UAB · Week 1 analysis

Where the team stands

UAB ranks No. 111 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -8.30 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 125; this update moves it +14 places and +3.80 rating points.

The rating snapshot includes 1 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 0–1. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.

What enters this model

Opponent-adjusted current margin: +1.008. Prior-season margin: -6.373.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: +0.0047; EPA/play net: +0.0000; success-rate net: +0.0000; explosiveness net: +0.0000. These are adjusted net signals, not raw offensive rates.

EP inputs cover 0 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

UAB lost to Illinois by 19 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of -23.38; the result was +4.38 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 UL Monroe on 2026-09-12. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 413 versus 332; Net passing yards: 219 versus 182; Rushing yards: 194 versus 150; First downs: 24 versus 17

Completions–attempts: 18-31 versus 13-17; Rush attempts: 48 versus 26; Yards per pass: 7.1 versus 10.7; Yards per rush: 4.0 versus 5.8

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 42 points and recorded 332 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: 2 versus 6; Third downs: 10-19 versus 3-6; Fourth downs: 3-4 versus 1-2

Turnovers: 1 versus 0; Fumbles lost: 0 versus 0; Interceptions thrown: 1 versus 0; Penalties–yards: 9-69 versus 1-4; Possession time: 41:03 versus 18:57

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 0–1. The expected final record is 4.6–7.4 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. 110 New Mexico State (-8.07); No. 112 Central Michigan (-8.33).

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.