BYU

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.1561st
  Defense+0.0188th
• 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.
  Offense44.7%68th
  Defense41.4%52nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3068th
  Defense+1.1972nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1778th
  Defense+0.0948th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1750th
  Defense−0.0495th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.1%73rd
  Defense46.3%58th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.3%64th
  Defense30.5%47th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2374th
  Defense2.8073rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.7%32nd
  Defense17.2%44th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.1%49th
  Defense17.8%68th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   SIU
2. W
   SMU
3. W
   WYO
4. W
   KSU
5. W
   BAY
6. W
   ARIZ
7. W
   OKST
8. W
   UCF
9. W
   UTAH
10. L
    KU
11. L
    ASU
12. W
    HOU
13. W
    COLO

Bars above the line: better than expected for BYU.

Players, 2024

1. Jake RetzlaffQB409 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 86th of 232 QBs
   1.08WAR0.32 to 1.94
2. LJ MartinRB122 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 71st of 373 RBs
   0.33WAR0.23 to 0.42
3. Chase RobertsWR52 plays · +0.221 pts/play · 34th of 452 WRs
   0.22WAR0.07 to 0.34
4. Will FerrinPK19 plays · +0.458 pts/play · 3rd of 114 kickers
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.20
5. Hinckley RopatiRB45 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 241st of 373 RBs
   0.10WAR0.08 to 0.12
6. Keelan MarionWR47 plays · +0.028 pts/play · 315th of 452 WRs
   0.02WAR−0.04 to 0.09
7. Darius LassiterWR65 plays · +0.016 pts/play · 333rd of 452 WRs
   0.02WAR−0.14 to 0.18
8. Mata'ava Ta'aseTE10 plays · +0.078 pts/play · 147th of 221 TEs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.03

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  60260278th of 131Roster talent: 602, 78th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18118162nd of 131Recruiting: 181, 62nd of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  56%56%45th of 130Returning production: 56%, 45th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +15.3+15.317th of 131SP+ rating: +15.3, 17th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.19 of the 0.24 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 SMUQ4 9:08 4th & 1 at BYU 17, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.6 pts
2. at SMUQ4 1:58 4th & 3 at SMU 8, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.8 pts
3. at BAYQ3 7:28 4th & 10 at BYU 35, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.2 pts
4. at COLOQ2 0:00 4th & 4 at COLO 36, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
5. at WYOQ3 5:45 4th & 1 at BYU 29, up 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
6. vs KUQ4 0:46 4th & 11 at KU 16, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
7. vs HOUQ2 1:53 4th & 1 at BYU 26, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. vs KUQ3 4:30 4th & 3 at KU 17, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

1st of 134 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

   SIU
2. W

   SMU
3. W

   WYO
4. W

   KSU
5. W

   BAY
6. W

   ARIZ
7. W

   OKST
8. W

   UCF
9. W

   UTAH
10. L

    KU
11. L

    ASU
12. W

    HOU
13. W

    COLO

What moved it, 2024

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+3.75
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.14
• Timeouts+0.05
• Other−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.18

Game by game

• SIUW 41-13 vs SIU78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +25
• SMUW 18-15 at SMU20% → 94%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +73: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3
• WYOW 34-14 at WYO80% → 99%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +27, Clock +2
• KSUW 38-9 vs KSU36% → 100%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +56
• BAYW 34-28 at BAY42% → 95%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• ARIZW 41-19 vs ARIZ60% → 100%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +3
• OKSTW 38-35 vs OKST70% → 89%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +21, Possession & field position +2
• UCFW 37-24 at UCF45% → 99%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• UTAHW 22-21 at UTAH61% → 92%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +44, Clock +3
• KUL 13-17 vs KU56% → 5%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• ASUL 23-28 at ASU41% → 12%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −2
• HOUW 30-18 vs HOU77% → 99%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +1
• COLOW 36-14 at COLO42% → 100%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +57, 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.