The SportsWire

Boise State

2026 · week 6 result vs Fresno State

Updated Tue Oct 13, 7:56 PM CT

Next up projections

at Washington State

Week 8 · Sat Oct 24, 5:00 PM CT / 6:00 PM ET · Gesa Field · Washington State (FBS, Pac-12)

Both models favor Boise State.

Our call posts Monday, Oct 19, when that week's ratings are set.

Regression watch: Last game's 7-point win matched the play (score -7 against play), inside the 7-point band: no flag. More ›

Schedule: Played the 72nd-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating -4.9); 73rd-toughest remaining (-2.5). More ›

Opponents by our model's rating 6 played · 5 left
  • Week 1 at Oregon (+20.4)
  • Week 2 vs Memphis (-0.7)
  • Week 3 vs South Dakota (-32.8) · FCS, pooled
  • Week 4 at Western Michigan (-3.9)
  • Week 5 vs Utah State (-7.9)
  • Week 6 at Fresno State (-4.3)
  • Remaining:
  • Week 8 at Washington State (-7.4)
  • Week 9 vs Texas State (+2.7)
  • Week 10 at Colorado State (-6.8)
  • Week 11 vs Oregon State (+4.1)
  • Week 12 vs San Diego State (-4.9)

Each opponent's rating from our model's week 7 snapshot, in points against an average FBS team; the averages are ranked among the 138 FBS teams. Played means through week 6. Experimental, like the Our model card.

Series: Washington State leads 5–2 · last: Boise State 45–24, 2024

Series history 7 meetings since 1997
  • All-time: Washington State leads 5–2 (7 meetings since 1997)
  • Last meeting: Boise State 45–24, 2024, Albertsons Stadium
  • Streak: none
  • At Gesa Field: Washington State leads 1–0 (1 meeting)
  • Biggest margins: Boise State 45–24 (2024) · Washington State 58–0 (1997)
  • Since 2000: Washington State leads 3–2 (5 meetings)
SeasonResultSite
2024Boise State 45–24Albertsons Stadium
2017Washington State 47–44Gesa Field
2016Boise State 31–28Albertsons Stadium
2001Washington State 41–20Albertsons Stadium
2000Washington State 42–35away
RatingBoise StateWashington State
SP+ +9.1 #42 -11.1 #111
Elo 1691 1476

Projected margin for Boise State · two models and the line, side by side

SP+
+17.7
Boise State +9.1 vs Washington State -11.1
avg miss 10.6
closest 47/79
Elo
+6.1
Boise State 1691 vs Washington State 1476
avg miss 12.3
closest 33/79
Line · benchmark
n/a
no pregame line
avg miss 11.1
How to read this
  • SP+ is a rating of how good a team is, in points better or worse than an average team, built from its play-by-play, so the gap between two teams' ratings is a projected margin.
  • Elo is a rating that goes up with every win and down with every loss, more for beating a strong team, less for beating a weak one. The gap between two ratings is divided by 25 to turn it into points.
  • The line is the pregame line, the margin the market expected, shown from Boise State's side. It is not one of the models: it is shown for comparison only, as the benchmark the models and Our call are measured against.
  • In SP+, Elo the home team gets 2.5 points (Washington State); the line already includes the market's own home edge. The conversion to points is approximate.
  • "avg miss 9.8" under a card is how far that model's projections have been from the actual margins this season, on average, in points. "closest 10/39" is how many of the season's 39 finished games that model came closest on (a tie counts for every tied model); the line, a benchmark, shows its average miss only. Shown once a model has 20 finished games.
  • Our call is the site's prediction: the simple average of the SP+, Elo and our model margins. The pregame line is left out of it and kept as a benchmark to measure it against. Toss-up means the average is under 3 points, Lean 3 to 7, Strong 7 or more. It is made only when all three of those models have a number, and it is scored after the game like the models.
  • Each card is one method's estimate, shown side by side; when they disagree, that is worth knowing.
  • After a game, the sentence under the score shows every model and the line against the actual margin: ✓ when a model named the winner, ✗ when it did not (the line, a benchmark, gets no mark), and Closest: the model nearest the final margin among those present, never the line (an exact tie goes to the first listed). The "closest 10/39" counts keep the accuracy report's scoring of SP+ and Elo, where a tie credits both.
  • Metrics explained: the four models and their track record ›

Efficiency matchup · season to date · Boise State 6 games, Washington State 6 games

Edge: Boise State wins 4 of 5

Boise State moves the ball better, stops plays better, is more disruptive and has the edge on big plays. Washington State allows fewer big plays.

Boise Statelonger bar = betterWashington State

Run game, head to head · season to date

Boise State's runs work 50% of the time; Washington State's run defense allows 41%. Washington State's runs work 33% of the time; Boise State's run defense allows 35%.

More numbers
MeasureBoise StateWashington StateEdge
Off. success rate48.9%32.8%Boise State
Off. explosiveness1.241.21Boise State
Def. success rate allowed37.3%40.5%Boise State
Def. explosiveness allowed1.641.26Washington State
Havoc created18.2%13.6%Boise State
  • Run game, success rate: Boise State offense 50.0% · Washington State defense allows 41.3% · edge: Boise State
  • Run game, success rate: Washington State offense 33.1% · Boise State defense allows 34.7% · edge: Boise State
  • Run game, PPA per play: Boise State offense +0.24 · Washington State defense allows +0.02 · edge: Boise State
  • Run game, PPA per play: Washington State offense -0.05 · Boise State defense allows +0.10 · edge: Boise State
  • Success rate: how often a play does its job, gaining enough yards to keep the offense on schedule.
  • Explosiveness: how big a team's successful plays are on average; a higher number means more big gains.
  • Havoc: how often the defense blows up a play with a sack, a tackle for loss, a takeaway or a pass broken up.
  • PPA (predicted points added): how many points an average play is worth to the offense; above zero is good for the offense, below zero good for the defense.

How to read this

  • Each row compares the two teams on one measure of how well they have played this season, offense and defense, using every game so far with garbage time (plays late in a decided game) left out.
  • The run game rows pair one team's rushing offense with the other's run defense. The row goes to whichever side is further from the FBS baseline this season, the offense by how far it runs above it, the defense by how much less it allows (baseline: run success rate 43%, PPA per play +0.08, the midpoint of what FBS offenses gain and FBS defenses allow, since both also play FCS teams), so two strong sides or two weak ones are judged by which is the more so. Edges within 3 points of success rate or 0.05 PPA are even. A strong run offense against a weak run defense is where a team can control the game on the ground.
  • In the five rows at the top the longer bar is the better number: bars are scaled within each row, and in the two "allowed" rows the lower number gets the longer bar.
  • Success rate is the share of plays that kept the offense on schedule (half the yards needed on first down, most of them on second, all of them on third or fourth). Explosiveness is how big the successful plays were, on average, in points. Havoc is the share of the opponent's snaps the defense wrecked: a tackle for loss, a sack, a takeaway or a pass broken up.
  • "Allowed" rows are what each defense gave up, so the lower value wins.
  • These are not adjusted for who each team has played, so a light schedule flatters a team, and early in the season they rest on very few games.
  • Metrics explained: success rate, explosiveness and havoc ›

Injuries

No injury report yet for this game. First reports usually come Wednesday.

Coverage (AI-assisted) · 17

Gathered by an AI model from public posts, not from CollegeFootballData. Not used in any number on this page. Verify against the linked sources. Beat coverage checked Tue Oct 13, 7:30 PM CT.

3 entries about games now final not shown.

Score and result

Boise State 38, Fresno State 31W

Game page: the call before kickoff and how each model did ›

Projected: SP+ n/a · Elo -1.1 ✗ · Our model +8.2 ✓ · the line (benchmark) n/a · actual +7 · Closest: Our model

Boise State was as low as 21% and won Boise State was as low as 21% and won Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 100% 50% 0% 38–31
  1. Q1 · 1st & 10 · 66% → 37%
    Shotgun #7 J.Mandal pass complete short middle to #0 E.Avit caught at BOIS00, for 10 yards to the BOIS00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 00:56, 1ST DOWN Timeout Boise State, clock 01:01 #38 M.Watanabe kick attempt good (H: #41 N.Verdugo, LS: #53 J.Baldi)
  2. Q1 10:17 · 2nd & 7 · 23% → 47%
    (10:17) #0 D.Riley rush middle for 72 yards gain to the FRES00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 10:10, 1ST DOWN #15 Z.Martinez rush attempt Successful
  3. Q1 1:17 · 3rd & 7 · 50% → 73%
    (01:17) Shotgun #4 M.Madsen pass complete short right to #85 T.Favors caught at FRES25, for 22 yards to the FRES00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 01:12, 1ST DOWN #48 C.Moore kick attempt good (H: #37 O.Doyle, LS: #61 C.Kellow)

Away at Valley Children's Stadium · Sat Oct 10, 9:30 PM CT / 10:30 PM ET · vs Fresno State (FBS, Pac-12)

Opponent for every game-level number: Fresno State (FBS, Pac-12).

Verdict

The 7-point win matched the play: Boise State's per-play edge (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.40 vs +0.36, success rate 47% vs 49%) implies roughly a +14 margin.

The verdict compares the score with the margin the plays earned. How it is reached ›

Efficiency

Even game split 2–2

Boise State got more from each play and was more disruptive. Fresno State moved the ball better and hit the bigger plays.

Boise Statelonger bar = betterFresno State
More numbers

Boise State ran 81 plays, Fresno State 51. Each number is that team's offense; Fresno State's column is also what Boise State's defense allowed.

MeasureBoise StateFresno StateEdge
PPA / play+0.40+0.36Boise State
Total PPA+32.1+18.1Boise State
Success rate46.9%49.0%Fresno State
Explosiveness1.371.44Fresno State
Havoc created7.8%7.6%Boise State
  • Success rate: how often a play did its job, gaining enough yards to keep the offense on schedule.
  • Explosiveness: how big a team's successful plays were on average; a higher number means more big gains.
  • Havoc: how often the defense blew up a play with a sack, a tackle for loss, a takeaway or a pass broken up. Counted from the play-by-play, so it is approximate.
  • PPA (predicted points added): how many points an average play was worth to the offense. Total PPA adds up every play, and is what the Verdict compares with the score.

How to read this

  • The four rows at the top compare the two offenses in this game; the longer bar is the better number, scaled within each row. A number at or below zero draws no bar.
  • A check marks the better side of a row. The line above the rows counts them: it describes how the game was played, not who won it.
  • Metrics explained ›
Top performers

Boise State players by cumulative PPA in this game. Usage is the share of the team's plays of that type involving the player. Receiving is passing-play PPA for non-quarterbacks.

Passing

PlayerPass usagePPA/play
Maddux Madsen QB 100% +18.3 +0.54

Rushing

PlayerRush usagePPA/play
Sire Gaines RB 44% +7.6 +0.38
Dylan Riley RB 42% +6.7 +0.35
Maddux Madsen QB 11% +0.1 +0.02

Receiving

PlayerTarget usagePPA/play
Ben Ford WR 12% +5.9 +1.48
Dylan Riley RB 12% +4.7 +1.18
Matt Wagner TE 18% +2.9 +0.48
Terrious Favors WR 9% +2.9 +0.95
By play type
MeasureBoise StateFresno StateEdge
Rushing PPA+0.29+0.18Boise State
Rushing success48.9%50.0%Fresno State
Passing PPA+0.54+0.42Boise State
Passing success44.1%48.6%Fresno State
Standard downs PPA+0.27+0.06Boise State
Standard downs success48.3%47.1%Boise State
Passing downs PPA+0.77+0.94Fresno State
Passing downs success42.9%52.9%Fresno State

Havoc detail — Boise State defense: TFL 2, sacks 2, takeaways 0, breakups 0 on 51 snaps. Fresno State defense: TFL 1, sacks 0, takeaways 0, breakups 5 on 79 snaps.

Drives

A scoring opportunity is a drive that reaches the opponent's 40-yard line or scores; points per opportunity is the points those drives produced divided by their number.

◀ Boise StateFresno State ▶
  • 10Drives8
  • 8Scoring opportunities6
  • 4.8Points per opportunity5.2
  • own 25Avg. starting field positionown 27

Recruiting

Boise State's 2026 class: #51 · 205.71 points.

MeasureBoise StateFresno State
Talent composite 641.2
#74 of 138
609.8
#88 of 138
Transfer portal · 11 in, 19 out

Arrivals (11)

PlayerFrom★Elig.Date
Logan Brantley LB Kansas 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
Harry Stewart III RB Kansas 3 Immediate Jan 8, 2026
JeRico Washington Jr. CB Kennesaw State 3 Immediate Jan 9, 2026
Tyler Ethridge OT CSU-Pueblo 3 Immediate Jan 10, 2026
Taebron Bennie-Powell S Notre Dame 3 Immediate Jan 12, 2026
Juelz Goff RB Pittsburgh 3 Immediate Jan 12, 2026
Mikaio Edward DL Central Washington 3 Immediate Jan 13, 2026
Cam Jamerson CB TCU 3 Immediate Jan 13, 2026
Roman Tillmon S South Dakota 3 Immediate Jan 14, 2026
Zander Esty IOL Oregon State 3 Immediate Jan 19, 2026

+1 more not shown (11 total).

Departures (19)

PlayerTo★Elig.Date
Ty Benefield S LSU 4 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
JJ Talo IOL undecided 3 Immediate Dec 9, 2025
Kamryn Jones WR undecided 3 Immediate Dec 19, 2025
Hayden Hanks EDGE undecided 3 Immediate Dec 23, 2025
Davon Banks CB undecided 3 Immediate Dec 26, 2025
Eyitayo Omotinugbon IOL undecided 3 Immediate Dec 28, 2025
Hall Schmidt OT UCLA 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
Chris Marshall WR Arkansas 3 Immediate Jan 11, 2026
Chase Martin LB Cal Poly 3 Immediate Jan 12, 2026
Jaylen Webb S Nevada 3 Immediate Jan 12, 2026

+9 more not shown (19 total).

2026 commits · 28
PlayerHometown★Rating
Terrious Favors ATH Atlanta, GA 4 0.8944
Kole Cronin OT Reno, NV 3 0.8822
Rasean Jones WR Meridian, ID 3 0.8778
Davin Hill CB Arlington, TX 3 0.8767
Keawe Browne TE Corona, CA 3 0.8767
Keilan Chavies RB Hutto, TX 3 0.8767
Adam Auston S Lawton, OK 3 0.8744
Jackson Taylor QB Westlake Village, CA 3 0.8733
Ryan Brekke TE Meridian, ID 3 0.8733
Madden Soliai S Kahuku, HI 3 0.8700
Cash Herrera QB La Jolla, CA 3 0.8689
Corey Webb Jr. EDGE Tonopah, AZ 3 0.8689
Gustaf Henriks Ras EDGE Sweden 3 0.8689
Hakeim Smalls OT Everett, WA 3 0.8667
Mariyon Sloan ATH Shafter, CA 3 0.8667

+13 more not shown (28 total).

Returning production

Share of last season's production returning for Boise State in 2026.

Unit% PPAPPAUsage
Overall66.3%234.273.4%
Passing94.3%92.899.6%
Receiving39.6%74.434.8%
Rushing100.4%67.080.7%

A figure above 100% or below 0% is expected when last season's returning players had negative PPA in that phase, since PPA can be negative.