Rutgers vs. Boston College: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
RUTGTeam statsBC
- Q4 6:18RUTGKJ Duff 60 Yd pass from AJ Surace (Dane Pizzaro Kick)21–28
- Q4 7:06BCDawson Pough 78 Yd pass from Mason McKenzie (Mason McKenzie Pass to Johnathan Montague Jr. for Two-Point Conversion)14–28
- Q3 2:37RUTGKJ Duff 4 Yd pass from AJ Surace (Dane Pizzaro Kick)14–20
- Q2 0:00BCLuca Lombardo 46 Yd Field Goal 7–20
- Q2 1:55RUTGAntwan Raymond 4 Yd pass from AJ Surace (Dane Pizzaro Kick)7–17
- Q2 13:33BCLuca Lombardo 30 Yd Field Goal 0–17
- Q1 5:15BCMason McKenzie 10 Yd Run (Luca Lombardo Kick)0–14
- Q1 10:42BCEvan Dickens 19 Yd Run (Luca Lombardo Kick)0–7
How it was won
Efficiency gap
Rutgers posted a 42.9% success rate versus Boston College's 37.7%, yet Boston College still prevailed.
Questionable 4th‑down
Rutgers' 4th‑and‑4 at BC 27, which the model advised to kick, cost about 0.07 points.
Boston College forced three turnovers while Rutgers had four, and BC outgained them 402‑384 yards.
Betting line
Boston College was a 3‑point favorite and covered, winning by seven as the game finished under the 53.5 total.
How the model called it
Rutgers holds the clear mismatch in chunk plays. Boston College's edge is everything that happens between them: short yardage, the run, home field.
Rutgers walks into Chestnut Hill with the biggest edge on the field and is still the underdog. It can hit chunk plays against a Boston College defense that sits 153rd of 185 by what it surrenders on the ground. The visitors own the highlight, the hosts own the ground between the 20s. Boston College projects to 28-25.
Cumulative margin after each quarter. Above the line = RUTG ahead, below = BC ahead.
Play-by-play win probability isn't available for this game — scoreboard margin by quarter shown instead.
- PassAJ Surace 18/27, 230 YDS, 3 TD, 4 INT
- RushAntwan Raymond 27 CAR, 134 YDS
- RecKJ Duff 8 REC, 137 YDS, 2 TD
- PassMason McKenzie 18/29, 252 YDS, 1 TD, 2 INT
- RushMason McKenzie 13 CAR, 94 YDS, 1 TD
- RecDawson Pough 4 REC, 106 YDS, 1 TD
FAQ
What was the final score of Rutgers vs. Boston College?
Rutgers 21, Boston College 28.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked RUTG, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| RUTG | BC | |
|---|---|---|
| 384 | Total yards | 402 |
| 230 | Passing yards | 252 |
| 154 | Rushing yards | 150 |
| 19 | First downs | 18 |
| 4-12 | 3rd down | 4-12 |
| 2-5 | 4th down | 1-1 |
| 18/27 | Comp/Att | 18/29 |
| 8.5 | Yards per pass | 8.7 |
| 3.8 | Yards per rush | 4.7 |
| 4 | Turnovers | 3 |
| 5-40 | Penalties | 4-28 |
| 34:32 | Possession | 25:28 |
- Q4 6:18RUTGKJ Duff 60 Yd pass from AJ Surace (Dane Pizzaro Kick)21–28
- Q4 7:06BCDawson Pough 78 Yd pass from Mason McKenzie (Mason McKenzie Pass to Johnathan Montague Jr. for Two-Point Conversion)14–28
- Q3 2:37RUTGKJ Duff 4 Yd pass from AJ Surace (Dane Pizzaro Kick)14–20
- Q2 0:00BCLuca Lombardo 46 Yd Field Goal 7–20
- Q2 1:55RUTGAntwan Raymond 4 Yd pass from AJ Surace (Dane Pizzaro Kick)7–17
- Q2 13:33BCLuca Lombardo 30 Yd Field Goal 0–17
- Q1 5:15BCMason McKenzie 10 Yd Run (Luca Lombardo Kick)0–14
- Q1 10:42BCEvan Dickens 19 Yd Run (Luca Lombardo Kick)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (BC Elo 1379, RUTG Elo 1372 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects BC +5.2 (37% to win) — 8.2 points clear of RUTG's market line of -3. 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 — 2026
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profilesBoston College leads 20–7–1 · 36% have been one-possession games
| RUTG | BC | |
|---|---|---|
| -10.9 (#112) | CORE overall | -5.8 (#91) |
| +1 / +12 | offense / defense | -4 / +2 |
| 1.75 | points / drive | 1.27 |
| 3.70 | allowed / drive | 3.40 |
| 50% | three-and-outs | 0% |
| +14 | pass over expected | -7 |
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.
Half of Rutgers's drives died in three plays
Rutgers holds the clear mismatch in chunk plays. Boston College's edge is everything that happens between them: short yardage, the run, home field.
Rutgers wins
The range of outcomes for this game. Each bar is how often the final margin lands in that range — the more it leans toward Boston College, the more likely Boston College wins.
Rutgers's advantage arrives in bursts
The explosive-play gap is the widest mismatch in this matchup, and it belongs to the team getting points. Antwan Raymond projects for 58 to 157 rushing yards with a 68% chance of a touchdown against that soft front. The band is wide for a reason: he either breaks two runs and swings the afternoon, or he gets 58 yards on a lot of carries and Rutgers punts.
KJ Duff, 61 to 119 receiving yards with a 44% touchdown chance, is the second lever, and Ja'shon Benjamin's 18 to 50 rushing yards says the backfield work is not split evenly. Rutgers scored 28.7 points a game last season against Boston College's 25.4, and that gap was built on plays that finish quickly rather than on drives that grind.
An offense shaped that way carries a hidden condition: it needs possessions. Every chunk play is a coin that has to be flipped, and a team that leaves the field in three snaps does not flip it enough times. Rutgers's floor showed up eight days ago in a way the season-long grades do not capture.
The Massachusetts loss was a floor problem, not a ceiling problem
At home against Massachusetts, Rutgers went three-and-out on 50.0% of its drives, averaged 28.8 yards per possession and scored on 25.0% of 12. A 21-37 loss in that shape is not only a defensive failure. An offense that surrenders the ball after three snaps half the time hands the opponent field position and clock, and no big-play edge survives that arrangement.
Rutgers went 5-7 last year with an offense that worked while Boston College went 2-10. The failure mode matters most on the road, where a stalled first quarter turns into a crowd and a two-score hole before the explosive plays ever get their chance.
Boston College moved the ball at Cincinnati and could not finish
Boston College went three-and-out on just 9.1% of 11 drives at Cincinnati and gained 37.0 yards per possession, then scored on 18.2% of them. A 15-34 loss with those drive numbers is a finishing problem, and finishing problems are the fixable kind. The Rutgers version, drives ending before they begin, is not.
The two matchups Boston College wins most clearly point the same direction: short-yardage power and the run game both grade in its favor against this Rutgers defense. That is a team built to convert on third-and-two, keep the chains moving in four-yard increments, and remove Rutgers's explosive plays by the simplest method available — not giving Rutgers the football.
Each unit matchup this season, sorted by how decisive it is — the top bar is what most tilts the game. Bars toward Boston College are battles it should win; toward Rutgers are ones Rutgers wins.
Boston College also grades ahead through the air against a Rutgers secondary ranked 141st of 185 by what it allows, but the projected receiving production is modest: Dawson Pough at 19 to 41 yards, Kaelan Chudzinski at 14 to 46 with a 32% touchdown chance. Those are chain-movers, not score-changers.
Rutgers's secondary is soft everywhere except deep
That shapes the whole afternoon
Rutgers grades ahead in exactly one defensive category: explosive passing. So the quickest way out of a long field, a shot over the top, is the thing Boston College is least equipped to take here. Pair that with a run defense Rutgers does not win and the result is long, methodical Boston College possessions: many snaps, few disasters, the Cincinnati profile with the stalls removed.
Neither defense arrives with credibility. Rutgers gave up 37.0 points last week, Boston College 34.0. The two failures are different animals. Rutgers gets bled slowly. Boston College gives up ground on first down to a running back who can turn one crease into seven points, which is why the underdog's variance is higher in both directions.
How far each factor swings the win probability when it breaks one way vs the other. The top bar is the X-factor — the thing most worth watching.
Rutgers's path is fewer drives, bigger ones
The upset case does not require Rutgers to be the better team. It requires four or five possessions that end in the end zone instead of a punt: Raymond breaking a long one against a front ranked 153rd of 185 on the ground, Duff clearing the top of a coverage once, and the three-and-out rate falling back to something ordinary. That path is narrow, and it does not depend on winning the line of scrimmage.
The cover splits evenly at 3.5, which is the honest read on a home favorite that managed 15.0 points in its opener against an opponent whose own offense left the field in three snaps half the time. Boston College is the side to lean on at 58%.
What has to happen
Boston College needs the game to be about possession length: convert short yardage, run at a defense that cannot stop it, keep the possession count low so a couple of Rutgers explosives are not enough. Rutgers needs the opposite. More snaps, early-down stops that push Boston College into throws it does not do well, and Raymond near the top of his range rather than the bottom.
Each ingredient of our projection and the side it favors — bars toward Boston College are why it's the pick (home field is counted separately).
The projection puts the under at about a 36% chance, so expect points, and points favor the team that needs variance. Boston College wins this by making it boring. Rutgers wins it by making sure the game only has a handful of drives in it and taking three of them the distance.
Our coverage of 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 →