Penn State vs. Clemson: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
PSUTeam statsCLEM
- Q4 4:56PSUAndrew Rappleyea 11 Yd pass from Ethan Grunkemeyer (Ryan Barker Kick)22–10
- Q4 8:47CLEMAdam Randall 2 Yd Run (Nolan Hauser Kick)15–10
- Q4 12:51PSUTrebor Pena 73 Yd pass from Ethan Grunkemeyer (Quinton Martin Jr. Run for Two-Point Conversion)15–3
- Q4 14:56PSURyan Barker 43 Yd Field Goal 9–3
- Q2 0:00PSURyan Barker 48 Yd Field Goal 6–3
- Q2 0:56CLEMNolan Hauser 48 Yd Field Goal 3–3
- Q1 8:32PSURyan Barker 22 Yd Field Goal 3–0
How the model called it
Cumulative margin after each quarter. Above the line = PSU ahead, below = CLEM ahead.
Play-by-play win probability isn't available for this game — scoreboard margin by quarter shown instead.
- PassEthan Grunkemeyer 23/34, 260 YDS, 2 TD
- RushQuinton Martin Jr. 20 CAR, 103 YDS
- RecTrebor Pena 5 REC, 100 YDS, 1 TD
- PassCade Klubnik 22/39, 193 YDS
- RushAdam Randall 11 CAR, 35 YDS, 1 TD
- RecT.J. Moore 6 REC, 83 YDS
FAQ
What was the final score of Penn State vs. Clemson?
Penn State 22, Clemson 10.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (PSU) was correct.
| PSU | CLEM | |
|---|---|---|
| 397 | Total yards | 236 |
| 260 | Passing yards | 193 |
| 137 | Rushing yards | 43 |
| 20 | First downs | 16 |
| 11-19 | 3rd down | 5-15 |
| 0-2 | 4th down | 1-3 |
| 23/35 | Comp/Att | 22/40 |
| 7.4 | Yards per pass | 4.8 |
| 3.3 | Yards per rush | 1.7 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 0 |
| 3-35 | Penalties | 1-5 |
| 33:01 | Possession | 26:59 |
- Q4 4:56PSUAndrew Rappleyea 11 Yd pass from Ethan Grunkemeyer (Ryan Barker Kick)22–10
- Q4 8:47CLEMAdam Randall 2 Yd Run (Nolan Hauser Kick)15–10
- Q4 12:51PSUTrebor Pena 73 Yd pass from Ethan Grunkemeyer (Quinton Martin Jr. Run for Two-Point Conversion)15–3
- Q4 14:56PSURyan Barker 43 Yd Field Goal 9–3
- Q2 0:00PSURyan Barker 48 Yd Field Goal 6–3
- Q2 0:56CLEMNolan Hauser 48 Yd Field Goal 3–3
- Q1 8:32PSURyan Barker 22 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 (CLEM Elo 1758, PSU Elo 1951 for reference), on a neutral field. That projects CLEM +7.7 (31% to win) — 10.2 points clear of PSU's market line of -2.5. 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 profiles| PSU | CLEM | |
|---|---|---|
| +13.0 (#32) | CORE overall | +4.9 (#56) |
| +8 / -5 | offense / defense | +2 / -3 |
| 2.96 | points / drive | 2.25 |
| 2.25 | allowed / drive | 1.84 |
| 23% | three-and-outs | 26% |
| -3 | pass over expected | +9 |
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 →