Kent State vs. Buffalo: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
KENTTeam statsBUF
- Q4 1:57KENTShane Hynes 32 Yd Field Goal 44–20
- Q4 6:25KENTNick Holley 43 Yd Run (Shane Hynes Kick)41–20
- Q4 6:45BUFTyree Jackson 1 Yd Run (Adam Mitcheson Kick)34–20
- Q4 8:09KENTNick Holley 2 Yd Run (Shane Hynes Kick)34–13
- Q4 11:36BUFJohnathan Hawkins 1 Yd pass from Tyree Jackson (Adam Mitcheson Kick)27–13
- Q3 0:29KENTNick Holley 3 Yd Run (Shane Hynes Kick)27–6
- Q3 11:22BUFAdam Mitcheson 41 Yd Field Goal 20–6
- Q2 3:35KENTJames Alexander 15 Yd Fumble Return (Shane Hynes Kick)20–3
- Q2 4:47BUFAdam Mitcheson 34 Yd Field Goal 13–3
- Q2 12:14KENTShane Hynes 43 Yd Field Goal 13–0
- Q1 7:40KENTNick Holley 67 Yd Run (Shane Hynes Kick)10–0
- Q1 12:24KENTShane Hynes 31 Yd Field Goal 3–0
How the model called it
- PassNick Holley 7/13, 89 YDS
- RushNick Holley 24 CAR, 224 YDS, 4 TD
- RecJustin Rankin 2 REC, 40 YDS
- PassTyree Jackson 20/39, 250 YDS, 1 TD
- RushTyree Jackson 11 CAR, 40 YDS, 1 TD
- RecMarcus McGill 4 REC, 65 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsKENT up 21 entering the 4th quarter. Across 671 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q1 7:40KENT +20%
Nick Holley run for 67 yds for a TD, (Shane Hynes KICK)
- Q2 3:35KENT +13%
Jordan Johnson run for no gain Jordan Johnson fumbled, forced by Jon Cunningham, recovered by KntSt James Alexander, return for 15 yds, (Shane Hynes KICK)
- Q2 12:14KENT +9%
Shane Hynes 43 yd FG GOOD
- Q1 12:24KENT +8%
Shane Hynes 31 yd FG GOOD
- Q3 0:29KENT +7%
Nick Holley run for 3 yds for a TD, (Shane Hynes KICK)
- Q2 4:42KENT +6%
Nick Holley pass incomplete
FAQ
What was the final score of Kent State vs. Buffalo?
Kent State 44, Buffalo 20.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked BUF, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| KENT | BUF | |
|---|---|---|
| 430 | Total yards | 372 |
| 89 | Passing yards | 256 |
| 341 | Rushing yards | 116 |
| 17 | First downs | 20 |
| 6-12 | 3rd down | 10-19 |
| 0-0 | 4th down | 1-2 |
| 7/13 | Comp/Att | 21/40 |
| 6.8 | Yards per pass | 6.4 |
| 7.6 | Yards per rush | 3.1 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 2-12 | Penalties | 2-18 |
| 29:38 | Possession | 30:22 |
Costliest call
Q1 6:57 KENT punt on 4th & 6 at BUF 43. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.51 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 1:57KENTShane Hynes 32 Yd Field Goal 44–20
- Q4 6:25KENTNick Holley 43 Yd Run (Shane Hynes Kick)41–20
- Q4 6:45BUFTyree Jackson 1 Yd Run (Adam Mitcheson Kick)34–20
- Q4 8:09KENTNick Holley 2 Yd Run (Shane Hynes Kick)34–13
- Q4 11:36BUFJohnathan Hawkins 1 Yd pass from Tyree Jackson (Adam Mitcheson Kick)27–13
- Q3 0:29KENTNick Holley 3 Yd Run (Shane Hynes Kick)27–6
- Q3 11:22BUFAdam Mitcheson 41 Yd Field Goal 20–6
- Q2 3:35KENTJames Alexander 15 Yd Fumble Return (Shane Hynes Kick)20–3
- Q2 4:47BUFAdam Mitcheson 34 Yd Field Goal 13–3
- Q2 12:14KENTShane Hynes 43 Yd Field Goal 13–0
- Q1 7:40KENTNick Holley 67 Yd Run (Shane Hynes Kick)10–0
- Q1 12:24KENTShane Hynes 31 Yd Field Goal 3–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (BUF Elo 1208, KENT Elo 1149 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects BUF -4.8 (64% to win) — 6.3 points clear of BUF's market line of +1.5. 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 — 2016
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles#46 of 113 in 2016 by biggest miss · #108 of 124 in 2016 by longest odds.
The 2016 upset archive →Buffalo leads 16–13 · Buffalo has won 3 straight · 45% have been one-possession games
| KENT | BUF | |
|---|---|---|
| -14.4 (#104) | CORE overall | -20.2 (#117) |
| -9 / +5 | offense / defense | -12 / +8 |
| 1.02 | points / drive | 1.36 |
| 2.41 | allowed / drive | 2.65 |
| 37% | three-and-outs | 29% |
| -11 | pass over expected | -1 |
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 →