Utah State

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.1561st
  Defense+0.1533rd
• 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.
  Offense42.3%51st
  Defense44.7%21st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3791st
  Defense+1.1781st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2292nd
  Defense+0.1236th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2759th
  Defense+0.2635th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.9%44th
  Defense50.7%17th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.7%60th
  Defense31.2%34th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4393rd
  Defense3.1731st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.2%65th
  Defense18.3%63rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.6%19th
  Defense17.3%63rd

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   IOWA
2. W
   IDST
3. L
   AF
4. L
   JMU
5. W
   CONN
6. W
   CSU
7. L
   FRES
8. L
   SJSU
9. W
   SDSU
10. W
    NEV
11. L
    BOIS
12. W
    UNM
13. L
    GAST

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

Players, 2023

1. Cooper LegasQB223 plays · +0.208 pts/play · 99th of 250 QBs
   0.87WAR0.43 to 1.32
2. Jalen RoyalsWR55 plays · +0.319 pts/play · 15th of 457 WRs
   0.33WAR0.18 to 0.47
3. McCae HillsteadQB129 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 165th of 250 QBs
   0.28WAR−0.05 to 0.61
4. Davon BoothRB105 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 94th of 383 RBs
   0.26WAR0.17 to 0.35
5. Rahsul FaisonRB67 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 169th of 383 RBs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.21
6. Micah DavisWR30 plays · +0.290 pts/play · 107th of 457 WRs
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.22
7. Terrell VaughnWR61 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 145th of 457 WRs
   0.12WAR−0.01 to 0.28
8. Levi WilliamsQB60 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 211th of 250 QBs
   0.12WAR−0.04 to 0.30

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  436436104th of 130Roster talent: 436, 104th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  119119112th of 130Recruiting: 119, 112th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  47%47%73rd of 128Returning production: 47%, 73rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.9−10.9104th of 130SP+ rating: −10.9, 104th 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, 2023

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 of the 0.16 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 SDSUQ4 2:27 4th & 6 at SDSU 40, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.0 pts
2. vs CSUQ3 5:57 4th & 2 at CSU 43, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
3. vs JMUQ4 4:12 4th & 18 at JMU 39, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
4. vs JMUQ4 13:15 4th & 12 at JMU 44, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.5 pts
5. vs FRESQ4 8:45 4th & 2 at USU 33, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at CONNQ4 2:41 4th & 6 at CONN 41, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. vs GASTQ2 4:37 4th & 2 at USU 43, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs GASTQ3 0:17 4th & 1 at USU 43, down 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

75th of 133 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

   IOWA
2. W

   IDST
3. L

   AF
4. L

   JMU
5. W

   CONN
6. W

   CSU
7. L

   FRES
8. L

   SJSU
9. W

   SDSU
10. W

    NEV
11. L

    BOIS
12. W

    UNM
13. L

    GAST

What moved it, 2023

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−1.12
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.05

Game by game

• IOWAL 14-24 at IOWA6% → 3%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −12, Timeouts −1
• IDSTW 78-28 vs IDST93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• AFL 21-39 at AF28% → 0%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −32, Clock +1
• JMUL 38-45 vs JMU46% → 5%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• CONNW 34-33 at CONN63% → 94%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +42, Clock +2
• CSUW 44-24 vs CSU35% → 100%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +55, Clock −1
• FRESL 32-37 vs FRES35% → 6%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3
• SJSUL 21-42 at SJSU36% → 0%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −37
• SDSUW 32-24 at SDSU51% → 53%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +13, Clock +3
• NEVW 41-24 vs NEV85% → 99%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +20
• BOISL 10-45 vs BOIS31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −37, Clock −1
• UNMW 44-41 at UNM69% → 68%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +10, Possession & field position +1
• GASTL 22-45 vs GAST55% → 0%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −53, Clock −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.