UAB

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1360th
  Defense+0.0370th
• 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.
  Offense43.1%54th
  Defense39.4%76th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1430th
  Defense+1.2533rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1274th
  Defense+0.0456th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1447th
  Defense+0.0281st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.2%48th
  Defense42.9%80th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.0%54th
  Defense33.6%42nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1079th
  Defense2.7067th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.2%77th
  Defense23.4%80th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.9%84th
  Defense20.5%91st

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   AAMU
2. L
   BALL
3. W
   CCU
4. L
   UNT
5. W
   LT
6. W
   MTSU
7. L
   CLT
8. W
   USM
9. W
   RICE
10. W
    UTSA
11. L
    FLA
12. W
    UTEP
13. L
    OHIO

Bars above the line: better than expected for UAB.

Players, 2017

1. A.J. ErdelyQB366 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 53rd of 226 QBs
   1.25WAR0.62 to 1.91
2. Spencer BrownRB221 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 6th of 352 RBs
   0.78WAR0.61 to 0.97
3. Andre WilsonWR65 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 81st of 426 WRs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
4. Nick VogelPK15 plays · +0.348 pts/play · 63rd of 110 kickers
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.14
5. Collin LisaWR40 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 234th of 426 WRs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
6. Ronnie Turner Jr.WR38 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 262nd of 426 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.10
7. Donnie LeeTE44 plays · +0.044 pts/play · 11th of 199 TEs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.07
8. Jonathan HadenRB15 plays · −0.021 pts/play · 351st of 352 RBs
   −0.01WAR−0.02 to 0.01

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  170170127th of 130Roster talent: 170, 127th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  5353130th of 130Recruiting: 53, 130th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  No data
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  No data

Ranks and bars among the 130 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2017

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.20 of the 0.24 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 MTSUQ4 0:36 4th & 1 at MTSU 39, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−9.8 pts
2. at CLTQ4 12:25 4th & 1 at UAB 26, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
3. at CLTQ3 10:25 4th & 1 at CLT 8, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
4. at USMQ4 6:29 4th & 2 at USM 26, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
5. vs MTSUQ4 3:07 4th & 3 at UAB 27, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
6. at CLTQ4 6:27 4th & 4 at UAB 38, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. at CLTQ2 15:00 4th & 1 at midfield, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at CLTQ4 2:42 4th & 7 at CLT 49, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

10th of 130 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. W

   AAMU
2. L

   BALL
3. W

   CCU
4. L

   UNT
5. W

   LT
6. W

   MTSU
7. L

   CLT
8. W

   USM
9. W

   RICE
10. W

    UTSA
11. L

    FLA
12. W

    UTEP
13. L

    OHIO

What moved it, 2017

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+0.81
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.22
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.50

Game by game

• AAMUW 38-7 vs AAMU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• BALLL 31-51 at BALL18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −22
• CCUW 30-23 vs CCU57% → 90%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +27, Possession & field position +2
• UNTL 43-46 at UNT25% → 5%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −2
• LTW 23-22 vs LT27% → 70%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +11, Possession & field position −2
• MTSUW 25-23 vs MTSU38% → 81%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +2
• CLTL 24-25 at CLT75% → 13%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts +22
• USMW 30-12 at USM21% → 99%Before kickoff −29 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +66, Clock +2
• RICEW 52-21 vs RICE74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts −1
• UTSAW 24-19 at UTSA29% → 95%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• FLAL 7-36 at FLA20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −22
• UTEPW 28-7 vs UTEP92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +12
• OHIOL 6-41 at OHIO33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −34

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.