Kentucky

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.2167th
  Defense+0.0656th
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense49.2%85th
  Defense45.3%16th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1727th
  Defense+1.1868th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2179th
  Defense+0.0647th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2248th
  Defense+0.1650th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense55.7%93rd
  Defense46.5%47th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.6%33rd
  Defense42.6%1st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2468th
  Defense2.8256th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.2%62nd
  Defense19.9%61st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.0%72nd
  Defense17.8%74th

Percentiles among the 138 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2026

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what Kentucky allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. W
   YSU
2. L
   ALA
3. W
   TA&M
4. W
   USA
5. W
   SC
6. W
   LSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Kentucky.

Players, 2026

1. CJ BaxterRB81 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 15th of 320 RBs
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.23
2. Kenny MincheyQB169 plays · +0.029 pts/play · 139th of 192 QBs
   0.09WAR−0.17 to 0.34
3. Kenny DarbyWR33 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 105th of 364 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11
4. Jason PattersonRB30 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 170th of 320 RBs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
5. Jovantae BarnesRB25 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 191st of 320 RBs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.06
6. Nic AndersonWR17 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 164th of 364 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
7. DJ MillerWR16 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 197th of 364 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
8. Adam ZouaguiPK10 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 26th of 82 kickers
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.06

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares Kentucky's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  78778723rd of 138Roster talent: 787, 23rd of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21821829th of 138Recruiting: 218, 29th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  19%19%101st of 136Returning production: 19%, 101st of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +8.0+8.046th of 138SP+ rating so far: +8.0, 46th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than Kentucky's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.06 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. at TA&MQ4 8:22 4th & 3 at TA&M 34, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
2. vs LSUQ4 11:54 4th & 3 at LSU 10, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. vs ALAQ2 0:00 4th & 2 at ALA 21, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. vs LSUQ3 6:46 4th & 3 at UK 37, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs ALAQ3 0:49 4th & 3 at UK 32, down 6Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at SCQ3 6:45 4th & 9 at SC 39, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs YSUQ2 4:01 4th & 2 at UK 28, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs ALAQ2 0:29 4th & 7 at ALA 43, up 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

1st of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Kentucky's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   YSU
2. L

   ALA
3. W

   TA&M
4. W

   USA
5. W

   SC
6. W

   LSU

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Kentucky's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard+1.42
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.62

Game by game

• YSUW 45-13 vs YSU94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• ALAL 17-45 vs ALA22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• TA&MW 31-21 at TA&M10% → 98%Before kickoff −40 · On the field +89: Scoreboard +60, Clock +3
• USAW 45-21 vs USA87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +17
• SCW 35-34 at SC35% → 89%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +19
• LSUW 35-34 vs LSU24% → 87%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts −23

Points of win probability, from Kentucky's side.

Closest call

APSU 13-49 UK (2016) - Kentucky dropped to a 0.7% win probability before pulling it out.