The SportsWire

Auburn

2026 · week 7 result vs Georgia

Updated Tue Oct 20, 7:46 PM CT

Next up projections

vs LSU

Week 8 · Sat Oct 24, 11:00 AM CT / 12:00 PM ET · Jordan-Hare Stadium (Auburn) · LSU (FBS, SEC)

Our call: LSU by 7.5Strong

All three models favor LSU (SP+ from the week 7 snapshot). The line, shown for comparison only, has LSU by 7.0.

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 ›

Game page: vs LSU ›

Regression watch: Last game's 3-point win matched the play (score -6 against play), inside the 7-point band: no flag. More ›

Schedule: Played the 3rd-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating +8.7); 45th-toughest remaining (+5.7). More ›

Opponents by our model's rating 6 played · 6 left
  • Week 1 vs Baylor (+6.7)
  • Week 2 vs Southern Miss (-8.4)
  • Week 3 vs Florida (+13.4)
  • Week 4 vs Vanderbilt (+2.7)
  • Week 5 at Tennessee (+16.1)
  • Week 7 at Georgia (+21.9)
  • Remaining:
  • Week 8 vs LSU (+20.8)
  • Week 9 at Ole Miss (+16.1)
  • Week 10 vs Arkansas (-1.4)
  • Week 11 at Mississippi State (+9.0)
  • Week 12 vs Samford (-33.2) · FCS, pooled
  • Week 13 at Alabama (+22.9)

Each opponent's rating from our model's week 8 snapshot, in points against an average FBS team; the averages are ranked among the 138 FBS teams. Played means through week 7. Experimental, like the Our model card.

Series: LSU leads 33–23–1 · last: LSU 48–18, 2023 · LSU has won 2 straight

Series history 57 meetings since 1902
  • All-time: LSU leads 33–23–1 (57 meetings since 1902)
  • Last meeting: LSU 48–18, 2023, Tiger Stadium (LA)
  • Streak: LSU has won 2 straight
  • At Jordan-Hare Stadium: Auburn leads 7–4 (11 meetings)
  • Biggest margins: Auburn 48–11 (2020) · LSU 45–10 (2011)
  • Since 2000: LSU leads 15–9 (24 meetings)
SeasonResultSite
2023LSU 48–18Tiger Stadium (LA)
2022LSU 21–17Jordan-Hare Stadium
2021Auburn 24–19Tiger Stadium (LA)
2020Auburn 48–11Jordan-Hare Stadium
2019LSU 23–20Tiger Stadium (LA)
2018LSU 22–21Jordan-Hare Stadium
2017LSU 27–23Tiger Stadium (LA)
2016Auburn 18–13Jordan-Hare Stadium
2015LSU 45–21Tiger Stadium (LA)
2014Auburn 41–7Jordan-Hare Stadium
2013LSU 35–21Tiger Stadium (LA)
2012LSU 12–10Jordan-Hare Stadium
2011LSU 45–10Tiger Stadium (LA)
2010Auburn 24–17Jordan-Hare Stadium
2009LSU 31–10Tiger Stadium (LA)
2008LSU 26–21Jordan-Hare Stadium
2007LSU 30–24Tiger Stadium (LA)
2006Auburn 7–3Jordan-Hare Stadium
2005LSU 20–17Tiger Stadium (LA)
2004Auburn 10–9Jordan-Hare Stadium
2003LSU 31–7Tiger Stadium (LA)
2002Auburn 31–7Jordan-Hare Stadium
2001LSU 27–14Tiger Stadium (LA)
2000Auburn 34–17home
RatingAuburnLSU
SP+ +11.0 #31 +21.7 #9
Elo 1699 1913

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

SP+
-8.2
Auburn +11.0 vs LSU +21.7 · week 7 snapshot, before last week's games
avg miss 11.0
closest 57/100
Elo
-6.1
Auburn 1699 vs LSU 1913
avg miss 12.3
closest 44/100
Line · benchmark
-7.0
pregame line
avg miss 11.3
Our model · experimental
-8.2
Auburn +10.2 vs LSU +20.8
prior 50%
avg miss 12.0
closest 23/61
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 Auburn'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 (Auburn); 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 · Auburn 6 games, LSU 7 games

Edge: LSU wins 3 of 5

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

Auburnlonger bar = betterLSU

Run game, head to head · season to date

Auburn's runs work 44% of the time; LSU's run defense allows 31%. LSU's runs work 49% of the time; Auburn's run defense allows 41%.

More numbers
MeasureAuburnLSUEdge
Off. success rate40.8%52.3%LSU
Off. explosiveness1.271.17Auburn
Def. success rate allowed40.7%32.3%LSU
Def. explosiveness allowed1.191.21Auburn
Havoc created16.4%21.7%LSU
  • Run game, success rate: Auburn offense 43.9% · LSU defense allows 30.8% · edge: LSU
  • Run game, success rate: LSU offense 48.6% · Auburn defense allows 40.8% · edge: LSU
  • Run game, PPA per play: Auburn offense +0.18 · LSU defense allows -0.06 · edge: even
  • Run game, PPA per play: LSU offense +0.12 · Auburn defense allows +0.06 · 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 ›

Rest of the season experimental

DateOpponentOur win chanceProjected
Sat Oct 24vs #22 LSU32%by 7.5 them
Fri Oct 30at #9 Ole Miss27%by 9.3 them
Fri Nov 6vs Arkansas81%by 13.3 us
Fri Nov 13at #16 Mississippi State48%by 0.8 them
Sat Nov 21vs Samford>99%by 45.8 us
Fri Nov 27at #6 Alabama18%by 13.9 them

Projected record: 7.1 wins on average; most likely 7-5 (34%). Conference title: 1%. Playoff: 5%. Playoff chances ›

From our model's simulation of the rest of the season (10,000 times); the win chance is how often we won that game in the simulations, the projected margin is Our call's (SP+, Elo and Our model averaged, 2.5 points to the home team).

Injuries

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

Coverage (AI-assisted) · 7

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

Score and result

Auburn 27, Georgia 24W

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

Projected: SP+ -19.8 ✗ · Elo -17.9 ✗ · Our model -17.7 ✗ · the line (benchmark) -18.5 · actual +3 · Closest: Our model

Auburn was as low as 7% and won Auburn was as low as 7% and won Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 100% 50% 0% 27–24
  1. Q4 3:02 · 1st & 4 · 75% → 37%
    (03:02) #14 G.Stockton pass complete short left to #16 L.Humphreys caught at AUB00, for 4 yards to the AUB00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 02:58 #91 P.Woodring kick attempt good (H: #14 G.Stockton, LS: #51 W.Snellings)
  2. Q4 0:58 · 1st & 10 · 25% → 59%
    (00:58) No Huddle-Shotgun #23 J.Cobb rush middle for 12 yards gain to the UGA44 (#81 J.Horton), 1ST DOWN
  3. Q2 6:37 · 2nd & 7 · 30% → 53%
    (06:37) No Huddle-Shotgun #17 B.Brown pass complete short left to #5 C.Nimrod caught at UGA00, for 9 yards to the UGA00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 06:32, 1ST DOWN #38 A.McPherson kick attempt good (H: #14 H.Kaak, LS: #59 H.Powell)

Away at Sanford Stadium · Sat Oct 17, 2:30 PM CT / 3:30 PM ET · vs Georgia (FBS, SEC)

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

Verdict

The 3-point win matched the play: Auburn's per-play edge (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.21 vs +0.09, though Georgia was more consistent: success rate 37% vs 52%) implies roughly a +9 margin.

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

Efficiency

Edge: Auburn won 3 of 4

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

Auburnlonger bar = betterGeorgia
More numbers

Auburn ran 75 plays, Georgia 66. Each number is that team's offense; Georgia's column is also what Auburn's defense allowed.

MeasureAuburnGeorgiaEdge
PPA / play+0.21+0.09Auburn
Total PPA+15.6+6.1Auburn
Success rate37.3%51.5%Georgia
Explosiveness1.301.18Auburn
Havoc created13.8%12.2%Auburn
  • 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

Auburn 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
Byrum Brown QB 94% +4.9 +0.16
Tristan Ti'a QB 3% -0.7 -0.69

Rushing

PlayerRush usagePPA/play
Byrum Brown QB 49% +9.8 +0.49
Bryce Cain WR 2% +0.6 +0.60
Jeremiah Cobb RB 32% -0.1 -0.01
Omar Mabson Ii RB 12% -1.0 -0.19

Receiving

PlayerTarget usagePPA/play
Chas Nimrod WR 27% +5.4 +0.60
Jake Johnson TE 6% +3.6 +1.78
Jeremiah Koger WR 3% +2.4 +2.44
Arlis Boardingham TE 3% +1.6 +1.59
By play type
MeasureAuburnGeorgiaEdge
Rushing PPA+0.21+0.12Auburn
Rushing success41.5%56.0%Georgia
Passing PPA+0.21+0.29Georgia
Passing success33.3%52.6%Georgia
Standard downs PPA+0.21+0.01Auburn
Standard downs success45.7%53.2%Georgia
Passing downs PPA+0.21+0.31Georgia
Passing downs success24.1%47.4%Georgia

Havoc detail — Auburn defense: TFL 1, sacks 2, takeaways 3, breakups 3 on 65 snaps. Georgia defense: TFL 1, sacks 5, takeaways 0, breakups 3 on 74 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.

◀ AuburnGeorgia ▶
  • 12Drives12
  • 11Scoring opportunities10
  • 2.5Points per opportunity2.4
  • own 27Avg. starting field positionown 25

Recruiting

MeasureAuburnGeorgia
2026 class rank316
2026 class points225.99291.98
Talent composite 828.2
#18 of 138
1003.7
#1 of 138
Transfer portal · 39 in, 39 out

Arrivals (39)

PlayerFrom★Elig.Date
Byrum Brown QB South Florida 4 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Bryson Washington RB Baylor 4 Immediate Jan 11, 2026
Da'Shawn Womack EDGE Ole Miss 4 Immediate Jan 15, 2026
Walter Mathis Jr. DL LSU 4 Immediate Jan 15, 2026
Locklan Hewlett QB South Florida 3 Immediate Jan 3, 2026
Christian Neptune WR South Florida 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Kory Pettigrew WR South Florida 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Fred Gaskin S South Florida 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
Nykahi Davenport RB South Florida 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
Jonathan Echols TE South Florida 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026

+29 more not shown (39 total).

Departures (39)

PlayerTo★Elig.Date
Cam Coleman WR Texas 5 Immediate Jan 11, 2026
Jay Crawford CB Ole Miss 4 Immediate Jan 3, 2026
Perry Thompson WR Minnesota 4 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Amaris Williams EDGE Georgia 4 Immediate Jan 8, 2026
Xavier Chaplin OT Florida State 4 Immediate Jan 9, 2026
Eric Singleton Jr. WR Florida 4 Immediate Jan 11, 2026
Deuce Knight QB Ole Miss 4 Immediate Jan 11, 2026
Malcolm Simmons WR Texas Tech 4 Immediate Jan 12, 2026
Jacoby Mathews S undecided 4 Immediate Jan 15, 2026
Horatio Fields WR Ole Miss 4 Immediate Jan 29, 2026

+29 more not shown (39 total).

2026 commits · 20
PlayerHometown★Rating
Jaquez Wilkes LB Wadley, AL 4 0.9514
Brady Marchese WR Cartersville, GA 4 0.9416
Shadarius Toodle LB Mobile, AL 4 0.9084
Corey Wells DL Petal, MS 4 0.9079
Wilson Zierer OT Rabun Gap, GA 4 0.9036
Adam Balogoun-Ali LB West Palm Beach, FL 4 0.8999
Tavian Branch DL Taylor, PA 3 0.8867
Damonte Tabb S Alabaster, AL 3 0.8822
Bear McWhorter IOL White, GA 3 0.8821
DeShawn Spencer WR Saraland, AL 3 0.8789
Parker Pritchett OT Columbus, GA 3 0.8767
Mykall Lundy-Foster IOL Tallahassee, FL 3 0.8744
Brian Williams Jr. WR Orlando, FL 3 0.8733
DJ Broughton Jr. TE Semmes, AL 3 0.8678
Rhys Brush QB Seffner, FL 3 0.8622

+5 more not shown (20 total).

Returning production

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

Unit% PPAPPAUsage
Overall14.4%35.819.6%
Passing0.0%0.00.0%
Receiving8.8%9.28.7%
Rushing26.3%26.748.0%

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.