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 · 4d ago

Idaho State knocks off Utah State, 29-17

Matchup · 6d ago

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#106
Yards / play
4.6#117
Passing yards / game
220.5#76
Rushing yards / game
118.5#106
First downs / game
21.5#63
3rd down %
53.6%#27
4th down %
20.0%#105
Time of possession
29:14#85
Defense
Yards allowed / game
298.5#64
Yards / play allowed
4.4#49
Pass yards allowed / game
200.5#68
Rush yards allowed / game
98.0#54
3rd down % allowed
34.4%#65
Sacks
4#42
Tackles for loss
9#59
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
-7#138
Takeaways
0#118
Giveaways
7#137
Penalties / game
8.0#100
Penalty yards / game
59.0#83

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 9th at keeping everything in front of them. The way in is 127th at generating havoc, and they are 114th 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 −32.6% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

Utah State has not played an FBS opponent yet, so this is the projection: last season regressed toward the mean, plus returning production, recruiting, talent and whether the staff is the same one.

Strengths

  • Defensehitting chunk plays
    1.00
    #9 of 138
  • Offensehitting chunk plays
    1.35
    #27 of 138

Soft spots

  • Defensesacks and tackles for loss
    9.9%
    #127 of 138
  • Offensegetting stopped at the line
    27.5%
    #114 of 138
  • Offensefirst and second down
    36%
    #104 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)
Off0.0515th#117
Def0.0460th#56
Explosiveness
Off1.3569th#43
Def1.0088th#17
Field position
Off71.061st#54
Def72.947th#73
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off2.4011th#123
Def3.4642nd#80
Turnovers
Won 0Lost 7
Margin -7

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
—
Defense
—
Off · pass
0.1420th#110
Off · rush
-0.0519th#112

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off-0.0519th#112
Def-0.0153rd#65
Passing
Off0.1420th#111
Def0.1266th#48

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
2.97#78
2nd-level / open-field
1.16 / 0.59
Power / stuff (off)
16.7% / 27.5%
Havoc — total (def)
9.9%#131
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#1270.05#970.80#39
Defense-0.08#60-0.10#310.60#98

Elo Trajectory

Idaho StateFinal
Elo rating 1376 → 1386+10 over season

Team Fingerprint · 2026 · 31 opponent-adjusted metrics · percentile vs 138 FBS teams

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.1025th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.0354th
  • Offense success rate43%42nd
  • Defense success rate allowed35%56th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs42%26th
  • Offense success — passing downs45%77th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs35%75th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs36%23rd

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.245th
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.169th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs0.7812th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs2.051st

Trenches

  • Offense line yards3.573rd
  • Defense line yards allowed2.272nd
  • Offense highlight yards0.6032nd
  • Defense highlight yards allowed0.7547th
  • Offense power success0.257th
  • Defense power success allowed0.6761st
  • Offense stuff rate0.1645th
  • Defense stuff rate0.1838th

Third down

  • Third down conversion60%85th
  • Third down distance faced6.749th
  • Third down conversion allowed33%60th
  • Third down distance forced6.526th

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half-0.1026th
  • Net success rate — second half0.2885th

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#117 · bottom 20%
Pass EPA/play
+0.138#111
Rush EPA/play
-0.053#112
Explosiveness
1.346#43
Pts/opportunity
2.40#123
Success rate
38.1%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.192 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

EPA/play allowed
+0.044#56 · average
Havoc rate (total)
9.9%#131
Front-7 havoc
7.0%
DB havoc
2.8%
Big play rate allowed
0.998#17
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

OFFENSE15thEXPLOSIVENESS69thFINISHING11thFIELD POS61thDEFENSE60thHAVOC5th50th100th
Offense
15th
Explosiveness
69th
Finishing
11th
Field Pos
61th
Defense
60th
Havoc
5th

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
-2.0
#79
Offense
-0.3
#61
Defense
+1.7
#89
Full CORE ratings →

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
BaylorSP+ +4.9
Off EPA/play +0.054Def EPA/play +0.028Elo 1506
Match
99%
Georgia TechSP+ +1.7
Off EPA/play +0.074Def EPA/play +0.052Elo 1553
Match
99%
AuburnSP+ +7.0
Off EPA/play +0.028Def EPA/play +0.054Elo 1613
Match
99%
Sacramento StateSP+ -19.1
Off EPA/play +0.070Def EPA/play -0.015Elo 1476
Match
97%
WashingtonSP+ +12.0
Off EPA/play +0.064Def EPA/play -0.019Elo 1762
Match
97%
Eastern MichiganSP+ -15.6
Off EPA/play +0.041Def EPA/play +0.117Elo 1353
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: -2.0, #79 of 138
20152026
Now -2.0 · #79 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

0-0 so far, projected to finish 3.6-7.5. Wins the Pac-12 in 3.6%.

If they finish with…

29%
2 losses
0.6%
3 losses
0%
4 losses

Their chance of making it at each final loss count.

down 0.2 points since preseason.

  • At 2 losses they are 29% where the average Pac-12 team is 15%.
  • The Pac-12 takes 0.22 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 94% of those.

Utah State’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk2at Washington1.4
  • wk3at Utah1.1
  • wk5at Boise State1.0
  • wk11at San Diego State0.6
  • wk12at Oregon State0.4
  • wk8at Texas State0.4

Who to root for

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

  • wk10Sacramento State over Toledo0.2
  • wk7Jacksonville State over Florida International0.2
  • wk13Syracuse over Notre Dame0.2
  • wk6Kent State over Western Michigan0.1
  • wk4Akron over UNLV0.1
  • wk2Virginia Tech over Old Dominion0.1
The full playoff picture →

Pac-12

0-0 in league play, projected 2.7-4.38 of 8 by title odds
3.6%
Wins the Pac-12
10%
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 State13.7
  • wk11Utah State at San Diego State8.9
  • wk2Utah State at Washington6.7
  • wk12Utah State at Oregon State6.6

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

If not the playoff, then

17%
Bowl eligible
17%
Placed in a bowl
0.2%
In the playoff
83%
Season over in November

Utah State is 0-1 and needs 6 more wins from 10 games to reach the six that make a team eligible — at most one of which may come against an FCS opponent.

  • Sun Bowl5.1%
  • Holiday Bowl4.7%
  • Las Vegas Bowl3.3%
  • Alamo Bowl2.8%
  • 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.