Georgia Southern

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.0613th
  Defense+0.2319th
• 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.
  Offense37.3%11th
  Defense44.1%33rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3062nd
  Defense+1.3520th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1664th
  Defense+0.1242nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.017th
  Defense+0.3613th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.7%11th
  Defense49.2%35th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.0%12th
  Defense33.1%33rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9532nd
  Defense3.2527th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.3%54th
  Defense14.9%28th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.9%14th
  Defense16.2%41st

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, 2021

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
   GWEB
2. L
   FAU
3. L
   ARK
4. L
   UL
5. W
   ARST
6. L
   TROY
7. L
   USA
8. L
   GAST
9. L
   CCU
10. W
    TXST
11. L
    BYU
12. L
    APP

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

Players, 2021

1. Justin TomlinQB193 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 131st of 219 QBs
   0.48WAR0.10 to 0.89
2. Logan WrightRB107 plays · +0.234 pts/play · 74th of 387 RBs
   0.47WAR0.37 to 0.58
3. Cam RansomQB56 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 175th of 219 QBs
   0.21WAR0.12 to 0.31
4. Gerald GreenRB43 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 233rd of 387 RBs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.22
5. Jalen WhiteRB39 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 252nd of 387 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.18
6. Connor CigelskeQB51 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 191st of 219 QBs
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.20
7. J.D. KingRB29 plays · +0.226 pts/play · 271st of 387 RBs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.15
8. Khaleb HoodWR44 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 264th of 474 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  384384109th of 130Roster talent: 384, 109th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14014096th of 130Recruiting: 140, 96th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  48%48%108th of 128Returning production: 48%, 108th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −15.3−15.3117th of 130SP+ rating: −15.3, 117th 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, 2021

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.11 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 ULQ4 0:44 4th & 15 at UL 38, up 2Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−5.4 pts
2. vs GASTQ4 4:48 4th & 6 at GASO 28, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
3. at FAUQ3 13:18 4th & 1 at GASO 34, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. vs GASTQ4 9:46 4th & 3 at GASO 33, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs CCUQ4 1:13 4th & 20 at CCU 24, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs ARSTQ1 1:03 4th & 2 at ARST 8, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. vs ARSTQ3 6:45 4th & 2 at GASO 28, up 19Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at APPQ3 10:12 4th & 3 at GASO 8, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

83rd 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

   GWEB
2. L

   FAU
3. L

   ARK
4. L

   UL
5. W

   ARST
6. L

   TROY
7. L

   USA
8. L

   GAST
9. L

   CCU
10. W

    TXST
11. L

    BYU
12. L

    APP

What moved it, 2021

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−0.54
• Possession & field position+0.07
• Timeouts−0.01
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.80

Game by game

• GWEBW 30-25 vs GWEB96% → 80%Before kickoff +46 · On the field −16: Scoreboard +6, Possession & field position +1
• FAUL 6-38 at FAU26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −28
• ARKL 10-45 at ARK6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• ULL 20-28 vs UL15% → 82%Before kickoff −35 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +16, Possession & field position +4
• ARSTW 59-33 vs ARST53% → 100%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts −1
• TROYL 24-27 at TROY31% → 14%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −20, Clock −1
• USAL 14-41 at USA39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −39
• GASTL 14-21 vs GAST28% → 25%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −34, Possession & field position +4
• CCUL 8-28 vs CCU12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −19, Clock −1
• TXSTW 38-30 at TXST45% → 97%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• BYUL 17-34 vs BYU9% → 1%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −17, Clock −1
• APPL 3-27 at APP5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −9

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.