Utah

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.2182nd
  Defense+0.0572nd
• 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.
  Offense51.1%94th
  Defense39.3%75th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1415th
  Defense+1.3810th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2393rd
  Defense+0.0468th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2040th
  Defense+0.1178th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense56.4%95th
  Defense44.8%74th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.5%91st
  Defense28.6%68th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.5496th
  Defense2.9565th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.6%85th
  Defense23.1%90th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.1%90th
  Defense19.0%86th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   FLA
2. W
   SUU
3. W
   SDSU
4. W
   ASU
5. W
   ORST
6. L
   UCLA
7. W
   USC
8. W
   WSU
9. W
   ARIZ
10. W
    STAN
11. L
    ORE
12. W
    COLO
13. W
    USC
14. L
    PSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Utah.

Players, 2022

1. Cameron RisingQB387 plays · +0.348 pts/play · 8th of 234 QBs
   2.52WAR1.85 to 3.30
2. Tavion ThomasRB109 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 69th of 384 RBs
   0.36WAR0.27 to 0.45
3. Dalton KincaidTE65 plays · +0.240 pts/play · 1st of 214 TEs
   0.29WAR0.18 to 0.41
4. Micah BernardRB113 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 130th of 384 RBs
   0.23WAR0.14 to 0.33
5. Devaughn VeleWR57 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 116th of 455 WRs
   0.15WAR0.05 to 0.24
6. Bryson BarnesQB45 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 191st of 234 QBs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.21
7. Ja'Quinden JacksonRB50 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 243rd of 384 RBs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
8. Jaylen DixonWR33 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 281st of 455 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.11

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  70570533rd of 129Roster talent: 705, 33rd of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20520532nd of 129Recruiting: 205, 32nd of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  85%85%8th of 128Returning production: 85%, 8th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +19.2+19.210th of 129SP+ rating: +19.2, 10th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.04 of the 0.07 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 WSUQ4 12:17 4th & 1 at UTAH 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
2. vs PSUQ3 1:18 4th & 4 at PSU 44, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. vs ORSTQ2 3:25 4th & 14 at ORST 35, up 11Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
4. at USCQ4 14:56 4th & 3 at USC 17, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at UCLAQ2 10:00 4th & 4 at UCLA 5, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at UCLAQ4 6:05 4th & 9 at UCLA 32, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs ARIZQ3 4:31 4th & 3 at ARIZ 9, up 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at USCQ3 6:10 4th & 5 at UTAH 49, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

86th of 131 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

   FLA
2. W

   SUU
3. W

   SDSU
4. W

   ASU
5. W

   ORST
6. L

   UCLA
7. W

   USC
8. W

   WSU
9. W

   ARIZ
10. W

    STAN
11. L

    ORE
12. W

    COLO
13. W

    USC
14. L

    PSU

What moved it, 2022

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+0.09
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts−0.07
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.83

Game by game

• FLAL 26-29 at FLA60% → 4%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −3
• SUUW 73-7 vs SUU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• SDSUW 35-7 vs SDSU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +8
• ASUW 34-13 at ASU91% → 99%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +15, Clock +1
• ORSTW 42-16 vs ORST79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts −1
• UCLAL 32-42 at UCLA61% → 3%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −2
• USCW 43-42 vs USC69% → 77%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +12, Clock +1
• WSUW 21-17 at WSU77% → 96%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +33, Clock +2
• ARIZW 45-20 vs ARIZ87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +16, Timeouts +1
• STANW 42-7 vs STAN93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• OREL 17-20 at ORE54% → 5%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −2
• COLOW 63-21 at COLO97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• USCW 47-24 at USC53% → 99%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +49, Clock +1
• PSUL 21-35 vs PSU44% → 1%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −47, 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.