App State vs. Toledo: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
APPTeam statsTOL
- Q4 14:54APPMalik Williams 3 Yd Run (Chandler Staton Kick)34–0
- Q3 8:14APPJalin Moore 31 Yd Run (Chandler Staton Kick)27–0
- Q2 5:52APPChandler Staton 23 Yd Field Goal 20–0
- Q2 8:09APPChandler Staton 29 Yd Field Goal 17–0
- Q2 13:51APPJalin Moore 7 Yd Run (Chandler Staton Kick)14–0
- Q1 4:06APPJalin Moore 7 Yd Run (Chandler Staton Kick)7–0
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- TOL played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and APP did not face the same ones. 3rd & 10.7 vs 3rd & 5.2
- PassTaylor Lamb 8/16, 131 YDS
- RushJalin Moore 22 CAR, 125 YDS, 3 TD
- RecIke Lewis 4 REC, 67 YDS
- PassLogan Woodside 16/29, 124 YDS, 3 INT
- RushTerry Swanson 11 CAR, 44 YDS
- RecJordan Fisher 2 REC, 29 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsAPP up 27 entering the 4th quarter. Across 532 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q1 4:06APP +19%
Jalin Moore run for 7 yds for a TD, (Chandler Staton KICK)
- Q2 13:51APP +17%
Jalin Moore run for 7 yds for a TD, (Chandler Staton KICK)
- Q2 8:09APP +7%
Chandler Staton 29 yd FG GOOD
FAQ
What was the final score of App State vs. Toledo?
App State 34, Toledo 0.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked TOL, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| APP | TOL | |
|---|---|---|
| 458 | Total yards | 146 |
| 131 | Passing yards | 124 |
| 327 | Rushing yards | 22 |
| 23 | First downs | 8 |
| 3-13 | 3rd down | 2-12 |
| 1-3 | 4th down | 1-1 |
| 8/17 | Comp/Att | 16/29 |
| 7.7 | Yards per pass | 4.3 |
| 6.2 | Yards per rush | 1.0 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 4 |
| 4-25 | Penalties | 5-35 |
| 35:50 | Possession | 24:10 |
Costliest call
Q1 11:42 APP punt on 4th & 2 at APP 46. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.81 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 14:54APPMalik Williams 3 Yd Run (Chandler Staton Kick)34–0
- Q3 8:14APPJalin Moore 31 Yd Run (Chandler Staton Kick)27–0
- Q2 5:52APPChandler Staton 23 Yd Field Goal 20–0
- Q2 8:09APPChandler Staton 29 Yd Field Goal 17–0
- Q2 13:51APPJalin Moore 7 Yd Run (Chandler Staton Kick)14–0
- Q1 4:06APPJalin Moore 7 Yd Run (Chandler Staton Kick)7–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (TOL Elo 1695, APP Elo 1629 for reference), on a neutral field. That projects TOL -2.6 (58% to win) — 3.4 points clear of APP's market line of -6. 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 — 2017
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles#8 of 107 in 2017 by biggest miss · #73 of 126 in 2017 by longest odds.
The 2017 upset archive →| APP | TOL | |
|---|---|---|
| +5.5 (#49) | CORE overall | +4.2 (#53) |
| +1 / -4 | offense / defense | +8 / +4 |
| 2.50 | points / drive | 2.79 |
| 1.78 | allowed / drive | 2.08 |
| 28% | three-and-outs | 21% |
| -4 | 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 →