UNLV

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.2589th
  Defense+0.1532nd
• 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.
  Offense46.8%87th
  Defense44.3%24th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3381st
  Defense+1.3316th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2191st
  Defense+0.1710th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3279th
  Defense+0.2040th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.4%79th
  Defense50.2%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.
  Offense36.4%87th
  Defense31.0%36th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1985th
  Defense3.1518th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.5%53rd
  Defense17.0%25th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.0%39th
  Defense14.9%36th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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. W
   SHSU
3. W
   UCLA
4. W
   M-OH
5. W
   WYO
6. W
   AF
7. L
   BOIS
8. L
   UNM
9. W
   CSU
10. W
    USU
11. W
    HAW
12. W
    NEV
13. L
    BOIS
14. L
    OHIO

Bars above the line: better than expected for UNLV.

Players, 2025

1. Anthony ColandreaQB451 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 37th of 231 QBs
   1.52WAR0.71 to 2.38
2. Jai'Den ThomasRB163 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 48th of 365 RBs
   0.29WAR0.17 to 0.42
3. Keyvone LeeRB96 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 156th of 365 RBs
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.21
4. Jaden BradleyWR85 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 114th of 451 WRs
   0.16WAR0.01 to 0.30
5. Troy OmeireWR31 plays · +0.238 pts/play · 137th of 451 WRs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.19
6. Daejon ReynoldsWR37 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 167th of 451 WRs
   0.11WAR0.03 to 0.19
7. Ramon VillelaPK16 plays · +0.336 pts/play · 32nd of 112 kickers
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
8. Var'Keyes GummsTE13 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 128th of 213 TEs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  70170151st of 134Roster talent: 701, 51st of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  125125113th of 134Recruiting: 125, 113th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  15%15%108th of 132Returning production: 15%, 108th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.3+4.356th of 134SP+ rating: +4.3, 56th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.14 of the 0.17 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 M-OHQ4 0:15 4th & 5 at M-OH 5, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−8.6 pts
2. vs AFQ3 5:25 4th & 2 at AF 2, down 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.5 pts
3. at BOISQ3 10:42 4th & 1 at UNLV 37, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. at SHSUQ3 1:38 4th & 1 at UNLV 29, up 22Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs USUQ3 4:32 4th & 6 at USU 9, down 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at M-OHQ2 1:45 4th & 12 at M-OH 35, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at WYOQ4 12:41 4th & 5 at WYO 44, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at BOISQ4 12:31 4th & 2 at UNLV 33, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

20th of 136 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. W

   SHSU
3. W

   UCLA
4. W

   M-OH
5. W

   WYO
6. W

   AF
7. L

   BOIS
8. L

   UNM
9. W

   CSU
10. W

    USU
11. W

    HAW
12. W

    NEV
13. L

    BOIS
14. L

    OHIO

What moved it, 2025

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+0.67
• Possession & field position−0.10
• Clock+0.14
• Timeouts−0.40
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.85

Game by game

• IDSTW 38-31 vs IDST97% → 1%Before kickoff +47 · On the field −96: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −19
• SHSUW 38-21 at SHSU74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +7
• UCLAW 30-23 vs UCLA43% → 98%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +44, Possession & field position −1
• M-OHW 41-38 at M-OH56% → 2%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −2
• WYOW 31-17 at WYO55% → 99%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +48, Clock +2
• AFW 51-48 vs AF69% → 68%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +9, Possession & field position −5
• BOISL 31-56 at BOIS15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts +1
• UNML 35-40 vs UNM69% → 9%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −47, Possession & field position −3
• CSUW 42-10 at CSU60% → 100%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +46, Clock +2
• USUW 29-26 vs USU62% → 84%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts −22
• HAWW 38-10 vs HAW56% → 100%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +43
• NEVW 42-17 at NEV69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• BOISL 21-38 at BOIS29% → 1%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −34, Clock +3
• OHIOL 10-17 at OHIO63% → 3%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −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.