Baylor

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1153rd
  Defense+0.1533rd
• 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.
  Offense45.0%72nd
  Defense44.3%23rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2764th
  Defense+1.1684th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1056th
  Defense+0.1423rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1547th
  Defense+0.1945th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.1%67th
  Defense50.3%19th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.5%80th
  Defense28.9%53rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0970th
  Defense3.1519th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.8%81st
  Defense14.7%10th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.6%59th
  Defense12.3%7th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   SMU
3. W
   SAM
4. L
   ASU
5. W
   OKST
6. W
   KSU
7. L
   TCU
8. L
   CIN
9. W
   UCF
10. L
    UTAH
11. L
    ARIZ
12. L
    HOU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Baylor.

Players, 2025

1. Sawyer RobertsonQB448 plays · +0.272 pts/play · 6th of 231 QBs
   2.28WAR1.35 to 3.05
2. Bryson WashingtonRB143 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 86th of 365 RBs
   0.23WAR0.15 to 0.34
3. Michael TriggTE76 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 3rd of 213 TEs
   0.23WAR0.08 to 0.39
4. Josh CameronWR81 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 52nd of 451 WRs
   0.22WAR0.04 to 0.41
5. Caden KnightenRB83 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 167th of 365 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.19
6. Connor HawkinsPK18 plays · +0.324 pts/play · 27th of 112 kickers
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
7. Ashtyn HawkinsWR66 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 186th of 451 WRs
   0.10WAR−0.03 to 0.21
8. Kobe PrenticeWR30 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 186th of 451 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.16

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  72672635th of 134Roster talent: 726, 35th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20220240th of 134Recruiting: 202, 40th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  83%83%4th of 132Returning production: 83%, 4th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.4+1.470th of 134SP+ rating: +1.4, 70th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.09 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 SMUQ3 1:35 4th & 2 at BAY 28, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
2. vs KSUQ4 13:01 4th & 7 at KSU 15, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
3. at SMUQ3 1:35 4th & 2 at BAY 28, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. vs HOUQ4 8:53 4th & 9 at HOU 31, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
5. vs AUBQ4 1:17 4th & 1 at AUB 11, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs UTAHQ2 1:06 4th & 6 at UTAH 25, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs UTAHQ3 3:32 4th & 8 at UTAH 47, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at CINQ2 0:16 4th & 3 at CIN 6, down 24Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

121st of 136 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

   SMU
3. W

   SAM
4. L

   ASU
5. W

   OKST
6. W

   KSU
7. L

   TCU
8. L

   CIN
9. W

   UCF
10. L

    UTAH
11. L

    ARIZ
12. L

    HOU

What moved it, 2025

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−2.53
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock−0.23
• Timeouts+0.70
• Other+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.17

Game by game

• AUBL 24-38 vs AUB53% → 2%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• SMUW 48-45 at SMU48% → 44%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −3: Timeouts +26, Clock −17
• SAMW 42-7 vs SAM100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• ASUL 24-27 vs ASU61% → 7%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −51, Clock −4
• OKSTW 45-27 at OKST94% → 99%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +9, Timeouts +3
• KSUW 35-34 vs KSU66% → 89%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts −3
• TCUL 36-42 at TCU43% → 48%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +5: Timeouts +48, Scoreboard −42
• CINL 20-41 at CIN46% → 0%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −2
• UCFW 30-3 vs UCF68% → 100%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts −1
• UTAHL 28-55 vs UTAH33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −38, Clock −1
• ARIZL 17-41 at ARIZ37% → 0%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −1
• HOUL 24-31 vs HOU60% → 5%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3

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.