Georgia State

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+0.1353rd
  Defense+0.1436th
• 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.
  Offense41.6%46th
  Defense41.9%52nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2965th
  Defense+1.3714th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0947th
  Defense+0.0853rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2758th
  Defense+0.3119th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.3%26th
  Defense47.2%54th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.3%67th
  Defense30.9%39th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8215th
  Defense3.0652nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.9%39th
  Defense19.5%73rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.2%48th
  Defense15.2%27th

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 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
   URI
2. W
   CONN
3. W
   CLT
4. W
   CCU
5. L
   TROY
6. W
   MRSH
7. W
   UL
8. L
   GASO
9. L
   JMU
10. L
    APP
11. L
    LSU
12. L
    ODU
13. W
    USU

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

Players, 2023

1. Darren GraingerQB389 plays · +0.276 pts/play · 19th of 250 QBs
   2.01WAR1.20 to 2.80
2. Marcus CarrollRB220 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 44th of 383 RBs
   0.38WAR0.18 to 0.57
3. Robert LewisWR46 plays · +0.272 pts/play · 48th of 457 WRs
   0.23WAR0.12 to 0.36
4. Talique WilliamsWR40 plays · +0.085 pts/play · 253rd of 457 WRs
   0.06WAR−0.04 to 0.17
5. Ahmon GreenTE18 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 119th of 212 TEs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.09
6. Ja'Cyais CredleWR10 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 342nd of 457 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
7. Kade LogginsPK41 plays · +0.030 pts/play · 110th of 113 kickers
   0.02WAR−0.03 to 0.07
8. Kris ByrdTE2 plays · +0.246 pts/play · 202nd of 212 TEs
   0.01WAR0.01 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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  50050087th of 130Roster talent: 500, 87th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  128128104th of 130Recruiting: 128, 104th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  69%69%29th of 128Returning production: 69%, 29th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.8−6.885th of 130SP+ rating: −6.8, 85th 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 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 0.09 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 ULQ4 9:35 4th & 11 at UL 32, up 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−2.7 pts
2. at CLTQ2 1:54 4th & 1 at GAST 26, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. vs URIQ3 1:54 4th & 2 at GAST 20, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. at ODUQ4 10:18 4th & 4 at ODU 4, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. at ULQ3 6:56 4th & 2 at GAST 46, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. at ODUQ3 0:03 4th & 3 at GAST 40, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at ULQ4 6:56 4th & 9 at UL 43, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at CCUQ4 7:01 4th & 10 at GAST 17, up 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

42nd of 133 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

   URI
2. W

   CONN
3. W

   CLT
4. W

   CCU
5. L

   TROY
6. W

   MRSH
7. W

   UL
8. L

   GASO
9. L

   JMU
10. L

    APP
11. L

    LSU
12. L

    ODU
13. W

    USU

What moved it, 2023

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+0.62
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.08
• Timeouts−0.01
• Other−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.15

Game by game

• URIW 42-35 vs URI87% → 97%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• CONNW 35-14 vs CONN59% → 100%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +38, Possession & field position +1
• CLTW 41-25 at CLT71% → 99%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• CCUW 30-17 at CCU31% → 98%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +67: Scoreboard +60, Clock +2
• TROYL 7-28 vs TROY52% → 0%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −53, Clock −2
• MRSHW 41-24 vs MRSH57% → 98%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +39, Possession & field position −2
• ULW 20-17 at UL38% → 93%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +54, Clock +4
• GASOL 27-44 at GASO49% → 1%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −1
• JMUL 14-42 vs JMU44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −47
• APPL 14-42 vs APP56% → 0%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −55, Clock −2
• LSUL 14-56 at LSU2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• ODUL 24-25 at ODU50% → 6%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −2
• USUW 45-22 at USU45% → 100%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +53, 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.