BYU

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.2171st
  Defense+0.1259th
• 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.
  Offense45.6%70th
  Defense39.6%76th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1742nd
  Defense+1.2048th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1981st
  Defense0.0080th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2459th
  Defense+0.2339th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.6%66th
  Defense44.2%79th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.4%79th
  Defense31.1%65th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3191st
  Defense2.7168th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.2%82nd
  Defense19.3%45th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.7%70th
  Defense1.9%47th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 BYU 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
   CONN
2. W
   TEX
3. W
   HOU
4. W
   UVA
5. L
   USU
6. L
   UCF
7. L
   NEV
8. L
   BOIS
9. W
   MTSU
10. W
    UNLV
11. W
    SAV
12. W
    CAL
13. L
    MEM

Bars above the line: better than expected for BYU.

Players, 2014

1. Christian StewartQB354 plays · +0.203 pts/play · 78th of 199 QBs
   1.34WAR0.72 to 1.94
2. Taysom HillQB185 plays · +0.383 pts/play · 81st of 199 QBs
   1.33WAR0.94 to 1.70
3. Jamaal WilliamsRB98 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 101st of 350 RBs
   0.23WAR0.16 to 0.30
4. Paul LasikeRB96 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 108th of 350 RBs
   0.22WAR0.15 to 0.28
5. Jordan LeslieWR75 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 63rd of 469 WRs
   0.21WAR0.10 to 0.32
6. Scott ArellanoP56 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 7th of 94 punters
   0.19WAR0.10 to 0.28
7. Mitch MathewsWR98 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 77th of 469 WRs
   0.19WAR0.04 to 0.34
8. Algernon BrownRB76 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 171st of 350 RBs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.20

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 BYU'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 BYU'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 0.13 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 UCFQ4 1:25 4th & 8 at UCF 37, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−5.1 pts
2. vs NEVQ4 3:00 4th & 8 at NEV 29, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
3. at CONNQ4 10:14 4th & 1 at BYU 29, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. at MEMQ4 11:35 4th & 5 at MEM 5, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. at BOISQ2 1:48 4th & 4 at BYU 49, down 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. at MTSUQ2 15:00 4th & 1 at BYU 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs UVAQ4 5:21 4th & 4 at UVA 41, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at BOISQ3 4:07 4th & 11 at BOIS 21, down 25Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

89th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   CONN
2. W

   TEX
3. W

   HOU
4. W

   UVA
5. L

   USU
6. L

   UCF
7. L

   NEV
8. L

   BOIS
9. W

   MTSU
10. W

    UNLV
11. W

    SAV
12. W

    CAL
13. L

    MEM

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at BYU'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+0.24
• Clock−0.28
• Timeouts+0.40
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.83

Game by game

• CONNW 35-10 at CONN84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +23, Clock +1
• TEXW 41-7 at TEX33% → 100%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +63, Clock +4
• HOUW 33-25 vs HOU81% → 97%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +1
• UVAW 41-33 vs UVA79% → 97%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +2
• USUL 20-35 vs USU92% → 2%Before kickoff +42 · On the field −90: Scoreboard −59, Clock −2
• UCFL 24-31 at UCF43% → 11%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts +17
• NEVL 35-42 vs NEV79% → 5%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −74: Scoreboard −57, Clock −4
• BOISL 30-55 at BOIS32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −33
• MTSUW 27-7 at MTSU73% → 99%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +35, Clock +1
• UNLVW 42-23 vs UNLV93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +11
• SAVW 64-0 vs SAV100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0
• CALW 42-35 at CAL38% → 94%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• MEML 48-55 at MEM44% → 19%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts +21

Points of win probability, from BYU's side.

Closest call

BYU 33-27 ARIZ (2025) - BYU dropped to a 6.2% win probability before pulling it out.