BYU

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1041st
  Defense+0.0663rd
• 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.
  Offense44.0%53rd
  Defense42.6%47th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1421st
  Defense+1.0695th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0640th
  Defense+0.0749th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1546th
  Defense+0.0674th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.3%70th
  Defense47.7%46th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.8%27th
  Defense30.0%76th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8440th
  Defense2.9048th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.1%54th
  Defense15.8%11th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.9%37th
  Defense11.8%5th

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, 2018

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
   CAL
3. W
   WIS
4. W
   MCN
5. L
   WASH
6. L
   USU
7. W
   HAW
8. L
   NIU
9. L
   BOIS
10. W
    MASS
11. W
    NMSU
12. L
    UTAH
13. W
    WMU

Bars above the line: better than expected for BYU.

Players, 2018

1. Zach WilsonQB209 plays · +0.228 pts/play · 92nd of 225 QBs
   0.89WAR0.53 to 1.27
2. Tanner MangumQB141 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 152nd of 225 QBs
   0.40WAR0.18 to 0.63
3. Squally CanadaRB85 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 140th of 351 RBs
   0.31WAR0.24 to 0.38
4. Matt HadleyRB67 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 196th of 351 RBs
   0.22WAR0.18 to 0.26
5. Rhett AlmondP45 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 13th of 91 punters
   0.13WAR0.05 to 0.21
6. Aleva HifoWR51 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 210th of 434 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.14
7. Dylan CollieWR35 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 227th of 434 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.12
8. Talon ShumwayWR20 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 299th of 434 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  56656656th of 130Roster talent: 566, 56th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16816866th of 130Recruiting: 168, 66th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  89%89%9th of 129Returning production: 89%, 9th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +6.2+6.246th of 130SP+ rating: +6.2, 46th of 130 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, 2018

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.07 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 NIUQ4 6:24 4th & 4 at BYU 46, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
2. at ARIZQ2 3:19 4th & 1 at BYU 34, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. at UTAHQ2 15:00 4th & 2 at BYU 44, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
4. at WASHQ2 7:54 4th & 2 at BYU 48, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
5. at WISQ2 5:55 4th & 6 at WIS 35, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. at MASSQ4 10:49 4th & 3 at MASS 43, up 25Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at MASSQ2 15:00 4th & 3 at BYU 44, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs NIUQ2 9:26 4th & 5 at NIU 44, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

58th 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

   ARIZ
2. L

   CAL
3. W

   WIS
4. W

   MCN
5. L

   WASH
6. L

   USU
7. W

   HAW
8. L

   NIU
9. L

   BOIS
10. W

    MASS
11. W

    NMSU
12. L

    UTAH
13. W

    WMU

What moved it, 2018

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−0.12
• Possession & field position+0.06
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.54

Game by game

• ARIZW 28-23 at ARIZ24% → 94%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3
• CALL 18-21 vs CAL55% → 5%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• WISW 24-21 at WIS6% → 93%Before kickoff −44 · On the field +87: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• MCNW 30-3 vs MCN95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• WASHL 7-35 at WASH9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −12
• USUL 20-45 vs USU50% → 0%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −52, Clock −2
• HAWW 49-23 vs HAW81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +22
• NIUL 6-7 vs NIU70% → 8%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −53, Clock −4
• BOISL 16-21 at BOIS20% → 29%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +9: Scoreboard −13, Possession & field position +6
• MASSW 35-16 at MASS82% → 99%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +27
• NMSUW 45-10 vs NMSU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +7
• UTAHL 27-35 at UTAH24% → 2%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −1
• WMUW 49-18 vs WMU75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +27

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.