Georgia Southern

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.1765th
  Defense+0.237th
• 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.
  Offense45.5%75th
  Defense45.9%16th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2550th
  Defense+1.2454th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1366th
  Defense+0.255th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3076th
  Defense+0.2825th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.9%68th
  Defense51.0%15th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.9%81st
  Defense33.1%26th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0341st
  Defense3.612nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.8%53rd
  Defense12.7%10th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.9%65th
  Defense13.1%12th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   MORG
2. W
   NEB
3. L
   UAB
4. W
   BALL
5. L
   CCU
6. L
   GAST
7. W
   JMU
8. W
   ODU
9. L
   USA
10. L
    UL
11. L
    MRSH
12. W
    APP
13. L
    BUF

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

Players, 2022

1. Kyle VantreaseQB553 plays · +0.207 pts/play · 20th of 234 QBs
   2.14WAR1.13 to 3.14
2. Jalen WhiteRB152 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 42nd of 384 RBs
   0.44WAR0.27 to 0.60
3. Gerald GreenRB67 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 146th of 384 RBs
   0.21WAR0.14 to 0.28
4. Derwin Burgess Jr.WR66 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 96th of 455 WRs
   0.16WAR0.05 to 0.26
5. Jeremy SingletonWR68 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 150th of 455 WRs
   0.13WAR0.01 to 0.25
6. Amare JonesWR34 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 160th of 455 WRs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.19
7. Alex RaynorPK17 plays · +0.248 pts/play · 38th of 110 kickers
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.12
8. Anthony Beck IIP47 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 50th of 102 punters
   0.07WAR−0.03 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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  414414108th of 129Roster talent: 414, 108th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  132132104th of 129Recruiting: 132, 104th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  70%70%38th of 128Returning production: 70%, 38th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.4−6.487th of 129SP+ rating: −6.4, 87th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.16 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. vs USAQ4 9:29 4th & 2 at GASO 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.8 pts
2. at NEBQ4 14:42 4th & 2 at NEB 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
3. at ODUQ3 1:12 4th & 10 at GASO 25, up 8Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.4 pts
4. vs JMUQ3 5:39 4th & 3 at JMU 3, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
5. vs USAQ3 13:16 4th & 1 at GASO 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
6. at CCUQ4 7:56 4th & 4 at CCU 12, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. vs APPQ4 7:59 4th & 3 at GASO 25, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. vs JMUQ2 0:00 4th & 3 at JMU 22, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

44th of 131 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

   MORG
2. W

   NEB
3. L

   UAB
4. W

   BALL
5. L

   CCU
6. L

   GAST
7. W

   JMU
8. W

   ODU
9. L

   USA
10. L

    UL
11. L

    MRSH
12. W

    APP
13. L

    BUF

What moved it, 2022

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−1.07
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.19
• Timeouts−0.20
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.94

Game by game

• MORGW 59-7 vs MORG99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• NEBW 45-42 at NEB7% → 73%Before kickoff −43 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +28, Clock +3
• UABL 21-35 at UAB20% → 1%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −1
• BALLW 34-23 vs BALL76% → 97%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1
• CCUL 30-34 at CCU23% → 4%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −25, Possession & field position −1
• GASTL 33-41 at GAST41% → 5%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts +2
• JMUW 45-38 vs JMU23% → 98%Before kickoff −27 · On the field +75: Scoreboard +50, Timeouts +1
• ODUW 28-23 at ODU44% → 97%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +52, Clock +2
• USAL 31-38 vs USA42% → 4%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −46, Clock −3
• ULL 17-36 at UL43% → 0%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −41
• MRSHL 10-23 vs MRSH33% → 2%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −40, Clock −2
• APPW 51-48 vs APP31% → 42%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +11: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −20
• BUFL 21-23 at BUF66% → 8%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −35, 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.