Cincinnati vs. Iowa State: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
CINTeam statsISU
- Q4 1:09ISUAbu Sama III 27 Yd Run (Kyle Konrardy Kick)17–34
- Q4 4:04ISURocco Becht 15 Yd Run (Kyle Konrardy Kick)17–27
- Q4 11:44CINBrendan Sorsby 41 Yd Run (Nathan Hawks Kick)17–20
- Q3 2:53ISUKyle Konrardy 52 Yd Field Goal 10–20
- Q3 10:04ISUStevo Klotz 26 Yd pass from Rocco Becht (Kyle Konrardy Kick)10–17
- Q2 0:08ISUKyle Konrardy 37 Yd Field Goal 10–10
- Q2 12:18CINNathan Hawks 29 Yd Field Goal 10–7
- Q1 1:53ISUCarson Hansen 2 Yd Run (Kyle Konrardy Kick)7–7
- Q1 9:56CINEvan Pryor 12 Yd Run (Nathan Hawks Kick)7–0
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- CIN played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and ISU did not face the same ones. 3rd & 9.3 vs 3rd & 7.2
- ISU lived on explosives rather than sustaining drives — a profile that vanished once those chunk plays were tackled. 14% explosive on a 33% success rate
- PassBrendan Sorsby 10/18, 66 YDS
- RushBrendan Sorsby 13 CAR, 143 YDS, 1 TD
- RecTony Johnson 3 REC, 43 YDS
- PassRocco Becht 24/33, 234 YDS, 1 TD
- RushAbu Sama III 12 CAR, 52 YDS, 1 TD
- RecGabe Burkle 6 REC, 73 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsISU up 10 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,137 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q4 11:44CIN +23%
Brendan Sorsby run for 41 yds for a TD (Nathan Hawks KICK)
- Q3 10:04ISU +19%
Rocco Becht pass complete to Stevo Klotz for 26 yds for a TD (Kyle Konrardy KICK)
- Q1 1:53ISU +18%
Carson Hansen run for 2 yds for a TD (Kyle Konrardy KICK)
- Q4 4:04ISU +18%
Rocco Becht run for 15 yds for a TD (Kyle Konrardy KICK)
- Q4 4:50ISU +17%
Abu Sama III run for 3 yds to the CIN 15
- Q1 9:56CIN +17%
Evan Pryor run for 12 yds for a TD (Nathan Hawks KICK)
FAQ
What was the final score of Cincinnati vs. Iowa State?
Cincinnati 17, Iowa State 34.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (ISU) was correct.
| CIN | ISU | |
|---|---|---|
| 353 | Total yards | 386 |
| 66 | Passing yards | 234 |
| 287 | Rushing yards | 152 |
| 15 | First downs | 20 |
| 3-11 | 3rd down | 7-16 |
| 1-1 | 4th down | 3-3 |
| 10/18 | Comp/Att | 24/35 |
| 3.7 | Yards per pass | 6.7 |
| 7.4 | Yards per rush | 4.5 |
| 1 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 13-97 | Penalties | 7-40 |
| 28:12 | Possession | 31:48 |
Costliest call
Q3 5:19 ISU go for it on 4th & 9 at ISU 42. The model preferred punt, a gap of 0.60 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 1:09ISUAbu Sama III 27 Yd Run (Kyle Konrardy Kick)17–34
- Q4 4:04ISURocco Becht 15 Yd Run (Kyle Konrardy Kick)17–27
- Q4 11:44CINBrendan Sorsby 41 Yd Run (Nathan Hawks Kick)17–20
- Q3 2:53ISUKyle Konrardy 52 Yd Field Goal 10–20
- Q3 10:04ISUStevo Klotz 26 Yd pass from Rocco Becht (Kyle Konrardy Kick)10–17
- Q2 0:08ISUKyle Konrardy 37 Yd Field Goal 10–10
- Q2 12:18CINNathan Hawks 29 Yd Field Goal 10–7
- Q1 1:53ISUCarson Hansen 2 Yd Run (Kyle Konrardy Kick)7–7
- Q1 9:56CINEvan Pryor 12 Yd Run (Nathan Hawks Kick)7–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (ISU Elo 1728, CIN Elo 1524 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects ISU -10.6 (77% to win) — 3.6 points clear of ISU's market line of -7. 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| CIN | ISU | |
|---|---|---|
| +3.7 (#53) | CORE overall | +5.5 (#47) |
| +3 / -1 | offense / defense | +3 / -3 |
| 2.13 | points / drive | 2.68 |
| 2.16 | allowed / drive | 2.10 |
| 18% | three-and-outs | 22% |
| -0 | 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 →