Sacramento State vs. Fresno State: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
SACTeam statsFRES
- Q4 7:09FRESManaki Watanabe 28 Yd Field Goal 3–49
- Q3 2:43FRESBryson Donelson 56 Yd Run (Manaki Watanabe Kick)3–46
- Q3 4:50SACGrant Meadors 35 Yd Field Goal 3–39
- Q3 9:02FRESBryson Donelson 5 Yd Run (Manaki Watanabe Kick)0–39
- Q2 0:00FRESManaki Watanabe 51 Yd Field Goal 0–32
- Q2 1:28FRESBryson Donelson 11 Yd Run (Manaki Watanabe Kick)0–29
- Q2 6:19FRESJayden Mandal 1 Yd Run (Manaki Watanabe Kick)0–22
- Q2 11:58FRESEzekiel Avit 73 Yd pass from Jayden Mandal (Jayden Mandal Pass to Gavin Correia for Two-Point Conversion)0–15
- Q2 14:53FRESRayshon Luke 18 Yd pass from Jayden Mandal (Manaki Watanabe Kick)0–7
How it was won
Avit 73‑yard TD
Second-quarter 73-yard pass from Jayden Mandal to Ezekiel Avit swung win chance by 14 points, turning a 0‑7 deficit into a 15‑0 lead.
Second‑quarter efficiency
Fresno State stayed on schedule on 51% of plays and added 0.53 EPA per pass, while Sacramento’s 42% success rate and 0.17 EPA per pass left them chasing.
Mandal's passing
Jayden Mandal completed 23 of 26 passes for 316 yards and two touchdowns, driving the offense that never looked back.
Sacramento 4th‑down punt
Sacramento’s decision to punt on 4th‑and‑1 at its own 60 cost an estimated 1.09 points, a missed chance to stay competitive.
How the model called it
Fresno State was shut out at USC without the backs and receivers projected to carry it, and now meets the game's most lopsided defensive edge.
Fresno State is favored by 18.2 at home and grades five points the better team — two facts that do not fit together. Sacramento State's defense against Fresno State's offense is the most lopsided matchup anywhere on this field, 2.68 standard deviations toward the visitor, and nothing else in the game comes close to it. A team that was shut out eight days ago now has to solve the one unit least likely to let it breathe.
Cumulative margin after each quarter. Above the line = SAC ahead, below = FRES ahead.
Play-by-play win probability isn't available for this game — scoreboard margin by quarter shown instead.
- PassJackson Sharman 15/31, 150 YDS, 1 INT
- RushJamar Curtis 9 CAR, 48 YDS
- RecOnterrio Smith Jr. 4 REC, 66 YDS
- PassJayden Mandal 23/26, 316 YDS, 2 TD
- RushBryson Donelson 13 CAR, 102 YDS, 3 TD
- RecEzekiel Avit 2 REC, 103 YDS, 1 TD
FAQ
What was the final score of Sacramento State vs. Fresno State?
Sacramento State 3, Fresno State 49.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (FRES) was correct.
| SAC | FRES | |
|---|---|---|
| 262 | Total yards | 542 |
| 150 | Passing yards | 349 |
| 112 | Rushing yards | 193 |
| 16 | First downs | 26 |
| 3-13 | 3rd down | 4-8 |
| 1-4 | 4th down | 0-1 |
| 15/31 | Comp/Att | 26/30 |
| 4.8 | Yards per pass | 11.6 |
| 3.3 | Yards per rush | 5.8 |
| 1 | Turnovers | 0 |
| 7-60 | Penalties | 4-35 |
| 28:47 | Possession | 31:13 |
- Q4 7:09FRESManaki Watanabe 28 Yd Field Goal 3–49
- Q3 2:43FRESBryson Donelson 56 Yd Run (Manaki Watanabe Kick)3–46
- Q3 4:50SACGrant Meadors 35 Yd Field Goal 3–39
- Q3 9:02FRESBryson Donelson 5 Yd Run (Manaki Watanabe Kick)0–39
- Q2 0:00FRESManaki Watanabe 51 Yd Field Goal 0–32
- Q2 1:28FRESBryson Donelson 11 Yd Run (Manaki Watanabe Kick)0–29
- Q2 6:19FRESJayden Mandal 1 Yd Run (Manaki Watanabe Kick)0–22
- Q2 11:58FRESEzekiel Avit 73 Yd pass from Jayden Mandal (Jayden Mandal Pass to Gavin Correia for Two-Point Conversion)0–15
- Q2 14:53FRESRayshon Luke 18 Yd pass from Jayden Mandal (Manaki Watanabe Kick)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (FRES Elo 1449, SAC Elo 1476 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects FRES -5.7 (63% to win) — 12.8 points clear of SAC's market line of -18.5. 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 1 · through week 1 · drive simulation
Season form — 2026
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles| SAC | FRES | |
|---|---|---|
| -20.4 (#131) | CORE overall | -3.0 (#80) |
| -14 / +7 | offense / defense | -2 / +1 |
| 0.59 | points / drive | 2.16 |
| 2.75 | allowed / drive | 2.00 |
| 36% | three-and-outs | 21% |
| +14 | pass over expected | +1 |
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.
Sacramento State's defense is the best unit on this field
Fresno State was shut out at USC without the backs and receivers projected to carry it, and now meets the game's most lopsided defensive edge.
The range of outcomes for this game. Each bar is how often the final margin lands in that range — the more it leans toward Fresno State, the more likely Fresno State wins.
Fresno State has to win first down before it wins anything
The edge is not just an aggregate number. Staying on schedule tilts 2.58 standard deviations toward Sacramento State and short-yardage power tilts 1.55 the same way, which describes a defense that wins first down and then wins the down after it. Sacramento State has allowed 14.0 points a game across its two starts. Against a front built that way, an offense does not lose in chunks — it lives in third-and-long and punts from midfield.
That is precisely how Fresno State lost at USC: 13.6 yards per drive across 10 possessions, a three-and-out on 60 percent of them, and a 0-39 final. One road trip is thin evidence and the projection still leans on the preseason baseline. But the failure mode on display — no first downs, no field position, no chance to script anything — is the exact outcome Sacramento State's on-schedule edge is built to force.
Points allowed per drive across all FBS defenses (lower is better). Sacramento State's defense is around the middle of the pack nationally.
The Fresno State offense projected here has not taken a snap
Every skill player projected to carry Fresno State on Saturday has yet to appear this season. Rayshon Luke, who played 13 games a year ago, projects for 28 to 80 rushing yards with a 37 percent chance of a touchdown against a run defense that ranks 53rd of 185 in what it allows. Bryson Donelson projects 34 to 56 with a 32 percent touchdown chance. Both bands are modest, and both run straight into the sturdier half of Sacramento State's front.
The receiving picture is thinner. Josiah Freeman, the likeliest target, projects 25 to 78 yards with a 38 percent touchdown chance against a pass defense ranked 26th of 185. Jahlil McClain projects 13 to 41, Ezekiel Avit 14 to 35. Not one Fresno State pass catcher is banded above 78 yards, which means points have to come from stacking possessions and finishing in the red zone, not from any single receiver beating his coverage.
Carson Conklin is aimed at the one soft spot in the game
Sacramento State's clean advantage is in the air, 1.64 standard deviations, and it points at a Fresno State pass defense ranked 180th of 185 in what it surrenders. Carson Conklin projects 174 to 330 passing yards. That band is enormous by design — he has one game of record and no prior-season book behind him — so the honest claim is a wide range fired at a soft secondary rather than any confident number.
The ground game runs the other way. Fresno State holds a 1.36-standard-deviation edge there, and Isaiah Ene (25 to 60 rushing yards) and Jamar Curtis (25 to 61) are banded like a committee rather than a lead back. So the scoring has to route through Conklin. Matthew Coleman projects 25 to 76 receiving yards, Raiden Brown 23 to 69, Onterrio Smith Jr. 16 to 48 — distribution rather than a target hog, aimed at the weak spot.
Each unit matchup this season, sorted by how decisive it is — the top bar is what most tilts the game. Bars toward Fresno State are battles it should win; toward Sacramento State are ones Sacramento State wins.
The 46-30 rematch was won by a version of this team that has not shown up
Fresno State won the 2024 meeting in this building 46-30, and that is real evidence rather than a projection. It is also evidence about a 9-4 team that averaged 25.8 points a game. This season's team is 0-1 and has been outscored 0-39. Luke, Freeman and Donelson are all still listed from that group, but none of them has produced anything yet, and 46-30 was hung up by an offense that had already proven it could.
Sacramento State's own 52-0 win over Mississippi Valley State deserves less credit than the scoreboard implies. Sacramento State scored on 53.3 percent of 15 drives and gained 31.9 yards per drive, but went three-and-out on 46.7 percent of them, nearly half the possessions ended without a first down, against overmatched opposition. That is an offense that finished the drives it sustained and stalled on the rest, and Fresno State's defense is a clear step up from what produced those splits.
Each ingredient of our projection and the side it favors — bars toward Fresno State are why it's the pick (home field is counted separately).
Fresno State's Case starts with the building
Hosting is worth real points here, the projected skill group returns from a 9-4 season, and Luke, Donelson and Freeman all carry meaningful touchdown equity in a game whose total sits at 45.8 with the under given only a 28 percent chance. Fresno State remains a 64 percent favorite to win. The path is a normal one: get bodies back on the field, play at home, and let a returning backfield do what a shut-out road offense could not.
The checkpoint is Sacramento State's run defense, 53rd of 185 in what it allows, not elite, but firmly on the right side of average, with Fresno State's short-yardage power grading 1.55 standard deviations behind it. An offense that cannot convert third-and-2 never gets to cash the touchdown probabilities attached to Luke and Donelson, however reasonable those numbers look sitting on their own in a projection table.
What each side actually has to do
Sacramento State wins this outright by making it a throwing game and refusing to hand the ball back. Conklin at the top of his band, 330 yards, against a secondary ranked 180th of 185 is the version where 26 projected points turns into more than that. The defense has to hold serve on early downs so that Fresno State's returning backs never reach third-and-short, which is where their touchdown chances actually live.
Fresno State needs the offense from the last meeting: Luke and Donelson moving the pile against a run defense 53rd of 185, and Freeman winning enough one-on-ones to keep drives alive past the first two snaps. The projection lands 31-26, which is a home win and an uncomfortable evening for an 18.2-point favorite. The team that decides this game plays defense, and it is wearing the visiting jerseys.
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 →