Utah State

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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−0.076th
  Defense+0.0661st
• 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.
  Offense35.4%7th
  Defense39.5%61st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3989th
  Defense+1.1866th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0218th
  Defense0.0067th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.104th
  Defense+0.1162nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense37.6%1st
  Defense45.8%52nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.6%47th
  Defense26.3%69th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9940th
  Defense2.7367th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.7%15th
  Defense19.3%55th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.1%5th
  Defense14.1%26th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   IDST
2. L
   WASH
3. L
   UTAH
4. W
   TROY
5. L
   BOIS
6. W
   WSU

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

Players, 2026

1. Grady BrosterhousQB144 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 76th of 192 QBs
   0.26WAR0.04 to 0.47
2. Eli WoodWR34 plays · +0.221 pts/play · 8th of 364 WRs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.20
3. Javen JacobsRB52 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 57th of 320 RBs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.15
4. Javon RobinsonWR20 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 177th of 364 WRs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.08
5. Anthony GarciaWR8 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 281st of 364 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
6. Kian AfrookhtehPK4 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 66th of 82 kickers
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.03
7. Noah WhiteRB4 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 297th of 320 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01
8. Landon RehkowP22 plays · −0.011 pts/play · 74th of 84 punters
   0.00WAR−0.04 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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  544544123rd of 138Roster talent: 544, 123rd of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  149149104th of 138Recruiting: 149, 104th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  65%65%32nd of 136Returning production: 65%, 32nd of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −9.0−9.0105th of 138SP+ rating so far: −9.0, 105th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.14 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 WSUQ4 2:40 4th & 1 at USU 47, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−9.3 pts
2. vs TROYQ2 5:42 4th & 1 at USU 34, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
3. vs IDSTQ4 6:19 4th & 9 at USU 45, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
4. at BOISQ4 12:22 4th & 14 at BOIS 15, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs TROYQ2 2:12 4th & 3 at USU 19, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. at UTAHQ2 1:22 4th & 6 at UTAH 37, down 19Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at WASHQ2 3:55 4th & 3 at USU 46, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs TROYQ1 5:09 4th & 4 at TROY 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

88th of 138 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

   IDST
2. L

   WASH
3. L

   UTAH
4. W

   TROY
5. L

   BOIS
6. W

   WSU

What moved it, 2026

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−0.21
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.08

Game by game

• IDSTL 17-29 vs IDST87% → 3%Before kickoff +37 · On the field −84: Scoreboard −60, Clock −3
• WASHL 14-16 at WASH4% → 16%Before kickoff −46 · On the field +12: Scoreboard −7, Timeouts −1
• UTAHL 0-33 at UTAH5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• TROYW 21-10 vs TROY61% → 98%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +2
• BOISL 18-37 at BOIS10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −13, Timeouts −1
• WSUW 17-16 vs WSU60% → 95%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +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.