Utah

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.1236th
  Defense+0.1072nd
• 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.
  Offense41.4%32nd
  Defense39.9%72nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1325th
  Defense+1.2531st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0843rd
  Defense+0.0764th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1631st
  Defense+0.1280th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.9%26th
  Defense44.8%70th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.0%53rd
  Defense30.8%66th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0669th
  Defense2.8945th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.0%66th
  Defense19.1%43rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.4%90th
  Defense2.3%69th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 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
   IDST
2. W
   FRES
3. W
   MICH
4. L
   WSU
5. W
   UCLA
6. W
   ORST
7. W
   USC
8. L
   ASU
9. L
   ORE
10. W
    STAN
11. L
    ARIZ
12. W
    COLO
13. W
    CSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Utah.

Players, 2014

1. Travis WilsonQB379 plays · +0.236 pts/play · 48th of 199 QBs
   1.67WAR1.06 to 2.25
2. Devontae BookerRB303 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 5th of 350 RBs
   0.74WAR0.51 to 0.99
3. Andy PhillipsPK26 plays · +0.620 pts/play · 2nd of 114 kickers
   0.30WAR0.24 to 0.38
4. Tom HackettP67 plays · +0.212 pts/play · 3rd of 94 punters
   0.27WAR0.17 to 0.35
5. Kendal ThompsonQB76 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 167th of 199 QBs
   0.17WAR0.02 to 0.33
6. Kenneth ScottWR63 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 104th of 469 WRs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.24
7. Kaelin ClayWR61 plays · +0.071 pts/play · 254th of 469 WRs
   0.08WAR0.00 to 0.16
8. Dres AndersonWR34 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 275th of 469 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.12

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'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 9 clear-cut ones account for 0.20 of the 0.28 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 UCLAQ4 6:21 4th & 2 at UCLA 27, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.7 pts
2. at ASUQ4 2:30 4th & 8 at ASU 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
3. vs WSUQ4 8:08 4th & 1 at UTAH 44, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
4. at STANQ3 11:59 4th & 1 at UTAH 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
5. at ASUQ4 13:01 4th & 1 at UTAH 24, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
6. at ORSTQ4 12:56 4th & 3 at UTAH 49, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
7. at COLOQ4 15:00 4th & 4 at COLO 45, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
8. at UCLAQ4 13:03 4th & 4 at UTAH 49, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

8th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Utah's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   IDST
2. W

   FRES
3. W

   MICH
4. L

   WSU
5. W

   UCLA
6. W

   ORST
7. W

   USC
8. L

   ASU
9. L

   ORE
10. W

    STAN
11. L

    ARIZ
12. W

    COLO
13. W

    CSU

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Utah'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+1.46
• Clock−0.33
• Timeouts+0.60
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.26

Game by game

• IDSTW 56-14 vs IDST99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• FRESW 59-27 vs FRES78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +26, Possession & field position −1
• MICHW 26-10 at MICH30% → 99%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +69: Scoreboard +61, Clock +3
• WSUL 27-28 vs WSU71% → 13%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −42, Clock −4
• UCLAW 30-28 at UCLA17% → 76%Before kickoff −33 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +35, Clock +4
• ORSTW 29-23 at ORST45% → 90%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts +19
• USCW 24-21 vs USC43% → 82%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +19, Possession & field position +2
• ASUL 16-19 at ASU38% → 21%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts +23
• OREL 27-51 vs ORE23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −29, Clock −2
• STANW 20-17 at STAN24% → 88%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +19
• ARIZL 10-42 vs ARIZ59% → 0%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −59
• COLOW 38-34 at COLO75% → 92%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• CSUW 45-10 at CSU61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +45

Points of win probability, from Utah's side.

Closest call

KSU 47-51 UTAH (2025) - Utah dropped to a 8.1% win probability before pulling it out.