UAB · Week 2 analysis

Where the team stands

UAB ranks No. 122 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -9.83 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 111; this update moves it -11 places and -1.53 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: -1.647. Prior-season margin: -6.373.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: -0.0164; EPA/play net: -0.0631; success-rate net: -0.0134; explosiveness net: -0.0072. 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

UAB beat UL Monroe by 6 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of +11.42; the result was -5.42 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 Louisiana on 2026-09-20. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 381 versus 257; Net passing yards: 115 versus 56; Rushing yards: 266 versus 201; First downs: 23 versus 19

Completions–attempts: 8-16 versus 10-20; Rush attempts: 52 versus 43; Yards per pass: 7.2 versus 2.8; Yards per rush: 5.1 versus 4.7

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 20 points and recorded 257 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 2 versus 3; Tackles for loss: 5 versus 7; Third downs: 10-15 versus 3-12; Fourth downs: 0-1 versus 1-3

Turnovers: 2 versus 1; Fumbles lost: 1 versus 0; Interceptions thrown: 1 versus 1; Penalties–yards: 8-67 versus 1-5; Possession time: 31:53 versus 28:07

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 1–1. The expected final record is 4.5–7.5 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. 121 Oklahoma State (-9.53); No. 123 Missouri State (-10.31).

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.