Central Michigan vs. Michigan State: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
CMUTeam statsMSU
- Q4 9:05MSUMaliq Carr 8 Yd pass from Noah Kim (Stephen Rusnak Kick)7–31
- Q4 13:26MSUTyrell Henry 10 Yd pass from Noah Kim (Jonathan Kim Kick)7–24
- Q3 2:42MSUJalen Berger 12 Yd Run (Jonathan Kim Kick)7–17
- Q2 0:48MSUNathan Carter 2 Yd Run (Jonathan Kim Kick)7–10
- Q2 1:51CMUChris Parker 12 Yd pass from Bert Emanuel Jr. (Tristan Mattson Kick)7–3
- Q2 6:55MSUJonathan Kim 47 Yd Field Goal 0–3
How the model called it
- PassBert Emanuel Jr. 11/17, 87 YDS, 1 TD, 1 INT
- RushBert Emanuel Jr. 17 CAR, 41 YDS
- RecMitchel Collier 3 REC, 30 YDS
- PassNoah Kim 18/31, 279 YDS, 2 TD
- RushNathan Carter 18 CAR, 113 YDS, 1 TD
- RecJaron Glover 3 REC, 75 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsMSU up 10 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,138 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q2 1:51CMU +23%
Chris Parker 12 Yd pass from Bert Emanuel Jr. (Tristan Mattson Kick)
- Q2 0:48MSU +22%
Nathan Carter run for 2 yds for a TD (Jonathan Kim KICK)
- Q3 2:42MSU +17%
Jalen Berger run for 12 yds for a TD (Jonathan Kim KICK)
- Q2 6:55MSU +8%
Jonathan Kim 47 yd FG GOOD
- Q3 5:32MSU +7%
Noah Kim pass complete to Evan Morris for 4 yds to the CMU 41
- Q3 7:53CMU +6%
Jr. Bert Emanuel pass complete to Sam Hicks for a loss of 4 yards to the CMU 16
FAQ
What was the final score of Central Michigan vs. Michigan State?
Central Michigan 7, Michigan State 31.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (MSU) was correct.
| CMU | MSU | |
|---|---|---|
| 219 | Total yards | 406 |
| 96 | Passing yards | 279 |
| 123 | Rushing yards | 127 |
| 19 | First downs | 20 |
| 3-16 | 3rd down | 5-13 |
| 0-1 | 4th down | 0-2 |
| 13/25 | Comp/Att | 18/33 |
| 3.8 | Yards per pass | 8.5 |
| 3.0 | Yards per rush | 4.1 |
| 1 | Turnovers | 0 |
| 7-75 | Penalties | 8-66 |
| 34:26 | Possession | 25:34 |
Costliest call
Q2 0:23 CMU punt on 4th & 1 at CMU 34. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.62 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 9:05MSUMaliq Carr 8 Yd pass from Noah Kim (Stephen Rusnak Kick)7–31
- Q4 13:26MSUTyrell Henry 10 Yd pass from Noah Kim (Jonathan Kim Kick)7–24
- Q3 2:42MSUJalen Berger 12 Yd Run (Jonathan Kim Kick)7–17
- Q2 0:48MSUNathan Carter 2 Yd Run (Jonathan Kim Kick)7–10
- Q2 1:51CMUChris Parker 12 Yd pass from Bert Emanuel Jr. (Tristan Mattson Kick)7–3
- Q2 6:55MSUJonathan Kim 47 Yd Field Goal 0–3
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (MSU Elo 1533, CMU Elo 1370 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects MSU -8.9 (73% to win) — 5.6 points clear of CMU's market line of -14.5. 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 — 2023
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profilesMichigan State leads 9–3 · Michigan State has won 5 straight · 17% have been one-possession games
| CMU | MSU | |
|---|---|---|
| -18.9 (#123) | CORE overall | -14.5 (#108) |
| -6 / +13 | offense / defense | -10 / +4 |
| 1.95 | points / drive | 0.94 |
| 2.61 | allowed / drive | 2.40 |
| 27% | three-and-outs | 38% |
| -6 | pass over expected | +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.
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 →