Skip to content

UNLV Rebels

Mountain West·1-2·
Elo
1589#42
SP+
2.3#62
FPI
2.3
AP
NR
Next@ Akron · Wk 4Win prob 65%Model -6.4
Talent #56 (696.0)Recruiting class #6315% production returning

Roster · 108 players

FR 51SO 15JR 16SR 26
#PlayerPosClHtWt
1Alex OrjiQBSR6'3"240
11Jackson ArnoldQBSR6'1"220
13Sebastian CircoQBFR6'2"195
14Derek GarciaQBFR6'4"205
0Jaylon GloverRBSR5'9"210
9Jai'Den ThomasRBSR5'9"195
22Skylar VannRBFR5'11"190
23Kamran WilliamsRBFR5'10"185
24Darrien JonesRBJR6'0"215
29Mohammad MaaliRBSR5'11"210
2Taz ReddicksWRJR5'11"195
4DeAngelo Irvin Jr.WRSR5'8"170
5Tavian McNairWRFR6'2"185
6Kayden McGeeWRSO6'0"170
8Taeshaun LyonsWRJR6'1"190
10Troy StellatoWRSR6'1"195
15Tatum Bell Jr.WRFR6'0"205
17Amorion WalkerWRSR6'4"190
19Danny BodenWRFR6'0"180
80Jesse HardenWRFR6'3"185
81Vincent CarnerWRFR6'4"205
82Peyton ZacharyWRFR5'8"170
83Cassidee MilesWRFR6'5"190
86David Titone-PerezWRSO6'0"170
87Demari NunleyWRFR6'3"195
41Aveon WilliamsTEFR6'5"265
43Jae Beasley IITEJR6'3"250
84Keyan BurnettTESR6'6"250
85Matt ByrnesTESR6'6"250
88Velltray JeffersonTESR6'5"260
89Andreas Diaz-NicolaidisTEFR6'3"250
50Tevita TausingaOLFR6'5"350
55Griffin ScroggsOLSR6'3"330
57Zach ScottOLFR6'5"325
60Josh HaneyOLFR6'4"280
61Fuad MaaliOLFR6'6"285
62Eli SanchezOLFR6'3"300
64Joe MetzgerOLSR6'5"310
65Ace RobinsonOLFR6'4"285
66BJ ToloOLJR6'1"320
67Malik WhiteOLFR6'5"305
68Ivan PenaOLFR6'6"345
70Alekai AfoaOLJR6'4"295
71Ed HaynesOLSO6'4"310
72Will ThomasOLSR6'7"305
73Jesus Garcia IIOLFR6'5"290
74Amare TaaseOLSO6'4"330
75Mateo BilaverOLFR6'6"315
76Chrysanthos FetokakisOLFR6'5"335
77Colton ThomassonOLJR6'8"325
78Jackson BrownOLJR6'6"310
79Austin BoydOLSR6'4"305
32Kenji ScanlanDESO6'2"245
42Andre PorterDESO6'2"245
0Cohen FullerDLSR6'3"300
9Landen ThomasDLJR6'3"255
16Mohamed AltayebDLSR6'4"290
40Armand AusbonDLJR6'3"250
44Kal-El TogafauDLFR6'3"270
48CJ BesserDLFR6'3"245
54Poe PurcellDLFR6'3"320
88Mo AbbasherDLJR6'3"305
90Eliah LogoDLFR6'2"310
92Herb GrayDLSO6'3"275
94Lucas ContiDLJR6'5"295
95Bryce WatersDLFR6'4"320
96Prin FoxDLFR6'2"280
97Bryce RobinsonDLFR6'3"280
99Jordan CovingtonDLFR6'4"290
3Dee CraytonLBSR6'2"230
8Kamuela Ka'aihueLBSR6'2"240
11Mark IheanachorLBFR6'2"220
15Blesyng Alualu-TuiolemotuLBJR6'1"220
23Cam SanteeLBSR6'3"235
30Jordan NjokuLBFR6'3"235
31Ronnell Hewitt Jr.LBFR6'1"225
33Tate MatthewsLBFR6'2"215
36Justin FloweLBSR6'2"230
45Cole AlbrechtLBFR6'4"245
51Alexander GreenLBFR6'2"235
52Jacob BezaLBSO6'0"235
91Elias RudolphLBSO6'5"205
1Mumu Bin-WahadDBSR5'11"190
2Denver HarrisDBSR6'0"190
4Tony-Louis NkubaDBSO6'1"195
5Quandarius KeyesDBSR6'1"185
10Tre FultonDBSO6'3"190
13Jaylen AllenDBSO6'0"185
19Tylen MathewsDBFR6'0"185
21Joshua TuchekDBFR6'1"175
22Darien LewisDBFR6'0"205
24Avery HelmDBSR6'1"185
27Cameron ParodiDBFR6'2"200
28Vern BlairDBFR6'0"170
29AJ MortonDBFR6'0"190
37Triston ThomasDBFR5'9"180
7Jake PopeSSR6'1"200
14Logan ChristensenSSO6'0"200
20Landyn ClevelandSJR6'0"190
25Brock DeFriesSFR5'10"190
32Ramon VillelaPKJR6'2"210
35Brayden BakerPKFR6'0"170
49Noah RandazzoPKFR5'11"185
26Matt ChoulesPFR6'3"225
39Ethan SchwartzPSO6'5"205
46Mason SenzakiLSFR6'1"205
47Tyson JacobsonLSJR6'0"215
56Andrew O'ReillyLSSO6'4"210

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
16.0
scoring offense
Points allowed
25.7
scoring defense
Differential
-9.7
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
375.0#88
Yards / play
5.3#109
Passing yards / game
203.3#93
Rushing yards / game
171.7#67
First downs / game
19.7#86
3rd down %
36.2%#93
4th down %
30.0%#106
Time of possession
30:16#72
Defense
Yards allowed / game
386.0#107
Yards / play allowed
5.7#103
Pass yards allowed / game
220.0#91
Rush yards allowed / game
166.0#110
3rd down % allowed
43.2%#104
Sacks
7#11
Tackles for loss
12#52
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
-2#108
Takeaways
2#75
Giveaways
4#105
Penalties / game
7.0#76
Penalty yards / game
66.0#104

Rank is national among all FBS teams (#1 = best), oriented so higher rank = better even for defensive and discipline metrics. Bars show percentile.

Scouting Report · 3 games in

pass-leaning

UNLV throws it: Dan Mullen's offenses have been pass-leaning across 6 seasons. The way in is 137th at holding the line of scrimmage, and they are 135th at defending the run.

On fourth down he goes for it about as often as his peers do from the same spots (−0.6%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −31.4% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

UNLV has played 3 games against an average slate, adjusted for here. That football carries about 31% of what is below; the rest is still the preseason projection.

Soft spots

  • Defensethe push the line gets
    3.79
    #137 of 138
  • Defenserunning it
    +0.22
    #135 of 138
  • Defenseturning trips inside the 40 into points
    4.12
    #123 of 138

Each bar is where this team sits in the country. Before the season has produced enough football these are PROJECTIONS — last season regressed to the mean, plus talent, returning production, recruiting and whether the staff is the same one — and the season replaces them as it is played. Head coaches only — there is no free feed for coordinators, so on a program where the head coach does not call the offense this describes the staff he hired. Play-calling identity is a style, not a grade: throwing more than the situations warrant is not better than throwing less than they warrant.

2026 Season Projection

model win prob · 9 to play
7.64.4
projected final record (now 12)
Exp. wins left
6.6
of 9 games
Bowl odds
95%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
95%
vs Northern Illinois
Toughest
47%
vs New Mexico

How the season could finish · 2026 · chance of each final win total · 9 games left

Every remaining game simulated from the model's win probability for it. Tallest bar is the single likeliest finish, not a prediction that it happens.

12345678910
final winstallest bar = 31% chance
Likeliest finish 8-4 (31%)Bowl eligible 95% · marked on the axis at 6

Player Value

EPA contribution by position group + estimated NIL market value (derived from position rates and on-field production — not actual deal figures).

Unit Value — Total EPA
QBAlex Orji, Jackson Arnold
+26.0 EPA
WRAmorion Walker, Tastean Reddicks +6
+15.3 EPA
TEKeyan Burnett, Matt Byrnes +2
+5.4 EPA
RBJaylon Glover, Darrien Jones +1
-11.0 EPA

Total EPA produced by each positional group this season. OL value is captured via the rush/pass efficiency of skill players; OL-specific EPA isn't separately reported.

Estimated NIL Market Value
ESTIMATED
EPA +25.40.194/play131 snaps

Estimated from position-group market rates and on-field EPA contribution. Actual NIL valuations depend on social media following, brand fit, and market negotiations — these figures are directional only.

The Five Factors

ranked vs. FBS · bar = better
Efficiency (PPA)
Off0.0410th#124
Def0.1927th#101
Explosiveness
Off1.1834th#91
Def1.2554th#64
Field position
Off72.877th#33
Def72.945th#76
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off2.7315th#117
Def4.1220th#110
Turnovers
Won 2Lost 4
Margin -2

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
Defense
Off · pass
0.1315th#118
Off · rush
0.0424th#105

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.0423rd#107
Def0.2215th#117
Passing
Off0.1314th#119
Def0.2149th#71

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
3.00#75
2nd-level / open-field
1.05 / 1.49
Power / stuff (off)
68.8% / 15.0%
Havoc — total (def)
15.1%#82
Havoc — front 7 / DB
7.3% / 7.8%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.07
Def0.12
Pass downs
Off-0.02
Def0.31

PPA on each down type (off vs. def).

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense0.10#660.03#1040.29#109
Defense0.18#1240.06#530.45#85

Elo Trajectory

MemphisFinal
Elo rating 15811485-96 over season

Team Fingerprint · 2026 · 43 opponent-adjusted metrics · percentile vs 138 FBS teams

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.1231st
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.1142nd
  • Offense success rate35%19th
  • Defense success rate allowed40%39th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs45%36th
  • Offense success — passing downs18%10th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs47%36th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs26%54th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.480th
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.258th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs1.288th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs2.273rd

Trenches

  • Offense line yards3.255th
  • Defense line yards allowed3.93rd
  • Offense highlight yards2.182nd
  • Defense highlight yards allowed1.231st
  • Offense power success0.7550th
  • Defense power success allowed0.8042nd
  • Offense stuff rate0.1556th
  • Defense stuff rate0.1212th

Third down

  • Third down conversion33%26th
  • Third down distance faced7.819th
  • Third down conversion allowed38%47th
  • Third down distance forced7.455th

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half0.0443rd
  • Net success rate — second half-0.1120th

Drives

  • Points per drive1.846th
  • Points per drive allowed1.466th
  • Average starting field position2635th
  • Opponent starting field position2387th
  • Available yards gained50%55th
  • Available yards allowed45%60th
  • Scoring opportunities per drive87%63rd
  • Scoring opportunities allowed74%65th
  • Points per scoring opportunity2.132nd
  • Points allowed per opportunity1.970th
  • Three-and-out rate22%60th
  • Three-and-outs forced35%71st

Roster

  • Returning usage27%29th
  • Returning EPA66.135th
  • Team talent composite69660th
  • Recruiting class rank63.055th
  • Recruiting class points19655th

Every metric is opponent-adjusted and ranked so that higher is always better — a defensive rate that is good when low is ranked accordingly. Sack and tackle-for-loss composition are deliberately absent: their relationship to team quality is a measured null, so they carry a style rather than a rank, and they appear in the pressure signature instead.

Intelligence Report

Offensive DNA

Balanced offense — below average EPA/play nationally
EPA/play
+0.041#124 · bottom 20%
Pass EPA/play
+0.128#119
Rush EPA/play
+0.043#107
Explosiveness
1.182#91
Pts/opportunity
2.73#117
Success rate
36.3%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.085 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

Disruptive defense — allowing above-average EPA/play
EPA/play allowed
+0.186#101 · below avg
Havoc rate (total)
15.1%#82
Front-7 havoc
7.3%
DB havoc
7.8%
Big play rate allowed
1.245#64
Success rate allowed
41.4%

Disruption comes primarily from the secondary.

📊

Season Signature

16.0 PPG offense, 25.7 allowed — -9.7 margin/game
Points per game
16.0
Points allowed/game
25.7
Scoring margin/game
-9.7
Turnover margin
-2won 2 · lost 4
Production returning
15%
Talent rank (247)
#56

1-2 record through 3 games.

Team Shape · percentile vs. FBS · dashed = 50th

OFFENSE10thEXPLOSIVENESS34thFINISHING15thFIELD POS77thDEFENSE27thHAVOC41th50th100th
Offense
10th
Explosiveness
34th
Finishing
15th
Field Pos
77th
Defense
27th
Havoc
41th

Each axis = national percentile rank. 100th = best in FBS, 0th = worst. Defense and Havoc are oriented so higher = better.

The season, week by week · 2026

A season-long average is taken over a period during which the team changed. This is the same numbers as a trajectory, so a mid-season turn is visible instead of averaged away.

Offense EPA/play 0.091 in the second half
-0.150.000.16112

Line is the season-to-date average — the number the rest of this page reports. Bars are the individual weeks that moved it.

Defense EPA allowed 0.091 in the second half
-0.060.200.46112

Line is the season-to-date average — the number the rest of this page reports. Bars are the individual weeks that moved it.

Offense success rate 0.049 in the second half
0.330.360.39112

Line is the season-to-date average — the number the rest of this page reports. Bars are the individual weeks that moved it.

Defense success allowed 0.073 in the second half
0.330.400.47112

Line is the season-to-date average — the number the rest of this page reports. Bars are the individual weeks that moved it.

CORE efficiency · situation and opponent removed

Points per 100 plays above average, after the game state is regressed out of every snap and the schedule is solved out across the whole league. The version of this team’s efficiency that can be compared to a team it never played.

Overall
+0.3
#68
Offense
-3.3
#97
Defense
-3.6
#53
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 23 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive1.831.44
Starting field positionown 25.6own 23.0
Available yards49.5%45.3%
Scoring opportunities87.0%73.9%
Points per opportunity2.101.94
Three-and-out rate21.7%34.8%
Every team’s drive efficiency →

Play-calling identity

Against what the league calls from the same down, distance, field position, score and clock — so this is the staff, not the game script.

Pass rate
42.9%
Expected, given the spots
50.0%
Over expected
-7.2
Fourth down vs peers
+12
Fourth down vs the model
+10
All play-calling tendencies →

National Landscape · 2026 FBS · offense vs. defense EPA/play

Each dot = one FBS team. UNLV is highlighted. Tap or hover a dot for details.

ELITEDEF. FORTRESSOFF. POWERHOUSEREBUILDING-0.100.00+0.10+0.20+0.30-0.050.00+0.10+0.20Offensive EPA/play← worsebetter →Defensive EPA allowed/play← worsebetter →

Similar Programs

Teams with the closest offense + defense efficiency profile to UNLV in 2026

by EPA/play distance
Georgia TechSP+ +1.7
Off EPA/play +0.041Def EPA/play +0.188Elo 1553
Match
100%
Hawai'iSP+ -7.0
Off EPA/play +0.039Def EPA/play +0.202Elo 1426
Match
99%
CaliforniaSP+ -3.4
Off EPA/play +0.057Def EPA/play +0.169Elo 1349
Match
99%
WyomingSP+ -15.2
Off EPA/play +0.071Def EPA/play +0.169Elo 1300
Match
98%
RiceSP+ -10.4
Off EPA/play +0.060Def EPA/play +0.229Elo 1196
Match
97%
Oklahoma StateSP+ +1.1
Off EPA/play -0.018Def EPA/play +0.169Elo 1212
Match
96%

Similarity = normalized Euclidean distance on season offensive and defensive EPA/play. Teams within ±0.02 EPA/play on both units score >90%.

Program Trajectory · CORE rating · 20152026 · points per game vs an average FBS team

2015: -15.8, #104 of 1282016: -14.8, #105 of 1282017: -17.2, #113 of 1302018: -18.3, #114 of 1302019: -17.3, #116 of 1302020: -19.8, #116 of 1242021: -10.5, #99 of 1302022: -13.1, #108 of 1312023: -3.5, #80 of 1332024: +7.5, #40 of 1342025: -1.9, #69 of 1362026: +0.3, #68 of 138
20152026
Now +0.3 · #68 of 138Best +7.5 in 2024Worst -19.8 in 2020

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20261-21-0
33%
1.0-0.0
202510-46-2
71%
9.0+1.0
202411-36-2
79%
10.9+0.1
20239-56-3
64%
8.4+0.6
20225-73-5
42%
5.6-0.6
20212-102-6
17%
3.1-1.1
20200-60-6
0%
0.6-0.6
20194-82-6
33%
4.8-0.8
20184-82-6
33%
3.7+0.3
20175-74-4
42%
4.8+0.2

xW = expected wins from per-game dominance. Luck = actual − expected (positive = won close games).

6.1%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

1-1 so far, projected to finish 9.0-3.6. Wins the Mountain West in 35%.

If they finish with…

54%
1 loss
10%
2 losses
0.0%
3 losses
0%
4 losses

Their chance of making it at each final loss count. Better than even up to 1.

Win out and it is 54%. One bid goes to the best champion outside the four power leagues, so running the table only enters them into that argument.

down 6.8 points since preseasonlost 21-27 to Memphis against an expected margin of +6, so 0.5 against the number.

  • At 2 losses they are 10% where the average Mountain West team is 6.6%.
  • The Mountain West takes 0.23 bids in an average season.
  • One bid goes to the best champion outside the P4. They take it in 6.0% of seasons, having won their league in 98% of those.
  • The 2026 format is worth 0.7 points to them against the 2025 one.

UNLV’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk11at New Mexico11.3
  • wk7at Air Force9.1
  • wk5vs California8.1
  • wk13vs Nevada7.7
  • wk2at North Texas7.2
  • wk12at San José State7.1

Who to root for

Games UNLV is not in that move its odds most. Same units, much smaller scale.

  • wk9Texas State over Boise State2.0
  • wk5Charlotte over Memphis1.7
  • wk9Notre Dame over Navy1.6
  • wk8Washington State over Boise State1.6
  • wk6Fresno State over Boise State1.5
  • wk10Colorado State over Boise State1.3
The full playoff picture →

Mountain West

1-0 in league play, projected 6.3-1.71 of 10 by title odds
35%
Wins the Mountain West
60%
Reaches the title game

The Mountain West sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 35% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk11UNLV at New Mexico35.1
  • wk7UNLV at Air Force30.8
  • wk13Nevada at UNLV29.0
  • wk9Northern Illinois at UNLV24.6

Points of title probability riding on each result. The whole Mountain West race →

If not the playoff, then

96%
Bowl eligible
90%
Placed in a bowl
6.1%
In the playoff
3.9%
Season over in November

UNLV is 1-1 and needs 5 more wins from 10 games to reach the six that make a team eligible — at most one of which may come against an FCS opponent.

  • LA Bowl28%
  • New Mexico Bowl20%
  • Arizona Bowl9.4%
  • Independence Bowl8.9%
  • Frisco Bowl5.2%
  • Cure Bowl4.6%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 6 have sent UNLV a player since 2010 — 36 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of UNLV's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
LibertyNV120
Bishop GormanNV110
North ShoreTX40
ChaminadeCA30
De La SalleCA30
SaguaroAZ30
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.