UAB

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.0219th
  Defense+0.0655th
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense42.4%44th
  Defense45.0%20th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1625th
  Defense+1.0396th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1148th
  Defense+0.1329th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.085th
  Defense+0.0381st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.1%28th
  Defense53.1%6th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.4%64th
  Defense25.2%76th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2367th
  Defense3.456th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.7%81st
  Defense12.0%4th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.7%35th
  Defense15.1%38th

Percentiles among the 138 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2026

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what UAB allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. L
   ILL
2. W
   ULM
3. L
   UL
4. W
   NAVY
5. W
   SAM
6. L
   MEM
7. W
   ECU

Bars above the line: better than expected for UAB.

Players, 2026

1. Ryder BurtonQB131 plays · +0.060 pts/play · 113th of 192 QBs
   0.15WAR−0.03 to 0.32
2. Roderick Robinson IIRB84 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 30th of 320 RBs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
3. Bam McReynoldsRB56 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 78th of 320 RBs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
4. Jonah DelangePK11 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 18th of 82 kickers
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.07
5. Ja'Vin SimpkinsRB19 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 213th of 320 RBs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.05
6. Antonio FergusonTE4 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 103rd of 164 TEs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01
7. Oliver StrawP11 plays · +0.028 pts/play · 51st of 84 punters
   0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.02

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares UAB's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  60660692nd of 138Roster talent: 606, 92nd of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  133133118th of 138Recruiting: 133, 118th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  80%80%13th of 136Returning production: 80%, 13th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −12.8−12.8115th of 138SP+ rating so far: −12.8, 115th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than UAB's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.01 of the 0.04 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. vs NAVYQ3 9:11 4th & 2 at UAB 28, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
2. at MEMQ3 7:38 4th & 1 at UAB 34, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
3. at MEMQ2 0:44 4th & 4 at MEM 39, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
4. vs NAVYQ4 0:42 4th & 2 at NAVY 29, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. at ULQ2 1:53 4th & 6 at UAB 40, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
6. at MEMQ4 8:13 4th & 11 at MEM 47, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at ILLQ4 5:48 4th & 7 at ILL 31, down 19Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at ILLQ2 5:50 4th & 4 at ILL 4, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

17th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up UAB's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   ILL
2. W

   ULM
3. L

   UL
4. W

   NAVY
5. W

   SAM
6. L

   MEM
7. W

   ECU

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at UAB's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard+0.49
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.11
• Timeouts−0.08
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.26

Game by game

• ILLL 23-42 at ILL6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −9
• ULMW 26-20 vs ULM74% → 97%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +2
• ULL 14-21 at UL28% → 3%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −2
• NAVYW 24-20 vs NAVY42% → 92%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +29, Possession & field position +3
• SAMW 33-14 vs SAM97% → 98%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +8
• MEML 13-38 at MEM19% → 1%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts +2
• ECUW 30-17 vs ECU41% → 98%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +45, Clock +11

Points of win probability, from UAB's side.

Closest call

ECU 17-30 UAB (2026) - UAB dropped to a 2.5% win probability before pulling it out.