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)
| Season | Result | Site |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Notre Dame 28–20 | neutral site |
| 2013 | Notre Dame 23–13 | Notre Dame Stadium |
| 2012 | Notre Dame 17–14 | Notre Dame Stadium |
| 2005 | Notre Dame 49–23 | Notre Dame Stadium |
| 2004 | BYU 20–17 | LaVell Edwards Stadium |
| 2003 | Notre Dame 33–14 | Notre Dame Stadium |
| Rating | BYU | Notre Dame |
|---|---|---|
| SP+ | +21.5 #11 | +28.0 #3 |
| Elo | 1725 | 2097 |
Projected margin for BYU · three models and the line, side by side
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.
-
51% Moves the ballsuccessful plays ✓54%
-
34% Stops playssuccessful plays allowed ✓31%
-
20% Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers ✓23%
-
1.22✓ Big playson offense 1.15
-
1.22 Big plays allowedon defense ✓1.15
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
| Measure | BYU | Notre Dame | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Off. success rate | 50.9% | 53.9% | Notre Dame |
| Off. explosiveness | 1.22 | 1.15 | BYU |
| Def. success rate allowed | 34.2% | 31.1% | Notre Dame |
| Def. explosiveness allowed | 1.22 | 1.15 | Notre Dame |
| Havoc created | 20.2% | 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.
-
Notre Dame defensive back Leonard Moore may return from concussion
There is optimism Leonard Moore will return from concussion for the BYU game.
- Kalani Sitake | BYU Football | Media Availability | Notre Dame | October 12, 2026
-
BYU Football Game Week 2026 — Notre Dame
No. 8 BYU welcomes No. 2 Notre Dame to LaVell Edwards Stadium on Saturday.
-
BYU named Big 12 Defensive Line of the Week
After holding Iowa State to 10 points and 200 yards of offense, the BYU defensive line was today honored as the Defensive Line of the Week by the Big 12…
-
Honors roll in for BYU quarterback Bear Bachmeier after Iowa State win
The sophomore quarterback was named Big 12 Offensive Player of the Week, was a Davey O’Brien Great 8 selection and a Manning Award Stars of the Week honoree.
-
Notre Dame linebacker Viliamu-Asa set to play at BYU
Kyngstonn Viliamu-Asa is not on the availability report and will play at BYU.
-
Notre Dame lists Moore and Onye as questionable for BYU
Leonard Moore and Jason Onye are listed as questionable for Notre Dame at BYU.
-
Rittenberg posts Week 6 takeaways plus Notre Dame-BYU keys
Adam Rittenberg shares Week 6 takeaways and keys for Notre Dame versus BYU in Provo.
-
College GameDay headed to Provo next week
College GameDay is coming to Provo next week.
-
ESPN College GameDay coming to BYU for Top-10 clash with Notre Dame
ESPN announces College GameDay is returning to Provo for its second-ever visit in advance of next Saturday's BYU vs. Notre Dame marquee matchup
- BYU vs IOWA STATE | RADIO HIGHLIGHTS | BYU FOOTBALL
- Anisi Purcell Tre Alexander III | BYU Football | Postgame | Iowa State | October 9, 2026
- Bear Bachmeier Walker Lyons | BYU Football | Postgame | Iowa State | October 9, 2026
- Kalani Sitake | BYU Football | Postgame Press Conference | Iowa State | October 9, 2026
-
BYU Athletics and PV3 Enterprises Announce Landmark Commitment to BYU Football
Historic gift and long-term strategic partnership will strengthen football infrastructure and create an innovative NIL program for student-athletes
- BYU VS ARIZONA | 3RD QUARTER BREAK | 360 CAM | BYU FOOTBALL
- Aaron Roderick | BYU Football | Media Availability | Iowa State | October 6, 2026
- THE CUT: TCU Trailer
-
Satuala named Big 12 Defensive Player of the Week
In addition to an interception in the second quarter at TCU that set up BYU's first touchdown of the game, Satuala had four tackles, including one for a loss.
-
Football moves up to No. 8 in national rankings
After improving to 4-0 on the season, BYU football moved up to No. 8 in both major national polls released on Sunday.
- BYU vs TCU | RADIO HIGHLIGHTS | BYU FOOTBALL
- BYU vs TCU | FULL GAME RECAP | BYU Football
- Jake Clifton Faletau Satuala | BYU Football | Postgame Press Conference | TCU | October 3, 2026
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
- 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)
- 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
- 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).
- By quarter: BYU 7-7-7-3 · Iowa State 0-3-0-7
- Week 6 polls: Coaches: BYU #8 · AP: BYU #8
- Pregame Elo: BYU 1699, Iowa State 1669
- Postgame win probability: 99.2%
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.
-
50%✓ Moved the ballsuccessful plays 29%
-
+0.23✓ Points per playwhat a play was worth -0.12
-
1.31✓ Big playssize of the good plays 1.10
-
32%✓ Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers 5%
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.
| Measure | BYU | Iowa State | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| PPA / play | +0.23 | -0.12 | BYU |
| Total PPA | +14.5 | -6.9 | BYU |
| Success rate | 50.0% | 29.3% | BYU |
| Explosiveness | 1.31 | 1.10 | BYU |
| Havoc created | 31.6% | 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
| Player | Pass usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bear Bachmeier QB | 100% | +10.7 | +0.36 |
Rushing
| Player | Rush usage | PPA | /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
| Player | Target usage | PPA | /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
| Measure | BYU | Iowa State | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rushing PPA | +0.13 | -0.03 | BYU |
| Rushing success | 48.4% | 37.5% | BYU |
| Passing PPA | +0.36 | -0.20 | BYU |
| Passing success | 53.3% | 21.9% | BYU |
| Standard downs PPA | +0.10 | -0.13 | BYU |
| Standard downs success | 52.9% | 39.4% | BYU |
| Passing downs PPA | +0.85 | -0.10 | BYU |
| Passing downs success | 36.4% | 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.
Recruiting
BYU's 2026 class: #21 · 237.33 points.
| Measure | BYU | Iowa State |
|---|---|---|
| Talent composite | 689.4 #59 of 138 |
669.5 #68 of 138 |
Transfer portal · 9 in, 14 out
Arrivals (9)
| Player | From | ★ | 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)
| Player | To | ★ | 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
| Player | Hometown | ★ | 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 | % PPA | PPA | Usage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 78.5% | 284.3 | 88.2% |
| Passing | 100.0% | 114.6 | 100.0% |
| Receiving | 51.3% | 78.6 | 60.2% |
| Rushing | 96.5% | 91.0 | 99.8% |
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.