Washington State vs. Stanford: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
WSUTeam statsSTAN
- Q4 0:00STANJJ Arcega-Whiteside 1 Yd pass from Ryan Burns 42–16
- Q4 5:23WSUGerard Wicks 2 Yd Run (Erik Powell Kick)42–10
- Q4 11:28WSURiver Cracraft 16 Yd pass from Luke Falk (Erik Powell Kick)35–10
- Q3 2:54WSUGabe Marks 17 Yd pass from Luke Falk (Erik Powell Kick)28–10
- Q3 7:44STANFrank Buncom 26 Yd Interception Return (Conrad Ukropina Kick)21–10
- Q3 10:59WSUJames Williams 2 Yd Run (Erik Powell Kick)21–3
- Q2 9:10WSUTavares Martin Jr. 29 Yd pass from Luke Falk (Erik Powell Kick)14–3
- Q2 12:51STANConrad Ukropina 43 Yd Field Goal 7–3
- Q1 2:12WSUTavares Martin Jr. 5 Yd pass from Luke Falk (Erik Powell Kick)7–0
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- WSU played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and STAN did not face the same ones. 3rd & 9.5 vs 3rd & 5.6
- STAN lived on explosives rather than sustaining drives — a profile that vanished once those chunk plays were tackled. 13% explosive on a 37% success rate
- PassLuke Falk 30/41, 357 YDS, 4 TD, 2 INT
- RushJamal Morrow 8 CAR, 40 YDS
- RecRiver Cracraft 7 REC, 130 YDS, 1 TD
- PassRyan Burns 19/25, 222 YDS, 1 TD, 1 INT
- RushChristian McCaffrey 8 CAR, 35 YDS
- RecMichael Rector 5 REC, 90 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsWSU up 18 entering the 4th quarter. Across 838 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q1 2:12WSU +21%
Tavares Martin Jr. 5 Yd pass from Luke Falk (Erik Powell Kick)
- Q2 9:10WSU +20%
Tavares Martin Jr. 29 Yd pass from Luke Falk (Erik Powell Kick)
- Q3 10:59WSU +14%
James Williams 2 Yd Run (Erik Powell Kick)
- Q3 2:54WSU +10%
Luke Falk pass complete to Gabe Marks for 17 yds for a TD, (Erik Powell KICK)
- Q2 12:51STAN +9%
Conrad Ukropina 43 Yd Field Goal
- Q3 7:44STAN +8%
Frank Buncom 26 Yd Interception Return (Conrad Ukropina Kick)
FAQ
What was the final score of Washington State vs. Stanford?
Washington State 42, Stanford 16.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked STAN, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| WSU | STAN | |
|---|---|---|
| 458 | Total yards | 296 |
| 357 | Passing yards | 235 |
| 101 | Rushing yards | 61 |
| 21 | First downs | 16 |
| 5-12 | 3rd down | 6-14 |
| 2-2 | 4th down | 0-0 |
| 30/41 | Comp/Att | 21/34 |
| 8.7 | Yards per pass | 6.9 |
| 3.4 | Yards per rush | 2.3 |
| 2 | Turnovers | 3 |
| 10-81 | Penalties | 4-34 |
| 30:48 | Possession | 29:12 |
Costliest call
Q2 9:10 WSU go for it on 4th & 7 at STAN 29. The model preferred field goal, a gap of 0.60 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 0:00STANJJ Arcega-Whiteside 1 Yd pass from Ryan Burns 42–16
- Q4 5:23WSUGerard Wicks 2 Yd Run (Erik Powell Kick)42–10
- Q4 11:28WSURiver Cracraft 16 Yd pass from Luke Falk (Erik Powell Kick)35–10
- Q3 2:54WSUGabe Marks 17 Yd pass from Luke Falk (Erik Powell Kick)28–10
- Q3 7:44STANFrank Buncom 26 Yd Interception Return (Conrad Ukropina Kick)21–10
- Q3 10:59WSUJames Williams 2 Yd Run (Erik Powell Kick)21–3
- Q2 9:10WSUTavares Martin Jr. 29 Yd pass from Luke Falk (Erik Powell Kick)14–3
- Q2 12:51STANConrad Ukropina 43 Yd Field Goal 7–3
- Q1 2:12WSUTavares Martin Jr. 5 Yd pass from Luke Falk (Erik Powell Kick)7–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (STAN Elo 1754, WSU Elo 1693 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects STAN -4.8 (64% to win) — 4.2 points clear of WSU's market line of -9. 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 — 2016
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles#11 of 113 in 2016 by biggest miss · #45 of 124 in 2016 by longest odds · #22 of 61 in 2016 by biggest poll gap.
The 2016 upset archive →Stanford leads 41–31–1 · 41% have been one-possession games
| WSU | STAN | |
|---|---|---|
| +6.6 (#41) | CORE overall | +8.0 (#36) |
| +6 / -1 | offense / defense | +2 / -6 |
| 2.89 | points / drive | 2.20 |
| 1.92 | allowed / drive | 1.65 |
| 18% | three-and-outs | 20% |
| +22 | pass over expected | -7 |
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 →