Louisville

1-1AP #23
Latest
Louisville holds top 25 spot after close Ole Miss lossour readLouisville football dominates Villanova 59-13 in home openerour readThe Kentucky rivalry

ACC · Jeff Brohm, year 4 (29-13) · L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium · 60,000 · 46,385 avg in 2026

The nationAP #23up 1 from last week
The model#55 CFB ZeitgeistSP+ #33 (+10.0) · FPI #28
The marketLouisville by 1.5vs SMU · our model 35% Louisville · a number, not a pick

LastW 59–13 vs Villanova · Fri Sep 11 · Lincoln Kienholz 332 pass yds, 2 TD, 42 rush yds

Nextvs SMU · Sat Sep 19 · 3:30 pm ET · L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium · Louisville by 1.5 · series 0-4, lost the last 4 · Game preview

Updated Tue Sep 15 · through week 2

Key stats — 2026 — FBS rank
Points/game
48.5
Pts allowed/game
27.0
Total yards/gm#17 / 138 · 88th pct
552.0
Rush yards/gm#40 / 138 · 71st pct
211.0
Pass yards/gm#15 / 138 · 89th pct
341.0
Yards allowed/gmT-#94 / 138 · 32nd pct
370.5
Rush yds allowed/gm#66 / 138 · 53rd pct
113.5
SacksT-#128 / 138 · 5th pct
1
InterceptionsT-#63 / 115 · 23rd pct
1
3rd-down convT-#33 / 138 · 73rd pct
50.0%
All 89 stats
Offense / Defense
Total yards
Team
1104552.0/gm8.24/play#17 / 138 · 88th pct#11 / 69 · 85th pct#3 / 17 · 85th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
741370.5/gm5.29/playT-#94 / 138 · 32nd pct#57 / 69 · 18th pct#11 / 17 · 38th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush yards
Team
422211.0/gm3.15/play#40 / 138 · 71st pct#22 / 69 · 69th pct#4 / 17 · 79th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
227113.5/gm1.62/play#66 / 138 · 53rd pct#48 / 69 · 31st pct#10 / 17 · 44th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush carries
Team
7738.5/gmT-#57 / 138 · 58th pctT-#27 / 69 · 59th pct#6 / 17 · 68th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
6934.5/gmT-#69 / 138 · 47th pctT-#44 / 69 · 35th pctT-#9 / 17 · 47th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Rush TDs
Team
73.5/gmT-#17 / 138 · 85th pctT-#12 / 69 · 79th pct#3 / 17 · 85th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
21.0/gmT-#53 / 138 · 50th pctT-#34 / 69 · 36th pctT-#9 / 17 · 44th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Net pass yards
Team
682341.0/gm5.09/play#15 / 138 · 89th pct#8 / 69 · 89th pct#4 / 17 · 79th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
514257.0/gm3.67/play#112 / 138 · 19th pct#63 / 69 · 9th pct#14 / 17 · 21st pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Pass attempts
Team
5728.5/gmT-#74 / 138 · 46th pctT-#43 / 69 · 38th pctT-#11 / 17 · 35th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
7135.5/gm#107 / 138 · 23rd pct#54 / 69 · 22nd pct#12 / 17 · 32nd pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Completions
Team
3919.5/gmT-#67 / 138 · 51st pctT-#40 / 69 · 42nd pct#9 / 17 · 50th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
4120.5/gmT-#95 / 138 · 29th pctT-#53 / 69 · 22nd pctT-#11 / 17 · 35th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Pass TDs
Team
52.5/gmT-#33 / 138 · 71st pctT-#24 / 69 · 60th pctT-#5 / 17 · 68th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
42.0/gmT-#103 / 138 · 19th pctT-#62 / 69 · 8th pctT-#14 / 17 · 18th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Passer rating#9 / 115 · 93rd pct#9 / 59 · 86th pct#3 / 14 · 82nd pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
194.4194.4
Interceptions thrown
Team
00.0/gmT-#92 / 138 · 17th pctT-#42 / 69 · 20th pctT-#11 / 17 · 21st pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
10.5/gmT-#24 / 138 · 64th pctT-#11 / 69 · 64th pctT-#4 / 17 · 53rd pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Sacks (def)
Team
10.5/gmT-#128 / 138 · 5th pctT-#68 / 69 · 1st pct#17 / 17 · 3rd pct#11 / 11 · 9th pct
Opp
31.5/gmT-#61 / 138 · 52nd pctT-#35 / 69 · 46th pctT-#8 / 17 · 53rd pct#1 / 11 · 100th pct
Tackles for loss
Team
63.0/gmT-#122 / 138 · 9th pctT-#65 / 69 · 5th pctT-#16 / 17 · 6th pct#11 / 11 · 9th pct
Opp
105.0/gmT-#66 / 138 · 47th pctT-#42 / 69 · 37th pct#10 / 17 · 44th pct#1 / 11 · 100th pct
First downs
Team
4924.5/gmT-#39 / 138 · 70th pctT-#25 / 69 · 61st pct#4 / 17 · 79th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
3919.5/gmT-#86 / 138 · 37th pctT-#54 / 69 · 21st pct#11 / 17 · 38th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
3rd-down conv
Team
126.0/gmT-#53 / 138 · 59th pctT-#29 / 69 · 54th pctT-#5 / 17 · 59th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
105.0/gmT-#66 / 138 · 48th pctT-#42 / 69 · 35th pct#10 / 17 · 44th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
3rd-down att
Team
2412.0/gmT-#81 / 138 · 38th pctT-#39 / 69 · 42nd pctT-#12 / 17 · 29th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
3015.0/gmT-#89 / 138 · 31st pctT-#45 / 69 · 29th pctT-#10 / 17 · 35th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
4th-down conv
Team
00.0/gmT-#114 / 138 · 9th pctT-#52 / 69 · 13th pctT-#11 / 17 · 21st pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
10.5/gmT-#26 / 138 · 66th pctT-#15 / 69 · 62nd pctT-#4 / 17 · 59th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
4th-down att
Team
10.5/gmT-#119 / 138 · 9th pctT-#55 / 69 · 14th pctT-#12 / 17 · 21st pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
21.0/gmT-#20 / 138 · 74th pctT-#10 / 69 · 72nd pctT-#3 / 17 · 71st pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct
Time of possession
Team
60:0730:04/gm#82 / 138 · 41st pct#41 / 69 · 41st pct#9 / 17 · 50th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp
59:5329:56/gm#73 / 138 · 47th pct#41 / 69 · 41st pct#9 / 17 · 50th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct

FBS rankings · 2026 season · all stats vs 136 FBS programs

Player stats — 2026 season
Quarterbacks
Player#GCmp/AttPctYdsY/ATDINTRateZPRQBRAdj ANY/ASack%
+0.89 EPA/play3234 / 5068639
#17 FBS		12.84
#36 FBS		0201.87594.213.25.7
Running Backs
Player#GCarYdsAvgTDLongStuff%10+%
-0.06 EPA/play1229973.3026——
Receivers
Player#GRecYdsAvgTDLong
+1.24 EPA/play—211181
#36 FBS		16.5162
+1.52 EPA/play725164
#52 FBS		32.82
#24 FBS		61
182513727.4169
+0.79 EPA/play2269616027

2026 stat leaders · Louisville

through 2 games

Lincoln Kienholz leads Louisville with 639 passing yards through 2 games.

1. Lincoln Kienholz QB 639 passing yards
2. Tre Richardson WR 181 receiving yards
3. Lawayne McCoy WR 164 receiving yards
4. Koen Entringer DB 13 tackles
5. Jaleel Skinner TE 137 receiving yards
How They Play · 2025

Louisville fields a limited offense behind an elite, bend-don't-break defense.

Offense
40th pct EPA/play
Defense
87th pct EPA allowed
Defensive shape
75th pct at limiting explosive plays

Percentile vs all FBS, based on this season's per-game production. Bar = where this team ranks — right is better.

The Savant Card · Louisville · 2025

Louisville reads strongest in passing epa allowed (top 5%) and success rate allowed (top 10%); the crux lives in passing epa, where Louisville sits at the 19th percentile.

offense · strengths lead

EPA / play +0.15
40th
Success Rate +0.45
71st
Explosive Plays +1.23
41st
Rushing EPA +0.19
82nd

defense · higher bar = harder to play against

EPA Allowed +0.05
87th
Success Rate Allowed +0.36
90th
Explosive Plays Allowed +1.20
75th
Passing EPA Allowed +0.03
95th

hidden math · special situations

Passing EPA +0.17
19th
Rushing EPA Allowed +0.07
51st
Elite · 90+Strong · 70+Average · 40-70Concern · 10-40Bottom · <10
Sources · CFBD tier-2 advanced stats · per-game production · 13 games this season · percentiles vs. up to 136 FBS peers

Home-field advantage · Louisville · 2018–present · FBS opponents

Louisville is worth +6.0 points more at home than on the road.

Top third of FBS, 79th percentile of 133 programs

60% at home, 41% away against FBS opponents since 2018 (28–19 home, 15–22 away). Interval ±4.3.

95% intervalmodel 2.3 · books ~3Weakest home edge in FBSStrongest

Our model gives every stadium the same flat 2.3-point home edge — per-team modelling was tested and did not survive scrutiny (why) — and the books use about 3. Against the closing line, Louisville has beaten the number by +7.0 more at home than away over 68 games — inside the ±7.8 that many games can resolve. Results here cannot tell the flat number apart from the building, and that is the honest reading of nearly every FBS stadium.

L&N Federal Credit Union Stadium seats 60,000 and has averaged 81% full (48,671, 28 games reported). Visitors cover a median 344 miles to get here since 2018 — 49th-shortest of 135 FBS venues, inside the ordinary range. For the home side it is genuinely home ground: 26% of the 2026 roster (26 of 101 located players) grew up inside 100 miles of the stadium.

Edge = half the gap between average home margin and average road margin, FBS opponents only, non-neutral games since 2018; the interval is 95%. Market line: closing spread, seasons with lines on file. Trip length is straight-line miles from the visiting team's campus to the venue, measured across all 54 home games since 2018.

Home28–19Away15–22Edge+6.0 ±4.3Visitor trip344 mi

More in this tab

Scheme claimsFive specific, testable claims about how this team plays.

Fourth-quarter reliability, corrected

Louisville's 4th-quarter offense, before and after garbage time

Raw Q4 EPA/play ranks 97th percentile in FBS. Strip out snaps taken with a blowout margin and it climbs to the 97th — the correction is the finding, not a footnote.

league medianRaw 4th quarter · 97th pctileCompetitive snaps only · 97th pctileWorst in FBSBest in FBS
Source CFB Zeitgeist · CFBD play-by-play, garbage-time adjusted by pre-play margin

Standard downs vs. passing downs

Does Louisville hold up once the down-and-distance turns against them?

96th percentile success on standard downs, 70th on passing downs — a 26-point gap between the two.

Fragile off scheduleBalanced, both workStruggles even on scheduleStandard-downs reliantLouisvilleWeak on standard downsElite on standard downsFalls apart off scheduleHolds up off scheduleHawai'i18th standard · 41st passingUNLV51st standard · 7th passingStanford76th standard · 15th passingEastern Michigan52nd standard · 10th passingSan José State54th standard · 22nd passingNew Mexico State45th standard · 75th passingSacramento State23rd standard · 14th passingOklahoma State41st standard · 49th passingDuke20th standard · 29th passingFlorida State28th standard · 65th passingRutgers30th standard · 71st passingKansas70th standard · 35th passingBoston College27th standard · 56th passingNorfolk State16th standard · 9th passingLouisville96th standard · 70th passingMissouri36th standard · 85th passingMemphis69th standard · 65th passingGeorgia Southern24th standard · 45th passingOle Miss94th standard · 50th passingJacksonville State65th standard · 82nd passingNorth Dakota State86th standard · 27th passingArizona92nd standard · 86th passingUSC97th standard · 99th passingWake Forest56th standard · 97th passingTCU93rd standard · 8th passingDelaware70th standard · 31st passingUAB65th standard · 81st passingMichigan State62nd standard · 29th passingSouth Florida91st standard · 52nd passingFlorida International46th standard · 43rd passingNavy98th standard · 59th passingWisconsin13th standard · 18th passingOregon State10th standard · 38th passingSyracuse48th standard · 64th passingOhio State90th standard · 40th passingBall State12th standard · 24th passingPittsburgh30th standard · 76th passingColorado35th standard · 77th passingGeorgia Tech58th standard · 44th passingAuburn75th standard · 55th passingBaylor40th standard · 96th passingNorth Texas49th standard · 68th passingApp State44th standard · 90th passingIowa State4th standard · 23rd passingUTSA99th standard · 29th passingArkansas60th standard · 80th passingBoise State58th standard · 46th passingOregon35th standard · 33rd passingTulsa56th standard · 1st passingTulane31st standard · 2nd passingPurdue83rd standard · 88th passingMiddle Tennessee87th standard · 68th passingVanderbilt80th standard · 12th passingSan Diego State4th standard · 40th passingLSU33rd standard · 98th passingClemson1st standard · 19th passingCentral Michigan16th standard · 6th passingTexas Tech88th standard · 48th passingMichigan2nd standard · 62nd passingWestern Michigan39th standard · 20th passingOhio38th standard · 17th passingBuffalo7th standard · 14th passingTexas72nd standard · 94th passingCoastal Carolina61st standard · 52nd passingColorado State82nd standard · 91st passingWyoming65th standard · 36th passingTexas A&M85th standard · 72nd passingLiberty14th standard · 59th passingFlorida Atlantic43rd standard · 87th passingLouisiana19th standard · 92nd passingSouth Alabama50th standard · 73rd passingTroy22nd standard · 59th passingSam Houston78th standard · 61st passingNevada77th standard · 52nd passingWestern Kentucky25th standard · 34th passingWashington State8th standard · 3rd passingWashington81st standard · 4th passingCalifornia9th standard · 25th passingCharlotte73rd standard · 83rd passingTennessee65th standard · 78th passingUtah State4th standard · 93rd passing
Source CFB Zeitgeist · advanced team stats, Connelly success-rate definition
View all FBS teams as a table
TeamStandard-downs percentilePassing-downs percentile
App State44th90th
Arizona92nd86th
Arkansas60th80th
Auburn75th55th
Ball State12th24th
Baylor40th96th
Boise State58th46th
Boston College27th56th
Buffalo7th14th
California9th25th
Central Michigan16th6th
Charlotte73rd83rd
Clemson1st19th
Coastal Carolina61st52nd
Colorado35th77th
Colorado State82nd91st
Delaware70th31st
Duke20th29th
Eastern Michigan52nd10th
Florida Atlantic43rd87th
Florida International46th43rd
Florida State28th65th
Georgia Southern24th45th
Georgia Tech58th44th
Hawai'i18th41st
Iowa State4th23rd
Jacksonville State65th82nd
Kansas70th35th
LSU33rd98th
Liberty14th59th
Louisiana19th92nd
Louisville96th70th
Memphis69th65th
Michigan2nd62nd
Michigan State62nd29th
Middle Tennessee87th68th
Missouri36th85th
Navy98th59th
Nevada77th52nd
New Mexico State45th75th
Norfolk State16th9th
North Dakota State86th27th
North Texas49th68th
Ohio38th17th
Ohio State90th40th
Oklahoma State41st49th
Ole Miss94th50th
Oregon35th33rd
Oregon State10th38th
Pittsburgh30th76th
Purdue83rd88th
Rutgers30th71st
Sacramento State23rd14th
Sam Houston78th61st
San Diego State4th40th
San José State54th22nd
South Alabama50th73rd
South Florida91st52nd
Stanford76th15th
Syracuse48th64th
TCU93rd8th
Tennessee65th78th
Texas72nd94th
Texas A&M85th72nd
Texas Tech88th48th
Troy22nd59th
Tulane31st2nd
Tulsa56th1st
UAB65th81st
UNLV51st7th
USC97th99th
UTSA99th29th
Utah State4th93rd
Vanderbilt80th12th
Wake Forest56th97th
Washington81st4th
Washington State8th3rd
Western Kentucky25th34th
Western Michigan39th20th
Wisconsin13th18th
Wyoming65th36th

Halftime identity

Louisville by half

1st-half offense ranks 64th percentile in FBS; 2nd-half, 99th — competitive snaps only, garbage time excluded from both halves.

league median1st half · 64th pctile2nd half · 99th pctileWorst in FBSBest in FBS
Source CFB Zeitgeist · advanced team stats, garbage-time adjusted by pre-play margin
Tendency driftHow this coordinator's calls have drifted since arriving.

Season by season

How Louisville’s current staff calls plays, year over year

Offense: Brian Brohm (2023–2026)
1st-down pass rate
2023: 41% → 2026: 46% · 8-pt range · #119 of 184 · a typical amount
Red-zone pass rate
2023: 33% → 2026: 36% · 6-pt range · #157 of 182 · less than most
4th-down go rate
2023: 33% → 2025: 17% · 16-pt range · #95 of 172 · a typical amount
RatingsWhere the public rating systems put this team.

Model Consensus

Where the Models Rank Louisville

CFB Zeitgeist

#55

+2.2

SP+

#33

+10.0

FPI

#28

+11.9

Elo

#35

1668

The national models put Louisville between 28th and 35th nationally — CFB Zeitgeist is more skeptical, at 55th.

National rank of 138 FBS teams · 2026 season. SP+/FPI/SRS published; Elo & CFB Zeitgeist ranked by rating.

Comparable teamsPrograms built like this one — tier, prestige band, kind of fanbase, roster size. Not a stat match.

Most similar programs · Louisville

Reads like

AkronMid-AmericanSame tier of program · Same prestige band · Similarly-sized rosters up frontApp StateSun BeltSame tier of program · Same prestige band · Similarly-sized rosters up frontArmyAmerican AthleticSame tier of program · Same prestige band · Similarly-sized rosters up front

Matched on how the programs are built — tier, prestige band, kind of fanbase, conference, voice and roster size — not on this season's stats. A calibration, not a prediction.

ConditionsThe weather and altitude visitors have to deal with.
Venue texture

67°F average kickoff temp; 11% of games had measurable precipitation; 8 mph average wind.

Based on 79 home games with weather data.

This page may include content derived from public news sources, social media, and fan communities. We relay these sources as-is — we are not reporting them. Sources may be summarized or quoted imperfectly; for anything that matters, go look at the original source directly. The original source may also be wrong. AI-generated content is labeled and may contain factual errors. All analysis is editorial opinion, not professional reporting. Data sources · About this site