Offense#96
-3.6vs. FBS average
2025 PPA/play0.18 #58 FBSSuccess rate43.2% #58 FBS
American Athletic · #119 of 138
UAB
Implied Strength-14.6vs. FBS average · ±3.2
Record1–1through completed games
Bowl Eligibility21%reach six wins
Strength of Schedule88thof 138 FBS teams
Schedule lens
What matters next
The headline numbers are above. Here is where the season starts to take shape.
Next matchupat LouisianaWeek 3 · OV Line UAB +8.5 · 25% win chance →Toughest remaining test#64 UTSAWeek 12 · 15% site win chance · View matchup →
Team identity
Where the strength lives
Offense projects as the stronger unit by 7.3 rating points.
Defense#137
-10.9vs. FBS average
2025 PPA/play allowed0.32 #135 FBSSuccess rate allowed48.8% #133 FBS
2025 PPA (predicted points added per play) and success rate. How this split works →
Build Your Ratings
Who would win on a neutral field?
Pick the team you think is better. Your answers help build your personal ratings.
VS
Looks like you’re high on this year.
Want to explore new teams or keep comparing ?
Stored only in this browser -- nothing is sent anywhere.
Season outlook · 50,000 simulations
How UAB's 2026 could unfold
The current projection is 4–8 (4.5 expected wins), with a <0.01% chance to reach the playoff. The distribution below shows how often each regular-season win total appeared across the schedule-aware simulations.
Range of outcomes
Projected win distribution
Most common and median 4 winsCentral 80% 3–6 winsBowl eligible 21.5%
Simulated (schedule-aware)Central 80% rangeMarket win total
Postseason path
2026 playoff outlook
<0.01%Make the 12-team field
Still outside the median outcome across the schedule-aware simulations.
How the field is reached<0.01% total
Auto-bid<0.01%
At-large<0.01%
Outside field>99.9%
What could move the outlook
Biggest questions
Unresolved does not mean negative. A point estimate appears only when the historical evidence supports one.
No major preseason uncertainty signals currently clear the display threshold for UAB. We will update this view as matchup and in-season evidence develops.
Projection contextRoster, continuity, and market inputsView details
The market win total, returning production, coaching continuity, transfer talent, and recent NFL production help explain the evidence surrounding this projection.
Returning Production79.6%share of prior-year PPA returning for 2026
2026 Transfer Class10thof 138 FBS teams by combined portal talentHeavy portal activity
Recent NFL Draft Production121stof 138 FBS teams by NFL talent produced
Market win total3.6Consensus preseason line
Final · Sep 3Suggested side did not cover
UAB at Illinois · Champaign, IL · Memorial Stadium (Champaign, IL)
Pregame evidence · 2022–25
UAB through the lens
The OV Line is the aggregate-rating baseline. The market gap shows where the game-level consensus differed, while identified Factors show how much of that difference our research may explain. ATS records are descriptive context—not a claim that OV should outperform the market.
Market ATS36%4–7 against consensus
Average line gap2.9 pts73% inside 3 points · 8 of 11
Factor coverage55%6 of 11 games
Factor signals67% aligned4 of 6 individual observations · 0 neutral
Historical sample11 gamesmarket-covered games from 2022–25
Explanatory history
Factors present in UAB games
| Factor | Games | Average estimate | Aligned with market | Research status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lopsided Game-Flow Uncertainty | 3 | 4.1 pts toward UAB | 67%2 of 3 directional cases | Supported · wider uncertainty |
| Rest Differential | 3 | 0.6 pts toward opponents | 67%2 of 3 directional cases | Supported |
Underlying recordInspect all 11 historical gamesView games
| Season | Game | OV baseline | Market | Market gap | Identified adjustment | Remaining gap | Result | Market ATS | Factors |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 · W14 | at TulsaAway | UAB +7 | UAB +9.5 | 2.6 pts toward opponents | None identified | 2.6 pts toward opponents | W 31–24 | W | None identified |
| 2025 · W13 | vs. South FloridaHome | UAB +22.5 | UAB +21.5 | 0.8 pts toward UAB | 2.8 pts toward UAB | 2.0 pts toward opponents | L 18–48 | L | Lopsided Game-Flow Uncertainty |
| 2025 · W12 | vs. North TexasHome | UAB +18 | UAB +17.5 | 0.7 pts toward UAB | 1.8 pts toward opponents | 2.5 pts toward UAB | L 24–53 | L | Rest Differential |
| 2025 · W11 | at RiceAway | UAB +3.5 | UAB +1 | 2.7 pts toward UAB | None identified | 2.7 pts toward UAB | L 17–24 | L | None identified |
| 2025 · W10 | at UConnAway | UAB +20.5 | UAB +10.5 | 9.8 pts toward UAB | 1.8 pts toward UAB | 8.1 pts toward UAB | L 19–38 | L | Rest Differential |
| 2025 · W8 | vs. MemphisHome | UAB +20.5 | UAB +23.5 | 3.2 pts toward opponents | 1.7 pts toward opponents | 1.5 pts toward opponents | W 31–24 | W | Rest Differential |
| 2025 · W7 | at Florida AtlanticAway | UAB +6 | UAB +4.5 | 1.7 pts toward UAB | None identified | 1.7 pts toward UAB | L 33–53 | L | None identified |
| 2025 · W4 | at TennesseeAway | UAB +38.5 | UAB +39 | 0.7 pts toward opponents | 5.7 pts toward UAB | 6.4 pts toward opponents | L 24–56 | W | Lopsided Game-Flow Uncertainty |
| 2025 · W3 | vs. AkronHome | UAB -13 | UAB -12.5 | 0.3 pts toward opponents | None identified | 0.3 pts toward opponents | W 31–28 | L | None identified |
| 2025 · W2 | at NavyAway | UAB +29 | UAB +21.5 | 7.3 pts toward UAB | 3.8 pts toward UAB | 3.5 pts toward UAB | L 24–38 | W | Lopsided Game-Flow Uncertainty |
| 2025 · W1 | vs. Alabama StateHome | UAB -19 | UAB -21.5 | 2.4 pts toward UAB | None identified | 2.4 pts toward UAB | W 52–42 | L | None identified |
Sample: 11 market-covered games from 2022–25. Identified adjustments are rough sums of the Factors shown and are not a replacement betting line. Remaining gap is market consensus minus the OV baseline and identified adjustments. A push means the team’s scoring margin exactly matched the market line.