Georgia Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.0118th
  Defense+0.0948th
• 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%55th
  Defense45.5%28th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1116th
  Defense+1.1086th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0543rd
  Defense+0.0651st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.109th
  Defense+0.1936th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.6%79th
  Defense50.5%23rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.0%21st
  Defense32.1%60th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9768th
  Defense3.0522nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.6%37th
  Defense19.7%47th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.0%48th
  Defense2.1%61st

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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. W
   ALCN
2. W
   TULN
3. L
   ND
4. L
   DUKE
5. L
   UNC
6. L
   CLEM
7. L
   PITT
8. W
   FSU
9. L
   UVA
10. L
    VT
11. L
    MIA
12. L
    UGA

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

Players, 2015

1. Justin ThomasQB276 plays · +0.259 pts/play · 71st of 205 QBs
   1.34WAR0.83 to 1.86
2. Marcus Marshall?69 plays · +0.107 pts/play
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.20
3. Patrick SkovFB72 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 191st of 333 RBs
   0.11WAR0.04 to 0.18
4. Ricky JeuneWR47 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 231st of 411 WRs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.15
5. Harrison ButkerPK11 plays · +0.358 pts/play · 95th of 115 kickers
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.11
6. Ryan RodwellP37 plays · +0.088 pts/play · 63rd of 92 punters
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.11
7. Mikell Lands-DavisWR19 plays · −0.016 pts/play · 409th of 411 WRs
   −0.01WAR−0.03 to 0.02

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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  59059049th of 128Roster talent: 590, 49th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18118148th of 128Recruiting: 181, 48th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  44%44%98th of 127Returning production: 44%, 98th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.0+9.043rd of 128SP+ rating: +9.0, 43rd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.07 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 NDQ3 6:37 4th & 16 at ND 32, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.5 pts
2. vs VTQ4 0:43 4th & 27 at GT 39, down 2Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.3 pts
3. at UVAQ4 13:15 4th & 8 at UVA 22, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
4. vs UGAQ2 3:21 4th & 7 at UGA 45, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
5. at UVAQ4 7:30 4th & 15 at GT 48, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs FSUQ1 2:38 4th & 6 at FSU 36, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at CLEMQ2 6:23 4th & 7 at GT 40, down 23Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at MIAQ1 5:55 4th & 2 at GT 35, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

127th of 128 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. W

   ALCN
2. W

   TULN
3. L

   ND
4. L

   DUKE
5. L

   UNC
6. L

   CLEM
7. L

   PITT
8. W

   FSU
9. L

   UVA
10. L

    VT
11. L

    MIA
12. L

    UGA

What moved it, 2015

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−2.92
• Possession & field position−0.09
• Clock−0.13
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.21

Game by game

• ALCNW 69-6 vs ALCN74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +28
• TULNW 65-10 vs TULN95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• NDL 22-30 at ND38% → 3%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −2
• DUKEL 20-34 at DUKE73% → 1%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −49, Timeouts −3
• UNCL 31-38 vs UNC69% → 9%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −48, Clock −4
• CLEML 24-43 at CLEM23% → 2%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −26
• PITTL 28-31 vs PITT54% → 18%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −37, Clock −4
• FSUW 22-16 vs FSU29% → 89%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• UVAL 21-27 at UVA56% → 5%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −2
• VTL 21-23 vs VT56% → 5%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• MIAL 21-38 at MIA41% → 1%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −38
• UGAL 7-13 vs UGA34% → 12%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −37, Clock −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.