Utah

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.0320th
  Defense−0.0596th
• 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.
  Offense43.7%62nd
  Defense37.5%87th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1411th
  Defense+1.1972nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0131st
  Defense−0.1898th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0525th
  Defense+0.0388th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.3%59th
  Defense44.9%70th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.6%61st
  Defense25.0%94th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9660th
  Defense2.4589th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense25.3%9th
  Defense27.4%95th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.6%74th
  Defense18.7%81st

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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. L
   USC
2. L
   WASH
3. W
   ORST
4. W
   COLO
5. W
   WSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Utah.

Players, 2020

1. Jake BentleyQB149 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 83rd of 212 QBs
   0.39WAR0.11 to 0.65
2. Ty JordanRB93 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 103rd of 338 RBs
   0.29WAR0.22 to 0.37
3. Devin BrumfieldRB27 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 258th of 338 RBs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.10
4. Drew LiskQB27 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 170th of 212 QBs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12
5. Britain CoveyWR29 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 185th of 409 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
6. Bryan ThompsonWR20 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 285th of 409 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.07
7. Brant KuitheTE39 plays · +0.058 pts/play · 21st of 191 TEs
   0.04WAR−0.02 to 0.10
8. Jadon ReddingPK6 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 68th of 97 kickers
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  65065037th of 127Roster talent: 650, 37th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20620634th of 127Recruiting: 206, 34th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  39%39%104th of 127Returning production: 39%, 104th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +11.9+11.923rd of 127SP+ rating: +11.9, 23rd of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 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 WASHQ4 8:20 4th & 1 at WASH 48, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−6.1 pts
2. at COLOQ4 9:19 4th & 4 at COLO 25, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. vs ORSTQ3 4:42 4th & 4 at ORST 45, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
4. at WASHQ2 12:05 4th & 3 at WASH 46, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs USCQ4 9:12 4th & 4 at USC 10, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs WSUQ2 0:17 4th & 8 at WSU 39, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at COLOQ1 3:21 4th & 3 at midfield, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs ORSTQ1 6:50 4th & 2 at ORST 2, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

52nd of 127 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. L

   USC
2. L

   WASH
3. W

   ORST
4. W

   COLO
5. W

   WSU

What moved it, 2020

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+0.14
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.13

Game by game

• USCL 17-33 vs USC49% → 1%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −52, Clock −2
• WASHL 21-24 at WASH25% → 5%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −2
• ORSTW 30-24 vs ORST82% → 89%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• COLOW 38-21 at COLO55% → 98%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +48, Clock +2
• WSUW 45-28 vs WSU77% → 99%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +26, 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.