Skip to content

UAB Blazers

American Athletic·1-1·
Elo
1411#88
SP+
-16.0#123
FPI
-14.5
AP
NR
Next@ Louisiana · Wk 3Win prob 49%Model +0.3
Talent #92 (606.2)Recruiting class #13580% production returning

Roster · 106 players

FR 32SO 27JR 23SR 24
#PlayerPosClHtWt
5Ryder BurtonQBJR6'2"200
11Adrian PosseQBSO6'4"215
12Vanden DuggerQBFR6'3"205
16Nate RogersQBSO5'10"190
18Cam JenningsQBSO6'1"225
2Roderick Robinson IIRBJR6'1"235
3Bam McReynoldsRBSR5'7"190
7Ja'Vin SimpkinsRBJR5'9"185
10Marquise CollinsRBJR5'9"210
20Rashad RobinsonRBFR5'9"210
21Hudson HigginsRBFR5'9"180
22Drew PattersonRBFR5'9"205
26Jayson MollRBFR5'7"175
28JR MosleyRBFR5'10"210
30Amari BrundidgeRBSO6'0"225
0Ty MimsWRSR5'9"185
1CJ SmithWRSR6'3"205
4EJ ReidWRSO5'10"180
6KJ DanielsWRSO5'10"170
8Kaleb BrownWRSR5'10"200
9AJ JohnsonWRSR6'3"205
12Jaylen ElderWRSO5'11"160
13CD GillWRFR5'7"160
14Jailen HolmesWRSR5'10"180
15Jayden SkeltonWRFR5'9"170
17Brogan McnabWRFR5'10"190
80Malik MuhammadWRSO6'1"205
81Bradley WainwrightWRFR6'2"185
83Levi BraytonWRFR6'4"190
84Lamar WhiteWRSO5'11"200
19Gabriel ClineTEFR6'4"230
40Brayden JohnsonTESO6'2"265
44Scott IsacksTESR6'4"250
85Antonio FergusonTEJR6'3"235
86Vili HaapsaloTEFR6'6"230
87Sean PerssonTESO6'5"245
88Braden TeagueTEFR6'5"240
51Payton KirklandOLJR6'6"315
52Hudson ReedOLFR6'5"300
55Barrett MaddoxOLJR6'6"325
57Aidan PlattOLFR6'3"305
59Jaden LigonOLSO6'5"340
64Cooper YoungOLJR6'4"310
66Donovan LawrenceOLSO6'5"350
67Wes WigginsOLFR6'3"300
68Adam LepkowskiOLSR6'3"300
69Kade MartinOLSO6'4"310
70Amos TalaleleOLSO6'4"380
71Kyrik MasonOLSR6'4"305
75Calib PerezOLSR6'5"315
77Keyon CoxOLJR6'5"305
78Nelson RamirezOLSR6'6"335
79Samuel RiddyOLJR6'5"330
74Barry WalkerOTSO6'6"325
56Myles CookDESO6'2"285
58J'Quan MasonDESO6'4"240
59Chris BurgeDESO6'3"250
9Noah NelsonDLSR6'5"295
15Elijah HallDLSR6'3"255
17Tylin JacksonDLJR6'4"255
29Cam CunninghamDLSR6'1"325
52Sterling SandersDLFR6'5"305
90Chris SpencerDLSR6'5"290
96Gavin NelsonDLSR6'5"295
99Raymond MaciasDLSO6'1"310
8Nigel TateDTSR6'3"330
54Kyle MosleyDTSO6'1"305
3Ike EsonwuneLBJR6'1"225
4Marlin DeanLBSR6'5"240
7Blanche GoldLBSR6'2"240
14Mantrez WalkerLBFR6'1"230
19Malachi CharacterLBFR6'1"210
26Gage MessickLBSR6'3"230
31Rhett CoferLBFR6'1"210
32Colby ArchieLBJR6'2"220
33Braden SullivanLBJR6'2"245
35Muaaz ByardLBSR6'2"230
43Braxtyn DaviesLBFR6'0"210
48Phillip Davison Jr.LBSO6'1"225
49Jacoby BridgesLBSO6'1"235
5Delvon GulleyCBJR6'1"190
16Isaiah CrozierCBJR6'0"180
18Julius Lane Jr.CBFR5'10"160
0Jo PierceDBFR6'2"210
1Darrell SweetingDBJR6'0"185
2Guylijah TheoduleDBJR6'2"175
6Que BillingsleyDBJR6'0"190
10Kris WokomahDBSO6'0"190
11Anta'Veon McKenzieDBJR6'1"195
12Elijah PrattDBFR5'11"180
13Jeremiah JordanDBSR6'2"205
21Draden FullbrightDBFR5'11"175
22Courage UgoDBSR6'0"190
23Mykale HrabowskiDBFR6'3"190
24Diezel WilkinsonDBJR6'0"200
25Jaylen ThompsonDBSO6'2"210
27Jordin PriceDBFR5'9"170
28Daimir HicksDBFR5'11"180
36Chimenum AjinwoDBFR5'11"185
37Love KirbySSO5'11"195
35Owen SimpsonPKSO6'1"190
39Jonah DelangePKSR6'0"170
20Badger HargettPJR5'10"190
30Carson TinsleyPFR6'1"200
46Evan BishopLSJR6'0"210
47Noah MedlenLSFR6'1"235

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
24.5
scoring offense
Points allowed
31.0
scoring defense
Differential
-6.5
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
206.5#130
Yards / play
5.2#104
Passing yards / game
109.5#124
Rushing yards / game
97.0#118
First downs / game
12.0#130
3rd down %
52.6%#28
4th down %
75.0%#39
Time of possession
20:32#136
Defense
Yards allowed / game
166.0#13
Yards / play allowed
7.7#131
Pass yards allowed / game
91.0#7
Rush yards allowed / game
75.0#30
3rd down % allowed
50.0%#116
Sacks
0#130
Tackles for loss
2#130
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
-1#89
Takeaways
0#118
Giveaways
1#31
Penalties / game
4.5#34
Penalty yards / game
34.5#23

Rank is national among all FBS teams (#1 = best), oriented so higher rank = better even for defensive and discipline metrics. Bars show percentile.

Scouting Report · 2026 projection

UAB is in year 1 under Alex Mortensen. The strengths are offensive, led by 5th at hitting chunk plays. The way in is 136th on early downs defensively, and they are 134th at holding the line of scrimmage.

UAB has played 1 game against an average slate, adjusted for here. That football carries about 0% of what is below; the rest is still the preseason projection.

Projected strengths

  • Offensehitting chunk plays
    #5
    projected

Projected soft spots

  • Defensefirst and second down
    #136
    projected
  • Defensethe push the line gets
    #134
    projected
  • Defensethrowing it
    #133
    projected

Each bar is where this team sits in the country. Before the season has produced enough football these are PROJECTIONS — last season regressed to the mean, plus talent, returning production, recruiting and whether the staff is the same one — and the season replaces them as it is played. Head coaches only — there is no free feed for coordinators, so on a program where the head coach does not call the offense this describes the staff he hired. Play-calling identity is a style, not a grade: throwing more than the situations warrant is not better than throwing less than they warrant.

2026 Season Projection

model win prob · 9 to play
5.35.7
projected final record (now 11)
Exp. wins left
4.3
of 9 games
Bowl odds
45%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
87%
vs Charlotte
Toughest
26%
vs South Florida

How the season could finish · 2026 · chance of each final win total · 9 games left

Every remaining game simulated from the model's win probability for it. Tallest bar is the single likeliest finish, not a prediction that it happens.

12345678910
final winstallest bar = 27% chance
Likeliest finish 5-6 (27%)Bowl eligible 45% · marked on the axis at 6

Player Value

EPA contribution by position group + estimated NIL market value (derived from position rates and on-field production — not actual deal figures).

Unit Value — Total EPA
QBRyder Burton
+10.7 EPA
RBBraylon McReynolds, Roderick Robinson II +1
+9.3 EPA
WRKaleb Brown, C.J. Smith +2
+9.3 EPA
TEAntonio Ferguson, Scott Isacks III +1
-2.2 EPA

Total EPA produced by each positional group this season. OL value is captured via the rush/pass efficiency of skill players; OL-specific EPA isn't separately reported.

Estimated NIL Market Value
ESTIMATED
QBRyder Burton
~$727K
EPA +10.70.305/play35 snaps

Estimated from position-group market rates and on-field EPA contribution. Actual NIL valuations depend on social media following, brand fit, and market negotiations — these figures are directional only.

The Five Factors

ranked vs. FBS · bar = better
Efficiency (PPA)
Off0.1125th#104
Def0.533rd#134
Explosiveness
Off1.3058th#58
Def1.3528th#100
Field position
Off66.420th#110
Def71.164th#50
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off2.2910th#124
Def7.001st#136
Turnovers
Won 0Lost 1
Margin -1

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
Defense
Off · pass
-0.087th#128
Off · rush
0.2872nd#39

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.2872nd#39
Def0.2412th#122
Passing
Off-0.087th#128
Def0.894th#133

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
3.55#34
2nd-level / open-field
1.02 / 0.53
Power / stuff (off)
83.3% / 7.5%
Havoc — total (def)
4.5%#138
Havoc — front 7 / DB
4.5% / 0.0%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.02
Def0.39
Pass downs
Off0.27
Def1.05

PPA on each down type (off vs. def).

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense-0.16#1200.03#990.94#23
Defense0.23#1231.01#1370.21#44

Elo Trajectory

@IllinoisFinal
Elo rating 14431406-37 over season

Team Fingerprint · 2026 · 31 opponent-adjusted metrics · percentile vs 138 FBS teams

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.1436th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.534th
  • Offense success rate43%43rd
  • Defense success rate allowed57%2nd

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs44%33rd
  • Offense success — passing downs40%69th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs54%13th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs67%1st

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.255th
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.426th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs0.9539th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs1.949th

Trenches

  • Offense line yards3.358th
  • Defense line yards allowed3.036th
  • Offense highlight yards0.4628th
  • Defense highlight yards allowed2.110th
  • Offense power success0.7550th
  • Defense power success allowed0.6067th
  • Offense stuff rate0.1369th
  • Defense stuff rate0.2363rd

Third down

  • Third down conversion53%67th
  • Third down distance faced6.654th
  • Third down conversion allowed50%21st
  • Third down distance forced3.01st

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half-0.1024th
  • Net success rate — second half-0.1022nd

Roster

  • Returning usage86%94th
  • Returning EPA24590th
  • Team talent composite60634th
  • Recruiting class rank1354th
  • Recruiting class points1354th

Every metric is opponent-adjusted and ranked so that higher is always better — a defensive rate that is good when low is ranked accordingly. Sack and tackle-for-loss composition are deliberately absent: their relationship to team quality is a measured null, so they carry a style rather than a rank, and they appear in the pressure signature instead.

Intelligence Report

Offensive DNA

Run-first offense — below average EPA/play nationally
EPA/play
+0.113#104 · below avg
Pass EPA/play
-0.078#128
Rush EPA/play
+0.282#39
Explosiveness
1.303#58
Pts/opportunity
2.29#124
Success rate
41.2%

Rush efficiency edge: 0.360 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

Coverage-heavy defense — allowing above-average EPA/play
EPA/play allowed
+0.529#134 · bottom 20%
Havoc rate (total)
4.5%#138
Front-7 havoc
4.5%
DB havoc
0.0%
Big play rate allowed
1.354#100
Success rate allowed
56.8%

Disruption comes primarily from the front seven.

📊

Season Signature

24.5 PPG offense, 31.0 allowed — -6.5 margin/game
Points per game
24.5
Points allowed/game
31.0
Scoring margin/game
-6.5
Turnover margin
-1won 0 · lost 1
Production returning
80%
Talent rank (247)
#92

1-1 record through 2 games.

Team Shape · percentile vs. FBS · dashed = 50th

OFFENSE25thEXPLOSIVENESS58thFINISHING10thFIELD POS20thDEFENSE3thHAVOC0th50th100th
Offense
25th
Explosiveness
58th
Finishing
10th
Field Pos
20th
Defense
3th
Havoc
0th

Each axis = national percentile rank. 100th = best in FBS, 0th = worst. Defense and Havoc are oriented so higher = better.

CORE efficiency · situation and opponent removed

Points per 100 plays above average, after the game state is regressed out of every snap and the schedule is solved out across the whole league. The version of this team’s efficiency that can be compared to a team it never played.

Overall
-5.8
#92
Offense
+2.7
#49
Defense
+8.5
#130
Full CORE ratings →

Play-calling identity

Against what the league calls from the same down, distance, field position, score and clock — so this is the staff, not the game script.

Pass rate
40.6%
Expected, given the spots
58.7%
Over expected
-18.0
Fourth down vs peers
-4
Fourth down vs the model
-25
All play-calling tendencies →

National Landscape · 2026 FBS · offense vs. defense EPA/play

Each dot = one FBS team. UAB is highlighted. Tap or hover a dot for details.

ELITEDEF. FORTRESSOFF. POWERHOUSEREBUILDING-0.100.00+0.10+0.20+0.30-0.050.00+0.10+0.20Offensive EPA/play← worsebetter →Defensive EPA allowed/play← worsebetter →

Similar Programs

Teams with the closest offense + defense efficiency profile to UAB in 2026

by EPA/play distance
OhioSP+ -16.4
Off EPA/play +0.118Def EPA/play +0.493Elo 1318
Match
98%
Arkansas StateSP+ -15.1
Off EPA/play +0.125Def EPA/play +0.491Elo 1353
Match
98%
Florida AtlanticSP+ -12.2
Off EPA/play +0.154Def EPA/play +0.644Elo 1189
Match
94%
MarshallSP+ -14.4
Off EPA/play -0.075Def EPA/play +0.644Elo 1389
Match
89%
Ball StateSP+ -25.0
Off EPA/play +0.119Def EPA/play +0.321Elo 1112
Match
89%
Texas StateSP+ -7.8
Off EPA/play +0.185Def EPA/play +0.326Elo 1441
Match
89%

Similarity = normalized Euclidean distance on season offensive and defensive EPA/play. Teams within ±0.02 EPA/play on both units score >90%.

Program Trajectory · CORE rating · 20172026 · points per game vs an average FBS team

2017: -5.2, #82 of 1302018: +11.7, #27 of 1302019: -0.2, #64 of 1302020: +9.8, #29 of 1242021: +13.3, #25 of 1302022: +8.8, #36 of 1312023: -5.4, #86 of 1332024: -7.4, #89 of 1342025: -15.8, #112 of 1362026: -5.8, #92 of 138
20172026
Now -5.8 · #92 of 138Best +13.3 in 2021Worst -15.8 in 2025

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20260-10-0
0%
0.1-0.1
20254-82-6
33%
2.9+1.1
20243-92-6
25%
4.6-1.6
20234-83-5
33%
6.1-2.1
20227-64-4
54%
9.2-2.2
20219-46-2
69%
9.5-0.5
20206-34-1
67%
7.4-1.4
20199-56-3
64%
9.1-0.1
201811-38-1
79%
10.3+0.7
20178-56-2
62%
8.1-0.1

xW = expected wins from per-game dominance. Luck = actual − expected (positive = won close games).

0.0%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

0-1 so far, projected to finish 4.7-7.4.

If they finish with…

3.1%
2 losses
0%
3 losses
0%
4 losses

Their chance of making it at each final loss count.

down 0.0 points since preseasonlost 23-42 to Illinois against an expected margin of 30, so +11.3 against the number.

  • At 2 losses they are 3.1% where the average American Athletic team is 5.4%.
  • The American Athletic takes 0.34 bids in an average season.
  • One bid goes to the best champion outside the P4. They take it in 0.0% of seasons, having won their league in 78% of those.

UAB’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk6at Memphis0.1
  • wk9at South Florida0.1
  • wk4vs Navy0.1
  • wk12vs UTSA0.1
  • wk11at Temple0.1
  • wk7vs East Carolina0.1

Who to root for

Games UAB is not in that move its odds most. Same units, much smaller scale.

  • wk7Kent State over South Florida0.1
  • wk7Auburn over Georgia0.1
  • wk11Northwestern over Ohio State0.1
  • wk10West Virginia over Texas Tech0.1
  • wk2UCF over Pittsburgh0.0
  • wk9South Carolina over Oklahoma0.0
The full playoff picture →

American Athletic

0-0 in league play, projected 2.5-5.513 of 14 by title odds
0.4%
Wins the American Athletic
1.3%
Reaches the title game

The American Athletic sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 33% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk6UAB at Memphis2.3
  • wk9UAB at South Florida1.7
  • wk4Navy at UAB1.5
  • wk12UTSA at UAB1.3

Points of title probability riding on each result. The whole American Athletic race →

If not the playoff, then

31%
Bowl eligible
18%
Placed in a bowl
0.0%
In the playoff
82%
Season over in November

UAB is 0-1 and needs 6 more wins from 11 games to reach the six that make a team eligible — at most one of which may come against an FCS opponent. In 12% of seasons they get there and still go nowhere: there are more eligible teams than seats.

  • Armed Forces Bowl4.2%
  • Birmingham Bowl2.8%
  • Fenway Bowl2.4%
  • Xbox Bowl2.2%
  • Myrtle Beach Bowl2.1%
  • Military Bowl1.1%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 4 have sent UAB a player since 2010 — 9 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of UAB's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
CarverGA40
Cedar GroveGA30
Pine ForestFL11
VanguardFL11
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.