The SportsWire

BYU

2026 · week 6 result vs Iowa State

Updated Tue Oct 13, 7:55 PM CT

Next up projections

vs Notre Dame

Week 7 · Sat Oct 17, 6:30 PM CT / 7:30 PM ET · LaVell Edwards Stadium (Provo) · Notre Dame (FBS, FBS Independents)

Our call: Notre Dame by 9.1Strong

All three models favor Notre Dame. The line, shown for comparison only, has Notre Dame by 12.5.

The average of SP+, Elo and Our model; the line is left out and kept as a benchmark. Toss-up under 3 points, Lean 3 to 7, Strong 7 and over. More ›

Big game prediction page: vs Notre Dame ›

Regression watch: Undersold last game: the play ran 7 points ahead of the 14-point win. In a 2022–25 study, teams undersold by more than 7 beat their season form by about 1.7 points the next game. More ›

Schedule: Played the 66th-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating -4.3); 22nd-toughest remaining (+9.4). More ›

Opponents by our model's rating 5 played · 7 left
  • Week 1 vs Utah Tech (-32.8) · FCS, pooled
  • Week 2 vs Arizona (+9.3)
  • Week 3 at Colorado State (-6.8)
  • Week 5 at TCU (+6.8)
  • Week 6 vs Iowa State (+1.9)
  • Remaining:
  • Week 7 vs Notre Dame (+31.7)
  • Week 8 at UCF (+4.5)
  • Week 9 vs Arizona State (+0.7)
  • Week 10 at Utah (+14.4)
  • Week 11 vs Baylor (+6.7)
  • Week 12 at Kansas (+7.3)
  • Week 13 vs Cincinnati (+0.5)

Each opponent's rating from our model's week 7 snapshot, in points against an average FBS team; the averages are ranked among the 138 FBS teams. Played means through week 6. Experimental, like the Our model card.

Series: Notre Dame leads 7–2 · last: Notre Dame 28–20, 2022 · Notre Dame has won 4 straight

Series history 9 meetings since 1992
  • All-time: Notre Dame leads 7–2 (9 meetings since 1992)
  • Last meeting: Notre Dame 28–20, 2022, neutral site
  • Streak: Notre Dame has won 4 straight
  • At LaVell Edwards Stadium: BYU leads 1–0 (1 meeting)
  • Biggest margins: BYU 21–14 (1994) · Notre Dame 42–16 (1992)
  • Since 2000: Notre Dame leads 5–1 (6 meetings)
SeasonResultSite
2022Notre Dame 28–20neutral site
2013Notre Dame 23–13Notre Dame Stadium
2012Notre Dame 17–14Notre Dame Stadium
2005Notre Dame 49–23Notre Dame Stadium
2004BYU 20–17LaVell Edwards Stadium
2003Notre Dame 33–14Notre Dame Stadium
RatingBYUNotre Dame
SP+ +21.5 #11 +28.0 #3
Elo 1725 2097

Projected margin for BYU · three models and the line, side by side

SP+
-4.0
BYU +21.5 vs Notre Dame +28.0
avg miss 10.6
closest 47/79
Elo
-12.4
BYU 1725 vs Notre Dame 2097
avg miss 12.3
closest 33/79
Line · benchmark
-12.5
pregame line
avg miss 11.1
Our model · experimental
-11.0
BYU +18.2 vs Notre Dame +31.7
prior 55%
avg miss 11.8
closest 14/40
How to read this
  • SP+ is a rating of how good a team is, in points better or worse than an average team, built from its play-by-play, so the gap between two teams' ratings is a projected margin.
  • Elo is a rating that goes up with every win and down with every loss, more for beating a strong team, less for beating a weak one. The gap between two ratings is divided by 25 to turn it into points.
  • The line is the pregame line, the margin the market expected, shown from BYU's side. It is not one of the models: it is shown for comparison only, as the benchmark the models and Our call are measured against.
  • Our model is this site's own experimental rating, built from each team's play-by-play adjusted for who it has played, blended with a preseason estimate from last season, returning players and recruiting. "prior 67%" means 67 percent of the rating is still that preseason estimate; the share shrinks as games are played.
  • In SP+, Elo and our model the home team gets 2.5 points (BYU); the line already includes the market's own home edge. The conversion to points is approximate.
  • "avg miss 9.8" under a card is how far that model's projections have been from the actual margins this season, on average, in points. "closest 10/39" is how many of the season's 39 finished games that model came closest on (a tie counts for every tied model); the line, a benchmark, shows its average miss only. Shown once a model has 20 finished games.
  • Our call, above the cards, is the site's prediction: the simple average of the SP+, Elo and our model margins. The pregame line is left out of it and kept as a benchmark to measure it against. Toss-up means the average is under 3 points, Lean 3 to 7, Strong 7 or more. It is made only when all three of those models have a number, and it is scored after the game like the models.
  • Each card is one method's estimate, shown side by side; when they disagree, that is worth knowing.
  • After a game, the sentence under the score shows every model and the line against the actual margin: ✓ when a model named the winner, ✗ when it did not (the line, a benchmark, gets no mark), and Closest: the model nearest the final margin among those present, never the line (an exact tie goes to the first listed). The "closest 10/39" counts keep the accuracy report's scoring of SP+ and Elo, where a tie credits both.
  • Metrics explained: the four models and their track record ›

Efficiency matchup · season to date · BYU 5 games, Notre Dame 6 games

Edge: Notre Dame wins 4 of 5

Notre Dame moves the ball better, stops plays better, is more disruptive and allows fewer big plays. BYU has the edge on big plays.

BYUlonger bar = betterNotre Dame

Run game, head to head · season to date

BYU's runs work 54% of the time; Notre Dame's run defense allows 25%. Notre Dame's runs work 54% of the time; BYU's run defense allows 35%.

More numbers
MeasureBYUNotre DameEdge
Off. success rate50.9%53.9%Notre Dame
Off. explosiveness1.221.15BYU
Def. success rate allowed34.2%31.1%Notre Dame
Def. explosiveness allowed1.221.15Notre Dame
Havoc created20.2%22.8%Notre Dame
  • Run game, success rate: BYU offense 53.7% · Notre Dame defense allows 25.4% · edge: Notre Dame
  • Run game, success rate: Notre Dame offense 53.7% · BYU defense allows 35.0% · edge: Notre Dame
  • Run game, PPA per play: BYU offense +0.34 · Notre Dame defense allows -0.23 · edge: even
  • Run game, PPA per play: Notre Dame offense +0.27 · BYU defense allows -0.07 · edge: even
  • Success rate: how often a play does its job, gaining enough yards to keep the offense on schedule.
  • Explosiveness: how big a team's successful plays are on average; a higher number means more big gains.
  • Havoc: how often the defense blows up a play with a sack, a tackle for loss, a takeaway or a pass broken up.
  • PPA (predicted points added): how many points an average play is worth to the offense; above zero is good for the offense, below zero good for the defense.

How to read this

  • Each row compares the two teams on one measure of how well they have played this season, offense and defense, using every game so far with garbage time (plays late in a decided game) left out.
  • The run game rows pair one team's rushing offense with the other's run defense. The row goes to whichever side is further from the FBS baseline this season, the offense by how far it runs above it, the defense by how much less it allows (baseline: run success rate 43%, PPA per play +0.08, the midpoint of what FBS offenses gain and FBS defenses allow, since both also play FCS teams), so two strong sides or two weak ones are judged by which is the more so. Edges within 3 points of success rate or 0.05 PPA are even. A strong run offense against a weak run defense is where a team can control the game on the ground.
  • In the five rows at the top the longer bar is the better number: bars are scaled within each row, and in the two "allowed" rows the lower number gets the longer bar.
  • Success rate is the share of plays that kept the offense on schedule (half the yards needed on first down, most of them on second, all of them on third or fourth). Explosiveness is how big the successful plays were, on average, in points. Havoc is the share of the opponent's snaps the defense wrecked: a tackle for loss, a sack, a takeaway or a pass broken up.
  • "Allowed" rows are what each defense gave up, so the lower value wins.
  • These are not adjusted for who each team has played, so a light schedule flatters a team, and early in the season they rest on very few games.
  • Metrics explained: success rate, explosiveness and havoc ›

Injuries

No injury report yet for this game. First reports usually come Wednesday.

Coverage (AI-assisted) · 23

Gathered by an AI model from public posts, not from CollegeFootballData. Not used in any number on this page. Verify against the linked sources. Beat coverage checked Mon Oct 12, 7:30 PM CT.

2 entries about games now final not shown.

Score and result

BYU 24, Iowa State 10W

Game page: the call before kickoff and how each model did ›

Projected: SP+ n/a · Elo +3.7 ✓ · Our model +19.1 ✓ · the line (benchmark) +14.5 · actual +14 · Closest: Our model

BYU was never below 59% and won BYU was never below 59% and won Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 100% 50% 0% 24–10
  1. Q1 8:55 · 2nd & 6 · 65% → 81%
    (08:55) Shotgun #20 J.Tonga rush left for 6 yards gain to the ISU00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 08:52 #97 M.Dunn kick attempt good (H: #19 F.Shurtz, LS: #88 T.Smith)
  2. Q2 13:59 · 1st & 10 · 66% → 81%
    (13:59) Shotgun #47 B.Bachmeier pass complete short left to #7 W.Lyons caught at BYU33, for 10 yards to the BYU35 (#7 S.Schlimgen), 1ST DOWN
  3. Q2 4:55 · 1st & 10 · 77% → 67%
    (04:55) Shotgun #1 J.Raynor pass incomplete short right to #0 C.Pettaway thrown to ISU46 broken up by #57 K.Tanuvasa

Home at LaVell Edwards Stadium · Fri Oct 9, 9:15 PM CT / 10:15 PM ET · vs Iowa State (FBS, Big 12)

Opponent for every game-level number: Iowa State (FBS, Big 12).

Verdict

The scoreboard undersold BYU: the +14 margin ran 7 points behind the +21 implied by per-play quality (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.23 vs -0.12, success rate 50% vs 29%).

The verdict compares the score with the margin the plays earned. How it is reached ›

Efficiency

Edge: BYU won 4 of 4

BYU moved the ball better, got more from each play, hit the bigger plays and was more disruptive.

BYUlonger bar = betterIowa State
More numbers

BYU ran 62 plays, Iowa State 58. Each number is that team's offense; Iowa State's column is also what BYU's defense allowed.

MeasureBYUIowa StateEdge
PPA / play+0.23-0.12BYU
Total PPA+14.5-6.9BYU
Success rate50.0%29.3%BYU
Explosiveness1.311.10BYU
Havoc created31.6%4.9%BYU
  • Success rate: how often a play did its job, gaining enough yards to keep the offense on schedule.
  • Explosiveness: how big a team's successful plays were on average; a higher number means more big gains.
  • Havoc: how often the defense blew up a play with a sack, a tackle for loss, a takeaway or a pass broken up. Counted from the play-by-play, so it is approximate.
  • PPA (predicted points added): how many points an average play was worth to the offense. Total PPA adds up every play, and is what the Verdict compares with the score.

How to read this

  • The four rows at the top compare the two offenses in this game; the longer bar is the better number, scaled within each row. A number at or below zero draws no bar.
  • A check marks the better side of a row. The line above the rows counts them: it describes how the game was played, not who won it.
  • Metrics explained ›
Top performers

BYU players by cumulative PPA in this game. Usage is the share of the team's plays of that type involving the player. Receiving is passing-play PPA for non-quarterbacks.

Passing

PlayerPass usagePPA/play
Bear Bachmeier QB 100% +10.7 +0.36

Rushing

PlayerRush usagePPA/play
Bear Bachmeier QB 29% +8.8 +0.98
Legend Glasker WR 3% +0.5 +0.52
Jojo Phillips WR 3% +0.4 +0.35
Devaughn Eka RB 10% +0.2 +0.06

Receiving

PlayerTarget usagePPA/play
Legend Glasker WR 20% +4.3 +0.72
Kyler Kasper WR 20% +4.1 +0.69
Roger Saleapaga TE 10% +3.7 +1.24
Preston Rex RB 10% +1.6 +0.53
By play type
MeasureBYUIowa StateEdge
Rushing PPA+0.13-0.03BYU
Rushing success48.4%37.5%BYU
Passing PPA+0.36-0.20BYU
Passing success53.3%21.9%BYU
Standard downs PPA+0.10-0.13BYU
Standard downs success52.9%39.4%BYU
Passing downs PPA+0.85-0.10BYU
Passing downs success36.4%16.0%BYU

Havoc detail — BYU defense: TFL 3, sacks 3, takeaways 1, breakups 11 on 57 snaps. Iowa State defense: TFL 1, sacks 0, takeaways 0, breakups 2 on 61 snaps.

Drives

A scoring opportunity is a drive that reaches the opponent's 40-yard line or scores; points per opportunity is the points those drives produced divided by their number.

◀ BYUIowa State ▶
  • 11Drives11
  • 6Scoring opportunities7
  • 4.0Points per opportunity1.4
  • own 27Avg. starting field positionown 25

Recruiting

BYU's 2026 class: #21 · 237.33 points.

MeasureBYUIowa State
Talent composite 689.4
#59 of 138
669.5
#68 of 138
Transfer portal · 9 in, 14 out

Arrivals (9)

PlayerFrom★Elig.Date
Walker Lyons TE USC 4 Immediate Jan 9, 2026
Cade Uluave LB California 4 Immediate Jan 13, 2026
Roger Saleapaga II TE Oregon 4 Immediate Jan 17, 2026
Kyler Kasper WR Oregon 3 Immediate Jan 8, 2026
Zak Yamauchi IOL Stanford 3 Immediate Jan 12, 2026
Paki Finau IOL Washington 3 Immediate Jan 12, 2026
Jr Sia OT Utah State 3 Immediate Jan 12, 2026
Jake Clifton LB Kansas State 3 Immediate Jan 13, 2026
Jayven Williams CB Mississippi State 3 Immediate Jan 16, 2026

Departures (14)

PlayerTo★Elig.Date
Dominique McKenzie WR San José State 3 Immediate Jan 7, 2026
McCae Hillstead QB Utah State 3 Immediate Jan 9, 2026
Marcus McKenzie CB Utah State 3 Immediate Jan 9, 2026
Tayvion Beasley CB South Florida 3 Immediate Jan 10, 2026
Jake Griffin OT Arizona 3 Immediate Jan 13, 2026
Lamason Waller III WR Southern Utah 3 Immediate Jan 13, 2026
Max Alford LB Michigan 3 Immediate Jan 13, 2026
Pokaiaua Haunga RB undecided 3 Immediate Jan 13, 2026
Ikinasio Tupou OT San José State 3 Immediate Jan 16, 2026
Choe Bryant-Strother EDGE undecided 3 Immediate Jan 16, 2026

+4 more not shown (14 total).

2026 commits · 21
PlayerHometown★Rating
Ryder Lyons QB Folsom, CA 4 0.9794
Brock Harris TE St. George, UT 4 0.9487
Bott Mulitalo IOL American Fork, UT 4 0.9452
Ty Goettsche TE Englewood, CO 4 0.9115
Jaron Pula WR American Fork, UT 4 0.8991
Lopeti Moala DL Orem, UT 4 0.8979
Jax Tanner IOL Meridian, ID 4 0.8933
Adam Bywater LB Salt Lake City, UT 3 0.8893
Kennan Pula ATH American Fork, UT 3 0.8889
Braxton Lindsey LB Rogers, AR 3 0.8867
Legend Glasker ATH Lehi, UT 3 0.8822
Graham Livingston WR Millville, UT 3 0.8800
Matthew Mason S Las Vegas, NV 3 0.8778
Nehemiah Kolone DL Stillwater, OK 3 0.8711
Kaue Akana WR Orem, UT 3 0.8689

+6 more not shown (21 total).

Returning production

Share of last season's production returning for BYU in 2026.

Unit% PPAPPAUsage
Overall78.5%284.388.2%
Passing100.0%114.6100.0%
Receiving51.3%78.660.2%
Rushing96.5%91.099.8%

A figure above 100% or below 0% is expected when last season's returning players had negative PPA in that phase, since PPA can be negative.