Louisville · Week 2 analysis

Where the team stands

Louisville ranks No. 28 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of +7.45 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 39; this update moves it +11 places and +2.89 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: +1.721. Prior-season margin: +12.897.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: +0.0165; EPA/play net: +0.0186; success-rate net: +0.0463; explosiveness net: -0.0786. These are adjusted net signals, not raw offensive rates.

EP inputs cover 1 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

Louisville beat Villanova by 46 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of +40.30; the result was +5.70 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 SMU on 2026-09-19. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 635 versus 253; Net passing yards: 375 versus 178; Rushing yards: 260 versus 75; First downs: 29 versus 15

Completions–attempts: 21-28 versus 20-34; Rush attempts: 38 versus 28; Yards per pass: 13.4 versus 5.2; Yards per rush: 6.8 versus 2.7

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 13 points and recorded 253 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 1 versus 0; Tackles for loss: 5 versus 2; Third downs: 5-8 versus 4-14; Fourth downs: 0-0 versus 0-0

Turnovers: 0 versus 1; Fumbles lost: 0 versus 1; Interceptions thrown: 0 versus 0; Penalties–yards: 7-90 versus 7-64; Possession time: 29:09 versus 30:51

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 1–1. The expected final record is 7.7–4.3 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. 27 Arizona State (+7.65); No. 29 North Texas (+7.41).

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.