Georgia Southern

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.1550th
  Defense+0.1238th
• 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.
  Offense43.9%54th
  Defense40.4%53rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2136th
  Defense+1.1284th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0226th
  Defense+0.0453rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2963rd
  Defense+0.2826th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.2%49th
  Defense45.0%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.
  Offense33.0%58th
  Defense29.7%43rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0951st
  Defense2.9642nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.1%66th
  Defense19.4%56th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.5%24th
  Defense16.8%62nd

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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 Georgia Southern 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
   CHSO
2. L
   CLEM
3. L
   JXST
4. L
   HOU
5. W
   CCU
6. L
   JMU
7. W
   ODU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Georgia Southern.

Players, 2026

1. Max JohnsonQB176 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 34th of 192 QBs
   0.40WAR0.12 to 0.65
2. Weston BryanQB22 plays · +0.329 pts/play · 119th of 192 QBs
   0.14WAR0.04 to 0.24
3. David MbadingaRB49 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 99th of 320 RBs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.11
4. Josh DallasWR35 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 91st of 364 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.12
5. Alex TaylorWR29 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 121st of 364 WRs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.10
6. River HelmsTE19 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 25th of 164 TEs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.07
7. Tripp BryantPK6 plays · +0.228 pts/play · 46th of 82 kickers
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.04
8. Terrance GibbsRB6 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 277th of 320 RBs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02

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 Georgia Southern'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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63463478th of 138Roster talent: 634, 78th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15915987th of 138Recruiting: 159, 87th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  6%6%125th of 136Returning production: 6%, 125th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −4.6−4.690th of 138SP+ rating so far: −4.6, 90th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 Georgia Southern's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.06 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 CCUQ3 8:47 4th & 1 at GASO 39, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
2. vs JMUQ2 11:23 4th & 2 at JMU 43, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. at CCUQ3 11:56 4th & 4 at CCU 45, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
4. at JXSTQ2 5:03 4th & 3 at GASO 46, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. at CLEMQ4 9:45 4th & 8 at CLEM 35, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. at CLEMQ2 7:17 4th & 1 at GASO 24, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs HOUQ4 3:01 4th & 14 at GASO 46, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at JXSTQ3 2:06 4th & 5 at JXST 25, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

65th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Georgia Southern's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   CHSO
2. L

   CLEM
3. L

   JXST
4. L

   HOU
5. W

   CCU
6. L

   JMU
7. W

   ODU

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Georgia Southern'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+0.02
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts−0.07
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.18

Game by game

• CHSOW 31-0 vs CHSO95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +7
• CLEML 7-22 at CLEM8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −12
• JXSTL 27-31 at JXST35% → 8%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −4
• HOUL 28-42 vs HOU10% → 1%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −19, Clock −1
• CCUW 31-24 at CCU55% → 99%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +49, Clock +4
• JMUL 24-27 vs JMU32% → 8%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −43, Clock −2
• ODUW 23-15 at ODU56% → 97%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3

Points of win probability, from Georgia Southern's side.

Closest call

LT 3-38 GASO (2020) - Georgia Southern dropped to a 0.4% win probability before pulling it out.