Utah

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0214th
  Defense+0.0673rd
• 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.
  Offense40.6%34th
  Defense36.4%89th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1410th
  Defense+1.3811th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0948th
  Defense+0.0464th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.037th
  Defense+0.0989th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.1%33rd
  Defense44.6%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.
  Offense27.6%30th
  Defense22.9%98th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1049th
  Defense2.9470th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.8%41st
  Defense20.0%79th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.7%73rd
  Defense18.0%75th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   FLA
2. W
   BAY
3. W
   WEB
4. W
   UCLA
5. L
   ORST
6. W
   CAL
7. W
   USC
8. L
   ORE
9. W
   ASU
10. L
    WASH
11. L
    ARIZ
12. W
    COLO
13. L
    NU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Utah.

Players, 2023

1. Bryson BarnesQB269 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 102nd of 250 QBs
   0.82WAR0.29 to 1.41
2. Ja'Quinden JacksonRB143 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 70th of 383 RBs
   0.31WAR0.17 to 0.44
3. Jaylon GloverRB107 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 169th of 383 RBs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.27
4. Jack BouwmeesterP45 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 15th of 103 punters
   0.16WAR0.07 to 0.23
5. Devaughn VeleWR43 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 119th of 457 WRs
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.24
6. Cole BeckerPK14 plays · +0.340 pts/play · 49th of 113 kickers
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12
7. Landen KingTE11 plays · +0.286 pts/play · 104th of 212 TEs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
8. Money ParksWR33 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 271st of 457 WRs
   0.06WAR−0.01 to 0.12

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  72372333rd of 130Roster talent: 723, 33rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21521526th of 130Recruiting: 215, 26th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  72%72%27th of 128Returning production: 72%, 27th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +8.5+8.532nd of 130SP+ rating: +8.5, 32nd 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, 2023

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 0.03 of the 0.10 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 UCLAQ4 14:53 4th & 1 at UTAH 18, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
2. vs UCLAQ4 3:14 4th & 1 at UTAH 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
3. at USCQ4 0:25 4th & 1 at USC 42, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
4. at BAYQ4 12:01 4th & 10 at BAY 35, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
5. vs CALQ3 10:35 4th & 3 at CAL 5, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at ORSTQ3 11:17 4th & 3 at UTAH 20, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs UCLAQ2 6:04 4th & 2 at UTAH 46, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at ORSTQ2 4:19 4th & 8 at ORST 41, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

60th of 133 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

   FLA
2. W

   BAY
3. W

   WEB
4. W

   UCLA
5. L

   ORST
6. W

   CAL
7. W

   USC
8. L

   ORE
9. W

   ASU
10. L

    WASH
11. L

    ARIZ
12. W

    COLO
13. L

    NU

What moved it, 2023

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+0.30
• Clock+0.06
• Timeouts−0.01
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.52

Game by game

• FLAW 24-11 vs FLA72% → 99%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +1
• BAYW 20-13 at BAY68% → 83%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +38, Possession & field position −3
• WEBW 31-7 vs WEB97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• UCLAW 14-7 vs UCLA67% → 97%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• ORSTL 7-21 at ORST44% → 1%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −2
• CALW 34-14 vs CAL80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +1
• USCW 34-32 at USC29% → 95%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• OREL 6-35 vs ORE29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −35
• ASUW 55-3 vs ASU78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +24
• WASHL 28-35 at WASH25% → 3%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −2
• ARIZL 18-42 at ARIZ45% → 0%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −1
• COLOW 23-17 vs COLO94% → 97%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +12, Timeouts +1
• NUL 7-14 at NU69% → 3%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −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.