Skip to content

Louisville Cardinals

ACC·1-1·
Elo
1668#29
SP+
10.0#33
FPI
10.8
AP
#24
Nextvs SMU · Wk 3Win prob 44%Model +2.4
Talent #37 (740.0)Recruiting class #4835% production returning

ACC Standings

Standings
  1. 1Miami1-0
  2. 2SMU1-0
  3. 3Virginia1-0
  4. 4California1-0
  5. 5Duke0-0
  6. 6North Carolina0-0
  7. 7Pittsburgh0-0
  8. 8Virginia Tech0-0

Team Leaders

Latest on Louisville

All news

Louisville can run on Ole Miss and still lose

Matchup · Sep 2

Roster · 107 players

FR 43SO 14JR 26SR 24
#PlayerPosClHtWt
3Lincoln KienholzQBJR6'2"215
10Briggs CherryQBFR6'4"215
11Davin WydnerQBJR6'5"225
17Ryan ZimmermanQBSO6'6"225
Mason FieldsQBFR6'4"215
1Isaac BrownRBJR5'9"190
5Keyjuan BrownRBJR5'10"215
22Lekhy ThompkinsRBFR6'2"235
24Marquise DavisRBFR6'0"215
32Braxton JenningsRBFR5'11"195
0Tre RichardsonWRSR5'10"175
2TreyShun HurryWRSR6'2"200
7Lawayne McCoyWRJR6'1"180
14Kris HughesWRJR5'11"200
42Rhys DorseyWRFR5'11"195
49DeVaun JonesWRSO5'8"175
81Jakob DixonWRSR6'4"215
82Terrence McWilliams Jr.WRJR6'0"190
83DJ WilliamsWRFR6'1"180
84Payton CookWRFR6'1"190
86Jackson VothWRJR5'11"190
88Montavin QuisenberryWRFR5'10"180
89Gavin WaddellWRFR6'0"180
Elizjah LewisWRSR6'2"195
Marlon HarbinWRFR
Marlon HarbinWRFR
15Julius MilesTEFR6'6"220
18Jaleel SkinnerTESR6'5"230
44Travis EganTEJR6'2"220
80Brody FoleyTESR6'6"260
85Justyn ReidTESR6'5"260
87Dylan MesmanTESO6'5"240
90Hamilton AtkinsTESO6'4"250
53Lance RobinsonOLSR6'4"295
55Jimmy Williams IIIOLSO6'4"300
56Eryx DaughertyOLJR6'4"310
57Naeer JacksonOLSR6'6"310
58Evan WibberleyOLSR6'5"305
61Gradey AnthonyOLFR6'5"295
65Ellis McAdooOLSO6'6"295
66Johnnie Brown IIIOLSR6'3"310
67James Glover-TysonOLJR6'6"325
70Anwar O'NealOLSR6'5"310
71Cason HenryOLSR6'6"300
72Sam SecrestOLSR6'5"300
73Ben CorheiOLFR6'5"300
74Jarvis StricklandOLFR6'6"295
75Cameron GorinOLFR6'5"295
76Tyler FolmarOLFR6'6"315
78Charlie EdgeworthOLFR6'7"320
Max MerzOLFR6'4"310
Bryten CloseOTFR6'6"300
2Demeco KennedyDLJR6'3"305
3Tyler ThompsonDLJR6'5"245
17AJ GreenDLJR6'6"250
19Micah CarterDLJR6'6"265
40Eric HazzardDLFR6'3"255
50Clev LubinDLSR6'3"260
59Reece SellersDLFR6'1"215
62Chris Jones Jr.DLFR6'1"305
90Daylen RussellDLFR6'3"300
93Bailey AbercrombieDLFR6'3"285
94Dillon SmithDLFR6'4"285
95Joshua DonaldDLJR6'2"310
96Tommy ZiesmerDLJR6'2"300
97Maurice DavisDLSO6'4"250
98Sam DawsonDLFR6'3"300
99Jerod Smith IIDLJR6'4"270
Keon WebbDLSO6'5"300
6Stanquan ClarkLBSR6'3"240
11T.J. CapersLBJR6'2"225
23Benjamin PerryLBSR6'3"215
30Taj PowellLBFR6'2"235
34Brady BallartLBFR6'2"225
36Jacob SmithLBSO6'4"235
38Cameron WhiteLBFR6'1"235
41Caleb MatelauLBFR6'1"225
43Trent CarterLBSO6'3"225
12DJ Waller Jr.CBJR6'3"210
4Jabari MackDBSR6'1"185
4T.J. BanksDBJR6'2"205
5Koen EntringerDBJR6'2"215
9Antonio WattsDBSR6'2"225
10Kaleb BeasleyDBJR6'1"200
13Tayon HollowayDBSR6'1"190
20Antonio HarrisDBFR6'0"180
21Jaydin BroadnaxDBFR6'3"190
25Brycen ScottDBJR5'11"195
27Myles NorwoodDBSR6'2"190
28Santana WilsonDBSO6'0"180
29Blake RuffinDBSR6'3"205
31Micah RiceDBFR6'2"200
33Kris BrunsonDBFR6'2"190
37Anderson MitchellDBSO6'2"190
47Garion McPhersonDBFR5'10"180
Jordan GervaisDBFR5'10"175
26Jordan VannSFR6'1"200
35Carson HilbertPKFR6'3"215
98Nick KellerPKSR6'1"200
Garth WhitePKSR6'3"206
Bode ShoapsPKFR5'10"160
48Jacob BakerPJR6'2"215
90Adam WinkenhoferPSO5'10"195
91Niall HayesPFR6'1"200
39Hayden TravelsteadLSJR6'0"210
47Ryan ManisLSSO6'1"225
Drew KegebeinLSFR5'11"210

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
48.5
scoring offense
Points allowed
27.0
scoring defense
Differential
+21.5
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
552.0#13
Yards / play
8.2#15
Passing yards / game
341.0#13
Rushing yards / game
211.0#41
First downs / game
24.5#36
3rd down %
50.0%#35
4th down %
0.0%#108
Time of possession
30:04#74
Defense
Yards allowed / game
370.5#90
Yards / play allowed
5.3#82
Pass yards allowed / game
257.0#112
Rush yards allowed / game
113.5#74
3rd down % allowed
33.3%#60
Sacks
1#104
Tackles for loss
6#91
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
+3#14
Takeaways
3#30
Giveaways
0#1
Penalties / game
8.0#100
Penalty yards / game
86.0#127

Rank is national among all FBS teams (#1 = best), oriented so higher rank = better even for defensive and discipline metrics. Bars show percentile.

Scouting Report · 2026 projection

heavily pass-leaning

Louisville throws it: Jeff Brohm's offenses have been heavily pass-leaning across 10 seasons. The strengths are on both sides of the ball, led by 15th at closing out passing downs. The way in is 116th at staying out of the backfield.

On fourth down he goes for it about as often as his peers do from the same spots (−2.2%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −35.8% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

Louisville has played 2 games against a soft slate, adjusted for here. That football carries about 0% of what is below; the rest is still the preseason projection.

Projected strengths

  • Defensesurviving second and twelve
    #15
    projected
  • Defensethrowing it
    #16
    projected
  • Offensemoving the ball on the ground
    #17
    projected

Projected soft spots

  • Offensegetting stopped at the line
    #116
    projected

Each bar is where this team sits in the country. Before the season has produced enough football these are PROJECTIONS — last season regressed to the mean, plus talent, returning production, recruiting and whether the staff is the same one — and the season replaces them as it is played. Head coaches only — there is no free feed for coordinators, so on a program where the head coach does not call the offense this describes the staff he hired. Play-calling identity is a style, not a grade: throwing more than the situations warrant is not better than throwing less than they warrant.

2026 Season Projection

model win prob · 10 to play
7.74.3
projected final record (now 11)
Exp. wins left
6.7
of 10 games
Bowl odds
93%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
84%
vs North Carolina
Toughest
44%
vs SMU

How the season could finish · 2026 · chance of each final win total · 10 games left

Every remaining game simulated from the model's win probability for it. Tallest bar is the single likeliest finish, not a prediction that it happens.

1234567891011
final winstallest bar = 27% chance
Likeliest finish 8-4 (27%)Bowl eligible 93% · marked on the axis at 6

Player Value

EPA contribution by position group + estimated NIL market value (derived from position rates and on-field production — not actual deal figures).

Unit Value — Total EPA
QBLincoln Kienholz
+50.9 EPA
WRTreyshun Hurry, Lawayne McCoy +1
+32.9 EPA
RBKeyjuan Brown, Isaac Brown +2
+2.2 EPA
TEBrody Foley, Justyn Reid
-0.5 EPA

Total EPA produced by each positional group this season. OL value is captured via the rush/pass efficiency of skill players; OL-specific EPA isn't separately reported.

Estimated NIL Market Value
ESTIMATED
EPA +50.90.718/play71 snaps
RBIsaac Brown
~$145K
EPA -7.3-0.235/play31 snaps

Estimated from position-group market rates and on-field EPA contribution. Actual NIL valuations depend on social media following, brand fit, and market negotiations — these figures are directional only.

The Five Factors

ranked vs. FBS · bar = better
Efficiency (PPA)
Off0.4787th#19
Def0.2319th#112
Explosiveness
Off1.4179th#30
Def1.3141st#82
Field position
Off68.534th#92
Def72.255th#63
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off5.3684th#23
Def4.0029th#98
Turnovers
Won 3Lost 0
Margin +3

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
Defense
Off · pass
0.7090th#15
Off · rush
0.3075th#35

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.3073rd#38
Def0.1134th#91
Passing
Off0.7089th#16
Def0.3426th#102

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
2.98#75
2nd-level / open-field
1.35 / 1.85
Power / stuff (off)
71.4% / 19.4%
Havoc — total (def)
14.8%#88
Havoc — front 7 / DB
6.3% / 8.5%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.42
Def0.27
Pass downs
Off0.60
Def0.14

PPA on each down type (off vs. def).

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense0.38#170.49#280.71#52
Defense0.24#1250.27#1000.16#33

Elo Trajectory

@Ole MissFinal
Elo rating 16661668+2 over season

Team Fingerprint · 2026 · 43 opponent-adjusted metrics · percentile vs 138 FBS teams

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.3972nd
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.3018th
  • Offense success rate46%47th
  • Defense success rate allowed46%21st

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs54%66th
  • Offense success — passing downs27%30th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs57%7th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs18%78th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.586th
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.334th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs1.391st
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs2.586th

Trenches

  • Offense line yards2.315th
  • Defense line yards allowed3.129th
  • Offense highlight yards2.688th
  • Defense highlight yards allowed0.1977th
  • Offense power success0.8063rd
  • Defense power success allowed0.6462nd
  • Offense stuff rate0.2516th
  • Defense stuff rate0.1427th

Third down

  • Third down conversion44%49th
  • Third down distance faced7.332nd
  • Third down conversion allowed40%40th
  • Third down distance forced5.915th

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half-0.0827th
  • Net success rate — second half0.0343rd

Drives

  • Points per drive2.868th
  • Points per drive allowed3.226th
  • Average starting field position3168th
  • Opponent starting field position3219th
  • Available yards gained45%37th
  • Available yards allowed57%33rd
  • Scoring opportunities per drive77%41st
  • Scoring opportunities allowed85%37th
  • Points per scoring opportunity3.775th
  • Points allowed per opportunity3.726th
  • Three-and-out rate31%37th
  • Three-and-outs forced23%48th

Roster

  • Returning usage27%27th
  • Returning EPA92.344th
  • Team talent composite74074th
  • Recruiting class rank48.066th
  • Recruiting class points21266th

Every metric is opponent-adjusted and ranked so that higher is always better — a defensive rate that is good when low is ranked accordingly. Sack and tackle-for-loss composition are deliberately absent: their relationship to team quality is a measured null, so they carry a style rather than a rank, and they appear in the pressure signature instead.

Intelligence Report

Offensive DNA

Pass-dominant offense performing above the national average
EPA/play
+0.474#19 · top 20%
Pass EPA/play
+0.699#16
Rush EPA/play
+0.295#38
Explosiveness
1.407#30
Pts/opportunity
5.36#23
Success rate
52.1%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.404 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

Disciplined defense — allowing above-average EPA/play
EPA/play allowed
+0.231#112 · bottom 20%
Havoc rate (total)
14.8%#88
Front-7 havoc
6.3%
DB havoc
8.5%
Big play rate allowed
1.309#82
Success rate allowed
40.9%

Disruption comes primarily from the secondary.

📊

Season Signature

48.5 PPG offense, 27.0 allowed — +21.5 margin/game
Points per game
48.5
Points allowed/game
27.0
Scoring margin/game
+21.5
Turnover margin
+3won 3 · lost 0
Production returning
35%
Talent rank (247)
#37

1-1 record through 2 games.

Team Shape · percentile vs. FBS · dashed = 50th

OFFENSE87thEXPLOSIVENESS79thFINISHING84thFIELD POS34thDEFENSE19thHAVOC36th50th100th
Offense
87th
Explosiveness
79th
Finishing
84th
Field Pos
34th
Defense
19th
Havoc
36th

Each axis = national percentile rank. 100th = best in FBS, 0th = worst. Defense and Havoc are oriented so higher = better.

CORE efficiency · situation and opponent removed

Points per 100 plays above average, after the game state is regressed out of every snap and the schedule is solved out across the whole league. The version of this team’s efficiency that can be compared to a team it never played.

Overall
+12.9
#28
Offense
+9.1
#21
Defense
-3.8
#52
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 13 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive2.853.15
Starting field positionown 30.7own 32.3
Available yards44.5%56.7%
Scoring opportunities76.9%84.6%
Points per opportunity3.703.73
Three-and-out rate30.8%23.1%
Every team’s drive efficiency →

Play-calling identity

Against what the league calls from the same down, distance, field position, score and clock — so this is the staff, not the game script.

Pass rate
47.8%
Expected, given the spots
56.9%
Over expected
-9.1
Fourth down vs peers
-12
Fourth down vs the model
-67
All play-calling tendencies →

National Landscape · 2026 FBS · offense vs. defense EPA/play

Each dot = one FBS team. Louisville is highlighted. Tap or hover a dot for details.

ELITEDEF. FORTRESSOFF. POWERHOUSEREBUILDING-0.100.00+0.10+0.20+0.30-0.050.00+0.10+0.20Offensive EPA/play← worsebetter →Defensive EPA allowed/play← worsebetter →

Similar Programs

Teams with the closest offense + defense efficiency profile to Louisville in 2026

by EPA/play distance
Miami (OH)SP+ -10.0
Off EPA/play +0.436Def EPA/play +0.228Elo 1259
Match
98%
UtahSP+ +13.0
Off EPA/play +0.472Def EPA/play +0.182Elo 1817
Match
97%
ArmySP+ +2.2
Off EPA/play +0.424Def EPA/play +0.188Elo 1527
Match
97%
Wake ForestSP+ +1.6
Off EPA/play +0.443Def EPA/play +0.163Elo 1516
Match
96%
TexasSP+ +25.4
Off EPA/play +0.451Def EPA/play +0.142Elo 1913
Match
95%
NorthwesternSP+ +7.8
Off EPA/play +0.480Def EPA/play +0.128Elo 1549
Match
95%

Similarity = normalized Euclidean distance on season offensive and defensive EPA/play. Teams within ±0.02 EPA/play on both units score >90%.

Program Trajectory · CORE rating · 20152026 · points per game vs an average FBS team

2015: +9.3, #37 of 1282016: +30.0, #5 of 1282017: +18.8, #14 of 1302018: -18.0, #113 of 1302019: +3.7, #47 of 1302020: +6.2, #39 of 1242021: +9.4, #43 of 1302022: +13.6, #20 of 1312023: +16.5, #18 of 1332024: +16.9, #16 of 1342025: +18.6, #18 of 1362026: +12.9, #28 of 138
20152026
Now +12.9 · #28 of 138Best +30.0 in 2016Worst -18.0 in 2018

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20261-10-0
50%
1.3-0.3
20259-44-4
69%
9.4-0.4
20249-45-3
69%
8.4+0.6
202310-47-2
71%
9.7+0.3
20228-54-4
62%
8.3-0.3
20216-74-4
46%
8.8-2.8
20204-73-7
36%
5.5-1.5
20198-55-3
62%
7.1+0.9
20182-100-8
17%
2.2-0.2
20178-54-4
62%
9.1-1.1

xW = expected wins from per-game dominance. Luck = actual − expected (positive = won close games).

9.3%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

0-1 so far, projected to finish 7.6-4.6. Top-four bye in 0.9%. Wins the ACC in 7.0%.

If they finish with…

99%
1 loss
52%
2 losses
7.4%
3 losses
1.1%
4 losses

Their chance of making it at each final loss count. Better than even up to 2.

Win out and it is 99%. Running the table still leaves it to the committee.

down 6.7 points since preseasonlost 38-41 to Ole Miss against an expected margin of 5, so +2.4 against the number.

  • At 2 losses they are 52% where the average ACC team is 44%.
  • The ACC takes 1.54 bids in an average season, and four or more in 0.7%.

Louisville’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk12vs Pittsburgh13.9
  • wk3vs SMU13.9
  • wk10at Georgia Tech11.7
  • wk11at North Carolina11.6
  • wk5at NC State11.2
  • wk6vs Florida State10.7

Who to root for

Games Louisville is not in that move its odds most. Same units, much smaller scale.

  • wk3Wake Forest over Miami3.6
  • wk7Florida State over Miami3.2
  • wk9North Carolina over Miami3.0
  • wk11Duke over Miami2.8
  • wk5Clemson over Miami2.8
  • wk12Virginia Tech over Miami2.6
The full playoff picture →

ACC

0-0 in league play, projected 6.0-3.05 of 17 by title odds
7.0%
Wins the ACC
20%
Reaches the title game

The ACC sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 37% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk3SMU at Louisville10.6
  • wk12Pittsburgh at Louisville10.1
  • wk10Louisville at Georgia Tech8.4
  • wk5Louisville at NC State8.2

Points of title probability riding on each result. The whole ACC race →

If not the playoff, then

83%
Bowl eligible
73%
Placed in a bowl
9.3%
In the playoff
17%
Season over in November

Louisville is 0-1 and needs 6 more wins from 11 games to reach the six that make a team eligible — at most one of which may come against an FCS opponent.

  • Sun Bowl10%
  • Holiday Bowl9.9%
  • Duke's Mayo Bowl9.3%
  • Pop-Tarts Bowl8.8%
  • Pinstripe Bowl8.0%
  • Gator Bowl7.3%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 9 have sent Louisville a player since 2010 — 21 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of Louisville's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
Miami CentralFL62
NorthwesternFL41
Miami SouthridgeFL21
NortheastPA21
Miami ColumbusFL20
Peachtree RidgeGA20
EastsideGA11
Highland SpringsVA11
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.