Stanford vs. BYU: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
STANTeam statsBYU
- Q4 6:33BYUWill Ferrin 23 Yd Field Goal 3–27
- Q4 10:31STANEmmet Kenney 26 Yd Field Goal 3–24
- Q3 3:36BYUSione Moa 8 Yd Run (Will Ferrin Kick)0–24
- Q3 8:56BYUWill Ferrin 21 Yd Field Goal 0–17
- Q2 5:14BYUTeam Safety 0–14
- Q2 10:52BYUWill Ferrin 30 Yd Field Goal 0–12
- Q2 14:56BYUWill Ferrin 36 Yd Field Goal 0–9
- Q1 3:25BYUBear Bachmeier 3 Yd Run (Two-Point Run Conversion Failed)0–6
How the model called it
- PassBen Gulbranson 17/32, 142 YDS, 2 INT
- RushMicah Ford 12 CAR, 21 YDS
- RecBryce Farrell 5 REC, 68 YDS
- PassBear Bachmeier 17/27, 175 YDS
- RushLJ Martin 18 CAR, 110 YDS
- RecChase Roberts 5 REC, 84 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsBYU up 24 entering the 4th quarter. Across 555 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q1 3:25BYU +8%
Bear Bachmeier run for 3 yds for a TD (Two-Point Conversion failed)
FAQ
What was the final score of Stanford vs. BYU?
Stanford 3, BYU 27.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (BYU) was correct.
| STAN | BYU | |
|---|---|---|
| 161 | Total yards | 332 |
| 142 | Passing yards | 175 |
| 19 | Rushing yards | 157 |
| 12 | First downs | 18 |
| 2-13 | 3rd down | 5-14 |
| 2-3 | 4th down | 1-2 |
| 17/32 | Comp/Att | 17/27 |
| 4.4 | Yards per pass | 6.5 |
| 0.8 | Yards per rush | 3.8 |
| 3 | Turnovers | 0 |
| 6-45 | Penalties | 4-35 |
| 25:04 | Possession | 34:56 |
Costliest call
Q3 8:56 BYU field goal on 4th & 3 at STAN 3. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.83 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 6:33BYUWill Ferrin 23 Yd Field Goal 3–27
- Q4 10:31STANEmmet Kenney 26 Yd Field Goal 3–24
- Q3 3:36BYUSione Moa 8 Yd Run (Will Ferrin Kick)0–24
- Q3 8:56BYUWill Ferrin 21 Yd Field Goal 0–17
- Q2 5:14BYUTeam Safety 0–14
- Q2 10:52BYUWill Ferrin 30 Yd Field Goal 0–12
- Q2 14:56BYUWill Ferrin 36 Yd Field Goal 0–9
- Q1 3:25BYUBear Bachmeier 3 Yd Run (Two-Point Run Conversion Failed)0–6
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (BYU Elo 1644, STAN Elo 1282 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects BYU -16.9 (87% to win) — 3.6 points clear of STAN's market line of -20.5. 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| STAN | BYU | |
|---|---|---|
| -12.6 (#102) | CORE overall | +18.0 (#20) |
| -11 / +1 | offense / defense | +10 / -8 |
| 1.42 | points / drive | 2.61 |
| 2.33 | allowed / drive | 1.85 |
| 37% | three-and-outs | 19% |
| +1 | pass over expected | -0 |
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 →