UAB

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0733rd
  Defense+0.281st
• 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.
  Offense42.4%53rd
  Defense48.9%3rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3382nd
  Defense+1.2932nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1262nd
  Defense+0.197th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1024th
  Defense+0.421st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.6%39th
  Defense55.4%1st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.3%78th
  Defense31.6%32nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1274th
  Defense3.354th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.8%61st
  Defense13.7%4th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.3%53rd
  Defense12.0%4th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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. L
   NAVY
3. W
   AKR
4. L
   TENN
5. L
   ARMY
6. L
   FAU
7. W
   MEM
8. L
   CONN
9. L
   RICE
10. L
    UNT
11. L
    USF
12. W
    TLSA

Bars above the line: better than expected for UAB.

Players, 2025

1. Jalen KitnaQB215 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 143rd of 231 QBs
   0.40WAR−0.06 to 0.85
2. Iverson HooksWR69 plays · +0.208 pts/play · 33rd of 451 WRs
   0.27WAR0.13 to 0.41
3. Jevon JacksonRB143 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 59th of 365 RBs
   0.27WAR0.19 to 0.34
4. Ryder BurtonQB92 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 167th of 231 QBs
   0.21WAR0.06 to 0.36
5. Brandon Hawkins Jr.WR41 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 159th of 451 WRs
   0.12WAR0.03 to 0.19
6. Isaiah JacobsRB64 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 233rd of 365 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
7. Corri MillinerWR25 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 208th of 451 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14
8. Solomon BeebeRB26 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 266th of 365 RBs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.11

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  541541103rd of 134Roster talent: 541, 103rd of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  135135103rd of 134Recruiting: 135, 103rd of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  33%33%68th of 132Returning production: 33%, 68th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −15.8−15.8123rd of 134SP+ rating: −15.8, 123rd of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.08 of the 0.11 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 8:46 4th & 8 at RICE 30, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.0 pts
2. at RICEQ2 2:35 4th & 2 at RICE 2, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. at RICEQ4 4:20 4th & 5 at UAB 27, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs ARMYQ3 10:07 4th & 2 at ARMY 12, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. at TLSAQ3 3:26 4th & 2 at UAB 37, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. vs AKRQ3 7:44 4th & 2 at UAB 39, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs MEMQ2 7:08 4th & 3 at MEM 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at CONNQ2 0:12 4th & 4 at CONN 13, down 25Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

64th of 136 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. L

   NAVY
3. W

   AKR
4. L

   TENN
5. L

   ARMY
6. L

   FAU
7. W

   MEM
8. L

   CONN
9. L

   RICE
10. L

    UNT
11. L

    USF
12. W

    TLSA

What moved it, 2025

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−0.45
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts+0.02
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.58

Game by game

• ALSTW 52-42 vs ALST92% → 94%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +13, Timeouts +1
• NAVYL 24-38 at NAVY7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −12, Timeouts −1
• AKRW 31-28 vs AKR82% → 96%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +2
• TENNL 24-56 at TENN1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• ARMYL 13-31 vs ARMY37% → 1%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2
• FAUL 33-53 at FAU35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −35
• MEMW 31-24 vs MEM7% → 96%Before kickoff −43 · On the field +89: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +3
• CONNL 19-38 at CONN20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −23
• RICEL 17-24 at RICE49% → 7%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −2
• UNTL 24-53 vs UNT13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −18, Clock −1
• USFL 18-48 vs USF8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −12
• TLSAW 31-24 at TLSA26% → 96%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +70: Scoreboard +57, Clock +4

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.