The SportsWire

Alabama

2026 · week 6 result vs Georgia

Updated Tue Oct 13, 7:55 PM CT

Next up projections

at Tennessee

Week 7 · Sat Oct 17, 2:30 PM CT / 3:30 PM ET · Neyland Stadium (Knoxville) · Tennessee (FBS, SEC)

Our call: Alabama by 6.6Lean

All three models favor Alabama. The line, shown for comparison only, has Alabama by 6.5.

The average of SP+, Elo and Our model; the line is left out and kept as a benchmark. Toss-up under 3 points, Lean 3 to 7, Strong 7 and over. More ›

Big game prediction page: at Tennessee ›

Regression watch: Last game's 3-point loss matched the play (score -1 against play), inside the 7-point band: no flag. More ›

Schedule: Played the 2nd-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating +10.2); 58th-toughest remaining (+3.8). More ›

Opponents by our model's rating 6 played · 6 left
  • Week 1 vs East Carolina (+3.3)
  • Week 2 at Kentucky (+7.0)
  • Week 3 vs Florida State (+7.9)
  • Week 4 vs South Carolina (+8.8)
  • Week 5 at Mississippi State (+10.7)
  • Week 6 vs Georgia (+23.4)
  • Remaining:
  • Week 7 at Tennessee (+13.1)
  • Week 8 vs Texas A&M (+12.0)
  • Week 10 at LSU (+18.5)
  • Week 11 at Vanderbilt (+3.7)
  • Week 12 vs Chattanooga (-32.8) · FCS, pooled
  • Week 13 vs Auburn (+8.2)

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: Alabama leads 61–39–7 · last: Alabama 37–20, 2025

Series history 107 meetings since 1903
  • All-time: Alabama leads 61–39–7 (107 meetings since 1903)
  • Last meeting: Alabama 37–20, 2025, Bryant-Denny Stadium
  • Streak: none
  • At Neyland Stadium: Alabama leads 8–4 (12 meetings)
  • Biggest margins: Alabama 51–0 (1906) · Tennessee 41–14 (1969)
  • Since 2000: Alabama leads 19–7 (26 meetings)
SeasonResultSite
2025Alabama 37–20Bryant-Denny Stadium
2024Tennessee 24–17Neyland Stadium
2023Alabama 34–20Bryant-Denny Stadium
2022Tennessee 52–49Neyland Stadium
2021Alabama 52–24Bryant-Denny Stadium
2020Alabama 48–17Neyland Stadium
2019Alabama 35–13Bryant-Denny Stadium
2018Alabama 58–21Neyland Stadium
2017Alabama 45–7Bryant-Denny Stadium
2016Alabama 49–10Neyland Stadium
2015Alabama 19–14Bryant-Denny Stadium
2014Alabama 34–20Neyland Stadium
2013Alabama 45–10Bryant-Denny Stadium
2012Alabama 44–13Neyland Stadium
2011Alabama 37–6Bryant-Denny Stadium
2010Alabama 41–10Neyland Stadium
2009Alabama 12–10Bryant-Denny Stadium
2008Alabama 29–9Neyland Stadium
2007Alabama 41–17Bryant-Denny Stadium
2006Tennessee 16–13Neyland Stadium
2005Alabama 6–3Bryant-Denny Stadium
2004Tennessee 17–13Neyland Stadium
2003Tennessee 51–43Bryant-Denny Stadium
2002Alabama 34–14Neyland Stadium
2001Tennessee 35–24home
2000Tennessee 20–10away
RatingAlabamaTennessee
SP+ +23.0 #8 +16.7 #15
Elo 1990 1776

Projected margin for Alabama · three models and the line, side by side

SP+
+3.8
Alabama +23.0 vs Tennessee +16.7
avg miss 10.6
closest 47/79
Elo
+6.1
Alabama 1990 vs Tennessee 1776
avg miss 12.3
closest 33/79
Line · benchmark
+6.5
pregame line
avg miss 11.1
Our model · experimental
+10.0
Alabama +25.5 vs Tennessee +13.1
prior 50%
avg miss 11.8
closest 14/40
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 Alabama'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.
  • Our model is this site's own experimental rating, built from each team's play-by-play adjusted for who it has played, blended with a preseason estimate from last season, returning players and recruiting. "prior 67%" means 67 percent of the rating is still that preseason estimate; the share shrinks as games are played.
  • In SP+, Elo and our model the home team gets 2.5 points (Tennessee); 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, above the cards, 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 · Alabama 6 games, Tennessee 6 games

Edge: Alabama wins 3 of 5

Alabama moves the ball better, stops plays better and has the edge on big plays. Tennessee is more disruptive and allows fewer big plays.

Alabamalonger bar = betterTennessee

Run game, head to head · season to date

Alabama's runs work 53% of the time; Tennessee's run defense allows 40%. Tennessee's runs work 48% of the time; Alabama's run defense allows 31%.

More numbers
MeasureAlabamaTennesseeEdge
Off. success rate50.0%43.2%Alabama
Off. explosiveness1.361.21Alabama
Def. success rate allowed36.4%37.7%Alabama
Def. explosiveness allowed1.431.06Tennessee
Havoc created19.9%21.5%Tennessee
  • Run game, success rate: Alabama offense 53.2% · Tennessee defense allows 40.1% · edge: Alabama
  • Run game, success rate: Tennessee offense 48.2% · Alabama defense allows 31.3% · edge: Alabama
  • Run game, PPA per play: Alabama offense +0.31 · Tennessee defense allows +0.02 · edge: Alabama
  • Run game, PPA per play: Tennessee offense +0.30 · Alabama defense allows -0.11 · edge: even
  • 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 AI-assisted 2

Gathered by an AI model from public reporting, not from CollegeFootballData. Not used in any number on this page. Verify against the linked sources.

"AI-assisted" means gathered by an AI model from public reporting. When a conference publishes an official availability list for Alabama's game (the SEC, Big Ten and ACC do, for conference games), this section shows that instead, labeled "Official report". More ›

  • Cayden Jones LBinjuryOut
    Noted Sat Oct 10, 5:00 PM CT.
    SEC availability report (Game Day), posted Sat Oct 10, 5:00 PM CT / 6:00 PM ET, for Georgia at Alabama, Sat Oct 10. Reporting: Ruled out for the season per the latest Alabama availability report.
    Sources (2): [1] [2] · as of Sat Oct 10, 5:00 PM CT / 6:00 PM ET
  • Jeremiah Beaman DLinjuryOut
    Noted Sat Oct 10, 5:00 PM CT.
    SEC availability report (Game Day), posted Sat Oct 10, 5:00 PM CT / 6:00 PM ET, for Georgia at Alabama, Sat Oct 10. Reporting: Out for the season according to the Thursday night availability report.
    Sources (2): [1] [2] · as of Sat Oct 10, 5:00 PM CT / 6:00 PM ET

Coverage (AI-assisted) · 107

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.

19 entries about games now final not shown.

Score and result

Alabama 17, Georgia 20L

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

Projected: SP+ n/a · Elo +0.1 ✗ · Our model +5.9 ✗ · the line (benchmark) -2.5 · actual -3 · Closest: Elo

Alabama was as high as 75% and lost Alabama was as high as 75% and lost Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 100% 50% 0% 17–20
  1. Q2 5:53 · 1st & 10 · 29% → 59%
    (05:53) Shotgun #12 K.Russell pass complete deep left to #9 M.Pritchett caught at UGA02, for 22 yards to the UGA00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 05:49, 1ST DOWN #31 C.Talty kick attempt good (H: #32 A.Asparuhov, LS: #55 A.Rozier)
  2. Q3 10:42 · 2nd & 9 · 59% → 32%
    (10:42) Shotgun #14 G.Stockton rush right for 14 yards gain to the ALA00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 10:38, 1ST DOWN #91 P.Woodring kick attempt good (H: #14 G.Stockton, LS: #51 W.Snellings)
  3. Q2 7:12 · 1st & 10 · 46% → 23%
    (07:12) No Huddle-Shotgun #14 G.Stockton pass complete deep middle to #16 L.Humphreys caught at ALA00, for 20 yards to the ALA00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 07:09, 1ST DOWN #91 P.Woodring kick attempt good (H: #14 G.Stockton, LS: #51 W.Snellings)

Home at Bryant-Denny Stadium · Sat Oct 10, 6:30 PM CT / 7:30 PM ET · vs Georgia (FBS, SEC)

Opponent for every game-level number: Georgia (FBS, SEC).

Verdict

The 3-point loss matched the play: Georgia's per-play edge (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.20 vs +0.23, success rate 44% vs 40%) implies roughly a -2 margin.

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

Efficiency

Even game split 2–2

Alabama moved the ball better and hit the bigger plays. Georgia got more from each play and was more disruptive.

Alabamalonger bar = betterGeorgia
More numbers

Alabama ran 61 plays, Georgia 62. Each number is that team's offense; Georgia's column is also what Alabama's defense allowed.

MeasureAlabamaGeorgiaEdge
PPA / play+0.20+0.23Georgia
Total PPA+12.4+14.1Georgia
Success rate44.3%40.3%Alabama
Explosiveness1.421.38Alabama
Havoc created9.8%16.4%Georgia
  • 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

Alabama 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
Keelon Russell QB 100% -0.2 -0.01

Rushing

PlayerRush usagePPA/play
Keelon Russell QB 20% +8.9 +1.79
Trae'shawn Brown RB 36% +3.2 +0.36
EJ Crowell RB 20% +1.7 +0.33
Rico Scott WR 8% -0.6 -0.31

Receiving

PlayerTarget usagePPA/play
Marshall Pritchett TE 6% +5.4 +2.69
Lotzeir Brooks WR 14% +1.9 +0.38
Ryan Williams WR 23% +1.9 +0.24
Daniel Hill RB 11% +1.2 +0.29
By play type
MeasureAlabamaGeorgiaEdge
Rushing PPA+0.50+0.08Alabama
Rushing success60.0%34.2%Alabama
Passing PPA-0.00+0.75Georgia
Passing success34.3%54.5%Georgia
Standard downs PPA+0.15+0.05Alabama
Standard downs success50.0%41.0%Alabama
Passing downs PPA+0.36+0.53Georgia
Passing downs success26.7%39.1%Georgia

Havoc detail — Alabama defense: TFL 1, sacks 1, takeaways 1, breakups 3 on 61 snaps. Georgia defense: TFL 1, sacks 3, takeaways 0, breakups 6 on 61 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.

◀ AlabamaGeorgia ▶
  • 9Drives9
  • 6Scoring opportunities6
  • 2.8Points per opportunity3.3
  • own 29Avg. starting field positionown 16

Recruiting

MeasureAlabamaGeorgia
2026 class rank26
2026 class points303.79291.98
Talent composite 973.5
#4 of 138		 1003.7
#1 of 138
Transfer portal · 17 in, 24 out

Arrivals (17)

PlayerFrom★Elig.Date
Devan Thompkins DL USC 4 Immediate Jan 7, 2026
Ty Haywood OT Michigan 4 Immediate Jan 12, 2026
Noah Rogers WR NC State 4 Immediate Jan 12, 2026
Terrance Green DL Oregon 4 Immediate Jan 13, 2026
Nick Brooks IOL Texas 4 Immediate Jan 14, 2026
Josh Ford TE Oklahoma State 3 Immediate Dec 16, 2025
Caleb Woodson LB Virginia Tech 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Kaden Strayhorn IOL Michigan 3 Immediate Jan 7, 2026
Carmelo O'Neal S Mercer 3 Immediate Jan 10, 2026
Kedrick Bingley-Jones DL Mississippi State 3 Immediate Jan 12, 2026

+7 more not shown (17 total).

Departures (24)

PlayerTo★Elig.Date
Jaylen Mbakwe WR Georgia Tech 4 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
Wilkin Formby OT Texas A&M 4 Immediate Jan 7, 2026
Noah Carter EDGE Georgia Tech 4 Immediate Jan 10, 2026
Isaiah Horton WR Texas A&M 4 Immediate Jan 11, 2026
Keon Keeley DL Notre Dame 4 Immediate Jan 12, 2026
James Smith DL Ohio State 4 Immediate Jan 13, 2026
Qua Russaw EDGE Ohio State 4 Immediate Jan 13, 2026
Jordan Renaud EDGE Ole Miss 4 Immediate Jan 13, 2026
Rico Scott WR undecided 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Joseph Ionata IOL Georgia Tech 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026

+14 more not shown (24 total).

2026 commits · 26
PlayerHometown★Rating
EJ Crowell RB Jackson, AL 5 0.9928
Xavier Griffin LB Gainesville, GA 5 0.9895
Jorden Edmonds CB Marietta, GA 5 0.9870
Jireh Edwards S Upper Marlboro, MD 5 0.9850
Cederian Morgan WR Alexander City, AL 4 0.9807
Jett Thomalla QB Omaha, NE 4 0.9794
Jamarion Matthews DL Gainesville, GA 4 0.9718
Nolan Wilson DL Picayune, MS 4 0.9700
Zyan Gibson CB Gadsden, AL 4 0.9700
Mack Sutter TE Dunlap, IL 4 0.9488
Jared Graham OT Atlanta, GA 4 0.9296
Bryson Cooley OT Laurel, MS 4 0.9226
Chris Booker IOL Atlanta, GA 4 0.9197
Mhari Johnson EDGE Muscle Shoals, AL 4 0.9089
Malique Franklin EDGE Daphne, AL 4 0.8978

+11 more not shown (26 total).

Returning production

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

Unit% PPAPPAUsage
Overall26.4%120.230.1%
Passing12.3%22.29.2%
Receiving41.0%107.046.6%
Rushing-66.9%-9.138.9%

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.