Central Michigan vs. Kent State: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
CMUTeam statsKENT
- Q4 1:28KENTDru DeShields 10 Yd Run (Will Hryszko Kick)28–16
- Q4 3:02CMUDeCorion Temple 19 Yd pass from Joe Labas (Cade Graham Kick)28–9
- Q4 4:41CMUBrock Townsend 10 Yd Run (Cade Graham Kick)21–9
- Q4 10:38KENTWayne Harris 59 Yd Punt Return (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)14–9
- Q2 0:53KENTWill Hryszko 36 Yd Field Goal 14–3
- Q2 10:24CMUBrock Townsend 2 Yd Run (Cade Graham Kick)14–0
- Q1 2:37CMUTommy McIntosh 1 Yd pass from Joe Labas (Cade Graham Kick)7–0
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- KENT played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and CMU did not face the same ones. 3rd & 9.1 vs 3rd & 5.7
- PassJoe Labas 11/20, 121 YDS, 2 TD, 1 INT
- RushNahree Biggins 12 CAR, 61 YDS
- RecDeCorion Temple 3 REC, 34 YDS, 1 TD
- PassDru DeShields 14/28, 185 YDS
- RushGavin Garcia 15 CAR, 77 YDS
- RecWayne Harris 3 REC, 56 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsCMU up 11 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,142 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q1 2:37CMU +14%
Shotgun #2 J.Labas pass complete short middle to #19 T.McIntosh caught at KSU00, for 1 yard to the KSU00 TOUCHDOWN
- Q4 10:38KENT +9%
#18 D.Duley punt 41 yards to the KSU41 #6 W.Harris return 59 yards to the CMU00 TOUCHDOWN #12 D.DeShields pass attempt failed
- Q2 10:24CMU +8%
Shotgun #22 B.Townsend rush middle for 2 yards gain to the KSU00 TOUCHDOWN
- Q4 4:41CMU +6%
Shotgun #22 B.Townsend rush middle for 10 yards gain to the KSU00 TOUCHDOWN, 1ST DOWN
FAQ
What was the final score of Central Michigan vs. Kent State?
Central Michigan 28, Kent State 16.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (CMU) was correct.
| CMU | KENT | |
|---|---|---|
| 297 | Total yards | 274 |
| 123 | Passing yards | 185 |
| 174 | Rushing yards | 89 |
| 16 | First downs | 20 |
| 5-14 | 3rd down | 4-13 |
| 4-4 | 4th down | 1-3 |
| 12/22 | Comp/Att | 14/28 |
| 5.6 | Yards per pass | 6.6 |
| 4.0 | Yards per rush | 2.5 |
| 1 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 5-29 | Penalties | 4-40 |
| 33:21 | Possession | 26:39 |
Costliest call
Q2 0:13 CMU punt on 4th & 3 at KENT 45. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.92 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 1:28KENTDru DeShields 10 Yd Run (Will Hryszko Kick)28–16
- Q4 3:02CMUDeCorion Temple 19 Yd pass from Joe Labas (Cade Graham Kick)28–9
- Q4 4:41CMUBrock Townsend 10 Yd Run (Cade Graham Kick)21–9
- Q4 10:38KENTWayne Harris 59 Yd Punt Return (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)14–9
- Q2 0:53KENTWill Hryszko 36 Yd Field Goal 14–3
- Q2 10:24CMUBrock Townsend 2 Yd Run (Cade Graham Kick)14–0
- Q1 2:37CMUTommy McIntosh 1 Yd pass from Joe Labas (Cade Graham Kick)7–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (KENT Elo 972, CMU Elo 1293 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects KENT +10.4 (25% to win) — 2.9 points clear of CMU's market line of +7.5. 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 — 2025
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profilesCentral Michigan leads 26–9 · Central Michigan has won 3 straight · 34% have been one-possession games
| CMU | KENT | |
|---|---|---|
| -6.9 (#87) | CORE overall | -19.8 (#125) |
| -4 / +3 | offense / defense | -5 / +14 |
| 1.94 | points / drive | 1.65 |
| 2.13 | allowed / drive | 2.87 |
| 31% | three-and-outs | 34% |
| -13 | 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 →