St. Thomas (MN) vs. Lindenwood: Final Score & Recap

ReplayCommandBoxAnalyticsMatchup

St. Thomas (MN)1-2

00

Lindenwood0-1

▸0064

Final

Hunter Stadium

	1	2	3	4	T
ST.	0	0	0	0	0
LIND	7	35	16	6	64

ST. Team statsLIND

148Total yards543

41Pass264

107Rush279

9First downs27

1-133rd down3-10

3Turnovers0

28:50Possession31:10

Scoring plays

• Q4 4:52LINDLogan Seibert 46 Yd Field Goal 0–64
• Q4 14:20LINDLogan Seibert 32 Yd Field Goal 0–61
• Q3 4:51LINDRobert Giaimo 19 Yd Run (Logan Seibert PAT failed)0–58
• Q3 6:27LINDJeff Caldwell 29 Yd pass from Nate Glantz (Logan Seibert Kick)0–52
• Q3 10:40LINDLogan Seibert 42 Yd Field Goal 0–45
• Q2 0:07LINDNate Glantz 2 Yd Run (Logan Seibert Kick)0–42
• Q2 3:03LINDJeff Caldwell 93 Yd pass from Nate Glantz (Logan Seibert Kick)0–35
• Q2 8:48LINDCortezz Jones 48 Yd Run (Logan Seibert Kick)0–28
• Q2 11:19LINDNate Glantz 16 Yd Run (Logan Seibert Kick)0–21
• Q2 14:50LINDCortezz Jones 51 Yd Run (Logan Seibert Kick)0–14
• Q1 8:30LINDLuke Cook 0 Yd Return of Blocked Punt (Logan Seibert Kick)0–7

How the model called it

Market line

LIND −4.5

Against the number

LIND covered

line LIND −4.5

Win probability

ours solid · ESPN dashed

LIND 100%50%ST. 100%

Kickoff141 plays →Final

Tap or hover on the chart to see play details

LIND (top)ST. (bottom)· colored dots = scoresFinal: LIND 100%

How the line closed

model vs market

Closing line

LIND −4.5

Closing total

47.5

Model line

—

Actual result

ST. 0 – 64 LIND

Leaders

St. Thomas (MN)

• PassMichael Rostberg 3/12, 23 YDS, 2 INT
• RushJoseph Koch 13 CAR, 41 YDS
• RecColin Chase 1 REC, 15 YDS

Lindenwood

• PassNate Glantz 13/18, 228 YDS, 2 TD
• RushCortezz Jones 10 CAR, 152 YDS, 2 TD
• RecJeff Caldwell 5 REC, 153 YDS, 2 TD

Tempo

what this pace leaves on the clock

28.1sper snap · slower the national 24.5s

fastnational avgslow

Snaps run

123

Points / snap

0.52

This exact spot, historically

empirical, no ratings

LIND up 58 entering the 4th quarter. Across 77 historically comparable game states (within ±3 pts and ±5 min, from 3,056 games):

100%

LIND went on to win

A near-lock historically

Most comparable games

WJackson State vs Lane College58-7WOle Miss vs Mercer73-7WCoastal Carolina vs Duquesne66-7WDavidson vs Laurinburg84-6WArkansas-Pine Bluff vs Little Rock59-0

Fourth downs

18 calls

ST. gave up 1.3 points to the model on fourth down.ST. 7/10 · LIND 4/7 agreed

FAQ

What was the final score of St. Thomas (MN) vs. Lindenwood?

St. Thomas (MN) 0, Lindenwood 64.

Did Gridpex's model pick hit?

Yes — the model's pick (LIND) was correct.

Situational splits

what the averages hide

ST.

LIND

26%

Success rate

46%

-0.38

EPA / pass

0.69

-0.15

EPA / rush

0.19

32%

Early-down success

47%

13%

Pass success

48%

36%

Rush success

44%

6%

Explosive play rate (15+ yds)

16%

29%

Stuffed rush rate

23%

44%

Pass rate

37%

7.6

Avg 3rd-down distance

9.2

ST.

7.6 yards to go on 3rd down

55 scrimmage snaps

LIND

9.2 yards to go on 3rd down

68 scrimmage snaps

Team stats

the basics, from ESPN

ST.		LIND
148	Total yards	543
41	Passing yards	264
107	Rushing yards	279
9	First downs	27
1-13	3rd down	3-10
0-1	4th down	1-1
8/22	Comp/Att	17/23
1.9	Yards per pass	11.5
3.2	Yards per rush	6.6
3	Turnovers	0
3-27	Penalties	3-30
28:50	Possession	31:10

Fourth downs

18 calls

ST.

7/10 with the model

−1.3 pts · −0.0% win prob

LIND

4/7 with the model

−1.1 pts · −0.0% win prob

Costliest call

Q1 8:30 ST. punt on 4th & 2 at ST. 13. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.57 points.

Every call, priced (18)

Drive chart

every possession, start to finish

ST. 1/15 scoring drives← own end zone →LIND 10/14 scoring drives

ST. PUNT5 pl, 10 yds· own 25Q1

LINDPUNT3 pl, 6 yds· own 47Q1

ST. TD3 pl, 95 yds· own 5Q1

ST. INT3 pl, 4 yds· own 25Q1

LINDPUNT4 pl, -9 yds· opp 30Q1

ST. PUNT5 pl, 19 yds· own 20Q1

LINDTD6 pl, 76 yds· own 24Q1

ST. END1 pl, 0 yds· own 11Q2

ST. PUNT3 pl, 2 yds· own 25Q2

LINDTD6 pl, 62 yds· own 38Q2

ST. DOWNS4 pl, 9 yds· midfieldQ2

LINDTD2 pl, 59 yds· own 41Q2

ST. PUNT9 pl, 37 yds· own 21Q2

LINDTD2 pl, 97 yds· own 3Q2

ST. PUNT3 pl, -1 yds· own 25Q2

LINDTD11 pl, 73 yds· own 27Q2

LINDTD1 pl, 19 yds· opp 19Q3

LINDFG10 pl, 40 yds· own 35Q3

ST. PUNT5 pl, 20 yds· own 23Q3

LINDTD4 pl, 54 yds· own 46Q3

ST. PUNT3 pl, 3 yds· own 37Q3

ST. INT3 pl, 22 yds· own 7Q3

LINDFG8 pl, 17 yds· opp 32Q3

ST. PUNT3 pl, 0 yds· own 25Q4

LINDPUNT5 pl, 15 yds· own 26Q4

ST. FUM2 pl, 10 yds· own 31Q4

LINDFG5 pl, 10 yds· opp 39Q4

ST. PUNT3 pl, 7 yds· own 25Q4

LINDUncateg5 pl, 33 yds· own 26Q4

Scoring plays

• Q4 4:52LINDLogan Seibert 46 Yd Field Goal 0–64
• Q4 14:20LINDLogan Seibert 32 Yd Field Goal 0–61
• Q3 4:51LINDRobert Giaimo 19 Yd Run (Logan Seibert PAT failed)0–58
• Q3 6:27LINDJeff Caldwell 29 Yd pass from Nate Glantz (Logan Seibert Kick)0–52
• Q3 10:40LINDLogan Seibert 42 Yd Field Goal 0–45
• Q2 0:07LINDNate Glantz 2 Yd Run (Logan Seibert Kick)0–42
• Q2 3:03LINDJeff Caldwell 93 Yd pass from Nate Glantz (Logan Seibert Kick)0–35
• Q2 8:48LINDCortezz Jones 48 Yd Run (Logan Seibert Kick)0–28
• Q2 11:19LINDNate Glantz 16 Yd Run (Logan Seibert Kick)0–21
• Q2 14:50LINDCortezz Jones 51 Yd Run (Logan Seibert Kick)0–14
• Q1 8:30LINDLuke Cook 0 Yd Return of Blocked Punt (Logan Seibert Kick)0–7

Model prediction

how the number is built

One or both teams lack a power rating (often an FCS opponent), so the model prediction is low-confidence for this game.

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 →