Texas State vs. Baylor: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
TXSTTeam statsBAY
- Q4 8:52BAYDrake Dabney 2 Yd pass from Blake Shapen (Isaiah Hankins Kick)42–31
- Q4 13:52TXSTJoey Hobert 26 Yd pass from TJ Finley (Mason Shipley Kick)42–24
- Q3 1:47BAYIsaiah Hankins 24 Yd Field Goal 35–24
- Q3 10:18TXSTTJ Finley 16 Yd Run (Mason Shipley Kick)35–21
- Q3 13:21BAYDrake Dabney 53 Yd pass from Blake Shapen (Blake Shapen Pass to Ketron Jackson Jr. for Two-Point Conversion)28–21
- Q2 0:48TXSTJahmyl Jeter 1 Yd Run (Mason Shipley Kick)28–13
- Q2 4:06BAYBlake Shapen 9 Yd Run (Isaiah Hankins Kick)21–13
- Q2 9:11TXSTDonerio Davenport 27 Yd pass from TJ Finley (Mason Shipley Kick)21–6
- Q1 1:21TXSTIsmail Mahdi 65 Yd Run (Mason Shipley Kick)14–6
- Q1 2:26BAYIsaiah Hankins 53 Yd Field Goal 7–6
- Q1 7:33TXSTIsmail Mahdi 10 Yd pass from TJ Finley (Mason Shipley Kick)7–3
- Q1 10:17BAYIsaiah Hankins 23 Yd Field Goal 0–3
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- BAY played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and TXST did not face the same ones. 3rd & 8.3 vs 3rd & 6.1
- BAY lived on explosives rather than sustaining drives — a profile that vanished once those chunk plays were tackled. 18% explosive on a 39% success rate
- PassTJ Finley 22/30, 298 YDS, 3 TD
- RushIsmail Mahdi 6 CAR, 83 YDS, 1 TD
- RecJoey Hobert 6 REC, 105 YDS, 1 TD
- PassBlake Shapen 21/31, 303 YDS, 2 TD
- RushDominic Richardson 16 CAR, 79 YDS
- RecDrake Dabney 6 REC, 101 YDS, 2 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsTXST up 11 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,141 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q3 13:21BAY +27%
Blake Shapen pass complete to Drake Dabney for 53 yds for a TD (Blake Shapen pass to Ketron Jackson Jr. for Two-Point Conversion)
- Q3 10:18TXST +25%
TJ Finley run for 16 yds for a TD (Mason Shipley KICK)
- Q2 4:06BAY +22%
Blake Shapen run for 9 yds for a TD (Isaiah Hankins KICK)
- Q2 0:48TXST +22%
Jahmyl Jeter run for 1 yd for a TD (Mason Shipley KICK)
- Q2 9:11TXST +21%
TJ Finley pass complete to Donerio Davenport for 27 yds for a TD (Mason Shipley KICK)
- Q1 1:21TXST +18%
Ismail Mahdi run for 65 yds for a TD (Mason Shipley KICK)
FAQ
What was the final score of Texas State vs. Baylor?
Texas State 42, Baylor 31.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked BAY, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| TXST | BAY | |
|---|---|---|
| 441 | Total yards | 524 |
| 298 | Passing yards | 416 |
| 143 | Rushing yards | 108 |
| 20 | First downs | 22 |
| 5-13 | 3rd down | 8-18 |
| 4-4 | 4th down | 3-4 |
| 22/30 | Comp/Att | 27/44 |
| 9.9 | Yards per pass | 9.5 |
| 3.7 | Yards per rush | 3.4 |
| 2 | Turnovers | 2 |
| 4-31 | Penalties | 9-45 |
| 26:12 | Possession | 33:48 |
Costliest call
Q4 6:25 BAY go for it on 4th & 13 at BAY 28. The model preferred punt, a gap of 1.05 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 8:52BAYDrake Dabney 2 Yd pass from Blake Shapen (Isaiah Hankins Kick)42–31
- Q4 13:52TXSTJoey Hobert 26 Yd pass from TJ Finley (Mason Shipley Kick)42–24
- Q3 1:47BAYIsaiah Hankins 24 Yd Field Goal 35–24
- Q3 10:18TXSTTJ Finley 16 Yd Run (Mason Shipley Kick)35–21
- Q3 13:21BAYDrake Dabney 53 Yd pass from Blake Shapen (Blake Shapen Pass to Ketron Jackson Jr. for Two-Point Conversion)28–21
- Q2 0:48TXSTJahmyl Jeter 1 Yd Run (Mason Shipley Kick)28–13
- Q2 4:06BAYBlake Shapen 9 Yd Run (Isaiah Hankins Kick)21–13
- Q2 9:11TXSTDonerio Davenport 27 Yd pass from TJ Finley (Mason Shipley Kick)21–6
- Q1 1:21TXSTIsmail Mahdi 65 Yd Run (Mason Shipley Kick)14–6
- Q1 2:26BAYIsaiah Hankins 53 Yd Field Goal 7–6
- Q1 7:33TXSTIsmail Mahdi 10 Yd pass from TJ Finley (Mason Shipley Kick)7–3
- Q1 10:17BAYIsaiah Hankins 23 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 (BAY Elo 1614, TXST Elo 1294 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects BAY -15.2 (84% to win) — 11.3 points clear of TXST's market line of -26.5. 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#8 of 117 in 2023 by biggest miss · #1 of 127 in 2023 by longest odds.
The 2023 upset archive →Baylor leads 9–1 · 30% have been one-possession games
| TXST | BAY | |
|---|---|---|
| -1.0 (#67) | CORE overall | -16.8 (#115) |
| +2 / +3 | offense / defense | -4 / +12 |
| 2.47 | points / drive | 1.53 |
| 2.36 | allowed / drive | 2.97 |
| 26% | three-and-outs | 21% |
| +0 | pass over expected | +2 |
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 →