UNLV

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.1559th
  Defense+0.1430th
• 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.
  Offense41.4%41st
  Defense45.6%17th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2864th
  Defense+1.1872nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1471st
  Defense+0.1035th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2555th
  Defense+0.3612th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.5%57th
  Defense50.3%20th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.6%15th
  Defense33.6%22nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1354th
  Defense3.3811th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.7%74th
  Defense11.2%4th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.4%39th
  Defense13.5%14th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   IDST
2. L
   CAL
3. W
   UNT
4. W
   USU
5. W
   UNM
6. L
   SJSU
7. L
   AF
8. L
   ND
9. L
   SDSU
10. L
    FRES
11. L
    HAW
12. W
    NEV

Bars above the line: better than expected for UNLV.

Players, 2022

1. Doug BrumfieldQB278 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 93rd of 234 QBs
   0.83WAR0.20 to 1.45
2. Aidan RobbinsRB178 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 30th of 384 RBs
   0.53WAR0.35 to 0.70
3. Kyle WilliamsWR47 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 151st of 455 WRs
   0.13WAR0.04 to 0.22
4. Daniel GutierrezPK16 plays · +0.380 pts/play · 16th of 110 kickers
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.15
5. Harrison BaileyQB39 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 199th of 234 QBs
   0.10WAR−0.01 to 0.19
6. Ricky White IIIWR47 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 227th of 455 WRs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.16
7. Marshall NicholsP44 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 40th of 102 punters
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.15
8. Cameron FrielQB29 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 210th of 234 QBs
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.13

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  368368117th of 129Roster talent: 368, 117th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14614687th of 129Recruiting: 146, 87th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  52%52%79th of 128Returning production: 52%, 79th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −11.9−11.9101st of 129SP+ rating: −11.9, 101st of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.13 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 UNTQ4 1:15 4th & 7 at UNT 40, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.1 pts
2. at SDSUQ4 5:41 4th & 5 at SDSU 46, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.5 pts
3. vs UNTQ2 1:23 4th & 1 at UNLV 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. vs UNMQ4 10:45 4th & 1 at UNLV 34, down 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at CALQ2 6:20 4th & 1 at UNLV 24, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at HAWQ2 0:00 4th & 4 at UNLV 49, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at USUQ1 9:06 4th & 1 at UNLV 10, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at NDQ2 7:14 4th & 1 at UNLV 16, down 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

99th of 131 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

   IDST
2. L

   CAL
3. W

   UNT
4. W

   USU
5. W

   UNM
6. L

   SJSU
7. L

   AF
8. L

   ND
9. L

   SDSU
10. L

    FRES
11. L

    HAW
12. W

    NEV

What moved it, 2022

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−3.03
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.11
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.22

Game by game

• IDSTW 52-21 vs IDST92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• CALL 14-20 at CAL22% → 8%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −20, Possession & field position −2
• UNTW 58-27 vs UNT57% → 10%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• USUW 34-24 at USU56% → 92%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +48, Clock +2
• UNMW 31-20 vs UNM84% → 1%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −83: Scoreboard −65, Clock −5
• SJSUL 7-40 at SJSU30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −31
• AFL 7-42 vs AF23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −29, Clock −1
• NDL 21-44 at ND4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −8
• SDSUL 10-14 at SDSU37% → 3%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −2
• FRESL 30-37 vs FRES24% → 25%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +1: Scoreboard −32, Possession & field position +4
• HAWL 25-31 at HAW79% → 3%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −76: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −3
• NEVW 27-22 vs NEV82% → 5%Before kickoff +32 · On the field −77: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3

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.