Louisville
5–3 · Ours #25Our rank on the rankings page. The board's line comes from the betting model, which sees more than this one number.
34–25Our projected score
Georgia Tech
2–5 · Ours #86Our rank on the rankings page. The board's line comes from the betting model, which sees more than this one number.
Win chanceHow often each team wins the game outright when we play it out thousands of times from our line.LOU 72%
LOU 72%SpreadThe betting line right now: the middle of the sportsbooks we track, updated through the day.—oursOur 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. LOU −9.1
TotalThe betting line right now: the middle of the sportsbooks we track, updated through the day.—oursOur computer's projected combined score for both teams, built from team stats, not from the betting odds. 59.6
Our call · No priceNeither DraftKings nor FanDuel is offering our side at our number right now, so there is no price to judge.—
Quarterbackslast game's starter · most dropbacks in each team's last game
Lincoln KienholzJunior · 6 starts this year
- EPA / dropbackExpected points added per dropback: passes, sacks (college play-by-play logs scrambles as runs). The rank is among the 128 FBS passers with 15+ dropbacks per team game.
- +0.3411th
- Comp %
- 67.8
- TD
- 8
- Turnovers
- 33 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 10
Alberto MendozaSophomore · 7 starts this year
- EPA / dropbackExpected points added per dropback: passes, sacks (college play-by-play logs scrambles as runs). The rank is among the 128 FBS passers with 15+ dropbacks per team game.
- +0.1066th
- Comp %
- 71.2
- TD
- 10
- Turnovers
- 66 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 12
The matchupeach offense against the defense it faces · FBS rank in the colored cell
| Georgia Techoffense | Offense edge · 5 of 5 | defenseLouisville | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 57th | +0.10 | Overall efficiencyEfficiencyExpected points added per play. FBS average: +0.08. | +0.08 | 88th |
| 44th | 45.1% | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that keep the offense on schedule. FBS average: 43.3%. | 40.8% | 63rd |
| 57th | +0.11 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback. FBS average: +0.09. | +0.13 | 98th |
| 55th | +0.10 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run. FBS average: +0.07. | +0.02 | 67th |
| 7th | 16.5% | Big playsBig playsShare of plays gaining 20+ yards passing or 10+ rushing. FBS average: 12.7%. | 10.9% | 46th |
| Louisvilleoffense | Offense edge · 5 of 5 | defenseGeorgia Tech | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3rd | +0.32 | Overall efficiencyEfficiencyExpected points added per play. FBS average: +0.08. | +0.20 | 129th |
| 13th | 50.1% | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that keep the offense on schedule. FBS average: 43.3%. | 44.7% | 109th |
| 7th | +0.34 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback. FBS average: +0.09. | +0.20 | 117th |
| 2nd | +0.30 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run. FBS average: +0.07. | +0.20 | 128th |
| 1st | 19.2% | Big playsBig playsShare of plays gaining 20+ yards passing or 10+ rushing. FBS average: 12.7%. | 13.6% | 107th |
Team stats
| Georgia TechGT | LouisvilleLOU | |
|---|---|---|
| Special teams & field position | ||
| Special teamsSpecial teams expected points added per game. | +2.124th | +0.274th |
| Field positionAverage starting field position against the opponent's, in yards. | −3.1117th | −0.178th |
| Drives & pace | ||
| Scoring chancesShare of drives that reach the opponent's 40. | 55%42nd | 45%106th |
| Points per chancePoints scored per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 3.7588th | 4.5328th |
| Time of possession | 27:12106th | 26:42112th |
| Plays per game | 61115th | 62113th |
| Turnovers & havoc | ||
| Turnover margin | −8 | +3 |
| Giveaways – takeaways | 14 – 6 | 11 – 14 |
| Havoc rateShare of defensive plays with a sack, tackle for loss, interception or forced fumble. | 11.4%123rd | 11.9%120th |
Season so far
Louisville5–3 · 28th-hardest schedule
L
at Ole Miss38–41covered +6.5
at Ole Miss38–41covered +6.5Wvs Villanova59–13covered −38.5
W
vs 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 −5W
vs Florida State44–20covered −3.5
vs Florida State44–20covered −3.5W
at Syracuse34–26missed −14.5
at Syracuse34–26missed −14.5W
vs Stanford52–24covered −22.5
vs Stanford52–24covered −22.5Georgia Tech2–5 · 49th-hardest schedule
L
vs Colorado13–14missed −6.5
vs Colorado13–14missed −6.5L
vs Tennessee24–45missed +12
vs Tennessee24–45missed +12Wvs Mercer44–11missed −38.5
Lat Stanford27–34missed −3
at Stanford27–34missed −3W
vs Duke28–25covered +4.5
vs Duke28–25covered +4.5L
at Virginia Tech24–34missed +8.5
at Virginia Tech24–34missed +8.5L
vs Boston College27–49missed −6.5
vs Boston College27–49missed −6.5Model cfb_scratch · uncertainty ±15.5 · run Oct 31, 6:20 PM EDT · freezes at kickoff and grades as-is