Wake Forest · Week 2 analysis

Where the team stands

Wake Forest ranks No. 50 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of +3.28 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 68; this update moves it +18 places and +2.95 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: +2.302. Prior-season margin: +9.141.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: +0.0057; 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

Wake Forest beat Purdue by 2 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of +2.50; the result was -0.50 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 Miami on 2026-09-18. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 411 versus 455; Net passing yards: 225 versus 329; Rushing yards: 186 versus 126; First downs: 25 versus 29

Completions–attempts: 16-27 versus 32-42; Rush attempts: 41 versus 40; Yards per pass: 8.3 versus 7.8; Yards per rush: 4.5 versus 3.2

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 36 points and recorded 455 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: 8 versus 6; Third downs: 5-11 versus 7-14; Fourth downs: 1-1 versus 1-1

Turnovers: 0 versus 0; Fumbles lost: 0 versus 0; Interceptions thrown: 0 versus 0; Penalties–yards: 4-50 versus 8-50; Possession time: 27:48 versus 32:12

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 2–0. The expected final record is 7.1–4.9 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. 49 Boise State (+3.30); No. 51 New Mexico (+2.97).

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.