UTEP · No. 137 · 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
UTEP ranks No. 137 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -20.30 points against the average FBS opponent.
The previous snapshot ranked it No. 137; this update moves it +0 places and -1.29 rating points.
The rating snapshot includes 7 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 1–6. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.
What enters this model
Opponent-adjusted current margin: -10.328. Prior-season margin: -8.373.
Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: -0.0512; EPA/play net: -0.3597; success-rate net: -0.0864; explosiveness net: -0.1030. These are adjusted net signals, not raw offensive rates.
EP inputs cover 4 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
UTEP lost to San José State by 13 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of -7.70; the result was -5.30 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 North Dakota State on 2026-10-31. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.
Offense: production and workload
Total yards: 476 versus 426; Net passing yards: 282 versus 193; Rushing yards: 194 versus 233; First downs: 27 versus 17
Completions–attempts: 25-34 versus 12-23; Rush attempts: 50 versus 35; Yards per pass: 8.3 versus 8.4; Yards per rush: 3.9 versus 6.7
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 426 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.
Recorded sacks: 1 versus 11.5; Tackles for loss: 3 versus 14.5; Third downs: 5-16 versus 6-13; Fourth downs: 3-4 versus 0-0
Turnovers: 0 versus 0; Fumbles lost: 0 versus 0; Interceptions thrown: 0 versus 0; Penalties–yards: 4-40 versus 4-40; Possession time: 35:17 versus 24:43
The season outlook at this snapshot
The recorded regular-season record is 1–6. The expected final record is 2.1–9.9 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. 136 UL Monroe (-18.69); No. 138 Charlotte (-20.56).
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.