UAB

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1563rd
  Defense−0.0494th
• 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.
  Offense43.9%52nd
  Defense35.5%95th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2565th
  Defense+1.2434th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0954th
  Defense−0.0485th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2571st
  Defense−0.0389th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.0%36th
  Defense38.7%98th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.4%82nd
  Defense30.3%72nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0668th
  Defense2.4096th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.6%44th
  Defense23.4%86th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.2%82nd
  Defense19.9%90th

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, 2018

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
   SAV
2. L
   CCU
3. W
   TULN
4. W
   CLT
5. W
   LT
6. W
   RICE
7. W
   UNT
8. W
   UTEP
9. W
   UTSA
10. W
    USM
11. L
    TA&M
12. L
    MTSU
13. W
    MTSU
14. W
    NIU

Bars above the line: better than expected for UAB.

Players, 2018

1. Tyler Johnston IIIQB164 plays · +0.284 pts/play · 95th of 225 QBs
   0.87WAR0.58 to 1.17
2. A.J. ErdelyQB219 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 103rd of 225 QBs
   0.79WAR0.46 to 1.15
3. Spencer BrownRB217 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 17th of 351 RBs
   0.74WAR0.56 to 0.90
4. Xavier UbosiWR44 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 95th of 434 WRs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.21
5. Andre WilsonWR51 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 162nd of 434 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.17
6. Nick VogelPK18 plays · +0.288 pts/play · 64th of 112 kickers
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.14
7. Collin LisaWR28 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 271st of 434 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11
8. Kyle GreenwellP46 plays · +0.034 pts/play · 77th of 91 punters
   0.03WAR−0.02 to 0.07

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  388388100th of 130Roster talent: 388, 100th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  6060129th of 130Recruiting: 60, 129th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  95%95%4th of 129Returning production: 95%, 4th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −0.3−0.375th of 130SP+ rating: −0.3, 75th of 130 in FBS

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.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2018

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.12 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 TULNQ4 14:46 4th & 1 at UAB 18, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.1 pts
2. at LTQ4 14:31 4th & 1 at UAB 26, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
3. at CCUQ4 11:05 4th & 12 at CCU 45, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.4 pts
4. vs UNTQ4 2:10 4th & 3 at UNT 9, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. vs UNTQ2 3:32 4th & 1 at UAB 35, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at RICEQ2 2:19 4th & 3 at RICE 35, up 21Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at NIUQ1 8:08 4th & 2 at NIU 8, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at TA&MQ4 11:23 4th & 9 at TA&M 10, down 27Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

17th 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

   SAV
2. L

   CCU
3. W

   TULN
4. W

   CLT
5. W

   LT
6. W

   RICE
7. W

   UNT
8. W

   UTEP
9. W

   UTSA
10. W

    USM
11. L

    TA&M
12. L

    MTSU
13. W

    MTSU
14. W

    NIU

What moved it, 2018

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+1.73
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.69

Game by game

• SAVW 52-0 vs SAV99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• CCUL 24-47 at CCU82% → 1%Before kickoff +32 · On the field −81: Scoreboard −56, Clock −2
• TULNW 31-24 vs TULN43% → 91%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +2
• CLTW 28-7 vs CLT85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• LTW 28-7 at LT32% → 99%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +62, Clock +2
• RICEW 42-0 at RICE88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +17
• UNTW 29-21 vs UNT57% → 99%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +40
• UTEPW 19-0 at UTEP87% → 99%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +22
• UTSAW 52-3 vs UTSA94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• USMW 26-23 vs USM83% → 56%Before kickoff +33 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −1, Possession & field position −1
• TA&ML 20-41 at TA&M13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −16, Timeouts −1
• MTSUL 3-27 at MTSU61% → 1%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −50, Timeouts +1
• MTSUW 27-25 at MTSU50% → 95%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• NIUW 37-13 at NIU58% → 99%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +47, Clock +1

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.