Louisiana · Week 2 analysis

Where the team stands

Louisiana ranks No. 93 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -5.00 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 115; this update moves it +22 places and +3.86 rating points.

The rating snapshot includes 2 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 1–1. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.

What enters this model

Opponent-adjusted current margin: +1.183. Prior-season margin: -3.475.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: +0.0162; EPA/play net: +0.0416; success-rate net: -0.0205; explosiveness net: +0.1690. These are adjusted net signals, not raw offensive rates.

EP inputs cover 2 eligible games. Excluded games contribute no fabricated EP observation. Opponent results can move a rating even during a bye.

The result and the reconstructed expectation

Louisiana lost to USC by 19 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of -21.88; the result was +2.88 points relative to that expectation.

This is a newly reconstructed forecast under the frozen EP model. It is not represented as a prediction published before the game, and it does not replace the original published grade.

Next scheduled test

The next scheduled opponent at this snapshot is UAB on 2026-09-20. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 358 versus 483; Net passing yards: 212 versus 269; Rushing yards: 146 versus 214; First downs: 17 versus 25

Completions–attempts: 16-22 versus 20-31; Rush attempts: 30 versus 40; Yards per pass: 9.6 versus 8.7; Yards per rush: 4.9 versus 5.4

Read production alongside workload: more attempts can raise a yardage total without raising efficiency. The model uses opponent-adjusted rate signals, not this box score alone.

Defense and possession

The opponent scored 49 points and recorded 483 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 0 versus 1; Tackles for loss: 1 versus 3; Third downs: 3-10 versus 11-15; Fourth downs: 0-0 versus 1-1

Turnovers: 0 versus 1; Fumbles lost: 0 versus 0; Interceptions thrown: 0 versus 1; Penalties–yards: 6-60 versus 8-78; Possession time: 26:46 versus 33:14

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 1–1. The expected final record is 6.4–5.6 over 12 scheduled games.

Expected wins add recorded results to the estimated win probabilities of remaining games. They are not a list of certain winners. Probabilities use a symmetric approximation from historical development residuals; independent calibration has not been established.

The comparison around the ranking

Nearby in this same snapshot: No. 92 Boston College (-4.80); No. 94 Ohio (-5.12).

PSR compares predictive strength rather than sorting teams by wins. A team can win and move down, or lose and move up, as its performance and opponents change the adjusted evidence.

How to read this assessment

This is a fresh assessment under the frozen EP model, using this period's eligible inputs. Earlier published releases remain preserved separately; the reconstructed archive is not presented as a prediction published before those games.

Scoring margin, prior-season margin, first-down efficiency, EPA per play, success rate and explosiveness contribute together. Correlated signals should not be interpreted as independent proof of an advantage, and a model disagreement with a betting line is not proof of profit.