SMU vs. Boston College: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
SMUTeam statsBC
- Q4 9:48BCThomas Castellanos 14 Yd Run (Liam Connor PAT failed)14–23
- Q4 12:22BCThomas Castellanos 15 Yd Run (Liam Connor Kick)14–17
- Q2 0:08SMUJaylan Knighton 6 Yd pass from Kevin Jennings (Collin Rogers Kick)14–10
- Q2 3:07BCKye Robichaux 6 Yd Run (Liam Connor Kick)7–10
- Q2 9:14SMULJ Johnson Jr. 1 Yd Run (Collin Rogers Kick)7–3
- Q1 6:21BCLiam Connor 45 Yd Field Goal 0–3
How the model called it
- PassKevin Jennings 24/48, 191 YDS, 1 TD
- RushKevin Jennings 10 CAR, 51 YDS
- RecJake Bailey 6 REC, 54 YDS
- PassThomas Castellanos 11/18, 102 YDS, 1 INT
- RushThomas Castellanos 21 CAR, 156 YDS, 2 TD
- RecJaedn Skeete 2 REC, 40 YDS
FAQ
What was the final score of SMU vs. Boston College?
SMU 14, Boston College 23.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked SMU, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| SMU | BC | |
|---|---|---|
| 309 | Total yards | 364 |
| 191 | Passing yards | 102 |
| 118 | Rushing yards | 262 |
| 22 | First downs | 20 |
| 9-18 | 3rd down | 5-11 |
| 2-4 | 4th down | 1-1 |
| 24/48 | Comp/Att | 11/18 |
| 4.0 | Yards per pass | 5.7 |
| 3.8 | Yards per rush | 6.4 |
| 1 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 6-49 | Penalties | 6-40 |
| 29:00 | Possession | 31:00 |
- Q4 9:48BCThomas Castellanos 14 Yd Run (Liam Connor PAT failed)14–23
- Q4 12:22BCThomas Castellanos 15 Yd Run (Liam Connor Kick)14–17
- Q2 0:08SMUJaylan Knighton 6 Yd pass from Kevin Jennings (Collin Rogers Kick)14–10
- Q2 3:07BCKye Robichaux 6 Yd Run (Liam Connor Kick)7–10
- Q2 9:14SMULJ Johnson Jr. 1 Yd Run (Collin Rogers Kick)7–3
- Q1 6:21BCLiam Connor 45 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 (BC Elo 1269, SMU Elo 1861 for reference), on a neutral field. That projects BC +23.7 (8% to win) — 10.2 points clear of SMU's market line of +13.5. 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#43 of 117 in 2023 by biggest miss · #15 of 127 in 2023 by longest odds · #30 of 51 in 2023 by biggest poll gap.
The 2023 upset archive →| SMU | BC | |
|---|---|---|
| +13.9 (#25) | CORE overall | -1.5 (#68) |
| +4 / -9 | offense / defense | +2 / +3 |
| 2.76 | points / drive | 2.28 |
| 1.37 | allowed / drive | 2.57 |
| 20% | three-and-outs | 23% |
| +1 | pass over expected | -8 |
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 →