The SportsWire

Tennessee

2026 · week 6 result vs Arkansas

Updated Tue Oct 13, 7:55 PM CT

Next up projections

vs Alabama

Week 7 · Sat Oct 17, 2:30 PM CT / 3:30 PM ET · Neyland Stadium (Knoxville) · Alabama (FBS, SEC)

Our call: Alabama by 6.6Lean

All three models favor Alabama. The line, shown for comparison only, has Alabama by 6.5.

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 Alabama ›

Regression watch: Last game's 7-point win matched the play (score -6 against play), inside the 7-point band: no flag. More ›

Schedule: Played the 50th-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating -3.2); 3rd-toughest remaining (+12.6). More ›

Opponents by our model's rating 6 played · 6 left
  • Week 1 vs Furman (-32.8) · FCS, pooled
  • Week 2 at Georgia Tech (-1.4)
  • Week 3 vs Kennesaw State (-9.1)
  • Week 4 vs Texas (+18.1)
  • Week 5 vs Auburn (+8.2)
  • Week 6 at Arkansas (-2.4)
  • Remaining:
  • Week 7 vs Alabama (+25.5)
  • Week 8 at South Carolina (+8.8)
  • Week 10 vs Kentucky (+7.0)
  • Week 11 at Texas A&M (+12.0)
  • Week 12 vs LSU (+18.5)
  • Week 13 at Vanderbilt (+3.7)

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: Alabama leads 61–39–7 · last: Alabama 37–20, 2025

Series history 107 meetings since 1903
  • All-time: Alabama leads 61–39–7 (107 meetings since 1903)
  • Last meeting: Alabama 37–20, 2025, Bryant-Denny Stadium
  • Streak: none
  • At Neyland Stadium: Alabama leads 8–4 (12 meetings)
  • Biggest margins: Tennessee 41–14 (1969) · Alabama 51–0 (1906)
  • Since 2000: Alabama leads 19–7 (26 meetings)
SeasonResultSite
2025Alabama 37–20Bryant-Denny Stadium
2024Tennessee 24–17Neyland Stadium
2023Alabama 34–20Bryant-Denny Stadium
2022Tennessee 52–49Neyland Stadium
2021Alabama 52–24Bryant-Denny Stadium
2020Alabama 48–17Neyland Stadium
2019Alabama 35–13Bryant-Denny Stadium
2018Alabama 58–21Neyland Stadium
2017Alabama 45–7Bryant-Denny Stadium
2016Alabama 49–10Neyland Stadium
2015Alabama 19–14Bryant-Denny Stadium
2014Alabama 34–20Neyland Stadium
2013Alabama 45–10Bryant-Denny Stadium
2012Alabama 44–13Neyland Stadium
2011Alabama 37–6Bryant-Denny Stadium
2010Alabama 41–10Neyland Stadium
2009Alabama 12–10Bryant-Denny Stadium
2008Alabama 29–9Neyland Stadium
2007Alabama 41–17Bryant-Denny Stadium
2006Tennessee 16–13Neyland Stadium
2005Alabama 6–3Bryant-Denny Stadium
2004Tennessee 17–13Neyland Stadium
2003Tennessee 51–43Bryant-Denny Stadium
2002Alabama 34–14Neyland Stadium
2001Tennessee 35–24away
2000Tennessee 20–10home
RatingTennesseeAlabama
SP+ +16.7 #15 +23.0 #8
Elo 1776 1990

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

SP+
-3.8
Tennessee +16.7 vs Alabama +23.0
avg miss 10.6
closest 47/79
Elo
-6.1
Tennessee 1776 vs Alabama 1990
avg miss 12.3
closest 33/79
Line · benchmark
-6.5
pregame line
avg miss 11.1
Our model · experimental
-10.0
Tennessee +13.1 vs Alabama +25.5
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 Tennessee'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 (Tennessee); 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 · Tennessee 6 games, Alabama 6 games

Edge: Alabama wins 3 of 5

Alabama moves the ball better, stops plays better and has the edge on big plays. Tennessee is more disruptive and allows fewer big plays.

Tennesseelonger bar = betterAlabama

Run game, head to head · season to date

Tennessee's runs work 48% of the time; Alabama's run defense allows 31%. Alabama's runs work 53% of the time; Tennessee's run defense allows 40%.

More numbers
MeasureTennesseeAlabamaEdge
Off. success rate43.2%50.0%Alabama
Off. explosiveness1.211.36Alabama
Def. success rate allowed37.7%36.4%Alabama
Def. explosiveness allowed1.061.43Tennessee
Havoc created21.5%19.9%Tennessee
  • Run game, success rate: Tennessee offense 48.2% · Alabama defense allows 31.3% · edge: Alabama
  • Run game, success rate: Alabama offense 53.2% · Tennessee defense allows 40.1% · edge: Alabama
  • Run game, PPA per play: Tennessee offense +0.30 · Alabama defense allows -0.11 · edge: even
  • Run game, PPA per play: Alabama offense +0.31 · Tennessee defense allows +0.02 · edge: Alabama
  • 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 Tennessee's game (the SEC, Big Ten and ACC do, for conference games), this section shows that instead, labeled "Official report". More ›

  • Edrees Farooq DBinjuryOut
    Noted Sat Oct 10, 1:45 PM CT.
    SEC availability report (Game Day), posted Sat Oct 10, 1:45 PM CT / 2:45 PM ET, for Tennessee at Arkansas, Sat Oct 10. Reporting: One of five Tennessee players lost to season-ending injuries this season.
    Sources (3): [1] [2] [3] · as of Sat Oct 10, 1:45 PM CT / 2:45 PM ET
  • Ethan Davis TEinjuryOut
    torn ACL
    Noted Sat Oct 10, 1:45 PM CT.
    SEC availability report (Game Day), posted Sat Oct 10, 1:45 PM CT / 2:45 PM ET, for Tennessee at Arkansas, Sat Oct 10. Reporting: Suffered a season-ending torn ACL against Georgia Tech and confirmed he will return to Tennessee in 2027.
    Sources (3): [1] [2] [3] · as of Sat Oct 10, 1:45 PM CT / 2:45 PM ET
  • Jaedon Harmon LBinjuryOut
    Noted Sat Oct 10, 1:45 PM CT.
    SEC availability report (Game Day), posted Sat Oct 10, 1:45 PM CT / 2:45 PM ET, for Tennessee at Arkansas, Sat Oct 10. Reporting: One of five Tennessee players lost to season-ending injuries this season.
    Sources (2): [1] [2] · as of Sat Oct 10, 1:45 PM CT / 2:45 PM ET
  • Joakim Dodson WRinjuryOut
    leg
    Noted Sat Oct 10, 1:45 PM CT.
    SEC availability report (Game Day), posted Sat Oct 10, 1:45 PM CT / 2:45 PM ET, for Tennessee at Arkansas, Sat Oct 10. Reporting: Suffered a season-ending leg injury in the season opener against Furman.
    Sources (3): [1] [2] [3] · as of Sat Oct 10, 1:45 PM CT / 2:45 PM ET

Coverage (AI-assisted) · 48

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

Tennessee 24, Arkansas 17W

Game page: the call before kickoff and how each model did ›

Projected: SP+ n/a · Elo +10.1 ✓ · Our model +14.0 ✓ · the line (benchmark) n/a · actual +7 · Closest: Elo

Tennessee was as low as 14% and won Tennessee was as low as 14% and won Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 100% 50% 0% 24–17
  1. Q4 12:55 · 3rd & 1 · 33% → 68%
    (12:55) #7 D.Brame rush middle for 1 yard gain to the ARK00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 12:52 #28 C.Ranvier kick attempt good (H: #98 J.Ross, LS: #48 B.Brady)
  2. Q4 2:00 · 2nd & 6 · 64% → 92%
    (02:00) Shotgun #18 D.Bishop rush middle for 8 yards gain to the ARK00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 01:57, 1ST DOWN Timeout Tennessee, clock 02:00 #28 C.Ranvier kick attempt good (H: #98 J.Ross, LS: #48 B.Brady)
  3. Q4 5:40 · 1st & 10 · 59% → 32%
    (05:40) No Huddle-Shotgun #5 S.Smith rush left for 0 yards to the ARK42 (#2 X.Gilliam)

Away at Razorback Stadium · Sat Oct 10, 3:15 PM CT / 4:15 PM ET · vs Arkansas (FBS, SEC)

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

Verdict

The 7-point win matched the play: Tennessee's per-play edge (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.18 vs -0.02, success rate 44% vs 43%) implies roughly a +13 margin.

The verdict compares the score with the margin the plays earned. How it is reached ›

Efficiency

Edge: Tennessee won 4 of 4

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

Tennesseelonger bar = betterArkansas
More numbers

Tennessee ran 63 plays, Arkansas 63. Each number is that team's offense; Arkansas's column is also what Tennessee's defense allowed.

MeasureTennesseeArkansasEdge
PPA / play+0.18-0.02Tennessee
Total PPA+11.4-1.4Tennessee
Success rate44.4%42.9%Tennessee
Explosiveness1.410.91Tennessee
Havoc created16.7%14.1%Tennessee
  • 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

Tennessee 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
George MacIntyre QB 100% +7.7 +0.27

Rushing

PlayerRush usagePPA/play
DeSean Bishop RB 58% +5.0 +0.26
Dasaahn Brame TE 3% +2.5 +2.45
Mike Matthews WR 6% +1.5 +0.73
Daune Morris RB 24% +0.8 +0.10

Receiving

PlayerTarget usagePPA/play
Mike Matthews WR 17% +8.1 +1.61
Dasaahn Brame TE 14% +4.0 +1.00
Daune Morris RB 7% +2.8 +1.42
Trent Thomas TE 10% +2.0 +0.68
By play type
MeasureTennesseeArkansasEdge
Rushing PPA+0.19-0.16Tennessee
Rushing success51.5%46.9%Tennessee
Passing PPA+0.27+0.20Tennessee
Passing success37.9%42.9%Arkansas
Standard downs PPA+0.34+0.15Tennessee
Standard downs success53.2%54.5%Arkansas
Passing downs PPA-0.28-0.42Tennessee
Passing downs success18.8%15.8%Tennessee

Havoc detail — Tennessee defense: TFL 4, sacks 1, takeaways 0, breakups 5 on 60 snaps. Arkansas defense: TFL 2, sacks 1, takeaways 3, breakups 3 on 64 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.

◀ TennesseeArkansas ▶
  • 13Drives13
  • 8Scoring opportunities11
  • 3.0Points per opportunity1.5
  • own 30Avg. starting field positionown 30
By half

Shown because the game changed between halves: the per-play edge swung by 0.50 points a play (Tennessee +0.44 in the first half, -0.06 in the second). Overtime counts with the second half.

TennesseeArkansas
1st2nd1st2nd
PPA / play+0.16+0.20-0.28+0.26
Success rate47%45%36%53%
Plays34292832

Recruiting

Tennessee's 2026 class: #8 · 290.71 points.

MeasureTennesseeArkansas
Talent composite 885.9
#13 of 138		 745.5
#36 of 138
Transfer portal · 21 in, 29 out

Arrivals (21)

PlayerFrom★Elig.Date
Chaz Coleman EDGE Penn State 5 Immediate Jan 10, 2026
Xavier Gilliam DL Penn State 4 Immediate Jan 9, 2026
Qua Moss S Kansas State 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Ory Williams OT LSU 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Kayin Lee CB Auburn 3 Immediate Jan 7, 2026
Amare Campbell LB Penn State 3 Immediate Jan 10, 2026
Dejuan Lane S Penn State 3 Immediate Jan 10, 2026
Jordan Norman EDGE Tulane 3 Immediate Jan 13, 2026
TJ Metcalf S Michigan 3 Immediate Jan 13, 2026
Donovan Haslam IOL West Virginia 3 Immediate Jan 17, 2026

+11 more not shown (21 total).

Departures (29)

PlayerTo★Elig.Date
Amari Jefferson WR undecided 4 Immediate Jan 2, 2026
Rickey Gibson III CB Texas A&M 4 Immediate Jan 8, 2026
Jordan Ross EDGE LSU 4 Immediate Jan 9, 2026
Lance Heard OT Kentucky 4 Immediate Jan 10, 2026
Boo Carter S Colorado 4 Immediate Jan 10, 2026
Jack Van Dorselaer TE Oklahoma 4 Immediate Jan 14, 2026
Arion Carter LB undecided 4 Withdrawn Jan 16, 2026
Bennett Warren OT Minnesota 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Max Anderson IOL Kentucky 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Peyton Lewis RB Virginia 3 Immediate Jan 7, 2026

+19 more not shown (29 total).

2026 commits · 32
PlayerHometown★Rating
Faizon Brandon QB Greensboro, NC 5 0.9939
TK Keys WR Hattiesburg, MS 5 0.9933
Joel Wyatt ATH Murfreesboro, TN 4 0.9697
TJ White LB Jackson, MS 4 0.9696
Brayden Rouse LB Marietta, GA 4 0.9665
Gabriel Osenda OT Chattanooga, TN 4 0.9566
Carter Gooden EDGE Marion, MA 4 0.9544
Tyreek King WR Knoxville, TN 4 0.9455
Kamari Blair OT Clarksville, TN 4 0.9364
Breeze Carter EDGE Douglasville, GA 4 0.9263
Zay Anderson ATH Greeneville, TN 4 0.9252
Hezekiah Harris EDGE Huntsville, AL 4 0.9240
Zach Groves EDGE Cross Plains, TN 4 0.9053
Dereon Albert DL Jackson, MS 4 0.8971
JJ Finch DL Indianapolis, IN 4 0.8911

+17 more not shown (32 total).

Returning production

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

Unit% PPAPPAUsage
Overall35.3%186.236.7%
Passing6.6%12.02.2%
Receiving51.5%121.559.8%
Rushing48.0%52.750.2%

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.