UAB

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.2385th
  Defense+0.0861st
• 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.
  Offense45.3%74th
  Defense42.6%44th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3176th
  Defense+1.2358th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2290th
  Defense+0.2112th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3382nd
  Defense+0.0690th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.7%74th
  Defense48.6%35th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.7%72nd
  Defense28.8%65th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3685th
  Defense3.2622nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.3%79th
  Defense12.8%11th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.0%69th
  Defense15.6%42nd

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   LIB
3. W
   GASO
4. L
   RICE
5. W
   MTSU
6. W
   CLT
7. L
   WKU
8. L
   FAU
9. L
   UTSA
10. W
    UNT
11. L
    LSU
12. W
    LT
13. W
    M-OH

Bars above the line: better than expected for UAB.

Players, 2022

1. Dylan HopkinsQB215 plays · +0.237 pts/play · 81st of 234 QBs
   0.95WAR0.48 to 1.42
2. DeWayne McBrideRB192 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 8th of 384 RBs
   0.73WAR0.54 to 0.96
3. Jermaine Brown Jr.RB132 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 102nd of 384 RBs
   0.28WAR0.16 to 0.40
4. Trea ShropshireWR55 plays · +0.271 pts/play · 22nd of 455 WRs
   0.28WAR0.16 to 0.40
5. Jacob ZenoQB106 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 177th of 234 QBs
   0.20WAR0.00 to 0.41
6. Tejhaun PalmerWR29 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 212th of 455 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15
7. Matt QuinnPK14 plays · +0.258 pts/play · 50th of 110 kickers
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11
8. Kyle GreenwellP28 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 82nd of 102 punters
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.08

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  44444498th of 129Roster talent: 444, 98th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14214291st of 129Recruiting: 142, 91st of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  81%81%17th of 128Returning production: 81%, 17th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −0.5−0.569th of 129SP+ rating: −0.5, 69th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.33 of the 0.38 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 RICEQ4 3:26 4th & 14 at RICE 15, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−9.6 pts
2. vs M-OHQ4 1:31 4th & 1 at M-OH 12, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−9.5 pts
3. at FAUQ4 0:08 4th & 10 at FAU 23, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−8.3 pts
4. at LIBQ3 4:12 4th & 2 at UAB 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
5. vs UTSAQ4 8:18 4th & 6 at UTSA 12, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
6. vs MTSUQ2 10:54 4th & 2 at MTSU 2, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. vs CLTQ2 1:31 4th & 3 at CLT 3, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. vs GASOQ2 5:43 4th & 10 at UAB 43, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

123rd of 131 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

   LIB
3. W

   GASO
4. L

   RICE
5. W

   MTSU
6. W

   CLT
7. L

   WKU
8. L

   FAU
9. L

   UTSA
10. W

    UNT
11. L

    LSU
12. W

    LT
13. W

    M-OH

What moved it, 2022

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−0.33
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.13

Game by game

• AAMUW 59-0 vs AAMU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• LIBL 14-21 at LIB72% → 3%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −3
• GASOW 35-21 vs GASO80% → 99%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +1
• RICEL 24-28 at RICE80% → 14%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −66: Scoreboard −24, Possession & field position −2
• MTSUW 41-14 vs MTSU78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +25
• CLTW 34-20 vs CLT92% → 99%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts +1
• WKUL 17-20 at WKU54% → 4%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −2
• FAUL 17-24 at FAU64% → 13%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −26, Clock −2
• UTSAL 38-44 vs UTSA43% → 50%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +7: Scoreboard −12, Clock −3
• UNTW 41-21 vs UNT70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +1
• LSUL 10-41 at LSU16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −19
• LTW 37-27 at LT90% → 98%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +19, Clock +1
• M-OHW 24-20 vs M-OH78% → 81%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +17, Possession & field position −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.