Georgia Southern

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0940th
  Defense+0.1722nd
• 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.
  Offense45.0%72nd
  Defense44.8%20th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2230th
  Defense+1.2838th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0842nd
  Defense+0.1619th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1939th
  Defense+0.2636th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.7%70th
  Defense49.1%30th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.0%73rd
  Defense35.2%8th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9527th
  Defense3.0455th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.6%13th
  Defense18.2%61st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.2%34th
  Defense22.1%97th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   CIT
2. W
   UAB
3. L
   WIS
4. W
   BALL
5. W
   CCU
6. L
   JMU
7. W
   ULM
8. W
   GAST
9. L
   TXST
10. L
    MRSH
11. L
    ODU
12. L
    APP
13. L
    OHIO

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

Players, 2023

1. Davis BrinQB482 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 100th of 250 QBs
   0.86WAR0.02 to 1.75
2. Jalen WhiteRB119 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 39th of 383 RBs
   0.39WAR0.25 to 0.52
3. OJ ArnoldRB66 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 174th of 383 RBs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.22
4. Jjay McafeeTE25 plays · +0.252 pts/play · 41st of 212 TEs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.18
5. Dalen CobbWR25 plays · +0.226 pts/play · 175th of 457 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
6. Michael LantzPK18 plays · +0.266 pts/play · 49th of 113 kickers
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14
7. Keaton UpshawTE13 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 131st of 212 TEs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.07
8. Khaleb HoodWR84 plays · +0.026 pts/play · 308th of 457 WRs
   0.04WAR−0.14 to 0.23

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  417417107th of 130Roster talent: 417, 107th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13413497th of 130Recruiting: 134, 97th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  45%45%75th of 128Returning production: 45%, 75th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −5.2−5.280th of 130SP+ rating: −5.2, 80th 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, 2023

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.10 of the 0.18 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 MRSHQ3 1:56 4th & 3 at MRSH 3, down 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
2. vs CCUQ2 7:09 4th & 15 at GASO 20, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.2 pts
3. vs GASTQ2 0:00 4th & 2 at GAST 16, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. at BALLQ1 0:20 4th & 2 at BALL 43, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. at WISQ2 0:00 4th & 2 at WIS 30, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. at MRSHQ4 8:12 4th & 5 at GASO 42, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at APPQ2 2:33 4th & 2 at APP 20, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs ODUQ4 11:44 4th & 4 at GASO 45, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

107th of 133 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

   CIT
2. W

   UAB
3. L

   WIS
4. W

   BALL
5. W

   CCU
6. L

   JMU
7. W

   ULM
8. W

   GAST
9. L

   TXST
10. L

    MRSH
11. L

    ODU
12. L

    APP
13. L

    OHIO

What moved it, 2023

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−1.01
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts+0.01
• Other+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.34

Game by game

• CITW 34-0 vs CIT98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• UABW 49-35 vs UAB67% → 99%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +34
• WISL 14-35 at WIS9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −13
• BALLW 40-3 at BALL70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +35, Clock +1
• CCUW 38-28 vs CCU63% → 97%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +1
• JMUL 13-41 at JMU45% → 0%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −43
• ULMW 38-28 vs ULM89% → 97%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +16
• GASTW 44-27 vs GAST51% → 99%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +1
• TXSTL 24-45 at TXST48% → 0%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −45, Clock +1
• MRSHL 33-38 at MRSH57% → 5%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −39, Clock −2
• ODUL 17-20 vs ODU71% → 4%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• APPL 27-55 at APP25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −1
• OHIOL 21-41 at OHIO44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −44, Clock +1

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.