Next up projections
at Syracuse
Week 7 · Sat Oct 17, 6:30 PM CT / 7:30 PM ET · JMA Wireless Dome (Syracuse) · Syracuse (FBS, ACC)
Our call: Louisville by 11.0Strong
All three models favor Louisville. The line, shown for comparison only, has Louisville by 12.5.
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 ›
Regression watch: Last game's 24-point win matched the play (score +1 against play), inside the 7-point band: no flag. More ›
Schedule: Played the 18th-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating +1.8); 64th-toughest remaining (+2.1). More ›
Opponents by our model's rating 6 played · 6 left
- Week 1 vs Ole Miss (+13.6)
- Week 2 vs Villanova (-32.8) · FCS, pooled
- Week 3 vs SMU (+8.5)
- Week 4 vs Wake Forest (+8.9)
- Week 5 at NC State (+4.6)
- Week 6 vs Florida State (+7.9)
- Remaining:
- Week 7 at Syracuse (-0.3)
- Week 9 vs Stanford (-7.6)
- Week 10 at Georgia Tech (-1.4)
- Week 11 at North Carolina (+5.0)
- Week 12 vs Pittsburgh (+10.1)
- Week 13 at Kentucky (+7.0)
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: Louisville leads 13–8 · last: Syracuse 31–7, 2022
Series history 21 meetings since 1985
- All-time: Louisville leads 13–8 (21 meetings since 1985)
- Last meeting: Syracuse 31–7, 2022, JMA Wireless Dome
- Streak: none
- At JMA Wireless Dome: Louisville leads 5–4 (9 meetings)
- Biggest margins: Louisville 56–10 (2017) · Syracuse 48–0 (1985)
- Since 2000: Louisville leads 13–5 (18 meetings)
| Season | Result | Site |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Syracuse 31–7 | JMA Wireless Dome |
| 2021 | Louisville 41–3 | L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium |
| 2020 | Louisville 30–0 | L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium |
| 2019 | Louisville 56–34 | L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium |
| 2018 | Syracuse 54–23 | JMA Wireless Dome |
| 2017 | Louisville 56–10 | L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium |
| 2016 | Louisville 62–28 | JMA Wireless Dome |
| 2015 | Louisville 41–17 | L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium |
| 2014 | Louisville 28–6 | JMA Wireless Dome |
| 2012 | Syracuse 45–26 | JMA Wireless Dome |
| 2011 | Louisville 27–10 | L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium |
| 2010 | Louisville 28–20 | JMA Wireless Dome |
| 2009 | Louisville 10–9 | L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium |
| 2008 | Syracuse 28–21 | JMA Wireless Dome |
| 2007 | Syracuse 38–35 | L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium |
| 2006 | Louisville 28–13 | JMA Wireless Dome |
| 2005 | Louisville 41–17 | L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium |
| 2003 | Louisville 30–20 | JMA Wireless Dome |
| Rating | Louisville | Syracuse |
|---|---|---|
| SP+ | +13.0 #24 | -0.4 #72 |
| Elo | 1729 | 1303 |
Projected margin for Louisville · 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 Louisville'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 (Syracuse); 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 · Louisville 6 games, Syracuse 5 games
Edge: Louisville wins 3 of 5
Louisville moves the ball better, stops plays better and has the edge on big plays. Syracuse is more disruptive and allows fewer big plays.
-
49%✓ Moves the ballsuccessful plays 42%
-
42%✓ Stops playssuccessful plays allowed 42%
-
14% Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers ✓18%
-
1.42✓ Big playson offense 1.34
-
1.25 Big plays allowedon defense ✓1.20
Run game, head to head · season to date
Louisville's runs work 50% of the time; Syracuse's run defense allows 46%. Syracuse's runs work 44% of the time; Louisville's run defense allows 44%.
More numbers
| Measure | Louisville | Syracuse | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Off. success rate | 49.3% | 42.0% | Louisville |
| Off. explosiveness | 1.42 | 1.34 | Louisville |
| Def. success rate allowed | 41.8% | 42.1% | Louisville |
| Def. explosiveness allowed | 1.25 | 1.20 | Syracuse |
| Havoc created | 14.0% | 17.7% | Syracuse |
- Run game, success rate: Louisville offense 50.0% · Syracuse defense allows 46.4% · edge: Louisville
- Run game, success rate: Syracuse offense 43.9% · Louisville defense allows 43.9% · edge: even
- Run game, PPA per play: Louisville offense +0.26 · Syracuse defense allows +0.16 · edge: Louisville
- Run game, PPA per play: Syracuse offense +0.12 · Louisville defense allows +0.02 · 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) · 15
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.
-
Robinson Named Outland Trophy National Player of the Week
LOUISVILLE, Ky. – University of Louisville offensive lineman Lance Robinson was named the Outland Trophy National Player of the Week released on Tuesday by the…
-
Brown Selected to Paul Hornung Award Honor Roll
LOUISVILLE, Ky. – University of Louisville running back Isaac Brown was named to the Paul Hornung Award Honor Roll for week six announced on Tuesday by the…
-
If the COA affirms the injunction, ALL 2022 players across the country will be eligible.
If they vacate the injunction, then the individual cases in state courts will continue to control eligibility.
-
Brown, Robinson Earn ACC Weekly Honors
LOUISVILLE, Ky. – University of Louisville running back Isaac Brown and offensive lineman Lance Robinson were each recognized by the Atlantic Coast Conference…
- Updated...... Louisville running back Isaac Brown was named Senior Bowl Offensive Player of the Week and ACC Running Back of the Week
- New (w/video): After Florida State rout, Jeff Brohm challenges Louisville football to keep improving heading into road trip to Syracuse.
- Louisville football impresses another top quarterback from Western Kentucky
- Louisville football QB commit says Friday night atmosphere 'was rocking' at L&N Stadium @DremailC2027
- Tennessee WR Rome Duncan talks about 'incredible' visit to Louisville football
-
NEW: With a new team, a new defense, and a faster pace, Louisville's newest addition, LJ Wells, is quickly getting adjusted to his new home.
He details his adjustment to Louisville's play with @247Louisville as he awaits his eligibility decision.
- Louisville Football Postgame Quotes vs. Florida State
-
Cards Dominate Florida State on Friday Night, 44-20
LOUISVILLE, Ky. – The University of Louisville football team conquered Florida State by a score of 44-20 Friday evening at L&N Stadium.
-
Lamar Jackson was the last October Heisman favorite to win
Louisville's Lamar Jackson in 2016 was the last such favorite to win.
-
Louisville Football Postgame Notes vs. NC State
NC State 31, Louisville 28
-
Cards Come Up Short Against NC State, 31-28
RALEIGH, N.C. – The University of Louisville football team's comeback efforts fell short, 31-28, against NC State on Saturday afternoon at Carter-Finley…
4 entries about games now final not shown.
Score and result
Louisville 44, Florida State 20W
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
Louisville was as low as 11% and won
- Q2 3:20 · 1st & 3 · 42% → 66%(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)
- Q3 12:45 · 1st & 3 · 62% → 85%(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)
- Q1 4:41 · 1st & 10 · 41% → 23%(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
Home at L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium · Fri Oct 9, 6:00 PM CT / 7:00 PM ET · vs Florida State (FBS, ACC)
Opponent for every game-level number: Florida State (FBS, ACC).
- By quarter: Louisville 0-14-14-16 · Florida State 14-0-0-6
- Week 6 polls: neither team ranked
- Pregame Elo: Louisville 1671, Florida State 1656
- Postgame win probability: 99.5%
Verdict
The 24-point win matched the play: Louisville's per-play edge (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.43 vs +0.03, success rate 51% vs 44%) 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.
-
51%✓ Moved the ballsuccessful plays 44%
-
+0.43✓ Points per playwhat a play was worth +0.03
-
1.44✓ Big playssize of the good plays 1.15
-
17%✓ Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers 7%
More numbers
Louisville ran 61 plays, Florida State 77. Each number is that team's offense; Florida State's column is also what Louisville's defense allowed.
| Measure | Louisville | Florida State | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| PPA / play | +0.43 | +0.03 | Louisville |
| Total PPA | +26.1 | +2.7 | Louisville |
| Success rate | 50.8% | 44.2% | Louisville |
| Explosiveness | 1.44 | 1.15 | Louisville |
| Havoc created | 16.9% | 6.9% | 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
Louisville 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lincoln Kienholz QB | 100% | +5.1 | +0.32 |
Rushing
| Player | Rush usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Isaac Brown RB | 43% | +10.0 | +0.62 |
| Lincoln Kienholz QB | 22% | +7.0 | +0.87 |
| Braxton Jennings RB | 8% | +4.1 | +1.38 |
| Marquise Davis RB | 24% | +2.6 | +0.28 |
Receiving
| Player | Target usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawayne McCoy WR | 19% | +6.5 | +2.15 |
| Treyshun Hurry WR | 38% | +3.7 | +0.61 |
| Isaac Brown RB | 6% | +0.3 | +0.31 |
| Julius Miles TE | 6% | -0.5 | -0.51 |
By play type
| Measure | Louisville | Florida State | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rushing PPA | +0.51 | +0.24 | Louisville |
| Rushing success | 54.8% | 57.1% | Florida State |
| Passing PPA | +0.32 | -0.14 | Louisville |
| Passing success | 50.0% | 33.3% | Louisville |
| Standard downs PPA | +0.41 | -0.13 | Louisville |
| Standard downs success | 57.1% | 46.4% | Louisville |
| Passing downs PPA | +0.48 | +0.47 | Louisville |
| Passing downs success | 36.8% | 38.1% | Florida State |
Havoc detail — Louisville defense: TFL 3, sacks 4, takeaways 1, breakups 5 on 77 snaps. Florida State defense: TFL 2, sacks 1, takeaways 0, breakups 1 on 58 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.
By half
Shown because the game changed between halves: the per-play edge swung by 0.49 points a play (Louisville +0.18 in the first half, +0.67 in the second). Overtime counts with the second half.
| Louisville | Florida State | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 2nd | 1st | 2nd | |
| PPA / play | +0.36 | +0.52 | +0.17 | -0.15 |
| Success rate | 50% | 56% | 50% | 36% |
| Plays | 22 | 36 | 44 | 33 |
Recruiting
| Measure | Louisville | Florida State |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 class rank | 48 | 16 |
| 2026 class points | 211.65 | 251.54 |
| Talent composite | 740.0 #37 of 138 |
800.2 #21 of 138 |
Transfer portal · 33 in, 40 out
Arrivals (33)
| Player | From | ★ | Elig. | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brody Foley TE | Tulsa | 4 | Immediate | Jan 7, 2026 |
| Tre Richardson WR | Vanderbilt | 4 | Immediate | Jan 9, 2026 |
| Lawayne McCoy WR | Florida State | 4 | Immediate | Jan 11, 2026 |
| DJ Waller Jr. CB | Kentucky | 3 | Immediate | Jan 4, 2026 |
| Lincoln Kienholz QB | Ohio State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 4, 2026 |
| Marquise Davis RB | Missouri | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Daylen Russell DL | Miami | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Eryx Daugherty IOL | Boston College | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Anwar O'neal OT | Delaware | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Demeco Kennedy DL | Purdue | 3 | Immediate | Jan 7, 2026 |
+23 more not shown (33 total).
Departures (40)
| Player | To | ★ | Elig. | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Isaac Brown RB | undecided | 4 | Immediate | Jan 1, 2026 |
| Davon Mitchell TE | undecided | 4 | Immediate | Jan 1, 2026 |
| AJ Green EDGE | undecided | 4 | Withdrawn | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Jordan Church IOL | Texas Tech | 4 | Immediate | Jan 15, 2026 |
| Micah Carter EDGE | undecided | 3 | Immediate | Dec 27, 2025 |
| Fred Johnson IOL | undecided | 3 | Immediate | Jan 2, 2026 |
| Antonio Watts LB | undecided | 3 | Withdrawn | Jan 3, 2026 |
| Nate Kurisky TE | Duke | 3 | Immediate | Jan 4, 2026 |
| Bobby Golden WR | undecided | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Jerry Lawson DL | Oklahoma State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
+30 more not shown (40 total).
2026 commits · 20
| Player | Hometown | ★ | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jaydin Broadnax CB | Boca Raton, FL | 4 | 0.9259 |
| Briggs Cherry QB | Chattanooga, TN | 4 | 0.9111 |
| Julius Miles WR | Freeport, FL | 4 | 0.8989 |
| Jarvis Strickland OT | Paducah, KY | 3 | 0.8878 |
| Lekhy Thompkins ATH | Bradenton, FL | 3 | 0.8822 |
| Payton Cook WR | Akron, OH | 3 | 0.8822 |
| Jordan Vann S | Middletown, OH | 3 | 0.8789 |
| Charlie Edgeworth OT | Chattanooga, TN | 3 | 0.8711 |
| Taj Powell LB | Springfield, OH | 3 | 0.8711 |
| Rhys Dorsey WR | Madison, AL | 3 | 0.8700 |
| DJ Williams ATH | Tampa, FL | 3 | 0.8689 |
| Bryten Close OT | Campbellsville, KY | 3 | 0.8678 |
| Gavin Waddell WR | Rolesville, NC | 3 | 0.8678 |
| Marlon Harbin ATH | Louisville, KY | 3 | 0.8667 |
| Kris Brunson CB | Snellville, GA | 3 | 0.8644 |
+5 more not shown (20 total).
Returning production
Share of last season's production returning for Louisville in 2026.
| Unit | % PPA | PPA | Usage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 34.8% | 92.3 | 26.8% |
| Passing | 0.0% | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Receiving | 18.2% | 25.9 | 23.6% |
| Rushing | 84.6% | 66.4 | 60.8% |
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.