Central Michigan vs. Northwestern: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
CMUTeam statsNU
- Q4 6:11CMUBrock Townsend 3 Yd pass from Joe Labas (Cade Graham Kick)7–34
- Q3 2:31NUGriffin Wilde 11 Yd pass from Preston Stone (Jack Olsen Kick)0–34
- Q3 12:39NUBraden Turner 47 Yd Fumble Return (Jack Olsen PAT failed)0–27
- Q2 3:31NULawson Albright 23 Yd pass from Preston Stone (Jack Olsen Kick)0–21
- Q2 3:43NUCaleb Komolafe 2 Yd Run (Jack Olsen Kick)0–14
- Q2 6:33NUGriffin Wilde 23 Yd pass from Preston Stone (Jack Olsen Kick)0–7
How the model called it
- PassJoe Labas 21/25, 178 YDS, 1 TD
- RushTrey Cornist 11 CAR, 66 YDS
- RecLangston Lewis 8 REC, 83 YDS
- PassPreston Stone 19/31, 226 YDS, 3 TD
- RushCaleb Komolafe 15 CAR, 55 YDS, 1 TD
- RecGriffin Wilde 10 REC, 97 YDS, 2 TD
FAQ
What was the final score of Central Michigan vs. Northwestern?
Central Michigan 7, Northwestern 34.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (NU) was correct.
| CMU | NU | |
|---|---|---|
| 269 | Total yards | 313 |
| 178 | Passing yards | 236 |
| 91 | Rushing yards | 77 |
| 15 | First downs | 18 |
| 3-11 | 3rd down | 4-13 |
| 0-1 | 4th down | 2-5 |
| 21/26 | Comp/Att | 20/35 |
| 6.8 | Yards per pass | 6.7 |
| 2.7 | Yards per rush | 3.0 |
| 4 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 5-46 | Penalties | 2-20 |
| 32:42 | Possession | 27:18 |
- Q4 6:11CMUBrock Townsend 3 Yd pass from Joe Labas (Cade Graham Kick)7–34
- Q3 2:31NUGriffin Wilde 11 Yd pass from Preston Stone (Jack Olsen Kick)0–34
- Q3 12:39NUBraden Turner 47 Yd Fumble Return (Jack Olsen PAT failed)0–27
- Q2 3:31NULawson Albright 23 Yd pass from Preston Stone (Jack Olsen Kick)0–21
- Q2 3:43NUCaleb Komolafe 2 Yd Run (Jack Olsen Kick)0–14
- Q2 6:33NUGriffin Wilde 23 Yd pass from Preston Stone (Jack Olsen Kick)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (NU Elo 1524, CMU Elo 1282 for reference), on a neutral field. That projects NU -9.7 (75% to win) — 3.3 points clear of CMU's market line of -13. 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 profiles| CMU | NU | |
|---|---|---|
| -6.9 (#87) | CORE overall | -1.8 (#67) |
| -4 / +3 | offense / defense | -0 / +1 |
| 1.94 | points / drive | 2.35 |
| 2.13 | allowed / drive | 2.19 |
| 31% | three-and-outs | 22% |
| -13 | 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 →