Stanford vs. Hawai'i: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
STANTeam statsHAW
- Q4 1:08HAWPofele Ashlock 16 Yd pass from Brayden Schager (Brayden Schager Pass to Devon Tauaefa for Two-Point Conversion)37–24
- Q4 5:30STANJohn Humphreys 13 Yd pass from Ashton Daniels (Joshua Karty Kick)37–16
- Q4 9:15STANJoshua Karty 46 Yd Field Goal 30–16
- Q4 14:52HAWSteven McBride 24 Yd pass from Brayden Schager (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)27–16
- Q3 1:35STANJoshua Karty 25 Yd Field Goal 27–10
- Q3 11:07STANJoshua Karty 25 Yd Field Goal 24–10
- Q2 0:00HAWMatthew Shipley 32 Yd Field Goal 21–10
- Q2 4:25STANBryce Farrell 2 Yd Run (Joshua Karty Kick)21–7
- Q2 12:24STANBenjamin Yurosek 32 Yd pass from Ashton Daniels (Joshua Karty Kick)14–7
- Q2 14:11HAWPofele Ashlock 7 Yd pass from Brayden Schager (Matthew Shipley Kick)7–7
- Q1 7:25STANE.J. Smith 1 Yd Run (Joshua Karty Kick)7–0
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- HAW played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and STAN did not face the same ones. 3rd & 7.7 vs 3rd & 5.1
- HAW lived on explosives rather than sustaining drives — a profile that vanished once those chunk plays were tackled. 13% explosive on a 35% success rate
- PassAshton Daniels 25/36, 248 YDS, 2 TD
- RushCasey Filkins 6 CAR, 67 YDS
- RecBen Yurosek 9 REC, 138 YDS, 1 TD
- PassBrayden Schager 30/53, 355 YDS, 3 TD
- RushTylan Hines 5 CAR, 5 YDS
- RecPofele Ashlock 8 REC, 114 YDS, 2 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsSTAN up 17 entering the 4th quarter. Across 839 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q2 12:24STAN +19%
Ashton Daniels pass complete to Benjamin Yurosek for 32 yds for a TD (Joshua Karty KICK)
- Q2 14:11HAW +19%
Brayden Schager pass complete to Pofele Ashlock for 7 yds for a TD (Matthew Shipley KICK)
- Q1 7:25STAN +18%
E.J. Smith run for 1 yd for a TD (Joshua Karty KICK)
- Q2 4:25STAN +16%
Bryce Farrell run for 2 yds for a TD (Joshua Karty KICK)
- Q4 14:52HAW +9%
Steven McBride 24 Yd pass from Brayden Schager (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)
- Q3 11:07STAN +7%
Joshua Karty 25 yd FG GOOD
FAQ
What was the final score of Stanford vs. Hawai'i?
Stanford 37, Hawai'i 24.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (STAN) was correct.
| STAN | HAW | |
|---|---|---|
| 406 | Total yards | 350 |
| 248 | Passing yards | 355 |
| 158 | Rushing yards | -5 |
| 24 | First downs | 20 |
| 6-14 | 3rd down | 8-16 |
| 0-0 | 4th down | 1-3 |
| 25/36 | Comp/Att | 30/53 |
| 6.9 | Yards per pass | 6.7 |
| 4.6 | Yards per rush | -0.3 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 0 |
| 9-81 | Penalties | 11-114 |
| 33:55 | Possession | 26:05 |
Costliest call
Q4 7:05 HAW go for it on 4th & 10 at HAW 43. The model preferred punt, a gap of 0.57 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 1:08HAWPofele Ashlock 16 Yd pass from Brayden Schager (Brayden Schager Pass to Devon Tauaefa for Two-Point Conversion)37–24
- Q4 5:30STANJohn Humphreys 13 Yd pass from Ashton Daniels (Joshua Karty Kick)37–16
- Q4 9:15STANJoshua Karty 46 Yd Field Goal 30–16
- Q4 14:52HAWSteven McBride 24 Yd pass from Brayden Schager (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)27–16
- Q3 1:35STANJoshua Karty 25 Yd Field Goal 27–10
- Q3 11:07STANJoshua Karty 25 Yd Field Goal 24–10
- Q2 0:00HAWMatthew Shipley 32 Yd Field Goal 21–10
- Q2 4:25STANBryce Farrell 2 Yd Run (Joshua Karty Kick)21–7
- Q2 12:24STANBenjamin Yurosek 32 Yd pass from Ashton Daniels (Joshua Karty Kick)14–7
- Q2 14:11HAWPofele Ashlock 7 Yd pass from Brayden Schager (Matthew Shipley Kick)7–7
- Q1 7:25STANE.J. Smith 1 Yd Run (Joshua Karty Kick)7–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (HAW Elo 1241, STAN Elo 1324 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects HAW +0.9 (49% to win) — 2.6 points clear of HAW's market line of +3.5. 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| STAN | HAW | |
|---|---|---|
| -15.4 (#110) | CORE overall | -18.6 (#121) |
| -7 / +8 | offense / defense | -8 / +10 |
| 1.84 | points / drive | 1.78 |
| 3.35 | allowed / drive | 3.19 |
| 25% | three-and-outs | 29% |
| +7 | pass over expected | +16 |
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 →