Louisville vs. Ole Miss: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
LOUTeam statsMISS
- Q4 0:00MISSLucas Carneiro 48 Yd Field Goal 38–41
- Q4 1:28LOULincoln Kienholz 7 Yd Run (Carson Hilbert Kick)38–38
- Q4 4:42LOULawayne McCoy 54 Yd pass from Lincoln Kienholz (Carson Hilbert Kick)31–38
- Q4 6:43MISSTrinidad Chambliss 5 Yd Run (Lucas Carneiro Kick)24–38
- Q4 12:45MISSCaleb Odom 35 Yd pass from Trinidad Chambliss (Lucas Carneiro Kick)24–31
- Q3 0:16LOUTre Richardson 62 Yd pass from Lincoln Kienholz (Lincoln Kienholz Pass to Lawayne McCoy for Two-Point Conversion)24–24
- Q3 1:01MISSDeuce Alexander 62 Yd pass from Trinidad Chambliss (Lucas Carneiro Kick)16–24
- Q3 2:22LOUCarson Hilbert 45 Yd Field Goal 16–17
- Q3 8:53MISSDeuce Alexander 62 Yd pass from Trinidad Chambliss (Lucas Carneiro Kick)13–17
- Q3 10:51LOUTre Richardson 30 Yd Run (Carson Hilbert Kick)13–10
- Q2 0:06LOUCarson Hilbert 46 Yd Field Goal 6–10
- Q2 10:38MISSKewan Lacy 1 Yd Run (Lucas Carneiro Kick)3–10
- Q2 14:51MISSLucas Carneiro 43 Yd Field Goal 3–3
- Q1 7:19LOUCarson Hilbert 25 Yd Field Goal 3–0
How it was won
Ole Miss ran a 48.1% success rate and posted +0.14 EPA per pass versus Louisville’s 45.7% and equal EPA, helping them stay ahead despite fewer yards.
Spread cover
Louisville covered the -6.5 pregame spread even though they fell short by three points, making the game a win for bettors.
Chambliss's passing
Trinidad Chambliss threw for 336 yards and three touchdowns on 21 of 36 attempts, driving Ole Miss’s offense despite one interception.
How the model called it
The biggest unit edge on the field belongs to the underdog — a top-20 ground game against a rush defense ranked 115th — and it still isn't close to enough.
Ole Miss grades 17.6 points better than Louisville. The largest single piece of that, 7.6 points, is what the two teams did last fall: 13-2 against 9-4. The quarterback comparison accounts for 3.5. A résumé edge is the kind that erodes quietly in September, and Louisville arrives with its running game intact.
- PassLincoln Kienholz 18/29, 307 YDS, 2 TD
- RushLincoln Kienholz 14 CAR, 69 YDS, 1 TD
- RecTre Richardson 4 REC, 83 YDS, 1 TD
- PassTrinidad Chambliss 21/36, 336 YDS, 3 TD, 1 INT
- RushKewan Lacy 17 CAR, 61 YDS, 1 TD
- RecDeuce Alexander 5 REC, 159 YDS, 2 TD
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsTied entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,332 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q4 1:28LOU +66%
Lincoln Kienholz 7 Yd Run (Carson Hilbert Kick)
- Q4 1:28MISS +46%
No Huddle-Shotgun #6 T.Chambliss pass incomplete short right to #1 D.Alexander thrown to Miss48
- Q3 0:16LOU +26%
Tre Richardson 62 Yd pass from Lincoln Kienholz (Lincoln Kienholz Pass to Lawayne McCoy for Two-Point Conversion)
- Q4 12:45MISS +19%
Caleb Odom 35 Yd pass from Trinidad Chambliss (Lucas Carneiro Kick)
- Q3 1:01MISS +15%
Deuce Alexander 62 Yd pass from Trinidad Chambliss (Lucas Carneiro Kick)
- Q3 0:16MISS +10%
No Huddle-Shotgun #25 M.Frazier rush middle for 6 yards gain to the Miss31 (#95 J.Donald)
FAQ
What was the final score of Louisville vs. Ole Miss?
Louisville 38, Ole Miss 41.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (MISS) was correct.
| LOU | MISS | |
|---|---|---|
| 469 | Total yards | 488 |
| 307 | Passing yards | 336 |
| 162 | Rushing yards | 152 |
| 20 | First downs | 24 |
| 7-16 | 3rd down | 6-16 |
| 0-1 | 4th down | 1-2 |
| 18/29 | Comp/Att | 21/37 |
| 10.6 | Yards per pass | 9.1 |
| 4.2 | Yards per rush | 3.7 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 2 |
| 9-82 | Penalties | 6-60 |
| 30:58 | Possession | 29:02 |
Costliest call
Q1 3:25 LOU punt on 4th & 5 at MISS 40. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.67 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 0:00MISSLucas Carneiro 48 Yd Field Goal 38–41
- Q4 1:28LOULincoln Kienholz 7 Yd Run (Carson Hilbert Kick)38–38
- Q4 4:42LOULawayne McCoy 54 Yd pass from Lincoln Kienholz (Carson Hilbert Kick)31–38
- Q4 6:43MISSTrinidad Chambliss 5 Yd Run (Lucas Carneiro Kick)24–38
- Q4 12:45MISSCaleb Odom 35 Yd pass from Trinidad Chambliss (Lucas Carneiro Kick)24–31
- Q3 0:16LOUTre Richardson 62 Yd pass from Lincoln Kienholz (Lincoln Kienholz Pass to Lawayne McCoy for Two-Point Conversion)24–24
- Q3 1:01MISSDeuce Alexander 62 Yd pass from Trinidad Chambliss (Lucas Carneiro Kick)16–24
- Q3 2:22LOUCarson Hilbert 45 Yd Field Goal 16–17
- Q3 8:53MISSDeuce Alexander 62 Yd pass from Trinidad Chambliss (Lucas Carneiro Kick)13–17
- Q3 10:51LOUTre Richardson 30 Yd Run (Carson Hilbert Kick)13–10
- Q2 0:06LOUCarson Hilbert 46 Yd Field Goal 6–10
- Q2 10:38MISSKewan Lacy 1 Yd Run (Lucas Carneiro Kick)3–10
- Q2 14:51MISSLucas Carneiro 43 Yd Field Goal 3–3
- Q1 7:19LOUCarson Hilbert 25 Yd Field Goal 3–0
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (MISS Elo 1839, LOU Elo 1666 for reference), on a neutral field. That projects MISS -18 (89% to win) — 11.5 points clear of MISS's market line of -6.5. That is a disagreement, not a betting edge — sides we favour have not covered at better than breakeven.
Why that percentage is worth reading: across 604 graded in-season games, the calls this model put near 58% came in at 58.2%. The full calibration table is published, bin by bin. Early in the season the cold-start path runs instead and calibrates less well (Brier 0.2028 against 0.1889).
Model as of Sep 1 · through week 1 · drive simulation
Season form — 2026
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles| LOU | MISS | |
|---|---|---|
| +12.9 (#28) | CORE overall | +13.3 (#26) |
| +9 / -4 | offense / defense | +14 / +1 |
| 2.85 | points / drive | 3.15 |
| 3.15 | allowed / drive | 2.85 |
| 31% | three-and-outs | 23% |
| -9 | pass over expected | +4 |
Bold is the side ahead. CORE strips the situation from every play and solves the schedule out across the league, so these compare two teams that never met.
Key matchups
The analyst read: each team's offense splits crossed against the opponent's defense, with the edges called out.
Create a free account →You get Pro free for 6 months. No card required.
Louisville can run on Ole Miss and still lose
The biggest unit edge on the field belongs to the underdog — a top-20 ground game against a rush defense ranked 115th — and it still isn't close to enough.
Louisville wins
The range of outcomes for this game. Each bar is how often the final margin lands in that range — the more it leans toward Ole Miss, the more likely Ole Miss wins.
The gap is a résumé, not a quarterback
Trinidad Chambliss is the clearest individual separator here: +0.209 EPA per play over one season of record against Lincoln Kienholz's +0.009 across two FBS seasons, essentially a neutral snap. That gap is worth 3.5 points in the grade, less than half of what last season's body of work carries. Frame this game around the quarterbacks and you have picked the second-biggest reason Ole Miss is favored.
Each ingredient of our projection and the side it favors — bars toward Ole Miss are why it's the pick (home field is counted separately).
Ole Miss reloaded through the portal. Twenty-eight in against 27 out, a net talent gain of +15 stars, and that is after losing Princewill Umanmielen, a five-star edge, to LSU and Cayden Lee to Missouri. Darrell Gill Jr. and Horatio Fields replace targets. Jay Crawford arrives from Auburn to work in a secondary that already ranked 18th against the pass.
The projected 29-12 scoreline is not a close game that breaks late. There is a 46% chance somebody wins by 20 or more, and our projection gives a one-score finish under a 1-in-4 shot. The projection clears -6.5 in roughly 78% of simulated outcomes, a wider margin of comfort than a 6.5-point number implies.
The biggest mismatch on the field favors the underdog
Ole Miss finished 115th of 136 against the run last season, the weakest unit anywhere in this game, and it draws a rushing offense that ranked 20th. That is an edge of 1.1 standard deviations, nearly three times the size of either passing matchup on the board. Louisville returns 85% of that rushing production, so the rank belongs to this roster rather than to players who graduated. This is the entire Louisville plan.
Read it by possession: each side shows what happens when that team has the ball — its offense against the other team's defense, unit by unit (national rank in parentheses). Last season's grades, shrunk toward average by how much of each unit's production actually returns. Louisville returns 9% of last season's passing production and 85% of its rushing production. Ole Miss returns 49% of last season's passing production and 84% of its rushing production. Louisville's projected line: 1 of 5 held over, 4 portal; Ole Miss's projected line: 4 of 5 held over, 1 portal.
Isaac Brown projects for 49 to 117 rushing yards with a near coin-flip chance at a touchdown. Keyjuan Brown, who produced +0.29 EPA per play on a 32% carry share last season, adds 31 to 88 behind him. Kewan Lacy, carrying 53% of the Ole Miss load, projects for 67 to 148 against a Louisville run defense ranked 48th, a far sturdier obstacle.
Louisville's passing game is a rebuild, and it decides this
Louisville's passing offense ranked 116th last season and returns 9% of that production. Almost nothing is left of a group that was already among the worst in the country. Kienholz has the job locked, which removes uncertainty without adding upside. Second-and-8 after a stuffed carry is where this game turns.
Lawayne McCoy from Florida State and Tre Richardson from Vanderbilt are four-star additions, with Jackson Voth in from Drake, and Louisville's 39 departures still net positive once you weight by position. Transfers at one position group are worth 1.0 points in the grade. New receivers and a neutral quarterback do not manufacture the passing threat required to keep Ole Miss from crowding the line.
Ole Miss can defend the run badly on Saturday and win by three scores anyway. The 12 projected points are what a one-dimensional offense buys against an SEC roster: enough yards to feel competitive, not enough conversions to matter. Chambliss's 239-to-340 passing range comes against Louisville's coverage, and even there the edge tips to Ole Miss by 0.4 standard deviations.
Louisville's secondary is the only thing keeping this respectable
Louisville had the fifth-best passing defense in the country and picked off 14 passes, 15th nationally. The core of it is back: Tayon Holloway with five breakups and two interceptions, T.J. Capers behind him. That unit is why the narrowest matchup on the board is Ole Miss's eighth-ranked passing offense against Louisville's coverage, and why the blowout chance stops at 46%.
Getting home is the problem. Louisville's 27 sacks ranked 51st and its 67 tackles for loss 61st, and AJ Green, a four-star edge, is gone. Clev Lubin's seven sacks are more than a quarter of the team total, which makes him the whole rush plan. Slide protection to him and a top-five coverage unit has to win one-on-one for four seconds at a time against receivers Ole Miss just upgraded.
Ole Miss's defense is less imposing than 13-2 suggests. Twenty-five sacks ranked 63rd, 63 tackles for loss 82nd, seven interceptions 88th. That unit neither pressures nor takes the ball away, and it is now without its five-star edge. Suntarine Perkins, Kam Franklin and Will Echoles are back, and they will have to stop drives conventionally, because this group did not end them cheaply last season.
The underdog's Case is a possession Case
Louisville's cover path is coherent and it does not require an upset. Run at the 115th-ranked run defense, stay on schedule, and shorten the game against an opponent that generated seven interceptions all of last season. Ole Miss is unusually unlikely to hand out free possessions or short fields. At -6.5, the number sits about ten points inside the projected margin, which is the gap Louisville's ground edge is being asked to cover.
Ole Miss doesn't need its defense to be good
Chambliss near the middle of his range and Lacy converting the touchdown chance he carries at 81% is sufficient, and the rush defense can keep giving up yards. Louisville needs more than it can plausibly assemble: both Browns at the top of their bands, a clean turnover ledger, and enough downfield threat from a rebuilt passing game to stop Ole Miss from playing the run first on every snap.
Our coverage of this game
Where this number comes from. Every projection on this page is produced by the same model, run before kickoff on opponent-adjusted efficiency, power ratings and situational data — walk-forward validated on eleven seasons and never adjusted after the fact. How the model works →