Georgia State

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1976th
  Defense+0.245th
• 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.
  Offense48.6%90th
  Defense46.4%22nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1736th
  Defense+1.338th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1989th
  Defense+0.216th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1946th
  Defense+0.2918th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.5%88th
  Defense50.4%24th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.1%60th
  Defense36.8%16th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3392nd
  Defense3.306th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.0%85th
  Defense14.7%5th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.3%74th
  Defense17.7%20th

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, 2019

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
   TENN
2. W
   FUR
3. L
   WMU
4. L
   TXST
5. W
   ARST
6. W
   CCU
7. W
   ARMY
8. W
   TROY
9. L
   ULM
10. L
    APP
11. W
    USA
12. L
    GASO
13. L
    WYO

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

Players, 2019

1. Dan EllingtonQB350 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 44th of 228 QBs
   1.43WAR0.86 to 2.03
2. Tra BarnettRB213 plays · +0.212 pts/play · 10th of 349 RBs
   0.84WAR0.65 to 1.05
3. Seth PaigeRB47 plays · +0.226 pts/play · 194th of 349 RBs
   0.20WAR0.15 to 0.25
4. Destin CoatesRB47 plays · +0.203 pts/play · 212th of 349 RBs
   0.18WAR0.14 to 0.22
5. Brandon WrightPK41 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 68th of 114 kickers
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.17
6. Sam PinckneyWR37 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 258th of 439 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.13
7. Devin GentryWR20 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 311th of 439 WRs
   0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09
8. Roger CarterTE22 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 44th of 207 TEs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.08

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  369369112th of 130Roster talent: 369, 112th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  124124107th of 130Recruiting: 124, 107th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  72%72%39th of 130Returning production: 72%, 39th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.5−10.5107th of 130SP+ rating: −10.5, 107th 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, 2019

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.10 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 ARSTQ3 8:50 4th & 19 at ARST 37, up 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.1 pts
2. at CCUQ2 0:05 4th & 14 at CCU 41, up 11Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.5 pts
3. at CCUQ4 7:06 4th & 2 at GAST 47, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. at CCUQ4 5:21 4th & 3 at CCU 12, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. at GASOQ2 10:00 4th & 1 at GAST 34, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. at ULMQ3 12:09 4th & 4 at ULM 25, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at ULMQ4 5:57 4th & 9 at GAST 28, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs FURQ4 2:33 4th & 7 at FUR 44, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

14th 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. Based on 12 of 13 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   TENN
2. W

   FUR
3. L

   WMU
4. L

   TXST
5. W

   ARST
6. W

   CCU
7. W

   ARMY
8. W

   TROY
9. L

   ULM
10. L

    APP
11. W

    USA
12. L

    GASO
13. L

    WYO

What moved it, 2019

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+1.19
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.57

Game by game

• TENNW 38-30 at TENN5% → 97%Before kickoff −45 · On the field +92: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• FURW 48-42 vs FUR71% → 96%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +2
• WMUL 10-57 at WMU26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −28
• ARSTW 52-38 vs ARST37% → 99%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +47, Timeouts +2
• CCUW 31-21 at CCU42% → 93%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +52, Clock +1
• ARMYW 28-21 vs ARMY42% → 97%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +2
• TROYW 52-33 vs TROY55% → 99%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +1
• ULML 31-45 at ULM59% → 1%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −46, Timeouts −2
• APPL 27-56 vs APP16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22
• USAW 28-15 vs USA78% → 98%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +26
• GASOL 10-38 at GASO35% → 0%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −35, Possession & field position −1
• WYOL 17-38 vs WYO34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −38, Clock −2

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.