CFB 360 is currently a work in progress! Learn more about our unbiased ranking engine & upcoming Player Recruiting Hub

Composite projection engine

Matchup Simulator

Away team (Team A)
ULM logo
Home team (Team B)
UAB logo
ABC| Sat 1:30 PM MT
ULM logoUL Monroe
0-2 ยท 42.0 PWR
96%

UAB win probability

Projected line: UAB -9.0

UAB logoUAB
1-1 ยท 56.5 PWR

Positional unit index โ€” 0 to 100 scale

50 = FBS average ยท 72+ = Top 25 level ยท 90+ = elite national top five. Week 3 weighting: 60% preseason roster talent + 40% live 2026 game EPA.

29QB vs QB40

-4.6 UAB advantage โ€” 11-point index gap over UL Monroe (passing EPA per play, completion rate and yards per attempt). UAB Below average.

28WR Room vs WR Room41

-5.5 UAB advantage โ€” 13-point index gap over UL Monroe (explosive pass rate and yards per target). UAB Below average.

33RB Room vs RB Room46

-5.5 UAB advantage โ€” 13-point index gap over UL Monroe (yards per carry, line yards and rush EPA). UAB FBS average.

36Run Blocking vs Run Defense42

-2.5 UAB advantage โ€” 6-point index gap over UL Monroe (line yards against stuff rate). UAB FBS average.

34Offensive Line vs Pass Rush36

-0.8 UAB advantage โ€” 2-point index gap over UL Monroe (pass-block win rate against pressure rate). UAB Below average.

29Pass Game vs Coverage35

-2.5 UAB advantage โ€” 6-point index gap over UL Monroe (passing EPA against coverage efficiency). UAB Below average.

31Pass Rush vs Offensive Line46

-6.3 UAB advantage โ€” 15-point index gap over UL Monroe (pressure differential in the trenches). UAB FBS average.

31Coverage vs Pass Game41

-4.2 UAB advantage โ€” 10-point index gap over UL Monroe (coverage grade against target efficiency). UAB Below average.

Projections use opponent-adjusted efficiency, SOS, and unit-level grades derived from live 2026 team data.