Skip to content
Utah State

Utah State Aggies

Pac-12·0-2·
Compare
Elo
1376#98
SP+
-11.5#108
FPI
-10.4
AP
NR
Next@ Utah · Wk 3Win prob 24%Model +11.1
Talent #123 (544.0)Recruiting class #9765% production returning

Team Leaders

Latest on Utah State

All news →

Utah State's power game meets its worst possible matchup

Matchup · 6d ago

Idaho State knocks off Utah State, 29-17

Matchup · Sep 6

Roster · 147 players

FR 56SO 24JR 25SR 42
#PlayerPosClHtWt
2McCae HillsteadQBJR5'10"190
3Jacob ConoverQBSR6'1"195
9Grady BrosterhousQBSR6'3"210
16Bryson BarnesQBSR6'2"210
17Crew CacciacarneQBFR6'0"200
—Kaleb MarylandQBFR5'11"185
—Brady GoodmanQBFR6'4"220
8Javen JacobsRBJR5'10"190
10Sesi VailahiRBJR5'9"210
20Tre KofeRBFR5'9"205
23Noah WhiteRBFR5'9"190
25Ravian LarryRBFR5'11"205
28Nehemiah WashingtonRBFR6'0"220
—Clyde TaulapapaRBFR6'0"210
—JT WhiteRBFR5'10"190
0Javon RobinsonWRSR5'6"160
1Anthony GarciaWRSR6'2"200
5Rex HaynesWRJR6'5"215
6Demick StarlingWRSR6'0"190
7Eli WoodWRSR6'2"210
7Kahanu DavisWRSR5'10"180
12Kaina WatsonWRFR6'2"190
13Talan ArnettWRFR5'10"190
14Charlie HolbrookWRFR6'2"200
15Ty OlsenWRFR6'1"195
16L.J. Johnson Jr.WRSO5'10"180
17Cade BakerWRSO6'2"185
81Nikko BoncoreWRFR5'11"175
—Jackson OlsenWRSO6'4"190
—Trent CallWRSO6'2"200
—Cade MccallWRFR6'0"190
—Mavrik ChlarsonWRFR6'1"205
—Bronco WintertonWRFR6'0"195
11Collin RemenowksyTESR6'1"250
18Kache KaioTESO6'3"240
19Chase TuatagaloaTEJR6'4"245
83Josh SterzerTESR6'3"230
84Preston McdanielTEFR6'4"225
87Broc LaneTESR6'4"240
88Jude NelsonTEFR6'4"230
—Kyle LivelyTEFR6'3"220
—Tyler MasdeaTESR6'0"285
50John Randle Jr.OLSO6'4"300
51Easton HammondOLFR6'3"290
51Kauasi HansenOLFR6'4"300
52Jimmy ListonOLSR6'4"300
54Jackson NelsonOLFR6'7"270
56Jake EichornOLSR6'5"310
56Seth WilfredOLJR6'6"300
57Trey AndersenOLSR6'6"285
57Chantz ChargualafOLFR6'1"295
61K'leyone IosuaOLSO6'3"300
63Jarvis GriffithsOLSO6'2"270
65Tavo Motu'apuakaOLJR6'4"330
67Adam PondOLJR6'5"290
69Kadin LynchOLSR6'3"305
72George MaileOLJR6'4"295
73Elia MigaoOLSR6'3"295
—Chewy WadeOLSO6'5"290
—Evan NesmithOLSR6'3"290
—Caysen WhittakerOLFR6'2"310
—Jared PeleOLSR6'3"330
—Sam BrousseauOLFR6'8"280
—Jared SmithOLFR6'3"275
—Lucas NeidigOLFR6'6"290
—Clay JacobsonOLFR6'3"275
—Kaholi KrauOLFR6'5"315
—Spencer ScappiniOLFR6'2"310
—Kasen LongDESO6'6"270
9Tyree MorrisDTJR6'5"285
10Gabriel Iniguez Jr.DTSR6'1"290
28Carson TujagueDTFR6'3"280
44Bo MaileDTSR6'3"270
47Naki FahinaDTSR5'11"295
51Ta'Avili TuitamaDTSR6'1"310
59Cole KeeleDTSO6'3"300
90Ronnie MageoDTSR6'5"310
92Joshua PapuDTFR6'3"290
94Kone Aumua-UiagaleleiDTJR6'2"310
97Bryan VoglDTJR6'2"260
—Quincy WrightDTSR6'2"320
—Stockton PyneDTFR6'3"260
—Tiki BellDTFR6'3"320
0Enoka MigaoLBSR6'4"265
0Harrison TaggartLBSR6'1"235
11Asher CunninghamLBJR6'2"240
13Diego GrateronLBJR5'10"190
14Bronson Olevao Jr.LBJR6'1"215
17Jordan PendletonLBSR6'4"240
17Mataira BrownLBSO6'2"230
18James JennetteLBSR6'5"225
20John MillerLBSR6'1"225
25Chris JoeLBFR6'3"215
27Blake BarnesLBFR6'1"180
29Brycen EdwardsLBSR6'1"220
31Dakota HowellLBFR5'11"220
32Adonis JacksonLBSR6'3"265
33Luke DurfeyLBFR5'11"230
42Nu'uletau SellesinLBSR6'1"275
55Tevita TuhaLBJR6'1"265
95Paxton NaegleLBFR6'4"250
99Beau McGivenLBFR6'0"185
—BJ DiakiteLBSR6'4"240
—Jeremiah HolmesLBSR6'2"240
—Tanner JolleyLBSO6'2"240
—John McclellanLBFR6'2"220
—Brody FloresLBFR6'2"210
—Ryker LotuleleiLBFR6'1"235
—Viliami Tapa'AtoutaiLBFR6'2"230
—Judd BowenLBFR6'2"240
—Maximus MaileLBFR5'11"215
—Fisher PyneLBFR6'2"240
—Faimafili SnukaLBFR6'0"240
2Kye StokesCBSR6'0"195
5Markie GrantCBSO5'11"170
11Bryson TaylorCBSR6'1"190
15D'Angelo MayesCBJR6'1"190
22John ShepardCBJR6'3"215
30Jack HadfieldCBFR5'10"175
34Dylan TuckerCBSR5'11"200
—Antonio BluiettCBSR6'1"205
—Dontae DysonCBFR6'0"185
—Crew DeMartiniCBFR6'0"190
—Jordan HarrisCBFR5'10"170
—O'Shea Jackson-WebbCBFR5'11"175
3Charger DotySSO5'11"210
4Brevin HamblinSJR6'5"200
8David KabongoSSO5'11"190
12Bobby ArnoldSJR5'9"180
19Lava VailahiSFR5'11"165
21Chapman LewisSJR6'1"175
26D'Andre BarnesSSO6'1"200
27Chika EbunohaSJR5'11"185
—Ike LarsenSSR5'11"195
—Breaker MendenhallSSO6'2"200
—Steven SannieniolaSSR6'0"205
—Jonathan BairdSJR6'1"220
—Makai So'oSFR6'0"190
14Tanner RinkerPKJR6'2"190
19Kian AfrookhtehPKSR5'7"195
21Tyler HaleyPKSO5'10"180
—Grayson LyttonPKSO5'10"170
16Landon RehkowPSO6'1"175
37Dylan SpraguePSO5'11"185
—Will EvansPJR6'3"190
13Hyrum HatchLSSO6'0"200
53Owen EdwardsLSSO5'11"205

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
15.5
scoring offense
Points allowed
22.5
scoring defense
Differential
-7.0
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
339.0#109
Yards / play
4.6#126
Passing yards / game
220.5#77
Rushing yards / game
118.5#113
First downs / game
21.5#60
3rd down %
53.6%#21
4th down %
20.0%#112
Time of possession
29:14#90
Defense
Yards allowed / game
298.5#56
Yards / play allowed
4.4#41
Pass yards allowed / game
200.5#66
Rush yards allowed / game
98.0#50
3rd down % allowed
34.4%#65
Sacks
4#60
Tackles for loss
9#94
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
-7#138
Takeaways
0#129
Giveaways
7#137
Penalties / game
8.0#105
Penalty yards / game
59.0#84

Rank is national among all FBS teams (#1 = best), oriented so higher rank = better even for defensive and discipline metrics. Bars show percentile.

Scouting Report · 2 games in

pass-leaning

Utah State throws it: Bronco Mendenhall's offenses have been pass-leaning across 9 seasons. The strengths are on both sides of the ball, led by 11th at keeping everything in front of them. The way in is 130th at generating havoc, and they are 122nd at staying out of the backfield.

On fourth down he goes for it about as often as his peers do from the same spots (−2.3%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −32.3% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

Utah State has played 2 games against a soft slate, adjusted for here. That football carries about 26% of what is below; the rest is still the preseason projection.

Strengths

  • Defensehitting chunk plays
    1.00
    #11 of 138
  • Offensehitting chunk plays
    1.35
    #29 of 138
  • Offensesurviving second and twelve
    42%
    #31 of 138

Soft spots

  • Defensesacks and tackles for loss
    9.9%
    #130 of 138
  • Offensegetting stopped at the line
    27.5%
    #122 of 138
  • Offensefirst and second down
    36%
    #109 of 138

Each bar is where this team sits in the country. Before the season has produced enough football these are PROJECTIONS — last season regressed to the mean, plus talent, returning production, recruiting and whether the staff is the same one — and the season replaces them as it is played. Head coaches only — there is no free feed for coordinators, so on a program where the head coach does not call the offense this describes the staff he hired. Play-calling identity is a style, not a grade: throwing more than the situations warrant is not better than throwing less than they warrant.

2026 Season Projection

model win prob · 9 to play
5.3 – 5.7
projected final record (now 0–2)
Exp. wins left
5.3
of 9 games
Bowl odds
44%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
87%
vs Troy
Toughest
24%
vs Utah

How the season could finish · 2026 · chance of each final win total · 9 games left

Every remaining game simulated from the model's win probability for it. Tallest bar is the single likeliest finish, not a prediction that it happens.

0123456789
final winstallest bar = 29% chance
Likeliest finish 5-6 (29%)Bowl eligible 44% · marked on the axis at 6

Player Value

EPA contribution by position group + estimated NIL market value (derived from position rates and on-field production — not actual deal figures).

Unit Value — Total EPA
WRDemick Starling, Eli Wood +3
+29.3 EPA
QBMcCae Hillstead, Grady Brosterhous
+17.8 EPA
TEKache Kaio
+0.6 EPA
RBJaven Jacobs, Sesi Vailahi +2
-12.7 EPA

Total EPA produced by each positional group this season. OL value is captured via the rush/pass efficiency of skill players; OL-specific EPA isn't separately reported.

Estimated NIL Market Value
ESTIMATED
QBMcCae Hillstead
~$784K
EPA +15.80.415/play38 snaps
QBGrady Brosterhous
~$435K
EPA +2.00.028/play72 snaps
RBJaven Jacobs
~$145K
EPA -3.4-0.095/play36 snaps

Estimated from position-group market rates and on-field EPA contribution. Actual NIL valuations depend on social media following, brand fit, and market negotiations — these figures are directional only.

The Five Factors

ranked vs. FBS · bar = better
Efficiency (PPA)
Off0.0512th#121
Def0.0467th#46
Explosiveness
Off1.3570th#42
Def1.0092nd#12
Field position
Off71.065th#49
Def72.945th#76
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off2.407th#128
Def3.4640th#83
Turnovers
Won 0Lost 7
Margin -7

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
—
Defense
—
Off · pass
0.1417th#115
Off · rush
-0.0512th#121

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off-0.0513th#120
Def-0.0158th#58
Passing
Off0.1415th#117
Def0.1270th#42

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
2.97#83
2nd-level / open-field
1.16 / 0.59
Power / stuff (off)
16.7% / 27.5%
Havoc — total (def)
9.9%#136
Havoc — front 7 / DB
7.0% / 2.8%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off-0.24
Def-0.06
Pass downs
Off0.59
Def0.29

PPA on each down type (off vs. def).

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense-0.22#1350.05#1030.80#33
Defense-0.08#56-0.10#240.60#102

Elo Trajectory

Idaho StateFinal
Elo rating 1376 → 1381+5 over season

Team Fingerprint · 2026 · 43 opponent-adjusted metrics · percentile vs 138 FBS teams

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.0412th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.0459th
  • Offense success rate37%17th
  • Defense success rate allowed38%47th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs34%1st
  • Offense success — passing downs42%83rd
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs43%47th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs25%59th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.483rd
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.089th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs1.158th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs2.052nd

Trenches

  • Offense line yards2.826th
  • Defense line yards allowed2.470th
  • Offense highlight yards0.5923rd
  • Defense highlight yards allowed0.7946th
  • Offense power success0.131st
  • Defense power success allowed0.6359th
  • Offense stuff rate0.314th
  • Defense stuff rate0.2253rd

Third down

  • Third down conversion54%81st
  • Third down distance faced7.045th
  • Third down conversion allowed35%56th
  • Third down distance forced6.623rd

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half-0.154th
  • Net success rate — second half0.1780th

Drives

  • Points per drive1.328th
  • Points per drive allowed1.572nd
  • Average starting field position3057th
  • Opponent starting field position2948th
  • Available yards gained29%14th
  • Available yards allowed43%67th
  • Scoring opportunities per drive64%14th
  • Scoring opportunities allowed91%24th
  • Points per scoring opportunity2.029th
  • Points allowed per opportunity1.684th
  • Three-and-out rate45%11th
  • Three-and-outs forced27%60th

Roster

  • Returning usage71%84th
  • Returning EPA21581st
  • Team talent composite54411th
  • Recruiting class rank97.030th
  • Recruiting class points17830th

Every metric is opponent-adjusted and ranked so that higher is always better — a defensive rate that is good when low is ranked accordingly. Sack and tackle-for-loss composition are deliberately absent: their relationship to team quality is a measured null, so they carry a style rather than a rank, and they appear in the pressure signature instead.

Intelligence Report

⚡

Offensive DNA

Pass-dominant offense — below average EPA/play nationally
EPA/play
+0.052#121 · bottom 20%
Pass EPA/play
+0.138#117
Rush EPA/play
-0.053#120
Explosiveness
1.346#42
Pts/opportunity
2.40#128
Success rate
38.1%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.192 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

EPA/play allowed
+0.044#46 · above avg
Havoc rate (total)
9.9%#136
Front-7 havoc
7.0%
DB havoc
2.8%
Big play rate allowed
0.998#12
Success rate allowed
38.7%

Disruption comes primarily from the front seven.

📊

Season Signature

15.5 PPG offense, 22.5 allowed — -7.0 margin/game
Points per game
15.5
Points allowed/game
22.5
Scoring margin/game
-7.0
Turnover margin
-7won 0 · lost 7
Production returning
65%
Talent rank (247)
#123

0-2 record through 2 games.

Team Shape · percentile vs. FBS · dashed = 50th

OFFENSE12thEXPLOSIVENESS70thFINISHING7thFIELD POS65thDEFENSE67thHAVOC1th50th100th
Offense
12th
Explosiveness
70th
Finishing
7th
Field Pos
65th
Defense
67th
Havoc
1th

Each axis = national percentile rank. 100th = best in FBS, 0th = worst. Defense and Havoc are oriented so higher = better.

CORE efficiency · situation and opponent removed

Points per 100 plays above average, after the game state is regressed out of every snap and the schedule is solved out across the whole league. The version of this team’s efficiency that can be compared to a team it never played.

Overall
+1.1
#64
Offense
-3.2
#91
Defense
-4.3
#52
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 11 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive1.271.46
Starting field positionown 29.6own 28.5
Available yards29.1%43.5%
Scoring opportunities63.6%90.9%
Points per opportunity2.001.60
Three-and-out rate45.5%27.3%
Every team’s drive efficiency →

Play-calling identity

Against what the league calls from the same down, distance, field position, score and clock — so this is the staff, not the game script.

Pass rate
56.1%
Expected, given the spots
65.0%
Over expected
-8.8
Fourth down vs peers
+8
Fourth down vs the model
+0
All play-calling tendencies →

National Landscape · 2026 FBS · offense vs. defense EPA/play

Each dot = one FBS team. Utah State is highlighted. Tap or hover a dot for details.

ELITEDEF. FORTRESSOFF. POWERHOUSEREBUILDING-0.100.00+0.10+0.20+0.30-0.050.00+0.10+0.20Offensive EPA/play← worsebetter →Defensive EPA allowed/play← worsebetter →

Similar Programs

Teams with the closest offense + defense efficiency profile to Utah State in 2026

by EPA/play distance
Sacramento StateSP+ -19.1
Off EPA/play +0.043Def EPA/play +0.081Elo 1476
Match
98%
TulsaSP+ -2.3
Off EPA/play +0.099Def EPA/play +0.010Elo 1268
Match
96%
BuffaloSP+ -11.6
Off EPA/play +0.104Def EPA/play +0.072Elo 1365
Match
96%
WashingtonSP+ +12.0
Off EPA/play +0.064Def EPA/play -0.019Elo 1762
Match
96%
Eastern MichiganSP+ -15.6
Off EPA/play +0.041Def EPA/play +0.115Elo 1353
Match
96%
CaliforniaSP+ -3.4
Off EPA/play +0.057Def EPA/play +0.119Elo 1349
Match
96%

Similarity = normalized Euclidean distance on season offensive and defensive EPA/play. Teams within ±0.02 EPA/play on both units score >90%.

Program Trajectory · CORE rating · 2015–2026 · points per game vs an average FBS team

2015: +1.1, #65 of 1282016: -4.1, #83 of 1282017: -8.0, #91 of 1302018: +26.8, #5 of 1302019: -8.1, #94 of 1302020: -26.3, #121 of 1242021: +2.0, #65 of 1302022: -13.7, #110 of 1312023: -9.8, #99 of 1332024: -11.9, #105 of 1342025: -4.1, #77 of 1362026: +1.1, #64 of 138
20152026
Now +1.1 · #64 of 138Best +26.8 in 2018Worst -26.3 in 2020

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20260-20-0
0%
0.8-0.8
20256-74-4
46%
6.2-0.2
20244-83-4
33%
5.0-1.0
20236-74-4
46%
6.3-0.3
20226-75-3
46%
5.6+0.4
202111-37-2
79%
8.7+2.3
20201-51-5
17%
1.0-0.0
20197-66-2
54%
5.7+1.3
201811-27-1
85%
10.1+0.9
20176-74-4
46%
7.4-1.4

xW = expected wins from per-game dominance. Luck = actual − expected (positive = won close games).

0.2%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

0-1 so far, projected to finish 4.2-6.9. Wins the Pac-12 in 7.1%.

If they finish with…

49%
2 losses
6.3%
3 losses
0%
4 losses

Their chance of making it at each final loss count.

down 0.1 points since preseason.

  • At 2 losses they are 49% where the average Pac-12 team is 25%.
  • The Pac-12 takes 0.25 bids in an average season.
  • One bid goes to the best champion outside the P4. They take it in 0.2% of seasons, having won their league in 98% of those.

Utah State’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk3at Utah1.8
  • wk5at Boise State1.2
  • wk11at San Diego State0.6
  • wk12at Oregon State0.5
  • wk8at Texas State0.4
  • wk10vs Fresno State0.4

Who to root for

Games Utah State is not in that move its odds most. Same units, much smaller scale.

  • wk11Northwestern over Ohio State0.2
  • wk5Middle Tennessee over Kansas0.2
  • wk3Oklahoma over New Mexico0.2
  • wk3Miami over Wake Forest0.2
  • wk6North Texas over Charlotte0.2
  • wk6UAB over Memphis0.1
The full playoff picture →

Pac-12

0-0 in league play, projected 3.3-3.74 of 8 by title odds
7.1%
Wins the Pac-12
18%
Reaches the title game

The Pac-12 sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 38% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk5Utah State at Boise State18.5
  • wk11Utah State at San Diego State11.6
  • wk12Utah State at Oregon State10.9
  • wk10Fresno State at Utah State9.6

Points of title probability riding on each result. The whole Pac-12 race →

If not the playoff, then

24%
Bowl eligible
24%
Placed in a bowl
0.2%
In the playoff
76%
Season over in November

Utah State is 0-2 and needs 6 more wins from 9 games to reach the six that make a team eligible — at most one of which may come against an FCS opponent.

  • Holiday Bowl7.4%
  • Sun Bowl7.3%
  • Alamo Bowl4.8%
  • Las Vegas Bowl3.6%
  • Independence Bowl0.9%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 4 have sent Utah State a player since 2010 — 20 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of Utah State's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
BinghamUT110
LibertyNV41
North ShoreTX30
Pleasant GroveUT20
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.