Utah

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.0731st
  Defense−0.0286th
• 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.
  Offense43.6%54th
  Defense40.6%65th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.066th
  Defense+1.2428th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0229th
  Defense−0.1095th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1547th
  Defense+0.0575th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.7%53rd
  Defense43.0%84th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.3%53rd
  Defense36.1%25th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8954th
  Defense2.3594th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.6%51st
  Defense24.8%89th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.5%83rd
  Defense3.8%99th

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, 2015

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
   MICH
2. W
   USU
3. W
   FRES
4. W
   ORE
5. W
   CAL
6. W
   ASU
7. L
   USC
8. W
   ORST
9. W
   WASH
10. L
    ARIZ
11. L
    UCLA
12. W
    COLO
13. W
    BYU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Utah.

Players, 2015

1. Travis WilsonQB407 plays · +0.231 pts/play · 41st of 205 QBs
   1.76WAR1.11 to 2.39
2. Devontae BookerRB285 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 7th of 333 RBs
   0.69WAR0.47 to 0.92
3. Andy PhillipsPK24 plays · +0.620 pts/play · 1st of 115 kickers
   0.28WAR0.22 to 0.35
4. Joe WilliamsRB102 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 114th of 333 RBs
   0.22WAR0.14 to 0.28
5. Tom HackettP52 plays · +0.212 pts/play · 6th of 92 punters
   0.21WAR0.13 to 0.27
6. Kenneth ScottWR54 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 139th of 411 WRs
   0.14WAR0.07 to 0.21
7. Britain CoveyWR51 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 145th of 411 WRs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.20
8. Kendal ThompsonQB43 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 184th of 205 QBs
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.20

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57457450th of 128Roster talent: 574, 50th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17217256th of 128Recruiting: 172, 56th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  73%73%44th of 127Returning production: 73%, 44th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +11.0+11.035th of 128SP+ rating: +11.0, 35th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 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 UCLAQ4 15:00 4th & 1 at UTAH 29, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
2. at ARIZQ3 5:19 4th & 2 at ARIZ 20, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. vs USUQ4 12:47 4th & 2 at USU 19, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. vs UCLAQ3 8:39 4th & 4 at UCLA 4, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. at WASHQ2 0:14 4th & 7 at WASH 37, up 11Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs USUQ2 1:49 4th & 2 at UTAH 36, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs MICHQ2 3:29 4th & 4 at MICH 30, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs ASUQ4 4:20 4th & 4 at ASU 17, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

14th 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

   MICH
2. W

   USU
3. W

   FRES
4. W

   ORE
5. W

   CAL
6. W

   ASU
7. L

   USC
8. W

   ORST
9. W

   WASH
10. L

    ARIZ
11. L

    UCLA
12. W

    COLO
13. W

    BYU

What moved it, 2015

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+2.11
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.10
• Timeouts+0.27
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.36

Game by game

• MICHW 24-17 vs MICH61% → 97%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +3
• USUW 24-14 vs USU81% → 95%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +24, Possession & field position −1
• FRESW 45-24 at FRES87% → 99%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +21, Clock +1
• OREW 62-20 at ORE17% → 100%Before kickoff −33 · On the field +82: Scoreboard +70, Clock +2
• CALW 30-24 vs CAL65% → 96%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +3
• ASUW 34-18 vs ASU66% → 99%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +1
• USCL 24-42 at USC36% → 0%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −38, Clock +2
• ORSTW 27-12 vs ORST93% → 99%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +12
• WASHW 34-23 at WASH45% → 97%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• ARIZL 30-37 at ARIZ61% → 8%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts +17
• UCLAL 9-17 vs UCLA42% → 3%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3
• COLOW 20-14 vs COLO84% → 97%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +1
• BYUW 35-28 vs BYU61% → 97%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +2

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.