Nevada

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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.
  Offense0.0010th
  Defense+0.1917th
• 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.
  Offense35.3%5th
  Defense41.7%52nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3075th
  Defense+1.3223rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0018th
  Defense+0.1322nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0912th
  Defense+0.3117th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.4%2nd
  Defense47.4%50th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.1%20th
  Defense30.3%51st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8312th
  Defense3.4010th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.1%60th
  Defense11.1%3rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense21.1%9th
  Defense17.1%63rd

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   NMSU
2. W
   TXST
3. L
   UIW
4. L
   IOWA
5. L
   AF
6. L
   CSU
7. L
   HAW
8. L
   SDSU
9. L
   SJSU
10. L
    BOIS
11. L
    FRES
12. L
    UNLV

Bars above the line: better than expected for Nevada.

Players, 2022

1. Nate CoxQB207 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 111th of 234 QBs
   0.57WAR0.13 to 1.04
2. Toa TauaRB189 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 34th of 384 RBs
   0.50WAR0.35 to 0.65
3. Shane IllingworthQB143 plays · +0.071 pts/play · 178th of 234 QBs
   0.19WAR−0.13 to 0.49
4. Devonte LeeRB48 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 253rd of 384 RBs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
5. Brandon TaltonPK7 plays · +0.390 pts/play · 73rd of 110 kickers
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
6. Jamaal BellWR35 plays · +0.067 pts/play · 344th of 455 WRs
   0.04WAR−0.01 to 0.09
7. BJ CasteelWR58 plays · +0.028 pts/play · 383rd of 455 WRs
   0.03WAR−0.08 to 0.14
8. Dalevon CampbellWR49 plays · +0.021 pts/play · 405th of 455 WRs
   0.02WAR−0.06 to 0.08

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  416416105th of 129Roster talent: 416, 105th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  133133103rd of 129Recruiting: 133, 103rd of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  7%7%127th of 128Returning production: 7%, 127th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −22.4−22.4124th of 129SP+ rating: −22.4, 124th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.08 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 HAWQ3 3:19 4th & 2 at HAW 2, down 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.7 pts
2. at UNLVQ3 10:36 4th & 1 at UNLV 22, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. vs SDSUQ4 1:40 4th & 5 at SDSU 10, up 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
4. vs CSUQ4 2:17 4th & 6 at NEV 39, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at UNLVQ2 9:36 4th & 1 at NEV 28, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at HAWQ1 0:00 4th & 3 at HAW 45, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs CSUQ4 4:41 4th & 8 at CSU 45, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs SDSUQ4 5:54 4th & 7 at SDSU 48, up 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

117th of 131 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

   NMSU
2. W

   TXST
3. L

   UIW
4. L

   IOWA
5. L

   AF
6. L

   CSU
7. L

   HAW
8. L

   SDSU
9. L

   SJSU
10. L

    BOIS
11. L

    FRES
12. L

    UNLV

What moved it, 2022

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−0.41
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Timeouts−0.01
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.54

Game by game

• NMSUW 23-12 at NMSU66% → 96%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +42, Clock +3
• TXSTW 38-14 vs TXST45% → 100%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +48, Possession & field position +1
• UIWL 41-55 vs UIW62% → 1%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3
• IOWAL 0-27 at IOWA4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −7
• AFL 20-48 at AF5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −8
• CSUL 14-17 vs CSU56% → 5%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• HAWL 16-31 at HAW67% → 1%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −48, Timeouts −2
• SDSUL 7-23 vs SDSU29% → 83%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +17, Possession & field position +3
• SJSUL 28-35 at SJSU5% → 3%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −11
• BOISL 3-41 vs BOIS7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −11
• FRESL 14-41 vs FRES5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −9
• UNLVL 22-27 at UNLV18% → 95%Before kickoff −32 · On the field +77: Scoreboard +54, 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.