Sacramento State Hornets at Cal State Fullerton Titans: Model Line and Edge

Thu, Dec 3, 10:00 PM ETTitan Gym · at Fullerton · Conference game

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Sacramento St and Fullerton
SAC	This season	CSUF
0-0	Record	0-0
0-0	ATS	0-0
0-0	O/U	0-0

ATS = covered-didn’t-push · O/U = overs-unders

Model: projects SAC 80–78 · win probability SAC 55%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 157.9

Model edge

—

No market line yet

Public

—

No split yet for this game

The model has not beaten the closing line: with an edge of 3 or more it went 409-367 in 2025-26. Model record

What could decide it: CSUF has more of the edges

SAC 1, CSUF 4 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

SACBig

SAC offense vs CSUF defense

Offense 146th of 366 against a defense 344th, on the model’s ratings

CSUFSmall

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: SAC 25.2%, CSUF 24.6%. Defensive: SAC 66.6%, CSUF 71.7%

CSUFSmall

Three-pointers

SAC hits 31.9% and allows 35.1%; CSUF hits 34.2% and allows 34.0%. Threes are 35.6% and 43.1% of their shots

CSUFSmall

Shooting

Effective FG%: SAC 47.0 and allows 55.0; CSUF 51.4 and allows 54.3

Context

Schedule so far

SAC has played the 248th-hardest schedule, CSUF the 164th. A record against a soft schedule means less

CSUFSmall

Home court

CSUF at home. This season: CSUF 0-0 at home, SAC 0-0 away

Even

Turnovers

Turnover rate: SAC 14.1%, CSUF 15.3%. Forced: SAC 17.1%, CSUF 19.4%

Even

Free throws

Free throw rate: SAC 41.2, CSUF 37.8. Allowed: SAC 36.2, CSUF 35.3

Context

Tempo

About 74 possessions: SAC plays 72.6 a game (24th fastest), CSUF 75.5 (3rd). Faster games mean more points

Even

CSUF offense vs SAC defense

Offense 272nd of 366 against a defense 262nd, on the model’s ratings

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: SAC 42%, CSUF 39%. Transfers in: SAC 6, CSUF 1. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Sorted by how lopsided each matchup is, from national ranks. Reasons to look, not picks: the market already knows most of this.

Model vs market

	Market	Model	Model edge
Spread	—	SAC -1.5	—
Total	—	157.9	—
Projected score	—	SAC 79.7 · CSUF 78.2

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	SAC -1.0	—
1H total	73.8	—
1H projected score	SAC 37.4 · CSUF 36.4	—

The 1st-half model is fitted from the full-game model and past halves. ESPN has no 1st-half lines for college games, so there is no market to compare it with.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

ATS

2025-26 season

	Season	Cover	Venue	Role
SAC LLLWL	12-16	43%	4-12	—
CSUF WWWWL	19-12	61%	8-4	—

Venue/role: SAC away; CSUF home. Squares: last 5 games ATS (W covered, L didn’t), oldest first.

Totals

2025-26 season

	O-U	Over %	SU
SAC OUUUU	15-13	54%	7-21
CSUF OUUUU	13-18	42%	16-16

Squares: last 5 games (O over, U under), oldest first. Tap for the score and line.

Last 10 games

2025-26

	Straight up	Spread	Over / under
SAC	2-8 20%	3-7 30%	4-6 40%
CSUF	7-3 70%	7-3 70%	4-6 40%

Wins-losses (pushes last). Spread and over / under skip games without a line.

Next 3 games

With how the last meeting with each opponent went

Sacramento St

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 5	@ UVU	No recent meeting
Dec 13	vs PEPP	No recent meeting

Fullerton

Date	Game	Last meeting
Dec 5	vs LBSU	W86–82WO
Dec 10	@ IDST	W62–61LU
Dec 12	@ BYU	No recent meeting

Last meeting: result, against the spread, over / under. Hover a result for its date.

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

SAC 0–2 CSUFCSUF leads · 2 games since 2021-22 · CSUF has won the last 2 meetings · SAC 0-2 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Dec 9, 2023-24	CSUF 62 @ SAC 60	SAC -1.5	CSUF W
Dec 21, 2022-23	SAC 49 @ CSUF 59	CSUF -3.5	CSUF W

ATS History · 2025-26

WwinLloss·Wats winLats lossPpush·Owent over the totalUwent under the total

Sacramento St

28 games played

Straight up

7-21

25% wins

Against the spread

12-16

43% covers · avg 0 pts vs the line

Over / Under

15-13

54% overs · avg +1.6 pts vs the total

Straight up

7-2125%

L L W L L L L L L L L L W W L L W W W L L L L L L L W L

1 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

12-1643%

W W L L L L W W L L L L W W W L W W W W L L L L L L W L

1 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

15-1354%

O U U U O U O U O O O O U O O U O O O U O U O O U U U U

4 straight unders0 of last 4 over

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

Lines, results and totalsCover margin by game · points beyond the lineTotal margin by game · points over or under the total

Date	Opp	Result	Line	ATS	Total	O/U
Nov 11	vsUCSB	L 87-92	+7.5	W +2.5	161.5	O 179
Nov 14	@UCD	L 73-77	+4.5	W +0.5	151.5	U 150
Nov 16	vsPRES	W 64-62	-6.5	L −4.5	150.5	U 126
Nov 18	@UCLA	L 48-79	+27.5	L −3.5	146.5	U 127
Nov 21	@CAL	L 67-91	+21.5	L −2.5	154.5	O 158
Nov 29	@PAC	L 54-68	+10.5	L −3.5	146.5	U 122
Dec 2	@BAY	L 88-110	+29.5	W +7.5	158.5	O 198
Dec 20	@CBU	L 67-74	+14.5	W +7.5	158.5	U 141
Dec 22	@CSUN	L 88-100	+8.5	L −3.5	164.5	O 188
Jan 1	@IDST	L 84-97	+8.5	L −4.5	153.5	O 181
Jan 3	@WEB	L 82-95	+6.5	L −6.5	168.5	O 177
Jan 10	@PRST	L 69-96	+9.5	L −17.5	160.5	O 165
Jan 15	vsNAU	W 83-69	-1.5	W +12.5	153.5	U 152
Jan 17	vsUNCO	W 93-89	+6.5	W +10.5	163.5	O 182
Jan 22	@IDHO	L 76-86	+10.5	W +0.5	161.5	O 162
Jan 24	@EWU	L 67-75	+5.5	L −2.5	163.5	U 142
Jan 29	vsMTST	W 83-80	+4.5	W +7.5	153.5	O 163
Jan 31	vsMONT	W 86-79	+3.5	W +10.5	155.5	O 165
Feb 2	vsWEB	W 104-90	-1.5	W +12.5	162.5	O 194
Feb 7	vsPRST	L 73-74	+3.5	W +2.5	150.5	U 147
Feb 12	@UNCO	L 79-95	+11.5	L −4.5	164.5	O 174
Feb 14	@NAU	L 74-79	+2.5	L −2.5	154.5	U 153
Feb 19	vsEWU	L 94-102	+2.5	L −5.5	160.5	O 196
Feb 21	vsIDHO	L 80-86	+4.5	L −1.5	163.5	O 166
Feb 26	@MONT	L 73-81	+7.5	L −0.5	161.5	U 154
Feb 28	@MTST	L 61-82	+6.5	L −14.5	158.5	U 143
Mar 2	vsIDST	W 83-65	+1.5	W +19.5	160.5	U 148
Mar 7	vsIDHO	L 45-68	+6.5	L −16.5	158.5	U 113

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

UCSB

L 87-92

+2.5

UCD

L 73-77

+0.5

PRES

W 64-62

−4.5

UCLA

L 48-79

−3.5

CAL

L 67-91

−2.5

PAC

L 54-68

−3.5

BAY

L 88-110

+7.5

CBU

L 67-74

+7.5

CSUN

L 88-100

−3.5

IDST

L 84-97

−4.5

WEB

L 82-95

−6.5

PRST

L 69-96

−17.5

NAU

W 83-69

+12.5

UNCO

W 93-89

+10.5

IDHO

L 76-86

+0.5

EWU

L 67-75

−2.5

MTST

W 83-80

+7.5

MONT

W 86-79

+10.5

WEB

W 104-90

+12.5

PRST

L 73-74

+2.5

UNCO

L 79-95

−4.5

NAU

L 74-79

−2.5

EWU

L 94-102

−5.5

IDHO

L 80-86

−1.5

MONT

L 73-81

−0.5

MTST

L 61-82

−14.5

IDST

W 83-65

+19.5

IDHO

L 45-68

−16.5

covered 12didn’t cover 16avg 0 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

UCSB

L 87-92

+17.5

UCD

L 73-77

−1.5

PRES

W 64-62

−24.5

UCLA

L 48-79

−19.5

CAL

L 67-91

+3.5

PAC

L 54-68

−24.5

BAY

L 88-110

+39.5

CBU

L 67-74

−17.5

CSUN

L 88-100

+23.5

IDST

L 84-97

+27.5

WEB

L 82-95

+8.5

PRST

L 69-96

+4.5

NAU

W 83-69

−1.5

UNCO

W 93-89

+18.5

IDHO

L 76-86

+0.5

EWU

L 67-75

−21.5

MTST

W 83-80

+9.5

MONT

W 86-79

+9.5

WEB

W 104-90

+31.5

PRST

L 73-74

−3.5

UNCO

L 79-95

+9.5

NAU

L 74-79

−1.5

EWU

L 94-102

+35.5

IDHO

L 80-86

+2.5

MONT

L 73-81

−7.5

MTST

L 61-82

−15.5

IDST

W 83-65

−12.5

IDHO

L 45-68

−45.5

over 15under 13avg +1.6 ptslonger = bigger margin

Fullerton

32 games played

Straight up

16-16

50% wins

Against the spread

19-12

61% covers · avg +2.9 pts vs the line

Over / Under

13-18

42% overs · avg +1.4 pts vs the total

Straight up

16-1650%

L L L L W L W L L W L L W L W W L L W W L W W W L W W L W W W L

3 of last 4 wonno streak

Against the spread

19-1261%

W L L L W W W L–W W L W L W W L L W W L W W W L L W W W W W L

3 of last 4 coveredno streak

Over / Under

13-1842%

O U U O O O U O–O O O O U U U U U U U U U U O U O O O U U U U

4 straight unders0 of last 4 over

Game by game: lines, results and totals

TableATSO/U

Lines, results and totalsCover margin by game · points beyond the lineTotal margin by game · points over or under the total

Date	Opp	Result	Line	ATS	Total	O/U
Nov 8	@WYO	L 82-92	+15.5	W +5.5	154.5	O 174
Nov 10	@CAL	L 65-93	+22.5	L −5.5	162.5	U 158
Nov 15	vsPAC	L 73-85	+6.5	L −5.5	159.5	U 158
Nov 21	@PORT	L 85-103	+6.5	L −11.5	164.5	O 188
Nov 22	vsSTMN	W 88-80	+11.5	W +19.5	162.5	O 168
Nov 23	vsUNCO	L 93-97	+8.5	W +4.5	164.5	O 190
Nov 29	vsPEPP	W 83-69	-1.5	W +12.5	161.5	U 152
Dec 4	vsCP	L 91-94	-1.5	L −4.5	177.5	O 185
Dec 6	@HAW	L 59-69	—	—	—	—
Dec 13	@DEN	W 105-86	+3.5	W +22.5	165.5	O 191
Dec 21	@OKST	L 89-94	+19.5	W +14.5	176.5	O 183
Dec 28	@SMU	L 63-110	+21.5	L −25.5	170.5	O 173
Jan 1	vsUCSB	W 95-84	+3.5	W +14.5	155.5	O 179
Jan 3	vsUCI	L 64-86	+3.5	L −18.5	160.5	U 150
Jan 8	@UCSD	W 88-71	+13.5	W +30.5	166.5	U 159
Jan 10	vsCSUN	W 86-79	-1.5	W +5.5	173.5	U 165
Jan 15	@UCD	L 69-74	+3.5	L −1.5	166.5	U 143
Jan 17	@UCR	L 72-81	-3.5	L −12.5	157.5	U 153
Jan 22	vsLBSU	W 71-61	-3.5	W +6.5	160.5	U 132
Jan 24	@CP	W 93-78	-1.5	W +13.5	173.5	U 171
Jan 31	@UCSB	L 69-83	+8.5	L −5.5	153.5	U 152
Feb 5	vsUCR	W 78-72	-5.5	W +0.5	156.5	U 150
Feb 7	vsCSUB	W 82-66	-9.5	W +6.5	157.5	U 148
Feb 12	@LBSU	W 86-82	+2.5	W +6.5	156.5	O 168
Feb 14	@UCI	L 65-86	+7.5	L −13.5	154.5	U 151
Feb 19	vsUCD	W 93-92	-1.5	L −0.5	156.5	O 185
Feb 21	@CSUB	W 88-80	-5.5	W +2.5	160.5	O 168
Feb 28	vsHAW	L 85-87	+3.5	W +1.5	158.5	O 172
Mar 5	vsUCSD	W 75-71	+2.5	W +6.5	156.5	U 146
Mar 7	@CSUN	W 90-77	+5.5	W +18.5	170.5	U 167
Mar 12	vsUCD	W 82-70	-1.5	W +10.5	155.5	U 152
Mar 13	vsHAW	L 63-78	+5.5	L −9.5	157.5	U 141

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

WYO

L 82-92

+5.5

CAL

L 65-93

−5.5

PAC

L 73-85

−5.5

PORT

L 85-103

−11.5

STMN

W 88-80

+19.5

UNCO

L 93-97

+4.5

PEPP

W 83-69

+12.5

L 91-94

−4.5

DEN

W 105-86

+22.5

OKST

L 89-94

+14.5

SMU

L 63-110

−25.5

UCSB

W 95-84

+14.5

UCI

L 64-86

−18.5

UCSD

W 88-71

+30.5

CSUN

W 86-79

+5.5

UCD

L 69-74

−1.5

UCR

L 72-81

−12.5

LBSU

W 71-61

+6.5

W 93-78

+13.5

UCSB

L 69-83

−5.5

UCR

W 78-72

+0.5

CSUB

W 82-66

+6.5

LBSU

W 86-82

+6.5

UCI

L 65-86

−13.5

UCD

W 93-92

−0.5

CSUB

W 88-80

+2.5

HAW

L 85-87

+1.5

UCSD

W 75-71

+6.5

CSUN

W 90-77

+18.5

UCD

W 82-70

+10.5

HAW

L 63-78

−9.5

covered 19didn’t cover 12avg +2.9 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

WYO

L 82-92

+19.5

CAL

L 65-93

−4.5

PAC

L 73-85

−1.5

PORT

L 85-103

+23.5

STMN

W 88-80

+5.5

UNCO

L 93-97

+25.5

PEPP

W 83-69

−9.5

L 91-94

+7.5

DEN

W 105-86

+25.5

OKST

L 89-94

+6.5

SMU

L 63-110

+2.5

UCSB

W 95-84

+23.5

UCI

L 64-86

−10.5

UCSD

W 88-71

−7.5

CSUN

W 86-79

−8.5

UCD

L 69-74

−23.5

UCR

L 72-81

−4.5

LBSU

W 71-61

−28.5

W 93-78

−2.5

UCSB

L 69-83

−1.5

UCR

W 78-72

−6.5

CSUB

W 82-66

−9.5

LBSU

W 86-82

+11.5

UCI

L 65-86

−3.5

UCD

W 93-92

+28.5

CSUB

W 88-80

+7.5

HAW

L 85-87

+13.5

UCSD

W 75-71

−10.5

CSUN

W 90-77

−3.5

UCD

W 82-70

−3.5

HAW

L 63-78

−16.5

over 13under 18avg +1.4 ptslonger = bigger margin

Line = the team’s closing spread (negative = favored). ATS number = points beyond the line; total number = combined points.

Sacramento St has the better starters

Position by position: Sacramento St 3, Fullerton 0, even 2

Sacramento StBetterFullerton

G M. Williams18.1 pts · 2.9 reb · 4.1 ast Score 56

SACSmall

G C. Williams9.4 pts · 3.5 reb · 2.1 ast Score 39

G L. Hughes TR17.9 pts · 2.8 reb · 0.9 ast Score 77

SACBig

G B. Nunn5 pts · 2 reb · 1.3 ast Score 13

G M. Wilson TR12.5 pts · 3.1 reb · 3.9 ast Score 76

SACBig

G D. White2.8 pts · 1.3 reb · 0.3 ast Score 0

G A. Madi7.6 pts · 2.9 reb · 1.5 ast Score 44

No call

G T. Jenkins TR0 pts · 0 reb · 0 ast Not ranked

F O. Grady TR9.7 pts · 5.2 reb · 1.7 ast Score 21

Even

F K. De Luna4.6 pts · 2.5 reb · 0.9 ast Score 7

Sacramento StBetterFullerton

SAC offense146th of 366 · -4.4

SACBig

CSUF defense344th of 366 · -9.2

SAC defense262nd of 366 · -6.8

Even

CSUF offense272nd of 366 · -8.3

Backcourt+0.9 · 4 players

SACBig

Backcourt-6.1 · 4 players

Frontcourt-2.3 · 1 player

Even

Frontcourt-2.1 · 1 player

Bench-3.4 · 5 players

CSUFBig

Bench-0.1 · 1 player

Score, worst to bestSAC betterCSUF betterTR transfer · NEW no Division I numbers

Projected starters: college teams publish no depth chart, so these come from minutes played, and a freshman or a new starter can change them. The score is the share of ranked players at the position that player is ahead of. Numbers are this season's once a player has 30 minutes, 2025-26's before that. Bench is the next five by minutes. Tap a player for the full numbers.

Depth chart

Projected rotation by position, starters outlined

Sacramento St

Guards

M. Williams36 minL. Hughes32 min · TRM. Wilson27 min · TRA. Madi24 minT. Glover14 minR. Robinson11 min

Forwards

O. Grady31 min · TRR. Tutic23 min · TRS. Ciani10 min · TRM. HuntNewG. AsimakopoulosNew

Centers

J. Das Chagas7 min · TR

Fullerton

Guards

C. Williams27 minB. Nunn19 minD. White13 minT. Jenkins3 min · TRM. Quinlan2 minD. McConnellNew

Forwards

K. De Luna18 minR. ReynoldsNew

In order of minutes, from rosters as of today. ESPN lists players only as guards, forwards or centers, and no injury report exists for college basketball, so a player who is out may still show here.

Showing 2025-26 until both teams have played this season.

Matchup stats

2025-26 · rank among 365 teams

ChartTable

Scoring

Points per game

SAC75.9 #144

CSUF80.3 #60

Points per possession

SAC1.05 #258

CSUF1.07 #208

Pace (possessions)

SAC72.6 #24

CSUF75.5 #3

Shooting

Effective FG%

SAC47.0 #337

CSUF51.4 #180

3-point %

SAC31.9 #284

CSUF34.2 #162

3-point attempt rate

SAC35.6 #257

CSUF43.1 #108

Free throw rate

SAC41.2 #41

CSUF37.8 #107

Possessions

Turnover rate

SAC14.1 #26

CSUF15.3 #82

Offensive rebound rate

SAC25.2 #336

CSUF24.6 #345

Assists per game

SAC12.1 #275

CSUF15.0 #85

Defense

Points allowed

SAC83.6 #352

CSUF82.2 #342

Points allowed per possession

SAC1.15 #327

CSUF1.08 #181

Opponent effective FG%

SAC55.0 #331

CSUF54.3 #307

Opponent 3-point %

SAC35.1 #257

CSUF34.0 #185

Turnovers forced

SAC17.1 #140

CSUF19.4 #34

Defensive rebound rate

SAC66.6 #306

CSUF71.7 #80

Steals per game

SAC7.5 #76

CSUF7.9 #45

Blocks per game

SAC2.7 #280

CSUF2.8 #258

SAC		CSUF
Scoring
75.9 #144	Points per game	80.3 #60
1.05 #258	Points per possession	1.07 #208
72.6 #24	Pace (possessions)	75.5 #3
Shooting
47.0 #337	Effective FG%	51.4 #180
31.9 #284	3-point %	34.2 #162
35.6 #257	3-point attempt rate	43.1 #108
41.2 #41	Free throw rate	37.8 #107
Possessions
14.1 #26	Turnover rate	15.3 #82
25.2 #336	Offensive rebound rate	24.6 #345
12.1 #275	Assists per game	15.0 #85
Defense
83.6 #352	Points allowed	82.2 #342
1.15 #327	Points allowed per possession	1.08 #181
55.0 #331	Opponent effective FG%	54.3 #307
35.1 #257	Opponent 3-point %	34.0 #185
17.1 #140	Turnovers forced	19.4 #34
66.6 #306	Defensive rebound rate	71.7 #80
7.5 #76	Steals per game	7.9 #45
2.7 #280	Blocks per game	2.8 #258

From the box scores. A longer bar is a better national rank, on every row; the better team's bar is solid. A green rank is near the top of Division I, a red one near the bottom. Pace and 3-point rate are styles, so they have no better side.

Sacramento St

7-21 in 2025-26 overall · 6-13 in conference · Big West Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Idaho45–68
Wvs Idaho St83–65
L@ Montana St61–82
L@ Montana73–81
Lvs Idaho80–86

A week or more of rest.

Fullerton

16-16 in 2025-26 overall · 13-9 in conference · Big West Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs Hawai'i63–78
Wvs UC Davis82–70
W@ CSU Northridge90–77
Wvs UC San Diego75–71
Lvs Hawai'i85–87

A week or more of rest.

Sacramento State Hornets at Cal State Fullerton Titans

What could decide it: CSUF has more of the edges

Market

Model vs market

1st-half model

ATS

Totals

Last 10 games

Next 3 games

Recent meetings

ATS History · 2025-26

Sacramento St

Fullerton

Sacramento St has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Sacramento St

Fullerton