The SportsWire

LSU

2026 · week 6 result vs Kentucky

Updated Tue Oct 13, 7:56 PM CT

Next up projections

vs Mississippi State

Week 7 · Sat Oct 17, 11:00 AM CT / 12:00 PM ET · Tiger Stadium (LA) (Baton Rouge) · Mississippi State (FBS, SEC)

Our call: LSU by 11.4Strong

All three models favor LSU. The line, shown for comparison only, has LSU by 11.5.

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 ›

Big game prediction page: vs Mississippi State ›

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

Schedule: Played the 21st-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating +1.0); 6th-toughest remaining (+12.2). More ›

Opponents by our model's rating 6 played · 6 left
  • Week 1 vs Clemson (+6.4)
  • Week 2 vs Louisiana Tech (-0.1)
  • Week 3 at Ole Miss (+13.6)
  • Week 4 vs Texas A&M (+12.0)
  • Week 5 vs McNeese (-32.8) · FCS, pooled
  • Week 6 at Kentucky (+7.0)
  • Remaining:
  • Week 7 vs Mississippi State (+10.7)
  • Week 8 at Auburn (+8.2)
  • Week 10 vs Alabama (+25.5)
  • Week 11 vs Texas (+18.1)
  • Week 12 at Tennessee (+13.1)
  • Week 13 at Arkansas (-2.4)

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: LSU leads 74–37–3 · last: LSU 41–14, 2023 · LSU has won 3 straight

Series history 114 meetings since 1902
  • All-time: LSU leads 74–37–3 (114 meetings since 1902)
  • Last meeting: LSU 41–14, 2023, Davis Wade Stadium
  • Streak: LSU has won 3 straight
  • At Tiger Stadium (LA): LSU leads 9–2 (11 meetings)
  • Biggest margins: LSU 55–0 (1967) · Mississippi State 37–7 (2017)
  • Since 2000: LSU leads 21–3 (24 meetings)
SeasonResultSite
2023LSU 41–14Davis Wade Stadium
2022LSU 31–16Tiger Stadium (LA)
2021LSU 28–25Davis Wade Stadium
2020Mississippi State 44–34Tiger Stadium (LA)
2019LSU 36–13Davis Wade Stadium
2018LSU 19–3Tiger Stadium (LA)
2017Mississippi State 37–7Davis Wade Stadium
2016LSU 23–20Tiger Stadium (LA)
2015LSU 21–19Davis Wade Stadium
2014Mississippi State 34–29Tiger Stadium (LA)
2013LSU 59–26Davis Wade Stadium
2012LSU 37–17Tiger Stadium (LA)
2011LSU 19–6Davis Wade Stadium
2010LSU 29–7Tiger Stadium (LA)
2009LSU 30–26Davis Wade Stadium
2008LSU 34–24Tiger Stadium (LA)
2007LSU 45–0Davis Wade Stadium
2006LSU 48–17Tiger Stadium (LA)
2005LSU 37–7Davis Wade Stadium
2004LSU 51–0Tiger Stadium (LA)
2003LSU 41–6Davis Wade Stadium
2002LSU 31–13Tiger Stadium (LA)
2001LSU 42–0away
2000LSU 45–38home
RatingLSUMississippi State
SP+ +21.7 #9 +12.6 #28
Elo 1859 1612

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

SP+
+11.6
LSU +21.7 vs Mississippi State +12.6
avg miss 10.6
closest 47/79
Elo
+12.4
LSU 1859 vs Mississippi State 1612
avg miss 12.3
closest 33/79
Line · benchmark
+11.5
pregame line
avg miss 11.1
Our model · experimental
+10.3
LSU +18.5 vs Mississippi State +10.7
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 LSU'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 (LSU); 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 · LSU 6 games, Mississippi State 5 games

Edge: LSU wins 3 of 5

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

LSUlonger bar = betterMississippi State

Run game, head to head · season to date

LSU's runs work 47% of the time; Mississippi State's run defense allows 42%. Mississippi State's runs work 50% of the time; LSU's run defense allows 30%.

More numbers
MeasureLSUMississippi StateEdge
Off. success rate49.6%48.5%LSU
Off. explosiveness1.241.30Mississippi State
Def. success rate allowed31.0%41.7%LSU
Def. explosiveness allowed1.301.18Mississippi State
Havoc created21.4%17.2%LSU
  • Run game, success rate: LSU offense 46.9% · Mississippi State defense allows 41.7% · edge: LSU
  • Run game, success rate: Mississippi State offense 50.0% · LSU defense allows 29.7% · edge: LSU
  • Run game, PPA per play: LSU offense +0.15 · Mississippi State defense allows +0.04 · edge: even
  • Run game, PPA per play: Mississippi State offense +0.20 · LSU defense allows -0.05 · 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 AI-assisted 3

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

  • Charles Ross II LBinjuryOut
    torn ACL
    Noted Sat Oct 10, 4:30 PM CT.
    SEC availability report (Game Day), posted Sat Oct 10, 4:30 PM CT / 5:30 PM ET, for LSU at Kentucky, Sat Oct 10. Reporting: Torn ACL, out for the season.
    Sources (2): [1] [2] · as of Sat Oct 10, 4:30 PM CT / 5:30 PM ET
  • Dashawn Spears SinjuryOut
    ACL
    Noted Sat Oct 10, 4:30 PM CT.
    SEC availability report (Game Day), posted Sat Oct 10, 4:30 PM CT / 5:30 PM ET, for LSU at Kentucky, Sat Oct 10. Reporting: Season-ending torn ACL suffered against Ole Miss, confirmed out for the year and this week's game.
    Sources (3): [1] [2] [3] · as of Sat Oct 10, 4:30 PM CT / 5:30 PM ET
  • Phillip Wright III WRinjuryOut
    Noted Sat Oct 10, 4:30 PM CT.
    SEC availability report (Game Day), posted Sat Oct 10, 4:30 PM CT / 5:30 PM ET, for LSU at Kentucky, Sat Oct 10. Reporting: Season-ending injury confirmed, listed out for the year and Saturday's game against Texas A&M.
    Sources (3): [1] [2] [3] · as of Sat Oct 10, 4:30 PM CT / 5:30 PM ET

Coverage (AI-assisted) · 75

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.

17 entries about games now final not shown.

Score and result

LSU 34, Kentucky 35L

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

LSU was as high as 93% and lost LSU was as high as 93% and lost Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 100% 50% 0% 34–35
  1. Q4 0:12 · 4th & 1 · 76% → 26%
    (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 · 33% → 73%
    (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 · 76% → 47%
    (04:11) Shotgun #3 K.Minchey rush right for 5 yards gain to the LSU08 (#2 T.Benefield)

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

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

Verdict

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

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

LSUlonger bar = betterKentucky
More numbers

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

MeasureLSUKentuckyEdge
PPA / play+0.11+0.14Kentucky
Total PPA+7.6+10.1Kentucky
Success rate50.0%41.4%LSU
Explosiveness1.221.19LSU
Havoc created10.3%13.9%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

LSU 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
Sam Leavitt QB 97% +16.7 +0.46

Rushing

PlayerRush usagePPA/play
Landen Clark QB 3% -0.3 -0.28
Sam Leavitt QB 38% -0.7 -0.05
Harlem Berry RB 9% -1.0 -0.33
Dilin Jones RB 47% -2.6 -0.16

Receiving

PlayerTarget usagePPA/play
Jackson Harris WR 24% +8.9 +0.99
Dilin Jones RB 19% +7.5 +1.07
Winston Watkins WR 22% +5.7 +0.71
Zach Grace TE 3% +3.4 +3.35
By play type
MeasureLSUKentuckyEdge
Rushing PPA-0.16+0.22Kentucky
Rushing success44.1%41.9%LSU
Passing PPA+0.54+0.12LSU
Passing success56.8%43.2%LSU
Standard downs PPA-0.16+0.05Kentucky
Standard downs success46.9%48.0%Kentucky
Passing downs PPA+0.68+0.39LSU
Passing downs success56.5%25.0%LSU

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

◀ LSUKentucky ▶
  • 12Drives11
  • 8Scoring opportunities11
  • 4.2Points per opportunity5.1
  • own 28Avg. starting field positionown 38

Recruiting

MeasureLSUKentucky
2026 class rank1160
2026 class points272.69197.21
Talent composite 931.8
#8 of 138		 786.6
#23 of 138
Transfer portal · 44 in, 41 out

Arrivals (44)

PlayerFrom★Elig.Date
Sam Leavitt QB Arizona State 5 Immediate Jan 12, 2026
Jordan Seaton OT Colorado 5 Immediate Jan 13, 2026
Princewill Umanmielen EDGE Ole Miss 5 Immediate Jan 15, 2026
Ty Benefield S Boise State 4 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Stephiylan Green DL Clemson 4 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Jayce Brown WR Kansas State 4 Immediate Jan 7, 2026
Eugene Wilson III WR Florida 4 Immediate Jan 7, 2026
Tre' Brown III WR Old Dominion 4 Immediate Jan 7, 2026
Jordan Ross EDGE Tennessee 4 Immediate Jan 9, 2026
Winston Watkins WR Ole Miss 4 Immediate Jan 12, 2026

+34 more not shown (44 total).

Departures (41)

PlayerTo★Elig.Date
Dashawn Spears S undecided 4 Withdrawn Dec 31, 2025
Weston Davis OT undecided 4 Withdrawn Jan 4, 2026
Carius Curne OT Ole Miss 4 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Jaiden Braker LB undecided 4 Withdrawn Jan 7, 2026
Destyn Hill WR Tulane 4 Immediate Jan 10, 2026
Caden Durham RB undecided 4 Withdrawn Jan 12, 2026
Walter Mathis Jr. DL Auburn 4 Immediate Jan 15, 2026
Javien Toviano S undecided 3 Immediate Dec 26, 2025
Tre People QB undecided 3 Immediate Jan 2, 2026
Coen Echols IOL Texas A&M 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026

+31 more not shown (41 total).

2026 commits · 16
PlayerHometown★Rating
Lamar Brown ATH Baton Rouge, LA 5 0.9986
Richard Anderson DL New Orleans, LA 5 0.9908
Deuce Geralds DL Suwanee, GA 4 0.9748
Corey Barber Jr. WR Pinson, AL 4 0.9739
Trenton Henderson EDGE Pensacola, FL 4 0.9629
Brysten Martinez OT Gonzales, LA 4 0.9602
Havon Finney Jr. CB Chatsworth, CA 4 0.9391
Jabari Mack WR Destrehan, LA 4 0.9320
Aiden Hall S New Orleans, LA 4 0.9204
JC Anderson TE Mt. Zion, IL 4 0.9100
Brayden Allen WR Lafayette, LA 4 0.9010
Dez Ellis CB Winnsboro, LA 4 0.8965
Isaiah Washington S Haynesville, LA 3 0.8889
Ryan Miret IOL Miami, FL 3 0.8778
Emari Peterson CB Orlando, FL 3 0.8678

+1 more not shown (16 total).

Returning production

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

Unit% PPAPPAUsage
Overall21.2%42.926.9%
Passing13.2%5.80.5%
Receiving20.3%26.916.0%
Rushing40.2%10.270.2%

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.