Wisconsin vs. Michigan State: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
WISTeam statsMSU
- Q3 3:52WISCorey Clement 5 Yd Run (Andrew Endicott Kick)30–6
- Q3 4:58WISAndrew Endicott 41 Yd Field Goal 23–6
- Q3 13:10WISLeo Musso 66 Yd Fumble Return (Andrew Endicott Kick)20–6
- Q2 1:18MSUMichael Geiger 40 Yd Field Goal 13–6
- Q2 7:14WISCorey Clement 1 Yd Run (Andrew Endicott PAT failed)13–3
- Q1 0:25WISEric Steffes 1 Yd pass from Alex Hornibrook (Andrew Endicott Kick)7–3
- Q1 8:03MSUMichael Geiger 48 Yd Field Goal 0–3
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- MSU played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and WIS did not face the same ones. 3rd & 9.5 vs 3rd & 7.3
- MSU lived on explosives rather than sustaining drives — a profile that vanished once those chunk plays were tackled. 19% explosive on a 34% success rate
- PassAlex Hornibrook 16/26, 195 YDS, 1 TD, 1 INT
- RushDare Ogunbowale 9 CAR, 55 YDS
- RecJazz Peavy 4 REC, 96 YDS
- PassTyler O'Connor 18/38, 224 YDS, 3 INT
- RushLJ Scott 14 CAR, 61 YDS
- RecDonnie Corley 4 REC, 84 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsWIS up 24 entering the 4th quarter. Across 555 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q1 0:25WIS +20%
Alex Hornibrook pass complete to Eric Steffes for 1 yd for a TD, (Andrew Endicott KICK)
- Q3 13:10WIS +18%
LJ Scott run for 9 yds LJ Scott fumbled, forced by Jack Cichy, recovered by Wisc Leo Musso, return for 66 yds, (Andrew Endicott KICK)
- Q2 7:14WIS +17%
Corey Clement run for 1 yd for a TD, (Andrew Endicott PAT MISSED)
- Q1 8:03MSU +8%
Michael Geiger 48 yd FG GOOD
- Q2 1:18MSU +7%
Michael Geiger 40 yd FG GOOD
- Q3 5:33WIS +6%
Alex Hornibrook pass complete to Troy Fumagalli for no gain to the MchSt 23
FAQ
What was the final score of Wisconsin vs. Michigan State?
Wisconsin 30, Michigan State 6.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked MSU, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| WIS | MSU | |
|---|---|---|
| 317 | Total yards | 325 |
| 195 | Passing yards | 250 |
| 122 | Rushing yards | 75 |
| 15 | First downs | 21 |
| 7-16 | 3rd down | 4-13 |
| 2-2 | 4th down | 0-2 |
| 16/26 | Comp/Att | 20/43 |
| 7.5 | Yards per pass | 5.8 |
| 3.0 | Yards per rush | 2.8 |
| 2 | Turnovers | 4 |
| 7-67 | Penalties | 5-35 |
| 32:48 | Possession | 27:12 |
Costliest call
Q4 9:46 WIS punt on 4th & 6 at MSU 35. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 1.08 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q3 3:52WISCorey Clement 5 Yd Run (Andrew Endicott Kick)30–6
- Q3 4:58WISAndrew Endicott 41 Yd Field Goal 23–6
- Q3 13:10WISLeo Musso 66 Yd Fumble Return (Andrew Endicott Kick)20–6
- Q2 1:18MSUMichael Geiger 40 Yd Field Goal 13–6
- Q2 7:14WISCorey Clement 1 Yd Run (Andrew Endicott PAT failed)13–3
- Q1 0:25WISEric Steffes 1 Yd pass from Alex Hornibrook (Andrew Endicott Kick)7–3
- Q1 8:03MSUMichael Geiger 48 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 1748, WIS Elo 1776 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects MSU -1.3 (55% to win) — 3.2 points clear of WIS's market line of -4.5. 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#30 of 113 in 2016 by biggest miss · #81 of 124 in 2016 by longest odds · #61 of 61 in 2016 by biggest poll gap.
The 2016 upset archive →Michigan State leads 32–23 · 31% have been one-possession games
| WIS | MSU | |
|---|---|---|
| +18.6 (#12) | CORE overall | +2.7 (#55) |
| +4 / -15 | offense / defense | +3 / +1 |
| 2.30 | points / drive | 2.00 |
| 1.28 | allowed / drive | 2.36 |
| 22% | three-and-outs | 24% |
| -8 | pass over expected | -5 |
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 →