UAB · Week 3 analysis

Where the team stands

UAB ranks No. 115 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -7.98 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 122; this update moves it +7 places and +1.86 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: -0.180. Prior-season margin: -6.373.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: -0.0123; EPA/play net: -0.0679; success-rate net: -0.0125; explosiveness net: -0.0060. 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 lost to Louisiana by 7 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of -7.78; the result was +0.78 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 Navy on 2026-09-25. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 218 versus 335; Net passing yards: 144 versus 110; Rushing yards: 74 versus 225; First downs: 11 versus 21

Completions–attempts: 15-27 versus 15-20; Rush attempts: 31 versus 53; Yards per pass: 5.3 versus 5.5; Yards per rush: 2.4 versus 4.2

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 21 points and recorded 335 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: 7 versus 8; Third downs: 2-12 versus 6-16; Fourth downs: 0-4 versus 2-3

Turnovers: 1 versus 2; Fumbles lost: 0 versus 2; Interceptions thrown: 1 versus 0; Penalties–yards: 9-89 versus 7-50; Possession time: 24:37 versus 35:23

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 1–2. The expected final record is 4.4–7.6 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. 114 Boston College (-7.81); No. 116 Clemson (-8.05).

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.