Georgia Tech vs. Boston College: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
GTTeam statsBC
- Q4 0:11GTAidan Birr 23 Yd Field Goal 36–34
- Q4 4:09BCTurbo Richard 43 Yd Run (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)33–34
- Q4 6:14GTJordan Allen 54 Yd Run (Aidan Birr Kick)33–28
- Q4 7:33GTJamal Haynes 2 Yd Run (Two-Point Run Conversion Failed)26–28
- Q4 13:52GTAidan Birr 26 Yd Field Goal 20–28
- Q3 1:19BCReed Harris 18 Yd pass from Dylan Lonergan (Luca Lombardo Kick)17–28
- Q3 4:35GTAidan Birr 34 Yd Field Goal 17–21
- Q3 12:05BCJordan McDonald 14 Yd Run (Luca Lombardo Kick)14–21
- Q2 0:22BCKaelan Chudzinski 3 Yd pass from Dylan Lonergan (Luca Lombardo Kick)14–14
- Q2 9:44GTMalik Rutherford 71 Yd pass from Haynes King (Aidan Birr Kick)14–7
- Q2 14:19BCTurbo Richard 1 Yd Run (Luca Lombardo Kick)7–7
- Q1 4:59GTMalachi Hosley 27 Yd Run (Aidan Birr Kick)7–0
How the model called it
- PassHaynes King 26/34, 371 YDS, 1 TD
- RushMalachi Hosley 15 CAR, 107 YDS, 1 TD
- RecMalik Rutherford 5 REC, 121 YDS, 1 TD
- PassDylan Lonergan 26/40, 362 YDS, 2 TD
- RushTurbo Richard 11 CAR, 141 YDS, 2 TD
- RecReed Harris 5 REC, 142 YDS, 1 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsBC up 11 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,142 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q4 0:11GT +66%
#33 A.Birr field goal attempt from 23 yards GOOD
- Q4 6:14GT +58%
No Huddle-Shotgun #85 J.Allen rush left for 54 yards gain to the BCE00 TOUCHDOWN, 1ST DOWN
- Q4 4:09BC +50%
No Huddle-Shotgun #2 T.Richard rush middle for 43 yards gain to the GT 00 TOUCHDOWN, 1ST DOWN #9 D.Lonergan pass attempt failed
- Q4 7:33GT +36%
#1 J.Haynes rush right for 2 yards gain to the BCE00 TOUCHDOWN #10 H.King rush attempt failed
- Q4 6:24BC +22%
#28 S.Florio punt 22 yards to the GT 46
- Q4 0:04BC +17%
PENALTY GT Illegal Substitution 5 yards from BCE49 to GT 46. NO PLAY
FAQ
What was the final score of Georgia Tech vs. Boston College?
Georgia Tech 36, Boston College 34.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (GT) was correct.
| GT | BC | |
|---|---|---|
| 628 | Total yards | 537 |
| 371 | Passing yards | 362 |
| 257 | Rushing yards | 175 |
| 30 | First downs | 24 |
| 7-12 | 3rd down | 5-11 |
| 0-0 | 4th down | 2-2 |
| 26/34 | Comp/Att | 26/40 |
| 10.9 | Yards per pass | 9.1 |
| 6.1 | Yards per rush | 6.7 |
| 1 | Turnovers | 0 |
| 6-34 | Penalties | 4-40 |
| 32:44 | Possession | 27:16 |
Costliest call
Q2 11:42 BC punt on 4th & 1 at BC 35. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.77 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 0:11GTAidan Birr 23 Yd Field Goal 36–34
- Q4 4:09BCTurbo Richard 43 Yd Run (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)33–34
- Q4 6:14GTJordan Allen 54 Yd Run (Aidan Birr Kick)33–28
- Q4 7:33GTJamal Haynes 2 Yd Run (Two-Point Run Conversion Failed)26–28
- Q4 13:52GTAidan Birr 26 Yd Field Goal 20–28
- Q3 1:19BCReed Harris 18 Yd pass from Dylan Lonergan (Luca Lombardo Kick)17–28
- Q3 4:35GTAidan Birr 34 Yd Field Goal 17–21
- Q3 12:05BCJordan McDonald 14 Yd Run (Luca Lombardo Kick)14–21
- Q2 0:22BCKaelan Chudzinski 3 Yd pass from Dylan Lonergan (Luca Lombardo Kick)14–14
- Q2 9:44GTMalik Rutherford 71 Yd pass from Haynes King (Aidan Birr Kick)14–7
- Q2 14:19BCTurbo Richard 1 Yd Run (Luca Lombardo Kick)7–7
- Q1 4:59GTMalachi Hosley 27 Yd Run (Aidan Birr Kick)7–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (BC Elo 1298, GT Elo 1612 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects BC +10.2 (26% to win) — 6.3 points clear of BC's market line of +16.5. 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 profilesGeorgia Tech leads 8–5 · 31% have been one-possession games
| GT | BC | |
|---|---|---|
| +10.6 (#38) | CORE overall | -10.0 (#95) |
| +13 / +3 | offense / defense | -1 / +9 |
| 2.86 | points / drive | 1.81 |
| 2.39 | allowed / drive | 3.19 |
| 22% | three-and-outs | 28% |
| -1 | pass over expected | +7 |
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 →