Baylor

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1872nd
  Defense+0.1337th
• 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.
  Offense46.4%83rd
  Defense39.7%70th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2963rd
  Defense+1.3423rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1261st
  Defense+0.0850th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2882nd
  Defense+0.2036th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.3%83rd
  Defense44.3%75th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.7%78th
  Defense30.6%47th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1364th
  Defense3.0444th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.9%89th
  Defense16.7%37th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.2%91st
  Defense14.9%34th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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. W
   TAR
2. L
   UTAH
3. W
   AF
4. L
   COLO
5. L
   BYU
6. L
   ISU
7. W
   TTU
8. W
   OKST
9. W
   TCU
10. W
    WVU
11. W
    HOU
12. W
    KU
13. L
    LSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Baylor.

Players, 2024

1. Sawyer RobertsonQB384 plays · +0.283 pts/play · 27th of 232 QBs
   2.04WAR1.30 to 2.84
2. Bryson WashingtonRB182 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 28th of 373 RBs
   0.49WAR0.36 to 0.60
3. Josh CameronWR49 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 32nd of 452 WRs
   0.22WAR0.11 to 0.33
4. Dawson PendergrassRB97 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 143rd of 373 RBs
   0.20WAR0.12 to 0.27
5. Palmer WilliamsP38 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 32nd of 106 punters
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15
6. Monaray BaldwinWR23 plays · +0.216 pts/play · 151st of 452 WRs
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.17
7. Michael TriggTE25 plays · +0.198 pts/play · 27th of 221 TEs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14
8. Dequan FinnQB22 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 210th of 232 QBs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  70970944th of 131Roster talent: 709, 44th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19719743rd of 131Recruiting: 197, 43rd of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  55%55%50th of 130Returning production: 55%, 50th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +8.4+8.437th of 131SP+ rating: +8.4, 37th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2024

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.11 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. vs TCUQ4 0:12 4th & 9 at TCU 44, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal−4.2 pts
2. at LSUQ2 10:16 4th & 1 at BAY 23, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. at HOUQ4 4:24 4th & 4 at HOU 33, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. at ISUQ4 14:19 4th & 1 at BAY 34, down 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs BYUQ3 11:25 4th & 8 at BYU 48, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at COLOQ2 11:44 4th & 2 at BAY 45, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at LSUQ3 10:11 4th & 6 at LSU 9, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at WVUQ4 14:44 4th & 4 at BAY 30, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

33rd of 134 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. W

   TAR
2. L

   UTAH
3. W

   AF
4. L

   COLO
5. L

   BYU
6. L

   ISU
7. W

   TTU
8. W

   OKST
9. W

   TCU
10. W

    WVU
11. W

    HOU
12. W

    KU
13. L

    LSU

What moved it, 2024

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+1.94
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.11
• Timeouts+0.14
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.17

Game by game

• TARW 45-3 vs TAR97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• UTAHL 12-23 at UTAH18% → 3%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −1
• AFW 31-3 vs AF91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +12
• COLOL 31-38 at COLO43% → 87%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +50, Clock −17
• BYUL 28-34 vs BYU58% → 5%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• ISUL 21-43 at ISU18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −22
• TTUW 59-35 at TTU35% → 100%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +60, Clock +3
• OKSTW 38-28 vs OKST66% → 97%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32
• TCUW 37-34 vs TCU56% → 96%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +35, Possession & field position +1
• WVUW 49-35 at WVU50% → 98%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• HOUW 20-10 at HOU66% → 96%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +41, Clock +3
• KUW 45-17 vs KU46% → 100%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +50, Possession & field position +1
• LSUL 31-44 at LSU56% → 2%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −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.