Utah

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1044th
  Defense+0.0765th
• 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.
  Offense44.1%55th
  Defense40.6%75th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1118th
  Defense+1.2430th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0438th
  Defense+0.0369th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1956th
  Defense+0.1260th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.1%50th
  Defense44.3%77th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.8%60th
  Defense34.4%44th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1068th
  Defense2.9154th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.0%76th
  Defense21.5%69th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.7%14th
  Defense21.6%96th

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, 2016

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Utah.

Players, 2016

1. Troy WilliamsQB449 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 80th of 218 QBs
   1.06WAR0.34 to 1.78
2. Joe WilliamsRB171 plays · +0.223 pts/play · 17th of 347 RBs
   0.72WAR0.50 to 0.92
3. Mitch WishnowskyP57 plays · +0.371 pts/play · 2nd of 82 punters
   0.40WAR0.25 to 0.57
4. Armand ShyneRB62 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 144th of 347 RBs
   0.25WAR0.19 to 0.31
5. Andy PhillipsPK23 plays · +0.527 pts/play · 10th of 116 kickers
   0.23WAR0.15 to 0.29
6. Zack MossRB79 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 180th of 347 RBs
   0.19WAR0.10 to 0.28
7. Tim PatrickWR71 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 84th of 417 WRs
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.28
8. Cory Butler-ByrdWR64 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 153rd of 417 WRs
   0.14WAR0.07 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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  58058051st of 128Roster talent: 580, 51st of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18218247th of 128Recruiting: 182, 47th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  34%34%117th of 128Returning production: 34%, 117th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +10.9+10.935th of 128SP+ rating: +10.9, 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, 2016

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 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 USCQ4 0:45 4th & 1 at USC 23, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−4.5 pts
2. at COLOQ3 2:58 4th & 3 at COLO 3, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. vs IUQ3 12:19 4th & 2 at UTAH 29, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. at UCLAQ2 3:28 4th & 7 at UCLA 40, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at COLOQ3 11:54 4th & 4 at COLO 4, down 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs USCQ2 2:30 4th & 4 at UTAH 38, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs USCQ3 13:28 4th & 4 at UTAH 47, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs WASHQ3 3:05 4th & 3 at UTAH 44, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

25th 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

   SUU
2. W

   BYU
3. W

   SJSU
4. W

   USC
5. L

   CAL
6. W

   ARIZ
7. W

   ORST
8. W

   UCLA
9. L

   WASH
10. W

    ASU
11. L

    ORE
12. L

    COLO
13. W

    IU

What moved it, 2016

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+1.17
• Possession & field position+0.13
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.23

Game by game

• SUUW 24-0 vs SUU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +4
• BYUW 20-19 vs BYU61% → 91%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +2
• SJSUW 34-17 at SJSU81% → 97%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +29
• USCW 31-27 vs USC52% → 85%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +22, Clock +1
• CALL 23-28 at CAL45% → 17%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −23, Possession & field position +3
• ARIZW 36-23 vs ARIZ72% → 99%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +1
• ORSTW 19-14 at ORST78% → 92%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +30, Clock +2
• UCLAW 52-45 at UCLA27% → 89%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +47, Clock +2
• WASHL 24-31 vs WASH19% → 5%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −31, Clock −2
• ASUW 49-26 at ASU63% → 100%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +42, Clock +2
• OREL 28-30 vs ORE74% → 7%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −54, Clock −4
• COLOL 22-27 at COLO21% → 5%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −2
• IUW 26-24 vs IU67% → 84%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1

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.