Utah

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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−0.0111th
  Defense−0.0395th
• 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.
  Offense36.7%6th
  Defense35.3%98th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3065th
  Defense+1.3325th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0117th
  Defense0.0078th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0114th
  Defense−0.0191st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.9%17th
  Defense41.5%95th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense23.8%5th
  Defense25.0%94th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7314th
  Defense2.5394th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.0%8th
  Defense26.5%98th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.4%12th
  Defense19.9%89th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   SUU
2. W
   BAY
3. W
   USU
4. W
   OKST
5. L
   ARIZ
6. L
   ASU
7. L
   TCU
8. L
   HOU
9. L
   BYU
10. L
    COLO
11. L
    ISU
12. W
    UCF

Bars above the line: better than expected for Utah.

Players, 2024

1. Micah BernardRB211 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 31st of 373 RBs
   0.47WAR0.34 to 0.60
2. Isaac WilsonQB236 plays · +0.069 pts/play · 154th of 232 QBs
   0.31WAR−0.18 to 0.72
3. Brandon RoseQB42 plays · +0.277 pts/play · 174th of 232 QBs
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.30
4. Cameron RisingQB54 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 178th of 232 QBs
   0.20WAR0.11 to 0.31
5. Cole BeckerPK19 plays · +0.395 pts/play · 8th of 114 kickers
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.19
6. Luke BottariQB37 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 195th of 232 QBs
   0.14WAR0.07 to 0.20
7. Jack BouwmeesterP56 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 17th of 106 punters
   0.12WAR0.00 to 0.24
8. Brant KuitheTE44 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 36th of 221 TEs
   0.07WAR0.00 to 0.15

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  74574533rd of 131Roster talent: 745, 33rd of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20820831st of 131Recruiting: 208, 31st of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  32%32%94th of 130Returning production: 32%, 94th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.7+7.739th of 131SP+ rating: +7.7, 39th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 0.06 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. vs BYUQ3 2:33 4th & 6 at BYU 39, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
2. at ASUQ4 10:49 4th & 8 at ASU 24, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
3. at OKSTQ4 6:43 4th & 2 at midfield, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. at USUQ4 3:31 4th & 1 at USU 1, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at OKSTQ3 2:39 4th & 3 at OKST 20, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at HOUQ2 4:20 4th & 3 at HOU 28, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs ARIZQ2 6:56 4th & 4 at ARIZ 5, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs ISUQ3 2:18 4th & 4 at ISU 48, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

116th of 134 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

   SUU
2. W

   BAY
3. W

   USU
4. W

   OKST
5. L

   ARIZ
6. L

   ASU
7. L

   TCU
8. L

   HOU
9. L

   BYU
10. L

    COLO
11. L

    ISU
12. W

    UCF

What moved it, 2024

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−0.64
• Possession & field position+0.06
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.06

Game by game

• SUUW 49-0 vs SUU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• BAYW 23-12 vs BAY82% → 97%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +1
• USUW 38-21 at USU92% → 99%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +16, Clock +1
• OKSTW 22-19 at OKST47% → 95%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +49, Clock +3
• ARIZL 10-23 vs ARIZ68% → 2%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −61, Clock −3
• ASUL 19-27 at ASU61% → 3%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −2
• TCUL 7-13 vs TCU57% → 6%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• HOUL 14-17 at HOU58% → 91%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +45, Clock +2
• BYUL 21-22 vs BYU39% → 8%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3
• COLOL 24-49 at COLO16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts +1
• ISUL 28-31 vs ISU30% → 5%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −38, Clock −2
• UCFW 28-14 at UCF24% → 98%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +75: Scoreboard +60, 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.