Utah State

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.1343rd
  Defense+0.0392nd
• 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.
  Offense39.3%18th
  Defense36.2%94th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3188th
  Defense+1.2145th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1257th
  Defense+0.0274th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1633rd
  Defense+0.0694th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.1%27th
  Defense41.0%93rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.5%13th
  Defense27.5%91st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6627th
  Defense2.6574th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense25.4%7th
  Defense21.4%68th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.7%70th
  Defense2.1%58th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 State 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
   TENN
2. W
   IDST
3. W
   WAKE
4. L
   ARST
5. W
   BYU
6. W
   AF
7. L
   CSU
8. W
   UNLV
9. W
   HAW
10. W
    WYO
11. W
    UNM
12. W
    SJSU
13. L
    BOIS
14. W
    UTEP

Bars above the line: better than expected for Utah State.

Players, 2014

1. Darell GarretsonQB134 plays · +0.295 pts/play · 124th of 199 QBs
   0.74WAR0.50 to 0.96
2. Kent MyersQB139 plays · +0.270 pts/play · 126th of 199 QBs
   0.70WAR0.42 to 0.97
3. Hunter SharpWR96 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 44th of 469 WRs
   0.25WAR0.09 to 0.42
4. Chuckie KeetonQB59 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 160th of 199 QBs
   0.21WAR0.11 to 0.30
5. Craig HarrisonQB45 plays · +0.225 pts/play · 164th of 199 QBs
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.28
6. LaJuan HuntRB79 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 142nd of 350 RBs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.22
7. Joe HillRB74 plays · +0.081 pts/play · 201st of 350 RBs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.18
8. JoJo NatsonWR103 plays · +0.053 pts/play · 197th of 469 WRs
   0.10WAR0.01 to 0.22

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 State'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 9 clear-cut ones account for 0.14 of the 0.23 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 ARSTQ3 9:42 4th & 8 at USU 22, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.5 pts
2. vs WAKEQ4 9:40 4th & 1 at WAKE 9, up 12Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
3. at ARSTQ2 6:31 4th & 3 at ARST 37, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. at HAWQ2 1:36 4th & 2 at HAW 44, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. at WYOQ4 6:04 4th & 1 at WYO 11, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. at WYOQ2 12:15 4th & 1 at USU 21, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. at CSUQ2 4:50 4th & 1 at USU 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. at TENNQ3 11:31 4th & 3 at TENN 30, down 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

16th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. L

   TENN
2. W

   IDST
3. W

   WAKE
4. L

   ARST
5. W

   BYU
6. W

   AF
7. L

   CSU
8. W

   UNLV
9. W

   HAW
10. W

    WYO
11. W

    UNM
12. W

    SJSU
13. L

    BOIS
14. W

    UTEP

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Utah State'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+2.07
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.08
• Timeouts+0.29
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.31

Game by game

• TENNL 7-38 at TENN29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −31
• IDSTW 40-20 vs IDST98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• WAKEW 36-24 vs WAKE80% → 98%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +1
• ARSTL 14-21 at ARST47% → 35%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −11: Timeouts +24, Clock −15
• BYUW 35-20 at BYU8% → 98%Before kickoff −42 · On the field +90: Scoreboard +59, Clock +2
• AFW 34-16 vs AF69% → 99%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +1
• CSUL 13-16 at CSU33% → 5%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −30, Possession & field position −1
• UNLVW 34-20 vs UNLV88% → 99%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• HAWW 35-14 at HAW59% → 99%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +46, Clock +2
• WYOW 20-3 at WYO65% → 99%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +41, Clock +2
• UNMW 28-21 vs UNM84% → 97%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +1
• SJSUW 41-7 vs SJSU73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +1
• BOISL 19-50 at BOIS24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −25
• UTEPW 21-6 at UTEP76% → 98%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +34, Clock +1

Points of win probability, from Utah State's side.

Closest call

SJSU 25-30 USU (2025) - Utah State dropped to a 0.5% win probability before pulling it out.