The SportsWire

Louisville

2026 · week 6 result vs Florida State

Updated Tue Oct 13, 7:56 PM CT

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 ›

Game page: at Syracuse ›

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)
SeasonResultSite
2022Syracuse 31–7JMA Wireless Dome
2021Louisville 41–3L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium
2020Louisville 30–0L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium
2019Louisville 56–34L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium
2018Syracuse 54–23JMA Wireless Dome
2017Louisville 56–10L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium
2016Louisville 62–28JMA Wireless Dome
2015Louisville 41–17L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium
2014Louisville 28–6JMA Wireless Dome
2012Syracuse 45–26JMA Wireless Dome
2011Louisville 27–10L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium
2010Louisville 28–20JMA Wireless Dome
2009Louisville 10–9L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium
2008Syracuse 28–21JMA Wireless Dome
2007Syracuse 38–35L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium
2006Louisville 28–13JMA Wireless Dome
2005Louisville 41–17L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium
2003Louisville 30–20JMA Wireless Dome
RatingLouisvilleSyracuse
SP+ +13.0 #24 -0.4 #72
Elo 1729 1303

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

SP+
+10.9
Louisville +13.0 vs Syracuse -0.4
avg miss 10.6
closest 47/79
Elo
+14.5
Louisville 1729 vs Syracuse 1303
avg miss 12.3
closest 33/79
Line · benchmark
+12.5
pregame line
avg miss 11.1
Our model · experimental
+7.6
Louisville +9.8 vs Syracuse -0.3
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 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.

Louisvillelonger bar = betterSyracuse

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
MeasureLouisvilleSyracuseEdge
Off. success rate49.3%42.0%Louisville
Off. explosiveness1.421.34Louisville
Def. success rate allowed41.8%42.1%Louisville
Def. explosiveness allowed1.251.20Syracuse
Havoc created14.0%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.

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 Louisville was as low as 11% and won Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 100% 50% 0% 44–20
  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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).

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.

Louisvillelonger bar = betterFlorida State
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.

MeasureLouisvilleFlorida StateEdge
PPA / play+0.43+0.03Louisville
Total PPA+26.1+2.7Louisville
Success rate50.8%44.2%Louisville
Explosiveness1.441.15Louisville
Havoc created16.9%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

PlayerPass usagePPA/play
Lincoln Kienholz QB 100% +5.1 +0.32

Rushing

PlayerRush usagePPA/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

PlayerTarget usagePPA/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
MeasureLouisvilleFlorida StateEdge
Rushing PPA+0.51+0.24Louisville
Rushing success54.8%57.1%Florida State
Passing PPA+0.32-0.14Louisville
Passing success50.0%33.3%Louisville
Standard downs PPA+0.41-0.13Louisville
Standard downs success57.1%46.4%Louisville
Passing downs PPA+0.48+0.47Louisville
Passing downs success36.8%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.

◀ LouisvilleFlorida State ▶
  • 12Drives11
  • 9Scoring opportunities8
  • 4.1Points per opportunity2.5
  • own 32Avg. starting field positionown 27
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.

LouisvilleFlorida State
1st2nd1st2nd
PPA / play+0.36+0.52+0.17-0.15
Success rate50%56%50%36%
Plays22364433

Recruiting

MeasureLouisvilleFlorida State
2026 class rank4816
2026 class points211.65251.54
Talent composite 740.0
#37 of 138
800.2
#21 of 138
Transfer portal · 33 in, 40 out

Arrivals (33)

PlayerFrom★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)

PlayerTo★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
PlayerHometown★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% PPAPPAUsage
Overall34.8%92.326.8%
Passing0.0%0.00.0%
Receiving18.2%25.923.6%
Rushing84.6%66.460.8%

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.