Georgia Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.1961st
  Defense+0.2115th
• 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.
  Offense45.3%64th
  Defense42.6%37th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2865th
  Defense+1.3028th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1560th
  Defense+0.1231st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2553rd
  Defense+0.3713th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.5%64th
  Defense43.8%71st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.0%57th
  Defense40.0%5th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1154th
  Defense3.0734th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.2%18th
  Defense15.9%29th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.1%42nd
  Defense15.0%36th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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 Tech 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
   COLO
2. L
   TENN
3. W
   MER
4. L
   STAN
5. W
   DUKE

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

Players, 2026

1. Alberto MendozaQB145 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 46th of 192 QBs
   0.36WAR0.15 to 0.53
2. Justice HaynesRB72 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 21st of 320 RBs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.23
3. Jordan AllenWR31 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 19th of 364 WRs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.16
4. Kevin Roche Jr.TE27 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 13th of 164 TEs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.09
5. Aidan BirrPK7 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 33rd of 82 kickers
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
6. Gavin HarrisTE8 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 62nd of 164 TEs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.04
7. Malachi HosleyRB7 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 256th of 320 RBs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.02
8. Alex BacchettaP13 plays · +0.052 pts/play · 42nd of 84 punters
   0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.04

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 Tech'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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  75275234th of 138Roster talent: 752, 34th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21421431st of 138Recruiting: 214, 31st of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  13%13%117th of 136Returning production: 13%, 117th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.3+1.364th of 138SP+ rating so far: +1.3, 64th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 Tech's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.04 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 TENNQ4 13:30 4th & 14 at TENN 14, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.9 pts
2. vs DUKEQ2 1:53 4th & 4 at GT 40, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
3. vs COLOQ2 2:03 4th & 4 at COLO 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
4. vs COLOQ2 14:51 4th & 2 at GT 9, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
5. vs DUKEQ3 1:06 4th & 3 at GT 16, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs TENNQ4 4:43 4th & 10 at GT 30, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.1 pts
7. vs MERQ4 7:39 4th & 1 at GT 45, up 33Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at STANQ2 9:41 4th & 5 at STAN 5, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

111th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. L

   COLO
2. L

   TENN
3. W

   MER
4. L

   STAN
5. W

   DUKE

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Georgia Tech'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−0.61
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.05
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.09

Game by game

• COLOL 13-14 vs COLO67% → 21%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −37, Clock −4
• TENNL 24-45 vs TENN17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −24, Clock −1
• MERW 44-11 vs MER99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• STANL 27-34 at STAN56% → 1%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −3
• DUKEW 28-25 vs DUKE38% → 95%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts +2

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

Closest call

GT 28-27 VT (2022) - Georgia Tech dropped to a 3.3% win probability before pulling it out.