Georgia Southern

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0116th
  Defense+0.1334th
• 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.
  Offense39.8%19th
  Defense41.0%60th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+0.992nd
  Defense+1.431st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0235th
  Defense+0.0454th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.049th
  Defense+0.2423rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.7%44th
  Defense44.7%71st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.6%2nd
  Defense33.8%39th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8445th
  Defense2.7860th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.2%58th
  Defense22.6%74th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.3%22nd
  Defense18.5%76th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   AUB
2. L
   UNH
3. L
   IU
4. L
   ARST
5. L
   NMSU
6. L
   MASS
7. L
   TROY
8. L
   GAST
9. L
   APP
10. W
    USA
11. W
    UL
12. L
    CCU

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

Players, 2017

1. Wesley FieldsRB119 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 62nd of 352 RBs
   0.38WAR0.28 to 0.48
2. L.A. RamsbyRB96 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 98th of 352 RBs
   0.30WAR0.22 to 0.37
3. Kado BrownQB42 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 205th of 226 QBs
   0.08WAR−0.06 to 0.23
4. Shai WertsWR118 plays · +0.035 pts/play · 262nd of 426 WRs
   0.08WAR−0.07 to 0.23
5. Myles CampbellWR16 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 359th of 426 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
6. Ellis RichardsonQB7 plays · +0.027 pts/play · 219th of 226 QBs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.01
7. Matt FlynnP38 plays · −0.100 pts/play · 94th of 95 punters
   −0.07WAR−0.15 to 0.00

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  36636696th of 130Roster talent: 366, 96th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12912985th of 130Recruiting: 129, 85th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  30%30%115th of 128Returning production: 30%, 115th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −15.8−15.8115th of 128SP+ rating: −15.8, 115th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 0.08 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. vs GASTQ4 11:56 4th & 4 at GAST 41, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
2. vs GASTQ2 3:04 4th & 3 at GAST 41, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. vs NMSUQ3 8:39 4th & 4 at midfield, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
4. vs ARSTQ2 2:48 4th & 3 at GASO 44, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. at APPQ2 8:56 4th & 1 at GASO 19, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
6. at APPQ3 4:24 4th & 3 at APP 27, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs UNHQ3 11:00 4th & 3 at GASO 27, down 22Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs UNHQ4 2:12 4th & 21 at GASO 10, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

108th of 130 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

   AUB
2. L

   UNH
3. L

   IU
4. L

   ARST
5. L

   NMSU
6. L

   MASS
7. L

   TROY
8. L

   GAST
9. L

   APP
10. W

    USA
11. W

    UL
12. L

    CCU

What moved it, 2017

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−1.49
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.08
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.55

Game by game

• AUBL 7-41 at AUB2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• UNHL 12-22 vs UNH74% → 4%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −70: Scoreboard −56, Clock −4
• IUL 17-52 at IU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −8
• ARSTL 25-43 vs ARST22% → 1%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −32, Clock −1
• NMSUL 27-35 vs NMSU29% → 3%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• MASSL 20-55 at MASS24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −26
• TROYL 16-38 at TROY5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −8
• GASTL 17-21 vs GAST30% → 20%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2
• APPL 6-27 at APP10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −15, Possession & field position +1
• USAW 52-0 vs USA30% → 100%Before kickoff −20 · On the field +70: Scoreboard +59, Possession & field position +1
• ULW 34-24 at UL37% → 95%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +55, Clock +1
• CCUL 17-28 at CCU58% → 2%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −43, 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.