UNLV

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.0726th
  Defense+0.0272nd
• 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.
  Offense37.0%9th
  Defense38.6%67th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2655th
  Defense+1.2545th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0534th
  Defense+0.0549th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1431st
  Defense+0.0478th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.5%18th
  Defense43.8%72nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense22.1%7th
  Defense29.2%49th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0041st
  Defense3.512nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.4%50th
  Defense15.8%28th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.7%35th
  Defense16.9%64th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   MEM
2. W
   HAW
3. L
   UNT
4. W
   AKR
5. W
   CAL
6. W
   NDSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for UNLV.

Players, 2026

1. Jackson ArnoldQB225 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 16th of 192 QBs
   0.49WAR0.12 to 0.86
2. Jai'Den ThomasRB105 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 11th of 320 RBs
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.27
3. Taz ReddicksWR22 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 150th of 364 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.08
4. Keyan BurnettTE23 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 19th of 164 TEs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.08
5. Ramon VillelaPK8 plays · +0.278 pts/play · 16th of 82 kickers
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
6. Taeshaun LyonsWR13 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 185th of 364 WRs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.06
7. Matt ChoulesP28 plays · +0.048 pts/play · 21st of 84 punters
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.06
8. Jaylon GloverRB17 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 243rd of 320 RBs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03

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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  69669656th of 138Roster talent: 696, 56th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  144144110th of 138Recruiting: 144, 110th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  15%15%107th of 136Returning production: 15%, 107th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −0.9−0.974th of 138SP+ rating so far: −0.9, 74th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 0.06 of the 0.07 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 MEMQ3 6:07 4th & 16 at MEM 33, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.6 pts
2. at HAWQ4 6:39 4th & 3 at midfield, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. vs MEMQ4 6:08 4th & 7 at MEM 18, down 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
4. vs NDSUQ3 0:50 4th & 10 at NDSU 39, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. at AKRQ3 6:26 4th & 4 at AKR 21, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs NDSUQ1 4:53 4th & 4 at NDSU 28, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs CALQ2 5:22 4th & 5 at UNLV 38, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs MEMQ1 8:32 4th & 2 at MEM 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

46th of 138 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

   MEM
2. W

   HAW
3. L

   UNT
4. W

   AKR
5. W

   CAL
6. W

   NDSU

What moved it, 2026

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+0.50
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts+0.03
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.08

Game by game

• MEML 21-27 vs MEM65% → 8%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −47, Possession & field position −4
• HAWW 21-6 at HAW55% → 99%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +49, Clock +3
• UNTL 6-44 at UNT63% → 0%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −56
• AKRW 38-10 at AKR78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +27, Clock +1
• CALW 39-31 vs CAL52% → 98%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +2
• NDSUW 13-7 vs NDSU45% → 96%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +38, 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.