Georgia Southern

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.0837th
  Defense+0.1151st
• 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.
  Offense42.5%39th
  Defense43.8%47th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1016th
  Defense+1.2135th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0643rd
  Defense+0.0172nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1439th
  Defense+0.2522nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.9%18th
  Defense47.5%55th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.7%77th
  Defense35.5%29th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7321st
  Defense2.7073rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.1%36th
  Defense21.7%73rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.9%31st
  Defense16.1%48th

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, 2016

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
   SAV
2. W
   USA
3. W
   ULM
4. L
   WMU
5. L
   ARST
6. L
   GT
7. W
   NMSU
8. L
   APP
9. L
   MISS
10. L
    UL
11. L
    GAST
12. W
    TROY

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

Players, 2016

1. Kevin EllisonQB211 plays · +0.257 pts/play · 83rd of 218 QBs
   1.01WAR0.56 to 1.43
2. Favian UpshawQB132 plays · +0.259 pts/play · 114th of 218 QBs
   0.64WAR0.37 to 0.91
3. Matt BreidaRB162 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 78th of 347 RBs
   0.41WAR0.24 to 0.61
4. Wesley FieldsRB85 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 110th of 347 RBs
   0.33WAR0.24 to 0.42
5. Seth ShumanQB67 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 159th of 218 QBs
   0.23WAR0.14 to 0.32
6. Younghoe KooPK20 plays · +0.505 pts/play · 14th of 116 kickers
   0.19WAR0.13 to 0.25
7. BJ Johnson IIIWR64 plays · +0.155 pts/play · 88th of 417 WRs
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.28
8. Myles CampbellWR34 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 171st of 417 WRs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.16

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  43543586th of 128Roster talent: 435, 86th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13313381st of 128Recruiting: 133, 81st of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  102%102%2nd of 128Returning production: 102%, 2nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −3.9−3.984th of 128SP+ rating: −3.9, 84th 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, 2016

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.14 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 ARSTQ4 11:53 4th & 2 at ARST 3, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. vs APPQ2 4:53 4th & 1 at GASO 19, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. vs TROYQ4 8:10 4th & 3 at GASO 40, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. at NMSUQ3 6:41 4th & 2 at GASO 28, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. vs ULQ3 8:33 4th & 1 at GASO 22, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. vs ULQ3 2:50 4th & 3 at GASO 21, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs APPQ3 0:07 4th & 2 at GASO 37, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at ARSTQ2 9:35 4th & 2 at ARST 15, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

120th 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. W

   SAV
2. W

   USA
3. W

   ULM
4. L

   WMU
5. L

   ARST
6. L

   GT
7. W

   NMSU
8. L

   APP
9. L

   MISS
10. L

    UL
11. L

    GAST
12. W

    TROY

What moved it, 2016

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−1.55
• Possession & field position−0.06
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.84

Game by game

• SAVW 54-0 vs SAV100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• USAW 24-9 at USA82% → 98%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +27, Clock +2
• ULMW 23-21 vs ULM96% → 84%Before kickoff +46 · On the field −12: Scoreboard +7, Timeouts +1
• WMUL 31-49 at WMU41% → 1%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −2
• ARSTL 26-27 at ARST73% → 22%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −15, Possession & field position −2
• GTL 24-35 at GT30% → 2%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −1
• NMSUW 22-19 at NMSU86% → 89%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +25, Clock +2
• APPL 10-34 vs APP44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −48, Clock −2
• MISSL 27-37 at MISS8% → 3%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −14, Timeouts −1
• ULL 26-33 vs UL80% → 4%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −76: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• GASTL 24-30 at GAST67% → 3%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −3
• TROYW 28-24 vs TROY33% → 86%Before kickoff −17 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +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.