Sacramento State Hornets at Stanford Cardinal: Model Line and Edge

Thu, Nov 19, 10:00 PM ETMaples Pavilion · at Stanford

LineNo line yet

Total—

Season records: Sacramento St and Stanford
SAC	This season	STAN
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 STAN 85–70 · win probability STAN 92%

Pick this game

Your picksMy picks ›

Winner

Line

—

no line yet

Total

—

model 154.7

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: STAN has more of the edges

SAC 1, STAN 6 · 2025-26 numbers until both teams have played three games

STANBig

Rebounding

Offensive rebound rate: SAC 25.2%, STAN 32.5%. Defensive: SAC 66.6%, STAN 70.2%

STANBig

STAN offense vs SAC defense

Offense 88th of 366 against a defense 262nd, on the model’s ratings

Context

Schedule so far

SAC has played the 248th-hardest schedule, STAN the 76th. A record against a soft schedule means less

STANBig

Shooting

Effective FG%: SAC 47.0 and allows 55.0; STAN 51.5 and allows 51.0

STANBig

Three-pointers

SAC hits 31.9% and allows 35.1%; STAN hits 35.2% and allows 33.0%. Threes are 35.6% and 44.0% of their shots

SACSmall

Free throws

Free throw rate: SAC 41.2, STAN 35.5. Allowed: SAC 36.2, STAN 40.3

Context

Tempo

About 70 possessions: SAC plays 72.6 a game (24th fastest), STAN 68.1 (225th). Faster games mean more points

STANSmall

SAC offense vs STAN defense

Offense 146th of 366 against a defense 79th, on the model’s ratings

STANSmall

Home court

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

Even

Who is back

Minutes back from last season: SAC 42%, STAN 27%. Transfers in: SAC 6, STAN 3. Early in a season, turnover makes teams harder to price

Even

Turnovers

Turnover rate: SAC 14.1%, STAN 15.5%. Forced: SAC 17.1%, STAN 18.0%

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	—	STAN -15.8	—
Total	—	154.7	—
Projected score	—	SAC 69.5 · STAN 85.3

1st-half model

1st-half slate ›

	Model	Actual
1H spread	STAN -9.3	—
1H total	72.3	—
1H projected score	SAC 31.5 · STAN 40.8	—

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	—
STAN WWWLL	17-16	52%	9-9	—

Venue/role: SAC away; STAN 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
STAN OOOUO	15-18	45%	20-13

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%
STAN	6-4 60%	5-5 50%	6-4 60%

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
Nov 28	@ PRES	W64–62LU
Dec 3	@ CSUF	L60–62LU
Dec 5	@ UVU	No recent meeting

Stanford

Date	Game	Last meeting
Nov 24	vs COLO	W77–68WU
Nov 29	vs PORT	W94–72WO
Dec 2	@ TA&M	No recent meeting

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

Recent meetings

Since 2021-22

SAC 0–1 STANSTAN leads · 1 game since 2021-22 · SAC 0-1 ATS

Date	Result	Line	Covered
Nov 10, 2023-24	SAC 73 @ STAN 91	STAN -15.5	STAN 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

Stanford

33 games played

Straight up

20-13

61% wins

Against the spread

17-16

52% covers · avg +0.2 pts vs the line

Over / Under

15-18

45% overs · avg +0.8 pts vs the total

Straight up

20-1361%

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

2 straight losses2 of last 4 won

Against the spread

17-1652%

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

2 straight misses ATS2 of last 4 covered

Over / Under

15-1845%

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

3 of last 4 overno streak

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 4	vsPRST	W 89-79	-11.5	L −1.5	144.5	O 168
Nov 8	vsMONT	W 91-68	-12.5	W +10.5	150.5	O 159
Nov 12	vsMTST	W 77-68	-14.5	L −5.5	148.5	U 145
Nov 18	vsUL	W 93-66	-20.5	W +6.5	139.5	O 159
Nov 21	vsSEA	L 69-77	-10.5	L −18.5	152.5	U 146
Nov 27	vsMINN	W 72-68	-2.5	W +1.5	142.5	U 140
Nov 28	vsSLU	W 78-77	+1.5	W +2.5	160.5	U 155
Dec 1	vsPORT	W 94-72	-19.5	W +2.5	156.5	O 166
Dec 7	vsUNLV	L 74-75	-9.5	L −10.5	164.5	U 149
Dec 13	@SJSU	W 86-82	-8.5	L −4.5	145.5	O 168
Dec 17	vsUTA	W 76-60	-10.5	W +5.5	139.5	U 136
Dec 20	vsCOLO	W 77-68	+2.5	W +11.5	154.5	U 145
Dec 27	vsCSUN	W 88-80	-15.5	L −7.5	160.5	O 168
Dec 30	vsND	L 40-47	-6.5	L −13.5	143.5	U 87
Jan 2	vsLOU	W 80-76	+7.5	W +11.5	157.5	U 156
Jan 7	@VT	W 69-68	+3.5	W +4.5	148.5	U 137
Jan 10	@UVA	L 55-70	+12.5	L −2.5	143.5	U 125
Jan 14	vsUNC	W 95-90	+4.5	W +9.5	147.5	O 185
Jan 17	vsDUKE	L 50-80	+11.5	L −18.5	148.5	U 130
Jan 24	vsCAL	L 66-78	-4.5	L −16.5	146.5	U 144
Jan 28	@MIA	L 70-79	+9.5	W +0.5	147.5	O 149
Jan 31	@FSU	L 80-88	+3.5	L −4.5	152.5	O 168
Feb 4	vsCLEM	L 64-66	+3.5	W +1.5	138.5	U 130
Feb 7	vsGT	W 95-72	-9.5	W +13.5	151.5	O 167
Feb 11	@BC	W 70-64	-3.5	W +2.5	139.5	U 134
Feb 14	@WAKE	L 63-68	+4.5	L −0.5	150.5	U 131
Feb 21	@CAL	L 66-72	+1.5	L −4.5	149.5	U 138
Feb 25	vsPITT	W 75-67	-8.5	L −0.5	138.5	O 142
Feb 28	vsSMU	W 95-75	+1.5	W +21.5	155.5	O 170
Mar 4	@ND	W 86-78	-1.5	W +6.5	147.5	O 164
Mar 7	@NCSU	W 85-84	+9.5	W +10.5	152.5	O 169
Mar 10	vsPITT	L 63-64	-4.5	L −5.5	136.5	U 127
Apr 2	vsWVU	L 77-82	+2.5	L −2.5	135.5	O 159

Day

Opp

Result

MissedCovered

Margin

PRST

W 89-79

−1.5

MONT

W 91-68

+10.5

MTST

W 77-68

−5.5

W 93-66

+6.5

SEA

L 69-77

−18.5

MINN

W 72-68

+1.5

SLU

W 78-77

+2.5

PORT

W 94-72

+2.5

UNLV

L 74-75

−10.5

SJSU

W 86-82

−4.5

UTA

W 76-60

+5.5

COLO

W 77-68

+11.5

CSUN

W 88-80

−7.5

L 40-47

−13.5

LOU

W 80-76

+11.5

W 69-68

+4.5

UVA

L 55-70

−2.5

UNC

W 95-90

+9.5

DUKE

L 50-80

−18.5

CAL

L 66-78

−16.5

MIA

L 70-79

+0.5

FSU

L 80-88

−4.5

CLEM

L 64-66

+1.5

W 95-72

+13.5

W 70-64

+2.5

WAKE

L 63-68

−0.5

CAL

L 66-72

−4.5

PITT

W 75-67

−0.5

SMU

W 95-75

+21.5

W 86-78

+6.5

NCSU

W 85-84

+10.5

PITT

L 63-64

−5.5

WVU

L 77-82

−2.5

covered 17didn’t cover 16avg +0.2 ptslonger = bigger margin

Day

Opp

Result

UnderOver

Margin

PRST

W 89-79

+23.5

MONT

W 91-68

+8.5

MTST

W 77-68

−3.5

W 93-66

+19.5

SEA

L 69-77

−6.5

MINN

W 72-68

−2.5

SLU

W 78-77

−5.5

PORT

W 94-72

+9.5

UNLV

L 74-75

−15.5

SJSU

W 86-82

+22.5

UTA

W 76-60

−3.5

COLO

W 77-68

−9.5

CSUN

W 88-80

+7.5

L 40-47

−56.5

LOU

W 80-76

−1.5

W 69-68

−11.5

UVA

L 55-70

−18.5

UNC

W 95-90

+37.5

DUKE

L 50-80

−18.5

CAL

L 66-78

−2.5

MIA

L 70-79

+1.5

FSU

L 80-88

+15.5

CLEM

L 64-66

−8.5

W 95-72

+15.5

W 70-64

−5.5

WAKE

L 63-68

−19.5

CAL

L 66-72

−11.5

PITT

W 75-67

+3.5

SMU

W 95-75

+14.5

W 86-78

+16.5

NCSU

W 85-84

+16.5

PITT

L 63-64

−9.5

WVU

L 77-82

+23.5

over 15under 18avg +0.8 ptslonger = bigger margin

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

Stanford has the better starters

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

Sacramento StBetterStanford

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

STANSmall

G C. Bliss TR16.8 pts · 5.1 reb · 5.9 ast Score 84

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

STANSmall

F N. Townsend TR16.6 pts · 7.3 reb · 4.4 ast Score 93

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

SACSmall

F A. Cammann6.5 pts · 3.8 reb · 1.4 ast Score 56

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

SACSmall

F D. Young2.5 pts · 2.7 reb · 0.7 ast Score 26

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

STANBig

C A. Maurer TR7.2 pts · 4.7 reb · 0.5 ast Score 70

Sacramento StBetterStanford

SAC offense146th of 366 · -4.4

STANSmall

STAN defense79th of 366 · +0.4

SAC defense262nd of 366 · -6.8

STANBig

STAN offense88th of 366 · +0.2

Backcourt+0.9 · 4 players

STANSmall

Backcourt+2.6 · 1 player

Frontcourt-2.3 · 1 player

STANBig

Frontcourt+4.6 · 4 players

Bench-3.4 · 5 players

STANBig

Bench-0.1 · 4 players

Score, worst to bestSAC betterSTAN 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

Stanford

Guards

C. Bliss40 min · TRE. Kitch1 minA. BatsonNewM. JonesNewJ. PriceNewI. RogersNew

Forwards

N. Townsend34 min · TRA. Cammann22 minD. Young15 minK. Skrinda6 minE. Stinson5 minT. Toure4 min

Centers

A. Maurer18 min · TR

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

STAN76.0 #142

Points per possession

SAC1.05 #258

STAN1.12 #108

Pace (possessions)

SAC72.6 #24

STAN68.1 #225

Shooting

Effective FG%

SAC47.0 #337

STAN51.5 #173

3-point %

SAC31.9 #284

STAN35.2 #103

3-point attempt rate

SAC35.6 #257

STAN44.0 #89

Free throw rate

SAC41.2 #41

STAN35.5 #165

Possessions

Turnover rate

SAC14.1 #26

STAN15.5 #105

Offensive rebound rate

SAC25.2 #336

STAN32.5 #109

Assists per game

SAC12.1 #275

STAN11.8 #299

Defense

Points allowed

SAC83.6 #352

STAN73.0 #132

Points allowed per possession

SAC1.15 #327

STAN1.07 #136

Opponent effective FG%

SAC55.0 #331

STAN51.0 #158

Opponent 3-point %

SAC35.1 #257

STAN33.0 #118

Turnovers forced

SAC17.1 #140

STAN18.0 #99

Defensive rebound rate

SAC66.6 #306

STAN70.2 #149

Steals per game

SAC7.5 #76

STAN7.8 #53

Blocks per game

SAC2.7 #280

STAN3.9 #93

SAC		STAN
Scoring
75.9 #144	Points per game	76.0 #142
1.05 #258	Points per possession	1.12 #108
72.6 #24	Pace (possessions)	68.1 #225
Shooting
47.0 #337	Effective FG%	51.5 #173
31.9 #284	3-point %	35.2 #103
35.6 #257	3-point attempt rate	44.0 #89
41.2 #41	Free throw rate	35.5 #165
Possessions
14.1 #26	Turnover rate	15.5 #105
25.2 #336	Offensive rebound rate	32.5 #109
12.1 #275	Assists per game	11.8 #299
Defense
83.6 #352	Points allowed	73.0 #132
1.15 #327	Points allowed per possession	1.07 #136
55.0 #331	Opponent effective FG%	51.0 #158
35.1 #257	Opponent 3-point %	33.0 #118
17.1 #140	Turnovers forced	18.0 #99
66.6 #306	Defensive rebound rate	70.2 #149
7.5 #76	Steals per game	7.8 #53
2.7 #280	Blocks per game	3.9 #93

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.

Stanford

20-13 in 2025-26 overall · 9-10 in conference · Atlantic Coast Conference

Last five, 2025-26

Lvs West Virginia77–82
Lvs Pitt63–64
W@ NC State85–84
W@ Notre Dame86–78
Wvs SMU95–75

A week or more of rest.

Sacramento State Hornets at Stanford Cardinal

What could decide it: STAN 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

Stanford

Stanford has the better starters

Depth chart

Matchup stats

Sacramento St

Stanford