Utah

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.3199th
  Defense+0.0181st
• 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.
  Offense49.1%95th
  Defense38.4%80th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2661st
  Defense+1.3411th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.3399th
  Defense+0.1613th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3178th
  Defense−0.1198th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.4%88th
  Defense44.7%71st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense40.6%99th
  Defense25.4%87th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.5599th
  Defense2.8753rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.6%99th
  Defense20.2%63rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.4%87th
  Defense16.9%69th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   UCLA
2. W
   CP
3. W
   WYO
4. L
   TTU
5. W
   WVU
6. W
   ASU
7. L
   BYU
8. W
   COLO
9. W
   CIN
10. W
    BAY
11. W
    KSU
12. W
    KU
13. W
    NEB

Bars above the line: better than expected for Utah.

Players, 2025

1. Devon DampierQB407 plays · +0.286 pts/play · 7th of 231 QBs
   2.18WAR1.56 to 2.76
2. Byrd FicklinQB48 plays · +0.292 pts/play · 160th of 231 QBs
   0.26WAR0.08 to 0.49
3. Ryan DavisWR60 plays · +0.208 pts/play · 49th of 451 WRs
   0.23WAR0.14 to 0.33
4. Wayshawn ParkerRB123 plays · +0.081 pts/play · 122nd of 365 RBs
   0.19WAR0.12 to 0.26
5. Dallen BentleyTE65 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 12th of 213 TEs
   0.15WAR0.01 to 0.28
6. NaQuari RogersRB61 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 214th of 365 RBs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.15
7. JJ BuchananWR41 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 202nd of 451 WRs
   0.09WAR0.01 to 0.18
8. Larry SimmonsWR26 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 259th of 451 WRs
   0.07WAR0.02 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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  70870844th of 134Roster talent: 708, 44th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21021034th of 134Recruiting: 210, 34th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  14%14%112th of 132Returning production: 14%, 112th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +22.2+22.28th of 134SP+ rating: +22.2, 8th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.03 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 BYUQ4 3:04 4th & 15 at UTAH 30, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
2. at KUQ2 0:45 4th & 6 at KU 29, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
3. vs TTUQ2 6:36 4th & 6 at TTU 45, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
4. at UCLAQ2 3:15 4th & 5 at UCLA 48, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. at WYOQ2 4:49 4th & 2 at UTAH 35, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs COLOQ2 7:42 4th & 11 at COLO 44, up 26Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs TTUQ4 2:43 4th & 18 at UTAH 17, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs TTUQ3 2:12 4th & 4 at UTAH 28, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

35th of 136 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

   UCLA
2. W

   CP
3. W

   WYO
4. L

   TTU
5. W

   WVU
6. W

   ASU
7. L

   BYU
8. W

   COLO
9. W

   CIN
10. W

    BAY
11. W

    KSU
12. W

    KU
13. W

    NEB

What moved it, 2025

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+1.79
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.46
• Other−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.80

Game by game

• UCLAW 43-10 at UCLA67% → 100%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +6
• CPW 63-9 vs CP99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• WYOW 31-6 at WYO92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +14
• TTUL 10-34 vs TTU54% → 0%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −12
• WVUW 48-14 at WVU80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +26
• ASUW 42-10 vs ASU69% → 43%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −26: Timeouts −43, Scoreboard +29
• BYUL 21-24 at BYU59% → 4%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• COLOW 53-7 vs COLO84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +19
• CINW 45-14 vs CIN74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28
• BAYW 55-28 at BAY67% → 100%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +38, Clock +1
• KSUW 51-47 vs KSU85% → 91%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +16, Possession & field position +2
• KUW 31-21 at KU74% → 96%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• NEBW 44-22 vs NEB78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +25

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.