Utah

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+0.3897th
  Defense−0.0381st
• 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.
  Offense52.9%96th
  Defense34.0%91st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3175th
  Defense+1.3323rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.3499th
  Defense−0.0782nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4589th
  Defense0.0085th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense55.2%90th
  Defense37.6%95th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense45.3%98th
  Defense28.6%54th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4886th
  Defense2.5685th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.0%19th
  Defense25.0%88th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.8%74th
  Defense19.4%84th

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 Utah 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
   IDHO
2. W
   ARK
3. W
   USU
4. W
   ISU
5. W
   KU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Utah.

Players, 2026

1. Devon DampierQB94 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 50th of 192 QBs
   0.34WAR0.18 to 0.48
2. Wayshawn ParkerRB39 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 78th of 320 RBs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
3. Braden PeganWR20 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 136th of 364 WRs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.08
4. Byrd FicklinQB10 plays · +0.288 pts/play · 163rd of 192 QBs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.10
5. Creed WhittemoreWR12 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 241st of 364 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.04
6. Daniel BrayRB10 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 250th of 320 RBs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.02
7. Dillon CurtisPK2 plays · +0.226 pts/play · 76th of 82 kickers
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01
8. Orion PhillipsP4 plays · +0.073 pts/play · 51st of 84 punters
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01

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 Utah'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.
  69669658th of 138Roster talent: 696, 58th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21421433rd of 138Recruiting: 214, 33rd of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  68%68%28th of 136Returning production: 68%, 28th 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.
  +23.5+23.57th of 138SP+ rating so far: +23.5, 7th 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 Utah's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.01 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 ARKQ1 1:09 4th & 2 at UTAH 34, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
2. at ISUQ3 5:31 4th & 6 at ISU 40, up 27Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
3. at ISUQ1 8:06 4th & 2 at UTAH 35, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
4. at ISUQ4 8:50 4th & 2 at UTAH 38, up 27Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
5. vs IDHOQ1 5:12 4th & 1 at UTAH 33, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
6. vs KUQ2 7:28 4th & 4 at UTAH 43, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. vs IDHOQ1 10:40 4th & 4 at IDHO 6, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
8. vs USUQ4 13:06 4th & 2 at UTAH 16, up 33Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

39th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Utah's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   IDHO
2. W

   ARK
3. W

   USU
4. W

   ISU
5. W

   KU

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Utah'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+0.71
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.20

Game by game

• IDHOW 66-14 vs IDHO99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• ARKW 43-10 vs ARK85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +18
• USUW 33-0 vs USU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• ISUW 31-17 at ISU77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +28, Clock +1
• KUW 41-24 vs KU89% → 99%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +16, Timeouts +1

Points of win probability, from Utah's side.

Closest call

KSU 47-51 UTAH (2025) - Utah dropped to a 8.1% win probability before pulling it out.