Georgia Southern

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.1355th
  Defense+0.0382nd
• 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.
  Offense44.6%68th
  Defense38.1%86th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.106th
  Defense+1.2840th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1986th
  Defense−0.0175th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.078th
  Defense+0.0783rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.1%75th
  Defense43.7%79th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.3%13th
  Defense28.0%83rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2687th
  Defense2.4392nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.8%94th
  Defense26.8%94th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.3%87th
  Defense19.1%87th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   CAM
2. L
   UL
3. W
   ULM
4. W
   MASS
5. L
   CCU
6. W
   USA
7. W
   TROY
8. W
   TXST
9. L
   ARMY
10. L
    GAST
11. W
    FAU
12. L
    APP
13. W
    LT

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

Players, 2020

1. Logan WrightRB93 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 53rd of 338 RBs
   0.41WAR0.34 to 0.49
2. J.D. KingRB89 plays · +0.205 pts/play · 80th of 338 RBs
   0.34WAR0.27 to 0.42
3. Wesley Kennedy IIIRB73 plays · +0.237 pts/play · 88th of 338 RBs
   0.32WAR0.25 to 0.39
4. Gerald GreenRB60 plays · +0.198 pts/play · 149th of 338 RBs
   0.22WAR0.17 to 0.27
5. Justin TomlinQB57 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 140th of 212 QBs
   0.17WAR0.02 to 0.31
6. Shai WertsWR105 plays · +0.073 pts/play · 61st of 409 WRs
   0.14WAR−0.03 to 0.30
7. Matt LaRocheRB40 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 244th of 338 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.13
8. Anthony Beck IIP45 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 3rd of 77 punters
   0.10WAR0.02 to 0.17

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  335335107th of 127Roster talent: 335, 107th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  134134101st of 127Recruiting: 134, 101st of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  82%82%23rd of 127Returning production: 82%, 23rd of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.2+0.268th of 127SP+ rating: +0.2, 68th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.21 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 GASTQ4 7:42 4th & 3 at GAST 31, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
2. vs TROYQ3 12:59 4th & 1 at GASO 10, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
3. vs TXSTQ4 4:15 4th & 2 at TXST 3, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
4. vs USAQ2 0:39 4th & 12 at USA 37, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
5. vs USAQ3 8:29 4th & 2 at GASO 45, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs FAUQ3 6:04 4th & 11 at FAU 25, up 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
7. at ULMQ4 4:59 4th & 2 at GASO 33, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
8. at GASTQ3 10:08 4th & 3 at GASO 40, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

45th of 127 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

   CAM
2. L

   UL
3. W

   ULM
4. W

   MASS
5. L

   CCU
6. W

   USA
7. W

   TROY
8. W

   TXST
9. L

   ARMY
10. L

    GAST
11. W

    FAU
12. L

    APP
13. W

    LT

What moved it, 2020

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−0.23
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.40

Game by game

• CAMW 27-26 vs CAM96% → 91%Before kickoff +46 · On the field −5: Scoreboard +9, Timeouts +1
• ULL 18-20 at UL21% → 5%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −2
• ULMW 35-30 at ULM91% → 82%Before kickoff +41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard +22, Possession & field position −2
• MASSW 41-0 vs MASS98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• CCUL 14-28 at CCU47% → 1%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −42, Possession & field position −1
• USAW 24-17 vs USA63% → 98%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +36, Possession & field position −2
• TROYW 20-13 vs TROY44% → 96%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts +2
• TXSTW 40-38 vs TXST79% → 87%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +2
• ARMYL 27-28 at ARMY43% → 41%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −2: Possession & field position +3, Timeouts −3
• GASTL 24-30 at GAST49% → 4%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −2
• FAUW 20-3 vs FAU48% → 99%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +47, Clock −1
• APPL 26-34 vs APP27% → 4%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −37, Clock −3
• LTW 38-3 vs LT71% → 0%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −71: Scoreboard −63, 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.