Utah State

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.0940th
  Defense+0.1242nd
• 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.
  Offense40.2%16th
  Defense43.6%50th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3188th
  Defense+1.0891st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1472nd
  Defense+0.1035th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0525th
  Defense+0.1844th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.0%13th
  Defense49.0%39th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.6%47th
  Defense31.7%70th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8839th
  Defense2.9848th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.7%30th
  Defense18.5%40th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense21.0%2nd
  Defense13.1%13th

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, 2016

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
   WEB
2. L
   USC
3. W
   ARST
4. L
   AF
5. L
   BOIS
6. L
   CSU
7. W
   FRES
8. L
   SDSU
9. L
   WYO
10. L
    UNM
11. L
    NEV
12. L
    BYU

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

Players, 2016

1. Kent MyersQB372 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 52nd of 218 QBs
   1.36WAR0.82 to 1.97
2. Tonny Lindsey Jr.RB143 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 60th of 347 RBs
   0.47WAR0.34 to 0.62
3. Aaron DaltonP55 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 39th of 82 punters
   0.14WAR0.05 to 0.22
4. Ron'quavion TarverWR49 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 161st of 417 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
5. Rayshad LewisWR59 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 171st of 417 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.18
6. LaJuan HuntRB39 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 250th of 347 RBs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.11
7. Brock WarrenPK11 plays · +0.272 pts/play · 97th of 116 kickers
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.09
8. Devante MaysRB16 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 262nd of 347 RBs
   0.05WAR0.04 to 0.07

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  357357111th of 128Roster talent: 357, 111th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  118118101st of 128Recruiting: 118, 101st of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  64%64%72nd of 128Returning production: 64%, 72nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.4−4.486th of 128SP+ rating: −4.4, 86th 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, 2016

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.18 of the 0.25 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 AFQ4 15:00 4th & 17 at AF 18, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−4.0 pts
2. at NEVQ4 7:50 4th & 1 at NEV 4, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
3. at CSUQ4 6:15 4th & 10 at CSU 27, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.2 pts
4. at CSUQ4 15:00 4th & 3 at midfield, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
5. at CSUQ4 10:33 4th & 9 at CSU 36, down 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−2.1 pts
6. vs AFQ3 10:23 4th & 4 at AF 43, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
7. at NEVQ3 3:11 4th & 3 at NEV 3, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
8. vs AFQ2 10:33 4th & 2 at AF 6, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

125th 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

   WEB
2. L

   USC
3. W

   ARST
4. L

   AF
5. L

   BOIS
6. L

   CSU
7. W

   FRES
8. L

   SDSU
9. L

   WYO
10. L

    UNM
11. L

    NEV
12. L

    BYU

What moved it, 2016

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−2.41
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.09

Game by game

• WEBW 45-6 vs WEB92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• USCL 7-45 at USC17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −20
• ARSTW 34-20 vs ARST76% → 99%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
• AFL 20-27 vs AF42% → 5%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −46, Clock −3
• BOISL 10-21 at BOIS9% → 3%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −16, Timeouts −1
• CSUL 24-31 at CSU66% → 4%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −2
• FRESW 38-20 vs FRES83% → 99%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• SDSUL 13-40 vs SDSU43% → 0%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −47, Clock −1
• WYOL 28-52 at WYO40% → 0%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −1
• UNML 21-24 vs UNM56% → 22%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• NEVL 37-38 at NEV61% → 12%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts +2
• BYUL 10-28 at BYU13% → 1%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −17

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.