Arkansas · Week 3 analysis

Where the team stands

Arkansas ranks No. 89 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -3.73 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 60; this update moves it -29 places and -4.62 rating points.

The rating snapshot includes 3 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 1–2. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.

What enters this model

Opponent-adjusted current margin: -4.727. Prior-season margin: +8.916.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: -0.0021; EPA/play net: -0.2023; success-rate net: -0.0696; explosiveness net: -0.0441. 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

Arkansas lost to Georgia by 28 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of -10.88; the result was -17.12 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 Tulsa on 2026-09-27. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 300 versus 464; Net passing yards: 283 versus 210; Rushing yards: 17 versus 254; First downs: 18 versus 23

Completions–attempts: 29-42 versus 17-21; Rush attempts: 20 versus 42; Yards per pass: 6.7 versus 10.0; Yards per rush: 0.9 versus 6.0

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 45 points and recorded 464 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 3 versus 3; Tackles for loss: 6 versus 6; Third downs: 4-11 versus 7-11; Fourth downs: 1-2 versus 1-1

Turnovers: 1 versus 0; Fumbles lost: 1 versus 0; Interceptions thrown: 0 versus 0; Penalties–yards: 7-42 versus 4-41; Possession time: 24:20 versus 35:40

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 1–2. The expected final record is 3.7–8.3 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. 88 Delaware (-3.68); No. 90 California (-3.77).

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.