San José State vs. Stanford: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
SJSUTeam statsSTAN
- Q4 0:19STANSedrick Irvin 1 Yd Run (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)29–30
- Q4 5:54STANEmmet Kenney 36 Yd Field Goal 29–24
- Q4 7:51SJSUDenis Lynch 31 Yd Field Goal 29–21
- Q4 12:19STANMyles Libman 14 Yd pass from Ben Gulbranson (Emmet Kenney Kick)26–21
- Q4 14:15SJSUDanny Scudero 5 Yd pass from Walker Eget (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)26–14
- Q2 1:59SJSUKyri Shoels 29 Yd pass from Walker Eget (Denis Lynch Kick)20–14
- Q2 4:06STANSam Roush 15 Yd pass from Ben Gulbranson (Emmet Kenney Kick)13–14
- Q2 7:59SJSUDenis Lynch 36 Yd Field Goal 13–7
- Q1 0:55SJSUDanny Scudero 10 Yd pass from Walker Eget (Denis Lynch Kick)10–7
- Q1 4:46SJSUDenis Lynch 41 Yd Field Goal 3–7
- Q1 7:42STANCole Tabb 8 Yd Run (Emmet Kenney Kick)0–7
How the model called it
- PassWalker Eget 36/58, 473 YDS, 3 TD
- RushWalker Eget 2 CAR, 19 YDS
- RecKyri Shoels 10 REC, 147 YDS, 1 TD
- PassBen Gulbranson 29/43, 444 YDS, 2 TD
- RushCole Tabb 12 CAR, 48 YDS, 1 TD
- RecCJ Williams 11 REC, 130 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsSJSU up 6 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,662 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q4 0:00SJSU +99%
Walker Eget pass complete to Kyri Shoels for 8 yds Tama Amisone fumbled, recovered by SJSU Zach Johnson
- Q4 0:19STAN +97%
Sedrick Irvin run for 1 yd for a TD (Two-Point Conversion failed)
- Q4 7:51SJSU +22%
Denis Lynch 31 yd FG GOOD
- Q2 4:06STAN +21%
Ben Gulbranson pass complete to Sam Roush for 15 yds for a TD (Emmet Kenney KICK)
- Q2 1:59SJSU +21%
Walker Eget pass complete to Kyri Shoels for 29 yds for a TD (Denis Lynch KICK)
- Q4 12:19STAN +20%
Ben Gulbranson pass complete to Myles Libman for 14 yds for a TD (Emmet Kenney KICK)
FAQ
What was the final score of San José State vs. Stanford?
San José State 29, Stanford 30.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked SJSU, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| SJSU | STAN | |
|---|---|---|
| 524 | Total yards | 481 |
| 473 | Passing yards | 444 |
| 51 | Rushing yards | 37 |
| 27 | First downs | 23 |
| 4-12 | 3rd down | 3-13 |
| 0-1 | 4th down | 2-3 |
| 36/58 | Comp/Att | 29/43 |
| 8.2 | Yards per pass | 10.3 |
| 3.6 | Yards per rush | 1.4 |
| 1 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 8-54 | Penalties | 11-95 |
| 30:53 | Possession | 29:07 |
Costliest call
Q3 3:50 SJSU field goal on 4th & 1 at STAN 12. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.88 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 0:19STANSedrick Irvin 1 Yd Run (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)29–30
- Q4 5:54STANEmmet Kenney 36 Yd Field Goal 29–24
- Q4 7:51SJSUDenis Lynch 31 Yd Field Goal 29–21
- Q4 12:19STANMyles Libman 14 Yd pass from Ben Gulbranson (Emmet Kenney Kick)26–21
- Q4 14:15SJSUDanny Scudero 5 Yd pass from Walker Eget (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)26–14
- Q2 1:59SJSUKyri Shoels 29 Yd pass from Walker Eget (Denis Lynch Kick)20–14
- Q2 4:06STANSam Roush 15 Yd pass from Ben Gulbranson (Emmet Kenney Kick)13–14
- Q2 7:59SJSUDenis Lynch 36 Yd Field Goal 13–7
- Q1 0:55SJSUDanny Scudero 10 Yd pass from Walker Eget (Denis Lynch Kick)10–7
- Q1 4:46SJSUDenis Lynch 41 Yd Field Goal 3–7
- Q1 7:42STANCole Tabb 8 Yd Run (Emmet Kenney Kick)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (STAN Elo 1249, SJSU Elo 1429 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects STAN +4.8 (39% to win) — 7.8 points clear of SJSU'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 15 · through week 2 · drive simulation
Season form — 2025
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profilesStanford leads 51–15–1 · 30% have been one-possession games
| SJSU | STAN | |
|---|---|---|
| -4.3 (#78) | CORE overall | -12.6 (#102) |
| -1 / +3 | offense / defense | -11 / +1 |
| 1.65 | points / drive | 1.42 |
| 2.60 | allowed / drive | 2.33 |
| 28% | three-and-outs | 37% |
| +13 | 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.
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 →