Nevada

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0740th
  Defense+0.2112th
• 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.
  Offense41.4%34th
  Defense49.6%6th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3088th
  Defense+1.1468th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0124th
  Defense+0.1129th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1650th
  Defense+0.386th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.6%31st
  Defense51.9%13th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.1%38th
  Defense44.1%2nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9559th
  Defense2.9637th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.3%87th
  Defense21.1%60th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.1%64th
  Defense15.2%39th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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. L
   NU
2. L
   TOL
3. L
   IDST
4. L
   WSU
5. L
   FRES
6. W
   HAW
7. L
   CSU
8. L
   AF
9. L
   BOIS
10. W
    SJSU
11. L
    SDSU
12. W
    UNLV

Bars above the line: better than expected for Nevada.

Players, 2017

1. Ty GangiQB344 plays · +0.242 pts/play · 39th of 226 QBs
   1.56WAR0.91 to 2.22
2. Kelton MooreRB130 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 68th of 352 RBs
   0.37WAR0.26 to 0.47
3. Wyatt DempsWR66 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 94th of 426 WRs
   0.15WAR0.07 to 0.22
4. Brendan O'Leary-OrangeWR43 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 118th of 426 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.17
5. McLane MannixWR68 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 127th of 426 WRs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.19
6. Jaxson KincaideRB51 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 238th of 352 RBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.14
7. Spencer PettitPK10 plays · +0.380 pts/play · 82nd of 110 kickers
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.10
8. Andrew CelisWR24 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 339th of 426 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  341341103rd of 130Roster talent: 341, 103rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12312390th of 130Recruiting: 123, 90th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  47%47%91st of 128Returning production: 47%, 91st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −16.4−16.4117th of 128SP+ rating: −16.4, 117th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.17 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 CSUQ4 2:13 4th & 11 at CSU 36, down 2Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−6.3 pts
2. vs IDSTQ3 2:29 4th & 1 at NEV 27, down 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
3. vs IDSTQ4 6:37 4th & 3 at NEV 27, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. at FRESQ2 9:48 4th & 1 at NEV 25, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. at NUQ3 6:09 4th & 4 at NU 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs HAWQ3 9:23 4th & 4 at HAW 25, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at BOISQ2 2:49 4th & 4 at NEV 49, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs HAWQ3 1:56 4th & 6 at HAW 22, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

88th of 130 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. L

   NU
2. L

   TOL
3. L

   IDST
4. L

   WSU
5. L

   FRES
6. W

   HAW
7. L

   CSU
8. L

   AF
9. L

   BOIS
10. W

    SJSU
11. L

    SDSU
12. W

    UNLV

What moved it, 2017

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−0.81
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.34

Game by game

• NUL 20-31 at NU5% → 2%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −10
• TOLL 24-37 vs TOL19% → 3%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −30, Clock −1
• IDSTL 28-30 vs IDST98% → 13%Before kickoff +48 · On the field −86: Scoreboard −32, Clock −3
• WSUL 7-45 at WSU3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• FRESL 21-41 at FRES25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −1
• HAWW 35-21 vs HAW35% → 98%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +47, Timeouts +2
• CSUL 42-44 at CSU5% → 12%Before kickoff −45 · On the field +7: Scoreboard −11, Timeouts −1
• AFL 42-45 vs AF31% → 6%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −39, Clock −3
• BOISL 14-41 at BOIS8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −11
• SJSUW 59-14 vs SJSU87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +16
• SDSUL 23-42 at SDSU11% → 1%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −15, Timeouts −1
• UNLVW 23-16 vs UNLV56% → 96%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +37, Clock +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.