Next up projections
at LSU
Week 7 · Sat Oct 17, 11:00 AM CT / 12:00 PM ET · Tiger Stadium (LA) (Baton Rouge) · LSU (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: at LSU ›
Regression watch: Flattered last game: the 33-point loss ran 7 points ahead of the play. In a 2022–25 study, teams flattered by more than 7 fell about 3 points short of their season form the next game. More ›
Schedule: Played the 7th-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating +5.9); 41st-toughest remaining (+6.3). More ›
Opponents by our model's rating 5 played · 7 left
- Week 1 vs UL Monroe (-19.4)
- Week 2 at Minnesota (+0.9)
- Week 3 at South Carolina (+8.8)
- Week 4 vs Missouri (+13.9)
- Week 5 vs Alabama (+25.5)
- Remaining:
- Week 7 at LSU (+18.5)
- Week 8 vs Oklahoma (+14.7)
- Week 9 at Texas (+18.1)
- Week 10 vs Vanderbilt (+3.7)
- Week 11 vs Auburn (+8.2)
- Week 12 vs Tennessee Tech (-32.8) · FCS, pooled
- Week 13 at Ole Miss (+13.6)
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: Mississippi State 37–7 (2017) · LSU 55–0 (1967)
- Since 2000: LSU leads 21–3 (24 meetings)
| Season | Result | Site |
|---|---|---|
| 2023 | LSU 41–14 | Davis Wade Stadium |
| 2022 | LSU 31–16 | Tiger Stadium (LA) |
| 2021 | LSU 28–25 | Davis Wade Stadium |
| 2020 | Mississippi State 44–34 | Tiger Stadium (LA) |
| 2019 | LSU 36–13 | Davis Wade Stadium |
| 2018 | LSU 19–3 | Tiger Stadium (LA) |
| 2017 | Mississippi State 37–7 | Davis Wade Stadium |
| 2016 | LSU 23–20 | Tiger Stadium (LA) |
| 2015 | LSU 21–19 | Davis Wade Stadium |
| 2014 | Mississippi State 34–29 | Tiger Stadium (LA) |
| 2013 | LSU 59–26 | Davis Wade Stadium |
| 2012 | LSU 37–17 | Tiger Stadium (LA) |
| 2011 | LSU 19–6 | Davis Wade Stadium |
| 2010 | LSU 29–7 | Tiger Stadium (LA) |
| 2009 | LSU 30–26 | Davis Wade Stadium |
| 2008 | LSU 34–24 | Tiger Stadium (LA) |
| 2007 | LSU 45–0 | Davis Wade Stadium |
| 2006 | LSU 48–17 | Tiger Stadium (LA) |
| 2005 | LSU 37–7 | Davis Wade Stadium |
| 2004 | LSU 51–0 | Tiger Stadium (LA) |
| 2003 | LSU 41–6 | Davis Wade Stadium |
| 2002 | LSU 31–13 | Tiger Stadium (LA) |
| 2001 | LSU 42–0 | home |
| 2000 | LSU 45–38 | away |
| Rating | Mississippi State | LSU |
|---|---|---|
| SP+ | +12.6 #28 | +21.7 #9 |
| Elo | 1612 | 1859 |
Projected margin for Mississippi State · 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 Mississippi State'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 · Mississippi State 5 games, LSU 6 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.
-
49% Moves the ballsuccessful plays ✓50%
-
42% Stops playssuccessful plays allowed ✓31%
-
17% Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers ✓21%
-
1.30✓ Big playson offense 1.24
-
1.18✓ Big plays allowedon defense 1.30
Run game, head to head · season to date
Mississippi State's runs work 50% of the time; LSU's run defense allows 30%. LSU's runs work 47% of the time; Mississippi State's run defense allows 42%.
More numbers
| Measure | Mississippi State | LSU | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Off. success rate | 48.5% | 49.6% | LSU |
| Off. explosiveness | 1.30 | 1.24 | Mississippi State |
| Def. success rate allowed | 41.7% | 31.0% | LSU |
| Def. explosiveness allowed | 1.18 | 1.30 | Mississippi State |
| Havoc created | 17.2% | 21.4% | LSU |
- Run game, success rate: Mississippi State offense 50.0% · LSU defense allows 29.7% · edge: LSU
- Run game, success rate: LSU offense 46.9% · Mississippi State defense allows 41.7% · edge: LSU
- Run game, PPA per play: Mississippi State offense +0.20 · LSU defense allows -0.05 · edge: even
- Run game, PPA per play: LSU offense +0.15 · Mississippi State defense allows +0.04 · 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 4
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 Mississippi State's game (the SEC, Big Ten and ACC do, for conference games), this section shows that instead, labeled "Official report". More ›
-
Canon Boone CinjuryQuestionableNoted Fri Oct 9, 6:18 AM CT, for the game at LSU, Sat Oct 17.Canon Boone was forced out of the Alabama game and there was no coach update on Wednesday during the team's bye week.Source: [1] · as of Fri Oct 9, 6:18 AM CT / 7:18 AM ET
-
Fluff Bothwell RBinjuryQuestionableNoted Fri Oct 9, 6:18 AM CT, for the game at LSU, Sat Oct 17.Fluff Bothwell was forced out of the Alabama game and Lebby provided no Wednesday update on his status ahead of the Oct. 17 game at LSU.Source: [1] · as of Fri Oct 9, 6:18 AM CT / 7:18 AM ET
-
Jalen Smith LBinjuryQuestionableNoted Fri Oct 9, 6:18 AM CT, for the game at LSU, Sat Oct 17.Jalen Smith was forced out of the Alabama game after walking gingerly to the locker room with trainers' help amid reports of a nasty injury that left his family devastated.
-
Kamario Taylor QBinjuryQuestionableright footNoted Fri Oct 9, 6:18 AM CT, for the game at LSU, Sat Oct 17.Coach Jeff Lebby declined to give an update on Wednesday and will wait until next week's SEC availability report after Taylor was forced out of the Alabama game with a boot on his right foot.
Coverage (AI-assisted) · 11
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.
- WATCH: No. 16 Bulldogs Preview No. 22 LSU
-
Ohio State Iowa game led Week 5 with six million viewers
Ohio State versus Iowa drew six million viewers topping Week 5 Nielsen ratings.
- WATCH: Postgame Press Conferences vs. No. 7 Alabama
-
Mississippi State QB Kamario Taylor left the game with a leg injury
Mississippi State quarterback Kamario Taylor left the game earlier with a leg injury.
-
Mississippi State quarterback Kamario Taylor heads to the locker room
Mississippi State QB Kamario Taylor is headed to the locker room with Billy Puckett in at quarterback.
- No. 16 Bulldogs Fall To No. 7 Crimson Tide
-
Fluff Bothwell evidently will not return to the game for Mississippi State
Fluff Bothwell will not return to the Alabama game.
-
Isaac Smith and Fluff Bothwell both participated in pregame warm ups
Isaac Smith and Fluff Bothwell were taken off the availability report and warmed up.
- No 16 Dawgs Host No. 7 Crimson Tide For 11 a.m. Kickoff
-
Countdown To Kickoff: #16 State Takes On #7 Alabama
STARKVILLE — No. 16 Mississippi State has started 4-0 for the second consecutive season, and the Bulldogs will look to add another tally to the win column on…
-
Kamario Taylor says he is sticking with Mississippi State
Kamario Taylor says he is remaining at Mississippi State.
2 entries about games now final not shown.
Score and result
Mississippi State 23, Alabama 56L
Game page: the call before kickoff and how each model did ›
Projected: SP+ -5.4 ✓ · Elo -7.7 ✓ · Our model -7.6 ✓ · the line (benchmark) -4.5 · actual -33 · Closest: Elo
Mississippi State was as high as 67% and lost
- Q2 9:13 · 1st & 10 · 18% → 43%(09:13) Shotgun #1 K.Taylor pass complete short left to #7 Z.Ragins caught at Bama09, for 11 yards to the Bama00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 09:09, 1ST DOWN #80 K.Ferrie kick attempt good (H: #47 W.Wilkinson, LS: #46 K.Rushing)
- Q2 8:59 · 1st & 10 · 43% → 21%(08:59) Shotgun #17 T.Brown rush middle for 5 yards gain to the State48 (#4 A.Williams)
- Q1 3:30 · 1st & 2 · 25% → 46%(03:30) No Huddle-Shotgun #1 K.Taylor pass complete short right to #3 A.Evans III caught at Bama03, for 2 yards to the Bama00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 03:26 #80 K.Ferrie kick attempt good (H: #47 W.Wilkinson, LS: #46 K.Rushing)
Home at Davis Wade Stadium · Sat Oct 3, 11:00 AM CT / 12:00 PM ET · vs Alabama (FBS, SEC)
Opponent for every game-level number: Alabama (FBS, SEC).
- By quarter: Mississippi State 7-10-6-0 · Alabama 14-14-14-14
- Week 6 polls: Coaches: Mississippi State #20, Alabama #7 · AP: Mississippi State #17, Alabama #6
- Pregame Elo: Mississippi State 1674, Alabama 1929
- Postgame win probability: 0.5%
Verdict
The scoreboard flattered Mississippi State: the -33 margin ran 7 points ahead of the -40 implied by per-play quality (PPA (expected points added per play) -0.16 vs +0.46, success rate 35% vs 60%).
The verdict compares the score with the margin the plays earned. How it is reached ›
Efficiency
Edge: Alabama won 3 of 4
Alabama moved the ball better, got more from each play and was more disruptive. Mississippi State hit the bigger plays.
-
35% Moved the ballsuccessful plays ✓60%
-
-0.16 Points per playwhat a play was worth ✓+0.46
-
1.31✓ Big playssize of the good plays 1.22
-
10% Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers ✓21%
More numbers
Mississippi State ran 71 plays, Alabama 62. Each number is that team's offense; Alabama's column is also what Mississippi State's defense allowed.
| Measure | Mississippi State | Alabama | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| PPA / play | -0.16 | +0.46 | Alabama |
| Total PPA | -11.7 | +28.6 | Alabama |
| Success rate | 35.2% | 59.7% | Alabama |
| Explosiveness | 1.31 | 1.22 | Mississippi State |
| Havoc created | 10.0% | 21.4% | Alabama |
- 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
Mississippi State 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kamario Taylor QB | 100% | +2.6 | +0.07 |
Rushing
| Player | Rush usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fluff Bothwell RB | 4% | -0.9 | -0.93 |
| Kolin Wilson RB | 46% | -0.9 | -0.09 |
| Xavier Gayten RB | 36% | -1.1 | -0.13 |
| Sanfrisco Magee WR | 4% | -3.1 | -3.13 |
Receiving
| Player | Target usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anthony Evans III WR | 38% | +16.9 | +1.21 |
| Joeseph Skipworth TE | 3% | +0.7 | +0.73 |
| Marquis Johnson WR | 11% | +0.7 | +0.17 |
| Sam West TE | 5% | -0.2 | -0.11 |
By play type
| Measure | Mississippi State | Alabama | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rushing PPA | -0.50 | +0.27 | Alabama |
| Rushing success | 22.2% | 65.6% | Alabama |
| Passing PPA | +0.11 | +0.73 | Alabama |
| Passing success | 44.2% | 53.6% | Alabama |
| Standard downs PPA | -0.10 | +0.37 | Alabama |
| Standard downs success | 41.3% | 63.3% | Alabama |
| Passing downs PPA | -0.29 | +0.82 | Alabama |
| Passing downs success | 24.0% | 46.2% | Alabama |
Havoc detail — Mississippi State defense: TFL 0, sacks 4, takeaways 1, breakups 1 on 60 snaps. Alabama defense: TFL 4, sacks 4, takeaways 3, breakups 4 on 70 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.
Recruiting
| Measure | Mississippi State | Alabama |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 class rank | 23 | 2 |
| 2026 class points | 230.56 | 303.79 |
| Talent composite | 804.5 #20 of 138 |
973.5 #4 of 138 |
Transfer portal · 28 in, 40 out
Arrivals (28)
| Player | From | ★ | Elig. | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marquis Johnson WR | Missouri | 4 | Immediate | Jan 4, 2026 |
| Dealyn Evans DL | Texas A&M | 4 | Immediate | Jan 13, 2026 |
| Jayson Jenkins EDGE | Florida State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| AJ Swann QB | App State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Quentin Taylor Jr. CB | Iowa State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Kaylib Singleton CB | Syracuse | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Mario Nash Jr. OT | Florida State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Jamroc Grimsley CB | Florida | 3 | Immediate | Jan 7, 2026 |
| Marcus Williams S | Rice | 3 | Immediate | Jan 8, 2026 |
| Ja'Elyne Matthews OT | Florida State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 9, 2026 |
+18 more not shown (28 total).
Departures (40)
| Player | To | ★ | Elig. | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ferzell Shepard WR | undecided | 4 | Immediate | Dec 15, 2025 |
| Jordan Mosley WR | Colorado State | 4 | Immediate | Jan 11, 2026 |
| Fatt Forrest LB | undecided | 3 | Immediate | Dec 12, 2025 |
| Lo'Kavion Jackson S | undecided | 3 | Immediate | Dec 15, 2025 |
| Emeka Iloh TE | undecided | 3 | Immediate | Dec 17, 2025 |
| Jaron Glover WR | South Florida | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Alex Lopez IOL | Western Kentucky | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Stonka Burnside S | Memphis | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Luke Kromenhoek QB | South Florida | 3 | Immediate | Jan 7, 2026 |
| Luke Work OT | Missouri | 3 | Immediate | Jan 7, 2026 |
+30 more not shown (40 total).
2026 commits · 28
| Player | Hometown | ★ | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bralan Womack S | Flowood, MS | 4 | 0.9797 |
| Micah Nickerson EDGE | Magnolia, MS | 4 | 0.9353 |
| Zayion Cotton TE | Grenada, MS | 4 | 0.9033 |
| Jayden Cration WR | Canton, MS | 4 | 0.8922 |
| Zion Crumpton WR | Montgomery, AL | 3 | 0.8889 |
| Tico Crittendon Jr. DL | Lithonia, GA | 3 | 0.8878 |
| Chris Addison EDGE | Winnsboro, LA | 3 | 0.8856 |
| Keymian Henderson Jr. WR | Carthage, TX | 3 | 0.8822 |
| Terrell Johnson Jr. CB | Lexington, MS | 3 | 0.8822 |
| Cooper Crosby RB | Gulfport, MS | 3 | 0.8811 |
| Dalton Toothman OT | Ocean Springs, MS | 3 | 0.8811 |
| Jaiden Taylor ATH | Macon, MS | 3 | 0.8800 |
| Jaeden Hill RB | Tupelo, MS | 3 | 0.8733 |
| Leon Noil Jr. IOL | New Orleans, LA | 3 | 0.8722 |
| Brodie McWhorter QB | White, GA | 3 | 0.8700 |
+13 more not shown (28 total).
Returning production
Share of last season's production returning for Mississippi State in 2026.
| Unit | % PPA | PPA | Usage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 33.9% | 109.5 | 39.8% |
| Passing | -0.2% | -0.2 | 19.5% |
| Receiving | 27.9% | 47.4 | 48.3% |
| Rushing | 87.3% | 62.3 | 51.4% |
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.