Utah State

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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−0.018th
  Defense+0.1335th
• 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.
  Offense38.7%20th
  Defense41.1%59th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1310th
  Defense+1.3222nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0228th
  Defense+0.1517th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0810th
  Defense+0.2242nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.2%19th
  Defense46.9%55th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.6%15th
  Defense28.7%67th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1457th
  Defense2.9760th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.3%71st
  Defense21.8%86th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.9%47th
  Defense15.7%44th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   CONN
2. L
   ALA
3. L
   WEB
4. L
   UNLV
5. L
   BYU
6. W
   AF
7. W
   CSU
8. L
   WYO
9. W
   UNM
10. W
    HAW
11. W
    SJSU
12. L
    BOIS
13. L
    MEM

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

Players, 2022

1. Cooper LegasQB285 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 82nd of 234 QBs
   0.95WAR0.37 to 1.47
2. Calvin Tyler Jr.RB202 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 42nd of 384 RBs
   0.44WAR0.22 to 0.63
3. Brian CobbsWR66 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 48th of 455 WRs
   0.21WAR0.11 to 0.31
4. Logan BonnerQB63 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 176th of 234 QBs
   0.21WAR0.11 to 0.31
5. Stephen KotsanleeP44 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 5th of 102 punters
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.27
6. Terrell VaughnWR53 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 95th of 455 WRs
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.22
7. Bishop DavenportQB64 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 193rd of 234 QBs
   0.12WAR0.02 to 0.23
8. Robert BriggsRB51 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 239th of 384 RBs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.15

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  371371115th of 129Roster talent: 371, 115th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  123123113th of 129Recruiting: 123, 113th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  53%53%78th of 128Returning production: 53%, 78th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −13.3−13.3107th of 129SP+ rating: −13.3, 107th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 of the 0.20 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 WEBQ4 9:14 4th & 17 at USU 33, up 8Went for it; the numbers favored punting5.1 pts
2. vs WEBQ4 13:02 4th & 17 at WEB 23, up 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal4.0 pts
3. vs WEBQ4 0:22 4th & 10 at WEB 20, up 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal1.3 pts
4. vs UNMQ4 7:44 4th & 3 at UNM 10, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.2 pts
5. at CSUQ4 6:54 4th & 4 at USU 45, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.9 pts
6. at BYUQ2 0:17 4th & 10 at BYU 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.8 pts
7. at BOISQ3 10:22 4th & 2 at BOIS 5, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.8 pts
8. at CSUQ3 4:41 4th & 3 at USU 38, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

68th of 131 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

   CONN
2. L

   ALA
3. L

   WEB
4. L

   UNLV
5. L

   BYU
6. W

   AF
7. W

   CSU
8. L

   WYO
9. W

   UNM
10. W

    HAW
11. W

    SJSU
12. L

    BOIS
13. L

    MEM

What moved it, 2022

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+0.53
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.10

Game by game

• CONNW 31-20 vs CONN94% → 96%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +11, Timeouts +1
• ALAL 0-55 at ALA1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• WEBL 7-35 vs WEB73% → 97%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +29, Possession & field position −1
• UNLVL 24-34 vs UNLV44% → 8%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −48, Clock −2
• BYUL 26-38 at BYU5% → 1%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −10
• AFW 34-27 vs AF22% → 98%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +76: Scoreboard +50, Clock +1
• CSUW 17-13 at CSU84% → 97%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +27, Clock +2
• WYOL 14-28 at WYO41% → 1%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −37, Possession & field position −1
• UNMW 27-10 vs UNM86% → 99%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +19
• HAWW 41-34 at HAW81% → 96%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +30, Clock +2
• SJSUW 35-31 vs SJSU53% → 96%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +36, Possession & field position +1
• BOISL 23-42 at BOIS13% → 2%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −18
• MEML 10-38 vs MEM27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −34, 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.