Utah State

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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−0.0210th
  Defense+0.314th
• 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.
  Offense33.5%5th
  Defense50.5%5th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2967th
  Defense+1.2163rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0340th
  Defense+0.247th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.087th
  Defense+0.398th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.5%6th
  Defense55.2%6th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense20.4%2nd
  Defense36.5%12th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7737th
  Defense3.367th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.4%19th
  Defense15.0%11th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.1%51st
  Defense13.3%15th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   BOIS
2. L
   SDSU
3. L
   NEV
4. L
   FRES
5. W
   UNM
6. L
   AF

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

Players, 2020

1. Andrew PeasleyQB66 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 129th of 212 QBs
   0.20WAR0.08 to 0.31
2. Devonta'e Henry-ColeRB42 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 224th of 338 RBs
   0.14WAR0.11 to 0.16
3. Jason ShelleyQB82 plays · +0.069 pts/play · 160th of 212 QBs
   0.11WAR−0.04 to 0.24
4. Jaylen WarrenRB26 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 266th of 338 RBs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09
5. Deven ThompkinsWR20 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 320th of 409 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.06
6. Savon ScarverWR7 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 371st of 409 WRs
   0.01WAR0.01 to 0.02
7. Jordan NathanWR7 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 385th of 409 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02
8. Carson TerrellTE5 plays · +0.033 pts/play · 137th of 191 TEs
   0.00WAR0.00 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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  40140193rd of 127Roster talent: 401, 93rd of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  132132104th of 127Recruiting: 132, 104th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  26%26%121st of 127Returning production: 26%, 121st of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −16.7−16.7119th of 127SP+ rating: −16.7, 119th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.01 of the 0.05 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 AFQ3 4:32 4th & 1 at USU 43, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
2. vs UNMQ4 12:14 4th & 4 at USU 49, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
3. at BOISQ2 2:32 4th & 1 at USU 34, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
4. vs SDSUQ2 6:29 4th & 3 at USU 39, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs FRESQ4 2:21 4th & 7 at FRES 7, down 19Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
6. vs FRESQ1 2:56 4th & 7 at FRES 39, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at NEVQ4 4:08 4th & 7 at NEV 24, down 25Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs SDSUQ1 3:44 4th & 3 at USU 45, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

60th of 127 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

   BOIS
2. L

   SDSU
3. L

   NEV
4. L

   FRES
5. W

   UNM
6. L

   AF

What moved it, 2020

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−0.56
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.50

Game by game

• BOISL 13-42 at BOIS10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −13
• SDSUL 7-38 vs SDSU22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• NEVL 9-34 at NEV10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −13
• FRESL 16-35 vs FRES20% → 1%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• UNMW 41-27 vs UNM28% → 98%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +70: Scoreboard +49, Timeouts +3
• AFL 7-35 vs AF17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1

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.