Utah State

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.0727th
  Defense+0.1149th
• 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.
  Offense43.7%52nd
  Defense46.8%15th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1014th
  Defense+1.1088th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0314th
  Defense+0.0652nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1537th
  Defense+0.2040th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.2%53rd
  Defense52.0%11th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.4%51st
  Defense34.2%39th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7833rd
  Defense3.1816th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.8%36th
  Defense16.8%19th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.3%52nd
  Defense19.2%39th

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, 2019

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
   WAKE
2. W
   STBK
3. W
   SDSU
4. W
   CSU
5. L
   LSU
6. W
   NEV
7. L
   AF
8. L
   BYU
9. W
   FRES
10. W
    WYO
11. L
    BOIS
12. W
    UNM
13. L
    KENT

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

Players, 2019

1. Jordan LoveQB431 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 21st of 228 QBs
   1.86WAR1.12 to 2.56
2. Gerold BrightRB171 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 49th of 349 RBs
   0.53WAR0.39 to 0.67
3. Jaylen WarrenRB107 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 152nd of 349 RBs
   0.28WAR0.20 to 0.37
4. Siaosi MarinerWR75 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 34th of 439 WRs
   0.26WAR0.16 to 0.35
5. Dominik EberlePK18 plays · +0.508 pts/play · 21st of 114 kickers
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.23
6. Jordan NathanWR69 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 172nd of 439 WRs
   0.12WAR0.04 to 0.20
7. Caleb ReppDE38 plays · +0.157 pts/play
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.15
8. Deven ThompkinsWR49 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 289th of 439 WRs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.12

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  42442497th of 130Roster talent: 424, 97th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13113196th of 130Recruiting: 131, 96th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  55%55%76th of 130Returning production: 55%, 76th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.3−4.382nd of 130SP+ rating: −4.3, 82nd 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, 2019

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 0.15 of the 0.22 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 KENTQ4 13:57 4th & 1 at USU 45, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it4.5 pts
2. at WAKEQ4 2:26 4th & 4 at WAKE 48, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.2 pts
3. vs CSUQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at USU 17, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it2.0 pts
4. vs CSUQ4 11:58 4th & 7 at CSU 38, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.7 pts
5. at SDSUQ4 10:03 4th & 3 at SDSU 43, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.3 pts
6. vs BYUQ4 14:55 4th & 12 at BYU 12, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal1.2 pts
7. vs CSUQ4 0:47 4th & 3 at CSU 14, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal1.1 pts
8. vs WYOQ4 14:04 4th & 4 at WYO 33, up 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

89th 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

   WAKE
2. W

   STBK
3. W

   SDSU
4. W

   CSU
5. L

   LSU
6. W

   NEV
7. L

   AF
8. L

   BYU
9. W

   FRES
10. W

    WYO
11. L

    BOIS
12. W

    UNM
13. L

    KENT

What moved it, 2019

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−1.03
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.70

Game by game

• WAKEL 35-38 at WAKE35% → 7%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −31, Possession & field position +1
• STBKW 62-7 vs STBK98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• SDSUW 23-17 at SDSU61% → 95%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +42, Clock +2
• CSUW 34-24 vs CSU93% → 3%Before kickoff +43 · On the field −90: Scoreboard −59, Clock −2
• LSUL 6-42 at LSU3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• NEVW 36-10 vs NEV91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +12
• AFL 7-31 at AF41% → 0%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts +1
• BYUL 14-42 vs BYU58% → 0%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −56, Clock −2
• FRESW 37-35 at FRES37% → 95%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• WYOW 26-21 vs WYO64% → 93%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +2
• BOISL 21-56 vs BOIS41% → 0%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −45, Clock −2
• UNMW 38-25 at UNM77% → 98%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +34, Clock +1
• KENTL 41-51 vs KENT66% → 3%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −3

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.