Nevada

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1454th
  Defense+0.2116th
• 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.
  Offense44.5%66th
  Defense46.4%13th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2128th
  Defense+1.2653rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0947th
  Defense+0.262nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2059th
  Defense+0.1551st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.2%74th
  Defense49.5%26th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.2%56th
  Defense39.1%3rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0656th
  Defense3.1731st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.9%65th
  Defense17.6%48th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.3%44th
  Defense14.4%26th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   SMU
2. W
   TROY
3. L
   GASO
4. L
   MINN
5. W
   EWU
6. L
   SJSU
7. W
   ORST
8. L
   FRES
9. L
   HAW
10. L
    CSU
11. L
    BOIS
12. L
    AF
13. L
    UNLV

Bars above the line: better than expected for Nevada.

Players, 2024

1. Brendon LewisQB351 plays · +0.222 pts/play · 59th of 232 QBs
   1.46WAR0.89 to 1.99
2. Savion RedRB110 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 97th of 373 RBs
   0.28WAR0.20 to 0.36
3. Jaden SmithWR38 plays · +0.241 pts/play · 62nd of 452 WRs
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.25
4. Chubba PurdyQB31 plays · +0.249 pts/play · 193rd of 232 QBs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.20
5. Cortez Braham Jr.WR45 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 96th of 452 WRs
   0.14WAR0.03 to 0.24
6. Patrick Garwo IIIRB51 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 219th of 373 RBs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.16
7. Marcus BellonWR32 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 191st of 452 WRs
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.14
8. Sean DollarsRB43 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 281st of 373 RBs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  525525106th of 131Roster talent: 525, 106th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  124124110th of 131Recruiting: 124, 110th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  49%49%60th of 130Returning production: 49%, 60th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −15.2−15.2114th of 131SP+ rating: −15.2, 114th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0.09 of the 0.14 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 FRESQ3 1:17 4th & 25 at NEV 37, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−6.0 pts
2. vs ORSTQ2 1:43 4th & 16 at ORST 33, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
3. at BOISQ3 1:41 4th & 2 at NEV 39, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. at SJSUQ4 2:28 4th & 9 at SJSU 44, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. vs FRESQ2 6:44 4th & 9 at NEV 28, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at BOISQ2 0:03 4th & 7 at NEV 14, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at TROYQ4 2:26 4th & 6 at midfield, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs AFQ2 13:11 4th & 3 at NEV 40, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

111th of 134 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

   SMU
2. W

   TROY
3. L

   GASO
4. L

   MINN
5. W

   EWU
6. L

   SJSU
7. W

   ORST
8. L

   FRES
9. L

   HAW
10. L

    CSU
11. L

    BOIS
12. L

    AF
13. L

    UNLV

What moved it, 2024

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−2.22
• Possession & field position−0.07
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts−0.02
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.84

Game by game

• SMUL 24-29 vs SMU4% → 3%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −12, Clock −1
• TROYW 28-26 at TROY26% → 94%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• GASOL 17-20 vs GASO51% → 15%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −41, Clock −4
• MINNL 0-27 at MINN11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −14
• EWUW 49-16 vs EWU83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1
• SJSUL 31-35 at SJSU33% → 4%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2
• ORSTW 42-37 vs ORST45% → 63%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +18: Possession & field position −4, Scoreboard +2
• FRESL 21-24 vs FRES38% → 15%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −38, Clock −2
• HAWL 13-34 at HAW38% → 0%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −2
• CSUL 21-38 vs CSU41% → 1%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts −2
• BOISL 21-28 at BOIS6% → 2%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −12
• AFL 19-22 vs AF65% → 6%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• UNLVL 14-38 at UNLV13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −17

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.