UAB

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.0116th
  Defense−0.0799th
• 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.
  Offense40.4%23rd
  Defense34.0%99th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1840th
  Defense+1.2529th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0412th
  Defense−0.1398th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0925th
  Defense−0.0297th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.5%26th
  Defense36.4%99th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.1%20th
  Defense30.2%77th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6822nd
  Defense2.2998th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.6%26th
  Defense26.9%96th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.2%43rd
  Defense26.5%96th

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, 2019

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
   ALST
2. W
   AKR
3. W
   USA
4. L
   WKU
5. W
   RICE
6. W
   UTSA
7. W
   ODU
8. L
   TENN
9. L
   USM
10. W
    UTEP
11. W
    LT
12. W
    UNT
13. L
    FAU
14. L
    APP

Bars above the line: better than expected for UAB.

Players, 2019

1. Tyler Johnston IIIQB227 plays · +0.243 pts/play · 77th of 228 QBs
   1.03WAR0.60 to 1.44
2. Dylan HopkinsQB108 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 156th of 228 QBs
   0.34WAR0.08 to 0.61
3. Spencer BrownRB110 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 148th of 349 RBs
   0.29WAR0.20 to 0.40
4. Lucious StanleyRB69 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 171st of 349 RBs
   0.24WAR0.20 to 0.29
5. Austin WatkinsWR58 plays · +0.219 pts/play · 43rd of 439 WRs
   0.24WAR0.18 to 0.30
6. Jermaine Brown Jr.RB50 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 203rd of 349 RBs
   0.19WAR0.15 to 0.22
7. Nick VogelPK18 plays · +0.369 pts/play · 52nd of 114 kickers
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.18
8. Kendall ParhamWR36 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 184th of 439 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.16

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  44244294th of 130Roster talent: 442, 94th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  100100129th of 130Recruiting: 100, 129th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  35%35%113th of 130Returning production: 35%, 113th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.4−1.467th of 130SP+ rating: −1.4, 67th 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, 2019

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.18 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 AKRQ4 4:30 4th & 6 at AKR 40, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
2. at AKRQ4 11:04 4th & 1 at UAB 34, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
3. at AKRQ3 5:40 4th & 1 at UAB 30, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. vs LTQ4 2:28 4th & 1 at UAB 36, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
5. vs LTQ2 12:06 4th & 1 at UAB 14, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at WKUQ2 0:20 4th & 13 at WKU 43, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
7. vs APPQ3 4:40 4th & 4 at UAB 48, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs LTQ4 0:50 4th & 13 at LT 26, up 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

46th 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

   ALST
2. W

   AKR
3. W

   USA
4. L

   WKU
5. W

   RICE
6. W

   UTSA
7. W

   ODU
8. L

   TENN
9. L

   USM
10. W

    UTEP
11. W

    LT
12. W

    UNT
13. L

    FAU
14. L

    APP

What moved it, 2019

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+1.01
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.50

Game by game

• ALSTW 24-19 vs ALST99% → 94%Before kickoff +49 · On the field −5: Scoreboard +6
• AKRW 31-20 at AKR67% → 96%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• USAW 35-3 vs USA81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +21
• WKUL 13-20 at WKU56% → 5%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −1
• RICEW 35-20 vs RICE77% → 99%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
• UTSAW 33-14 at UTSA80% → 98%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +28, Clock +1
• ODUW 38-14 vs ODU88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +16
• TENNL 7-30 at TENN14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −18, Timeouts −1
• USML 2-37 at USM26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −28
• UTEPW 37-10 vs UTEP85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +18
• LTW 20-14 vs LT64% → 96%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +35, Possession & field position −2
• UNTW 26-21 at UNT54% → 99%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +49, Clock +2
• FAUL 6-49 at FAU28% → 0%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −30
• APPL 17-31 vs APP12% → 2%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −23, 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.