Utah

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.2694th
  Defense−0.0495th
• 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.
  Offense49.5%91st
  Defense37.6%88th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2257th
  Defense+1.2439th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1477th
  Defense−0.0279th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4795th
  Defense−0.0699th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense54.2%91st
  Defense43.5%86th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.9%76th
  Defense27.9%91st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2385th
  Defense2.3396th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.7%60th
  Defense22.4%77th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.3%91st
  Defense23.3%86th

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, 2019

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
   BYU
2. W
   NIU
3. W
   IDST
4. L
   USC
5. W
   WSU
6. W
   ORST
7. W
   ASU
8. W
   CAL
9. W
   WASH
10. W
    UCLA
11. W
    ARIZ
12. W
    COLO
13. L
    ORE
14. L
    TEX

Bars above the line: better than expected for Utah.

Players, 2019

1. Tyler HuntleyQB324 plays · +0.269 pts/play · 28th of 228 QBs
   1.63WAR1.09 to 2.21
2. Zack MossRB211 plays · +0.208 pts/play · 12th of 349 RBs
   0.82WAR0.64 to 1.02
3. Jaylen DixonWR41 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 181st of 439 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
4. Demari SimpkinsWR42 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 258th of 439 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12
5. Samson NacuaWR22 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 311th of 439 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.09
6. Brant KuitheTE32 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 27th of 207 TEs
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.11
7. Derrick VickersWR15 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 379th of 439 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.05
8. Jason ShelleyQB12 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 223rd of 228 QBs
   0.03WAR−0.01 to 0.07

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  62062047th of 130Roster talent: 620, 47th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20320334th of 130Recruiting: 203, 34th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  95%95%3rd of 130Returning production: 95%, 3rd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +19.5+19.512th of 130SP+ rating: +19.5, 12th 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, 2019

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 0.11 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 OREQ4 9:28 4th & 4 at ORE 40, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
2. at BYUQ2 4:05 4th & 1 at UTAH 49, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. vs COLOQ2 0:04 4th & 1 at COLO 5, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. at BYUQ4 14:55 4th & 3 at BYU 7, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. at TEXQ3 4:58 4th & 3 at TEX 15, down 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs COLOQ3 12:03 4th & 2 at UTAH 48, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at USCQ4 4:01 4th & 10 at USC 20, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at TEXQ2 14:07 4th & 2 at UTAH 28, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

76th 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

   BYU
2. W

   NIU
3. W

   IDST
4. L

   USC
5. W

   WSU
6. W

   ORST
7. W

   ASU
8. W

   CAL
9. W

   WASH
10. W

    UCLA
11. W

    ARIZ
12. W

    COLO
13. L

    ORE
14. L

    TEX

What moved it, 2019

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+0.46
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.08
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.92

Game by game

• BYUW 30-12 at BYU69% → 99%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +37, Clock +1
• NIUW 35-17 vs NIU93% → 99%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +11
• IDSTW 31-0 vs IDST99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• USCL 23-30 at USC60% → 3%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −3
• WSUW 38-13 vs WSU71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +28, Clock +2
• ORSTW 52-7 at ORST85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +21, Clock +1
• ASUW 21-3 vs ASU87% → 99%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +18
• CALW 35-0 vs CAL93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• WASHW 33-28 at WASH62% → 94%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• UCLAW 49-3 vs UCLA93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• ARIZW 35-7 at ARIZ94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• COLOW 45-15 vs COLO96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +7
• OREL 15-37 at ORE65% → 0%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −53, Timeouts −2
• TEXL 10-38 at TEX68% → 0%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −58, 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.