The SportsWire

Kentucky

2026 · week 6 result vs LSU

Updated Tue Oct 13, 7:55 PM CT

Next up projections

at Oklahoma

Week 7 · Sat Oct 17, 6:30 PM CT / 7:30 PM ET · Memorial Stadium (Norman, OK) · Oklahoma (FBS, SEC)

Our call: Oklahoma by 8.9Strong

All three models favor Oklahoma. The line, shown for comparison only, has Oklahoma 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 ›

Game page: at Oklahoma ›

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

Schedule: Played the 14th-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating +3.6); 11th-toughest remaining (+11.2). More ›

Opponents by our model's rating 6 played · 6 left
  • Week 1 vs Youngstown State (-32.8) · FCS, pooled
  • Week 2 vs Alabama (+25.5)
  • Week 3 at Texas A&M (+12.0)
  • Week 4 vs South Alabama (-10.3)
  • Week 5 at South Carolina (+8.8)
  • Week 6 vs LSU (+18.5)
  • Remaining:
  • Week 7 at Oklahoma (+14.7)
  • Week 8 vs Vanderbilt (+3.7)
  • Week 10 at Tennessee (+13.1)
  • Week 11 vs Florida (+11.8)
  • Week 12 at Missouri (+13.9)
  • Week 13 vs Louisville (+9.8)

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: Oklahoma leads 2–1 · last: Oklahoma 29–8, 1982 · Oklahoma has won 2 straight

Series history 3 meetings since 1950
  • All-time: Oklahoma leads 2–1 (3 meetings since 1950)
  • Last meeting: Oklahoma 29–8, 1982, home
  • Streak: Oklahoma has won 2 straight
  • At Memorial Stadium (Norman, OK): first meeting at Memorial Stadium (Norman, OK)
  • Biggest margins: Kentucky 13–7 (1950) · Oklahoma 29–7 (1980)
  • Since 2000: none
RatingKentuckyOklahoma
SP+ +8.0 #46 +12.2 #30
Elo 1568 1747

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

SP+
-6.7
Kentucky +8.0 vs Oklahoma +12.2
avg miss 10.6
closest 47/79
Elo
-9.7
Kentucky 1568 vs Oklahoma 1747
avg miss 12.3
closest 33/79
Line · benchmark
-6.5
pregame line
avg miss 11.1
Our model · experimental
-10.2
Kentucky +7.0 vs Oklahoma +14.7
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 Kentucky'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 (Oklahoma); 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 · Kentucky 6 games, Oklahoma 5 games

Edge: Kentucky wins 3 of 5

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

Kentuckylonger bar = betterOklahoma

Run game, head to head · season to date

Kentucky's runs work 53% of the time; Oklahoma's run defense allows 32%. Oklahoma's runs work 33% of the time; Kentucky's run defense allows 45%.

More numbers
MeasureKentuckyOklahomaEdge
Off. success rate49.2%36.8%Kentucky
Off. explosiveness1.171.08Kentucky
Def. success rate allowed45.3%31.9%Oklahoma
Def. explosiveness allowed1.181.22Kentucky
Havoc created17.8%20.9%Oklahoma
  • Run game, success rate: Kentucky offense 53.0% · Oklahoma defense allows 31.9% · edge: even
  • Run game, success rate: Oklahoma offense 33.3% · Kentucky defense allows 44.8% · edge: Kentucky
  • Run game, PPA per play: Kentucky offense +0.21 · Oklahoma defense allows -0.07 · edge: even
  • Run game, PPA per play: Oklahoma offense -0.30 · Kentucky defense allows +0.06 · edge: Kentucky
  • 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) · 30

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 AM CT.

8 entries about games now final not shown.

Score and result

Kentucky 35, LSU 34W

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

Projected: SP+ n/a · Elo -4.6 ✗ · Our model -10.4 ✗ · the line (benchmark) -10.0 · actual +1 · Closest: Elo

Kentucky was as low as 7% and won Kentucky was as low as 7% and won Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 100% 50% 0% 35–34
  1. Q4 0:12 · 4th & 1 · 24% → 74%
    (00:12) #88 A.Zouagui field goal attempt from 33 yards GOOD (H: #93 W.Berry, LS: #47 S.Radnoti), clock 00:12
  2. Q4 9:50 · 1st & 10 · 67% → 27%
    (09:50) No Huddle-Shotgun #4 J.Harris pass complete deep left to #14 R.Mothershed caught at UK05, for 41 yards to the UK00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 09:42, 1ST DOWN #80 S.Starzyk kick attempt good (H: #90 G.Chadwick, LS: #43 S.Hall)
  3. Q4 4:11 · 1st & 10 · 24% → 53%
    (04:11) Shotgun #3 K.Minchey rush right for 5 yards gain to the LSU08 (#2 T.Benefield)

Home at Kroger Field · Sat Oct 10, 6:00 PM CT / 7:00 PM ET · vs LSU (FBS, SEC)

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

Verdict

The 1-point win matched the play: Kentucky's per-play edge (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.14 vs +0.11, though LSU was more consistent: success rate 41% vs 50%) 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

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

Kentuckylonger bar = betterLSU
More numbers

Kentucky ran 70 plays, LSU 72. Each number is that team's offense; LSU's column is also what Kentucky's defense allowed.

MeasureKentuckyLSUEdge
PPA / play+0.14+0.11Kentucky
Total PPA+10.1+7.6Kentucky
Success rate41.4%50.0%LSU
Explosiveness1.191.22LSU
Havoc created13.9%10.3%Kentucky
  • 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

Kentucky 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
Kenny Minchey QB 100% +4.3 +0.12

Rushing

PlayerRush usagePPA/play
CJ Baxter Jr. RB 58% +5.2 +0.29
Kenny Minchey QB 19% +2.3 +0.38
Jovantae Barnes RB 10% +1.6 +0.52
Jason Patterson RB 6% -0.5 -0.23

Receiving

PlayerTarget usagePPA/play
Nic Anderson WR 8% +4.1 +1.36
Ja'Kayden Ferguson WR 5% +2.2 +1.12
DJ Miller WR 24% +2.1 +0.24
Kenny Darby WR 19% +1.1 +0.15
By play type
MeasureKentuckyLSUEdge
Rushing PPA+0.22-0.16Kentucky
Rushing success41.9%44.1%LSU
Passing PPA+0.12+0.54LSU
Passing success43.2%56.8%LSU
Standard downs PPA+0.05-0.16Kentucky
Standard downs success48.0%46.9%Kentucky
Passing downs PPA+0.39+0.68LSU
Passing downs success25.0%56.5%LSU

Havoc detail — Kentucky defense: TFL 5, sacks 2, takeaways 1, breakups 2 on 72 snaps. LSU defense: TFL 2, sacks 1, takeaways 0, breakups 4 on 68 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.

◀ KentuckyLSU ▶
  • 11Drives12
  • 11Scoring opportunities8
  • 5.1Points per opportunity4.2
  • own 38Avg. starting field positionown 28

Recruiting

MeasureKentuckyLSU
2026 class rank6011
2026 class points197.21272.69
Talent composite 786.6
#23 of 138
931.8
#8 of 138
Transfer portal · 31 in, 27 out

Arrivals (31)

PlayerFrom★Elig.Date
Coleton Price IOL Baylor 4 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
Kenny Minchey QB Notre Dame 4 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Lance Heard OT Tennessee 4 Immediate Jan 10, 2026
Elijah Barnes LB Texas 4 Immediate Jan 11, 2026
Tegra Tshabola IOL Ohio State 4 Immediate Jan 12, 2026
Tavion Wallace LB Arkansas 3 Immediate Jan 3, 2026
Antonio O'Berry EDGE Gardner-Webb 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Hasaan Sykes CB Western Carolina 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
Max Anderson IOL Tennessee 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Aaron Gates S Florida 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026

+21 more not shown (31 total).

Departures (27)

PlayerTo★Elig.Date
Dante Dowdell RB Georgia 4 Immediate Jan 12, 2026
David Washington Jr. WR undecided 3 Immediate Dec 16, 2025
DJ Waller Jr. CB Louisville 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Cutter Boley QB Arizona State 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Landyn Watson LB Kansas 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
Stone Saunders QB San Diego State 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Nasir Addison CB undecided 3 Withdrawn Jan 6, 2026
Jerod Smith II DL Louisville 3 Immediate Jan 7, 2026
Jacob Smith EDGE Louisville 3 Immediate Jan 7, 2026
Austin Ramsey DL Kansas State 3 Immediate Jan 7, 2026

+17 more not shown (27 total).

2026 commits · 17
PlayerHometown★Rating
Kenny Darby WR Bossier City, LA 4 0.9204
Matt Ponatoski QB Cincinnati, OH 4 0.9201
Andre Clarke Jr. CB Richmond, VA 4 0.9145
Ben Duncum DL Austin, TX 3 0.8833
Isaiah McMillian CB Katy, TX 3 0.8833
Justyn Hartley EDGE Hoover, AL 3 0.8833
Lincoln Watkins TE Port Huron, MI 3 0.8833
Prince Jean WR Valdosta, GA 3 0.8767
Denairius Gray WR Hollywood, FL 3 0.8733
Cameron Miller Jr. OT Hammond, IN 3 0.8700
Davis McCray WR San Antonio, TX 3 0.8644
Delvecchio Alston II RB Trussville, AL 3 0.8611
Tyler Wright S Bixby, OK 3 0.8600
Isaiah Jackson ATH Mount Vernon, KY 3 0.8478
Hank Timon OT Brookville, IN 3 0.8400

+2 more not shown (17 total).

Returning production

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

Unit% PPAPPAUsage
Overall19.3%43.818.0%
Passing-2.9%-1.61.6%
Receiving34.5%48.340.6%
Rushing-9.3%-2.915.8%

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.