Bowling Green vs. Eastern Michigan: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
BGSUTeam statsEMU
- Q4 0:57EMURudy Kessinger 44 Yd Field Goal 21–27
- Q4 4:36BGSUJyrin Johnson 2 Yd pass from Hunter Najm (Jackson Kleather Kick)21–24
- Q4 10:18EMUDontae McMillan 8 Yd Run (Rudy Kessinger Kick)14–24
- Q3 5:57EMUN. Kim pass to N. Devereaux for 12 yds, for a TD (R. Kessinger KICK)14–17
- Q2 3:00BGSUAustyn Dendy 16 Yd Run (Jackson Kleather Kick)14–10
- Q1 3:13EMURudy Kessinger 27 Yd Field Goal 7–10
- Q1 8:36BGSUAustyn Dendy 19 Yd Run (Jackson Kleather Kick)7–7
- Q1 10:12EMUT. Dunlap run for 1 yd, for a TD (R. Kessinger KICK)0–7
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- EMU played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and BGSU did not face the same ones. 3rd & 8.1 vs 3rd & 4.6
- BGSU lived on explosives rather than sustaining drives — a profile that vanished once those chunk plays were tackled. 19% explosive on a 37% success rate
- PassHunter Najm 11/15, 129 YDS, 1 TD, 1 INT
- RushAustyn Dendy 21 CAR, 113 YDS, 2 TD
- RecJyrin Johnson 4 REC, 36 YDS, 1 TD
- PassNoah Kim 22/39, 210 YDS, 1 TD
- RushDontae McMillan 19 CAR, 100 YDS, 1 TD
- RecNick Devereaux 4 REC, 79 YDS, 1 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsEMU up 3 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,457 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q1 10:12EMU +17%
Shotgun #8 T.Dunlap rush middle for 1 yard gain to the BGSU00 TOUCHDOWN
- Q2 0:58EMU +10%
#19 J.Henderson punt 50 yards to the EMU13 fair catch by #9 P.Rooks at EMU13
- Q3 5:57EMU +9%
No Huddle-Shotgun #1 N.Kim pass complete short right to #81 N.Devereaux caught at BGSU08, for 12 yards to the BGSU00 TOUCHDOWN
- Q2 3:00BGSU +9%
No Huddle-Shotgun #14 A.Dendy rush middle for 16 yards gain to the EMU00 TOUCHDOWN, 1ST DOWN
- Q3 6:22EMU +7%
PENALTY EMU False Start (#66 J.Anderson) 5 yards from BGSU07 to BGSU12. NO PLAY
- Q1 8:36BGSU +5%
No Huddle-Shotgun #14 A.Dendy rush left for 19 yards gain to the EMU00 TOUCHDOWN, 1ST DOWN
FAQ
What was the final score of Bowling Green vs. Eastern Michigan?
Bowling Green 21, Eastern Michigan 27.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (EMU) was correct.
| BGSU | EMU | |
|---|---|---|
| 259 | Total yards | 385 |
| 129 | Passing yards | 210 |
| 130 | Rushing yards | 175 |
| 14 | First downs | 25 |
| 4-11 | 3rd down | 8-17 |
| 0-0 | 4th down | 1-2 |
| 11/16 | Comp/Att | 22/40 |
| 8.1 | Yards per pass | 5.3 |
| 3.7 | Yards per rush | 5.0 |
| 1 | Turnovers | 0 |
| 9-103 | Penalties | 7-65 |
| 26:15 | Possession | 33:45 |
Costliest call
Q3 12:19 EMU punt on 4th & 1 at EMU 38. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.97 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 0:57EMURudy Kessinger 44 Yd Field Goal 21–27
- Q4 4:36BGSUJyrin Johnson 2 Yd pass from Hunter Najm (Jackson Kleather Kick)21–24
- Q4 10:18EMUDontae McMillan 8 Yd Run (Rudy Kessinger Kick)14–24
- Q3 5:57EMUN. Kim pass to N. Devereaux for 12 yds, for a TD (R. Kessinger KICK)14–17
- Q2 3:00BGSUAustyn Dendy 16 Yd Run (Jackson Kleather Kick)14–10
- Q1 3:13EMURudy Kessinger 27 Yd Field Goal 7–10
- Q1 8:36BGSUAustyn Dendy 19 Yd Run (Jackson Kleather Kick)7–7
- Q1 10:12EMUT. Dunlap run for 1 yd, for a TD (R. Kessinger KICK)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (EMU Elo 1220, BGSU Elo 1253 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects EMU -1.1 (54% to win), essentially in line with the market.
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 — 2025
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profilesBowling Green leads 21–10 · Eastern Michigan has won 4 straight · 32% have been one-possession games
| BGSU | EMU | |
|---|---|---|
| -18.8 (#122) | CORE overall | -16.0 (#114) |
| -16 / +3 | offense / defense | -3 / +13 |
| 1.66 | points / drive | 2.13 |
| 2.20 | allowed / drive | 2.86 |
| 30% | three-and-outs | 27% |
| -11 | pass over expected | +4 |
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 →