UNLV

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.0612th
  Defense+0.2122nd
• 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.
  Offense35.9%5th
  Defense43.7%36th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3993rd
  Defense+1.3229th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0522nd
  Defense+0.1147th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1222nd
  Defense+0.407th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.3%6th
  Defense47.0%53rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.5%10th
  Defense36.0%14th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7513th
  Defense3.0447th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.4%43rd
  Defense18.1%59th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense23.0%2nd
  Defense14.1%16th

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, 2021

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. L
   EWU
2. L
   ASU
3. L
   ISU
4. L
   FRES
5. L
   UTSA
6. L
   USU
7. L
   SJSU
8. L
   NEV
9. W
   UNM
10. W
    HAW
11. L
    SDSU
12. L
    AF

Bars above the line: better than expected for UNLV.

Players, 2021

1. Cameron FrielQB200 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 108th of 219 QBs
   0.68WAR0.30 to 1.03
2. Charles WilliamsRB144 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 70th of 387 RBs
   0.48WAR0.37 to 0.63
3. Justin RogersQB51 plays · +0.297 pts/play · 164th of 219 QBs
   0.28WAR0.16 to 0.40
4. Kyle WilliamsWR36 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 206th of 474 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
5. Steve JenkinsWR42 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 215th of 474 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
6. Daniel GutierrezPK9 plays · +0.284 pts/play · 95th of 128 kickers
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
7. Doug BrumfieldQB19 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 211th of 219 QBs
   0.03WAR−0.01 to 0.07
8. Courtney ReeseRB2 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 378th of 387 RBs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.01

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  392392108th of 130Roster talent: 392, 108th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14814884th of 130Recruiting: 148, 84th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  60%60%91st of 128Returning production: 60%, 91st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −13.8−13.8115th of 130SP+ rating: −13.8, 115th 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, 2021

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.19 of the 0.24 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 SJSUQ4 9:34 4th & 1 at SJSU 22, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−6.6 pts
2. vs HAWQ3 2:32 4th & 1 at HAW 44, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
3. vs EWUQ2 0:03 4th & 1 at EWU 5, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
4. vs SJSUQ4 1:11 4th & 5 at SJSU 24, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.8 pts
5. vs SJSUQ3 4:23 4th & 2 at UNLV 46, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. vs EWUQ3 5:01 4th & 1 at UNLV 24, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. at UNMQ1 2:13 4th & 1 at UNLV 49, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. vs HAWQ2 0:10 4th & 3 at HAW 3, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

80th 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. L

   EWU
2. L

   ASU
3. L

   ISU
4. L

   FRES
5. L

   UTSA
6. L

   USU
7. L

   SJSU
8. L

   NEV
9. W

   UNM
10. W

    HAW
11. L

    SDSU
12. L

    AF

What moved it, 2021

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+0.02
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.02
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.80

Game by game

• EWUL 33-35 vs EWU51% → 50%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −8, Possession & field position +2
• ASUL 10-37 at ASU2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• ISUL 3-48 vs ISU2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −5
• FRESL 30-38 at FRES3% → 2%Before kickoff −47 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −7
• UTSAL 17-24 at UTSA7% → 2%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −13
• USUL 24-28 vs USU35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −40, Clock −2
• SJSUL 20-27 vs SJSU34% → 96%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +41, Other +1
• NEVL 20-51 at NEV9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −12
• UNMW 31-17 at UNM43% → 98%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +57, Timeouts −3
• HAWW 27-13 vs HAW44% → 95%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• SDSUL 20-28 vs SDSU22% → 3%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2
• AFL 14-48 at AF11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −15

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.