Buffalo vs. Florida International: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
BUFTeam statsFIU
- Q4 5:58BUFChance Morrow 23 Yd pass from Jason Wright (Two-Point Run Conversion Failed)20–33
- Q4 8:22FIURobert Czeremcha 35 Yd Field Goal 14–33
- Q3 3:43FIURobert Czeremcha 36 Yd Field Goal 14–30
- Q3 8:03FIUJojo Stone 68 Yd pass from JJ Kohl (Robert Czeremcha PAT blocked)14–27
- Q3 9:35BUFChance Morrow 2 Yd pass from Jason Wright (Jason Wright Run for Two-Point Conversion)14–21
- Q2 1:49BUFOliver Hautanen 45 Yd Field Goal 6–21
- Q2 2:25FIUMaguire Anderson 14 Yd pass from JJ Kohl (Robert Czeremcha Kick)3–21
- Q1 3:37FIUJJ Kohl 19 Yd pass from Jojo Stone (Robert Czeremcha Kick)3–14
- Q1 6:27BUFOliver Hautanen 51 Yd Field Goal 3–7
- Q1 9:32FIUMaguire Anderson 45 Yd pass from JJ Kohl (Robert Czeremcha Kick)0–7
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- BUF played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and FIU did not face the same ones. 3rd & 9.3 vs 3rd & 6.8
- FIU started drives roughly 10 yards closer than BUF — a scoreboard edge that never shows up as a stat line. own 35 vs own 26
- FIU lived on explosives rather than sustaining drives — a profile that vanished once those chunk plays were tackled. 16% explosive on a 40% success rate
Florida International's defense can erase Buffalo's big plays, but its own offense gained 34.6 yards per drive against South Florida and came away with nine points.
The betting number and the projection sit on opposite sides of this game. Florida International is laid at 10.2 points; the projection has Buffalo winning 32-23 with a 72 percent chance to win outright. That disagreement has little to do with Buffalo's 21-17 escape against UAlbany. It turns on which Florida International team is real: the one that scored 28.5 points a game last season, or the one that put up nine on South Florida six days ago.
- PassJason Wright 13/27, 185 YDS, 2 TD, 1 INT
- RushTerrance Shelton Jr. 9 CAR, 34 YDS
- RecChance Morrow 11 REC, 173 YDS, 2 TD
- PassJJ Kohl 21/36, 367 YDS, 3 TD
- RushAnthony Carrie 13 CAR, 49 YDS
- RecMaguire Anderson 5 REC, 99 YDS, 2 TD
- Q1 9:32FIU +15%
No Huddle-Shotgun #17 J.Kohl pass complete deep middle to #2 M.Anderson caught at BUF23, for 45 yards to the BUF00 TOUCHDOWN, 1ST DOWN
- Q3 9:35BUF +14%
No Huddle #7 J.Wright pass complete short right to #6 C.Morrow caught at FIU00, for 2 yards to the FIU00 TOUCHDOWN #7 J.Wright rush attempt Successful
- Q1 3:37FIU +13%
No Huddle #0 J.Stone pass complete short middle to #17 J.Kohl caught at BUF03, for 19 yards to the BUF00 TOUCHDOWN, 1ST DOWN
- Q3 7:57FIU +8%
No Huddle-Shotgun #7 J.Wright pass incomplete deep left to #2 J.Andrews thrown to FIU45 broken up by #8 R.Gadson
- Q2 2:25FIU +7%
No Huddle #17 J.Kohl pass complete short left to #2 M.Anderson caught at BUF01, for 14 yards to the BUF00 TOUCHDOWN, 1ST DOWN
- Q1 6:27BUF +6%
#31 O.Hautanen field goal attempt from 51 yards GOOD
FAQ
What was the final score of Buffalo vs. Florida International?
Buffalo 20, Florida International 33.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (FIU) was correct.
| BUF | FIU | |
|---|---|---|
| 308 | Total yards | 540 |
| 249 | Passing yards | 386 |
| 59 | Rushing yards | 154 |
| 13 | First downs | 22 |
| 4-17 | 3rd down | 8-17 |
| 2-3 | 4th down | 1-3 |
| 22/41 | Comp/Att | 22/37 |
| 6.1 | Yards per pass | 10.4 |
| 2.4 | Yards per rush | 3.9 |
| 3 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 5-29 | Penalties | 5-41 |
| 29:30 | Possession | 38:22 |
Costliest call
Q1 5:22 BUF go for it on 4th & 12 at FIU 33. The model preferred field goal, a gap of 0.70 points.
- FIUEnd Of Quarter6 plays · 20 yds · from BUF 42 · Q4 3:11−1.0 EPA
- BUFInterception8 plays · 36 yds · from BUF 21 · Q4 4:26+3.0 EPA
- FIUPunt3 plays · -11 yds · from FIU 35 · Q4 5:58−1.3 EPA
- BUFTouchdown8 plays · 75 yds · from BUF 35 · Q4 8:22+3.5 EPA
- FIUField Goal7 plays · 19 yds · from BUF 37 · Q4 11:02−0.3 EPA+1% WP
- BUFPunt3 plays · -3 yds · from BUF 9 · Q4 12:33−0.3 EPA
- FIUPunt9 plays · 19 yds · from FIU 23 · Q3 2:18−0.9 EPA+1% WP
- BUFPunt5 plays · 10 yds · from BUF 35 · Q3 3:43−1.1 EPA
- FIUField Goal9 plays · 58 yds · from FIU 23 · Q3 6:55+1.9 EPA+3% WP
- BUFPunt3 plays · 5 yds · from BUF 35 · Q3 8:03−1.0 EPA−11% WP
- FIUTouchdown3 plays · 75 yds · from FIU 35 · Q3 9:35−0.4 EPA
- BUFTouchdown6 plays · 64 yds · from BUF 36 · Q3 13:26+4.0 EPA+12% WP
- FIUFumble4 plays · 39 yds · from FIU 35 · Q3 15:00−0.1 EPA
- FIUEnd of Half4 plays · 19 yds · from FIU 46 · Q2 0:37+0.6 EPA
- Q4 5:58BUFChance Morrow 23 Yd pass from Jason Wright (Two-Point Run Conversion Failed)20–33
- Q4 8:22FIURobert Czeremcha 35 Yd Field Goal 14–33
- Q3 3:43FIURobert Czeremcha 36 Yd Field Goal 14–30
- Q3 8:03FIUJojo Stone 68 Yd pass from JJ Kohl (Robert Czeremcha PAT blocked)14–27
- Q3 9:35BUFChance Morrow 2 Yd pass from Jason Wright (Jason Wright Run for Two-Point Conversion)14–21
- Q2 1:49BUFOliver Hautanen 45 Yd Field Goal 6–21
- Q2 2:25FIUMaguire Anderson 14 Yd pass from JJ Kohl (Robert Czeremcha Kick)3–21
- Q1 3:37FIUJJ Kohl 19 Yd pass from Jojo Stone (Robert Czeremcha Kick)3–14
- Q1 6:27BUFOliver Hautanen 51 Yd Field Goal 3–7
- Q1 9:32FIUMaguire Anderson 45 Yd pass from JJ Kohl (Robert Czeremcha Kick)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (FIU Elo 1385, BUF Elo 1365 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects FIU -7 (67% to win) — 2.0 points clear of BUF's market line of -9. 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 — 2026
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles| BUF | FIU | |
|---|---|---|
| -13.2 (#125) | CORE overall | -3.0 (#81) |
| -11 / +2 | offense / defense | -7 / -4 |
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.
Florida International moved the ball and scored nine
Florida International's defense can erase Buffalo's big plays, but its own offense gained 34.6 yards per drive against South Florida and came away with nine points.
Buffalo wins
The range of outcomes for this game. Each bar is how often the final margin lands in that range — the more it leans toward Buffalo, the more likely Buffalo wins.
Florida International's problem was finishing, not moving
Against South Florida, Florida International averaged 34.6 yards per drive and went three-and-out on 10 percent of its possessions. That is a working offense everywhere except the scoreboard: it scored on 20 percent of ten drives and finished with nine points. Buffalo, in a win, averaged 21.2 yards per drive and stalled immediately on 40 percent of them. The team that lost was the one moving the football with any regularity.
Buffalo also scored on 20 percent of its fifteen drives, and it did that against an FCS opponent while Florida International was producing the same rate on the road. That is the case for discounting the 21-17 win rather than banking it, and it is why Buffalo's 72 percent win probability rests on the preseason baseline. Roster talent and returning production both grade toward Buffalo; neither of them showed up on last Saturday's drive chart.
The big-play Lane is closed, so this becomes a Short-yardage game
The most lopsided matchup on the board runs against Buffalo. Florida International's defense grades 2.62 standard deviations better at taking chunk plays away than Buffalo's offense is at producing them, the widest edge either side holds. Close that lane and Buffalo is left with the phase it actually wins, short-yardage and power, where it holds a 1.46-sigma advantage. Buffalo scored on 20 percent of its drives last week and needs far more of them to end in points.
Each unit matchup this season, sorted by how decisive it is — the top bar is what most tilts the game. Bars toward Buffalo are battles it should win; toward Florida International are ones Florida International wins.
Buffalo grinding out first downs hands possessions back to a Florida International offense that went three-and-out on only 10 percent of them, which is how a nine-point projected margin stays uncomfortable. A one-score finish gets roughly a 1-in-3 chance in the projection, and a 20-point margin for one side or the other about 32 percent. The middle outcomes are thinner than a total of 48.5 makes them sound.
Where our projection and the betting line differ — and by how much.
Buffalo's defense is where the edge actually lives
Every matchup involving Florida International's offense goes the other way: passing by 1.47 sigma, overall efficiency by 0.98, the run game by 0.96. That is not one weakness to scheme around but a defense grading better in all three phases, and Buffalo has allowed 17.0 points through its opener. Florida International's answer has to arrive on third-and-medium, the exact down where 34.6 yards per drive turned into nine points.
Points allowed per drive across all FBS defenses (lower is better). Buffalo's defense is below average, better than only 0% of FBS defenses.
Last season's 28.5 points a game is the argument that Florida International can still get there, and that offense did not disappear over one week. The only FBS evidence this year is nine points on ten drives. Buffalo's 1.47-sigma edge over the Florida International passing game is the widest of its three defensive advantages, and it lands on the phase most likely to keep the scoreboard where it sat against South Florida.
The projected workloads say nobody carries this alone
Anthony Carrie is set for 19 to 46 rushing yards with a 29 percent chance of a touchdown, and he runs into a defense ranked 49th of 185 by what it gives up on the ground. Maguire Anderson projects 15 to 34 receiving yards against a pass defense 46th of 185. Carrie's touchdown chance is the closest thing Florida International has to a projected scoring play, which means its points get stacked one conversion at a time.
Jasaiah Gathings projects 24 to 51 receiving yards into a pass defense 59th of 185, and Terrance Shelton Jr. 14 to 40 rushing yards against a run defense 39th of 185. Gathings topping out at 51 yards is a ceiling rather than a plan, and Shelton's band ends at 40. Buffalo's projected 32 points come from how many possessions it finishes, not from one skill player breaking the game open.
Florida International's path is the one it was already on
The keep-it-close criteria are the more achievable ones here, and Florida International already produced the hard half against South Florida: 34.6 yards per drive with three-and-outs on 10 percent of possessions. Sustained drives and a finished red zone keep it inside 10.2. Converting stalled possessions into touchdowns is a smaller ask than generating drives from scratch, and a Buffalo offense forced to grind for short gains hands Florida International the clock to work it out.
What each side has to do
Buffalo has to accept that the big play is gone and win on volume: stay ahead of the chains, cut a 40 percent three-and-out rate, and let a defense that allowed 17.0 end drives the way it did against UAlbany. Florida International needs finishing, not yardage. It gets a 15 percent chance to cover 10.2 in the projection, and last season's 28.5 points a game is the only evidence on file that its offense can get there.
Each ingredient of our projection and the side it favors — bars toward Buffalo are why it's the pick (home field is counted separately).
Our coverage of 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 →