UL Monroe · Week 2 analysis

Where the team stands

UL Monroe ranks No. 132 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -13.37 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 135; this update moves it +3 places and +3.39 rating points.

The rating snapshot includes 2 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 0–2. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.

What enters this model

Opponent-adjusted current margin: -0.040. Prior-season margin: -11.937.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: -0.0067; 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

UL Monroe lost to UAB 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 SE Louisiana on 2026-09-19. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

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

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

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 26 points and recorded 381 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

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

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

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 0–2. The expected final record is 3.7–8.3 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. 131 Sam Houston (-12.81); No. 133 Ball State (-13.58).

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.