UTSA · Week 2 analysis

Where the team stands

UTSA ranks No. 40 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of +4.55 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 56; this update moves it +16 places and +1.91 rating points.

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

What enters this model

Opponent-adjusted current margin: +2.844. Prior-season margin: +9.634.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: +0.0134; EPA/play net: +0.0000; success-rate net: +0.0000; explosiveness net: +0.0000. These are adjusted net signals, not raw offensive rates.

EP inputs cover 0 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

UTSA beat Texas State by 5 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of +1.96; the result was +3.04 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 Texas on 2026-09-20. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 398 versus 481; Net passing yards: 258 versus 192; Rushing yards: 140 versus 289; First downs: 22 versus 27

Completions–attempts: 29-43 versus 17-30; Rush attempts: 31 versus 50; Yards per pass: 6.0 versus 6.4; Yards per rush: 4.5 versus 5.8

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 481 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 0 versus 0; Tackles for loss: 1 versus 3; Third downs: 3-15 versus 9-17; Fourth downs: 5-6 versus 0-1

Turnovers: 0 versus 3; Fumbles lost: 0 versus 1; Interceptions thrown: 0 versus 2; Penalties–yards: 11-115 versus 9-90; Possession time: 28:20 versus 31:40

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 2–0. The expected final record is 8.6–3.4 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. 39 Vanderbilt (+4.69); No. 41 TCU (+4.43).

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.