UNLV

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+0.0624th
  Defense+0.1727th
• 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.
  Offense39.9%19th
  Defense46.7%16th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2672nd
  Defense+1.1767th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1267th
  Defense+0.1712th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense0.0015th
  Defense+0.1849th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.9%20th
  Defense51.2%19th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.0%19th
  Defense36.4%19th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1278th
  Defense2.9839th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.9%91st
  Defense20.1%57th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.3%63rd
  Defense16.5%11th

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 UNLV 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
   SUU
2. L
   ARST
3. L
   NU
4. L
   WYO
5. L
   BOIS
6. W
   VAN
7. L
   FRES
8. L
   SDSU
9. L
   CSU
10. L
    HAW
11. W
    SJSU
12. W
    NEV

Bars above the line: better than expected for UNLV.

Players, 2019

1. Charles WilliamsRB190 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 21st of 349 RBs
   0.72WAR0.56 to 0.91
2. Kenyon ObladQB245 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 122nd of 228 QBs
   0.52WAR0.12 to 0.95
3. Armani RogersQB92 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 149th of 228 QBs
   0.36WAR0.19 to 0.56
4. Chad MagyarRB65 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 208th of 349 RBs
   0.18WAR0.14 to 0.23
5. Daniel GutierrezPK14 plays · +0.436 pts/play · 63rd of 114 kickers
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.15
6. Randal GrimesWR46 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 184th of 439 WRs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.17
7. Tyleek CollinsWR34 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 300th of 439 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
8. Darren Woods Jr.WR25 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 355th of 439 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 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 UNLV'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.
  46346386th of 130Roster talent: 463, 86th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13113197th of 130Recruiting: 131, 97th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  80%80%21st of 130Returning production: 80%, 21st of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −17.4−17.4120th of 130SP+ rating: −17.4, 120th 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 UNLV's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.15 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 SDSUQ4 3:44 4th & 24 at UNLV 20, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.9 pts
2. at VANQ3 15:00 4th & 4 at VAN 39, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. vs HAWQ3 8:16 4th & 8 at HAW 37, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. at FRESQ4 15:00 4th & 15 at FRES 33, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs ARSTQ4 15:00 4th & 15 at ARST 30, down 23Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at NUQ3 9:07 4th & 2 at UNLV 28, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at CSUQ2 0:07 4th & 10 at CSU 33, down 24Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs BOISQ4 6:14 4th & 22 at UNLV 36, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

69th of 130 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up UNLV's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   SUU
2. L

   ARST
3. L

   NU
4. L

   WYO
5. L

   BOIS
6. W

   VAN
7. L

   FRES
8. L

   SDSU
9. L

   CSU
10. L

    HAW
11. W

    SJSU
12. W

    NEV

What moved it, 2019

Every game starts at UNLV'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−1.34
• Clock−0.22
• Timeouts+0.21
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.90

Game by game

• SUUW 56-23 vs SUU94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• ARSTL 17-43 vs ARST59% → 0%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −58, Clock −2
• NUL 14-30 at NU13% → 2%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −19
• WYOL 17-53 at WYO32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −33
• BOISL 13-38 vs BOIS8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −12
• VANW 34-10 at VAN16% → 100%Before kickoff −34 · On the field +83: Scoreboard +68, Clock +2
• FRESL 27-56 at FRES17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −20
• SDSUL 17-20 vs SDSU23% → 7%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2
• CSUL 17-37 at CSU34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −1
• HAWL 7-21 vs HAW34% → 1%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −40, Clock −2
• SJSUW 38-35 vs SJSU35% → 57%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +22: Clock −2, Scoreboard −2
• NEVW 33-30 at NEV33% → 88%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +19

Points of win probability, from UNLV's side.

Closest call

UNM 20-31 UNLV (2022) - UNLV dropped to a 0.6% win probability before pulling it out.