Maryland · No. 102 · Week 7 analysis

Where the team stands

Maryland ranks No. 102 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -5.99 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 84; this update moves it -18 places and -2.95 rating points.

The rating snapshot includes 7 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 2–5. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.

What enters this model

Opponent-adjusted current margin: -1.172. Prior-season margin: +2.857.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: +0.0106; EPA/play net: -0.0872; success-rate net: -0.0320; explosiveness net: -0.1385. These are adjusted net signals, not raw offensive rates.

EP inputs cover 5 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

Maryland lost to Rutgers by 7 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of +7.93; the result was -14.93 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 Illinois on 2026-10-31. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 378 versus 447; Net passing yards: 263 versus 291; Rushing yards: 115 versus 156; First downs: 19 versus 28

Completions–attempts: 19-38 versus 23-35; Rush attempts: 26 versus 39; Yards per pass: 6.9 versus 8.3; Yards per rush: 4.4 versus 4.0

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 37 points and recorded 447 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 1 versus 1; Tackles for loss: 3 versus 6; Third downs: 4-13 versus 9-14; Fourth downs: 3-4 versus 1-1

Turnovers: 0 versus 1; Fumbles lost: 0 versus 0; Interceptions thrown: 0 versus 1; Penalties–yards: 4-39 versus 4-39; Possession time: 24:08 versus 35:36

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 2–5. The expected final record is 3.6–8.4 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. 101 Western Kentucky (-5.91); No. 103 Boston College (-6.36).

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.