Georgia Southern

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1879th
  Defense+0.0758th
• 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.
  Offense43.2%45th
  Defense45.8%24th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2254th
  Defense+1.0888th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1782nd
  Defense+0.0555th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3081st
  Defense+0.1064th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.0%47th
  Defense52.8%12th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.6%38th
  Defense29.6%79th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1175th
  Defense2.8063rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.5%64th
  Defense19.2%47th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.2%97th
  Defense16.5%57th

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, 2018

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
   SCST
2. W
   MASS
3. L
   CLEM
4. W
   ARST
5. W
   USA
6. W
   TXST
7. W
   NMSU
8. W
   APP
9. L
   ULM
10. L
    TROY
11. W
    CCU
12. W
    GAST
13. W
    EMU

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

Players, 2018

1. Wesley FieldsRB163 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 57th of 351 RBs
   0.50WAR0.36 to 0.65
2. Monteo GarrettRB72 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 165th of 351 RBs
   0.26WAR0.20 to 0.32
3. Wesley Kennedy IIIRB68 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 185th of 351 RBs
   0.24WAR0.19 to 0.29
4. Tyler BassPK17 plays · +0.536 pts/play · 8th of 112 kickers
   0.17WAR0.13 to 0.21
5. Shai WertsWR108 plays · +0.061 pts/play · 134th of 434 WRs
   0.12WAR−0.01 to 0.29
6. Ellis RichardsonQB9 plays · +0.046 pts/play · 218th of 225 QBs
   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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  303303124th of 130Roster talent: 303, 124th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13813886th of 130Recruiting: 138, 86th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  61%61%72nd of 129Returning production: 61%, 72nd of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.4−2.487th of 130SP+ rating: −2.4, 87th of 130 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, 2018

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 14 clear-cut ones account for 0.32 of the 0.41 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 TXSTQ4 0:00 4th & 6 at TXST 43, up 2Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−5.5 pts
2. at EMUQ3 1:39 4th & 1 at GASO 40, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.7 pts
3. at ULMQ2 5:40 4th & 1 at ULM 21, down 20Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
4. at TXSTQ4 12:38 4th & 1 at TXST 45, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
5. at TXSTQ4 7:25 4th & 1 at GASO 37, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
6. at TXSTQ3 1:59 4th & 1 at TXST 27, up 12Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
7. vs TROYQ3 6:40 4th & 1 at GASO 34, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
8. at TXSTQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at TXST 8, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

10th 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. W

   SCST
2. W

   MASS
3. L

   CLEM
4. W

   ARST
5. W

   USA
6. W

   TXST
7. W

   NMSU
8. W

   APP
9. L

   ULM
10. L

    TROY
11. W

    CCU
12. W

    GAST
13. W

    EMU

What moved it, 2018

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+2.10
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.07
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.33

Game by game

• SCSTW 37-6 vs SCST97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• MASSW 34-13 vs MASS54% → 100%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +45, Clock −1
• CLEML 7-38 at CLEM2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• ARSTW 28-21 vs ARST39% → 89%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +31, Clock +1
• USAW 48-13 vs USA81% → 100%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +21
• TXSTW 15-13 at TXST89% → 94%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +23, Clock +2
• NMSUW 48-31 at NMSU78% → 98%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +31, Clock +1
• APPW 34-14 vs APP27% → 100%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +73: Scoreboard +55, Timeouts +2
• ULML 25-44 at ULM68% → 0%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −56, Clock +2
• TROYL 21-35 vs TROY47% → 2%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• CCUW 41-17 at CCU72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• GASTW 35-14 at GAST76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +31, Clock +1
• EMUW 23-21 at EMU60% → 95%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +42, 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.