West Virginia · Week 2 analysis

Where the team stands

West Virginia ranks No. 108 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -7.08 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 116; this update moves it +8 places and +1.82 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: +0.367. Prior-season margin: +0.799.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: -0.0308; EPA/play net: -0.0720; success-rate net: -0.0324; explosiveness net: -0.0818. These are adjusted net signals, not raw offensive rates.

EP inputs cover 1 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

West Virginia beat UT Martin by 45 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of +33.35; the result was +11.65 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 Virginia on 2026-09-19. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 525 versus 318; Net passing yards: 209 versus 170; Rushing yards: 316 versus 148; First downs: 23 versus 18

Completions–attempts: 8-12 versus 22-33; Rush attempts: 51 versus 37; Yards per pass: 17.4 versus 5.2; Yards per rush: 6.2 versus 4.0

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 7 points and recorded 318 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 2 versus 0; Tackles for loss: 9 versus 1; Third downs: 8-12 versus 7-16; Fourth downs: 0-0 versus 1-3

Turnovers: 1 versus 2; Fumbles lost: 1 versus 1; Interceptions thrown: 0 versus 1; Penalties–yards: 2-9 versus 6-59; Possession time: 25:16 versus 34:44

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 2–0. The expected final record is 4.6–7.4 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. 107 Tulsa (-6.90); No. 109 Kentucky (-7.18).

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.