Nevada

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.1154th
  Defense+0.1428th
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense43.0%44th
  Defense45.5%27th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1424th
  Defense+1.0987th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0961st
  Defense+0.1221st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1446th
  Defense+0.1743rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.8%28th
  Defense50.2%25th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.9%69th
  Defense35.1%34th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9665th
  Defense3.0918th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.2%44th
  Defense17.9%26th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.3%95th
  Defense2.9%89th

Percentiles among the 128 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2015

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what Nevada allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. W
   UCD
2. L
   ARIZ
3. L
   TA&M
4. W
   BUF
5. L
   UNLV
6. W
   UNM
7. L
   WYO
8. W
   HAW
9. W
   FRES
10. W
    SJSU
11. L
    USU
12. L
    SDSU
13. W
    CSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Nevada.

Players, 2015

1. Tyler StewartQB350 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 68th of 205 QBs
   1.38WAR0.74 to 2.02
2. James ButlerRB179 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 20th of 333 RBs
   0.48WAR0.30 to 0.64
3. Don JacksonRB202 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 53rd of 333 RBs
   0.34WAR0.18 to 0.51
4. Hasaan HendersonWR70 plays · +0.217 pts/play · 30th of 411 WRs
   0.28WAR0.16 to 0.39
5. Brent ZuzoPK17 plays · +0.470 pts/play · 31st of 115 kickers
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.20
6. Alex BoyP55 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 51st of 92 punters
   0.08WAR−0.02 to 0.17
7. Wyatt DempsWR39 plays · +0.052 pts/play · 343rd of 411 WRs
   0.04WAR−0.01 to 0.09
8. Jarred GipsonTE19 plays · +0.040 pts/play · 13th of 189 TEs
   0.01WAR−0.02 to 0.05

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares Nevada's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  38138199th of 128Roster talent: 381, 99th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12412488th of 128Recruiting: 124, 88th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  47%47%92nd of 127Returning production: 47%, 92nd of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −7.1−7.194th of 128SP+ rating: −7.1, 94th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2015

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than Nevada's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.16 of the 0.22 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. at FRESQ3 0:42 4th & 1 at FRES 8, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−5.4 pts
2. at BUFQ4 2:32 4th & 3 at BUF 48, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.1 pts
3. vs SJSUQ4 11:21 4th & 1 at NEV 34, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
4. vs ARIZQ3 7:57 4th & 1 at NEV 37, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. vs HAWQ4 9:01 4th & 4 at HAW 13, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at USUQ4 15:00 4th & 16 at USU 36, up 6Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
7. at CSUQ4 7:05 4th & 3 at NEV 27, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
8. at USUQ2 15:00 4th & 2 at USU 36, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

27th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Nevada's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   UCD
2. L

   ARIZ
3. L

   TA&M
4. W

   BUF
5. L

   UNLV
6. W

   UNM
7. L

   WYO
8. W

   HAW
9. W

   FRES
10. W

    SJSU
11. L

    USU
12. L

    SDSU
13. W

    CSU

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Nevada's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard+0.99
• Possession & field position−0.06
• Clock+0.11
• Timeouts−0.19
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.03

Game by game

• UCDW 31-17 vs UCD72% → 99%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +1
• ARIZL 20-44 vs ARIZ21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −28, Clock −2
• TA&ML 27-44 at TA&M4% → 2%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −10
• BUFW 24-21 at BUF36% → 88%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +47, Clock +4
• UNLVL 17-23 vs UNLV76% → 6%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −70: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• UNMW 35-17 vs UNM62% → 99%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +1
• WYOL 21-28 at WYO67% → 4%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −2
• HAWW 30-20 vs HAW66% → 96%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +2
• FRESW 30-16 at FRES58% → 98%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +46, Clock +2
• SJSUW 37-34 vs SJSU46% → 85%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts −23
• USUL 27-31 at USU18% → 8%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −18, Possession & field position −2
• SDSUL 14-31 at SDSU15% → 2%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −20, Clock −1
• CSUW 28-23 at CSU41% → 83%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +43, Possession & field position −4

Points of win probability, from Nevada's side.

Closest call

USU 37-38 NEV (2016) - Nevada dropped to a 7.5% win probability before pulling it out.