App State vs. Clemson: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
APPTeam statsCLEM
- Q3 1:51CLEMNolan Hauser 36 Yd Field Goal 20–66
- Q3 3:10CLEMChristopher Vizzina 5 Yd Run (Nolan Hauser Kick)20–63
- Q3 12:31APPMakai Jackson 17 Yd pass from Joey Aguilar (Michael Hughes Kick)20–56
- Q2 0:00APPMichael Hughes 35 Yd Field Goal 13–56
- Q2 0:54CLEMJake Briningstool 17 Yd pass from Cade Klubnik (Nolan Hauser Kick)10–56
- Q2 3:28APPMichael Hughes 36 Yd Field Goal 10–49
- Q2 6:48CLEMT.J. Moore 33 Yd pass from Cade Klubnik (Nolan Hauser Kick)7–49
- Q2 10:39APPAnderson Castle 4 Yd Run (Michael Hughes Kick)7–42
- Q2 12:58CLEMCade Klubnik 3 Yd Run (Nolan Hauser Kick)0–42
- Q1 1:11CLEMAntonio Williams 29 Yd pass from Cade Klubnik (Nolan Hauser Kick)0–35
- Q1 2:34CLEMJake Briningstool 41 Yd pass from Cade Klubnik (Nolan Hauser Kick)0–28
- Q1 7:08CLEMPhil Mafah 83 Yd Run (Nolan Hauser Kick)0–21
- Q1 9:40CLEMCade Klubnik 2 Yd Run (Nolan Hauser Kick)0–14
- Q1 13:46CLEMBryant Wesco Jr. 76 Yd pass from Cade Klubnik (Nolan Hauser Kick)0–7
How the model called it
- PassJoey Aguilar 18/41, 214 YDS, 1 TD
- RushAnderson Castle 7 CAR, 80 YDS, 1 TD
- RecKaedin Robinson 3 REC, 58 YDS
- PassCade Klubnik 24/26, 378 YDS, 5 TD
- RushPhil Mafah 10 CAR, 118 YDS, 1 TD
- RecBryant Wesco Jr. 3 REC, 130 YDS, 1 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsCLEM up 46 entering the 4th quarter. Across 105 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q1 13:46CLEM +16%
Cade Klubnik pass complete to Bryant Wesco Jr. for 76 yds for a TD (Nolan Hauser KICK)
- Q1 9:40CLEM +12%
Cade Klubnik run for 2 yds for a TD (Nolan Hauser KICK)
- Q1 7:08CLEM +7%
Phil Mafah run for 83 yds for a TD (Nolan Hauser KICK)
FAQ
What was the final score of App State vs. Clemson?
App State 20, Clemson 66.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (CLEM) was correct.
| APP | CLEM | |
|---|---|---|
| 363 | Total yards | 712 |
| 214 | Passing yards | 460 |
| 149 | Rushing yards | 252 |
| 24 | First downs | 28 |
| 4-13 | 3rd down | 6-12 |
| 0-0 | 4th down | 1-3 |
| 18/43 | Comp/Att | 32/39 |
| 5.0 | Yards per pass | 11.8 |
| 5.5 | Yards per rush | 7.4 |
| 3 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 7-73 | Penalties | 8-85 |
| 28:22 | Possession | 31:38 |
Costliest call
Q1 0:00 APP punt on 4th & 1 at APP 20. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.90 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q3 1:51CLEMNolan Hauser 36 Yd Field Goal 20–66
- Q3 3:10CLEMChristopher Vizzina 5 Yd Run (Nolan Hauser Kick)20–63
- Q3 12:31APPMakai Jackson 17 Yd pass from Joey Aguilar (Michael Hughes Kick)20–56
- Q2 0:00APPMichael Hughes 35 Yd Field Goal 13–56
- Q2 0:54CLEMJake Briningstool 17 Yd pass from Cade Klubnik (Nolan Hauser Kick)10–56
- Q2 3:28APPMichael Hughes 36 Yd Field Goal 10–49
- Q2 6:48CLEMT.J. Moore 33 Yd pass from Cade Klubnik (Nolan Hauser Kick)7–49
- Q2 10:39APPAnderson Castle 4 Yd Run (Michael Hughes Kick)7–42
- Q2 12:58CLEMCade Klubnik 3 Yd Run (Nolan Hauser Kick)0–42
- Q1 1:11CLEMAntonio Williams 29 Yd pass from Cade Klubnik (Nolan Hauser Kick)0–35
- Q1 2:34CLEMJake Briningstool 41 Yd pass from Cade Klubnik (Nolan Hauser Kick)0–28
- Q1 7:08CLEMPhil Mafah 83 Yd Run (Nolan Hauser Kick)0–21
- Q1 9:40CLEMCade Klubnik 2 Yd Run (Nolan Hauser Kick)0–14
- Q1 13:46CLEMBryant Wesco Jr. 76 Yd pass from Cade Klubnik (Nolan Hauser Kick)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (CLEM Elo 1625, APP Elo 1578 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects CLEM -4.3 (62% to win) — 11.2 points clear of APP's market line of -15.5. 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 — 2024
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles| APP | CLEM | |
|---|---|---|
| -13.3 (#112) | CORE overall | +13.8 (#26) |
| +0 / +13 | offense / defense | +8 / -6 |
| 2.07 | points / drive | 2.81 |
| 3.14 | allowed / drive | 1.91 |
| 21% | three-and-outs | 25% |
| -0 | 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 →