The SportsWire

Mississippi State

2026 · Last game: week 5 vs Alabama · bye in week 6

Updated Tue Oct 13, 7:55 PM CT

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)
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 42–0home
2000LSU 45–38away
RatingMississippi StateLSU
SP+ +12.6 #28 +21.7 #9
Elo 1612 1859

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

SP+
-11.6
Mississippi State +12.6 vs LSU +21.7
avg miss 10.6
closest 47/79
Elo
-12.4
Mississippi State 1612 vs LSU 1859
avg miss 12.3
closest 33/79
Line · benchmark
-11.5
pregame line
avg miss 11.1
Our model · experimental
-10.3
Mississippi State +10.7 vs LSU +18.5
prior 55%
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 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.

Mississippi Statelonger bar = betterLSU

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
MeasureMississippi StateLSUEdge
Off. success rate48.5%49.6%LSU
Off. explosiveness1.301.24Mississippi State
Def. success rate allowed41.7%31.0%LSU
Def. explosiveness allowed1.181.30Mississippi State
Havoc created17.2%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 CinjuryQuestionable
    Noted 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 RBinjuryQuestionable
    Noted 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 LBinjuryQuestionable
    Noted 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.
    Sources (3): [1] [2] [3] · as of Fri Oct 9, 6:18 AM CT / 7:18 AM ET
  • Kamario Taylor QBinjuryQuestionable
    right foot
    Noted 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.
    Sources (3): [1] [2] [3] · as of Fri Oct 9, 6:18 AM CT / 7:18 AM ET

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.

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 Mississippi State was as high as 67% and lost Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 100% 50% 0% 23–56
  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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).

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.

Mississippi Statelonger bar = betterAlabama
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.

MeasureMississippi StateAlabamaEdge
PPA / play-0.16+0.46Alabama
Total PPA-11.7+28.6Alabama
Success rate35.2%59.7%Alabama
Explosiveness1.311.22Mississippi State
Havoc created10.0%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

PlayerPass usagePPA/play
Kamario Taylor QB 100% +2.6 +0.07

Rushing

PlayerRush usagePPA/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

PlayerTarget usagePPA/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
MeasureMississippi StateAlabamaEdge
Rushing PPA-0.50+0.27Alabama
Rushing success22.2%65.6%Alabama
Passing PPA+0.11+0.73Alabama
Passing success44.2%53.6%Alabama
Standard downs PPA-0.10+0.37Alabama
Standard downs success41.3%63.3%Alabama
Passing downs PPA-0.29+0.82Alabama
Passing downs success24.0%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.

◀ Mississippi StateAlabama ▶
  • 13Drives11
  • 9Scoring opportunities9
  • 1.8Points per opportunity5.4
  • own 30Avg. starting field positionown 33

Recruiting

MeasureMississippi StateAlabama
2026 class rank232
2026 class points230.56303.79
Talent composite 804.5
#20 of 138
973.5
#4 of 138
Transfer portal · 28 in, 40 out

Arrivals (28)

PlayerFrom★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)

PlayerTo★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
PlayerHometown★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% PPAPPAUsage
Overall33.9%109.539.8%
Passing-0.2%-0.219.5%
Receiving27.9%47.448.3%
Rushing87.3%62.351.4%

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.