UAB

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.0726th
  Defense+0.1918th
• 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.
  Offense44.7%69th
  Defense44.9%23rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.148th
  Defense+1.1682nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0325th
  Defense+0.254th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1538th
  Defense+0.1262nd
• 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%78th
  Defense50.1%22nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.3%46th
  Defense31.9%32nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1971st
  Defense3.641st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.3%84th
  Defense11.8%3rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.8%26th
  Defense13.1%10th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   ALCN
2. L
   ULM
3. L
   ARK
4. L
   NAVY
5. L
   TULN
6. L
   ARMY
7. L
   USF
8. W
   TLSA
9. L
   CONN
10. L
    MEM
11. W
    RICE
12. L
    CLT

Bars above the line: better than expected for UAB.

Players, 2024

1. Jalen KitnaQB270 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 125th of 232 QBs
   0.56WAR0.05 to 1.12
2. Lee Beebe Jr.RB157 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 31st of 373 RBs
   0.47WAR0.34 to 0.58
3. Jacob ZenoQB80 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 151st of 232 QBs
   0.31WAR0.16 to 0.46
4. Jonah DelangePK21 plays · +0.361 pts/play · 7th of 114 kickers
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.19
5. Isaiah JacobsRB30 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 277th of 373 RBs
   0.06WAR0.05 to 0.08
6. Dallas PayneTE16 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 80th of 221 TEs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.08
7. Bryce DamousTE18 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 99th of 221 TEs
   0.03WAR−0.01 to 0.07
8. Amare ThomasWR54 plays · +0.024 pts/play · 315th of 452 WRs
   0.02WAR−0.09 to 0.14

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  58358383rd of 131Roster talent: 583, 83rd of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14214290th of 131Recruiting: 142, 90th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  65%65%27th of 130Returning production: 65%, 27th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −11.3−11.3106th of 131SP+ rating: −11.3, 106th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0.05 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 CLTQ3 7:44 4th & 2 at CLT 16, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
2. at USFQ2 3:42 4th & 8 at USF 33, down 1Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
3. at CLTQ1 2:34 4th & 5 at CLT 38, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
4. vs CONNQ4 0:14 4th & 10 at CONN 34, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
5. vs CONNQ4 0:14 4th & 10 at CONN 34, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
6. at MEMQ3 6:37 4th & 3 at MEM 14, down 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at USFQ2 7:34 4th & 4 at USF 11, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs CONNQ1 9:25 4th & 2 at CONN 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

110th of 134 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

   ALCN
2. L

   ULM
3. L

   ARK
4. L

   NAVY
5. L

   TULN
6. L

   ARMY
7. L

   USF
8. W

   TLSA
9. L

   CONN
10. L

    MEM
11. W

    RICE
12. L

    CLT

What moved it, 2024

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−1.24
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.24

Game by game

• ALCNW 41-3 vs ALCN96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• ULML 6-32 at ULM83% → 0%Before kickoff +33 · On the field −83: Scoreboard −61, Timeouts −4
• ARKL 27-37 at ARK7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −12
• NAVYL 18-41 vs NAVY46% → 0%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −50, Clock −2
• TULNL 20-71 vs TULN12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −17, Clock −1
• ARMYL 10-44 at ARMY6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• USFL 25-35 at USF15% → 1%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −1
• TLSAW 59-21 vs TLSA55% → 100%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +43
• CONNL 23-31 vs CONN35% → 3%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −42, Clock −3
• MEML 18-53 at MEM13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −16
• RICEW 40-14 vs RICE36% → 100%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +57, Timeouts −2
• CLTL 27-29 at CLT49% → 43%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −5: Possession & field position +5, Timeouts +2

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.