Louisville

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+0.3494th
  Defense+0.1528th
• 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.
  Offense49.3%86th
  Defense41.8%41st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4295th
  Defense+1.2544th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2689th
  Defense+0.0261st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4384th
  Defense+0.3615th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense55.9%95th
  Defense45.0%59th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.4%55th
  Defense34.4%22nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9939th
  Defense3.1725th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.3%23rd
  Defense11.2%3rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.3%39th
  Defense14.0%25th

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 Louisville 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. L
   MISS
2. W
   VILL
3. W
   SMU
4. L
   WAKE
5. L
   NCSU
6. W
   FSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Louisville.

Players, 2026

1. Lincoln KienholzQB185 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 36th of 192 QBs
   0.39WAR0.06 to 0.74
2. Isaac BrownRB70 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 35th of 320 RBs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.20
3. Tre RichardsonWR34 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 34th of 364 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.15
4. Lawayne McCoyWR30 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 35th of 364 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.15
5. Keyjuan BrownRB39 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 97th of 320 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
6. TreyShun HurryWR30 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 112th of 364 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.10
7. Jaleel SkinnerTE17 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 39th of 164 TEs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.06
8. Justyn ReidTE3 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 103rd of 164 TEs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.01

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 Louisville'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.
  74074037th of 138Roster talent: 740, 37th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20020049th of 138Recruiting: 200, 49th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  35%35%82nd of 136Returning production: 35%, 82nd 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.
  +13.0+13.024th of 138SP+ rating so far: +13.0, 24th 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 Louisville's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.03 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 MISSQ3 2:22 4th & 3 at MISS 27, down 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
2. vs FSUQ2 14:50 4th & 4 at FSU 37, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
3. at MISSQ2 11:51 4th & 7 at LOU 41, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
4. at MISSQ1 3:25 4th & 5 at MISS 40, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
5. vs SMUQ4 2:20 4th & 4 at LOU 26, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
6. vs VILLQ3 12:16 4th & 2 at LOU 42, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

114th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. L

   MISS
2. W

   VILL
3. W

   SMU
4. L

   WAKE
5. L

   NCSU
6. W

   FSU

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Louisville'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−0.45
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts+0.02
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.22

Game by game

• MISSL 38-41 at MISS30% → 6%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −30, Possession & field position +1
• VILLW 59-13 vs VILL99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• SMUW 41-31 vs SMU56% → 97%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +3
• WAKEL 27-30 vs WAKE80% → 5%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −74: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• NCSUL 28-31 at NCSU59% → 4%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −39, Possession & field position −1
• FSUW 44-20 vs FSU61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +40, Clock −2

Points of win probability, from Louisville's side.

Closest call

LOU 31-27 BC (2024) - Louisville dropped to a 11.5% win probability before pulling it out.