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 ›
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)
| Season | Result | Site |
|---|---|---|
| 2023 | LSU 48–18 | Tiger Stadium (LA) |
| 2022 | LSU 21–17 | Jordan-Hare Stadium |
| 2021 | Auburn 24–19 | Tiger Stadium (LA) |
| 2020 | Auburn 48–11 | Jordan-Hare Stadium |
| 2019 | LSU 23–20 | Tiger Stadium (LA) |
| 2018 | LSU 22–21 | Jordan-Hare Stadium |
| 2017 | LSU 27–23 | Tiger Stadium (LA) |
| 2016 | Auburn 18–13 | Jordan-Hare Stadium |
| 2015 | LSU 45–21 | Tiger Stadium (LA) |
| 2014 | Auburn 41–7 | Jordan-Hare Stadium |
| 2013 | LSU 35–21 | Tiger Stadium (LA) |
| 2012 | LSU 12–10 | Jordan-Hare Stadium |
| 2011 | LSU 45–10 | Tiger Stadium (LA) |
| 2010 | Auburn 24–17 | Jordan-Hare Stadium |
| 2009 | LSU 31–10 | Tiger Stadium (LA) |
| 2008 | LSU 26–21 | Jordan-Hare Stadium |
| 2007 | LSU 30–24 | Tiger Stadium (LA) |
| 2006 | Auburn 7–3 | Jordan-Hare Stadium |
| 2005 | LSU 20–17 | Tiger Stadium (LA) |
| 2004 | Auburn 10–9 | Jordan-Hare Stadium |
| 2003 | LSU 31–7 | Tiger Stadium (LA) |
| 2002 | Auburn 31–7 | Jordan-Hare Stadium |
| 2001 | LSU 27–14 | Tiger Stadium (LA) |
| 2000 | Auburn 34–17 | home |
| Rating | Auburn | LSU |
|---|---|---|
| SP+ | +11.0 #31 | +21.7 #9 |
| Elo | 1699 | 1913 |
Projected margin for Auburn · three models and the line, side by side
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.
-
41% Moves the ballsuccessful plays ✓52%
-
41% Stops playssuccessful plays allowed ✓32%
-
16% Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers ✓22%
-
1.27✓ Big playson offense 1.17
-
1.19✓ Big plays allowedon defense 1.21
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
| Measure | Auburn | LSU | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Off. success rate | 40.8% | 52.3% | LSU |
| Off. explosiveness | 1.27 | 1.17 | Auburn |
| Def. success rate allowed | 40.7% | 32.3% | LSU |
| Def. explosiveness allowed | 1.19 | 1.21 | Auburn |
| Havoc created | 16.4% | 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
| Date | Opponent | Our win chance | Projected |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sat Oct 24 | vs #22 LSU | 32% | by 7.5 them |
| Fri Oct 30 | at #9 Ole Miss | 27% | by 9.3 them |
| Fri Nov 6 | vs Arkansas | 81% | by 13.3 us |
| Fri Nov 13 | at #16 Mississippi State | 48% | by 0.8 them |
| Sat Nov 21 | vs Samford | >99% | by 45.8 us |
| Fri Nov 27 | at #6 Alabama | 18% | 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.
-
Big news from Auburn from last night on Xavier Atkins dismissal
ESPN story reports Auburn dismissed star linebacker Xavier Atkins.
- Auburn LB Xavier Atkins is set to enter the transfer portal
- Auburn’s Alex Golesh named Paul Bear Bryant National Coach of the Week
-
Four new teams in McMurphy Week 8 College Football Playoff and bowl projections
Four new teams are Auburn, TCU, Texas State and Tulane with Tennessee and Utah new to the playoff.
- The Texas and Georgia walk-off field-goal losses mark the first time in AP Poll history that the No. 1 team has lost on the final play of the game in consecutive weeks
-
For the first time since 1990, the AP’s top-ranked team has lost in consecutive weeks to an unranked foe
The AP top-ranked team lost in consecutive weeks to an unranked foe for the first time since 1990.
-
Iowa State hiring Jared Benko as next athletic director
Iowa State is hiring Auburn executive Jared Benko as its next athletic director.
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
- 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)
- 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
- 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).
- By quarter: Auburn 7-10-7-3 · Georgia 14-0-0-10
- Week 7 polls: Coaches: Georgia #1 · AP: Georgia #1
- Pregame Elo: Auburn 1669, Georgia 2053
- Postgame win probability: 59.8%
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.
-
37% Moved the ballsuccessful plays ✓52%
-
+0.21✓ Points per playwhat a play was worth +0.09
-
1.30✓ Big playssize of the good plays 1.18
-
14%✓ Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers 12%
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.
| Measure | Auburn | Georgia | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| PPA / play | +0.21 | +0.09 | Auburn |
| Total PPA | +15.6 | +6.1 | Auburn |
| Success rate | 37.3% | 51.5% | Georgia |
| Explosiveness | 1.30 | 1.18 | Auburn |
| Havoc created | 13.8% | 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
| Player | Pass usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Byrum Brown QB | 94% | +4.9 | +0.16 |
| Tristan Ti'a QB | 3% | -0.7 | -0.69 |
Rushing
| Player | Rush usage | PPA | /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
| Player | Target usage | PPA | /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
| Measure | Auburn | Georgia | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rushing PPA | +0.21 | +0.12 | Auburn |
| Rushing success | 41.5% | 56.0% | Georgia |
| Passing PPA | +0.21 | +0.29 | Georgia |
| Passing success | 33.3% | 52.6% | Georgia |
| Standard downs PPA | +0.21 | +0.01 | Auburn |
| Standard downs success | 45.7% | 53.2% | Georgia |
| Passing downs PPA | +0.21 | +0.31 | Georgia |
| Passing downs success | 24.1% | 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.
Recruiting
| Measure | Auburn | Georgia |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 class rank | 31 | 6 |
| 2026 class points | 225.99 | 291.98 |
| Talent composite | 828.2 #18 of 138 |
1003.7 #1 of 138 |
Transfer portal · 39 in, 39 out
Arrivals (39)
| Player | From | ★ | 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)
| Player | To | ★ | 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
| Player | Hometown | ★ | 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 | % PPA | PPA | Usage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 14.4% | 35.8 | 19.6% |
| Passing | 0.0% | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Receiving | 8.8% | 9.2 | 8.7% |
| Rushing | 26.3% | 26.7 | 48.0% |
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.