Utah State

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.0841st
  Defense+0.0567th
• 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.
  Offense40.8%28th
  Defense38.6%82nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2678th
  Defense+1.2043rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0856th
  Defense+0.0363rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0833rd
  Defense+0.1157th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.1%46th
  Defense44.5%67th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.7%25th
  Defense27.2%90th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6318th
  Defense2.5879th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense25.7%7th
  Defense20.2%52nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.2%34th
  Defense1.4%12th

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, 2015

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. W
   SUU
2. L
   UTAH
3. L
   WASH
4. W
   CSU
5. W
   FRES
6. W
   BOIS
7. L
   SDSU
8. W
   WYO
9. L
   UNM
10. L
    AF
11. W
    NEV
12. L
    BYU
13. L
    AKR

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

Players, 2015

1. Kent MyersQB242 plays · +0.264 pts/play · 79th of 205 QBs
   1.20WAR0.72 to 1.65
2. Chuckie KeetonQB184 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 127th of 205 QBs
   0.59WAR0.27 to 0.89
3. Devante MaysRB140 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 53rd of 333 RBs
   0.34WAR0.24 to 0.45
4. Hunter SharpWR98 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 39th of 411 WRs
   0.25WAR0.10 to 0.43
5. LaJuan HuntRB86 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 144th of 333 RBs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.24
6. Aaron DaltonP50 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 49th of 92 punters
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.15
7. Devonte RobinsonWR21 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 343rd of 411 WRs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.07
8. Dax RaymondTE6 plays · −0.019 pts/play · 40th of 189 TEs
   0.00WAR−0.01 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 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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  331331114th of 128Roster talent: 331, 114th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  111111106th of 128Recruiting: 111, 106th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  49%49%84th of 127Returning production: 49%, 84th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −0.1−0.176th of 128SP+ rating: −0.1, 76th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2015

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 of the 0.20 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 SDSUQ3 8:44 4th & 1 at USU 40, down 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
2. at UTAHQ2 3:52 4th & 1 at UTAH 46, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. at UTAHQ3 13:10 4th & 1 at USU 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. at FRESQ2 4:45 4th & 4 at FRES 41, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. at UNMQ4 11:47 4th & 3 at UNM 24, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. at UNMQ2 6:10 4th & 2 at UNM 7, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. at UNMQ3 4:22 4th & 1 at USU 24, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. vs CSUQ2 7:35 4th & 1 at USU 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

113th 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. W

   SUU
2. L

   UTAH
3. L

   WASH
4. W

   CSU
5. W

   FRES
6. W

   BOIS
7. L

   SDSU
8. W

   WYO
9. L

   UNM
10. L

    AF
11. W

    NEV
12. L

    BYU
13. L

    AKR

What moved it, 2015

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−0.80
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.61

Game by game

• SUUW 12-9 vs SUU73% → 94%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
• UTAHL 14-24 at UTAH19% → 5%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −24, Possession & field position +1
• WASHL 17-31 at WASH37% → 2%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −35, Possession & field position −1
• CSUW 33-18 vs CSU68% → 99%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +1
• FRESW 56-14 at FRES74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +32
• BOISW 52-26 vs BOIS28% → 100%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +72: Scoreboard +58, Possession & field position +1
• SDSUL 14-48 at SDSU58% → 0%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −53, Timeouts +1
• WYOW 58-27 vs WYO93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• UNML 13-14 at UNM81% → 24%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −17, Possession & field position +3
• AFL 28-35 at AF53% → 3%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −2
• NEVW 31-27 vs NEV82% → 92%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +18, Possession & field position +2
• BYUL 28-51 vs BYU41% → 1%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −46, Clock −2
• AKRL 21-23 vs AKR68% → 14%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −43, Clock −4

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.