Rutgers vs. Purdue: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
RUTGTeam statsPUR
- Q4 7:09RUTGValentino Ambrosio 28 Yd Field Goal 37–30
- Q3 3:42RUTGAaron Young 1 Yd Run (Valentino Ambrosio Kick)34–30
- Q3 9:08RUTGAron Cruickshank 100 Yd Kickoff Return (Valentino Ambrosio Kick)27–30
- Q3 9:22PURDavid Bell 18 Yd pass from Jack Plummer (J.D. Dellinger Kick)20–30
- Q3 12:29RUTGKay'Ron Adams 62 Yd pass from Johnny Langan (Valentino Ambrosio Kick)20–23
- Q2 0:59PURJack Plummer 1 Yd Run (J.D. Dellinger Kick)13–23
- Q2 8:19PURZander Horvath 1 Yd Run (J.D. Dellinger Kick)13–16
- Q2 12:05PURBranson Deen Safety13–9
- Q1 1:38RUTGShameen Jones 14 Yd pass from Artur Sitkowski (Valentino Ambrosio Kick)13–7
- Q1 7:01RUTGShameen Jones 14 Yd pass from Artur Sitkowski (Valentino Ambrosio PAT failed)6–7
- Q1 10:46PURPayne Durham 1 Yd pass from Jack Plummer (J.D. Dellinger Kick)0–7
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- PUR played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and RUTG did not face the same ones. 3rd & 7.8 vs 3rd & 5.7
- PassArtur Sitkowski 19/28, 152 YDS, 2 TD
- RushJohnny Langan 21 CAR, 95 YDS
- RecShameen Jones 8 REC, 88 YDS, 2 TD
- PassJack Plummer 20/35, 237 YDS, 2 TD, 1 INT
- RushZander Horvath 19 CAR, 101 YDS, 1 TD
- RecRondale Moore 7 REC, 76 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsRUTG up 4 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,449 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q3 3:42RUTG +31%
Aaron Young run for 1 yd for a TD (Valentino Ambrosio KICK)
- Q4 2:22RUTG +21%
TEAM run for a loss of 5 yards to the Prdue 35
- Q1 1:38RUTG +19%
Artur Sitkowski pass complete to Shameen Jones for 14 yds for a TD (Valentino Ambrosio KICK)
- Q2 8:19PUR +18%
Zander Horvath run for 1 yd for a TD RUTGERS Penalty, Defensive offside ( Yards) declined (J.D. Dellinger KICK)
- Q3 12:29RUTG +16%
Johnny Langan pass complete to Kay'Ron Adams for 62 yds for a TD (Valentino Ambrosio KICK)
- Q4 7:09RUTG +16%
Valentino Ambrosio 28 yd FG GOOD
FAQ
What was the final score of Rutgers vs. Purdue?
Rutgers 37, Purdue 30.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked PUR, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| RUTG | PUR | |
|---|---|---|
| 412 | Total yards | 412 |
| 236 | Passing yards | 237 |
| 176 | Rushing yards | 175 |
| 26 | First downs | 25 |
| 10-17 | 3rd down | 4-11 |
| 1-3 | 4th down | 1-2 |
| 22/31 | Comp/Att | 20/35 |
| 7.6 | Yards per pass | 6.8 |
| 3.4 | Yards per rush | 5.3 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 7-56 | Penalties | 7-47 |
| 35:08 | Possession | 24:52 |
Costliest call
Q2 0:11 RUTG go for it on 4th & 13 at RUTG 36. The model preferred punt, a gap of 1.12 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 7:09RUTGValentino Ambrosio 28 Yd Field Goal 37–30
- Q3 3:42RUTGAaron Young 1 Yd Run (Valentino Ambrosio Kick)34–30
- Q3 9:08RUTGAron Cruickshank 100 Yd Kickoff Return (Valentino Ambrosio Kick)27–30
- Q3 9:22PURDavid Bell 18 Yd pass from Jack Plummer (J.D. Dellinger Kick)20–30
- Q3 12:29RUTGKay'Ron Adams 62 Yd pass from Johnny Langan (Valentino Ambrosio Kick)20–23
- Q2 0:59PURJack Plummer 1 Yd Run (J.D. Dellinger Kick)13–23
- Q2 8:19PURZander Horvath 1 Yd Run (J.D. Dellinger Kick)13–16
- Q2 12:05PURBranson Deen Safety13–9
- Q1 1:38RUTGShameen Jones 14 Yd pass from Artur Sitkowski (Valentino Ambrosio Kick)13–7
- Q1 7:01RUTGShameen Jones 14 Yd pass from Artur Sitkowski (Valentino Ambrosio PAT failed)6–7
- Q1 10:46PURPayne Durham 1 Yd pass from Jack Plummer (J.D. Dellinger Kick)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (PUR Elo 1503, RUTG Elo 1312 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects PUR -10 (76% to win) — 2.5 points clear of RUTG's market line of -12.5. 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 — 2020
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles#56 of 97 in 2020 by biggest miss · #29 of 107 in 2020 by longest odds.
The 2020 upset archive →| RUTG | PUR | |
|---|---|---|
| -14.3 (#108) | CORE overall | -4.1 (#81) |
| -11 / +3 | offense / defense | -2 / +2 |
| 1.94 | points / drive | 2.22 |
| 2.38 | allowed / drive | 2.71 |
| 35% | three-and-outs | 21% |
| -3 | pass over expected | +18 |
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 →