BYU

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.2487th
  Defense+0.229th
• 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.
  Offense46.0%78th
  Defense48.5%4th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3485th
  Defense+1.1678th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1674th
  Defense+0.1813th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3891st
  Defense+0.2920th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.5%72nd
  Defense52.2%11th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.5%84th
  Defense38.0%5th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3182nd
  Defense3.524th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.0%48th
  Defense11.9%5th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.2%87th
  Defense12.1%2nd

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   USF
2. W
   BAY
3. L
   ORE
4. W
   WYO
5. W
   USU
6. L
   ND
7. L
   ARK
8. L
   LIB
9. L
   ECU
10. W
    BOIS
11. W
    UTU
12. W
    STAN
13. W
    SMU

Bars above the line: better than expected for BYU.

Players, 2022

1. Jaren HallQB343 plays · +0.306 pts/play · 24th of 234 QBs
   1.96WAR1.35 to 2.64
2. Christopher BrooksRB106 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 113th of 384 RBs
   0.26WAR0.16 to 0.34
3. Puka NacuaWR54 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 75th of 455 WRs
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.25
4. Kody EppsWR42 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 180th of 455 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.18
5. Lopini KatoaRB64 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 247th of 384 RBs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.17
6. Brayden CosperWR29 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 243rd of 455 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12
7. Keanu HillTE24 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 58th of 214 TEs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.12
8. Ryan RehkowP30 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 54th of 102 punters
   0.07WAR0.03 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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  415415106th of 129Roster talent: 415, 106th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  16416470th of 129Recruiting: 164, 70th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  62%62%60th of 128Returning production: 62%, 60th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.4−1.471st of 129SP+ rating: −1.4, 71st of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.10 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 BAYQ4 5:45 4th & 7 at BAY 41, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
2. vs UTUQ3 10:43 4th & 2 at BYU 30, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. vs BAYQ3 6:15 4th & 3 at BAY 21, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
4. vs SMUQ4 3:01 4th & 3 at BYU 46, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs WYOQ4 12:21 4th & 1 at BYU 34, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at LIBQ3 0:16 4th & 12 at LIB 47, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs ECUQ2 0:59 4th & 1 at BYU 27, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at BOISQ2 7:16 4th & 6 at BOIS 42, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

52nd of 131 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

   USF
2. W

   BAY
3. L

   ORE
4. W

   WYO
5. W

   USU
6. L

   ND
7. L

   ARK
8. L

   LIB
9. L

   ECU
10. W

    BOIS
11. W

    UTU
12. W

    STAN
13. W

    SMU

What moved it, 2022

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−0.10
• Possession & field position+0.06
• Clock+0.15
• Timeouts−0.15
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.02

Game by game

• USFW 50-21 at USF79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +27
• BAYW 26-20 vs BAY59% → 89%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts −17
• OREL 20-41 at ORE44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −41, Clock −1
• WYOW 38-24 vs WYO93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +11
• USUW 38-26 vs USU95% → 99%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +10
• NDL 20-28 at ND39% → 2%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −2
• ARKL 35-52 vs ARK50% → 2%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −51, Clock −1
• LIBL 14-41 at LIB73% → 0%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −73: Scoreboard −62, Timeouts +1
• ECUL 24-27 vs ECU58% → 5%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• BOISW 31-28 at BOIS25% → 75%Before kickoff −25 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +32, Possession & field position +4
• UTUW 52-26 vs UTU50% → 100%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +2
• STANW 35-26 at STAN62% → 96%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• SMUW 24-23 vs SMU39% → 93%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +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.