Illinois vs. Penn State: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
ILLTeam statsPSU
- 9OT 0:00ILLBrandon Peters Pass to Casey Washington for Two-Point Conversion20–18
- 8OT 0:00PSUNoah Cain Run for Two-Point Conversion18–18
- 8OT 0:00ILLBrandon Peters Pass to Isaiah Williams for Two-Point Conversion18–16
- 2OT 0:00PSUJordan Stout 40 Yd Field Goal 16–16
- 2OT 0:00ILLJames McCourt 22 Yd Field Goal 16–13
- OT 0:00ILLJames McCourt 39 Yd Field Goal 13–13
- OT 0:00PSUJordan Stout 31 Yd Field Goal 10–13
- Q4 11:49ILLJames McCourt 37 Yd Field Goal 10–10
- Q2 2:52ILLChase Brown 1 Yd Run (James McCourt Kick)7–10
- Q2 11:12PSUJordan Stout 35 Yd Field Goal 0–10
- Q1 0:09PSUKeAndre Lambert-Smith 42 Yd pass from Sean Clifford (Jordan Stout Kick)0–7
How the model called it
- PassArtur Sitkowski 8/19, 38 YDS, 1 INT
- RushChase Brown 33 CAR, 223 YDS, 1 TD
- RecDonny Navarro III 2 REC, 12 YDS
- PassSean Clifford 19/34, 165 YDS, 1 TD
- RushNoah Cain 11 CAR, 43 YDS
- RecJahan Dotson 6 REC, 69 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsPSU up 3 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,457 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q4 0:33ILL +66%
A.Sitkowski rushed to ILL 14 for 6 yards. Pushed out of bounds by J.Porter at ILL 14
- OT 0:00PSU +56%
S.Clifford pass complete to ILL 25. Catch made by N.Cain at ILL 25. Gain of 3 yards. Tackled by ILL at ILL 22
- OT 0:00ILL +48%
J.McCourt 39 yard field goal attempt is good, Center-ILL, Holder-ILL
- 2OT 0:00PSU +48%
J.Stout 40 yard field goal attempt is good, Center-PSU, Holder-PSU
- OT 0:00PSU +32%
J.Stout 31 yard field goal attempt is good, Center-PSU, Holder-PSU
- 2OT 0:00ILL +32%
J.McCourt 22 yard field goal attempt is good, Center-ILL, Holder-ILL
FAQ
What was the final score of Illinois vs. Penn State?
Illinois 20, Penn State 18.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked PSU, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| ILL | PSU | |
|---|---|---|
| 395 | Total yards | 227 |
| 38 | Passing yards | 165 |
| 357 | Rushing yards | 62 |
| 26 | First downs | 14 |
| 9-18 | 3rd down | 4-17 |
| 0-0 | 4th down | 1-1 |
| 8/21 | Comp/Att | 19/34 |
| 1.8 | Yards per pass | 4.9 |
| 5.3 | Yards per rush | 2.1 |
| 3 | Turnovers | 0 |
| 4-50 | Penalties | 7-81 |
| 36:25 | Possession | 23:35 |
Costliest call
Q1 6:28 PSU punt on 4th & 1 at PSU 34. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.62 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- 9OT 0:00ILLBrandon Peters Pass to Casey Washington for Two-Point Conversion20–18
- 8OT 0:00PSUNoah Cain Run for Two-Point Conversion18–18
- 8OT 0:00ILLBrandon Peters Pass to Isaiah Williams for Two-Point Conversion18–16
- 2OT 0:00PSUJordan Stout 40 Yd Field Goal 16–16
- 2OT 0:00ILLJames McCourt 22 Yd Field Goal 16–13
- OT 0:00ILLJames McCourt 39 Yd Field Goal 13–13
- OT 0:00PSUJordan Stout 31 Yd Field Goal 10–13
- Q4 11:49ILLJames McCourt 37 Yd Field Goal 10–10
- Q2 2:52ILLChase Brown 1 Yd Run (James McCourt Kick)7–10
- Q2 11:12PSUJordan Stout 35 Yd Field Goal 0–10
- Q1 0:09PSUKeAndre Lambert-Smith 42 Yd pass from Sean Clifford (Jordan Stout Kick)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (PSU Elo 1805, ILL Elo 1330 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects PSU -21.4 (91% to win) — 3.1 points clear of ILL's market line of -24.5. 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 — 2021
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles#43 of 112 in 2021 by biggest miss · #7 of 128 in 2021 by longest odds · #5 of 62 in 2021 by biggest poll gap.
The 2021 upset archive →Penn State leads 22–6 · Penn State has won 2 straight · 32% have been one-possession games
| ILL | PSU | |
|---|---|---|
| -6.3 (#91) | CORE overall | +13.8 (#23) |
| -5 / +1 | offense / defense | -2 / -16 |
| 1.70 | points / drive | 1.92 |
| 2.02 | allowed / drive | 1.27 |
| 26% | three-and-outs | 29% |
| -8 | pass over expected | +8 |
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 →