Utah State

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0326th
  Defense−0.0181st
• 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.
  Offense41.5%35th
  Defense41.6%53rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2364th
  Defense+1.0295th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0446th
  Defense+0.0167th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0525th
  Defense−0.0190th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.5%52nd
  Defense46.5%50th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.6%19th
  Defense31.3%64th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0273rd
  Defense3.249th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.8%60th
  Defense15.9%13th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.0%26th
  Defense14.3%22nd

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   WIS
2. W
   IDST
3. L
   WAKE
4. W
   SJSU
5. W
   BYU
6. L
   CSU
7. L
   WYO
8. W
   UNLV
9. L
   BOIS
10. W
    UNM
11. W
    HAW
12. L
    AF
13. L
    NMSU

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

Players, 2017

1. Jordan LoveQB207 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 111th of 226 QBs
   0.61WAR0.29 to 0.98
2. Kent MyersQB178 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 136th of 226 QBs
   0.41WAR0.14 to 0.70
3. LaJuan HuntRB169 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 99th of 352 RBs
   0.29WAR0.15 to 0.43
4. Ron'quavion TarverWR52 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 141st of 426 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
5. Aaron DaltonP58 plays · +0.064 pts/play · 31st of 95 punters
   0.07WAR−0.03 to 0.17
6. Dominik EberlePK16 plays · +0.224 pts/play · 85th of 110 kickers
   0.07WAR0.00 to 0.14
7. Braelon RobertsWR24 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 319th of 426 WRs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
8. Dax RaymondTE48 plays · +0.020 pts/play · 38th of 199 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.04 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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  330330111th of 130Roster talent: 330, 111th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  118118100th of 130Recruiting: 118, 100th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  66%66%54th of 128Returning production: 66%, 54th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −3.3−3.383rd of 128SP+ rating: −3.3, 83rd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 12 clear-cut ones account for 0.33 of the 0.37 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 NMSUQ4 1:49 4th & 1 at USU 27, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−10.2 pts
2. vs NMSUQ3 5:13 4th & 1 at midfield, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.9 pts
3. vs NMSUQ3 10:41 4th & 1 at NMSU 31, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
4. vs BYUQ2 0:03 4th & 1 at BYU 15, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
5. at AFQ4 1:38 4th & 10 at AF 42, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.2 pts
6. vs BYUQ3 5:14 4th & 2 at midfield, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
7. vs BYUQ2 4:22 4th & 1 at USU 45, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
8. at AFQ3 13:08 4th & 2 at AF 47, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

57th of 130 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

   WIS
2. W

   IDST
3. L

   WAKE
4. W

   SJSU
5. W

   BYU
6. L

   CSU
7. L

   WYO
8. W

   UNLV
9. L

   BOIS
10. W

    UNM
11. W

    HAW
12. L

    AF
13. L

    NMSU

What moved it, 2017

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+0.20
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.11
• Timeouts−0.18
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.28

Game by game

• WISL 10-59 at WIS5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• IDSTW 51-13 vs IDST98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• WAKEL 10-46 at WAKE14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −18
• SJSUW 61-10 at SJSU57% → 100%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +46, Possession & field position +1
• BYUW 40-24 vs BYU59% → 98%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +2
• CSUL 14-27 vs CSU24% → 2%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −33, Clock −1
• WYOL 23-28 vs WYO56% → 4%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• UNLVW 52-28 at UNLV42% → 99%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +56, Clock +1
• BOISL 14-41 vs BOIS20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −26, Clock −1
• UNMW 24-10 at UNM43% → 99%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +56, Clock +2
• HAWW 38-0 vs HAW77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +25
• AFL 35-38 at AF44% → 10%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −2
• NMSUL 20-26 vs NMSU39% → 10%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −16

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.