Baylor

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.1653rd
  Defense−0.0793rd
• 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.
  Offense40.5%30th
  Defense34.8%88th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4193rd
  Defense+1.1186th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0841st
  Defense−0.2399th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2861st
  Defense+0.0771st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.3%12th
  Defense37.8%94th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.8%65th
  Defense29.3%48th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7923rd
  Defense2.6974th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.2%42nd
  Defense22.9%80th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.1%42nd
  Defense20.3%89th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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 Baylor 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. L
   AUB
2. W
   PV
3. W
   LT
4. W
   COLO
5. W
   ASU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Baylor.

Players, 2026

1. DJ LagwayQB134 plays · +0.063 pts/play · 109th of 192 QBs
   0.16WAR−0.03 to 0.33
2. Dawson PendergrassRB60 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 41st of 320 RBs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.17
3. Gavin FreemanWR40 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 13th of 364 WRs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.19
4. Louis Brown IVWR24 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 57th of 364 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
5. Caden KnightenRB34 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 170th of 320 RBs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.08
6. Jadon PorterWR15 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 185th of 364 WRs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.06
7. Michael TurnerRB18 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 223rd of 320 RBs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.05
8. Nate BennettQB16 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 175th of 192 QBs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.06

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 Baylor'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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  72372343rd of 138Roster talent: 723, 43rd of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20020048th of 138Recruiting: 200, 48th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  60%60%40th of 136Returning production: 60%, 40th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +12.7+12.727th of 138SP+ rating so far: +12.7, 27th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 Baylor's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.34 of the 0.36 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 AUBQ4 0:09 4th & 5 at AUB 5, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−32.4 pts
2. at AUBQ4 7:12 4th & 4 at AUB 4, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. at AUBQ4 2:00 4th & 10 at BAY 36, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
4. vs LTQ3 1:45 4th & 3 at LT 6, up 19Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. at AUBQ2 14:52 4th & 4 at AUB 25, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
6. vs COLOQ2 2:05 4th & 7 at BAY 48, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. vs COLOQ4 1:30 4th & 6 at COLO 6, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts
8. vs PVQ2 4:10 4th & 3 at PV 26, up 28Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

37th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Baylor's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   AUB
2. W

   PV
3. W

   LT
4. W

   COLO
5. W

   ASU

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Baylor'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+0.96
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.12

Game by game

• AUBL 16-17 at AUB35% → 30%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −5: Timeouts −5, Scoreboard −4
• PVW 44-3 vs PV99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• LTW 36-19 vs LT90% → 99%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +15
• COLOW 23-13 vs COLO74% → 97%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +2
• ASUW 55-19 at ASU43% → 100%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +56, Clock +2

Points of win probability, from Baylor's side.

Closest call

BAY 36-35 UCF (2023) - Baylor dropped to a 0.7% win probability before pulling it out.