Nevada

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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−0.074th
  Defense+0.1534th
• 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.
  Offense36.6%9th
  Defense43.5%32nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1926th
  Defense+1.2068th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0129th
  Defense+0.204th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.141st
  Defense+0.1068th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.0%13th
  Defense50.9%14th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense23.9%4th
  Defense27.6%72nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8337th
  Defense3.0824th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.3%42nd
  Defense16.3%19th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.4%21st
  Defense14.4%26th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   PSU
2. W
   SAC
3. L
   MTSU
4. L
   WKU
5. L
   FRES
6. L
   SDSU
7. L
   UNM
8. L
   BOIS
9. L
   USU
10. W
    SJSU
11. W
    WYO
12. L
    UNLV

Bars above the line: better than expected for Nevada.

Players, 2025

1. Carter JonesQB156 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 142nd of 231 QBs
   0.40WAR0.03 to 0.70
2. Chubba PurdyQB129 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 159th of 231 QBs
   0.27WAR0.04 to 0.54
3. Caleb RamseurRB134 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 70th of 365 RBs
   0.26WAR0.19 to 0.33
4. Joe McFaddenPK19 plays · +0.370 pts/play · 8th of 112 kickers
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.17
5. Herschel TurnerRB56 plays · +0.081 pts/play · 247th of 365 RBs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.12
6. Jett CarpenterTE31 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 46th of 213 TEs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13
7. Marcus BellonWR31 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 292nd of 451 WRs
   0.05WAR0.00 to 0.11
8. Ky WoodsRB7 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 341st of 365 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  489489119th of 134Roster talent: 489, 119th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  127127112th of 134Recruiting: 127, 112th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  22%22%92nd of 132Returning production: 22%, 92nd of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −13.4−13.4114th of 134SP+ rating: −13.4, 114th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.05 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 MTSUQ4 2:15 4th & 1 at MTSU 24, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
2. at WKUQ4 7:23 4th & 9 at WKU 44, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. vs SACQ4 12:16 4th & 6 at SAC 21, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
4. vs SACQ4 12:16 4th & 6 at SAC 21, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
5. at WYOQ3 9:09 4th & 3 at WYO 24, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. vs BOISQ2 8:30 4th & 17 at BOIS 24, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs MTSUQ2 5:18 4th & 5 at MTSU 42, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs UNLVQ3 10:28 4th & 2 at NEV 28, down 25Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

89th of 136 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

   PSU
2. W

   SAC
3. L

   MTSU
4. L

   WKU
5. L

   FRES
6. L

   SDSU
7. L

   UNM
8. L

   BOIS
9. L

   USU
10. W

    SJSU
11. W

    WYO
12. L

    UNLV

What moved it, 2025

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−0.98
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts−0.08
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.51

Game by game

• PSUL 11-46 at PSU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −1
• SACW 20-17 vs SAC75% → 95%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +26, Possession & field position −1
• MTSUL 13-14 vs MTSU71% → 22%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −3
• WKUL 16-31 at WKU29% → 1%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −1
• FRESL 17-20 at FRES20% → 4%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −1
• SDSUL 10-44 vs SDSU33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −39, Clock −1
• UNML 22-24 at UNM24% → 4%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −2
• BOISL 3-24 vs BOIS7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −13, Clock −1
• USUL 14-51 at USU24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −26
• SJSUW 55-10 vs SJSU25% → 100%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +75: Scoreboard +62
• WYOW 13-7 at WYO27% → 79%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• UNLVL 17-42 vs UNLV31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2

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.