The SportsWire

Utah

2026 · week 6 result vs Kansas

Updated Tue Oct 13, 7:55 PM CT

Next up projections

at Colorado

Week 7 · Sat Oct 17, 9:15 PM CT / 10:15 PM ET · Folsom Field (Boulder) · Colorado (FBS, Big 12)

Our call: Utah by 19.5Strong

All three models favor Utah. The line, shown for comparison only, has Utah by 16.5.

The average of SP+, Elo and Our model; the line is left out and kept as a benchmark. Toss-up under 3 points, Lean 3 to 7, Strong 7 and over. More ›

Game page: at Colorado ›

Regression watch: Last game's 17-point win matched the play (score -5 against play), inside the 7-point band: no flag. More ›

Schedule: Played the 91st-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating -6.8); 43rd-toughest remaining (+6.1). More ›

Opponents by our model's rating 5 played · 7 left
  • Week 1 vs Idaho (-32.8) · FCS, pooled
  • Week 2 vs Arkansas (-2.4)
  • Week 3 vs Utah State (-7.9)
  • Week 4 at Iowa State (+1.9)
  • Week 6 vs Kansas (+7.3)
  • Remaining:
  • Week 7 at Colorado (-1.5)
  • Week 8 vs Houston (+12.1)
  • Week 9 at Cincinnati (+0.5)
  • Week 10 vs BYU (+18.2)
  • Week 11 at Arizona (+9.3)
  • Week 12 at TCU (+6.8)
  • Week 13 vs West Virginia (-2.6)

Each opponent's rating from our model's week 7 snapshot, in points against an average FBS team; the averages are ranked among the 138 FBS teams. Played means through week 6. Experimental, like the Our model card.

Series: Utah leads 36–33–3 · last: Utah 53–7, 2025

Series history 72 meetings since 1903
  • All-time: Utah leads 36–33–3 (72 meetings since 1903)
  • Last meeting: Utah 53–7, 2025, Rice-Eccles Stadium
  • Streak: none
  • At Folsom Field: Utah leads 5–2 (7 meetings)
  • Biggest margins: Utah 53–7 (2025) · Colorado 54–0 (1951)
  • Since 2000: Utah leads 12–3 (15 meetings)
SeasonResultSite
2025Utah 53–7Rice-Eccles Stadium
2024Colorado 49–24Folsom Field
2023Utah 23–17Rice-Eccles Stadium
2022Utah 63–21Folsom Field
2021Utah 28–13Rice-Eccles Stadium
2020Utah 38–21Folsom Field
2019Utah 45–15Rice-Eccles Stadium
2018Utah 30–7Folsom Field
2017Utah 34–13Rice-Eccles Stadium
2016Colorado 27–22Folsom Field
2015Utah 20–14Rice-Eccles Stadium
2014Utah 38–34Folsom Field
2013Utah 24–17Rice-Eccles Stadium
2012Utah 42–35Folsom Field
2011Colorado 17–14Rice-Eccles Stadium
RatingUtahColorado
SP+ +23.5 #7 -2.4 #84
Elo 1929 1325

Projected margin for Utah · three models and the line, side by side

SP+
+23.4
Utah +23.5 vs Colorado -2.4
avg miss 10.6
closest 47/79
Elo
+21.7
Utah 1929 vs Colorado 1325
avg miss 12.3
closest 33/79
Line · benchmark
+16.5
pregame line
avg miss 11.1
Our model · experimental
+13.3
Utah +14.4 vs Colorado -1.5
prior 55%
avg miss 11.8
closest 14/40
How to read this
  • SP+ is a rating of how good a team is, in points better or worse than an average team, built from its play-by-play, so the gap between two teams' ratings is a projected margin.
  • Elo is a rating that goes up with every win and down with every loss, more for beating a strong team, less for beating a weak one. The gap between two ratings is divided by 25 to turn it into points.
  • The line is the pregame line, the margin the market expected, shown from Utah's side. It is not one of the models: it is shown for comparison only, as the benchmark the models and Our call are measured against.
  • Our model is this site's own experimental rating, built from each team's play-by-play adjusted for who it has played, blended with a preseason estimate from last season, returning players and recruiting. "prior 67%" means 67 percent of the rating is still that preseason estimate; the share shrinks as games are played.
  • In SP+, Elo and our model the home team gets 2.5 points (Colorado); the line already includes the market's own home edge. The conversion to points is approximate.
  • "avg miss 9.8" under a card is how far that model's projections have been from the actual margins this season, on average, in points. "closest 10/39" is how many of the season's 39 finished games that model came closest on (a tie counts for every tied model); the line, a benchmark, shows its average miss only. Shown once a model has 20 finished games.
  • Our call, above the cards, is the site's prediction: the simple average of the SP+, Elo and our model margins. The pregame line is left out of it and kept as a benchmark to measure it against. Toss-up means the average is under 3 points, Lean 3 to 7, Strong 7 or more. It is made only when all three of those models have a number, and it is scored after the game like the models.
  • Each card is one method's estimate, shown side by side; when they disagree, that is worth knowing.
  • After a game, the sentence under the score shows every model and the line against the actual margin: ✓ when a model named the winner, ✗ when it did not (the line, a benchmark, gets no mark), and Closest: the model nearest the final margin among those present, never the line (an exact tie goes to the first listed). The "closest 10/39" counts keep the accuracy report's scoring of SP+ and Elo, where a tie credits both.
  • Metrics explained: the four models and their track record ›

Efficiency matchup · season to date · Utah 5 games, Colorado 5 games

Edge: Utah wins 3 of 5

Utah moves the ball better, stops plays better and has the edge on big plays. Colorado is more disruptive and allows fewer big plays.

Utahlonger bar = betterColorado

Run game, head to head · season to date

Utah's runs work 50% of the time; Colorado's run defense allows 41%. Colorado's runs work 39% of the time; Utah's run defense allows 35%.

More numbers
MeasureUtahColoradoEdge
Off. success rate52.9%40.2%Utah
Off. explosiveness1.311.20Utah
Def. success rate allowed34.0%37.1%Utah
Def. explosiveness allowed1.331.17Colorado
Havoc created19.4%20.7%Colorado
  • Run game, success rate: Utah offense 50.0% · Colorado defense allows 41.1% · edge: Utah
  • Run game, success rate: Colorado offense 38.7% · Utah defense allows 35.4% · edge: Utah
  • Run game, PPA per play: Utah offense +0.34 · Colorado defense allows -0.15 · edge: even
  • Run game, PPA per play: Colorado offense -0.13 · Utah defense allows -0.07 · edge: Utah
  • Success rate: how often a play does its job, gaining enough yards to keep the offense on schedule.
  • Explosiveness: how big a team's successful plays are on average; a higher number means more big gains.
  • Havoc: how often the defense blows up a play with a sack, a tackle for loss, a takeaway or a pass broken up.
  • PPA (predicted points added): how many points an average play is worth to the offense; above zero is good for the offense, below zero good for the defense.

How to read this

  • Each row compares the two teams on one measure of how well they have played this season, offense and defense, using every game so far with garbage time (plays late in a decided game) left out.
  • The run game rows pair one team's rushing offense with the other's run defense. The row goes to whichever side is further from the FBS baseline this season, the offense by how far it runs above it, the defense by how much less it allows (baseline: run success rate 43%, PPA per play +0.08, the midpoint of what FBS offenses gain and FBS defenses allow, since both also play FCS teams), so two strong sides or two weak ones are judged by which is the more so. Edges within 3 points of success rate or 0.05 PPA are even. A strong run offense against a weak run defense is where a team can control the game on the ground.
  • In the five rows at the top the longer bar is the better number: bars are scaled within each row, and in the two "allowed" rows the lower number gets the longer bar.
  • Success rate is the share of plays that kept the offense on schedule (half the yards needed on first down, most of them on second, all of them on third or fourth). Explosiveness is how big the successful plays were, on average, in points. Havoc is the share of the opponent's snaps the defense wrecked: a tackle for loss, a sack, a takeaway or a pass broken up.
  • "Allowed" rows are what each defense gave up, so the lower value wins.
  • These are not adjusted for who each team has played, so a light schedule flatters a team, and early in the season they rest on very few games.
  • Metrics explained: success rate, explosiveness and havoc ›

Injuries

No injury report yet for this game. First reports usually come Wednesday.

Coverage (AI-assisted) · 15

Gathered by an AI model from public posts, not from CollegeFootballData. Not used in any number on this page. Verify against the linked sources. Beat coverage checked Mon Oct 12, 7:30 PM CT.

4 entries about games now final not shown.

Score and result

Utah 41, Kansas 24W

Game page: the call before kickoff and how each model did ›

Projected: SP+ n/a · Elo +14.2 ✓ · Our model +7.5 ✓ · the line (benchmark) n/a · actual +17 · Closest: Elo

Utah was never below 59% and won Utah was never below 59% and won Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 100% 50% 0% 41–24
  1. Q3 0:39 · 3rd & 11 · 85% → 60%
    (00:39) Shotgun #8 I.Marshall pass complete deep right to #5 N.McMillan caught at UTA00, for 29 yards to the UTA00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 00:27, 1ST DOWN #29 M.Connington kick attempt good (H: #49 H.Moeller, LS: #39 R.Monteforte)
  2. Q2 0:47 · 1st & 6 · 90% → 67%
    (00:47) Shotgun #8 I.Marshall rush middle for 6 yards gain to the UTA00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 00:42 #29 M.Connington kick attempt good (H: #49 H.Moeller, LS: #39 R.Monteforte)
  3. Q3 12:13 · 1st & 10 · 69% → 86%
    (12:13) No Huddle-Shotgun #4 D.Dampier pass complete short middle to #1 W.Parker caught at UTA14, for 14 yards to the UTA32 (#7 D.Crouch; #27 T.Davis), 1ST DOWN

Home at Rice-Eccles Stadium · Sat Oct 10, 7:00 PM CT / 8:00 PM ET · vs Kansas (FBS, Big 12)

Opponent for every game-level number: Kansas (FBS, Big 12).

Verdict

The 17-point win matched the play: Utah's per-play edge (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.31 vs +0.03, success rate 54% vs 38%) implies roughly a +22 margin.

The verdict compares the score with the margin the plays earned. How it is reached ›

Efficiency

Edge: Utah won 3 of 4

Utah moved the ball better, got more from each play and was more disruptive. Kansas hit the bigger plays.

Utahlonger bar = betterKansas
More numbers

Utah ran 78 plays, Kansas 60. Each number is that team's offense; Kansas's column is also what Utah's defense allowed.

MeasureUtahKansasEdge
PPA / play+0.31+0.03Utah
Total PPA+23.9+1.5Utah
Success rate53.8%38.3%Utah
Explosiveness1.271.46Kansas
Havoc created15.5%10.3%Utah
  • Success rate: how often a play did its job, gaining enough yards to keep the offense on schedule.
  • Explosiveness: how big a team's successful plays were on average; a higher number means more big gains.
  • Havoc: how often the defense blew up a play with a sack, a tackle for loss, a takeaway or a pass broken up. Counted from the play-by-play, so it is approximate.
  • PPA (predicted points added): how many points an average play was worth to the offense. Total PPA adds up every play, and is what the Verdict compares with the score.

How to read this

  • The four rows at the top compare the two offenses in this game; the longer bar is the better number, scaled within each row. A number at or below zero draws no bar.
  • A check marks the better side of a row. The line above the rows counts them: it describes how the game was played, not who won it.
  • Metrics explained ›
Top performers

Utah players by cumulative PPA in this game. Usage is the share of the team's plays of that type involving the player. Receiving is passing-play PPA for non-quarterbacks.

Passing

PlayerPass usagePPA/play
Devon Dampier QB 97% +9.3 +0.29
Byrd Ficklin QB 6% -0.7 -0.34

Rushing

PlayerRush usagePPA/play
Wayshawn Parker RB 33% +11.7 +0.83
Devon Dampier QB 30% +5.4 +0.41
Byrd Ficklin QB 12% +2.5 +0.50
Daniel Bray RB 9% -0.1 -0.01

Receiving

PlayerTarget usagePPA/play
Ricky Johnson WR 15% +8.0 +1.61
Semi Taulanga TE 3% +2.8 +2.79
Wayshawn Parker RB 9% +2.6 +0.85
Braden Pegan WR 33% +2.3 +0.21
By play type
MeasureUtahKansasEdge
Rushing PPA+0.36-0.21Utah
Rushing success51.2%38.1%Utah
Passing PPA+0.31+0.29Utah
Passing success57.6%37.8%Utah
Standard downs PPA+0.34+0.10Utah
Standard downs success55.9%47.4%Utah
Passing downs PPA+0.20-0.10Utah
Passing downs success47.4%22.7%Utah

Havoc detail — Utah defense: TFL 3, sacks 0, takeaways 1, breakups 5 on 58 snaps. Kansas defense: TFL 4, sacks 2, takeaways 1, breakups 1 on 78 snaps.

Drives

A scoring opportunity is a drive that reaches the opponent's 40-yard line or scores; points per opportunity is the points those drives produced divided by their number.

◀ UtahKansas ▶
  • 12Drives12
  • 10Scoring opportunities10
  • 4.1Points per opportunity2.4
  • own 24Avg. starting field positionown 30
By half

Shown because the game changed between halves: the per-play edge swung by 0.51 points a play (Utah -0.07 in the first half, +0.45 in the second). Overtime counts with the second half.

UtahKansas
1st2nd1st2nd
PPA / play+0.02+0.58+0.09+0.13
Success rate54%53%38%38%
Plays39382929

Recruiting

Utah's 2026 class: #27 · 226.89 points.

MeasureUtahKansas
Talent composite 695.7
#58 of 138
684.5
#62 of 138
Transfer portal · 17 in, 22 out

Arrivals (17)

PlayerFrom★Elig.Date
Braden Pegan WR Utah State 4 Immediate Jan 7, 2026
Marcus Wimberly S Oklahoma 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Lucas Samsula DL Wyoming 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Ethan Day DL North Texas 3 Immediate Jan 6, 2026
Kyri Shoels WR San José State 3 Immediate Jan 8, 2026
Isaiah Kema IOL Ohio State 3 Immediate Jan 8, 2026
Elijah Reed CB Akron 3 Immediate Jan 10, 2026
Jireh Moe DL San José State 3 Immediate Jan 11, 2026
Jamal Wallace DL Tennessee 3 Immediate Jan 12, 2026
Cedric Jefferson OT Montana State 3 Immediate Jan 12, 2026

+7 more not shown (17 total).

Departures (22)

PlayerTo★Elig.Date
John Henry Daley EDGE Michigan 4 Immediate Jan 9, 2026
JJ Buchanan WR Michigan 4 Immediate Jan 12, 2026
Salesi Moa CB Michigan 4 Immediate Jan 12, 2026
Smith Snowden CB Michigan 4 Immediate Jan 13, 2026
Devin Green RB undecided 3 Immediate Jan 2, 2026
Raycine Guillory RB LSU 3 Immediate Jan 5, 2026
Isaac Wilson QB Colorado 3 Immediate Jan 7, 2026
Dallas Vakalahi DL Penn State 3 Immediate Jan 8, 2026
Christian Thatcher LB Memphis 3 Immediate Jan 9, 2026
Tao Johnson S UCLA 3 Immediate Jan 10, 2026

+12 more not shown (22 total).

2026 commits · 16
PlayerHometown★Rating
Kelvin Obot OT Fruitland, ID 5 0.9896
Salesi Moa ATH Ogden, UT 4 0.9821
Mataalii Benjamin OT Lehi, UT 4 0.8935
PJ Takitaki EDGE Lehi, UT 3 0.8889
LaMarcus Bell RB Lake Oswego, OR 3 0.8867
Moses Sparks Jr. IOL Rio Rancho, NM 3 0.8833
Preston Pitts LB League City, TX 3 0.8822
Aisa Galea'i S Orem, UT 3 0.8811
Fameitau Siale EDGE Seattle, WA 3 0.8811
LaGary Mitchell LB Meridian, ID 3 0.8778
Kane Archer QB Greenwood, AR 3 0.8744
Major Hinchen CB La Quinta, CA 3 0.8744
Michael Johnson QB Douglasville, GA 3 0.8700
Rowdy Pearce IOL Midland, TX 3 0.8689
Dylan Waters CB Missouri City, TX 3 0.8600

+1 more not shown (16 total).

Returning production

Share of last season's production returning for Utah in 2026.

Unit% PPAPPAUsage
Overall67.9%278.571.5%
Passing97.4%107.099.2%
Receiving28.6%40.432.8%
Rushing82.7%131.176.6%

A figure above 100% or below 0% is expected when last season's returning players had negative PPA in that phase, since PPA can be negative.