from Gunnar Watson (Scott Taylor Renfroe Kick)16–0
- Q2 7:31TROYScott Taylor Renfroe 32 Yd Field Goal 9–0
- Q2 10:35TROYScott Taylor Renfroe 35 Yd Field Goal 6–0
- Q1 7:55TROYScott Taylor Renfroe 24 Yd Field Goal 3–0
How the model called it
- PassGunnar Watson 10/21, 227 YDS, 1 TD
- RushKimani Vidal 23 CAR, 116 YDS
- RecJabre Barber 4 REC, 138 YDS
- PassChamp Harris 6/13, 63 YDS, 1 INT
- RushKanye Udoh 18 CAR, 124 YDS
- RecTobi Olawole 2 REC, 22 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsTROY up 19 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,039 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q2 0:38TROY +11%
Gunnar Watson pass complete to Chris Lewis for 52 yds for a TD (Scott Taylor Renfroe KICK)
- Q2 10:35TROY +8%
Scott Taylor Renfroe 35 yd FG GOOD
- Q1 7:55TROY +8%
Scott Taylor Renfroe 24 yd FG GOOD
- Q2 7:31TROY +7%
Scott Taylor Renfroe 32 yd FG GOOD
FAQ
What was the final score of Troy vs. Army?
Troy 19, Army 0.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (TROY) was correct.
| TROY | ARMY | |
|---|---|---|
| 449 | Total yards | 255 |
| 227 | Passing yards | 78 |
| 222 | Rushing yards | 177 |
| 15 | First downs | 17 |
| 4-13 | 3rd down | 2-13 |
| 0-2 | 4th down | 1-5 |
| 10/21 | Comp/Att | 9/18 |
| 10.8 | Yards per pass | 4.3 |
| 5.7 | Yards per rush | 3.5 |
| 1 | Turnovers | 4 |
| 9-80 | Penalties | 5-31 |
| 30:08 | Possession | 29:52 |
Costliest call
Q4 10:16 ARMY go for it on 4th & 20 at ARMY 45. The model preferred punt, a gap of 0.92 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q3 10:09TROYScott Taylor Renfroe 43 Yd Field Goal 19–0
- Q2 0:38TROYChris Lewis 52 Yd pass from Gunnar Watson (Scott Taylor Renfroe Kick)16–0
- Q2 7:31TROYScott Taylor Renfroe 32 Yd Field Goal 9–0
- Q2 10:35TROYScott Taylor Renfroe 35 Yd Field Goal 6–0
- Q1 7:55TROYScott Taylor Renfroe 24 Yd Field Goal 3–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (ARMY Elo 1478, TROY Elo 1604 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects ARMY +2.6 (44% to win) — 3.9 points clear of ARMY's market line of +6.5. 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 — 2023
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles| TROY | ARMY | |
|---|---|---|
| +10.8 (#31) | CORE overall | -15.8 (#111) |
| -0 / -11 | offense / defense | -7 / +9 |
| 2.40 | points / drive | 1.59 |
| 1.38 | allowed / drive | 2.22 |
| 23% | three-and-outs | 29% |
| +6 | pass over expected | -25 |
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 →