Marshall vs. East Carolina: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
MRSHTeam statsECU
- Q4 6:13MRSHRasheen Ali 14 Yd Run (Kameron Lake Kick)31–13
- Q4 7:16MRSHRasheen Ali 56 Yd Run (Kameron Lake Kick)24–13
- Q4 11:07MRSHCaleb McMillan 75 Yd pass from Chuck Montgomery (Kameron Lake Kick)17–13
- Q3 6:04ECUAndrew Conrad 30 Yd Field Goal 10–13
- Q2 2:22ECUShane Calhoun 2 Yd pass from Mason Garcia (Andrew Conrad Kick)10–10
- Q2 3:53ECUAndrew Conrad 39 Yd Field Goal 10–3
- Q2 6:03MRSHKameron Lake 20 Yd Field Goal 10–0
- Q2 11:32MRSHRasheen Ali 1 Yd Run (Kameron Lake Kick)7–0
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- MRSH lived on explosives rather than sustaining drives — a profile that vanished once those chunk plays were tackled. 16% explosive on a 34% success rate
- PassCam Fancher 15/28, 178 YDS
- RushRasheen Ali 18 CAR, 85 YDS, 3 TD
- RecCaleb McMillan 4 REC, 85 YDS, 1 TD
- PassMason Garcia 10/23, 62 YDS, 1 TD, 1 INT
- RushMason Garcia 16 CAR, 118 YDS
- RecJsi Hatfield 4 REC, 57 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsECU up 3 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,455 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q4 11:07MRSH +51%
Chuck Montgomery pass complete to Caleb McMillan for 75 yds for a TD (Kameron Lake KICK)
- Q4 7:16MRSH +33%
Rasheen Ali run for 56 yds for a TD (Kameron Lake KICK)
- Q2 2:22ECU +23%
Mason Garcia pass complete to Shane Calhoun for 2 yds for a TD (Andrew Conrad KICK)
- Q2 11:32MRSH +20%
Rasheen Ali run for 1 yd for a TD (Kameron Lake KICK)
- Q3 6:04ECU +13%
Andrew Conrad 30 yd FG GOOD
- Q4 14:47ECU +12%
Andrew Conrad 45 yd FG MISSED
FAQ
What was the final score of Marshall vs. East Carolina?
Marshall 31, East Carolina 13.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked ECU, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| MRSH | ECU | |
|---|---|---|
| 392 | Total yards | 269 |
| 261 | Passing yards | 123 |
| 131 | Rushing yards | 146 |
| 22 | First downs | 13 |
| 6-15 | 3rd down | 5-17 |
| 1-3 | 4th down | 2-4 |
| 17/29 | Comp/Att | 13/31 |
| 9.0 | Yards per pass | 4.0 |
| 3.4 | Yards per rush | 3.8 |
| 1 | Turnovers | 2 |
| 4-39 | Penalties | 11-112 |
| 30:05 | Possession | 29:55 |
Costliest call
Q2 6:03 MRSH field goal on 4th & 2 at ECU 2. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 1.39 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 6:13MRSHRasheen Ali 14 Yd Run (Kameron Lake Kick)31–13
- Q4 7:16MRSHRasheen Ali 56 Yd Run (Kameron Lake Kick)24–13
- Q4 11:07MRSHCaleb McMillan 75 Yd pass from Chuck Montgomery (Kameron Lake Kick)17–13
- Q3 6:04ECUAndrew Conrad 30 Yd Field Goal 10–13
- Q2 2:22ECUShane Calhoun 2 Yd pass from Mason Garcia (Andrew Conrad Kick)10–10
- Q2 3:53ECUAndrew Conrad 39 Yd Field Goal 10–3
- Q2 6:03MRSHKameron Lake 20 Yd Field Goal 10–0
- Q2 11:32MRSHRasheen Ali 1 Yd Run (Kameron Lake Kick)7–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (ECU Elo 1481, MRSH Elo 1542 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects ECU PK (51% to win) — 3.0 points clear of ECU's market line of +3. 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 profilesEast Carolina leads 11–6 · 47% have been one-possession games
| MRSH | ECU | |
|---|---|---|
| -2.4 (#76) | CORE overall | -20.0 (#125) |
| -5 / -2 | offense / defense | -19 / +1 |
| 1.38 | points / drive | 0.90 |
| 2.04 | allowed / drive | 1.84 |
| 31% | three-and-outs | 41% |
| +0 | 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 →