Utah State

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.3197th
  Defense−0.0595th
• 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.
  Offense49.9%92nd
  Defense39.1%80th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3086th
  Defense+1.1861st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1781st
  Defense−0.0486th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4496th
  Defense−0.0795th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.7%91st
  Defense44.5%74th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense41.0%95th
  Defense28.1%86th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8238th
  Defense2.5883rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.6%32nd
  Defense19.0%45th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.7%88th
  Defense18.1%75th

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, 2018

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

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

Players, 2018

1. Jordan LoveQB335 plays · +0.252 pts/play · 47th of 225 QBs
   1.58WAR1.04 to 2.15
2. Darwin ThompsonRB116 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 102nd of 351 RBs
   0.37WAR0.29 to 0.46
3. Gerold BrightRB96 plays · +0.193 pts/play · 117th of 351 RBs
   0.35WAR0.28 to 0.44
4. Jalen GreeneWR45 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 120th of 434 WRs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.20
5. Aaren VaughnsWR39 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 174th of 434 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.15
6. Dominik EberlePK16 plays · +0.318 pts/play · 66th of 112 kickers
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.14
7. Jordan NathanWR28 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 251st of 434 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.11
8. Ron'quavion TarverWR66 plays · +0.055 pts/play · 265th of 434 WRs
   0.07WAR−0.02 to 0.16

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  377377102nd of 130Roster talent: 377, 102nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  125125100th of 130Recruiting: 125, 100th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  69%69%54th of 129Returning production: 69%, 54th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +14.2+14.221st of 130SP+ rating: +14.2, 21st of 130 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, 2018

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.07 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 CSUQ3 4:03 4th & 1 at CSU 9, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.9 pts
2. at UNTQ3 10:01 4th & 4 at UNT 43, up 25Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
3. at BOISQ3 8:50 4th & 2 at USU 34, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
4. at WYOQ2 1:13 4th & 3 at USU 45, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
5. vs NMSUQ2 2:10 4th & 4 at NMSU 4, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs UNMQ3 2:35 4th & 1 at UNM 1, up 45Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at CSUQ1 1:00 4th & 2 at CSU 6, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs UNLVQ3 4:19 4th & 1 at UNLV 47, up 35Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

18th 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

   MSU
2. W

   NMSU
3. W

   TNTC
4. W

   AF
5. W

   BYU
6. W

   UNLV
7. W

   WYO
8. W

   UNM
9. W

   HAW
10. W

    SJSU
11. W

    CSU
12. L

    BOIS
13. W

    UNT

What moved it, 2018

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+1.96
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.04
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.63

Game by game

• MSUL 31-38 at MSU5% → 3%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −11, Timeouts −1
• NMSUW 60-13 vs NMSU94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• TNTCW 73-12 vs TNTC71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +31
• AFW 42-32 vs AF76% → 97%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +1
• BYUW 45-20 at BYU50% → 100%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +52, Clock +2
• UNLVW 59-28 vs UNLV95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• WYOW 24-16 at WYO82% → 97%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +27, Clock +2
• UNMW 61-19 vs UNM90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +13
• HAWW 56-17 at HAW88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +16
• SJSUW 62-24 vs SJSU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• CSUW 29-24 at CSU96% → 87%Before kickoff +46 · On the field −9: Scoreboard +16, Clock +1
• BOISL 24-33 at BOIS40% → 3%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −2
• UNTW 52-13 at UNT66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +39

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.