Utah State

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1772nd
  Defense+0.1529th
• 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.
  Offense40.9%34th
  Defense43.4%33rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3380th
  Defense+1.2549th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1473rd
  Defense+0.1615th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2263rd
  Defense+0.1556th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.6%30th
  Defense47.5%43rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.4%59th
  Defense33.5%16th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8741st
  Defense3.1815th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.1%33rd
  Defense16.3%21st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.1%36th
  Defense13.5%18th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   UTEP
2. L
   TA&M
3. W
   AF
4. W
   MCN
5. L
   VAN
6. L
   HAW
7. W
   SJSU
8. L
   UNM
9. W
   NEV
10. L
    UNLV
11. W
    FRES
12. L
    BOIS
13. L
    WSU

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

Players, 2025

1. Bryson BarnesQB428 plays · +0.237 pts/play · 20th of 231 QBs
   1.90WAR1.14 to 2.70
2. Miles DavisRB119 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 99th of 365 RBs
   0.22WAR0.15 to 0.29
3. Javen JacobsRB79 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 105th of 365 RBs
   0.21WAR0.14 to 0.27
4. Braden PeganWR79 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 95th of 451 WRs
   0.17WAR0.03 to 0.32
5. Anthony GarciaQB33 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 195th of 231 QBs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.17
6. Brady BoydWR70 plays · +0.062 pts/play · 225th of 451 WRs
   0.08WAR−0.06 to 0.24
7. Broc LaneTE21 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 126th of 213 TEs
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.07
8. Josh SterzerTE8 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 178th of 213 TEs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.03

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  504504114th of 134Roster talent: 504, 114th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14314391st of 134Recruiting: 143, 91st of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  25%25%83rd of 132Returning production: 25%, 83rd of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −3.1−3.178th of 134SP+ rating: −3.1, 78th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.15 of the 0.21 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 UNLVQ3 1:31 4th & 18 at USU 40, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting−5.6 pts
2. vs AFQ4 10:44 4th & 2 at USU 38, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
3. vs WSUQ3 6:11 4th & 1 at USU 38, down 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
4. at UNMQ2 0:52 4th & 4 at UNM 41, down 19Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. at UNLVQ2 1:04 4th & 8 at UNLV 21, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
6. vs UTEPQ4 11:54 4th & 2 at USU 46, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at UNMQ3 11:02 4th & 4 at midfield, down 19Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs AFQ2 1:39 4th & 5 at AF 42, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

77th of 136 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

   UTEP
2. L

   TA&M
3. W

   AF
4. W

   MCN
5. L

   VAN
6. L

   HAW
7. W

   SJSU
8. L

   UNM
9. W

   NEV
10. L

    UNLV
11. W

    FRES
12. L

    BOIS
13. L

    WSU

What moved it, 2025

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−0.87
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.19
• Timeouts−0.62
• Other−0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.29

Game by game

• UTEPW 28-16 vs UTEP57% → 96%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +63, Timeouts −23
• TA&ML 22-44 at TA&M2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −4
• AFW 49-30 vs AF39% → 45%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +6: Timeouts −44, Scoreboard +31
• MCNW 48-7 vs MCN95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +10, Timeouts −2
• VANL 35-55 at VAN5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −9
• HAWL 26-44 at HAW54% → 1%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −46, Timeouts +1
• SJSUW 30-25 vs SJSU59% → 1%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −20
• UNML 14-33 at UNM53% → 1%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −47, Timeouts +1
• NEVW 51-14 vs NEV76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +26
• UNLVL 26-29 at UNLV38% → 16%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts +22
• FRESW 28-17 at FRES46% → 88%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +46, Possession & field position +1
• BOISL 24-25 vs BOIS40% → 18%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −35, Clock −4
• WSUL 21-34 vs WSU53% → 1%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −50, 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.