Rutgers vs. Michigan State: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
RUTGTeam statsMSU
- Q4 1:53MSUJayden Reed 4 Yd pass from Rocky Lombardi (Matt Coghlin Kick)38–27
- Q4 4:38RUTGShameen Jones 14 Yd pass from Noah Vedral (Guy Fava Kick)38–20
- Q4 12:20RUTGGuy Fava 44 Yd Field Goal 31–20
- Q3 6:30MSUJalen Nailor 30 Yd pass from Rocky Lombardi (Matt Coghlin Kick)28–20
- Q2 0:00MSUMatt Coghlin 48 Yd Field Goal 28–13
- Q2 0:36RUTGIsaih Pacheco 3 Yd Run (Guy Fava Kick)28–10
- Q2 3:13MSUMatt Coghlin 45 Yd Field Goal 21–10
- Q2 11:32RUTGNoah Vedral 24 Yd Run (Guy Fava Kick)21–7
- Q1 0:23MSUJayden Reed 50 Yd pass from Rocky Lombardi (Matt Coghlin Kick)14–7
- Q1 6:57RUTGJohnny Langan 1 Yd Run (Guy Fava Kick)14–0
- Q1 11:19RUTGIsaih Pacheco 12 Yd Run (Guy Fava Kick)7–0
How the model called it
- PassNoah Vedral 18/29, 169 YDS, 1 TD, 1 INT
- RushIsiah Pacheco 19 CAR, 61 YDS, 2 TD
- RecBo Melton 4 REC, 50 YDS
- PassRocky Lombardi 31/43, 319 YDS, 3 TD, 2 INT
- RushJordon Simmons 14 CAR, 43 YDS
- RecJayden Reed 11 REC, 128 YDS, 2 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsRUTG up 8 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,588 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q2 0:36RUTG +22%
Isaih Pacheco run for 3 yds for a TD (Guy Fava KICK)
- Q2 11:32RUTG +21%
Noah Vedral run for 24 yds for a TD (Guy Fava KICK)
- Q3 6:30MSU +21%
Rocky Lombardi pass complete to Jalen Nailor for 30 yds for a TD (Matt Coghlin KICK)
- Q1 6:57RUTG +19%
Johnny Langan run for 1 yd for a TD (Guy Fava KICK)
- Q1 0:23MSU +18%
Rocky Lombardi pass complete to Jayden Reed for 50 yds for a TD (Matt Coghlin KICK)
- Q1 11:19RUTG +15%
Isaih Pacheco run for 12 yds for a TD (Guy Fava KICK)
FAQ
What was the final score of Rutgers vs. Michigan State?
Rutgers 38, Michigan State 27.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked MSU, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| RUTG | MSU | |
|---|---|---|
| 276 | Total yards | 369 |
| 170 | Passing yards | 319 |
| 106 | Rushing yards | 50 |
| 16 | First downs | 23 |
| 6-15 | 3rd down | 7-17 |
| 1-1 | 4th down | 2-4 |
| 19/30 | Comp/Att | 31/43 |
| 5.7 | Yards per pass | 7.4 |
| 2.6 | Yards per rush | 1.3 |
| 3 | Turnovers | 7 |
| 9-66 | Penalties | 7-52 |
| 31:03 | Possession | 28:57 |
Costliest call
Q1 11:10 RUTG punt on 4th & 7 at MSU 41. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.47 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 1:53MSUJayden Reed 4 Yd pass from Rocky Lombardi (Matt Coghlin Kick)38–27
- Q4 4:38RUTGShameen Jones 14 Yd pass from Noah Vedral (Guy Fava Kick)38–20
- Q4 12:20RUTGGuy Fava 44 Yd Field Goal 31–20
- Q3 6:30MSUJalen Nailor 30 Yd pass from Rocky Lombardi (Matt Coghlin Kick)28–20
- Q2 0:00MSUMatt Coghlin 48 Yd Field Goal 28–13
- Q2 0:36RUTGIsaih Pacheco 3 Yd Run (Guy Fava Kick)28–10
- Q2 3:13MSUMatt Coghlin 45 Yd Field Goal 21–10
- Q2 11:32RUTGNoah Vedral 24 Yd Run (Guy Fava Kick)21–7
- Q1 0:23MSUJayden Reed 50 Yd pass from Rocky Lombardi (Matt Coghlin Kick)14–7
- Q1 6:57RUTGJohnny Langan 1 Yd Run (Guy Fava Kick)14–0
- Q1 11:19RUTGIsaih Pacheco 12 Yd Run (Guy Fava Kick)7–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (MSU Elo 1551, RUTG Elo 1229 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects MSU -15.3 (84% to win) — 5.8 points clear of MSU's market line of -9.5. 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 — 2020
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles#49 of 97 in 2020 by biggest miss · #42 of 107 in 2020 by longest odds.
The 2020 upset archive →Michigan State leads 10–6 · Rutgers has won 2 straight · 44% have been one-possession games
| RUTG | MSU | |
|---|---|---|
| -14.3 (#108) | CORE overall | -9.5 (#93) |
| -11 / +3 | offense / defense | -15 / -5 |
| 1.94 | points / drive | 0.93 |
| 2.38 | allowed / drive | 2.36 |
| 35% | three-and-outs | 34% |
| -3 | pass over expected | +0 |
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 →