BYU

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1453rd
  Defense+0.1056th
• 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.
  Offense46.3%77th
  Defense43.9%41st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1842nd
  Defense+1.0795th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0647th
  Defense+0.0262nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2153rd
  Defense+0.2042nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.7%67th
  Defense49.2%34th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.0%88th
  Defense31.6%66th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9049th
  Defense2.9838th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.4%82nd
  Defense17.6%29th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense21.1%32nd
  Defense16.6%12th

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, 2019

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. L
   UTAH
2. W
   TENN
3. W
   USC
4. L
   WASH
5. L
   TOL
6. L
   USF
7. W
   BOIS
8. W
   USU
9. W
   LIB
10. W
    IDST
11. W
    MASS
12. L
    SDSU
13. L
    HAW

Bars above the line: better than expected for BYU.

Players, 2019

1. Zach WilsonQB278 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 86th of 228 QBs
   0.92WAR0.50 to 1.40
2. Baylor RomneyQB94 plays · +0.239 pts/play · 139th of 228 QBs
   0.42WAR0.28 to 0.57
3. Jaren HallQB75 plays · +0.269 pts/play · 147th of 228 QBs
   0.38WAR0.19 to 0.56
4. Lopini KatoaRB94 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 154th of 349 RBs
   0.28WAR0.22 to 0.34
5. Aleva HifoWR70 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 75th of 439 WRs
   0.19WAR0.12 to 0.26
6. Jake OldroydPK21 plays · +0.414 pts/play · 24th of 114 kickers
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.22
7. Micah SimonWR54 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 112th of 439 WRs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
8. Ty'Son WilliamsRB51 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 232nd of 349 RBs
   0.15WAR0.12 to 0.19

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  56156168th of 130Roster talent: 561, 68th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16616670th of 130Recruiting: 166, 70th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  75%75%31st of 130Returning production: 75%, 31st of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.3+1.359th of 130SP+ rating: +1.3, 59th 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, 2019

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 10 clear-cut ones account for 0.22 of the 0.26 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 TENNQ4 3:25 4th & 4 at BYU 36, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.7 pts
2. at TENNQ3 8:59 4th & 1 at TENN 45, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
3. vs HAWQ4 14:37 4th & 3 at HAW 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
4. vs HAWQ4 2:01 4th & 2 at BYU 26, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
5. at TOLQ4 14:05 4th & 2 at BYU 47, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
6. at USFQ4 1:09 4th & 18 at USF 20, up 9Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
7. vs HAWQ3 13:08 4th & 4 at HAW 44, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
8. vs USCQ4 8:13 4th & 2 at USC 14, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

67th 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. L

   UTAH
2. W

   TENN
3. W

   USC
4. L

   WASH
5. L

   TOL
6. L

   USF
7. W

   BOIS
8. W

   USU
9. W

   LIB
10. W

    IDST
11. W

    MASS
12. L

    SDSU
13. L

    HAW

What moved it, 2019

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+0.73
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.24

Game by game

• UTAHL 12-30 vs UTAH31% → 1%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −37, Clock −1
• TENNW 29-26 at TENN31% → 88%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +19
• USCW 30-27 vs USC32% → 76%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +44: Timeouts −23, Scoreboard +23
• WASHL 19-45 vs WASH30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −36, Clock −1
• TOLL 21-28 at TOL55% → 12%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −30, Possession & field position +2
• USFL 23-27 at USF60% → 98%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +45, Clock +3
• BOISW 28-25 vs BOIS34% → 95%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +39, Timeouts +3
• USUW 42-14 at USU42% → 100%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +56, Clock +2
• LIBW 31-24 vs LIB86% → 98%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1
• IDSTW 42-10 vs IDST74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +28
• MASSW 56-24 at MASS99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• SDSUL 3-13 at SDSU62% → 3%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −2
• HAWL 34-38 vs HAW57% → 24%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −36, 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.