Utah State

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1559th
  Defense+0.2411th
• 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.
  Offense45.6%78th
  Defense47.4%9th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2752nd
  Defense+1.2070th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2086th
  Defense+0.236th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1640th
  Defense+0.2916th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.9%80th
  Defense52.8%9th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.9%60th
  Defense32.3%28th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4194th
  Defense3.455th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.8%66th
  Defense15.8%29th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.4%42nd
  Defense15.1%36th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   RMU
2. L
   USC
3. L
   UTAH
4. L
   TEM
5. L
   BOIS
6. L
   UNLV
7. L
   UNM
8. W
   WYO
9. L
   WSU
10. W
    HAW
11. W
    SDSU
12. L
    CSU

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

Players, 2024

1. Spencer PetrasQB181 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 124th of 232 QBs
   0.56WAR0.21 to 0.91
2. Bryson BarnesQB113 plays · +0.258 pts/play · 127th of 232 QBs
   0.55WAR0.34 to 0.77
3. Rahsul FaisonRB126 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 61st of 373 RBs
   0.35WAR0.25 to 0.44
4. Jalen RoyalsWR20 plays · +0.362 pts/play · 98th of 452 WRs
   0.14WAR0.07 to 0.19
5. Stephen KotsanleeP28 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 44th of 106 punters
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11
6. Otto TiaTE32 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 42nd of 221 TEs
   0.07WAR−0.01 to 0.14
7. Jack HesteraWR14 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 276th of 452 WRs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.07
8. Josh SterzerTE17 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 92nd of 221 TEs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.06

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  54454498th of 131Roster talent: 544, 98th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  117117115th of 131Recruiting: 117, 115th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  47%47%64th of 130Returning production: 47%, 64th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.4−10.4104th of 131SP+ rating: −10.4, 104th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.08 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 WYOQ4 7:18 4th & 4 at WYO 47, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
2. vs HAWQ2 1:15 4th & 1 at USU 43, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. vs RMUQ2 2:54 4th & 1 at USU 33, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. vs SDSUQ2 13:57 4th & 1 at USU 34, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs RMUQ3 6:05 4th & 3 at USU 36, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. at CSUQ4 1:57 4th & 10 at USU 25, up 18Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs UTAHQ3 1:16 4th & 5 at UTAH 18, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs UTAHQ4 8:17 4th & 6 at USU 34, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

66th of 134 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

   RMU
2. L

   USC
3. L

   UTAH
4. L

   TEM
5. L

   BOIS
6. L

   UNLV
7. L

   UNM
8. W

   WYO
9. L

   WSU
10. W

    HAW
11. W

    SDSU
12. L

    CSU

What moved it, 2024

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+0.28
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.23

Game by game

• RMUW 36-14 vs RMU66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +1
• USCL 0-48 at USC3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −6
• UTAHL 21-38 vs UTAH8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −16, Clock −1
• TEML 29-45 at TEM66% → 1%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −53, Timeouts +1
• BOISL 30-62 at BOIS4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• UNLVL 34-50 vs UNLV11% → 1%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −19, Clock −1
• UNML 45-50 vs UNM55% → 65%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +8
• WYOW 27-25 at WYO56% → 94%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +46, Clock +3
• WSUL 28-49 at WSU9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −14
• HAWW 55-10 vs HAW36% → 98%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +47, Clock +1
• SDSUW 41-20 vs SDSU60% → 3%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −55, Clock −2
• CSUL 37-42 at CSU31% → 99%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +62, Clock +2

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.