BYU

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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−0.0110th
  Defense+0.1628th
• 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.
  Offense36.2%6th
  Defense44.0%27th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3066th
  Defense+1.2745th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0410th
  Defense+0.1717th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0713th
  Defense+0.2539th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.6%13th
  Defense47.1%55th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense23.0%5th
  Defense37.4%4th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9832nd
  Defense3.3515th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.3%76th
  Defense14.4%21st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.8%4th
  Defense14.6%16th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   SHSU
2. W
   SUU
3. W
   ARK
4. L
   KU
5. W
   CIN
6. L
   TCU
7. W
   TTU
8. L
   TEX
9. L
   WVU
10. L
    ISU
11. L
    OU
12. L
    OKST

Bars above the line: better than expected for BYU.

Players, 2023

1. Kedon SlovisQB194 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 160th of 250 QBs
   0.30WAR−0.15 to 0.81
2. Aidan RobbinsRB70 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 139th of 383 RBs
   0.20WAR0.12 to 0.27
3. LJ MartinRB73 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 147th of 383 RBs
   0.19WAR0.12 to 0.25
4. Isaac RexTE38 plays · +0.234 pts/play · 22nd of 212 TEs
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.25
5. Jake RetzlaffQB121 plays · +0.064 pts/play · 203rd of 250 QBs
   0.15WAR−0.24 to 0.52
6. Ryan RehkowP54 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 20th of 103 punters
   0.14WAR0.04 to 0.25
7. Chase RobertsWR40 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 153rd of 457 WRs
   0.12WAR0.02 to 0.22
8. Darius LassiterWR28 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 285th of 457 WRs
   0.05WAR−0.02 to 0.11

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  57657673rd of 130Roster talent: 576, 73rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17017069th of 130Recruiting: 170, 69th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  29%29%109th of 128Returning production: 29%, 109th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −3.3−3.375th of 130SP+ rating: −3.3, 75th 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, 2023

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 0.07 of the 0.13 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 OKSTQ4 5:23 4th & 1 at BYU 35, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−6.2 pts
2. vs TTUQ2 10:32 4th & 2 at BYU 17, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
3. at OKSTQ2 0:58 4th & 6 at BYU 39, up 15Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−1.0 pts
4. at OKSTQ4 14:05 4th & 3 at BYU 40, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs TTUQ3 11:51 4th & 4 at BYU 49, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs SHSUQ4 10:36 4th & 3 at midfield, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs SHSUQ3 12:33 4th & 6 at BYU 25, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs OUQ4 5:08 4th & 7 at BYU 28, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

33rd of 133 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

   SHSU
2. W

   SUU
3. W

   ARK
4. L

   KU
5. W

   CIN
6. L

   TCU
7. W

   TTU
8. L

   TEX
9. L

   WVU
10. L

    ISU
11. L

    OU
12. L

    OKST

What moved it, 2023

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−0.02
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts+0.25
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.84

Game by game

• SHSUW 14-0 vs SHSU90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +14, Timeouts +1
• SUUW 41-16 vs SUU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• ARKW 38-31 at ARK23% → 90%Before kickoff −27 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +46, Timeouts +4
• KUL 27-38 at KU19% → 2%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −1
• CINW 35-27 vs CIN52% → 99%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +41, Possession & field position +1
• TCUL 11-44 at TCU33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −1
• TTUW 27-14 vs TTU34% → 98%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +4
• TEXL 6-35 at TEX7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −9
• WVUL 7-37 at WVU18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −20
• ISUL 13-45 vs ISU26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −31
• OUL 24-31 vs OU4% → 4%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −14, Clock −1
• OKSTL 34-40 at OKST13% → 34%Before kickoff −37 · On the field +21: Timeouts +18, Clock −11

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.