The SportsWire

Florida

2026 · week 6 result vs South Carolina

Updated Tue Oct 13, 7:56 PM CT

Next up projections

at Texas

Week 7 · Sat Oct 17, 11:00 AM CT / 12:00 PM ET · DKR-Texas Memorial Stadium (Austin) · Texas (FBS, SEC)

Our call: Texas by 13.0Strong

All three models favor Texas. The line, shown for comparison only, has Texas by 10.0.

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 Texas ›

Regression watch: Last game's 19-point loss matched the play (score +2 against play), inside the 7-point band: no flag. More ›

Schedule: Played the 22nd-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating +0.9); 4th-toughest remaining (+12.4). More ›

Opponents by our model's rating 6 played · 6 left
  • Week 1 vs Florida Atlantic (-6.5)
  • Week 2 vs Campbell (-32.8) · FCS, pooled
  • Week 3 at Auburn (+8.2)
  • Week 4 vs Ole Miss (+13.6)
  • Week 5 at Missouri (+13.9)
  • Week 6 vs South Carolina (+8.8)
  • Remaining:
  • Week 7 at Texas (+18.1)
  • Week 9 vs Georgia (+23.4)
  • Week 10 vs Oklahoma (+14.7)
  • Week 11 at Kentucky (+7.0)
  • Week 12 vs Vanderbilt (+3.7)
  • Week 13 at Florida State (+7.9)

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: Texas leads 3–1–1 · last: Florida 29–21, 2025

Series history 5 meetings since 1924
  • All-time: Texas leads 3–1–1 (5 meetings since 1924)
  • Last meeting: Florida 29–21, 2025, Ben Hill Griffin Stadium
  • Streak: none
  • At DKR-Texas Memorial Stadium: Texas leads 1–0 (1 meeting)
  • Biggest margins: Florida 29–21 (2025) · Texas 49–17 (2024)
  • Since 2000: tied 1–1 (2 meetings)
SeasonResultSite
2025Florida 29–21Ben Hill Griffin Stadium
2024Texas 49–17DKR-Texas Memorial Stadium
RatingFloridaTexas
SP+ +11.0 #31 +24.4 #6
Elo 1619 1914

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

SP+
-15.9
Florida +11.0 vs Texas +24.4
avg miss 10.6
closest 47/79
Elo
-14.3
Florida 1619 vs Texas 1914
avg miss 12.3
closest 33/79
Line · benchmark
-10.0
pregame line
avg miss 11.1
Our model · experimental
-8.7
Florida +11.8 vs Texas +18.1
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 Florida'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 (Texas); 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 6 games, Texas 5 games

Edge: Texas wins 3 of 5

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

Floridalonger bar = betterTexas

Run game, head to head · season to date

Florida's runs work 46% of the time; Texas's run defense allows 35%. Texas's runs work 45% of the time; Florida's run defense allows 44%.

More numbers
MeasureFloridaTexasEdge
Off. success rate48.9%43.0%Florida
Off. explosiveness1.251.17Florida
Def. success rate allowed44.3%34.3%Texas
Def. explosiveness allowed1.271.05Texas
Havoc created18.4%21.2%Texas
  • Run game, success rate: Florida offense 46.0% · Texas defense allows 35.4% · edge: Texas
  • Run game, success rate: Texas offense 44.5% · Florida defense allows 43.6% · edge: even
  • Run game, PPA per play: Florida offense +0.19 · Texas defense allows -0.07 · edge: even
  • Run game, PPA per play: Texas offense +0.02 · Florida 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

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

Coverage (AI-assisted) · 25

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.

15 entries about games now final not shown.

Score and result

Florida 19, South Carolina 38L

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

Projected: SP+ n/a · Elo +3.3 ✗ · Our model +9.2 ✗ · the line (benchmark) +14.5 · actual -19 · Closest: Elo

Florida was as high as 80% and lost Florida was as high as 80% and lost Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 100% 50% 0% 19–38
  1. Q2 1:52 · 2nd & 11 · 41% → 20%
    (01:52) No Huddle-Shotgun #16 L.Sellers pass complete short right to #3 M.Bennett Jr. caught at FLA00, for 12 yards to the FLA00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 01:47, 1ST DOWN #32 M.Orsan kick attempt good (H: #24 M.Love, LS: #57 K.Farrow)
  2. Q1 0:17 · 3rd & 10 · 69% → 48%
    (00:17) Shotgun #16 L.Sellers pass complete short left to #8 N.Harbor caught at FLA00, for 15 yards to the FLA00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 00:12, 1ST DOWN #32 M.Orsan kick attempt good (H: #24 M.Love, LS: #57 K.Farrow)
  3. Q1 11:34 · 3rd & 6 · 60% → 79%
    (11:34) Shotgun #12 A.Philo pass complete short right to #3 B.Stockton caught at SC 40, for 59 yards to the SC 00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 11:25, 1ST DOWN #91 P.Durkin kick attempt good (H: #38 A.Clark, LS: #54 L.Anderson)

Home at Ben Hill Griffin Stadium · Sat Oct 10, 11:45 AM CT / 12:45 PM ET · vs South Carolina (FBS, SEC)

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

Verdict

The 19-point loss matched the play: South Carolina's per-play edge (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.00 vs +0.30, success rate 45% vs 43%) implies roughly a -21 margin.

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

Efficiency

Edge: South Carolina won 3 of 4

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

Floridalonger bar = betterSouth Carolina
More numbers

Florida ran 77 plays, South Carolina 72. Each number is that team's offense; South Carolina's column is also what Florida's defense allowed.

MeasureFloridaSouth CarolinaEdge
PPA / play+0.00+0.30South Carolina
Total PPA+0.2+21.2South Carolina
Success rate45.5%43.1%Florida
Explosiveness0.941.33South Carolina
Havoc created8.3%14.9%South Carolina
  • 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 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
Aaron Philo QB 100% +5.9 +0.20

Rushing

PlayerRush usagePPA/play
Eric Singleton Jr. WR 3% +1.7 +1.70
Jadan Baugh RB 48% +1.6 +0.10
Aaron Philo QB 32% +1.5 +0.15
Duke Clark RB 10% -1.2 -0.39

Receiving

PlayerTarget usagePPA/play
Bailey Stockton WR 23% +9.1 +1.30
Dallas Wilson WR 27% +6.5 +0.81
Evan Pryor RB 7% +1.2 +0.60
Micah Mays Jr. WR 3% +0.6 +0.56
By play type
MeasureFloridaSouth CarolinaEdge
Rushing PPA-0.09+0.13South Carolina
Rushing success41.7%44.1%South Carolina
Passing PPA+0.09+0.44South Carolina
Passing success50.0%42.1%Florida
Standard downs PPA-0.15+0.12South Carolina
Standard downs success48.3%50.0%South Carolina
Passing downs PPA+0.46+0.61South Carolina
Passing downs success36.8%30.8%Florida

Havoc detail — Florida defense: TFL 3, sacks 3, takeaways 0, breakups 0 on 72 snaps. South Carolina defense: TFL 3, sacks 2, takeaways 3, 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.

◀ FloridaSouth Carolina ▶
  • 12Drives12
  • 9Scoring opportunities10
  • 2.1Points per opportunity3.8
  • own 26Avg. starting field positionown 34
By half

Shown because the game changed between halves: the per-play edge swung by 0.47 points a play (Florida -0.04 in the first half, -0.51 in the second). Overtime counts with the second half.

FloridaSouth Carolina
1st2nd1st2nd
PPA / play+0.20-0.14+0.24+0.37
Success rate42%51%32%58%
Plays31434131

Recruiting

Florida's 2026 class: #17 · 250.98 points.

MeasureFloridaSouth Carolina
Talent composite 891.1
#10 of 138
862.9
#15 of 138
Transfer portal · 27 in, 36 out

Arrivals (27)

PlayerFrom★Elig.Date
Eric Singleton Jr. WR Auburn 4 Immediate Jan 11, 2026
DJ Coleman S Baylor 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Lacota Dippre TE James Madison 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
Bailey Stockton WR Georgia Tech 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
DK Kalu DL Baylor 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
TJ Shanahan Jr. IOL Penn State 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Aaron Philo QB Georgia Tech 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Evan Pryor RB Cincinnati 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Emmanuel Oyebadejo DL Jacksonville State 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Eagan Boyer OT Penn State 3 Immediate Jan 7, 2026

+17 more not shown (27 total).

Departures (36)

PlayerTo★Elig.Date
Michai Boireau DL Ole Miss 4 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Eugene Wilson III WR LSU 4 Immediate Jan 7, 2026
Aidan Mizell WR UCLA 4 Immediate Jan 7, 2026
Jayden Woods EDGE undecided 4 Withdrawn Jan 8, 2026
Treyaun Webb RB App State 4 Immediate Jan 12, 2026
DJ Lagway QB Baylor 4 Immediate Jan 18, 2026
Josiah Davis S undecided 3 Immediate Dec 15, 2025
Amir Jackson TE undecided 3 Immediate Dec 15, 2025
Sharif Denson CB Ole Miss 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Hayden Hansen TE Oklahoma 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026

+26 more not shown (36 total).

2026 commits · 19
PlayerHometown★Rating
Davian Groce WR Frisco, TX 4 0.9755
CJ Bronaugh CB Winter Garden, FL 4 0.9607
KJ Ford EDGE Duncanville, TX 4 0.9385
Justin Williams ATH Gainesville, FL 4 0.9331
JaReylan McCoy DL Tupelo, MS 4 0.9280
Will Griffin QB Tampa, FL 4 0.9184
Tyler Chukuyem OT Douglasville, GA 4 0.9164
Dylan Purter S Tuskegee, AL 4 0.9131
Kendall Guervil DL Fort Myers, FL 4 0.9067
Malik Morris DL Lakeland, FL 4 0.9023
Kaiden Hall S Milton, FL 4 0.8994
Heze Kent ATH Brunswick, GA 4 0.8967
Marquez Daniel WR Tuskegee, AL 4 0.8967
CJ Hester S Cocoa, FL 3 0.8867
G'Nivre Carr IOL Bradenton, FL 3 0.8867

+4 more not shown (19 total).

Returning production

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

Unit% PPAPPAUsage
Overall69.1%143.079.0%
Passing94.3%44.799.7%
Receiving51.5%60.849.7%
Rushing89.3%37.583.4%

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.