UAB · Week 4 analysis

Where the team stands

UAB ranks No. 123 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -10.53 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 115; this update moves it -8 places and -2.56 rating points.

The rating snapshot includes 4 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 2–2. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.

What enters this model

Opponent-adjusted current margin: -1.355. Prior-season margin: -6.373.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: -0.0260; EPA/play net: -0.1019; success-rate net: -0.0416; explosiveness net: +0.0654. 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

UAB beat Navy by 4 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of -8.35; the result was +12.35 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 Samford on 2026-10-03. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 290 versus 353; Net passing yards: 174 versus 104; Rushing yards: 116 versus 249; First downs: 15 versus 24

Completions–attempts: 13-20 versus 4-13; Rush attempts: 34 versus 58; Yards per pass: 8.7 versus 8.0; Yards per rush: 3.4 versus 4.3

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 353 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 6 versus 4; Tackles for loss: 10 versus 5; Third downs: 6-13 versus 7-15; Fourth downs: 0-0 versus 2-3

Turnovers: 1 versus 2; Fumbles lost: 0 versus 2; Interceptions thrown: 1 versus 0; Penalties–yards: 4-40 versus 2-10; Possession time: 25:38 versus 34:22

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 2–2. The expected final record is 4.9–7.1 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. 122 Nevada (-10.27); No. 124 Rice (-10.70).

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.