The SportsWire

Florida State

2026 · week 6 result vs Louisville

Updated Tue Oct 13, 7:56 PM CT

Next up projections

at Miami

Week 7 · Sat Oct 17, 6:00 PM CT / 7:00 PM ET · Hard Rock Stadium (Miami Gardens) · Miami (FBS, ACC)

Our call: Miami by 20.2Strong

All three models favor Miami. The line, shown for comparison only, has Miami by 21.0.

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: at Miami ›

Regression watch: Last game's 24-point loss matched the play (score -1 against play), inside the 7-point band: no flag. More ›

Schedule: Played the 27th-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating -0.2); 27th-toughest remaining (+8.6). More ›

Opponents by our model's rating 6 played · 6 left
  • Week 1 vs New Mexico State (-15.9)
  • Week 1 vs SMU (+8.5)
  • Week 3 at Alabama (+25.5)
  • Week 4 vs Central Arkansas (-32.8) · FCS, pooled
  • Week 5 vs Virginia (+3.6)
  • Week 6 at Louisville (+9.8)
  • Remaining:
  • Week 7 at Miami (+23.3)
  • Week 9 vs Clemson (+6.4)
  • Week 10 at Boston College (-4.4)
  • Week 11 at Pittsburgh (+10.1)
  • Week 12 vs NC State (+4.6)
  • Week 13 vs Florida (+11.8)

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: Miami leads 37–33 · last: Miami 28–22, 2025 · Miami has won 2 straight

Series history 70 meetings since 1951
  • All-time: Miami leads 37–33 (70 meetings since 1951)
  • Last meeting: Miami 28–22, 2025, Doak Campbell Stadium
  • Streak: Miami has won 2 straight
  • At Hard Rock Stadium: Florida State leads 6–3 (9 meetings)
  • Biggest margins: Florida State 47–0 (1997) · Miami 47–0 (1976)
  • Since 2000: Miami leads 14–13 (27 meetings)
SeasonResultSite
2025Miami 28–22Doak Campbell Stadium
2024Miami 36–14Hard Rock Stadium
2023Florida State 27–20Doak Campbell Stadium
2022Florida State 45–3Hard Rock Stadium
2021Florida State 31–28Doak Campbell Stadium
2020Miami 52–10Hard Rock Stadium
2019Miami 27–10Doak Campbell Stadium
2018Miami 28–27Hard Rock Stadium
2017Miami 24–20Doak Campbell Stadium
2016Florida State 20–19Hard Rock Stadium
2015Florida State 29–24Doak Campbell Stadium
2014Florida State 30–26Hard Rock Stadium
2013Florida State 41–14Doak Campbell Stadium
2012Florida State 33–20Hard Rock Stadium
2011Florida State 23–19Doak Campbell Stadium
2010Florida State 45–17Hard Rock Stadium
2009Miami 38–34Doak Campbell Stadium
2008Florida State 41–39Hard Rock Stadium
2007Miami 37–29Doak Campbell Stadium
2006Florida State 13–10away
2005Florida State 10–7Doak Campbell Stadium
2004Miami 16–10away
2003Miami 16–14neutral site
2003Miami 22–14Doak Campbell Stadium
2002Miami 28–27away
2001Miami 49–27Doak Campbell Stadium
2000Miami 27–24away
RatingFlorida StateMiami
SP+ +5.8 #53 +27.8 #4
Elo 1598 1993

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

SP+
-24.5
Florida State +5.8 vs Miami +27.8
avg miss 10.6
closest 47/79
Elo
-18.3
Florida State 1598 vs Miami 1993
avg miss 12.3
closest 33/79
Line · benchmark
-21.0
pregame line
avg miss 11.1
Our model · experimental
-17.9
Florida State +7.9 vs Miami +23.3
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 Florida 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.
  • 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 (Miami); 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 · Florida State 6 games, Miami 5 games

Edge: Miami wins 3 of 5

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

Florida Statelonger bar = betterMiami

Run game, head to head · season to date

Florida State's runs work 48% of the time; Miami's run defense allows 31%. Miami's runs work 54% of the time; Florida State's run defense allows 46%.

More numbers
MeasureFlorida StateMiamiEdge
Off. success rate45.0%57.4%Miami
Off. explosiveness1.411.24Florida State
Def. success rate allowed44.5%37.0%Miami
Def. explosiveness allowed1.331.19Miami
Havoc created15.9%15.8%Florida State
  • Run game, success rate: Florida State offense 48.5% · Miami defense allows 31.2% · edge: Miami
  • Run game, success rate: Miami offense 53.5% · Florida State defense allows 46.2% · edge: Miami
  • Run game, PPA per play: Florida State offense +0.29 · Miami defense allows -0.16 · edge: even
  • Run game, PPA per play: Miami offense +0.28 · Florida State defense allows +0.21 · edge: Miami
  • 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 1

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 Florida State's game (the SEC, Big Ten and ACC do, for conference games), this section shows that instead, labeled "Official report". More ›

  • Daylen Green LBinjuryOut
    Noted Fri Oct 9, 4:00 PM CT.
    ACC availability report (Game Day), posted Fri Oct 9, 4:00 PM CT / 5:00 PM ET, for Florida State at Louisville, Fri Oct 9. Reporting: Freshman linebacker is out for the remainder of the season.
    Sources (2): [1] [2] · as of Fri Oct 9, 4:00 PM CT / 5:00 PM ET

Coverage (AI-assisted) · 19

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 Mon Oct 12, 1:55 PM CT.

Score and result

Florida State 20, Louisville 44L

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

Projected: SP+ n/a · Elo -3.1 ✓ · Our model -1.8 ✓ · the line (benchmark) n/a · actual -24 · Closest: Elo

Florida State was as high as 89% and lost Florida State was as high as 89% and lost Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 100% 50% 0% 20–44
  1. Q2 3:20 · 1st & 3 · 58% → 34%
    (03:20) #24 M.Davis rush middle for 3 yards gain to the FSU00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 03:21 #35 C.Hilbert kick attempt good (H: #17 R.Zimmerman, LS: #51 H.Travelstead)
  2. Q3 12:45 · 1st & 3 · 38% → 15%
    (12:45) Shotgun #3 L.Kienholz rush middle for 3 yards gain to the FSU00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 12:45 #35 C.Hilbert kick attempt good (H: #17 R.Zimmerman, LS: #51 H.Travelstead)
  3. Q1 4:41 · 1st & 10 · 59% → 77%
    (04:41) No Huddle-Shotgun #14 A.Daniels pass incomplete deep middle to #15 J.Boggs thrown to LOU33 QB hurried by #23 B.Perry

Away at L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium · Fri Oct 9, 6:00 PM CT / 7:00 PM ET · vs Louisville (FBS, ACC)

Opponent for every game-level number: Louisville (FBS, ACC).

Verdict

The 24-point loss matched the play: Louisville's per-play edge (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.03 vs +0.43, success rate 44% vs 51%) implies roughly a -23 margin.

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

Efficiency

Edge: Louisville won 4 of 4

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

Florida Statelonger bar = betterLouisville
More numbers

Florida State ran 77 plays, Louisville 61. Each number is that team's offense; Louisville's column is also what Florida State's defense allowed.

MeasureFlorida StateLouisvilleEdge
PPA / play+0.03+0.43Louisville
Total PPA+2.7+26.1Louisville
Success rate44.2%50.8%Louisville
Explosiveness1.151.44Louisville
Havoc created6.9%16.9%Louisville
  • 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

Florida 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
Ashton Daniels QB 95% +1.8 +0.04
Kevin Sperry QB 2% -0.8 -0.78

Rushing

PlayerRush usagePPA/play
Ashton Daniels QB 23% +5.8 +0.72
Ousmane Kromah RB 54% +2.1 +0.11
Tre Wisner RB 20% +0.2 +0.03

Receiving

PlayerTarget usagePPA/play
Jayvan Boggs WR 12% +4.2 +0.83
Micahi Danzy WR 22% +4.0 +0.44
Ousmane Kromah RB 10% +2.3 +0.58
Landen Thomas TE 5% +1.0 +0.51
By play type
MeasureFlorida StateLouisvilleEdge
Rushing PPA+0.24+0.51Louisville
Rushing success57.1%54.8%Florida State
Passing PPA-0.14+0.32Louisville
Passing success33.3%50.0%Louisville
Standard downs PPA-0.13+0.41Louisville
Standard downs success46.4%57.1%Louisville
Passing downs PPA+0.47+0.48Louisville
Passing downs success38.1%36.8%Florida State

Havoc detail — Florida State defense: TFL 2, sacks 1, takeaways 0, breakups 1 on 58 snaps. Louisville defense: TFL 3, sacks 4, takeaways 1, breakups 5 on 77 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.

◀ Florida StateLouisville ▶
  • 11Drives12
  • 8Scoring opportunities9
  • 2.5Points per opportunity4.1
  • own 27Avg. starting field positionown 32
By half

Shown because the game changed between halves: the per-play edge swung by 0.49 points a play (Florida State -0.18 in the first half, -0.67 in the second). Overtime counts with the second half.

Florida StateLouisville
1st2nd1st2nd
PPA / play+0.17-0.15+0.36+0.52
Success rate50%36%50%56%
Plays44332236

Recruiting

MeasureFlorida StateLouisville
2026 class rank1648
2026 class points251.54211.65
Talent composite 800.2
#21 of 138
740.0
#37 of 138
Transfer portal · 22 in, 44 out

Arrivals (22)

PlayerFrom★Elig.Date
Quintrevion Wisner RB Texas 4 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
Xavier Chaplin OT Auburn 4 Immediate Jan 9, 2026
Mikai Gbayor LB North Carolina 4 Immediate Jan 15, 2026
Nehemiah Chandler CB South Alabama 3 Immediate Jan 3, 2026
Ashton Daniels QB Auburn 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Bradyn Joiner IOL Purdue 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Nate Pabst OT Bowling Green 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Desirrio Riles TE East Carolina 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Rylan Kennedy EDGE Texas A&M 3 Immediate Jan 7, 2026
Paul Bowling IOL Troy 3 Immediate Jan 7, 2026

+12 more not shown (22 total).

Departures (44)

PlayerTo★Elig.Date
Ja'Bril Rawls CB undecided 4 Immediate Dec 16, 2025
Omar Graham Jr. LB undecided 4 Immediate Dec 16, 2025
Ashlynd Barker S undecided 4 Immediate Dec 28, 2025
Edwin Joseph S Ole Miss 4 Immediate Jan 10, 2026
Earl Little Jr. S Ohio State 4 Immediate Jan 11, 2026
Lawayne McCoy WR Louisville 4 Immediate Jan 11, 2026
Kevin Wynn DL undecided 4 Withdrawn Jan 14, 2026
Mandrell Desir EDGE undecided 4 Withdrawn Jan 16, 2026
Darryll Desir EDGE undecided 4 Withdrawn Jan 16, 2026
Landen Thomas TE undecided 3 Immediate Dec 22, 2025

+34 more not shown (44 total).

2026 commits · 30
PlayerHometown★Rating
Chuck Kennon CB Sarasota, FL 4 0.9730
Izayia Williams LB Tavares, FL 4 0.9442
Earnest Rankins DL Decatur, GA 4 0.9315
Jasen Lopez WR Miami, FL 4 0.9222
Xavier Tiller TE Fairburn, GA 4 0.9165
EJ White ATH Vero Beach, FL 4 0.9099
Jaemin Pinckney EDGE Dorchester, SC 4 0.9095
Devin Carter WR Douglasville, GA 4 0.9075
Amari Thomas RB Blountstown, FL 4 0.9004
Tre Bell III S Hialeah, FL 4 0.8975
Jaden O'Neal QB Mustang, OK 4 0.8962
Franklin Whitley DL Greenville, SC 4 0.8939
Jordan Crutchfield S Vero Beach, FL 3 0.8900
Cam Brooks EDGE Thomasville, GA 3 0.8833
Brandon Bennett WR Plantation, FL 3 0.8800

+15 more not shown (30 total).

Returning production

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

Unit% PPAPPAUsage
Overall40.1%162.930.5%
Passing12.5%13.26.0%
Receiving65.2%114.254.8%
Rushing28.2%35.533.3%

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.