BYU

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1042nd
  Defense+0.0184th
• 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%63rd
  Defense40.3%76th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.0913th
  Defense+1.2136th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1885th
  Defense−0.0894th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0320th
  Defense+0.1166th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.0%48th
  Defense43.8%80th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.3%76th
  Defense33.2%53rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2990th
  Defense2.7172nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.2%75th
  Defense22.2%77th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.5%86th
  Defense18.9%80th

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, 2016

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
   ARIZ
2. L
   UTAH
3. L
   UCLA
4. L
   WVU
5. W
   TOL
6. W
   MSU
7. W
   MSST
8. L
   BOIS
9. W
   CIN
10. W
    SUU
11. W
    MASS
12. W
    USU
13. W
    WYO

Bars above the line: better than expected for BYU.

Players, 2016

1. Taysom HillQB416 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 48th of 218 QBs
   1.46WAR0.73 to 2.11
2. Jamaal WilliamsRB207 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 8th of 347 RBs
   0.89WAR0.70 to 1.08
3. Squally CanadaRB66 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 188th of 347 RBs
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.24
4. Nick KurtzWR62 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 104th of 417 WRs
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.23
5. Jonny LinehanP44 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 33rd of 82 punters
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.21
6. Colby PearsonWR39 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 231st of 417 WRs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.14
7. Mitchell JuergensWR45 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 231st of 417 WRs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.16
8. Tanner MangumQB18 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 203rd of 218 QBs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.08

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  52952961st of 128Roster talent: 529, 61st of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16816861st of 128Recruiting: 168, 61st of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  68%68%62nd of 128Returning production: 68%, 62nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +8.0+8.046th of 128SP+ rating: +8.0, 46th 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, 2016

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.15 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 BOISQ2 10:47 4th & 19 at BYU 5, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.4 pts
2. at UTAHQ4 15:00 4th & 4 at UTAH 45, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. vs UCLAQ2 0:00 4th & 4 at UCLA 38, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs MSSTQ3 10:51 4th & 3 at MSST 48, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. vs MSSTQ4 6:49 4th & 3 at BYU 35, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. at WYOQ2 3:08 4th & 2 at WYO 9, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at UTAHQ3 1:30 4th & 3 at BYU 10, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs UCLAQ3 13:03 4th & 2 at BYU 28, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

46th 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. Based on 12 of 13 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   ARIZ
2. L

   UTAH
3. L

   UCLA
4. L

   WVU
5. W

   TOL
6. W

   MSU
7. W

   MSST
8. L

   BOIS
9. W

   CIN
10. W

    SUU
11. W

    MASS
12. W

    USU
13. W

    WYO

What moved it, 2016

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+1.06
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.18
• Timeouts−0.19
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.16

Game by game

• UTAHL 19-20 at UTAH39% → 9%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −2
• UCLAL 14-17 vs UCLA37% → 6%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −41, Clock −3
• WVUL 32-35 at WVU39% → 10%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2
• TOLW 55-53 vs TOL63% → 96%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +32
• MSUW 31-14 at MSU38% → 99%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +58, Clock +3
• MSSTW 28-21 vs MSST64% → 91%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts −15
• BOISL 27-28 at BOIS25% → 24%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −10, Possession & field position −1
• CINW 20-3 at CIN75% → 99%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +33, Clock +2
• SUUW 37-7 vs SUU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• MASSW 51-9 vs MASS97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• USUW 28-10 vs USU87% → 99%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +17
• WYOW 24-21 at WYO72% → 93%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +37, Clock +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.