Nevada

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1461st
  Defense+0.1820th
• 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.
  Offense44.3%57th
  Defense48.4%9th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1015th
  Defense+1.1472nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1361st
  Defense+0.1815th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1853rd
  Defense+0.2521st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.1%70th
  Defense50.7%24th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.2%31st
  Defense42.6%1st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1876th
  Defense3.1914th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.5%69th
  Defense15.7%10th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.6%83rd
  Defense13.0%11th

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, 2016

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
   CP
2. L
   ND
3. W
   BUF
4. L
   PUR
5. L
   HAW
6. W
   FRES
7. L
   SJSU
8. L
   WYO
9. L
   UNM
10. L
    SDSU
11. W
    USU
12. W
    UNLV

Bars above the line: better than expected for Nevada.

Players, 2016

1. James ButlerRB207 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 18th of 347 RBs
   0.71WAR0.49 to 0.94
2. Ty GangiQB136 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 130th of 218 QBs
   0.49WAR0.25 to 0.72
3. Tyler StewartQB139 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 131st of 218 QBs
   0.48WAR0.24 to 0.74
4. Jaxson KincaideRB54 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 216th of 347 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.20
5. Wyatt DempsWR45 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 263rd of 417 WRs
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.14
6. Alex BoyP32 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 67th of 82 punters
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.14
7. Hasaan HendersonWR24 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 271st of 417 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
8. Brent ZuzoPK5 plays · +0.351 pts/play · 106th of 116 kickers
   0.03WAR0.02 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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  390390101st of 128Roster talent: 390, 101st of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12212291st of 128Recruiting: 122, 91st of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  91%91%16th of 128Returning production: 91%, 16th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −13.0−13.0111th of 128SP+ rating: −13.0, 111th 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, 2016

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.09 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 UNMQ2 0:04 4th & 2 at UNM 29, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
2. vs FRESQ4 5:02 4th & 3 at NEV 29, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. at UNLVQ3 3:54 4th & 4 at UNLV 42, up 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. vs CPQ4 10:26 4th & 2 at CP 21, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at PURQ2 3:17 4th & 7 at PUR 33, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. vs FRESQ2 9:16 4th & 1 at FRES 6, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at UNLVQ2 6:58 4th & 3 at UNLV 15, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs USUQ1 3:37 4th & 3 at USU 18, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

64th 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. Based on 11 of 12 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   CP
2. L

   ND
3. W

   BUF
4. L

   PUR
5. L

   HAW
6. W

   FRES
7. L

   SJSU
8. L

   WYO
9. L

   UNM
10. L

    SDSU
11. W

    USU
12. W

    UNLV

What moved it, 2016

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+0.09
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts−0.14
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.04

Game by game

• CPW 30-27 vs CP91% → 86%Before kickoff +41 · On the field −4: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts −11
• NDL 10-39 at ND5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• BUFW 38-14 vs BUF77% → 99%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +26
• PURL 14-24 at PUR36% → 4%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −33, Possession & field position +2
• HAWL 17-38 at HAW59% → 1%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −49, Clock −1
• FRESW 27-22 vs FRES79% → 94%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +2
• SJSUL 10-14 at SJSU39% → 10%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −2
• UNML 26-35 at UNM23% → 3%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −24, Possession & field position −1
• SDSUL 16-46 vs SDSU11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −17
• USUW 38-37 vs USU39% → 88%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts −2
• UNLVW 45-10 at UNLV34% → 100%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +63, Possession & field position +1

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.