The SportsWire

Vanderbilt

2026 · week 7 result vs Arkansas

Updated Tue Oct 20, 7:46 PM CT

Next up projections

at Kentucky

Week 8 · Sat Oct 24, 6:30 PM CT / 7:30 PM ET · Kroger Field (Lexington) · Kentucky (FBS, SEC)

Our call: Kentucky by 6.8Lean

All three models favor Kentucky (SP+ from the week 7 snapshot). The line, shown for comparison only, has Kentucky by 10.5.

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 Kentucky ›

Regression watch: Last game's 10-point loss matched the play (score +3 against play), inside the 7-point band: no flag. More ›

Schedule: Played the 31st-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating +1.0); 2nd-toughest remaining (+13.9). More ›

Opponents by our model's rating 7 played · 5 left
  • Week 1 vs Austin Peay (-33.2) · FCS, pooled
  • Week 2 vs Delaware (-12.4)
  • Week 3 vs NC State (+5.4)
  • Week 4 at Auburn (+10.2)
  • Week 5 at Georgia (+21.9)
  • Week 6 vs Ole Miss (+16.1)
  • Week 7 vs Arkansas (-1.4)
  • Remaining:
  • Week 8 at Kentucky (+7.9)
  • Week 10 at Mississippi State (+9.0)
  • Week 11 vs Alabama (+22.9)
  • Week 12 at Florida (+13.4)
  • Week 13 vs Tennessee (+16.1)

Each opponent's rating from our model's week 8 snapshot, in points against an average FBS team; the averages are ranked among the 138 FBS teams. Played means through week 7. Experimental, like the Our model card.

Series: Kentucky leads 49–42–4 · last: Vanderbilt 45–17, 2025 · Vanderbilt has won 2 straight

Series history 95 meetings since 1906
  • All-time: Kentucky leads 49–42–4 (95 meetings since 1906)
  • Last meeting: Vanderbilt 45–17, 2025, FirstBank Stadium
  • Streak: Vanderbilt has won 2 straight
  • At Kroger Field: Kentucky leads 8–4 (12 meetings)
  • Biggest margins: Vanderbilt 45–0 (1916) · Kentucky 53–2 (1978)
  • Since 2000: Kentucky leads 16–10 (26 meetings)
SeasonResultSite
2025Vanderbilt 45–17FirstBank Stadium
2024Vanderbilt 20–13Kroger Field
2023Kentucky 45–28FirstBank Stadium
2022Vanderbilt 24–21Kroger Field
2021Kentucky 34–17FirstBank Stadium
2020Kentucky 38–35Kroger Field
2019Kentucky 38–14FirstBank Stadium
2018Kentucky 14–7Kroger Field
2017Kentucky 44–21FirstBank Stadium
2016Kentucky 20–13Kroger Field
2015Vanderbilt 21–17FirstBank Stadium
2014Kentucky 17–7Kroger Field
2013Vanderbilt 22–6FirstBank Stadium
2012Vanderbilt 40–0Kroger Field
2011Vanderbilt 38–8FirstBank Stadium
2010Kentucky 38–20Kroger Field
2009Kentucky 24–13FirstBank Stadium
2008Vanderbilt 31–24Kroger Field
2007Kentucky 27–20FirstBank Stadium
2006Kentucky 38–26Kroger Field
2005Kentucky 48–43FirstBank Stadium
2004Kentucky 14–13Kroger Field
2003Vanderbilt 28–17FirstBank Stadium
2002Kentucky 41–21Kroger Field
2001Kentucky 56–30FirstBank Stadium
2000Vanderbilt 24–20away
RatingVanderbiltKentucky
SP+ +1.2 #65 +8.0 #46
Elo 1577 1599

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

SP+
-9.3
Vanderbilt +1.2 vs Kentucky +8.0 · week 7 snapshot, before last week's games
avg miss 11.0
closest 57/100
Elo
-3.4
Vanderbilt 1577 vs Kentucky 1599
avg miss 12.3
closest 44/100
Line · benchmark
-10.5
pregame line
avg miss 11.3
Our model · experimental
-7.8
Vanderbilt +2.7 vs Kentucky +7.9
prior 46%
avg miss 12.0
closest 23/61
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 Vanderbilt'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 (Kentucky); 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 · Vanderbilt 7 games, Kentucky 7 games

Edge: Kentucky wins 3 of 5

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

Vanderbiltlonger bar = betterKentucky

Run game, head to head · season to date

Vanderbilt's runs work 40% of the time; Kentucky's run defense allows 45%. Kentucky's runs work 51% of the time; Vanderbilt's run defense allows 44%.

More numbers
MeasureVanderbiltKentuckyEdge
Off. success rate40.2%47.9%Kentucky
Off. explosiveness1.291.15Vanderbilt
Def. success rate allowed43.3%44.6%Vanderbilt
Def. explosiveness allowed1.221.17Kentucky
Havoc created14.5%18.4%Kentucky
  • Run game, success rate: Vanderbilt offense 39.7% · Kentucky defense allows 44.9% · edge: even
  • Run game, success rate: Kentucky offense 51.0% · Vanderbilt defense allows 44.0% · edge: Kentucky
  • Run game, PPA per play: Vanderbilt offense +0.11 · Kentucky defense allows +0.08 · edge: even
  • Run game, PPA per play: Kentucky offense +0.18 · Vanderbilt defense allows +0.04 · edge: Kentucky
  • 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 ›

Rest of the season experimental

DateOpponentOur win chanceProjected
Sat Oct 24at #15 Kentucky33%by 6.8 them
Fri Nov 6at #16 Mississippi State30%by 8.2 them
Fri Nov 13vs #6 Alabama14%by 16.3 them
Fri Nov 20at Florida25%by 10.2 them
Fri Nov 27vs #14 Tennessee24%by 10.5 them

Projected record: 4.3 wins on average; most likely 4-8 (35%). Conference title: 0%. Playoff: 0%. Playoff chances ›

From our model's simulation of the rest of the season (10,000 times); the win chance is how often we won that game in the simulations, the projected margin is Our call's (SP+, Elo and Our model averaged, 2.5 points to the home team).

Injuries

No injury report yet for this game. First reports usually come Wednesday.

Coverage (AI-assisted) · 4

Gathered by an AI model from public posts, not from CollegeFootballData. Not used in any number on this page. Verify against the linked sources.

1 entry about games now final not shown.

Score and result

Vanderbilt 21, Arkansas 31L

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

Projected: SP+ +6.1 ✗ · Elo +7.6 ✗ · Our model +8.6 ✗ · the line (benchmark) n/a · actual -10 · Closest: SP+

Home at FirstBank Stadium · Sat Oct 17, 6:00 PM CT / 7:00 PM ET · vs Arkansas (FBS, SEC)

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

Verdict

The 10-point loss matched the play: Arkansas's per-play edge (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.10 vs +0.27, success rate 44% vs 48%) implies roughly a -13 margin.

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

Efficiency

Edge: Arkansas won 3 of 4

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

Vanderbiltlonger bar = betterArkansas
More numbers

Vanderbilt ran 62 plays, Arkansas 73. Each number is that team's offense; Arkansas's column is also what Vanderbilt's defense allowed.

MeasureVanderbiltArkansasEdge
PPA / play+0.10+0.27Arkansas
Total PPA+6.3+19.5Arkansas
Success rate43.5%47.9%Arkansas
Explosiveness1.271.12Vanderbilt
Havoc created9.6%11.7%Arkansas
  • 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

Vanderbilt 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
Jared Curtis QB 100% +9.0 +0.29

Rushing

PlayerRush usagePPA/play
Sedrick Alexander RB 36% +2.5 +0.25
Makhilyn Young RB 32% +1.1 +0.12
Jared Curtis QB 25% +0.8 +0.11
Jamezell Lassiter RB 7% -1.9 -0.93

Receiving

PlayerTarget usagePPA/play
Junior Sherrill WR 32% +7.9 +0.79
Ja'Cory Thomas WR 13% +3.5 +0.89
Sedrick Alexander RB 10% +3.5 +1.17
Maurice Veney TE 3% +2.8 +2.78
By play type
MeasureVanderbiltArkansasEdge
Rushing PPA+0.09+0.20Arkansas
Rushing success39.3%43.9%Arkansas
Passing PPA+0.29+0.39Arkansas
Passing success51.6%54.8%Arkansas
Standard downs PPA+0.39+0.34Vanderbilt
Standard downs success53.5%54.0%Arkansas
Passing downs PPA-0.54+0.11Arkansas
Passing downs success21.1%34.8%Arkansas

Havoc detail — Vanderbilt defense: TFL 2, sacks 0, takeaways 0, breakups 5 on 73 snaps. Arkansas defense: TFL 2, sacks 1, takeaways 2, breakups 2 on 60 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.

◀ VanderbiltArkansas ▶
  • 12Drives10
  • 9Scoring opportunities9
  • 2.3Points per opportunity2.7
  • own 27Avg. starting field positionown 24

Recruiting

MeasureVanderbiltArkansas
2026 class rank3346
2026 class points225.43212.68
Talent composite 727.4
#42 of 138
745.5
#36 of 138
Transfer portal · 18 in, 20 out

Arrivals (18)

PlayerFrom★Elig.Date
Brian Allen EDGE Iowa 4 Immediate Jan 11, 2026
Ja'Cory Thomas WR Old Dominion 4 Immediate Jan 12, 2026
Maurice Veney TE Morehouse 3 Immediate Nov 17, 2025
Jayvontay Conner TE East Carolina 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
Beau Johnson OT North Dakota State 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
Talan Carter DL Jacksonville State 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
Cobey Sellers CB Texas A&M 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Lyndon Cooper IOL Pittsburgh 3 Immediate Jan 7, 2026
CJ Jackson EDGE LSU 3 Immediate Jan 9, 2026
Cole Adams WR Alabama 3 Immediate Jan 9, 2026

+8 more not shown (18 total).

Departures (20)

PlayerTo★Elig.Date
Jeremiah Dillon WR undecided 4 Immediate Dec 30, 2025
Tre Richardson WR Louisville 4 Immediate Jan 9, 2026
Chance Fitzgerald WR Austin Peay 4 Immediate Jan 23, 2026
Chris Tangelo S Virginia Tech 4 Immediate Mar 3, 2026
Jailen Ruth LB undecided 3 Immediate Dec 21, 2025
Drew Dickey QB Arkansas State 3 Immediate Jan 4, 2026
Cooper Starks IOL South Dakota State 3 Immediate Jan 7, 2026
Linus Zunk EDGE Washington State 3 Immediate Jan 9, 2026
Randon Fontenette S Colorado 3 Immediate Jan 11, 2026
Jeremy St-Hilaire QB Arkansas State 3 Immediate Jan 12, 2026

+10 more not shown (20 total).

2026 commits · 23
PlayerHometown★Rating
Jared Curtis QB Nashville, TN 5 0.9985
Mitchell Smith OT Picayune, MS 4 0.8999
Collin Flanigan CB Oxford, MS 4 0.8992
Chris Tangelo ATH Germantown, MD 4 0.8953
Evan Hampton RB Owensboro, KY 4 0.8911
Tilden Riley TE Orangeburg, SC 3 0.8878
Jace McCallum EDGE Mooresville, NC 3 0.8856
Bradley Brown S Plano, TX 3 0.8822
Owen Cabell WR Nashville, TN 3 0.8822
Pulelei'ite Primus IOL Midland, TX 3 0.8811
Mason Lewis S Chandler, AZ 3 0.8800
Daryl Campbell DL Katy, TX 3 0.8789
Adam Gehm TE Harmony, PA 3 0.8778
Tripp Skewes OT Englewood, CO 3 0.8767
Daniel Vollmer Jr. LB Cincinnati, OH 3 0.8756

+8 more not shown (23 total).

Returning production

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

Unit% PPAPPAUsage
Overall35.4%203.332.6%
Passing8.7%17.86.1%
Receiving50.1%126.244.9%
Rushing50.1%59.350.1%

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.