Eastern Michigan vs. Buffalo: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
EMUTeam statsBUF
- OT 0:00EMUNoah Kim 1 Yd Run (Two-Point Run Conversion Failed)30–31
- OT 0:00BUFVictor Snow 9 Yd Run (Jack Howes Kick)24–31
- Q4 0:00BUFJack Howes 50 Yd Field Goal 24–24
- Q4 8:59EMURudy Kessinger 42 Yd Field Goal 24–21
- Q3 0:02BUFVictor Snow 19 Yd pass from Ta'Quan Roberson (Jack Howes Kick)21–21
- Q3 3:11EMUDontae McMillan 38 Yd pass from Noah Kim (Rudy Kessinger Kick)20–14
- Q2 1:51BUFPatrick Clacks III 7 Yd pass from Ta'Quan Roberson (Jack Howes Kick)14–14
- Q2 8:44EMUDontae McMillan 3 Yd Run (Rudy Kessinger Kick)14–7
- Q1 8:39BUFVictor Snow 75 Yd pass from Ta'Quan Roberson (Jack Howes Kick)7–7
- Q1 8:50EMUNick Devereaux 45 Yd pass from Noah Kim (Rudy Kessinger Kick)7–0
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- BUF played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and EMU did not face the same ones. 3rd & 7.3 vs 3rd & 5.2
- PassNoah Kim 19/31, 168 YDS, 2 TD
- RushDontae McMillan 20 CAR, 117 YDS, 1 TD
- RecNick Devereaux 3 REC, 62 YDS, 1 TD
- PassTa'Quan Roberson 19/38, 272 YDS, 3 TD
- RushAl-Jay Henderson 16 CAR, 81 YDS
- RecVictor Snow 6 REC, 136 YDS, 2 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsTied entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,332 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q4 0:00BUF +85%
Jack Howes 50 yd FG GOOD
- Q4 0:58EMU +44%
Mitchell Tomasek punt for 38 yds, fair catch by Victor Snow at the BUF 9
- OT 0:00EMU +42%
T.Roberson pass complete. Catch made by N.McMillan for 8 yards. Tackled by C.Dobbs at EMU 17
- Q1 13:39BUF +33%
Mitchell Tomasek punt for 38 yds, punt out-of-bounds at the BUF 34
- OT 0:00BUF +32%
V.Snow rushed for 9 yards. TOUCHDOWN
- Q4 8:59EMU +20%
Rudy Kessinger 42 yd FG GOOD
FAQ
What was the final score of Eastern Michigan vs. Buffalo?
Eastern Michigan 30, Buffalo 31.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (BUF) was correct.
| EMU | BUF | |
|---|---|---|
| 395 | Total yards | 387 |
| 168 | Passing yards | 272 |
| 227 | Rushing yards | 115 |
| 25 | First downs | 21 |
| 8-20 | 3rd down | 7-15 |
| 2-2 | 4th down | 0-1 |
| 19/31 | Comp/Att | 19/39 |
| 5.4 | Yards per pass | 7.0 |
| 4.2 | Yards per rush | 3.7 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 9-80 | Penalties | 6-69 |
| 37:05 | Possession | 22:55 |
Costliest call
Q4 10:39 EMU punt on 4th & 1 at EMU 32. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.94 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- OT 0:00EMUNoah Kim 1 Yd Run (Two-Point Run Conversion Failed)30–31
- OT 0:00BUFVictor Snow 9 Yd Run (Jack Howes Kick)24–31
- Q4 0:00BUFJack Howes 50 Yd Field Goal 24–24
- Q4 8:59EMURudy Kessinger 42 Yd Field Goal 24–21
- Q3 0:02BUFVictor Snow 19 Yd pass from Ta'Quan Roberson (Jack Howes Kick)21–21
- Q3 3:11EMUDontae McMillan 38 Yd pass from Noah Kim (Rudy Kessinger Kick)20–14
- Q2 1:51BUFPatrick Clacks III 7 Yd pass from Ta'Quan Roberson (Jack Howes Kick)14–14
- Q2 8:44EMUDontae McMillan 3 Yd Run (Rudy Kessinger Kick)14–7
- Q1 8:39BUFVictor Snow 75 Yd pass from Ta'Quan Roberson (Jack Howes Kick)7–7
- Q1 8:50EMUNick Devereaux 45 Yd pass from Noah Kim (Rudy Kessinger Kick)7–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (BUF Elo 1382, EMU Elo 1193 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects BUF -10 (75% 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 15 · through week 2 · drive simulation
Season form — 2025
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profilesEastern Michigan leads 7–6 · Buffalo has won 2 straight · 38% have been one-possession games
| EMU | BUF | |
|---|---|---|
| -16.0 (#114) | CORE overall | -19.7 (#124) |
| -3 / +13 | offense / defense | -15 / +5 |
| 2.13 | points / drive | 1.56 |
| 2.86 | allowed / drive | 1.93 |
| 27% | three-and-outs | 34% |
| +4 | pass over expected | +3 |
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 →