Player Stats

Bryan Kariya College Stats

Career production, season-by-season totals, and the selected-season workbench are grouped here for stat-first searches.

Stat Footprint

Career production snapshot

Scrimmage yards
1,518
Rushing yards
1,101
Receiving yards
417
Touchdowns
18

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesScrimmageRush YdsRec YdsTDOverall
2008 PostseasonBYU732248036
2008 Regular SeasonBYU7564313136
2009 Regular SeasonBYU11385199186440.4
2010 PostseasonBYU1318180166.3
2010 Regular SeasonBYU13641519122566.3
2011 PostseasonBYU1331274050.4
2011 Regular SeasonBYU1335527184750.4

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2010 Postseason

BYU paired 659 primary output with 39.2 efficiency.

Supporting note

2011 Postseason role shape

backfield-heavy usage with 47.1 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value stayed steady

2011 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: UCF

Win with 63 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value. It landed in the 100th percentile of the selected season.

Analysis workspace

Season Workbench

Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and compare the statistical profile without scrolling through the full player page.

Season Explorer

Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.

2011 Postseason · BYU

Games

13

Scrimmage Yards / G

29.7

Efficiency

47.1

Usage

11.8

Consistency

62.2

Best Game by takeover score

UCF

Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.

Active game

Hover over a point

Hover or select a game to keep its context visible here without the page shifting around.

Game-by-Game Trend

Follow how the selected stat changes from one game to the next. Spikes mark standout outings, while dips show quieter weeks.

12345678910111213

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Tulsa: 31. Ole Miss: 48. Texas: 7. Utah: 13. UCF: 63. Utah State: 62. San José State: 17. Oregon State: 9. Idaho State: 22. TCU: 25. Idaho: 35. New Mexico State: 30. Hawai'i: 24

Volume vs Efficiency

Each dot is a game. Farther right means the player carried more of the workload, and higher means they were more efficient with those chances.

Low volumeHigh quality

High volumeHigh quality

Low volumeLower quality

High volumeLower quality

Volume on the x-axis, quality on the y-axis.

Volume versus efficiency scatter chart. Tulsa: 8 by 40.3. Ole Miss: 13 by 35.3. Texas: 1 by 58.3. Utah: 2 by 52.1. UCF: 16 by 39.6. Utah State: 13 by 43.7. San José State: 5 by 26.7. Oregon State: 3 by 31.3. Idaho State: 4 by 57.3. TCU: 5 by 44.3. Idaho: 6 by 60.8. New Mexico State: 8 by 39.7. Hawai'i: 3 by 83.3

Split Comparison

Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.

Wins34.1 · Games = 10 · +19.1 vs Losses
Losses15 · Games = 3 · -19.1 vs Wins