Rutgers vs. Michigan State: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
RUTGTeam statsMSU
- Q4 1:57RUTGAntwan Raymond 5 Yd Run (Jai Patel Kick)41–14
- Q4 7:21MSUJack Velling 5 Yd pass from Aidan Chiles (Jonathan Kim Kick)34–14
- Q4 10:55RUTGJai Patel 29 Yd Field Goal 34–7
- Q3 7:26RUTGIan Strong 9 Yd pass from Athan Kaliakmanis (Athan Kaliakmanis Pass to KJ Duff for Two-Point Conversion)31–7
- Q2 0:00RUTGJai Patel 30 Yd Field Goal 23–7
- Q2 1:17RUTGJai Patel 42 Yd Field Goal 20–7
- Q2 6:02RUTGAntwan Raymond 13 Yd Run (Jai Patel Kick)17–7
- Q1 7:29RUTGJai Patel 25 Yd Field Goal 10–7
- Q1 9:45RUTGKyle Monangai 7 Yd Run (Jai Patel Kick)7–7
- Q1 12:26MSUNate Carter 26 Yd Run (Jonathan Kim Kick)0–7
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- MSU lived on explosives rather than sustaining drives — a profile that vanished once those chunk plays were tackled. 16% explosive on a 40% success rate
- PassAthan Kaliakmanis 13/22, 157 YDS, 1 TD
- RushKyle Monangai 31 CAR, 129 YDS, 1 TD
- RecIan Strong 5 REC, 63 YDS, 1 TD
- PassAidan Chiles 13/23, 150 YDS, 1 TD
- RushKay'Ron Lynch-Adams 9 CAR, 69 YDS
- RecJack Velling 5 REC, 77 YDS, 1 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsRUTG up 24 entering the 4th quarter. Across 553 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q2 6:02RUTG +19%
Antwan Raymond run for 13 yds for a TD (Jai Patel KICK)
- Q1 12:26MSU +18%
Nate Carter run for 26 yds for a TD (Jonathan Kim KICK)
- Q1 9:45RUTG +18%
Kyle Monangai run for 7 yds for a TD (Jai Patel KICK)
- Q1 7:29RUTG +9%
Jai Patel 25 yd FG GOOD
- Q3 7:26RUTG +5%
Athan Kaliakmanis pass complete to Ian Strong for 9 yds for a TD (Athan Kaliakmanis pass to KJ Duff for Two-Point Conversion)
- Q2 1:17RUTG +5%
Jai Patel 42 yd FG GOOD
FAQ
What was the final score of Rutgers vs. Michigan State?
Rutgers 41, Michigan State 14.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (RUTG) was correct.
| RUTG | MSU | |
|---|---|---|
| 365 | Total yards | 253 |
| 157 | Passing yards | 150 |
| 208 | Rushing yards | 103 |
| 24 | First downs | 13 |
| 7-13 | 3rd down | 3-9 |
| 1-1 | 4th down | 0-3 |
| 13/22 | Comp/Att | 13/24 |
| 7.1 | Yards per pass | 6.3 |
| 4.3 | Yards per rush | 4.3 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 2-20 | Penalties | 7-70 |
| 35:08 | Possession | 24:52 |
Costliest call
Q1 8:21 MSU go for it on 4th & 10 at MSU 25. The model preferred punt, a gap of 1.00 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 1:57RUTGAntwan Raymond 5 Yd Run (Jai Patel Kick)41–14
- Q4 7:21MSUJack Velling 5 Yd pass from Aidan Chiles (Jonathan Kim Kick)34–14
- Q4 10:55RUTGJai Patel 29 Yd Field Goal 34–7
- Q3 7:26RUTGIan Strong 9 Yd pass from Athan Kaliakmanis (Athan Kaliakmanis Pass to KJ Duff for Two-Point Conversion)31–7
- Q2 0:00RUTGJai Patel 30 Yd Field Goal 23–7
- Q2 1:17RUTGJai Patel 42 Yd Field Goal 20–7
- Q2 6:02RUTGAntwan Raymond 13 Yd Run (Jai Patel Kick)17–7
- Q1 7:29RUTGJai Patel 25 Yd Field Goal 10–7
- Q1 9:45RUTGKyle Monangai 7 Yd Run (Jai Patel Kick)7–7
- Q1 12:26MSUNate Carter 26 Yd Run (Jonathan Kim Kick)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (MSU Elo 1364, RUTG Elo 1468 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects MSU +1.8 (46% to win) — 3.3 points clear of RUTG'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 — 2024
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles#32 of 120 in 2024 by biggest miss · #113 of 129 in 2024 by longest odds.
The 2024 upset archive →Michigan State leads 10–6 · Rutgers has won 2 straight · 44% have been one-possession games
| RUTG | MSU | |
|---|---|---|
| -4.8 (#85) | CORE overall | -3.8 (#80) |
| +0 / +5 | offense / defense | -5 / -1 |
| 2.58 | points / drive | 1.70 |
| 2.63 | allowed / drive | 2.74 |
| 24% | three-and-outs | 27% |
| -2 | 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 →