CFB 360 is currently a work in progress! Learn more about our unbiased ranking engine & upcoming Player Recruiting Hub

Composite projection engine

Matchup Simulator

Away team (Team A)
MEM logo
Home team (Team B)
UNLV logo
ABC| Sat 1:30 PM MT
MEM logoMemphis
2-1 ยท 65.3 PWR
75%

MEM win probability

Projected line: MEM -4.6

UNLV logoUNLV
1-2 ยท 57.9 PWR

Positional unit index โ€” 0 to 100 scale

50 = FBS average ยท 72+ = Top 25 level ยท 90+ = elite national top five. Week 3 weighting: 60% preseason roster talent + 40% live 2026 game EPA.

55QB vs QB46

+3.8 MEM advantage โ€” 9-point index gap over UNLV (passing EPA per play, completion rate and yards per attempt). MEM FBS average.

54WR Room vs WR Room49

+2.1 MEM advantage โ€” 5-point index gap over UNLV (explosive pass rate and yards per target). MEM FBS average.

54RB Room vs RB Room53

+0.4 MEM advantage โ€” 1-point index gap over UNLV (yards per carry, line yards and rush EPA). MEM FBS average.

54Run Blocking vs Run Defense46

+3.4 MEM advantage โ€” 8-point index gap over UNLV (line yards against stuff rate). MEM FBS average.

53Offensive Line vs Pass Rush52

+0.4 MEM advantage โ€” 1-point index gap over UNLV (pass-block win rate against pressure rate). MEM FBS average.

55Pass Game vs Coverage53

+0.8 MEM advantage โ€” 2-point index gap over UNLV (passing EPA against coverage efficiency). MEM FBS average.

53Pass Rush vs Offensive Line46

+2.9 MEM advantage โ€” 7-point index gap over UNLV (pressure differential in the trenches). MEM FBS average.

49Coverage vs Pass Game48

+0.4 MEM advantage โ€” 1-point index gap over UNLV (coverage grade against target efficiency). MEM FBS average.

Projections use opponent-adjusted efficiency, SOS, and unit-level grades derived from live 2026 team data.