Central Connecticut vs. Central Michigan: Final Score & Recap

ReplayCommandBoxAnalyticsMatchup

Central Connecticut

0010

Central Michigan

▸0066

Final

Kelly/Shorts Stadium

	1	2	3	4	T
CENT	7	0	3	0	10
CMU	14	28	24	0	66

CENTTeam statsCMU

285Total yards491

91Pass378

194Rush113

16First downs22

5-153rd down3-9

1Turnovers0

34:57Possession25:03

Scoring plays

• Q3 1:48CMUAakeem Snell 46 Yd Interception Return (Tristan Mattson Kick)10–66
• Q3 3:45CMUSolomon Davis 72 Yd pass from Joe Labas (Tristan Mattson Kick)10–59
• Q3 7:04CMUDonte Kent 68 Yd Punt Return (Tristan Mattson Kick)10–52
• Q3 8:45CMUTristan Mattson 26 Yd Field Goal 10–45
• Q3 11:17CENTJack Barnum 50 Yd Field Goal 10–42
• Q2 0:37CMUMyles Bailey 2 Yd Run (Tristan Mattson Kick)7–42
• Q2 3:16CMUSolomon Davis 17 Yd pass from Joe Labas (Tristan Mattson Kick)7–35
• Q2 7:34CMUEvan Boyd 47 Yd pass from Joe Labas (Tristan Mattson Kick)7–28
• Q2 11:50CMUB.J. Harris 9 Yd Run (Tristan Mattson Kick)7–21
• Q1 5:40CMUStephan Bracey Jr. 87 Yd Kickoff Return (Tristan Mattson Kick)7–14
• Q1 5:55CENTElijah Howard 3 Yd Run (Jack Barnum Kick)7–7
• Q1 10:31CMUMyles Bailey 7 Yd Run (Tristan Mattson Kick)0–7

How the model called it

Market line

CMU −33.5

Against the number

CMU covered

line CMU −33.5

Win probability

ours solid · ESPN dashed

CMU 100%50%CENT 100%

Kickoff138 plays →Final

Tap or hover on the chart to see play details

CMU (top)CENT (bottom)· colored dots = scoresFinal: CMU 100%

How the line closed

model vs market

Closing line

CMU −33.5

Closing total

54.5

Model line

—

Actual result

CENT 10 – 66 CMU

Leaders

Central Connecticut

• PassBrady Olson 12/20, 91 YDS
• RushJadon Turner 5 CAR, 61 YDS
• RecMichael Plaskon 4 REC, 44 YDS

Central Michigan

• PassJoe Labas 18/24, 342 YDS, 3 TD
• RushMyles Bailey 9 CAR, 68 YDS, 2 TD
• RecSolomon Davis 4 REC, 109 YDS, 2 TD

Tempo

what this pace leaves on the clock

29.8sper snap · slower the national 24.5s

fastnational avgslow

Snaps run

120

Points / snap

0.63

This exact spot, historically

empirical, no ratings

CMU up 55 entering the 4th quarter. Across 44 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):

100%

CMU went on to win

A near-lock historically

Most comparable games

WRice vs Texas Southern69-7WSouthern Illinois vs Murray State69-0WNorth Carolina Central vs Virginia University Of Lynchburg104-0WToledo vs Texas Southern71-3WEastern Michigan vs South Alabama59-10

Fourth downs

15 calls

CMU gave up 1.1 points to the model on fourth down.CENT 6/8 · CMU 3/5 agreed

FAQ

What was the final score of Central Connecticut vs. Central Michigan?

Central Connecticut 10, Central Michigan 66.

Did Gridpex's model pick hit?

Yes — the model's pick (CMU) was correct.

Situational splits

what the averages hide

CENT

CMU

33%

Success rate

44%

-0.18

EPA / pass

0.68

0.04

EPA / rush

0.19

34%

Early-down success

47%

26%

Pass success

50%

38%

Rush success

36%

6%

Explosive play rate (15+ yds)

23%

20%

Stuffed rush rate

32%

37%

Pass rate

56%

6.8

Avg 3rd-down distance

6.7

CENT

6.8 yards to go on 3rd down

63 scrimmage snaps

CMU

6.7 yards to go on 3rd down

57 scrimmage snaps

Team stats

the basics, from ESPN

CENT		CMU
285	Total yards	491
91	Passing yards	378
194	Rushing yards	113
16	First downs	22
5-15	3rd down	3-9
0-1	4th down	2-3
12/23	Comp/Att	21/28
4.0	Yards per pass	13.5
4.4	Yards per rush	4.7
1	Turnovers	0
11-94	Penalties	8-64
34:57	Possession	25:03

Fourth downs

15 calls

CENT

6/8 with the model

−1.0 pts · −0.0% win prob

CMU

3/5 with the model

−1.1 pts · −0.0% win prob

Costliest call

Q2 13:23 CENT punt on 4th & 1 at CENT 22. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.91 points.

Every call, priced (15)

Drive chart

every possession, start to finish

CENT 5/13 scoring drives← own end zone →CMU 7/10 scoring drives

CMUTD8 pl, 79 yds· own 21Q1

CENTTD10 pl, 75 yds· own 25Q1

CENTTD0 pl, 0 yds· opp 30Q1

CENTPUNT4 pl, 9 yds· own 25Q1

CMUPUNT5 pl, 14 yds· own 40Q1

CENTPUNT3 pl, 9 yds· own 13Q1

CMUTD4 pl, 46 yds· opp 46Q2

CENTPUNT7 pl, 29 yds· own 12Q2

CMUTD2 pl, 80 yds· own 20Q2

CMUTD5 pl, 37 yds· opp 37Q2

CMUTD8 pl, 55 yds· own 45Q2

CENTEND1 pl, 2 yds· own 25Q2

CENTFG10 pl, 42 yds· own 25Q3

CMUFG6 pl, 70 yds· own 23Q3

CENTPUNT3 pl, 1 yds· own 25Q3

CENTPUNT3 pl, 0 yds· own 33Q3

CMUTD3 pl, 86 yds· own 14Q3

CENTINT4 pl, 15 yds· own 25Q3

CENTDOWNS9 pl, 81 yds· own 13Q3

CMUPUNT3 pl, 9 yds· own 6Q4

CENTPUNT5 pl, 19 yds· own 40Q4

CMUDOWNS10 pl, 45 yds· own 1Q4

CENTEND3 pl, 18 yds· opp 46Q4

Scoring plays

• Q3 1:48CMUAakeem Snell 46 Yd Interception Return (Tristan Mattson Kick)10–66
• Q3 3:45CMUSolomon Davis 72 Yd pass from Joe Labas (Tristan Mattson Kick)10–59
• Q3 7:04CMUDonte Kent 68 Yd Punt Return (Tristan Mattson Kick)10–52
• Q3 8:45CMUTristan Mattson 26 Yd Field Goal 10–45
• Q3 11:17CENTJack Barnum 50 Yd Field Goal 10–42
• Q2 0:37CMUMyles Bailey 2 Yd Run (Tristan Mattson Kick)7–42
• Q2 3:16CMUSolomon Davis 17 Yd pass from Joe Labas (Tristan Mattson Kick)7–35
• Q2 7:34CMUEvan Boyd 47 Yd pass from Joe Labas (Tristan Mattson Kick)7–28
• Q2 11:50CMUB.J. Harris 9 Yd Run (Tristan Mattson Kick)7–21
• Q1 5:40CMUStephan Bracey Jr. 87 Yd Kickoff Return (Tristan Mattson Kick)7–14
• Q1 5:55CENTElijah Howard 3 Yd Run (Jack Barnum Kick)7–7
• Q1 10:31CMUMyles Bailey 7 Yd Run (Tristan Mattson Kick)0–7

Model prediction

how the number is built

One or both teams lack a power rating (often an FCS opponent), so the model prediction is low-confidence for this game.

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 →