Buffalo

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+0.0218th
  Defense+0.1140th
• 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.
  Offense34.8%4th
  Defense37.5%73rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2134th
  Defense+1.2932nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0328th
  Defense+0.0164th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0414th
  Defense+0.2334th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.9%7th
  Defense46.4%47th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense21.1%4th
  Defense22.1%90th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7219th
  Defense3.0634th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.3%31st
  Defense15.3%19th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.9%31st
  Defense15.3%41st

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 Buffalo 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
   UALB
2. L
   FIU
3. L
   PSU
4. W
   RMU
5. L
   WMU
6. W
   TOL

Bars above the line: better than expected for Buffalo.

Players, 2026

1. Jason WrightQB87 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 104th of 192 QBs
   0.18WAR0.06 to 0.30
2. Messiah BurchRB55 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 73rd of 320 RBs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
3. Chance MorrowWR34 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 78th of 364 WRs
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.13
4. Elijah HolmesQB17 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 182nd of 192 QBs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
5. Patrick Clacks IIIWR11 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 271st of 364 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
6. Terrance Shelton Jr.RB1 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 317th of 320 RBs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.00

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 Buffalo'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.
  549549120th of 138Roster talent: 549, 120th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15815890th of 138Recruiting: 158, 90th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  -1%-1%133rd of 136Returning production: -1%, 133rd 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.
  −13.9−13.9123rd of 138SP+ rating so far: −13.9, 123rd 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 Buffalo'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 0.06 of the 0.08 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 WMUQ4 0:02 4th & 2 at WMU 2, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.1 pts
2. vs RMUQ4 0:01 4th & 2 at RMU 43, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.8 pts
3. vs WMUQ4 13:00 4th & 3 at WMU 16, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. at TOLQ2 8:04 4th & 4 at midfield, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
5. vs UALBQ4 10:25 4th & 5 at BUF 40, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at TOLQ2 12:42 4th & 3 at BUF 30, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs UALBQ3 11:50 4th & 4 at BUF 46, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at FIUQ1 5:22 4th & 12 at FIU 33, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

32nd of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   UALB
2. L

   FIU
3. L

   PSU
4. W

   RMU
5. L

   WMU
6. W

   TOL

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Buffalo'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+0.31
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.29

Game by game

• UALBW 21-17 vs UALB89% → 95%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +17, Timeouts +1
• FIUL 20-33 at FIU26% → 1%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −1
• PSUL 13-55 at PSU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −3
• RMUW 31-28 vs RMU95% → 96%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +11, Timeouts +1
• WMUL 17-20 vs WMU14% → 8%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −29, Clock −1
• TOLW 23-8 at TOL10% → 99%Before kickoff −40 · On the field +89: Scoreboard +62, Clock +3

Points of win probability, from Buffalo's side.

Closest call

BALL 48-51 BUF (2024) - Buffalo dropped to a 6.3% win probability before pulling it out.