Nevada

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0729th
  Defense+0.0376th
• 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.
  Offense41.7%33rd
  Defense38.8%84th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2461st
  Defense+1.2627th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0329th
  Defense−0.0690th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1236th
  Defense+0.1552nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.1%37th
  Defense44.6%72nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.4%35th
  Defense27.6%90th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7627th
  Defense2.6581st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.5%33rd
  Defense21.4%69th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.1%31st
  Defense17.5%69th

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, 2018

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
   PRST
2. L
   VAN
3. W
   ORST
4. L
   TOL
5. W
   AF
6. L
   FRES
7. L
   BOIS
8. W
   HAW
9. W
   SDSU
10. W
    CSU
11. W
    SJSU
12. L
    UNLV
13. W
    ARST

Bars above the line: better than expected for Nevada.

Players, 2018

1. Ty GangiQB409 plays · +0.219 pts/play · 39th of 225 QBs
   1.67WAR0.95 to 2.41
2. Toa TauaRB179 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 59th of 351 RBs
   0.49WAR0.35 to 0.62
3. Kelton MooreRB103 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 133rd of 351 RBs
   0.32WAR0.23 to 0.41
4. Cristian SolanoQB47 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 199th of 225 QBs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.22
5. Ramiz AhmedPK19 plays · +0.378 pts/play · 26th of 112 kickers
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.18
6. McLane MannixWR77 plays · +0.068 pts/play · 190th of 434 WRs
   0.10WAR−0.01 to 0.21
7. Brendan O'Leary-OrangeWR27 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 201st of 434 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
8. Romeo DoubsWR57 plays · +0.081 pts/play · 219th of 434 WRs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.15

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  43243287th of 130Roster talent: 432, 87th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13113192nd of 130Recruiting: 131, 92nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  81%81%23rd of 129Returning production: 81%, 23rd of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −0.5−0.577th of 130SP+ rating: −0.5, 77th of 130 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, 2018

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.21 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. vs ARSTQ4 4:58 4th & 17 at ARST 24, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−6.7 pts
2. vs ARSTQ4 12:13 4th & 1 at NEV 43, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.1 pts
3. at UNLVQ3 4:46 4th & 1 at NEV 34, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
4. vs BOISQ2 7:59 4th & 1 at NEV 35, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. vs BOISQ4 9:52 4th & 5 at BOIS 47, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs FRESQ3 10:20 4th & 1 at NEV 34, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at TOLQ1 1:35 4th & 1 at NEV 46, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs FRESQ4 4:34 4th & 6 at FRES 19, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

28th 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. W

   PRST
2. L

   VAN
3. W

   ORST
4. L

   TOL
5. W

   AF
6. L

   FRES
7. L

   BOIS
8. W

   HAW
9. W

   SDSU
10. W

    CSU
11. W

    SJSU
12. L

    UNLV
13. W

    ARST

What moved it, 2018

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+0.28
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.19
• Timeouts−0.25
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.05

Game by game

• PRSTW 72-19 vs PRST97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• VANL 10-41 at VAN27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −28
• ORSTW 37-35 vs ORST65% → 63%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −3: Scoreboard +5, Possession & field position −5
• TOLL 44-63 at TOL26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28
• AFW 28-25 at AF45% → 82%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• FRESL 3-21 vs FRES15% → 1%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• BOISL 27-31 vs BOIS18% → 13%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −28, Clock −2
• HAWW 40-22 at HAW50% → 99%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +51, Clock +1
• SDSUW 28-24 vs SDSU51% → 82%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +23, Possession & field position −3
• CSUW 49-10 vs CSU86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17
• SJSUW 21-12 at SJSU82% → 97%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +27, Clock +1
• UNLVL 29-34 at UNLV83% → 6%Before kickoff +33 · On the field −77: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −3
• ARSTW 16-13 vs ARST46% → 62%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +16: Timeouts −25, Clock +15

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.