Nevada

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.0933rd
  Defense+0.1142nd
• 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.
  Offense41.9%37th
  Defense38.4%69th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2655th
  Defense+1.1866th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1771st
  Defense+0.1133rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0212th
  Defense+0.1747th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.8%43rd
  Defense44.3%65th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.2%40th
  Defense27.2%62nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1556th
  Defense3.1131st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.8%37th
  Defense15.7%25th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.6%67th
  Defense12.6%12th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   WKU
2. L
   MTST
3. L
   MTSU
4. L
   AF
5. W
   UTEP

Bars above the line: better than expected for Nevada.

Players, 2026

1. Dominic KelleyRB56 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 55th of 320 RBs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.15
2. Herschel TurnerRB51 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 57th of 320 RBs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.16
3. Carter JonesQB118 plays · +0.051 pts/play · 129th of 192 QBs
   0.11WAR−0.10 to 0.30
4. Joe McFaddenPK7 plays · +0.377 pts/play · 9th of 82 kickers
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
5. Gary Givens IIIWR20 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 197th of 364 WRs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.06
6. Marshaun BrownWR7 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 292nd of 364 WRs
   0.01WAR0.01 to 0.02
7. Ky WoodsRB1 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 317th of 320 RBs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.00

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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  550550118th of 138Roster talent: 550, 118th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  144144109th of 138Recruiting: 144, 109th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  36%36%77th of 136Returning production: 36%, 77th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.3−4.389th of 138SP+ rating so far: −4.3, 89th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.04 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 MTSUQ4 14:10 4th & 3 at MTSU 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
2. vs AFQ4 13:40 4th & 3 at NEV 18, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
3. at MTSUQ1 1:34 4th & 8 at MTSU 41, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

99th of 138 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

   WKU
2. L

   MTST
3. L

   MTSU
4. L

   AF
5. W

   UTEP

What moved it, 2026

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−0.36
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.17
• Timeouts−0.21
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.16

Game by game

• WKUW 49-14 vs WKU44% → 100%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +51, Timeouts +1
• MTSTL 7-20 vs MTST39% → 4%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −45, Clock −2
• MTSUL 20-27 at MTSU60% → 3%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −2
• AFL 33-36 vs AF36% → 23%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −20
• UTEPW 30-13 at UTEP77% → 99%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +31, Clock +1

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.