UAB

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.1238th
  Defense+0.1548th
• 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.
  Offense46.0%75th
  Defense40.6%65th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1330th
  Defense+1.329th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0842nd
  Defense+0.1334th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1839th
  Defense+0.1764th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.6%77th
  Defense48.3%39th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.6%61st
  Defense26.6%94th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0565th
  Defense2.8060th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.7%69th
  Defense21.3%66th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.3%96th
  Defense2.0%53rd

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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. W
   TROY
2. L
   MSST
3. W
   AAMU
4. L
   FIU
5. W
   WKU
6. W
   UNT
7. L
   MTSU
8. L
   ARK
9. W
   FAU
10. L
    LT
11. L
    MRSH
12. W
    USM

Bars above the line: better than expected for UAB.

Players, 2014

1. Cody ClementsQB241 plays · +0.206 pts/play · 108th of 199 QBs
   0.93WAR0.47 to 1.36
2. Jordan HowardRB202 plays · +0.220 pts/play · 3rd of 350 RBs
   0.83WAR0.64 to 1.01
3. D.J. VinsonRB86 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 173rd of 350 RBs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.19
4. Josh MageeWR21 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 291st of 469 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11
5. Kennard BackmanTE29 plays · −0.009 pts/play · 113th of 212 TEs
   0.00WAR−0.06 to 0.04
6. Gerald EverettTE18 plays · −0.017 pts/play · 113th of 212 TEs
   −0.01WAR−0.04 to 0.03

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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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. at USMQ2 8:21 4th & 3 at USM 48, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
2. vs LTQ4 5:43 4th & 12 at LT 21, down 16Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
3. vs UNTQ3 12:35 4th & 4 at UNT 39, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
4. at WKUQ2 8:03 4th & 2 at UAB 39, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
5. vs LTQ4 12:38 4th & 4 at UAB 27, down 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. at MTSUQ2 1:16 4th & 4 at UAB 45, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at WKUQ1 2:22 4th & 6 at WKU 43, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at USMQ2 15:00 4th & 6 at USM 46, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

48th of 128 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. Based on 11 of 12 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   TROY
2. L

   MSST
3. W

   AAMU
4. L

   FIU
5. W

   WKU
6. W

   UNT
7. L

   MTSU
8. L

   ARK
9. W

   FAU
10. L

    LT
11. L

    MRSH
12. W

    USM

What moved it, 2014

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−0.69
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.22

Game by game

• TROYW 48-10 vs TROY55% → 100%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +43, Possession & field position +1
• MSSTL 34-47 at MSST3% → 1%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −7
• AAMUW 41-14 vs AAMU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• FIUL 20-34 vs FIU79% → 1%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −77: Scoreboard −64, Clock −3
• WKUW 42-39 at WKU15% → 3%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1
• UNTW 56-21 vs UNT61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +40, Clock −1
• MTSUL 22-34 at MTSU43% → 2%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −1
• ARKL 17-45 at ARK7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −9
• LTL 24-40 vs LT41% → 1%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −46, Clock −1
• MRSHL 18-23 vs MRSH8% → 4%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −19, Clock −1
• USMW 45-24 at USM56% → 100%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3

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.