UL Monroe · Week 4 analysis

Where the team stands

UL Monroe ranks No. 136 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -17.56 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 127; this update moves it -9 places and -5.10 rating points.

The rating snapshot includes 4 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 0–4. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.

What enters this model

Opponent-adjusted current margin: -6.577. Prior-season margin: -11.937.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: -0.0351; EPA/play net: -0.1455; success-rate net: -0.0496; explosiveness net: +0.0440. 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 Florida Atlantic by 28 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of +1.99; the result was -29.99 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 South Alabama on 2026-10-03. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 332 versus 567; Net passing yards: 278 versus 333; Rushing yards: 54 versus 234; First downs: 13 versus 28

Completions–attempts: 23-30 versus 31-42; Rush attempts: 25 versus 47; Yards per pass: 9.3 versus 7.9; Yards per rush: 2.2 versus 5.0

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 45 points and recorded 567 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 0 versus 2; Tackles for loss: 3 versus 6; Third downs: 4-13 versus 11-20; Fourth downs: 1-1 versus 4-6

Turnovers: 0 versus 0; Fumbles lost: 0 versus 0; Interceptions thrown: 0 versus 0; Penalties–yards: 5-35 versus 6-47; Possession time: 29:03 versus 30:57

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 0–4. The expected final record is 1.7–10.3 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. 135 Kent State (-15.71); No. 137 Charlotte (-17.93).

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.