BYU

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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−0.064th
  Defense+0.0852nd
• 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.
  Offense39.9%22nd
  Defense44.5%35th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.068th
  Defense+0.9899th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0336th
  Defense−0.0274th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.135th
  Defense+0.2325th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.9%36th
  Defense48.9%32nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.6%5th
  Defense33.7%40th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1484th
  Defense2.8947th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.6%91st
  Defense18.6%40th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.9%26th
  Defense13.3%11th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   PRST
2. L
   LSU
3. L
   UTAH
4. L
   WIS
5. L
   USU
6. L
   BOIS
7. L
   MSST
8. L
   ECU
9. W
   SJSU
10. L
    FRES
11. W
    UNLV
12. L
    MASS
13. W
    HAW

Bars above the line: better than expected for BYU.

Players, 2017

1. Tanner MangumQB210 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 131st of 226 QBs
   0.45WAR0.12 to 0.82
2. Squally CanadaRB101 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 86th of 352 RBs
   0.32WAR0.24 to 0.40
3. Joe CritchlowQB96 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 180th of 226 QBs
   0.18WAR0.04 to 0.34
4. Ula TolutauRB67 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 199th of 352 RBs
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.22
5. Beau HogeQB44 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 185th of 226 QBs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.23
6. Rhett AlmondP15 plays · +0.375 pts/play · 17th of 95 punters
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.16
7. Jonny LinehanP47 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 24th of 95 punters
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.14
8. Aleva HifoWR37 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 278th of 426 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57457453rd of 130Roster talent: 574, 53rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16816862nd of 130Recruiting: 168, 62nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  31%31%111th of 128Returning production: 31%, 111th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −7.4−7.496th of 128SP+ rating: −7.4, 96th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 0.14 of the 0.21 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 UNLVQ4 14:53 4th & 1 at UNLV 47, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
2. vs PRSTQ3 7:26 4th & 1 at BYU 29, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
3. at HAWQ2 0:02 4th & 1 at HAW 9, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
4. vs MASSQ4 14:48 4th & 20 at MASS 34, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.6 pts
5. at HAWQ4 6:21 4th & 2 at HAW 18, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. at ECUQ2 0:00 4th & 3 at ECU 4, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
7. vs UTAHQ3 6:25 4th & 1 at BYU 34, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
8. at UNLVQ4 1:51 4th & 11 at UNLV 12, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

102nd of 130 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

   PRST
2. L

   LSU
3. L

   UTAH
4. L

   WIS
5. L

   USU
6. L

   BOIS
7. L

   MSST
8. L

   ECU
9. W

   SJSU
10. L

    FRES
11. W

    UNLV
12. L

    MASS
13. W

    HAW

What moved it, 2017

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−1.18
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.17

Game by game

• PRSTW 20-6 vs PRST74% → 99%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1
• LSUL 0-27 at LSU12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −14
• UTAHL 13-19 vs UTAH31% → 5%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −38, Clock −2
• WISL 6-40 vs WIS14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −19, Clock −1
• USUL 24-40 at USU41% → 2%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −2
• BOISL 7-24 vs BOIS27% → 1%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −34, Clock −4
• MSSTL 10-35 at MSST5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −9
• ECUL 17-33 at ECU63% → 1%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −48, Timeouts −2
• SJSUW 41-20 vs SJSU74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts +1
• FRESL 13-20 at FRES21% → 3%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −1
• UNLVW 31-21 at UNLV44% → 96%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• MASSL 10-16 vs MASS54% → 5%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −49, Clock −3
• HAWW 30-20 at HAW55% → 96%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3

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.