BYU

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.3398th
  Defense+0.1733rd
• 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.
  Offense50.4%95th
  Defense46.6%18th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2957th
  Defense+1.1395th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2995th
  Defense+0.1534th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3888th
  Defense+0.2245th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense57.5%99th
  Defense52.9%9th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.4%52nd
  Defense29.9%54th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3179th
  Defense3.0743rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.5%50th
  Defense16.7%45th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.1%79th
  Defense16.4%44th

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, 2021

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. W
   UTAH
3. W
   ASU
4. W
   USF
5. W
   USU
6. L
   BOIS
7. L
   BAY
8. W
   WSU
9. W
   UVA
10. W
    IDST
11. W
    GASO
12. W
    USC
13. L
    UAB

Bars above the line: better than expected for BYU.

Players, 2021

1. Jaren HallQB317 plays · +0.297 pts/play · 45th of 219 QBs
   1.76WAR1.12 to 2.44
2. Tyler AllgeierRB277 plays · +0.244 pts/play · 1st of 387 RBs
   1.27WAR0.93 to 1.56
3. Baylor RomneyQB67 plays · +0.311 pts/play · 147th of 219 QBs
   0.39WAR0.28 to 0.49
4. Puka NacuaWR58 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 86th of 474 WRs
   0.18WAR0.13 to 0.24
5. Lopini KatoaRB58 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 233rd of 387 RBs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.22
6. Ryan RehkowP36 plays · +0.233 pts/play · 25th of 101 punters
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.21
7. Neil Pau'uWR54 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 126th of 474 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.21
8. Gunner RomneyWR37 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 264th of 474 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  44344394th of 130Roster talent: 443, 94th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15915977th of 130Recruiting: 159, 77th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  48%48%108th of 128Returning production: 48%, 108th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +8.9+8.944th of 130SP+ rating: +8.9, 44th 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, 2021

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 every call that differed was a close one. 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 UABQ2 0:09 4th & 9 at UAB 39, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.8 pts
2. vs UTAHQ4 3:17 4th & 4 at UTAH 4, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.8 pts
3. vs BOISQ4 11:01 4th & 5 at BOIS 5, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.7 pts
4. vs ASUQ4 11:34 4th & 17 at ASU 37, up 4Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.7 pts
5. vs ARIZQ4 7:34 4th & 4 at ARIZ 23, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.5 pts
6. vs UVAQ2 10:38 4th & 2 at BYU 33, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.4 pts
7. at GASOQ2 4:56 4th & 4 at GASO 22, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.3 pts
8. at WSUQ2 0:25 4th & 8 at WSU 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

18th 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. W

   UTAH
3. W

   ASU
4. W

   USF
5. W

   USU
6. L

   BOIS
7. L

   BAY
8. W

   WSU
9. W

   UVA
10. W

    IDST
11. W

    GASO
12. W

    USC
13. L

    UAB

What moved it, 2021

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+1.67
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.34

Game by game

• ARIZW 24-16 vs ARIZ82% → 97%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +29, Clock +2
• UTAHW 26-17 vs UTAH32% → 98%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +3
• ASUW 27-17 vs ASU34% → 96%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +42, Possession & field position −1
• USFW 35-27 vs USF91% → 97%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +14, Timeouts +1
• USUW 34-20 at USU72% → 97%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +37, Clock +1
• BOISL 17-26 vs BOIS62% → 4%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −57, Clock −4
• BAYL 24-38 at BAY33% → 1%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −1
• WSUW 21-19 at WSU55% → 85%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +37, Clock +4
• UVAW 66-49 vs UVA49% → 99%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +43, Possession & field position +1
• IDSTW 59-14 vs IDST98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• GASOW 34-17 at GASO91% → 99%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +17, Clock +1
• USCW 35-31 at USC63% → 93%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +44, Clock +3
• UABL 28-31 vs UAB67% → 4%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −53, 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.