Central Michigan vs. Florida International: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
CMUTeam statsFIU
- Q4 2:28FIULuby Maurice Jr. 15 Yd Run (Chase Gabriel Kick)16–52
- Q4 6:32FIUChase Gabriel 42 Yd Field Goal 16–45
- Q4 12:39FIULexington Joseph 35 Yd Run (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)16–42
- Q3 0:39CMUChris Parker 44 Yd pass from Joe Labas (Joe Labas Pass to Gavin Harris for Two-Point Conversion)16–36
- Q3 6:04FIUKejon Owens 26 Yd Run (Keyone Jenkins Pass to Dean Patterson for Two-Point Conversion)8–36
- Q2 0:14CMUGavin Harris 12 Yd pass from Joe Labas (Joe Labas Pass to Evan Boyd for Two-Point Conversion)8–28
- Q2 1:54FIUBrian Blades II 21 Yd Interception Return (Chase Gabriel Kick)0–28
- Q2 2:18FIUNazeviah Burris 17 Yd pass from Keyone Jenkins (Chase Gabriel Kick)0–21
- Q2 7:45FIUEric Rivers 36 Yd pass from Keyone Jenkins (Chase Gabriel Kick)0–14
- Q1 6:55FIUKeyone Jenkins 4 Yd Run (Chase Gabriel Kick)0–7
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- FIU played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and CMU did not face the same ones. 3rd & 9.4 vs 3rd & 6.3
- FIU lived on explosives rather than sustaining drives — a profile that vanished once those chunk plays were tackled. 19% explosive on a 36% success rate
- PassJoe Labas 20/39, 151 YDS, 2 TD, 5 INT
- RushMyles Bailey 8 CAR, 54 YDS
- RecChris Parker 3 REC, 55 YDS, 1 TD
- PassKeyone Jenkins 10/18, 124 YDS, 2 TD
- RushKejon Owens 9 CAR, 60 YDS, 1 TD
- RecJosiah Miamen 4 REC, 54 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsFIU up 16 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,243 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q2 7:45FIU +20%
Keyone Jenkins pass complete to Eric Rivers for 36 yds for a TD (Chase Gabriel KICK)
- Q1 6:55FIU +19%
Keyone Jenkins run for 4 yds for a TD (Chase Gabriel KICK)
- Q2 2:18FIU +12%
Keyone Jenkins pass complete to Nazeviah Burris for 17 yds for a TD (Chase Gabriel KICK)
- Q2 0:14CMU +7%
Joe Labas pass complete to Gavin Harris for 12 yds for a TD (Joe Labas pass to Evan Boyd for Two-Point Conversion)
- Q2 1:54FIU +6%
Joe Labas pass intercepted Brian Blades II return for 21 yds for a TD (Chase Gabriel KICK)
FAQ
What was the final score of Central Michigan vs. Florida International?
Central Michigan 16, Florida International 52.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked CMU, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| CMU | FIU | |
|---|---|---|
| 369 | Total yards | 309 |
| 190 | Passing yards | 124 |
| 179 | Rushing yards | 185 |
| 22 | First downs | 15 |
| 8-19 | 3rd down | 3-11 |
| 2-4 | 4th down | 1-1 |
| 23/44 | Comp/Att | 10/18 |
| 4.3 | Yards per pass | 6.9 |
| 4.5 | Yards per rush | 5.6 |
| 6 | Turnovers | 0 |
| 10-70 | Penalties | 4-55 |
| 34:18 | Possession | 25:42 |
Costliest call
Q3 7:29 FIU punt on 4th & 1 at FIU 43. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 1.15 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 2:28FIULuby Maurice Jr. 15 Yd Run (Chase Gabriel Kick)16–52
- Q4 6:32FIUChase Gabriel 42 Yd Field Goal 16–45
- Q4 12:39FIULexington Joseph 35 Yd Run (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)16–42
- Q3 0:39CMUChris Parker 44 Yd pass from Joe Labas (Joe Labas Pass to Gavin Harris for Two-Point Conversion)16–36
- Q3 6:04FIUKejon Owens 26 Yd Run (Keyone Jenkins Pass to Dean Patterson for Two-Point Conversion)8–36
- Q2 0:14CMUGavin Harris 12 Yd pass from Joe Labas (Joe Labas Pass to Evan Boyd for Two-Point Conversion)8–28
- Q2 1:54FIUBrian Blades II 21 Yd Interception Return (Chase Gabriel Kick)0–28
- Q2 2:18FIUNazeviah Burris 17 Yd pass from Keyone Jenkins (Chase Gabriel Kick)0–21
- Q2 7:45FIUEric Rivers 36 Yd pass from Keyone Jenkins (Chase Gabriel Kick)0–14
- Q1 6:55FIUKeyone Jenkins 4 Yd Run (Chase Gabriel Kick)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (FIU Elo 1129, CMU Elo 1333 for reference), on a neutral field. That projects FIU +8.2 (30% to win) — 4.2 points clear of CMU's market line of +4. 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#5 of 120 in 2024 by biggest miss · #83 of 129 in 2024 by longest odds.
The 2024 upset archive →| CMU | FIU | |
|---|---|---|
| -18.4 (#120) | CORE overall | -8.4 (#95) |
| -9 / +9 | offense / defense | -10 / -2 |
| 1.52 | points / drive | 2.13 |
| 2.51 | allowed / drive | 2.01 |
| 36% | three-and-outs | 29% |
| -12 | 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 →