Michigan State vs. Indiana: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
MSUTeam statsIU
- Q4 0:33MSUMartin Connington 34 Yd Field Goal 13–38
- Q4 1:56IUNico Radicic 31 Yd Field Goal 10–38
- Q3 3:55IUElijah Sarratt 27 Yd pass from Fernando Mendoza (Nico Radicic Kick)10–35
- Q3 13:09IUOmar Cooper Jr. 48 Yd pass from Fernando Mendoza (Nico Radicic Kick)10–28
- Q2 0:59IUKaelon Black 29 Yd Run (Nico Radicic Kick)10–21
- Q2 6:47IUElijah Sarratt 24 Yd pass from Fernando Mendoza (Nico Radicic Kick)10–14
- Q2 9:22MSUNick Marsh 15 Yd pass from Aidan Chiles (Martin Connington Kick)10–7
- Q1 2:40IUE.J. Williams Jr. 13 Yd pass from Fernando Mendoza (Nico Radicic Kick)3–7
- Q1 8:07MSUMartin Connington 38 Yd Field Goal 3–0
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- MSU played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and IU did not face the same ones. 3rd & 8.6 vs 3rd & 4.4
- PassAidan Chiles 27/33, 243 YDS, 1 TD
- RushAidan Chiles 8 CAR, 48 YDS
- RecNick Marsh 7 REC, 64 YDS, 1 TD
- PassFernando Mendoza 24/28, 332 YDS, 4 TD
- RushKaelon Black 10 CAR, 64 YDS, 1 TD
- RecOmar Cooper Jr. 8 REC, 115 YDS, 1 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsIU up 25 entering the 4th quarter. Across 584 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q2 9:22MSU +7%
Aidan Chiles pass complete to Nick Marsh for 15 yds for a TD (Martin Connington KICK)
- Q2 6:47IU +7%
Fernando Mendoza pass complete to Elijah Sarratt for 24 yds for a TD (Nico Radicic KICK)
FAQ
What was the final score of Michigan State vs. Indiana?
Michigan State 13, Indiana 38.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (IU) was correct.
| MSU | IU | |
|---|---|---|
| 367 | Total yards | 464 |
| 293 | Passing yards | 332 |
| 74 | Rushing yards | 132 |
| 19 | First downs | 24 |
| 5-14 | 3rd down | 5-8 |
| 3-4 | 4th down | 1-2 |
| 30/38 | Comp/Att | 24/28 |
| 7.7 | Yards per pass | 11.9 |
| 3.1 | Yards per rush | 4.7 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 0 |
| 6-46 | Penalties | 1-5 |
| 31:14 | Possession | 28:46 |
Costliest call
Q4 8:59 MSU go for it on 4th & 13 at IU 23. The model preferred field goal, a gap of 1.18 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 0:33MSUMartin Connington 34 Yd Field Goal 13–38
- Q4 1:56IUNico Radicic 31 Yd Field Goal 10–38
- Q3 3:55IUElijah Sarratt 27 Yd pass from Fernando Mendoza (Nico Radicic Kick)10–35
- Q3 13:09IUOmar Cooper Jr. 48 Yd pass from Fernando Mendoza (Nico Radicic Kick)10–28
- Q2 0:59IUKaelon Black 29 Yd Run (Nico Radicic Kick)10–21
- Q2 6:47IUElijah Sarratt 24 Yd pass from Fernando Mendoza (Nico Radicic Kick)10–14
- Q2 9:22MSUNick Marsh 15 Yd pass from Aidan Chiles (Martin Connington Kick)10–7
- Q1 2:40IUE.J. Williams Jr. 13 Yd pass from Fernando Mendoza (Nico Radicic Kick)3–7
- Q1 8:07MSUMartin Connington 38 Yd Field Goal 3–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (IU Elo 2022, MSU Elo 1343 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects IU -29.6 (96% to win) — 3.1 points clear of IU's market line of -26.5. 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 profilesMichigan State leads 51–19–2 · Indiana has won 2 straight · 33% have been one-possession games
| MSU | IU | |
|---|---|---|
| -8.6 (#91) | CORE overall | +35.3 (#3) |
| -4 / +4 | offense / defense | +19 / -17 |
| 1.95 | points / drive | 3.69 |
| 2.64 | allowed / drive | 0.94 |
| 26% | three-and-outs | 17% |
| +2 | 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 →