← College Football slate
UL Monroe Warhawks
0-1 · #236 Elo
at
Sat, Sep 12, 3:30 PM ET
Protective Stadium · 91° · Mostly sunny
UAB Blazers
0-1 · #180 Elo
Spread UAB -7.5Total 54.5Moneyline ULM +260 · UAB -3272 books · best ULM +285 fanduel · UAB -290 draftkings
WinnerProbability the picked team wins, from a normal on the model's predicted margin. Backtested and calibrated: when it says 65%, it has been right about 63–65% of the time.Strong
UAB -327
80%
model margin UAB by 14.5
SpreadWhich side the model's margin lands on versus the spread. A lean, not a proven edge: against closing NFL lines the model covers about 49% in backtest, so this is tracked in public rather than sold.Lean +
UAB -7.5
52%
7.0 pts from the number
TotalModel total (scoring ratings + weather + roof) versus the posted total. Same caveat as the spread: a lean, tracked in public.Lean
Over 54.5
51%
model total 56.5
The read
On rating alone UAB Blazers are 11.1 points better (#180 vs #236 of 240), and UAB add 3.1 for home field; UAB carry a rest edge worth 0.3. The clearest mismatch is the third down & red zone: UAB third-down conversion ranks #20, ULM defends it at #108; the other way ULM #123 into UAB's #133. The model lands on UAB by 14.5 against a market UAB by 7.5, so the spread lean is UAB by 7.0 points — a lean, not an edge: against closing lines this model covers about 49%. On the total the model sees 56.5 against 54.5.
Who has the edge
Model: UAB by 14.5 · market UAB by 7.5
Rating
Clear edge
UAB
UAB rated 11.1 points better on Elo (#180 vs #236).
Home & rest
Clear edge
UAB
UAB gets 3.1 points for home field and UAB 0.3 for rest.
Passing game
Even
—
ULM passing ranks #89, UAB defends it at #135; the other way UAB #59 into ULM's #100.
context · not in the margin
Rushing game
Even
—
ULM rushing ranks #105, UAB defends it at #126; the other way UAB #42 into ULM's #54.
context · not in the margin
Third down & red zone
Slight edge
UAB
UAB third-down conversion ranks #20, ULM defends it at #108; the other way ULM #123 into UAB's #133.
context · not in the margin
Form (last 5)
Clear edge
UAB
UAB −19.0 per game over the last five, ULM −49.0.
context · not in the margin
Market
Clear edge
UAB
Consensus has UAB by 7.5; the model says UAB by 14.5.
context · not in the margin
The margin, factor by factor
Model: UAB by 14.5 · market UAB by 7.5
UL Monroe WarhawksUAB Blazers
1185 Elo · #236
RatingThe Elo gap in points — the model's core read on who is better, before the situational pieces below.
UAB +11.1 pts
1384 Elo · #180
road
Home field
UAB +3.1 pts
home
7d
Rest
UAB +0.3 pts
9d
−5.5 pts vs UAB D
Offense vs defenseEach offense's scoring rating against the other defense's — what drives the model total. Shown as an edge, though the winner call runs on Elo.
UAB +10.6 pts
+5.1 pts vs ULM D
L · −49.0
Form (last 5)Average margin over the last five games. Already inside the ratings — listed so you can see when recent form and the rating disagree.
UAB +15.0 pts
L · −19.0
ULM +7.5
MarketThe consensus spread, read as points. Compare with the model margin above it.
UAB +7.5 pts
UAB -7.5
Bars are in points toward the favored side. Blue factors are inside the model's margin; grey ones are context it does not add on top (form and offense/defense are already in the ratings; injuries beyond the quarterback are not priced).
Dissect the matchup
CollegeFootballData, garbage time excluded · 2025 season (last season until three games are in)Biggest mismatches
- ▸ULM pass explosiveness (#7) against a UAB defense ranked #134 at stopping it
- ▸ULM power success (#28) against a UAB defense ranked #129 at stopping it
- ▸UAB third-down conversion (#20) against a ULM defense ranked #108 at stopping it
- ▸UAB rush explosiveness (#24) against a ULM defense ranked #102 at stopping it
- ▸UAB passing-down ppa (#48) against a ULM defense ranked #102 at stopping it
A mismatch is a rank gap of at least a fifth of the league between an offense and the defense it faces on the same measure. Descriptive rows (pass rate, pace, direction) are shown for reading the game, not ranked. ▲▼ mark where the last three games sit clearly above or below the season number, in the direction that helps that side.
UL Monroe Warhawks offense vs UAB Blazers defense
ranks of 135| ULM off | UAB def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 43% | 38% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 63% | 73% | · |
| Plays / game | 52 | 57 | · |
| Possession / game | 29:38 | 28:41 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.21#89 | +0.52#135 | ULM |
| Pass success rate | 38%#108 | 48%#124 | · |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.80#7 | 1.94#134 | ULM |
| Yards / pass attempt | 6.3#117 | 9.7#135 | · |
| Completion % | 57%#119 | 66%#117 | · |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 1.7%#29 | 5.6%#1 | UAB |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.05#105 | +0.22#126 | · |
| Rush success rate | 36%#126 | 50%#130 | · |
| Rush explosiveness | 1.11#14 | 0.91#41 | ULM |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 2.70#111 | 3.35#130 | · |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 25%#129 | 14%#129 | · |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 78%#28 | 83%#129 | ULM |
| Yards / rush | 4.6#56 | 4.7#98 | ULM |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.04#107 | +0.31#135 | ULM |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.16#117 | +0.41#115 | · |
| Third-down conversion | 33%#123 | 48%#133 | · |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 3.19#118 | 4.71#134 | · |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 20.5%#133 | 12.0%#130 | · |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 1.58#106 | 0.75#127 | · |
UAB Blazers offense vs UL Monroe Warhawks defense
ranks of 135| UAB off | ULM def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 53% | 48% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 69% | 69% | · |
| Plays / game | 61 | 62 | · |
| Possession / game | 31:19 | 30:23 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.27#59 | +0.31#100 | UAB |
| Pass success rate | 42%#61 | 42%#74 | · |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.54#72 | 1.68#114 | UAB |
| Yards / pass attempt | 7.3#64 | 7.6#99 | UAB |
| Completion % | 66%#34 | 63%#85 | UAB |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 0.9%#6 | 3.4%#30 | · |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.17#42 | +0.08#54 | · |
| Rush success rate | 44%#61 | 40%#44 | · |
| Rush explosiveness | 1.09#24 | 1.03#102 | UAB |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 3.12#36 | 2.83#56 | · |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 18%#53 | 18%#87 | UAB |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 71%#79 | 74%#91 | · |
| Yards / rush | 4.2#84 | 4.3#74 | · |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.12#62 | +0.11#74 | · |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.36#48 | +0.36#102 | UAB |
| Third-down conversion | 46%#20 | 43%#108 | UAB |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 3.63#75 | 4.21#118 | UAB |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 15.3%#66 | 14.4%#101 | UAB |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 1.75#120 | 0.75#128 | · |
Season
| ULM | UAB | |
|---|---|---|
| 0-1 | Record | 0-1 |
| 13.0 | Points for / game | 23.0 |
| 62.0 | Points against / game | 42.0 |
| 0-0 / 0-1 | Home / road | 0-0 / 0-1 |
| 0-1 | Against the spread | 1-0 |
| 1-0 | Over / underOvers–unders in this team's games. A tendency, not a lean. | 1-0 |
| L | Last 5 | L |
Power ratings
| ULM | UAB | |
|---|---|---|
| 1185 | Elo | 1384 |
| #236 of 240 | Rank | #180 of 240 |
| −9.4 | Offense ratingPoints per game above league average scored, opponent-adjusted. | −0.8 |
| −5.9 | Defense ratingPoints per game below league average allowed, opponent-adjusted. Positive is good. | −3.9 |
| 1541 | Strength of scheduleMean Elo of opponents faced this season. | 1679 |
Elo drives the winner call. Offense/defense ratings drive the total.
Advanced
| ULM | UAB | |
|---|---|---|
| −28.9 | SP+ (this season)Bill Connelly's SP+ rating, points above average. | — |
| 0.086 | Offense PPA / playPredicted points added per play, garbage time excluded (CFBD). | 0.191 |
| 0.186 | Defense PPA / playPPA allowed per play — lower is better. | 0.336 |
| 36% / 41% | Success rate (off / def) | 42% / 49% |
| 1.41 / 1.36 | Explosiveness (off / def) | 1.33 / 1.29 |
| 505 | Talent composite247Sports team talent composite for the current roster. | — |
| 39% | Returning production | — |
Advanced stats are from 2025 until this season has about three games. Source: CollegeFootballData.
Head to head
| 2024 | UAB 6 at ULM 32 | ULM · ULM covered |
How the margin was built
- Rating gap
- UAB +11.1 pts
- Home field
- UAB +3.1 pts
- Rest
- UAB +0.3 pts
- Weather / roof
- 0.0 pts on the total
- Model margin
- UAB by 14.5
- Model total
- 56.5 vs 54.5
Market · 2 books
- Spread
- UAB -7.5
- Total
- 54.5
- Moneyline
- ULM +260 · UAB -327
- Best price
- ULM +285 fanduel · UAB -290 draftkings
| Book | UAB spread | Total | ULM ML | UAB ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| draftkings | -7.5 (-112) | 54.5 (-110/-110) | +235 | -290 |
| fanduel | — | — | +285 | -365 |
Spreadopened UAB -7.5 · now UAB -7.5
Totalopened 54.5 · now 54.5
Consensus of the books we track, hourly, since we first priced the game. The arrow on the spread is from the home side: ▲ means the home side is laying more.
Informational only. Winner probabilities are backtested and calibrated; spread and total calls are tracked leans. 21+, 1-800-GAMBLER.