Army vs. Air Force: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
ARMYTeam statsAF
- Q2 0:00ARMYQuinn Maretzki 38 Yd Field Goal 23–3
- Q2 2:31AFMatthew Dapore 30 Yd Field Goal 20–3
- Q2 13:14ARMYQuinn Maretzki 40 Yd Field Goal 20–0
- Q1 1:53ARMYBryson Daily 5 Yd Run (Quinn Maretzki Kick)17–0
- Q1 9:42ARMYQuinn Maretzki 45 Yd Field Goal 10–0
- Q1 13:06ARMYBryson Daily 62 Yd Run (Quinn Maretzki Kick)7–0
How the model called it
- PassBryson Daily 4/9, 40 YDS
- RushBryson Daily 36 CAR, 170 YDS, 2 TD
- RecTyrell Robinson 1 REC, 23 YDS
- PassZac Larrier 9/22, 93 YDS, 2 INT
- RushZac Larrier 20 CAR, 45 YDS
- RecWyatt Wilson 3 REC, 47 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsARMY up 20 entering the 4th quarter. Across 816 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q1 1:53ARMY +24%
Bryson Daily run for 5 yds for a TD (Quinn Maretzki KICK)
- Q1 13:06ARMY +11%
Bryson Daily run for 62 yds for a TD (Quinn Maretzki KICK)
- Q2 13:14ARMY +10%
Quinn Maretzki 40 yd FG GOOD
- Q2 8:02ARMY +9%
Bryson Daily pass complete to Noah Short for 1 yd to the ARMY 29
- Q2 0:00ARMY +8%
Quinn Maretzki 38 yd FG GOOD
- Q1 9:42ARMY +7%
Quinn Maretzki 45 yd FG GOOD
FAQ
What was the final score of Army vs. Air Force?
Army 23, Air Force 3.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked AF, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| ARMY | AF | |
|---|---|---|
| 253 | Total yards | 259 |
| 40 | Passing yards | 104 |
| 213 | Rushing yards | 155 |
| 11 | First downs | 19 |
| 4-14 | 3rd down | 5-14 |
| 1-2 | 4th down | 0-2 |
| 4/9 | Comp/Att | 10/24 |
| 4.4 | Yards per pass | 4.3 |
| 4.2 | Yards per rush | 3.9 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 6 |
| 11-119 | Penalties | 6-55 |
| 32:09 | Possession | 27:51 |
Costliest call
Q4 6:45 ARMY punt on 4th & 3 at AF 44. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.96 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q2 0:00ARMYQuinn Maretzki 38 Yd Field Goal 23–3
- Q2 2:31AFMatthew Dapore 30 Yd Field Goal 20–3
- Q2 13:14ARMYQuinn Maretzki 40 Yd Field Goal 20–0
- Q1 1:53ARMYBryson Daily 5 Yd Run (Quinn Maretzki Kick)17–0
- Q1 9:42ARMYQuinn Maretzki 45 Yd Field Goal 10–0
- Q1 13:06ARMYBryson Daily 62 Yd Run (Quinn Maretzki Kick)7–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (AF Elo 1769, ARMY Elo 1255 for reference), on a neutral field. That projects AF -20.6 (91% to win) — 2.6 points clear of AF's market line of -18. 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 — 2023
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles#9 of 117 in 2023 by biggest miss · #10 of 127 in 2023 by longest odds · #16 of 51 in 2023 by biggest poll gap.
The 2023 upset archive →Air Force leads 38–21–1 · Army has won 3 straight · 27% have been one-possession games
| ARMY | AF | |
|---|---|---|
| -15.8 (#111) | CORE overall | +7.4 (#39) |
| -7 / +9 | offense / defense | +5 / -3 |
| 1.59 | points / drive | 2.50 |
| 2.22 | allowed / drive | 1.76 |
| 29% | three-and-outs | 27% |
| -25 | pass over expected | -31 |
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 →