BYU

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1671st
  Defense+0.0373rd
• 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.
  Offense45.5%76th
  Defense39.1%73rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1927th
  Defense+1.2258th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1782nd
  Defense+0.0461st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1954th
  Defense+0.1067th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.2%86th
  Defense45.7%61st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.8%45th
  Defense26.1%84th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0058th
  Defense2.8361st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.5%72nd
  Defense21.0%73rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.6%69th
  Defense15.8%52nd

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   PRST
2. W
   STAN
3. W
   ECU
4. W
   COLO
5. W
   WVU
6. W
   ARIZ
7. W
   UTAH
8. W
   ISU
9. L
   TTU
10. W
    TCU
11. W
    CIN
12. W
    UCF
13. L
    TTU
14. W
    GT

Bars above the line: better than expected for BYU.

Players, 2025

1. Bear BachmeierQB451 plays · +0.250 pts/play · 9th of 231 QBs
   2.11WAR1.34 to 2.83
2. LJ MartinRB218 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 6th of 365 RBs
   0.48WAR0.36 to 0.61
3. Parker KingstonWR105 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 37th of 451 WRs
   0.25WAR0.09 to 0.40
4. Chase RobertsWR81 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 39th of 451 WRs
   0.25WAR0.09 to 0.42
5. Carsen RyanTE47 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 9th of 213 TEs
   0.16WAR0.07 to 0.25
6. Will FerrinPK22 plays · +0.307 pts/play · 11th of 112 kickers
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.19
7. Sam Vander HaarP18 plays · +0.102 pts/play · 49th of 100 punters
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.06
8. Sione MoaRB8 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 335th of 365 RBs
   0.02WAR0.00 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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  64964970th of 134Roster talent: 649, 70th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19019055th of 134Recruiting: 190, 55th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  38%38%60th of 132Returning production: 38%, 60th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +15.9+15.918th of 134SP+ rating: +15.9, 18th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 of the 0.17 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 COLOQ4 1:49 4th & 9 at COLO 34, up 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−4.9 pts
2. at ISUQ3 0:16 4th & 5 at BYU 21, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting−2.7 pts
3. vs GTQ4 8:08 4th & 4 at GT 49, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
4. at ARIZQ4 4:08 4th & 3 at ARIZ 6, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. vs STANQ3 8:56 4th & 3 at STAN 3, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at ARIZQ3 5:14 4th & 4 at BYU 10, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at CINQ2 1:56 4th & 3 at CIN 14, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at TTUQ2 10:35 4th & 4 at TTU 33, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

2nd of 136 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

   PRST
2. W

   STAN
3. W

   ECU
4. W

   COLO
5. W

   WVU
6. W

   ARIZ
7. W

   UTAH
8. W

   ISU
9. L

   TTU
10. W

    TCU
11. W

    CIN
12. W

    UCF
13. L

    TTU
14. W

    GT

What moved it, 2025

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+2.69
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock+0.14
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.36

Game by game

• PRSTW 69-0 vs PRST99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• STANW 27-3 vs STAN92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +12
• ECUW 34-13 at ECU66% → 99%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +40, Clock +1
• COLOW 24-21 at COLO71% → 95%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +38, Clock +2
• WVUW 38-24 vs WVU90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +14
• ARIZW 33-27 at ARIZ55% → 12%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −33, Clock +4
• UTAHW 24-21 vs UTAH41% → 96%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• ISUW 41-27 at ISU40% → 99%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +57, Clock +3
• TTUL 7-29 at TTU17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −1
• TCUW 44-13 vs TCU55% → 100%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +44, Clock −1
• CINW 26-14 at CIN56% → 98%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +47, Clock +2
• UCFW 41-21 vs UCF89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +15, Timeouts +1
• TTUL 7-34 at TTU18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −21
• GTW 25-21 vs GT53% → 95%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +42: 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.