Try the model

Georgia State

Panthers · Sun Belt · FBS
8-52021 · 6-2 in conference
SP+
+1.8 (#71)
FPI
−3.9 (#83)
SRS
−6.6 (#91)
Resume
#57

Next game

JMU
at James Madison
Sat, Oct 17 · 12:00 PM EDT
Projected score
GAST25
JMU36
Win chance
17%
GAST 17%JMU 83%
Market: JMU favored by 12.5 · Points model v7, built without betting lines. A model's view, not betting advice.Full projection →

Advanced stats

CollegeFootballData's play-by-play measures of how efficient and explosive a team was, placed against every other FBS team. How it works →

Profile vs. FBS, 2021
Offense
EPAEPA per play: +0.21, 68th percentile among FBSSuccessSuccess rate: 47.0%, 81st percentile among FBSExplosiveExplosiveness: +1.16, 12th percentile among FBSRush EPARushing EPA: +0.22, 83rd percentile among FBSPass EPAPassing EPA: +0.25, 59th percentile among FBSStd downsStandard downs: 53.0%, 83rd percentile among FBSPass downsPassing downs: 31.7%, 56th percentile among FBSLine ydsLine yards: 3.31, 80th percentile among FBSStuffsStuff rate: 13.3%, 82nd percentile among FBSHavocHavoc: 14.4%, 74th percentile among FBS
Defense
EPAEPA per play: +0.10, 71st percentile among FBSSuccessSuccess rate: 38.6%, 82nd percentile among FBSExplosiveExplosiveness: +1.34, 22nd percentile among FBSRush EPARushing EPA: +0.03, 76th percentile among FBSPass EPAPassing EPA: +0.23, 43rd percentile among FBSStd downsStandard downs: 42.8%, 88th percentile among FBSPass downsPassing downs: 31.1%, 46th percentile among FBSLine ydsLine yards: 2.72, 86th percentile among FBSStuffsStuff rate: 19.3%, 77th percentile among FBSHavocHavoc: 17.9%, 73rd percentile among FBS

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.
  • 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.
  • Explosiveness
    Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  • Rushing EPA
    EPA per designed run.
  • Passing EPA
    EPA per pass play.
  • Standard downs
    Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  • Passing downs
    Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  • Line yards
    Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  • Stuff rate
    Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  • Havoc
    Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.

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.

Expected points

YardLine's expected-points model values every snap by what a drive from that spot is worth on average, so a drive can be judged against where it started. How it works →

Drives vs. expectation, 2021
Per drive

Points over expected per drive, from where each drive started.

Offense+0.5741st of 130
Defense+0.34allowed89th of 130
Adjusted for opponents

Per drive against an average FBS opponent, neutral field.

Offense+0.3655th of 130
Defense+0.35allowed88th of 130
Finishing

Points over expected per trip inside the opponent's 40.

Offense+0.954.8 pts/trip6th of 130
Defense−0.543.5 pts/trip allowed34th of 130
Field position

Average expected points where drives started.

Offense0.78128th of 130
Defense1.09opponents88th of 130

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
Offense: points over expected per drive
Defense: points kept off the board per drive

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

Players

YardLine's player model credits every play's value to the players involved, so each one's season can be measured in wins above a typical backup. How it works →

Players, 2021
The quarterback
Darren Grainger: 1.29 WAR (90% interval 0.74 to 1.85)
73rd of 219 FBS QBs in WAR · 76th of 168 in value per play

Quarterback is the most valuable starting slot by a wide margin: the gap between a top-decile and a median FBS quarterback is about twice the gap at any other position.

  1. Darren GraingerQB289 plays · +0.239 pts/play · 73rd of 219 QBs1.29WAR0.74 to 1.85
  2. Tucker GreggRB142 plays · +0.261 pts/play · 34th of 387 RBs0.69WAR0.56 to 0.86
  3. Jamyest WilliamsRB87 plays · +0.243 pts/play · 101st of 387 RBs0.40WAR0.30 to 0.48
  4. Cornelious Brown IVQB81 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 167th of 219 QBs0.25WAR0.09 to 0.39
  5. Michael Hayes IIPK37 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 16th of 128 kickers0.13WAR0.05 to 0.22
  6. Sam PinckneyWR22 plays · +0.210 pts/play · 264th of 474 WRs0.09WAR0.06 to 0.11
  7. Destin CoatesRB43 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 300th of 387 RBs0.09WAR0.04 to 0.13
  8. Jamari ThrashWR19 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 322nd of 474 WRs0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09
Every player (14)
  1. Ja'Cyais CredleWR23 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 327th of 474 WRs0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09
  2. Terrance DixonWR22 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 334th of 474 WRs0.07WAR0.05 to 0.09
  3. Noel RuizPK11 plays · +0.317 pts/play · 79th of 128 kickers0.07WAR0.04 to 0.09
  4. Cornelius McCoyWR13 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 403rd of 474 WRs0.04WAR0.03 to 0.06
  5. Roger CarterTE18 plays · +0.024 pts/play · 32nd of 234 TEs0.01WAR−0.02 to 0.04
  6. Aubry PayneTE19 plays · +0.006 pts/play · 41st of 234 TEs0.00WAR−0.02 to 0.03
By position group, against FBS
Quarterback
1.54WAR
73rd of 130
Running backs
1.17WAR
23rd of 130
Receivers
0.33WAR
82nd of 130
Tight ends
0.01WAR
29th of 130
Kicker
0.19WAR
6th of 130
Punter
0.00WAR
97th of 130
Line and defense, points per game vs the median FBS unit
Offensive line
+1.29/game
15th of 130
Front seven
+1.09/game
27th of 130
Secondary
−2.26/game
115th of 130

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

Transfer portal, 2021

3 players transferred in and 7 out. WAR is each one's 2020 season, before the move. Every team's portal

Brought in
0.00WAR
67th most of 130
FBS median 0.02
Lost
0.00WAR
least of 130
FBS median 0.06
Net
0.00WAR
47th of 130
FBS median 0.00

In 2021, the arrivals have added 1.36 WAR at Georgia State and the departures 0.00 wherever they went.

Arrivals (3)20202021
  1. Ja'Cyais CredleWR · 3★from UCF-0.07
  2. Darren GraingerDUALfrom Furman-1.29
The other 1
  1. Shamar McCollumWDE · 3★from Wake Forest--
Departures (7)20202021

No quarterbacks, skill players or specialists with FBS snaps.

All 7
  1. Jordan StrachanOLB · 4★to South Carolina--
  2. Brylan LanierCB · 3★to Alabama--
  3. Jeff MillerIOL · 3★to undecided--
  4. Tahji GilbertDL · 3★to undecided--
  5. Cedric StoneCB · 2★to Liberty--
  6. Evan JonesCB · 2★to undecided--
  7. T.J. ArnoldEDGEto undecided--

Only quarterbacks, skill players and specialists have a WAR of their own, so they make up these totals; linemen and defenders count in the moves but add none. 2020 is the player's season at his old school, 2021 his season after the move. A dash means no FBS snaps that season. Rosters tie CFBD's portal entries to players, which works for about 19 in 20 skill-position moves.

Talent and roster

How much talent the roster had, by recruiting ratings, and how much of it showed up on the field, against every other FBS team. How it works →

What it had and what it did, 2021
  • Roster talent
    247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
    Roster talent: 414, 102nd of 130 in FBS
  • Recruiting
    Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
    Recruiting: 139, 97th of 130 in FBS
  • Returning production
    Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
    Returning production: 100%, 5th of 128 in FBS
  • SP+ rating
    The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
    SP+ rating: +1.8, 71st 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
+8.4points per game

Georgia State's SP+ of +1.8 is 8.4 points above the −6.6 its roster talent predicts, 33rd of 130 in FBS.

Offense+2.7
Defense+4.4

The same comparison on each side of the ball, positive is better for both.

−200+2005001000Roster talent (247Sports composite)SP+ ratingAlabama: talent 1004, SP+ +26.0 (−3.4 vs. talent)Georgia: talent 1002, SP+ +32.0 (+2.8 vs. talent)Ohio State: talent 985, SP+ +29.3 (+1.5 vs. talent)Clemson: talent 935, SP+ +18.7 (−4.9 vs. talent)LSU: talent 904, SP+ +4.1 (−17.0 vs. talent)Oklahoma: talent 895, SP+ +16.8 (−3.6 vs. talent)Texas A&M: talent 888, SP+ +21.1 (+1.3 vs. talent)Oregon: talent 886, SP+ +10.2 (−9.4 vs. talent)Florida: talent 886, SP+ +11.0 (−8.6 vs. talent)USC: talent 875, SP+ −0.6 (−19.4 vs. talent)Texas: talent 874, SP+ +8.5 (−10.3 vs. talent)Notre Dame: talent 853, SP+ +17.4 (+0.2 vs. talent)Miami: talent 841, SP+ +10.8 (−5.5 vs. talent)Auburn: talent 840, SP+ +11.0 (−5.2 vs. talent)Michigan: talent 833, SP+ +23.4 (+7.7 vs. talent)Penn State: talent 821, SP+ +14.3 (−0.5 vs. talent)North Carolina: talent 798, SP+ +6.4 (−6.8 vs. talent)Washington: talent 790, SP+ −0.7 (−13.3 vs. talent)Tennessee: talent 781, SP+ +17.5 (+5.5 vs. talent)Florida State: talent 770, SP+ +7.6 (−3.7 vs. talent)Wisconsin: talent 751, SP+ +20.1 (+10.0 vs. talent)South Carolina: talent 748, SP+ +3.9 (−6.0 vs. talent)UCLA: talent 746, SP+ +9.4 (−0.3 vs. talent)Stanford: talent 745, SP+ −10.2 (−19.9 vs. talent)Nebraska: talent 744, SP+ +10.3 (+0.7 vs. talent)Arizona State: talent 734, SP+ +11.8 (+2.8 vs. talent)Ole Miss: talent 732, SP+ +14.8 (+6.0 vs. talent)Arkansas: talent 723, SP+ +13.8 (+5.5 vs. talent)Mississippi State: talent 716, SP+ +10.5 (+2.6 vs. talent)Kentucky: talent 709, SP+ +13.4 (+6.0 vs. talent)Utah: talent 708, SP+ +15.2 (+7.9 vs. talent)Georgia Tech: talent 707, SP+ −6.7 (−14.0 vs. talent)Maryland: talent 706, SP+ +6.2 (−1.0 vs. talent)NC State: talent 700, SP+ +16.1 (+9.2 vs. talent)TCU: talent 699, SP+ −0.6 (−7.4 vs. talent)Michigan State: talent 677, SP+ +11.2 (+5.7 vs. talent)Pittsburgh: talent 669, SP+ +17.6 (+12.6 vs. talent)Indiana: talent 664, SP+ −7.8 (−12.6 vs. talent)Virginia Tech: talent 664, SP+ +2.4 (−2.3 vs. talent)California: talent 662, SP+ +3.4 (−1.3 vs. talent)Baylor: talent 661, SP+ +15.6 (+11.0 vs. talent)Iowa: talent 657, SP+ +11.4 (+7.0 vs. talent)Minnesota: talent 653, SP+ +14.4 (+10.2 vs. talent)Northwestern: talent 649, SP+ −11.1 (−15.0 vs. talent)Missouri: talent 648, SP+ +3.1 (−0.7 vs. talent)Purdue: talent 644, SP+ +10.3 (+6.6 vs. talent)Colorado: talent 641, SP+ −10.0 (−13.5 vs. talent)Oregon State: talent 641, SP+ +8.9 (+5.4 vs. talent)UCF: talent 639, SP+ +4.8 (+1.4 vs. talent)Boston College: talent 636, SP+ +0.9 (−2.3 vs. talent)Illinois: talent 630, SP+ +4.3 (+1.4 vs. talent)Cincinnati: talent 627, SP+ +21.2 (+18.5 vs. talent)Virginia: talent 620, SP+ +7.2 (+4.9 vs. talent)Oklahoma State: talent 614, SP+ +17.2 (+15.2 vs. talent)Iowa State: talent 614, SP+ +14.3 (+12.3 vs. talent)West Virginia: talent 611, SP+ +1.8 (−0.1 vs. talent)Vanderbilt: talent 610, SP+ −19.4 (−21.2 vs. talent)Louisville: talent 608, SP+ +7.8 (+6.1 vs. talent)Texas Tech: talent 607, SP+ +9.8 (+8.1 vs. talent)Duke: talent 606, SP+ −13.5 (−15.1 vs. talent)Washington State: talent 601, SP+ +6.7 (+5.3 vs. talent)Wake Forest: talent 589, SP+ +10.1 (+9.3 vs. talent)SMU: talent 576, SP+ +8.9 (+8.8 vs. talent)Rutgers: talent 573, SP+ −3.0 (−3.0 vs. talent)Memphis: talent 572, SP+ +1.0 (+1.1 vs. talent)Houston: talent 571, SP+ +10.9 (+11.0 vs. talent)Kansas State: talent 570, SP+ +14.2 (+14.4 vs. talent)Arizona: talent 568, SP+ −12.6 (−12.3 vs. talent)Syracuse: talent 567, SP+ +0.3 (+0.6 vs. talent)Boise State: talent 558, SP+ +9.4 (+10.2 vs. talent)Florida Atlantic: talent 553, SP+ −5.2 (−4.2 vs. talent)Kansas: talent 548, SP+ −19.7 (−18.5 vs. talent)South Florida: talent 541, SP+ −12.1 (−10.5 vs. talent)Western Kentucky: talent 525, SP+ +13.3 (+15.6 vs. talent)Florida International: talent 521, SP+ −21.6 (−19.1 vs. talent)Louisiana Tech: talent 520, SP+ −11.6 (−9.1 vs. talent)East Carolina: talent 516, SP+ +0.5 (+3.2 vs. talent)UTSA: talent 509, SP+ +6.5 (+9.5 vs. talent)Temple: talent 501, SP+ −19.1 (−15.8 vs. talent)North Texas: talent 496, SP+ −6.5 (−3.0 vs. talent)Middle Tennessee: talent 494, SP+ −4.0 (−0.4 vs. talent)Fresno State: talent 484, SP+ +10.8 (+14.8 vs. talent)Arkansas State: talent 476, SP+ −17.9 (−13.6 vs. talent)Tulsa: talent 470, SP+ +5.8 (+10.3 vs. talent)Southern Miss: talent 466, SP+ −14.2 (−9.5 vs. talent)Toledo: talent 465, SP+ +6.9 (+11.6 vs. talent)Tulane: talent 463, SP+ −3.9 (+0.9 vs. talent)Charlotte: talent 463, SP+ −13.7 (−8.9 vs. talent)Marshall: talent 457, SP+ +8.0 (+13.1 vs. talent)App State: talent 450, SP+ +10.3 (+15.6 vs. talent)Troy: talent 449, SP+ −6.5 (−1.1 vs. talent)UAB: talent 444, SP+ +9.1 (+14.6 vs. talent)Colorado State: talent 443, SP+ −2.4 (+3.2 vs. talent)BYU: talent 443, SP+ +8.9 (+14.5 vs. talent)San Diego State: talent 442, SP+ +8.3 (+13.9 vs. talent)Louisiana: talent 436, SP+ +8.7 (+14.5 vs. talent)Texas State: talent 428, SP+ −16.0 (−9.9 vs. talent)Nevada: talent 422, SP+ +3.6 (+9.9 vs. talent)Rice: talent 420, SP+ −22.9 (−16.5 vs. talent)Coastal Carolina: talent 416, SP+ +13.2 (+19.7 vs. talent)South Alabama: talent 415, SP+ −7.2 (−0.6 vs. talent)San José State: talent 411, SP+ −1.9 (+4.8 vs. talent)Old Dominion: talent 409, SP+ −7.4 (−0.6 vs. talent)Hawai'i: talent 397, SP+ −2.3 (+4.9 vs. talent)Western Michigan: talent 396, SP+ +0.6 (+7.8 vs. talent)Utah State: talent 394, SP+ +0.1 (+7.4 vs. talent)UNLV: talent 392, SP+ −13.8 (−6.5 vs. talent)Georgia Southern: talent 384, SP+ −15.3 (−7.7 vs. talent)Bowling Green: talent 381, SP+ −12.4 (−4.7 vs. talent)Miami (OH): talent 378, SP+ +1.5 (+9.3 vs. talent)New Mexico: talent 361, SP+ −18.6 (−10.3 vs. talent)Kent State: talent 358, SP+ −6.4 (+2.0 vs. talent)Northern Illinois: talent 354, SP+ −7.1 (+1.4 vs. talent)Eastern Michigan: talent 341, SP+ −7.8 (+1.0 vs. talent)Ball State: talent 338, SP+ −11.2 (−2.3 vs. talent)Ohio: talent 332, SP+ −11.6 (−2.5 vs. talent)UConn: talent 332, SP+ −25.6 (−16.5 vs. talent)Akron: talent 331, SP+ −23.1 (−14.0 vs. talent)Wyoming: talent 327, SP+ +0.6 (+9.8 vs. talent)UTEP: talent 319, SP+ −4.2 (+5.2 vs. talent)UL Monroe: talent 312, SP+ −20.3 (−10.7 vs. talent)Central Michigan: talent 269, SP+ −1.0 (+9.6 vs. talent)Buffalo: talent 267, SP+ −9.5 (+1.1 vs. talent)Massachusetts: talent 227, SP+ −29.3 (−18.0 vs. talent)Liberty: talent 155, SP+ +8.4 (+20.7 vs. talent)Navy: talent 128, SP+ −8.5 (+4.1 vs. talent)New Mexico State: talent 117, SP+ −24.2 (−11.6 vs. talent)Army: talent 112, SP+ +4.7 (+17.4 vs. talent)Air Force: talent 30, SP+ +7.4 (+20.3 vs. talent)Georgia State: talent 414, SP+ +1.8, expected −6.6Georgia State
One dot per FBS team, 2021. The line is the SP+ a roster's talent predicts; the dashed gap is Georgia State's conversion.
Conversion by season

Bars above the line: SP+ above what the roster's talent predicted. The lighter bar is the season in progress.

Fourth downs

YardLine's fourth-down model values going for it, kicking and punting on every real fourth down, so each call can be checked against the numbers. How it works →

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2021
Made the numbers' call

Calls that matched the option with the best modeled win probability.

76 of 8886%2nd of 130
FBS median 77%
Win probability given up

Summed over every call that differed, in points of win probability.

0.2 ptsper game1st of 130
0.02 expected wins over 13 games, FBS median 1.0 pts
When going was clearly right

Went for it when going beat every other option by a point or more.

8 of 8100%
FBS teams went 69%

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.02 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 AUBQ3 7:28 4th & 9 at AUB 37, up 12Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
  2. at UNCQ2 3:03 4th & 15 at GAST 12, down 11Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
  3. at ULQ2 12:21 4th & 6 at UL 39, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
  4. at ULMQ1 2:58 4th & 5 at ULM 40, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
  5. vs TROYQ3 1:30 4th & 5 at TROY 33, up 24Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
  6. at GASOQ4 6:35 4th & 8 at GASO 46, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
  7. at GASOQ1 10:10 4th & 3 at GASO 47, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
  8. at BALLQ1 9:37 4th & 4 at GAST 10, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
Every call this season (88)
Wk 1 · vs ARMY · L 10-433 of 3 agreed
  1. Q1 8:084th & 29 at GAST 17, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 0:434th & 15 at GAST 20, down 14 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q3 9:414th & 2 at GAST 39, down 20 · Went for itAgreed
Wk 2 · at UNC · L 17-5911 of 12 agreed
  1. Q1 14:064th & 12 at GAST 23, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 9:114th & 2 at UNC 32, down 7 · Went for itAgreed
  3. Q1 4:334th & 11 at GAST 41, down 14 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q1 3:284th & 10 at UNC 19, down 14 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q2 7:204th & 1 at UNC 21, down 18 · Went for itAgreed
  6. Q2 3:034th & 15 at GAST 12, down 11 · Went for itClose call
  7. Q2 0:124th & 6 at GAST 29, down 14 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q3 11:004th & 1 at GAST 29, down 14 · Went for itAgreed
  9. Q3 9:034th & 16 at GAST 25, down 14 · PuntedAgreed
  10. Q3 4:354th & 6 at GAST 29, down 21 · PuntedAgreed
  11. Q3 1:454th & 10 at GAST 35, down 28 · PuntedAgreed
  12. Q4 2:054th & 5 at GAST 29, down 42 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 3 · vs CLT · W 20-97 of 7 agreed
  1. Q1 12:264th & 8 at CLT 48, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 5:374th & 18 at CLT 42, tied · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 6:004th & 2 at GAST 33, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 1:284th & 7 at GAST 39, tied · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 7:244th & 1 at GAST 43, tied · Went for itAgreed
  6. Q4 15:004th & 1 at GAST 37, up 4 · Went for itAgreed
  7. Q4 8:584th & 1 at GAST 43, up 4 · Went for itAgreed
Wk 4 · at AUB · L 24-348 of 9 agreed
  1. Q1 13:444th & 6 at GAST 29, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 8:344th & 12 at AUB 15, tied · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  3. Q1 6:464th & 5 at GAST 30, tied · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q3 7:284th & 9 at AUB 37, up 12 · PuntedClose call
  5. Q3 4:444th & 16 at GAST 19, up 12 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 3:104th & 8 at GAST 27, up 5 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q4 13:064th & 6 at GAST 27, up 5 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q4 9:414th & 9 at GAST 24, up 5 · PuntedAgreed
  9. Q4 3:234th & 13 at GAST 44, up 5 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 5 · vs APP · L 16-458 of 10 agreed
  1. Q1 10:464th & 7 at GAST 28, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 4:284th & 9 at GAST 26, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 13:144th & 5 at APP 5, down 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  4. Q2 10:354th & 5 at GAST 39, down 4 · PuntedClose call
  5. Q2 1:554th & 5 at APP 14, down 11 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  6. Q3 8:224th & 5 at APP 5, down 8 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  7. Q3 3:564th & 6 at GAST 35, down 15 · PuntedAgreed
  8. Q4 13:354th & 10 at GAST 44, down 22 · PuntedAgreed
  9. Q4 12:114th & 1 at GAST 34, down 29 · Went for itAgreed
  10. Q4 9:094th & 2 at GAST 43, down 36 · Went for itClose call
Wk 6 · at ULM · W 55-212 of 3 agreed
  1. Q1 11:194th & 5 at GAST 31, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 2:584th & 5 at ULM 40, tied · PuntedClose call
  3. Q4 9:254th & 7 at GAST 28, up 41 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 8 · vs TXST · W 28-165 of 6 agreed
  1. Q1 10:084th & 2 at GAST 33, down 3 · PuntedClose call
  2. Q2 7:184th & 12 at GAST 34, up 1 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 2:244th & 15 at GAST 20, up 1 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q3 12:514th & 9 at TXST 45, up 1 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 10:344th & 1 at GAST 42, up 1 · Went for itAgreed
  6. Q4 2:464th & 6 at TXST 23, up 12 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
Wk 9 · at GASO · W 21-145 of 7 agreed
  1. Q1 10:104th & 3 at GASO 47, tied · PuntedClose call
  2. Q1 5:174th & 5 at GAST 38, tied · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q2 10:174th & 17 at GASO 45, tied · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 3:214th & 7 at GAST 43, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 14:414th & 10 at GAST 25, down 7 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q4 6:354th & 8 at GASO 46, up 7 · PuntedClose call
  7. Q4 3:114th & 7 at GAST 12, up 7 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 10 · at UL · L 17-217 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 5:054th & 5 at UL 21, tied · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  2. Q2 12:214th & 6 at UL 39, up 3 · PuntedClose call
  3. Q2 4:074th & 11 at UL 47, up 3 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q3 14:044th & 7 at GAST 28, up 3 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q3 10:294th & 8 at GAST 26, up 3 · PuntedAgreed
  6. Q3 0:354th & 20 at GAST 28, up 3 · PuntedAgreed
  7. Q4 5:464th & 1 at UL 5, down 4 · Went for itAgreed
  8. Q4 1:254th & 10 at UL 49, down 4 · Went for itAgreed
Wk 11 · at CCU · W 42-404 of 5 agreed
  1. Q1 9:304th & 1 at CCU 40, down 7 · Went for itAgreed
  2. Q3 13:344th & 14 at GAST 21, up 5 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q3 2:424th & 2 at GAST 33, up 2 · PuntedClose call
  4. Q4 13:414th & 5 at GAST 40, up 2 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q4 4:534th & 2 at CCU 2, down 8 · Went for itAgreed
Wk 12 · vs ARST · W 28-205 of 5 agreed
  1. Q1 10:204th & 5 at GAST 30, down 3 · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q2 8:064th & 3 at GAST 32, up 4 · PuntedAgreed
  3. Q3 11:354th & 20 at GAST 38, up 1 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q3 4:534th & 9 at ARST 30, up 1 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q4 6:284th & 5 at GAST 31, up 15 · PuntedAgreed
Wk 13 · vs TROY · W 37-107 of 8 agreed
  1. Q1 12:314th & 9 at GAST 25, tied · PuntedAgreed
  2. Q1 4:374th & 2 at TROY 33, up 7 · Went for itAgreed
  3. Q2 15:004th & 2 at TROY 34, up 7 · Went for itAgreed
  4. Q2 6:474th & 18 at TROY 49, up 14 · PuntedAgreed
  5. Q2 2:464th & 7 at TROY 25, up 14 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  6. Q3 11:304th & 13 at TROY 22, up 14 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  7. Q3 1:304th & 5 at TROY 33, up 24 · Kicked a field goalClose call
  8. Q4 5:364th & 8 at TROY 43, up 27 · Went for itAgreed
TaxAct Camellia Bowl · at BALL · W 51-204 of 5 agreed
  1. Q1 9:374th & 4 at GAST 10, tied · PuntedClose call
  2. Q2 14:114th & 6 at BALL 10, up 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  3. Q2 11:264th & 5 at GAST 20, up 10 · PuntedAgreed
  4. Q2 6:014th & 9 at BALL 10, up 7 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
  5. Q4 9:034th & 8 at BALL 27, up 35 · Kicked a field goalAgreed
After touchdowns: kick or go for two?
Made the numbers' call

Tries that matched the option with the better modeled win probability.

40 of 4295%
FBS median 91%
Win probability given up

Summed over every try that differed, in points of win probability.

0.6 ptsthis season
FBS median 0.6 pts
When two was clearly right

Went for two when it beat kicking by a point or more.

-
Never went for two
Costliest tries against the numbers
  1. at GASOQ4 0:32 Touchdown, up 6 before the tryKicked; the numbers favored going for two (close call)−0.5 pts
  2. vs CLTQ4 1:38 Touchdown, up 10 before the tryKicked; the numbers favored going for two (close call)−0.1 pts

Win probability

YardLine's model estimates each team's chance of winning before kickoff and again after every play, from the score, clock, down, distance and field position. How it works →

Record vs. expectation, 2021
8-5vs. 6.6 expected+1.4 wins

26th 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. L
  2. L
  3. W
  4. L
  5. L
  6. W
  7. W
  8. W
  9. L
  10. W
  11. W
  12. W
  13. W
What moved it, 2021
+0.1 wins
before kickoff: being favored, vs. coin flips
+0.3 wins
on the field, after the opening snap

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+0.45
  • Possession & field position−0.02
  • Clock+0.01
  • Other−0.01
  • Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.13
Game by game

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.

Season arc, 2021

Every completed game this season, in order - each tile is Georgia State's own win-probability curve.

Biggest swings of 2021

The largest single-play change in Georgia State's win probability this season - one snap that moved the outcome the most.

Stolen wins

Georgia State's own lowest win probability at any point in a game it went on to win, across the whole archive - the deepest holes it climbed out of.

Let it slip

Georgia State's own highest win probability at any point in a game it went on to lose, across the whole archive - the biggest leads it didn't hold.

Stock & rivalries

Stock

Georgia State's leaguewide Elo rating, tracked like a stock price - built from game results and margins, not the model's own win-probability predictions.

View full history ›
$98.40+22.1% over the past year
Series & rivalries

Georgia State's most-played opponents across the whole archive - open one for the full head-to-head history.

YardLine · model v10Model estimate - not betting advice · Data provided by CollegeFootballData.com