UAB vs. UL Monroe: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
UABTeam statsULM
- Q4 3:36ULMMax Larson 40 Yd Field Goal 6–32
- Q4 10:34ULMCar'lin Vigers 30 Yd Interception Return (Max Larson Kick)6–29
- Q3 4:52ULMHunter Herring 4 Yd Run (Max Larson Kick)6–22
- Q3 10:19ULMBilly Pullen Safety6–15
- Q2 0:03ULMMax Larson 37 Yd Field Goal 6–13
- Q2 7:34UABJonah Delange 26 Yd Field Goal 6–10
- Q2 14:10ULMAhmad Hardy 16 Yd Run (Max Larson Kick)3–10
- Q1 6:34UABJonah Delange 46 Yd Field Goal 3–3
- Q1 9:19ULMMax Larson 26 Yd Field Goal 0–3
How the model called it
- PassJacob Zeno 22/32, 167 YDS, 1 INT
- RushLee Beebe Jr. 14 CAR, 62 YDS
- RecKam Shanks 4 REC, 43 YDS
- PassGeneral Booty 9/16, 87 YDS
- RushTaven Curry 13 CAR, 64 YDS
- RecNate Sullivan Jr. 2 REC, 22 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsULM up 16 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,240 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q2 14:10ULM +20%
Ahmad Hardy run for 16 yds for a TD (Max Larson KICK)
- Q3 15:00ULM +19%
James Jones run for 5 yds to the ULM 30
- Q3 4:52ULM +12%
Hunter Herring run for 4 yds for a TD (Max Larson KICK)
- Q2 7:34UAB +9%
Jonah Delange 26 yd FG GOOD
- Q1 6:34UAB +8%
Jonah Delange 46 yd FG GOOD
- Q1 9:19ULM +8%
Max Larson 26 yd FG GOOD
FAQ
What was the final score of UAB vs. UL Monroe?
UAB 6, UL Monroe 32.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
No — the model picked UAB, which didn't hit. We report the misses too.
| UAB | ULM | |
|---|---|---|
| 259 | Total yards | 296 |
| 167 | Passing yards | 87 |
| 92 | Rushing yards | 209 |
| 18 | First downs | 18 |
| 6-13 | 3rd down | 5-14 |
| 0-2 | 4th down | 0-2 |
| 22/32 | Comp/Att | 9/16 |
| 5.2 | Yards per pass | 5.4 |
| 2.6 | Yards per rush | 4.4 |
| 3 | Turnovers | 0 |
| 9-66 | Penalties | 6-45 |
| 26:45 | Possession | 33:15 |
Costliest call
Q3 11:03 ULM punt on 4th & 6 at midfield. The model preferred go for it, a gap of 0.12 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 3:36ULMMax Larson 40 Yd Field Goal 6–32
- Q4 10:34ULMCar'lin Vigers 30 Yd Interception Return (Max Larson Kick)6–29
- Q3 4:52ULMHunter Herring 4 Yd Run (Max Larson Kick)6–22
- Q3 10:19ULMBilly Pullen Safety6–15
- Q2 0:03ULMMax Larson 37 Yd Field Goal 6–13
- Q2 7:34UABJonah Delange 26 Yd Field Goal 6–10
- Q2 14:10ULMAhmad Hardy 16 Yd Run (Max Larson Kick)3–10
- Q1 6:34UABJonah Delange 46 Yd Field Goal 3–3
- Q1 9:19ULMMax Larson 26 Yd Field Goal 0–3
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (ULM Elo 1156, UAB Elo 1363 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects ULM +5.9 (36% to win) — 5.6 points clear of ULM's market line of +11.5. That is a disagreement, not a betting edge — sides we favour have not covered at better than breakeven.
Why that percentage is worth reading: across 604 graded in-season games, the calls this model put near 58% came in at 58.2%. The full calibration table is published, bin by bin. Early in the season the cold-start path runs instead and calibrates less well (Brier 0.2028 against 0.1889).
Model as of Sep 1 · through week 1 · drive simulation
Season form — 2024
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profiles#9 of 120 in 2024 by biggest miss · #34 of 129 in 2024 by longest odds.
The 2024 upset archive →| UAB | ULM | |
|---|---|---|
| -7.4 (#89) | CORE overall | -14.0 (#114) |
| -2 / +6 | offense / defense | -8 / +6 |
| 1.83 | points / drive | 1.72 |
| 2.99 | allowed / drive | 2.59 |
| 25% | three-and-outs | 36% |
| +4 | pass over expected | -13 |
Bold is the side ahead. CORE strips the situation from every play and solves the schedule out across the league, so these compare two teams that never met.
Key matchups
The analyst read: each team's offense splits crossed against the opponent's defense, with the edges called out.
Create a free account →You get Pro free for 6 months. No card required.
Where this number comes from. Every projection on this page is produced by the same model, run before kickoff on opponent-adjusted efficiency, power ratings and situational data — walk-forward validated on eleven seasons and never adjusted after the fact. How the model works →