Utah

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0841st
  Defense+0.0272nd
• 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.
  Offense46.6%84th
  Defense40.1%68th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.032nd
  Defense+1.1567th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0338th
  Defense−0.0171st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1446th
  Defense+0.0767th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.2%68th
  Defense45.1%64th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense41.0%95th
  Defense31.0%66th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9253rd
  Defense2.7958th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.6%30th
  Defense21.2%61st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.9%50th
  Defense15.2%39th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   UND
2. W
   BYU
3. W
   SJSU
4. W
   ARIZ
5. L
   STAN
6. L
   USC
7. L
   ASU
8. L
   ORE
9. W
   UCLA
10. L
    WSU
11. L
    WASH
12. W
    COLO
13. W
    WVU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Utah.

Players, 2017

1. Tyler HuntleyQB332 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 81st of 226 QBs
   0.94WAR0.36 to 1.50
2. Zack MossRB178 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 43rd of 352 RBs
   0.43WAR0.28 to 0.57
3. Troy WilliamsQB132 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 155th of 226 QBs
   0.30WAR0.13 to 0.54
4. Mitch WishnowskyP46 plays · +0.314 pts/play · 2nd of 95 punters
   0.27WAR0.16 to 0.39
5. Matt GayPK22 plays · +0.506 pts/play · 6th of 110 kickers
   0.21WAR0.13 to 0.28
6. Darren Carrington IIWR70 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 100th of 426 WRs
   0.14WAR0.07 to 0.21
7. Raelon SingletonWR44 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 163rd of 426 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
8. Demari SimpkinsWR27 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 311th of 426 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63163139th of 130Roster talent: 631, 39th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18818844th of 130Recruiting: 188, 44th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  55%55%81st of 128Returning production: 55%, 81st of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +12.0+12.025th of 128SP+ rating: +12.0, 25th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.14 of the 0.19 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 WASHQ4 14:12 4th & 17 at UTAH 27, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting−5.9 pts
2. at WVUQ3 7:45 4th & 12 at UTAH 23, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.7 pts
3. vs STANQ3 15:00 4th & 9 at UTAH 26, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.9 pts
4. at USCQ3 4:01 4th & 3 at USC 47, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. at BYUQ4 1:34 4th & 1 at UTAH 44, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. vs COLOQ2 8:29 4th & 1 at COLO 48, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at OREQ2 1:30 4th & 2 at UTAH 40, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at BYUQ1 2:19 4th & 1 at UTAH 16, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

85th of 130 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

   UND
2. W

   BYU
3. W

   SJSU
4. W

   ARIZ
5. L

   STAN
6. L

   USC
7. L

   ASU
8. L

   ORE
9. W

   UCLA
10. L

    WSU
11. L

    WASH
12. W

    COLO
13. W

    WVU

What moved it, 2017

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−0.43
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.18

Game by game

• UNDW 37-16 vs UND93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +11
• BYUW 19-13 at BYU69% → 95%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +38, Clock +2
• SJSUW 54-16 vs SJSU97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• ARIZW 30-24 at ARIZ62% → 95%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• STANL 20-23 vs STAN41% → 6%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3
• USCL 27-28 at USC17% → 6%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −2
• ASUL 10-30 vs ASU73% → 1%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −73: Scoreboard −63, Clock −3
• OREL 20-41 at ORE54% → 0%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −48, Timeouts −1
• UCLAW 48-17 vs UCLA71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +31
• WSUL 25-33 vs WSU44% → 5%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3
• WASHL 30-33 at WASH11% → 4%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −17, Possession & field position −1
• COLOW 34-13 vs COLO73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +29
• WVUW 30-14 at WVU70% → 99%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +38, Clock +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.