Purdue vs. Northwestern: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
PURTeam statsNU
- Q3 4:01NUGriffin Wilde 12 Yd pass from Preston Stone (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)0–19
- Q2 8:38NUJack Olsen 38 Yd Field Goal 0–13
- Q2 13:13NUHunter Welcing 3 Yd pass from Preston Stone (Jack Olsen Kick)0–10
- Q1 7:45NUJack Olsen 27 Yd Field Goal 0–3
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- PUR lived on explosives rather than sustaining drives — a profile that vanished once those chunk plays were tackled. 12% explosive on a 36% success rate
- PassMalachi Singleton 11/20, 187 YDS, 1 INT
- RushMalachi Thomas 7 CAR, 34 YDS
- RecDevin Mockobee 2 REC, 52 YDS
- PassPreston Stone 11/26, 132 YDS, 2 TD, 1 INT
- RushJoseph Himon II 22 CAR, 87 YDS
- RecGriffin Wilde 4 REC, 47 YDS, 1 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsNU up 19 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,041 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q2 13:13NU +12%
Preston Stone pass complete to Hunter Welcing for 3 yds for a TD (Jack Olsen KICK)
FAQ
What was the final score of Purdue vs. Northwestern?
Purdue 0, Northwestern 19.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (NU) was correct.
| PUR | NU | |
|---|---|---|
| 305 | Total yards | 364 |
| 218 | Passing yards | 132 |
| 87 | Rushing yards | 232 |
| 11 | First downs | 24 |
| 5-14 | 3rd down | 7-16 |
| 0-3 | 4th down | 1-2 |
| 16/30 | Comp/Att | 11/26 |
| 7.3 | Yards per pass | 5.1 |
| 3.3 | Yards per rush | 4.6 |
| 3 | Turnovers | 2 |
| 8-98 | Penalties | 3-20 |
| 22:21 | Possession | 37:39 |
Costliest call
Q2 1:00 PUR punt on 4th & 3 at NU 46. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.80 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q3 4:01NUGriffin Wilde 12 Yd pass from Preston Stone (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)0–19
- Q2 8:38NUJack Olsen 38 Yd Field Goal 0–13
- Q2 13:13NUHunter Welcing 3 Yd pass from Preston Stone (Jack Olsen Kick)0–10
- Q1 7:45NUJack Olsen 27 Yd Field Goal 0–3
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (NU Elo 1510, PUR Elo 1314 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects NU -10.2 (76% to win) — 6.7 points clear of NU's market line of -3.5. 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 profilesPurdue leads 53–36–1 · Northwestern has won 3 straight · 41% have been one-possession games
| PUR | NU | |
|---|---|---|
| -9.5 (#93) | CORE overall | -1.8 (#67) |
| -4 / +5 | offense / defense | -0 / +1 |
| 1.57 | points / drive | 2.35 |
| 3.07 | allowed / drive | 2.19 |
| 30% | three-and-outs | 22% |
| +3 | 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 →