Georgia Southern

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.2287th
  Defense+0.0568th
• 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.
  Offense45.0%69th
  Defense42.3%54th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3296th
  Defense+1.1951st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.3299th
  Defense+0.0455th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.181st
  Defense+0.0863rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.4%69th
  Defense47.4%50th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.4%54th
  Defense30.0%77th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0373rd
  Defense3.0524th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.5%78th
  Defense18.9%35th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.9%56th
  Defense3.0%92nd

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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. L
   WVU
2. W
   WMU
3. W
   CIT
4. W
   IDHO
5. W
   ULM
6. W
   NMSU
7. L
   APP
8. W
   TXST
9. W
   TROY
10. L
    UGA
11. W
    USA
12. L
    GAST
13. W
    BGSU

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

Players, 2015

1. Kevin EllisonQB135 plays · +0.336 pts/play · 102nd of 205 QBs
   0.85WAR0.55 to 1.14
2. Matt BreidaRB140 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 23rd of 333 RBs
   0.47WAR0.30 to 0.63
3. Favian UpshawQB69 plays · +0.317 pts/play · 142nd of 205 QBs
   0.41WAR0.15 to 0.66
4. Alex HanksPK4 plays · +0.328 pts/play · 113th of 115 kickers
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.04
5. BJ Johnson IIIWR13 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 378th of 411 WRs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.03
6. Ryan NowickiP25 plays · −0.047 pts/play · 89th of 92 punters
   −0.02WAR−0.07 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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  39139193rd of 128Roster talent: 391, 93rd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12412490th of 128Recruiting: 124, 90th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  71%71%51st of 127Returning production: 71%, 51st of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +7.3+7.352nd of 128SP+ rating: +7.3, 52nd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2015

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.41 of the 0.45 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 UGAQ4 5:59 4th & 6 at UGA 28, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal−19.0 pts
2. at UGAQ3 9:15 4th & 5 at UGA 29, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−7.2 pts
3. at UGAQ3 14:55 4th & 2 at UGA 28, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−6.3 pts
4. at UGAQ4 0:39 4th & 6 at UGA 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal−5.8 pts
5. at TROYQ2 4:25 4th & 5 at TROY 35, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. at ULMQ3 6:57 4th & 5 at ULM 37, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. vs WMUQ3 6:13 4th & 4 at WMU 38, up 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at UGAQ1 6:13 4th & 4 at UGA 7, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

33rd of 128 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. L

   WVU
2. W

   WMU
3. W

   CIT
4. W

   IDHO
5. W

   ULM
6. W

   NMSU
7. L

   APP
8. W

   TXST
9. W

   TROY
10. L

    UGA
11. W

    USA
12. L

    GAST
13. W

    BGSU

What moved it, 2015

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+1.14
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.02
• Timeouts+0.14
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.17

Game by game

• WVUL 0-44 at WVU2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• WMUW 43-17 vs WMU32% → 100%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +56, Clock +1
• CITW 48-13 vs CIT96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• IDHOW 44-20 at IDHO88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +18, Clock +1
• ULMW 51-31 at ULM70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +36, Clock +1
• NMSUW 56-26 vs NMSU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• APPL 13-31 at APP32% → 1%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −33, Possession & field position −1
• TXSTW 37-13 vs TXST88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +16
• TROYW 45-10 at TROY74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +32
• UGAL 17-23 at UGA13% → 14%Before kickoff −37 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts +14
• USAW 55-17 vs USA92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +10
• GASTL 7-34 vs GAST91% → 0%Before kickoff +41 · On the field −91: Scoreboard −71, Clock −2
• BGSUW 58-27 at BGSU28% → 100%Before kickoff −22 · On the field +72: Scoreboard +66, Clock +2

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.