Middle Tennessee vs. Colorado State: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
MTSUTeam statsCSU
- Q3 1:57CSUTory Horton 17 Yd pass from Clay Millen (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)34–19
- Q3 6:02CSUTory Horton 69 Yd pass from Clay Millen (Cayden Camper Kick)34–13
- Q3 8:41CSUTory Horton 48 Yd pass from Clay Millen (Cayden Camper PAT failed)34–6
- Q3 13:41MTSUElijah Metcalf 42 Yd pass from Chase Cunningham (Zeke Rankin Kick)34–0
- Q2 1:28MTSUFrank Peasant 1 Yd Run (Zeke Rankin Kick)27–0
- Q2 2:26MTSUZeke Rankin 35 Yd Field Goal 20–0
- Q2 11:37MTSUFrank Peasant 1 Yd Run (Zeke Rankin Kick)17–0
- Q1 5:02MTSUZeke Rankin 25 Yd Field Goal 10–0
- Q1 14:51MTSUTra Fluellen 32 Yd Interception Return (Zeke Rankin Kick)7–0
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- CSU played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and MTSU did not face the same ones. 3rd & 10.1 vs 3rd & 5.7
- PassChase Cunningham 31/39, 266 YDS, 1 TD, 1 INT
- RushFrank Peasant 22 CAR, 93 YDS, 2 TD
- RecIzaiah Gathings 11 REC, 92 YDS
- PassClay Millen 20/30, 256 YDS, 3 TD, 2 INT
- RushA'Jon Vivens 12 CAR, 41 YDS
- RecTory Horton 9 REC, 186 YDS, 3 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsMTSU up 15 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,206 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q2 11:37MTSU +15%
Frank Peasant run for 1 yd for a TD, (Zeke Rankin KICK)
- Q1 5:02MTSU +10%
Zeke Rankin 25 yd FG GOOD
- Q2 2:26MTSU +6%
Zeke Rankin 35 yd FG GOOD
- Q4 8:46MTSU +5%
Kyle Ulbrich punt for 45 yds, Melquan Stovall returns for 5 yds to the ColSt 31
FAQ
What was the final score of Middle Tennessee vs. Colorado State?
Middle Tennessee 34, Colorado State 19.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked CSU, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| MTSU | CSU | |
|---|---|---|
| 380 | Total yards | 246 |
| 266 | Passing yards | 256 |
| 114 | Rushing yards | -10 |
| 20 | First downs | 16 |
| 7-17 | 3rd down | 3-14 |
| 2-3 | 4th down | 2-3 |
| 31/39 | Comp/Att | 20/30 |
| 6.8 | Yards per pass | 8.5 |
| 2.8 | Yards per rush | -0.3 |
| 2 | Turnovers | 4 |
| 4-47 | Penalties | 8-67 |
| 31:19 | Possession | 28:41 |
Costliest call
Q4 7:45 CSU go for it on 4th & 8 at CSU 33. The model preferred punt, a gap of 0.80 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q3 1:57CSUTory Horton 17 Yd pass from Clay Millen (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)34–19
- Q3 6:02CSUTory Horton 69 Yd pass from Clay Millen (Cayden Camper Kick)34–13
- Q3 8:41CSUTory Horton 48 Yd pass from Clay Millen (Cayden Camper PAT failed)34–6
- Q3 13:41MTSUElijah Metcalf 42 Yd pass from Chase Cunningham (Zeke Rankin Kick)34–0
- Q2 1:28MTSUFrank Peasant 1 Yd Run (Zeke Rankin Kick)27–0
- Q2 2:26MTSUZeke Rankin 35 Yd Field Goal 20–0
- Q2 11:37MTSUFrank Peasant 1 Yd Run (Zeke Rankin Kick)17–0
- Q1 5:02MTSUZeke Rankin 25 Yd Field Goal 10–0
- Q1 14:51MTSUTra Fluellen 32 Yd Interception Return (Zeke Rankin Kick)7–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (CSU Elo 1329, MTSU Elo 1318 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects CSU -2.8 (59% to win) — 10.7 points clear of MTSU's market line of -13.5. 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 — 2022
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles#29 of 108 in 2022 by biggest miss · #33 of 132 in 2022 by longest odds.
The 2022 upset archive →| MTSU | CSU | |
|---|---|---|
| -5.4 (#86) | CORE overall | -17.8 (#118) |
| -8 / -3 | offense / defense | -15 / +3 |
| 1.85 | points / drive | 0.97 |
| 1.89 | allowed / drive | 1.98 |
| 32% | three-and-outs | 31% |
| +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 →