Georgia State

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1144th
  Defense+0.362nd
• 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.
  Offense43.8%50th
  Defense48.2%9th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2464th
  Defense+1.3511th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0537th
  Defense+0.245th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1850th
  Defense+0.601st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.4%41st
  Defense51.9%16th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.8%79th
  Defense38.2%9th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8641st
  Defense3.2212th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.5%24th
  Defense13.2%1st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.8%54th
  Defense10.3%1st

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, 2018

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. W
   KENN
2. L
   NCSU
3. L
   MEM
4. L
   WMU
5. W
   ULM
6. L
   TROY
7. L
   ARST
8. L
   CCU
9. L
   TXST
10. L
    UL
11. L
    APP
12. L
    GASO

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

Players, 2018

1. Dan EllingtonQB279 plays · +0.229 pts/play · 73rd of 225 QBs
   1.20WAR0.72 to 1.69
2. Tra BarnettRB90 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 143rd of 351 RBs
   0.30WAR0.23 to 0.37
3. Brandon WrightPK45 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 18th of 112 kickers
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.22
4. Aaron WinchesterQB40 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 204th of 225 QBs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.18
5. Penny HartWR57 plays · +0.085 pts/play · 210th of 434 WRs
   0.09WAR0.01 to 0.17
6. Roger CarterTE12 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 79th of 204 TEs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.04
7. Cornelius McCoyWR37 plays · +0.033 pts/play · 378th of 434 WRs
   0.02WAR−0.03 to 0.07
8. Devin GentryWR5 plays · +0.049 pts/play · 425th of 434 WRs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.01

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  40440495th of 130Roster talent: 404, 95th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  112112116th of 130Recruiting: 112, 116th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  58%58%80th of 129Returning production: 58%, 80th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −20.4−20.4124th of 130SP+ rating: −20.4, 124th 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, 2018

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.16 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 CCUQ4 1:31 4th & 6 at CCU 36, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.5 pts
2. vs KENNQ3 6:48 4th & 1 at GAST 45, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.3 pts
3. vs KENNQ4 6:25 4th & 13 at GAST 36, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.6 pts
4. vs TXSTQ2 1:46 4th & 1 at GAST 48, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
5. vs ULMQ3 5:26 4th & 2 at ULM 38, up 22Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. vs GASOQ3 10:10 4th & 1 at GAST 34, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at ULQ2 0:14 4th & 4 at UL 13, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at ARSTQ3 13:27 4th & 1 at GAST 34, down 27Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

116th of 130 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. W

   KENN
2. L

   NCSU
3. L

   MEM
4. L

   WMU
5. W

   ULM
6. L

   TROY
7. L

   ARST
8. L

   CCU
9. L

   TXST
10. L

    UL
11. L

    APP
12. L

    GASO

What moved it, 2018

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−1.68
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.06
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.54

Game by game

• KENNW 24-20 vs KENN72% → 96%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +28, Possession & field position +1
• NCSUL 7-41 at NCSU5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• MEML 22-59 at MEM4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• WMUL 15-34 vs WMU24% → 1%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −33, Clock −1
• ULMW 46-14 vs ULM32% → 100%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +57, Timeouts +1
• TROYL 20-37 at TROY15% → 1%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1
• ARSTL 35-51 at ARST16% → 3%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• CCUL 34-37 vs CCU46% → 6%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −46, Clock −3
• TXSTL 30-40 vs TXST71% → 3%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −62, Clock −2
• ULL 22-36 at UL16% → 2%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −21
• APPL 17-45 at APP5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −8
• GASOL 14-35 vs GASO24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −31, Clock −1

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.