BYU

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1465th
  Defense+0.0278th
• 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.
  Offense43.4%50th
  Defense39.2%77th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3089th
  Defense+1.2138th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1063rd
  Defense0.0071st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1858th
  Defense+0.0574th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.6%52nd
  Defense43.2%81st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.3%59th
  Defense32.0%61st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7227th
  Defense2.4690th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.1%46th
  Defense26.0%93rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.7%72nd
  Defense2.9%89th

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, 2015

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
   NEB
2. W
   BOIS
3. L
   UCLA
4. L
   MICH
5. W
   CONN
6. W
   ECU
7. W
   CIN
8. W
   WAG
9. W
   SJSU
10. L
    MIZ
11. W
    FRES
12. W
    USU
13. L
    UTAH

Bars above the line: better than expected for BYU.

Players, 2015

1. Tanner MangumQB417 plays · +0.220 pts/play · 44th of 205 QBs
   1.72WAR1.11 to 2.35
2. Taysom HillQB42 plays · +0.282 pts/play · 176th of 205 QBs
   0.22WAR0.16 to 0.28
3. Algernon BrownRB115 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 110th of 333 RBs
   0.22WAR0.13 to 0.32
4. Nick KurtzWR49 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 110th of 411 WRs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.22
5. Devon BlackmonWR55 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 122nd of 411 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.23
6. Mitch MathewsWR77 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 133rd of 411 WRs
   0.15WAR0.03 to 0.27
7. Trevor SamsonPK16 plays · +0.453 pts/play · 39th of 115 kickers
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.18
8. Mitchell JuergensWR40 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 183rd of 411 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.17

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  52152163rd of 128Roster talent: 521, 63rd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16316366th of 128Recruiting: 163, 66th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  57%57%68th of 127Returning production: 57%, 68th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +8.7+8.744th of 128SP+ rating: +8.7, 44th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.22 of the 0.27 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 UCLAQ4 0:58 4th & 7 at UCLA 42, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−5.3 pts
2. vs BOISQ4 0:45 4th & 7 at BOIS 35, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−5.1 pts
3. at SJSUQ4 5:11 4th & 1 at midfield, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.5 pts
4. at UCLAQ4 5:39 4th & 3 at UCLA 14, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
5. vs CONNQ3 3:02 4th & 2 at CONN 8, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
6. vs BOISQ4 5:16 4th & 14 at BOIS 43, down 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.8 pts
7. vs FRESQ2 0:02 4th & 17 at BYU 13, up 21Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.2 pts
8. at UTAHQ4 12:24 4th & 13 at BYU 32, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

22nd 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

   NEB
2. W

   BOIS
3. L

   UCLA
4. L

   MICH
5. W

   CONN
6. W

   ECU
7. W

   CIN
8. W

   WAG
9. W

   SJSU
10. L

    MIZ
11. W

    FRES
12. W

    USU
13. L

    UTAH

What moved it, 2015

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+1.48
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.12
• Timeouts−0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.33

Game by game

• NEBW 33-28 at NEB28% → 96%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +57, Clock +3
• BOISW 35-24 vs BOIS50% → 93%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +33, Possession & field position +2
• UCLAL 23-24 at UCLA14% → 7%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −2
• MICHL 0-31 at MICH33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −33
• CONNW 30-13 vs CONN65% → 99%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +1
• ECUW 45-38 vs ECU77% → 91%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +1
• CINW 38-24 vs CIN64% → 98%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts −1
• WAGW 70-6 vs WAG100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• SJSUW 17-16 at SJSU76% → 81%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +30, Clock +3
• MIZL 16-20 at MIZ56% → 7%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −3
• FRESW 52-10 vs FRES94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• USUW 51-28 at USU59% → 99%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +46, Clock +2
• UTAHL 28-35 at UTAH39% → 3%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −2

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.