BYU · Week 2 analysis

Where the team stands

BYU ranks No. 20 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of +9.88 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 10; this update moves it -10 places and -3.97 rating points.

The rating snapshot includes 2 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 2–0. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.

What enters this model

Opponent-adjusted current margin: +1.650. Prior-season margin: +19.821.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: +0.0108; EPA/play net: -0.0372; success-rate net: -0.0006; explosiveness net: -0.0570. These are adjusted net signals, not raw offensive rates.

EP inputs cover 1 eligible games. Excluded games contribute no fabricated EP observation. Opponent results can move a rating even during a bye.

The result and the reconstructed expectation

BYU beat Arizona by 11 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of +11.62; the result was -0.62 points relative to that expectation.

This is a newly reconstructed forecast under the frozen EP model. It is not represented as a prediction published before the game, and it does not replace the original published grade.

Next scheduled test

The next scheduled opponent at this snapshot is Colorado State on 2026-09-19. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 365 versus 327; Net passing yards: 217 versus 230; Rushing yards: 148 versus 97; First downs: 17 versus 19

Completions–attempts: 16-26 versus 23-31; Rush attempts: 30 versus 31; Yards per pass: 8.3 versus 7.4; Yards per rush: 4.9 versus 3.1

Read production alongside workload: more attempts can raise a yardage total without raising efficiency. The model uses opponent-adjusted rate signals, not this box score alone.

Defense and possession

The opponent scored 17 points and recorded 327 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 3 versus 1; Tackles for loss: 5 versus 1; Third downs: 6-11 versus 5-12; Fourth downs: 0-0 versus 0-1

Turnovers: 0 versus 1; Fumbles lost: 0 versus 0; Interceptions thrown: 0 versus 1; Penalties–yards: 7-59 versus 7-55; Possession time: 26:19 versus 33:41

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 2–0. The expected final record is 8.2–3.8 over 12 scheduled games.

Expected wins add recorded results to the estimated win probabilities of remaining games. They are not a list of certain winners. Probabilities use a symmetric approximation from historical development residuals; independent calibration has not been established.

The comparison around the ranking

Nearby in this same snapshot: No. 19 Ole Miss (+9.97); No. 21 Toledo (+9.39).

PSR compares predictive strength rather than sorting teams by wins. A team can win and move down, or lose and move up, as its performance and opponents change the adjusted evidence.

How to read this assessment

This is a fresh assessment under the frozen EP model, using this period's eligible inputs. Earlier published releases remain preserved separately; the reconstructed archive is not presented as a prediction published before those games.

Scoring margin, prior-season margin, first-down efficiency, EPA per play, success rate and explosiveness contribute together. Correlated signals should not be interpreted as independent proof of an advantage, and a model disagreement with a betting line is not proof of profit.