Utah

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.0836th
  Defense−0.0289th
• 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.
  Offense45.7%71st
  Defense37.1%90th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.044th
  Defense+1.2529th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0538th
  Defense−0.1096th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1443rd
  Defense+0.0675th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.1%75th
  Defense41.8%91st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.7%45th
  Defense29.0%82nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9044th
  Defense2.4791st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.6%63rd
  Defense26.8%98th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.0%34th
  Defense20.1%91st

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, 2018

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
   WEB
2. W
   NIU
3. L
   WASH
4. L
   WSU
5. W
   STAN
6. W
   ARIZ
7. W
   USC
8. W
   UCLA
9. L
   ASU
10. W
    ORE
11. W
    COLO
12. W
    BYU
13. L
    WASH
14. L
    NU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Utah.

Players, 2018

1. Tyler HuntleyQB268 plays · +0.194 pts/play · 84th of 225 QBs
   0.97WAR0.54 to 1.41
2. Zack MossRB152 plays · +0.237 pts/play · 26th of 351 RBs
   0.67WAR0.54 to 0.82
3. Jason ShelleyQB212 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 123rd of 225 QBs
   0.62WAR0.27 to 0.99
4. Armand ShyneRB102 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 136th of 351 RBs
   0.31WAR0.25 to 0.38
5. Matt GayPK22 plays · +0.503 pts/play · 2nd of 112 kickers
   0.21WAR0.15 to 0.26
6. Mitch WishnowskyP52 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 1st of 91 punters
   0.20WAR0.11 to 0.29
7. Britain CoveyWR88 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 62nd of 434 WRs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.27
8. Samson NacuaWR37 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 165th of 434 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.16

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  59559547th of 130Roster talent: 595, 47th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20020035th of 130Recruiting: 200, 35th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  52%52%89th of 129Returning production: 52%, 89th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +16.8+16.817th of 130SP+ rating: +16.8, 17th of 130 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, 2018

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 10 clear-cut ones account for 0.17 of the 0.22 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 WASHQ2 5:31 4th & 1 at WASH 45, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
2. vs WASHQ4 6:04 4th & 16 at WASH 20, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.3 pts
3. at WSUQ4 11:36 4th & 4 at WSU 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
4. vs OREQ2 0:00 4th & 4 at ORE 38, up 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. vs NUQ2 11:44 4th & 1 at UTAH 20, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
6. vs NUQ2 0:05 4th & 2 at NU 2, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
7. at STANQ4 12:33 4th & 2 at STAN 16, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
8. vs OREQ2 12:24 4th & 2 at ORE 2, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

61st 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

   WEB
2. W

   NIU
3. L

   WASH
4. L

   WSU
5. W

   STAN
6. W

   ARIZ
7. W

   USC
8. W

   UCLA
9. L

   ASU
10. W

    ORE
11. W

    COLO
12. W

    BYU
13. L

    WASH
14. L

    NU

What moved it, 2018

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+0.49
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.58

Game by game

• WEBW 41-10 vs WEB98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• NIUW 17-6 at NIU83% → 97%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +27, Clock +2
• WASHL 7-21 vs WASH36% → 1%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2
• WSUL 24-28 at WSU55% → 5%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −2
• STANW 40-21 at STAN38% → 99%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +59, Clock +3
• ARIZW 42-10 vs ARIZ82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +20
• USCW 41-28 vs USC67% → 98%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +2
• UCLAW 41-10 at UCLA76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +30, Clock +1
• ASUL 20-38 at ASU67% → 1%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −51, Timeouts −1
• OREW 32-25 vs ORE56% → 91%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +1
• COLOW 30-7 at COLO67% → 99%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +39, Clock +1
• BYUW 35-27 vs BYU76% → 98%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
• WASHL 3-10 at WASH32% → 3%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −1
• NUL 20-31 vs NU70% → 3%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −57, Clock −3

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.