Week 0 report · Sat, Aug 29 · 2026 Week 1
Sacramento State
2–7 · unrated
17–28FinalWe had SAC 29 – EMU 27
Eastern Michigan
4–5 · Ours #114 enteringOur rank going into this game, from the rankings page. The board's line comes from the betting model, which sees more than this one number.
Win chanceOur odds before kickoff: how often each team won outright when we played the game out thousands of times from our line.SAC 54%EMU won
SAC 54%EMU wonSpreadOur last pregame odds pull, usually inside the hour before kickoff. A median of the books we track, not a sharp close. First seen at EMU −9.5.EMU −9oursOur computer's point spread for this game, built from team stats, not from the betting odds. Read it like a betting line: −7 means we have that team winning by 7. +1.9 · EMU covered by 2
TotalOur last pregame odds pull, usually inside the hour before kickoff. A median of the books we track, not a sharp close. Our total was 56.5.53final 45 · under by 8
Our callThe side our number took at the early-week line, graded at that line. Line value is how far the market moved toward it by the last capture before kickoff.SAC +9.5Lbeat the close by 0.5
SAC +9.5Lbeat the close by 0.5Quarterbacksthis game
Carson Conklin25/46 · 224 yards
- EPA / dropbackExpected points added per dropback (passes and sacks) in this game. The percentile is among every 2026 FBS quarterback game with 10+ dropbacks.
- −0.409th pct
- Comp %
- 54.3
- TD
- 0
- Turnovers
- 11 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 2
Noah Kim27/38 · 279 yards
- EPA / dropbackExpected points added per dropback (passes and sacks) in this game. The percentile is among every 2026 FBS quarterback game with 10+ dropbacks.
- +0.0443rd pct
- Comp %
- 71.1
- TD
- 2
- Turnovers
- 00 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 1
The matchupthis game · ▲▼ better or worse than the unit's usual · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| Sacramento Stateoffense | Played like EMU +9.3Fitted from non-garbage efficiency; describes how the game was played, not who deserved it. | defenseEastern Michigan | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25th | 34.9%▼1.2 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 34.9%▲11.9 | 75th |
| 9th | −0.29▼0.09 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | −0.29▲0.44 | 91st |
| 12th | −0.40▼0.15 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | −0.40▲0.75 | 88th |
| 54th | +0.07▲0.20 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | +0.07▼0.13 | 46th |
| 15th | 2▼1.1 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 2▲1.3 | 85th |
| Eastern Michiganoffense | defenseSacramento State | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 47th | 41.2%▲4.2 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 41.2%▲1.5 | 53rd |
| 22nd | −0.13▼0.06 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | −0.13▲0.25 | 78th |
| 28th | −0.16▼0.01 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | −0.16▲0.34 | 72nd |
| 31st | −0.09▼0.12 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | −0.09▲0.16 | 70th |
| 41st | 1▲0.1 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 1▲0.1 | 59th |
Team statsthis game · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| Sacramento StateSAC | Eastern MichiganEMU | |
|---|---|---|
| Special teams & field position | ||
| Average startWhere the team's drives started on average. | Own 3168th | Own 2847th |
| Kicking vs expectedKickingPoints from field goals and extra points against what an average kicker makes from the same spots. | +0.8 pts70th | −2.7 pts4th |
| Drives & pace | ||
| PlaysOffensive plays outside garbage time. | 6363rd | 6876th |
| Drive pointsThe part of the final margin the offense moved the ball for (efficiency, success rate, big plays, finishing drives), in points. A margin over the opponent. | −13.016th | +13.084th |
| Turnovers & hidden points | ||
| Penalty first downsPenalty 1st downsFirst downs the team was handed by the opponent's penalties. | 08th | 486th |
| 4th downsPoints from going for it on fourth down, against what the average team gets from the same spots. | −0.1 pts38th | 0.0 pts50th |
| Return touchdownsReturn TDsDefensive and special-teams touchdowns. | 192nd | 043rd |
| Hidden pointsPoints from outside the offense's drives: turnovers, field position, kicking, fourth downs, penalty first downs, return touchdowns and safeties. A margin over the opponent. SAC +1.8: turnovers −2.6, field position +1.1, kicking +2.4, 4th downs −0.2, penalty first downs −3.1, return touchdowns +4.2. | +1.860th | −1.840th |
Season so far
Sacramento State2–7 · 131st-hardest schedule
Lat Eastern Michigan17–28missed +9
at Eastern Michigan17–28missed +9Wvs Mississippi Valley State52–0covered −38.5
L
at Fresno State3–49missed +17.5
at Fresno State3–49missed +17.5L
vs North Dakota State10–31covered +25
vs North Dakota State10–31covered +25L
vs Massachusetts6–35missed +5
vs Massachusetts6–35missed +5L
at Bowling Green10–38missed +9
at Bowling Green10–38missed +9L
vs Ohio7–48missed +17
vs Ohio7–48missed +17L
at Ball State17–34missed +14.5
at Ball State17–34missed +14.5W
vs Kent State31–10covered +7
vs Kent State31–10covered +7Eastern Michigan4–5 · 125th-hardest schedule
Wvs Sacramento State28–17covered −9
vs Sacramento State28–17covered −9L
vs San José State21–27missed −1.5
vs San José State21–27missed −1.5L
at Michigan State7–35missed +17.5
at Michigan State7–35missed +17.5L
at Wisconsin10–54missed +23.5
at Wisconsin10–54missed +23.5Wvs Lindenwood29–3covered −24
Wat Massachusetts38–14covered +5.5
at Massachusetts38–14covered +5.5W
at Akron25–23missed −5.5
at Akron25–23missed −5.5L
vs Toledo14–34missed +7.5
vs Toledo14–34missed +7.5Lat Ohio20–24covered +10
at Ohio20–24covered +10Model cfb_best · uncertainty ±15.5 · run Aug 29, 4:05 PM EDT · froze at kickoff and graded as-is