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 ›
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)
| Season | Result | Site |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Utah 53–7 | Rice-Eccles Stadium |
| 2024 | Colorado 49–24 | Folsom Field |
| 2023 | Utah 23–17 | Rice-Eccles Stadium |
| 2022 | Utah 63–21 | Folsom Field |
| 2021 | Utah 28–13 | Rice-Eccles Stadium |
| 2020 | Utah 38–21 | Folsom Field |
| 2019 | Utah 45–15 | Rice-Eccles Stadium |
| 2018 | Utah 30–7 | Folsom Field |
| 2017 | Utah 34–13 | Rice-Eccles Stadium |
| 2016 | Colorado 27–22 | Folsom Field |
| 2015 | Utah 20–14 | Rice-Eccles Stadium |
| 2014 | Utah 38–34 | Folsom Field |
| 2013 | Utah 24–17 | Rice-Eccles Stadium |
| 2012 | Utah 42–35 | Folsom Field |
| 2011 | Colorado 17–14 | Rice-Eccles Stadium |
| Rating | Utah | Colorado |
|---|---|---|
| SP+ | +23.5 #7 | -2.4 #84 |
| Elo | 1929 | 1325 |
Projected margin for Utah · three models and the line, side by side
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.
-
53%✓ Moves the ballsuccessful plays 40%
-
34%✓ Stops playssuccessful plays allowed 37%
-
19% Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers ✓21%
-
1.31✓ Big playson offense 1.20
-
1.33 Big plays allowedon defense ✓1.17
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
| Measure | Utah | Colorado | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Off. success rate | 52.9% | 40.2% | Utah |
| Off. explosiveness | 1.31 | 1.20 | Utah |
| Def. success rate allowed | 34.0% | 37.1% | Utah |
| Def. explosiveness allowed | 1.33 | 1.17 | Colorado |
| Havoc created | 19.4% | 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.
-
Morgan Scalley Weekly Press Conference: Colorado
SALT LAKE CITY – University of Utah head football coach Morgan Scalley held his weekly press conference on Monday with members of the media inside the Spence…
-
No. 11 Utah Heads to Boulder for Matchup with Colorado
Utes, Buffaloes will kick off at 8:15 p.m. MT on ESPN
-
Utah Earns Big 12 Offensive Line of the Week Honors
Wasatch Front helped the Utes total 545 yards of offense in win over Kansas
-
First-year head coaches post strong records after Week 6
Napier, Chesney and Scalley stay undefeated while Stein reaches 5-1 after Week 6.
- Postgame Quotes: No. 12 Utah vs. Kansas
- Postgame Notes: No. 12 Utah vs. Kansas
-
No. 12 Utah Races Past Kansas, Moves to 5-0
Wayshawn Parker, Devon Dampier combine for six touchdowns in victory
-
Utah reaches 5-0 for first time since 2015 under Scalley
Morgan Scalley has Utah 5-0 for the first time since 2015 in year one.
-
Dampier Named to Johnny Unitas Golden Arm Award Top 15
The Golden Arm Award recognizes quarterbacks who demonstrate excellence both on and off the field
-
Scalley speaks after Tuesday practice
Joe Coles posted Scalley’s comments from after Tuesday’s practice.
-
Morgan Scalley Weekly Press Conference: Kansas
SALT LAKE CITY – University of Utah head football coach Morgan Scalley held his weekly press conference on Monday with members of the media inside the Spence…
-
Scalley says Utes are fairly healthy after the bye
Morgan Scalley said Utah is fairly healthy coming out of the bye week.
-
Kickoff Time Set for No. 12 Utah at Colorado
Utes, Buffaloes will meet at 8:15 p.m. MT on ESPN or ESPN2
-
Utah Football Announces 2027 Date Change with Southern Utah
Utes to face Thunderbirds on Thursday, Aug.
-
Field-Level Seats Bring New Premium Experience to Rice-Eccles Stadium
Fans can enjoy Utah Football from ALKEME Field Boxes in north end zone beginning Nov.
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
- 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)
- 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)
- 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).
- By quarter: Utah 14-7-6-14 · Kansas 0-17-7-0
- Week 6 polls: Coaches: Utah #12 · AP: Utah #12
- Pregame Elo: Utah 1918, Kansas 1625
- Postgame win probability: 93.4%
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.
-
54%✓ Moved the ballsuccessful plays 38%
-
+0.31✓ Points per playwhat a play was worth +0.03
-
1.27 Big playssize of the good plays ✓1.46
-
16%✓ Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers 10%
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.
| Measure | Utah | Kansas | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| PPA / play | +0.31 | +0.03 | Utah |
| Total PPA | +23.9 | +1.5 | Utah |
| Success rate | 53.8% | 38.3% | Utah |
| Explosiveness | 1.27 | 1.46 | Kansas |
| Havoc created | 15.5% | 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
| Player | Pass usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Devon Dampier QB | 97% | +9.3 | +0.29 |
| Byrd Ficklin QB | 6% | -0.7 | -0.34 |
Rushing
| Player | Rush usage | PPA | /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
| Player | Target usage | PPA | /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
| Measure | Utah | Kansas | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rushing PPA | +0.36 | -0.21 | Utah |
| Rushing success | 51.2% | 38.1% | Utah |
| Passing PPA | +0.31 | +0.29 | Utah |
| Passing success | 57.6% | 37.8% | Utah |
| Standard downs PPA | +0.34 | +0.10 | Utah |
| Standard downs success | 55.9% | 47.4% | Utah |
| Passing downs PPA | +0.20 | -0.10 | Utah |
| Passing downs success | 47.4% | 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.
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.
| Utah | Kansas | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 2nd | 1st | 2nd | |
| PPA / play | +0.02 | +0.58 | +0.09 | +0.13 |
| Success rate | 54% | 53% | 38% | 38% |
| Plays | 39 | 38 | 29 | 29 |
Recruiting
Utah's 2026 class: #27 · 226.89 points.
| Measure | Utah | Kansas |
|---|---|---|
| Talent composite | 695.7 #58 of 138 |
684.5 #62 of 138 |
Transfer portal · 17 in, 22 out
Arrivals (17)
| Player | From | ★ | 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)
| Player | To | ★ | 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
| Player | Hometown | ★ | 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 | % PPA | PPA | Usage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 67.9% | 278.5 | 71.5% |
| Passing | 97.4% | 107.0 | 99.2% |
| Receiving | 28.6% | 40.4 | 32.8% |
| Rushing | 82.7% | 131.1 | 76.6% |
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.