UNLV

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.2073rd
  Defense+0.1724th
• 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.
  Offense42.6%57th
  Defense41.7%54th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3689th
  Defense+1.3811th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1570th
  Defense+0.0272nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3173rd
  Defense+0.441st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.0%46th
  Defense47.9%47th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.5%69th
  Defense28.9%65th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1861st
  Defense3.0651st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.7%84th
  Defense13.7%14th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.1%84th
  Defense13.3%8th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   BRY
2. L
   MICH
3. W
   VAN
4. W
   UTEP
5. W
   HAW
6. W
   NEV
7. W
   CSU
8. L
   FRES
9. W
   UNM
10. W
    WYO
11. W
    AF
12. L
    SJSU
13. L
    BOIS
14. L
    KU

Bars above the line: better than expected for UNLV.

Players, 2023

1. Jayden MaiavaQB355 plays · +0.247 pts/play · 40th of 250 QBs
   1.64WAR0.80 to 2.63
2. Ricky White IIIWR101 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 32nd of 457 WRs
   0.26WAR0.03 to 0.53
3. Vincent Davis Jr.RB123 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 101st of 383 RBs
   0.26WAR0.14 to 0.35
4. Jai'Den ThomasRB90 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 157th of 383 RBs
   0.18WAR0.10 to 0.26
5. Donavyn LesterRB72 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 181st of 383 RBs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.20
6. Jose PizanoPK20 plays · +0.335 pts/play · 15th of 113 kickers
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.17
7. Marshall NicholsP37 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 28th of 103 punters
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
8. Kaleo BallungayTE21 plays · +0.295 pts/play · 42nd of 212 TEs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  354354119th of 130Roster talent: 354, 119th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  125125109th of 130Recruiting: 125, 109th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  62%62%47th of 128Returning production: 62%, 47th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.4+1.460th of 130SP+ rating: +1.4, 60th 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, 2023

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 0.04 of the 0.11 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 WYOQ2 12:19 4th & 1 at UNLV 41, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
2. vs WYOQ3 12:28 4th & 2 at UNLV 49, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. vs WYOQ3 12:28 4th & 2 at UNLV 49, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. vs SJSUQ3 0:45 4th & 3 at SJSU 30, down 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs CSUQ2 2:36 4th & 3 at UNLV 29, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs CSUQ4 7:36 4th & 4 at CSU 16, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at AFQ4 15:00 4th & 12 at AF 38, up 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs KUQ2 9:16 4th & 5 at KU 34, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

15th of 133 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

   BRY
2. L

   MICH
3. W

   VAN
4. W

   UTEP
5. W

   HAW
6. W

   NEV
7. W

   CSU
8. L

   FRES
9. W

   UNM
10. W

    WYO
11. W

    AF
12. L

    SJSU
13. L

    BOIS
14. L

    KU

What moved it, 2023

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+1.63
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.05
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.40

Game by game

• BRYW 44-14 vs BRY87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +17
• MICHL 7-35 at MICH1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• VANW 40-37 vs VAN32% → 78%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +15, Possession & field position +2
• UTEPW 45-28 at UTEP46% → 97%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +55, Clock +1
• HAWW 44-20 vs HAW73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +30, Clock −1
• NEVW 45-27 at NEV70% → 98%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +39, Clock +1
• CSUW 25-23 vs CSU57% → 93%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts −2
• FRESL 24-31 at FRES24% → 4%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −1
• UNMW 56-14 at UNM81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +24, Clock +1
• WYOW 34-14 vs WYO54% → 99%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +42
• AFW 31-27 at AF40% → 97%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +57, Clock +3
• SJSUL 31-37 vs SJSU50% → 4%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −49, Clock −3
• BOISL 20-44 vs BOIS34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −40, Clock −2
• KUL 36-49 vs KU20% → 2%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −30, Clock −2

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.