Get app

Stanford vs. LouisvilleFinal score and model picks, graded

FinalL&N Federal Credit Union Stadium
Stanford4–4
24–52Final
Louisville4–3
Score by period
Team1234T
STAN0177624
LOU71721752

Top model pick, graded

Won

Nico Brown over 3.5 receptions −120

Why Touch Share Saturday likes it: 20.8% target share across 3 games: 6/37, 10/41, 5/23 team pass attempts; share CV is about 20%.

Touch Share SaturdayDown 18% this season · 61 picks
Get the next picks first

How the picks did

Models went 14-11 on this game · +11% return

  1. Louisville Cardinals −22.55 models agree
    +91%Won

    Taken at −110 on FanDuel

    5 modelsEPA Mismatch, Rnj +3
    Why 5 models like it
    EPA Mismatch
    • ESPN pregame model projects Louisville by 30.16, 7.66 points beyond the current spread.
    • Opponent-adjusted ratings favor Louisville by 23.7 FPI points, 23.0 SP+ points, and 20.7 SRS points.
    • Stanford's schedule quality is stronger by the vendor ranks (SOS 12 versus Louisville 31), which can compress the raw efficiency gap.
    Rnj
    • 30.163 fair margin: FPI neutral gap 23.667 plus its matchup home-field increment 6.496.
    • SP+ independently shows a 23.0-point neutral rating gap, 12.2 Louisville versus -10.8 Stanford.
    • Official game-day reports list multiple non-QB outs for both teams; expected replacements are reflected, but player-impact adjustments are not numerically supported.
    D1 Winner
    • Louisville leads recent EPA/play 0.303 to Stanford 0.012 and success rate 53.5% to 43.9%.
    • Louisville's explosive-play rate is materially higher; Stanford has allowed 45+ points in three recent games.
    • Louisville may throttle tempo after building a lead, creating late backdoor-cover risk.
    Picks With Pink Grading System
    • ESPN FPI matchup projection: Louisville by 30.163 points; the offered spread is -22.5.
    • Normal margin derivation N(30.163, 16.413²), using 1,052 2026 home margins, gives 67.9% cover probability.
    • Only 7 Louisville and 8 Stanford 2026 games; FPI mean and global margin variance are not calibrated cover probabilities.
  2. Louisville Cardinals −21.52 models agree
    +92%Won

    Taken at 52¢ on Polymarket

    2 modelsCFB Heater, BETALAB 6.0
    Why 2 models like it
    CFB Heater
    • HomeRunHazard and gmpm2 both currently hold 4,693 Louisville -21.5 contracts.
    • The sportsbook reference is around Louisville -22.5, so -21.5 is close to the efficient market number.
    BETALAB 6.0
    • FPI rates Louisville +13.676 versus Stanford -9.991; SP+ and SRS differentials are +23.0 and +20.7.
    • 2026 efficiency gap: Louisville +0.303 EPA/play, 53.5% success, 3.07 points/drive versus Stanford +0.012, 43.9%, 1.69.
    • College lineups are expected rather than confirmed; Stanford has multiple official outs, and starting-player roles remain a late risk.
  3. Nico Brown over 3.5 receptionsHigh conviction
    +83%Won

    Taken at −120 on FanDuel

    Touch Share SaturdayDown 53% last 7 days
    Why it likes it
    • 20.8% target share across 3 games: 6/37, 10/41, 5/23 team pass attempts; share CV is about 20%.
    • Yards per target fell 7.2 → 2.9 → 3.2, a 55% first-to-last efficiency decline while target share stayed stable-to-rising.
    • 93.5% route rate across the same 3 games and an expected LWR role with 151 recent snaps support durable opportunity.
    • Most likely loss: Stanford's offense cannot sustain drives, producing roughly 23, 25 team pass attempts and leaving Brown at three receptions.
  4. Stanford Cardinal to winLong shot
    −100%Lost

    Taken at 7¢ on Kalshi

    Saturday BoardDown 15% last 7 days
  5. Stanford Cardinal spread +22.5
    −100%Lost

    Taken at 50¢ on ProphetX

    ProphetX CFB LinesDown 1% last 7 days
    Why it likes it
    • Model margin is Louisville by about 20.3; Stanford +22.5 fair probability is 54.0%.
    • Matchup efficiency centers the margin below the rung: Louisville averages +0.303 offensive EPA/play versus Stanford's +0.328 defensive EPA allowed, while Stanford is +0.012 versus Louisville's +0.087 allowed.
    • Louisville averages 12.57 drives and Stanford 11.63; discounting blowout separation pulls the raw 26.9-point margin differential toward the 20-point distribution mean.
    • Most likely loss: Louisville's +0.303 EPA/play and 17.9% explosive rate overwhelm Stanford's defense and produce a 23-point-or-more win.
  6. Stanford Cardinal +15.5
    −100%Lost

    Taken at 35¢ on Novig

    Rung ReaderUp 52% last 7 days
    Why it likes it
    • Pinnacle -22.5 (-108/-104) de-vigs to 48.6% Stanford +22.5.
    • Crossing 21 and 17 key numbers subtracts 5.0 points: 43.6% fair at Stanford +15.5.
    • Both quarterbacks are expected, not officially confirmed; late warmup scratches remain unknown.
Show all 20 picks
  1. Benji Blackburn under 2.5 receptions
    −100%Lost

    Taken at −110 on Fliff

    NFL Sharp EdgeDown 5% last 7 days
    Why it likes it
    • Under in 5 of Blackburn's 8 2026 games (62.5%), including 3 of his last 5.
    • Louisville's 2026 team grade is 86.3 overall, versus Stanford's 72.3; Louisville's recent defensive EPA allowed is 0.097 per play.
    • My 61% win estimate is about 8.6 percentage points above Fliff's 52.4% raw break-even at -110.
    • College lineups are expected rather than confirmed, although Fliff's prop board names Blackburn for this game.
  2. Louisville Cardinals −24.5
    +127%Won

    Taken at 44¢ on Kalshi

    Saturday RungUp 71% last 7 days
    Why it likes it
    • Louisville leads Stanford by 0.291 EPA/play, 9.6 percentage points in success rate, and 7.4 points in explosive-play rate.
    • Louisville averages 38.7 points over seven games; Stanford averages 19.9 over eight and has a -13.6 recent scoring margin.
    • A 24.5 spread is vulnerable to Stanford's backdoor score even if Louisville controls the game.
  3. Stanford Cardinal over 61.5 total
    +113%Won

    Taken at 47¢ on Polymarket US

    Heater Two-HourUp 17% last 7 days
    Why it likes it
    • RollAwayTheDew: 100% CFB win rate (6 wins, 1 push), $570 position opened 10/30 at 10:27 AM PDT.
    • Over 61.5 can lose if Stanford's offense stalls or Louisville controls pace after building a lead.
  4. Stanford Cardinal under 19.5 team points
    −100%Lost

    Taken at −130 on BetOnline

    Saturday Scoring EnvironmentDown 77% last 7 days
    Why it likes it
    • Adjusted EPA delta -0.0747/play: Stanford offense +0.0124 minus Louisville defensive allowance +0.0870.
    • Stanford scored touchdowns on 9 of 15 red-zone trips (0.600); Louisville allowed 11 of 25 (0.440), activating the under trigger.
    • Both clocks exceed the 22.84-second FBS median: Stanford 26.14, Louisville 24.38, reducing expected possessions.
    • Stanford's offense rate is .600, not independently below the .50 under trigger; the defensive .440 drives the red-zone case.
  5. Louisville Cardinals spread −22
    +89%Won

    Taken at 53¢ on ProphetX

    Saturday Board PairsDown 2% last 7 days
    Why it likes it
    • PROJECTION, Louisville averages +0.303 EPA/play and 53.5% success over 7 FBS games; Stanford averages +0.012 EPA/play and 43.9% success over 8.
    • Louisville’s explosive-play rate is 17.9% versus Stanford’s 10.5%, creating a substantial margin-tail advantage for the home favorite.
    • PFF’s latest 2026 card favors Louisville 88.9, 73.5 overall and 86.3, 65.8 on defense.
    • Most likely loss: Stanford converts a few high-variance explosive plays or turnovers and Louisville wins by 21 or fewer.
  6. Game 1H total under 31.5
    −100%Lost

    Taken at 52¢ on Kalshi

    Kickoff ScriptUp 2% last 7 days
    Why it likes it
    • 25.0 projected first-half points: recent-five points-per-drive averages are 2.04 for Stanford and 2.86 for Louisville, using roughly five drives each.
    • Recent-five pace averaged 27.4/28.5 seconds per play; the opening half projects roughly 33 plays per team, not a late-game tempo spike.
    • Kalshi is explicitly a substitute same-market reference because no independent 1H total book line was posted; disagreement is capped at 12 points.
    • Stanford's recent-five defensive EPA allowed was 0.287, so Louisville can create short fields or score efficiently.
  7. Stanford Cardinal spread +23
    −100%Lost

    Taken at 52¢ on ProphetX

    Key Number CFBUp 13% last 7 days
    Why it likes it
    • Matchup projection centers Louisville’s margin nearer 18, 20; Stanford wins at 22 or fewer and pushes at exactly 23.
    • Louisville’s +0.303 EPA/play offense is strong, but Stanford’s +0.012 offense versus Louisville’s +0.087 defensive EPA allowed narrows the gap.
    • Latest boxes and Louisville’s official preview identify Davis Warren and Lincoln Kienholz; the sharp board centers Louisville -22.5, not -24.
    • Most likely loss: Louisville wins by 24 or more, with Stanford’s +0.328 defensive EPA allowed rate creating separation.
  8. Louisville Cardinals spread −22.5
    +92%Won

    Taken at 52¢ on ProphetX

    ProphetX PairsDown 9% last 7 days
    Why it likes it
    • Louisville’s FBS-opponent profile leads Stanford by 0.282 EPA/play offensively and 0.279 allowed EPA/play defensively.
    • Louisville leads success rate 50.8% to 41.9% and explosive rate 17.6% to 10.4%.
    • ESPN’s pregame model projects Louisville by 30.2, 7.7 points above the ProphetX spread; SHARP REFERENCE: Pinnacle main number is -22.5.
    • Both quarterbacks are expected rather than officially confirmed: Louisville’s Lincoln Kienholz and Stanford’s Davis Warren.
  9. Louisville Cardinals first-half spread NO 13.5
    +100%Won

    Taken at 50¢ on Kalshi

    Early CoverUp 1% last 7 days
    Why it likes it
    • Pinnacle full-game Louisville -22.5 scales to an 11.25-point first-half mean; 2026 margins are Louisville +11.29, Stanford -15.63.
    • 3,681 FBS regular-season finals from 2023, 26 have SD_full 15.22; sqrt-half scaling gives SD_1H 10.76, not 7.61.
    • DERIVED REFERENCE at 13.5: smooth P(Louisville margin ≤13.5) is 58.3%; a conservative 14-point-mass haircut leaves 54% versus the 50¢ price.
    • College margin 14 occurred 146 times in the sample; 13.5 sits directly below that mass and may reduce the NO probability.
  10. Game 1Q total under 13.5
    +127%Won

    Taken at 44¢ on Kalshi

    Kickoff ScriptUp 2% last 7 days
    Why it likes it
    • 11.3-12.5 projected first-quarter points: the desk takes 45-50% of the 25.0 first-half projection, below the 13.5 rung.
    • The opening script has fewer possessions than a full game, making pace and first-half drive-rate inputs more relevant than late-game scoring rates.
    • A single explosive play, turnover, short field, or missed defensive assignment can swing this thin first-quarter sample by a touchdown.
  11. Game under 31.5 first-half points
    −100%Lost

    Taken at 51¢ on Kalshi

    Two QuartersDown 1% last 7 days
    Why it likes it
    • 12.11 projected first-half drives: (Stanford 11.50 + Louisville 12.71 season drives/game) ÷ 2.
    • Blended pace is 25.26 seconds/play; 67.4 half plays and observed 5.78/5.10 plays per drive corroborate roughly 12 drives.
    • Baseline is 28.79 points: 6.055 drives each × (Stanford 1.690 + Louisville 3.065 points/drive).
    • The 31.12 reference is scaled from full-game Pinnacle, not an independent first-half sharp quote; this is LEAN.
  12. Stanford Cardinal +22.5
    −100%Lost

    Taken at 49¢ on ProphetX

    Long Way HomeDown 5% last 7 days
    Why it likes it
    • Edge class: PROJECTION, five-game scoring margins are Louisville +7.2 and Stanford -13.6, a 20.8-point gap below this spread.
    • The five-game scoring averages project a roughly 13-point Louisville edge: Louisville 34.8 points scored versus Stanford 21.8.
    • Pinnacle posts the same Stanford +22.5 at -105; ProphetX improves that price to +103.
    • Louisville’s offense averages +0.269 EPA/play and Stanford’s defense allows +0.287 EPA/play; an explosive mismatch can create a runaway.
  13. Total Points under 60.5
    −100%Lost

    Taken at 53¢ on ProphetX

    Tempo BoardDown 18% last 7 days
    Why it likes it
    • 2026 season scoring is 58.6 combined points (Stanford 19.9, Louisville 38.7); each sample has at least 3 games and both teams are FBS.
    • Tempo is not an automatic over: recent five-game pace is 27.36 seconds/play for Stanford and 28.50 for Louisville; Stanford's 43.9% season success and 10.5% explosiveness are the weaker scoring engine.
    • Projection support: Stanford's season offense averages +16.5% PROE but only 43.9% success, while Louisville's defense allows +0.087 EPA/play versus Stanford's +0.328 allowed by its defense; the Cardinal offense faces the better unit.
    • Most likely loss: Louisville's 17.9% explosive-play rate repeatedly hits Stanford's +0.328 defensive EPA/play allowed, pushing the Cardinals past 41.5 and the game over 60.5.
  14. Game total under 58.5
    −100%Lost

    Taken at 60¢ on ProphetX

    ProphetX PairsDown 9% last 7 days
    Why it likes it
    • Louisville's offense averages +0.303 EPA/play, while Stanford averages +0.012; the mismatch favors Louisville controlling the game rather than a balanced shootout.
    • Stanford's explosive-play rate is 10.5% versus Louisville's 17.9%, limiting the underdog's route to a high total.
    • captured Pinnacle total was 59; the current ProphetX under 58.5 is the live contract used here.
    • Louisville's defense allows 0.087 EPA/play but Stanford's defense allows 0.328, so Louisville could score enough alone to break the number.

Win chance, start to finish

50%LOUSTANKickoff
Oct 31Final

Questions

Who won Stanford vs. Louisville?

The Louisville won 52–24 on Saturday, Oct 31, 2026.

App Store is a service mark of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries. Apple and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc. Google Play and the Google Play logo are trademarks of Google LLC.