Week 3 report · Sat, Sep 19 · 2026 Week 3
AP #16SMU
6–2 · Ours #23 enteringOur rank going into this game, from the rankings page. The board's line comes from the betting model, which sees more than this one number.
31–41FinalWe had SMU 29 – LOU 27
AP #23Louisville
5–3 · Ours #28 enteringOur rank going into this game, from the rankings page. The board's line comes from the betting model, which sees more than this one number.
Win chanceOur odds before kickoff: how often each team won outright when we played the game out thousands of times from our line.SMU 56%LOU won
SMU 56%LOU wonSpreadOur last pregame odds pull, usually inside the hour before kickoff. A median of the books we track, not a sharp close. First seen at LOU −2.LOU −3oursOur computer's point spread for this game, built from team stats, not from the betting odds. Read it like a betting line: −7 means we have that team winning by 7. +2.4 · LOU covered by 7
TotalOur last pregame odds pull, usually inside the hour before kickoff. A median of the books we track, not a sharp close. Our total was 56.5.57.5final 72 · over by 14.5
Our callThe side our number took at the early-week line, graded at that line. Line value is how far the market moved toward it by the last capture before kickoff.SMU +1.5Llost 1.5 to the close
SMU +1.5Llost 1.5 to the closeQuarterbacksthis game
Kevin Jennings24/35 · 222 yards
- EPA / dropbackExpected points added per dropback (passes and sacks) in this game. The percentile is among every 2026 FBS quarterback game with 10+ dropbacks.
- +0.0342nd pct
- Comp %
- 68.6
- TD
- 1
- Turnovers
- 22 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 2
Lincoln Kienholz14/23 · 177 yards
- EPA / dropbackExpected points added per dropback (passes and sacks) in this game. The percentile is among every 2026 FBS quarterback game with 10+ dropbacks.
- +0.4280th pct
- Comp %
- 60.9
- TD
- 2
- Turnovers
- 00 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 0
The matchupthis game · ▲▼ better or worse than the unit's usual · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| SMUoffense | Played like LOU +16.3Fitted from non-garbage efficiency; describes how the game was played, not who deserved it. | defenseLouisville | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 52nd | 42.3%▼6.1 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 42.3%▼0.9 | 48th |
| 57th | +0.10▼0.08 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | +0.10▼0.03 | 43rd |
| 48th | +0.03▼0.35 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | +0.03▲0.12 | 53rd |
| 69th | +0.17▲0.19 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | +0.17▼0.16 | 31st |
| 15th | 2▼1.0 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 2▲0.8 | 85th |
| Louisvilleoffense | defenseSMU | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 75th | 49.2%▼0.1 | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that kept the offense on schedule, outside garbage time. | 49.2%▼11.9 | 24th |
| 91st | +0.42▲0.12 | EPA / playEPA/playExpected points added per play, outside garbage time. | +0.42▼0.48 | 9th |
| 86th | +0.49▲0.23 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback, outside garbage time. | +0.49▼0.55 | 14th |
| 90th | +0.38▲0.02 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run, outside garbage time. | +0.38▼0.45 | 10th |
| 79th | 0▲0.7 | TurnoversTurnoversInterceptions and lost fumbles: giveaways for the offense, takeaways for the defense. | 0▼0.4 | 21st |
Team statsthis game · percentile vs every 2026 team game
| SMUSMU | LouisvilleLOU | |
|---|---|---|
| Special teams & field position | ||
| Average startWhere the team's drives started on average. | Own 3060th | Own 2849th |
| Kicking vs expectedKickingPoints from field goals and extra points against what an average kicker makes from the same spots. | +1.1 pts77th | 0.0 pts39th |
| Drives & pace | ||
| PlaysOffensive plays outside garbage time. | 7895th | 5951st |
| Drive pointsThe part of the final margin the offense moved the ball for (efficiency, success rate, big plays, finishing drives), in points. A margin over the opponent. | −16.412th | +16.488th |
| Turnovers & hidden points | ||
| Penalty first downsPenalty 1st downsFirst downs the team was handed by the opponent's penalties. | 698th | 486th |
| 4th downsPoints from going for it on fourth down, against what the average team gets from the same spots. | −0.3 pts30th | 0.0 pts50th |
| Hidden pointsPoints from outside the offense's drives: turnovers, field position, kicking, fourth downs, penalty first downs, return touchdowns and safeties. A margin over the opponent. LOU +5.4: turnovers +7.8, field position −0.6, kicking −0.8, 4th downs +0.4, penalty first downs −1.5. | −5.425th | +5.475th |
Season so far
SMU6–2 · 76th-hardest schedule
W
at Florida State27–24push −3
at Florida State27–24push −3Wvs UC Davis56–10covered −32
Lat Louisville31–41missed +3
at Louisville31–41missed +3W
vs Missouri State34–24missed −30.5
vs Missouri State34–24missed −30.5W
vs Boston College25–16missed −21.5
vs Boston College25–16missed −21.5W
vs Virginia23–13push −10
vs Virginia23–13push −10W
vs California59–20covered −19
vs California59–20covered −19L
at Syracuse27–30missed −9.5
at Syracuse27–30missed −9.5Louisville5–3 · 28th-hardest schedule
L
at Ole Miss38–41covered +6.5
at Ole Miss38–41covered +6.5Wvs Villanova59–13covered −38.5
Wvs SMU41–31covered −3
vs SMU41–31covered −3L
vs Wake Forest27–30missed −11.5
vs Wake Forest27–30missed −11.5L
at NC State28–31missed −5
at NC State28–31missed −5Wvs Florida State44–20covered −3.5
vs Florida State44–20covered −3.5Wat Syracuse34–26missed −14.5
at Syracuse34–26missed −14.5W
vs Stanford52–24covered −22.5
vs Stanford52–24covered −22.5Model cfb_best · uncertainty ±15.5 · run Sep 19, 3:05 PM EDT · froze at kickoff and graded as-is