Georgia State

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1360th
  Defense+0.0856th
• 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.
  Offense42.4%41st
  Defense44.8%32nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3295th
  Defense+1.0694th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.182nd
  Defense+0.0744th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3690th
  Defense+0.1061st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.0%13th
  Defense51.2%17th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense41.1%93rd
  Defense29.5%78th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.332nd
  Defense2.9335th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.8%23rd
  Defense19.0%36th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.6%77th
  Defense2.0%54th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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 State 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. L
   CLT
2. W
   NMSU
3. L
   ORE
4. L
   LIB
5. L
   APP
6. W
   BALL
7. L
   ARST
8. L
   UL
9. W
   TXST
10. W
    USA
11. W
    TROY
12. W
    GASO
13. L
    SJSU

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

Players, 2015

1. Nick ArbuckleQB455 plays · +0.370 pts/play · 5th of 205 QBs
   3.15WAR2.41 to 3.90
2. Donovan HardenWR66 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 48th of 411 WRs
   0.24WAR0.13 to 0.36
3. Penny HartWR76 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 55th of 411 WRs
   0.23WAR0.12 to 0.36
4. Robert DavisWR84 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 60th of 411 WRs
   0.23WAR0.09 to 0.38
5. Wil LutzPK67 plays · +0.132 pts/play · 23rd of 115 kickers
   0.17WAR0.06 to 0.26
6. Kyler NealRB77 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 152nd of 333 RBs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.21
7. Glenn SmithRB96 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 161st of 333 RBs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.21
8. Demarcus KirkRB74 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 202nd of 333 RBs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.15

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 State'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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  336336111th of 128Roster talent: 336, 111th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  9797121st of 128Recruiting: 97, 121st of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  88%88%16th of 127Returning production: 88%, 16th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.7−6.792nd of 128SP+ rating: −6.7, 92nd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 State's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.13 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 BALLQ4 10:34 4th & 2 at GAST 44, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
2. vs ULQ4 13:29 4th & 2 at UL 19, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
3. vs ULQ4 11:30 4th & 5 at GAST 24, up 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.6 pts
4. at NMSUQ3 4:58 4th & 3 at NMSU 5, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. vs SJSUQ2 8:56 4th & 1 at GAST 34, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs LIBQ3 0:46 4th & 6 at LIB 32, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at ARSTQ4 4:34 4th & 8 at GAST 38, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs USAQ2 2:44 4th & 3 at GAST 27, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

18th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Georgia State's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   CLT
2. W

   NMSU
3. L

   ORE
4. L

   LIB
5. L

   APP
6. W

   BALL
7. L

   ARST
8. L

   UL
9. W

   TXST
10. W

    USA
11. W

    TROY
12. W

    GASO
13. L

    SJSU

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Georgia State'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+0.99
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.85

Game by game

• CLTL 20-23 vs CLT61% → 5%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• NMSUW 34-32 at NMSU43% → 92%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• OREL 28-61 at ORE0% → 0%Before kickoff −50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −1
• LIBL 33-41 vs LIB59% → 3%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• APPL 3-37 vs APP12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −17
• BALLW 31-19 at BALL16% → 97%Before kickoff −34 · On the field +81: Scoreboard +61, Clock +3
• ARSTL 34-48 at ARST11% → 1%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −16
• ULL 21-23 vs UL36% → 15%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −35, Clock −3
• TXSTW 41-19 at TXST36% → 100%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +60, Clock +3
• USAW 24-10 vs USA58% → 98%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +1
• TROYW 31-21 vs TROY53% → 98%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +42
• GASOW 34-7 at GASO9% → 100%Before kickoff −41 · On the field +91: Scoreboard +71, Clock +2
• SJSUL 16-27 vs SJSU37% → 3%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3

Points of win probability, from Georgia State's side.

Closest call

GAST 42-40 CCU (2021) - Georgia State dropped to a 1.4% win probability before pulling it out.