UL Monroe · Week 5 analysis

Where the team stands

UL Monroe ranks No. 136 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -16.53 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 136; this update moves it +0 places and +1.03 rating points.

The rating snapshot includes 5 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 0–5. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.

What enters this model

Opponent-adjusted current margin: -6.268. Prior-season margin: -11.937.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: -0.0258; EPA/play net: -0.1314; success-rate net: -0.0453; explosiveness net: +0.0478. 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 South Alabama by 17 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of -10.90; the result was -6.10 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 Louisiana Tech on 2026-10-18. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 442 versus 570; Net passing yards: 355 versus 321; Rushing yards: 87 versus 249; First downs: 21 versus 20

Completions–attempts: 25-41 versus 14-19; Rush attempts: 28 versus 46; Yards per pass: 8.7 versus 16.9; Yards per rush: 3.1 versus 5.4

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 52 points and recorded 570 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 1 versus 1; Tackles for loss: 5 versus 3; Third downs: 3-13 versus 6-13; Fourth downs: 3-3 versus 2-3

Turnovers: 2 versus 0; Fumbles lost: 1 versus 0; Interceptions thrown: 1 versus 0; Penalties–yards: 4-22 versus 3-25; Possession time: 28:58 versus 31:02

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 0–5. The expected final record is 1.6–10.4 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 (-16.48); No. 137 Bowling Green (-17.48).

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.