UL Monroe · No. 136 · Week 7 analysis
2026 · AFTER WEEK 7
Preseason · Week 0 · Week 1 · Week 2 · Week 3 · Week 4 · Week 5 · Week 6 · Week 7
Where the team stands
UL Monroe ranks No. 136 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -18.69 points against the average FBS opponent.
The previous snapshot ranked it No. 134; this update moves it -2 places and -1.93 rating points.
The rating snapshot includes 6 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 0–6. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.
What enters this model
Opponent-adjusted current margin: -8.366. Prior-season margin: -11.937.
Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: -0.0322; EPA/play net: -0.1302; success-rate net: -0.0417; explosiveness net: +0.0303. These are adjusted net signals, not raw offensive rates.
EP inputs cover 3 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
UL Monroe lost to Louisiana Tech by 24 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of -14.66; the result was -9.34 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 Troy on 2026-10-24. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.
Offense: production and workload
Total yards: 226 versus 332; Net passing yards: 151 versus 180; Rushing yards: 75 versus 152; First downs: 12 versus 18
Completions–attempts: 17-29 versus 16-23; Rush attempts: 22 versus 39; Yards per pass: 5.2 versus 7.8; Yards per rush: 3.4 versus 3.9
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 24 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: 3 versus 0; Tackles for loss: 5 versus 5; Third downs: 3-11 versus 6-13; Fourth downs: 1-3 versus 1-1
Turnovers: 3 versus 1; Fumbles lost: 1 versus 0; Interceptions thrown: 2 versus 1; Penalties–yards: 10-113 versus 3-31; Possession time: 28:07 versus 31:16
The season outlook at this snapshot
The recorded regular-season record is 0–6. The expected final record is 1.2–10.8 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. 135 Northern Illinois (-18.43); No. 137 UTEP (-20.30).
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.