Florida International vs. Penn State: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
FIUTeam statsPSU
- Q4 1:19PSUNicholas Singleton 5 Yd Run (Ryan Barker Kick)0–34
- Q4 3:29PSUKaytron Allen 67 Yd Run (Ryan Barker Kick)0–27
- Q3 4:44PSUDevonte Ross 42 Yd pass from Drew Allar, Two Point Conversion Failed. Penalty PSU Holding. (Ryan Barker Kick)0–20
- Q3 9:56PSURyan Barker 34 Yd Field Goal 0–13
- Q2 0:50PSURyan Barker 41 Yd Field Goal 0–10
- Q1 3:54PSUKhalil Dinkins 9 Yd pass from Drew Allar (Ryan Barker Kick)0–7
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- FIU played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and PSU did not face the same ones. 3rd & 7.9 vs 3rd & 5.7
- PassKeyone Jenkins 15/28, 127 YDS, 1 INT
- RushKejon Owens 15 CAR, 78 YDS
- RecJojo Stone 1 REC, 27 YDS
- PassDrew Allar 19/33, 200 YDS, 2 TD
- RushKaytron Allen 16 CAR, 144 YDS, 1 TD
- RecDevonte Ross 3 REC, 61 YDS, 1 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsPSU up 20 entering the 4th quarter. Across 818 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
FAQ
What was the final score of Florida International vs. Penn State?
Florida International 0, Penn State 34.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (PSU) was correct.
| FIU | PSU | |
|---|---|---|
| 290 | Total yards | 409 |
| 149 | Passing yards | 200 |
| 141 | Rushing yards | 209 |
| 14 | First downs | 20 |
| 6-18 | 3rd down | 3-12 |
| 3-5 | 4th down | 2-4 |
| 18/33 | Comp/Att | 19/33 |
| 4.5 | Yards per pass | 6.1 |
| 3.6 | Yards per rush | 6.7 |
| 2 | Turnovers | 0 |
| 4-40 | Penalties | 1-10 |
| 34:17 | Possession | 25:43 |
Costliest call
Q2 5:32 PSU punt on 4th & 7 at FIU 42. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.42 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 1:19PSUNicholas Singleton 5 Yd Run (Ryan Barker Kick)0–34
- Q4 3:29PSUKaytron Allen 67 Yd Run (Ryan Barker Kick)0–27
- Q3 4:44PSUDevonte Ross 42 Yd pass from Drew Allar, Two Point Conversion Failed. Penalty PSU Holding. (Ryan Barker Kick)0–20
- Q3 9:56PSURyan Barker 34 Yd Field Goal 0–13
- Q2 0:50PSURyan Barker 41 Yd Field Goal 0–10
- Q1 3:54PSUKhalil Dinkins 9 Yd pass from Drew Allar (Ryan Barker Kick)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (PSU Elo 2073, FIU Elo 1372 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects PSU -30.4 (97% to win) — 11.1 points clear of FIU's market line of -41.5. 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 15 · through week 2 · drive simulation
Season form — 2025
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles| FIU | PSU | |
|---|---|---|
| -15.2 (#109) | CORE overall | +13.0 (#32) |
| -11 / +4 | offense / defense | +8 / -5 |
| 2.11 | points / drive | 2.96 |
| 2.43 | allowed / drive | 2.25 |
| 28% | three-and-outs | 23% |
| -1 | 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 →