Nevada

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1242nd
• 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.
  Offense40.0%20th
  Defense41.5%63rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2048th
  Defense+1.2915th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0126th
  Defense+0.0750th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1333rd
  Defense+0.1848th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.6%9th
  Defense47.2%53rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.6%65th
  Defense30.5%74th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.517th
  Defense2.7467th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.6%38th
  Defense22.0%73rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense25.8%3rd
  Defense18.3%28th

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, 2019

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
   PUR
2. L
   ORE
3. W
   WEB
4. W
   UTEP
5. L
   HAW
6. W
   SJSU
7. L
   USU
8. L
   WYO
9. W
   UNM
10. W
    SDSU
11. W
    FRES
12. L
    UNLV
13. L
    OHIO

Bars above the line: better than expected for Nevada.

Players, 2019

1. Carson StrongQB314 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 95th of 228 QBs
   0.81WAR0.31 to 1.29
2. Toa TauaRB195 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 109th of 349 RBs
   0.37WAR0.20 to 0.51
3. Elijah CooksWR88 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 36th of 439 WRs
   0.25WAR0.14 to 0.37
4. Devonte LeeRB55 plays · +0.227 pts/play · 172nd of 349 RBs
   0.23WAR0.18 to 0.29
5. Malik HenryQB70 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 189th of 228 QBs
   0.18WAR0.07 to 0.29
6. Cristian SolanoQB43 plays · +0.205 pts/play · 192nd of 228 QBs
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.24
7. Brandon TaltonPK18 plays · +0.474 pts/play · 27th of 114 kickers
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.21
8. Dominic ChristianWR36 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 192nd of 439 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  46246287th of 130Roster talent: 462, 87th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13613690th of 130Recruiting: 136, 90th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  53%53%82nd of 130Returning production: 53%, 82nd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −12.3−12.3112th of 130SP+ rating: −12.3, 112th 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, 2019

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 0.09 of the 0.13 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 SDSUQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at NEV 45, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.9 pts
2. vs WEBQ4 4:49 4th & 3 at WEB 16, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. vs UNLVQ3 9:05 4th & 6 at UNLV 39, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. at SDSUQ4 9:43 4th & 3 at NEV 27, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at FRESQ4 13:56 4th & 8 at FRES 39, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
6. at USUQ4 15:00 4th & 16 at USU 32, down 19Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at OREQ2 7:13 4th & 17 at NEV 18, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs SJSUQ2 0:50 4th & 13 at SJSU 39, up 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

15th 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

   PUR
2. L

   ORE
3. W

   WEB
4. W

   UTEP
5. L

   HAW
6. W

   SJSU
7. L

   USU
8. L

   WYO
9. W

   UNM
10. W

    SDSU
11. W

    FRES
12. L

    UNLV
13. L

    OHIO

What moved it, 2019

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+0.91
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.22
• Timeouts−0.16
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.80

Game by game

• PURW 34-31 vs PUR22% → 95%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +73: Scoreboard +43, Possession & field position +1
• OREL 6-77 at ORE4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• WEBW 19-13 vs WEB71% → 97%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +2
• UTEPW 37-21 at UTEP82% → 99%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +26, Clock +1
• HAWL 3-54 vs HAW54% → 0%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −56
• SJSUW 41-38 vs SJSU59% → 94%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +35, Possession & field position −1
• USUL 10-36 at USU9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −12
• WYOL 3-31 at WYO19% → 0%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −22
• UNMW 21-10 vs UNM59% → 96%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +2
• SDSUW 17-13 at SDSU13% → 91%Before kickoff −37 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• FRESW 35-28 at FRES21% → 96%Before kickoff −29 · On the field +75: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3
• UNLVL 30-33 vs UNLV67% → 12%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −19
• OHIOL 21-30 vs OHIO27% → 5%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −38, Clock −3

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.