Georgia Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1981st
  Defense+0.2112th
• 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.
  Offense51.2%96th
  Defense51.4%2nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.033rd
  Defense+1.1278th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2495th
  Defense+0.1811th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.047th
  Defense+0.2916th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense56.3%96th
  Defense54.0%9th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.0%80th
  Defense45.4%1st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.5498th
  Defense3.2410th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense11.7%99th
  Defense15.6%8th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.8%86th
  Defense14.1%15th

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, 2018

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. L
   USF
3. L
   PITT
4. L
   CLEM
5. W
   BGSU
6. W
   LOU
7. L
   DUKE
8. W
   VT
9. W
   UNC
10. W
    MIA
11. W
    UVA
12. L
    UGA
13. L
    MINN

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

Players, 2018

1. TaQuon MarshallQB234 plays · +0.296 pts/play · 64th of 225 QBs
   1.30WAR0.81 to 1.83
2. Tobias OliverDB89 plays · +0.196 pts/play
   0.33WAR0.24 to 0.41
3. Jordan MasonRB82 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 140th of 351 RBs
   0.31WAR0.25 to 0.36
4. Jerry Howard Jr.LB81 plays · +0.188 pts/play
   0.29WAR0.21 to 0.36
5. Nathan CottrellRB42 plays · +0.253 pts/play · 211th of 351 RBs
   0.20WAR0.16 to 0.23
6. Qua Searcy?29 plays · +0.222 pts/play
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.15
7. Clinton Lynch?30 plays · +0.194 pts/play
   0.11WAR0.09 to 0.13
8. Pressley Harvin IIIP27 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 40th of 91 punters
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.13

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  58358349th of 130Roster talent: 583, 49th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  18318348th of 130Recruiting: 183, 48th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  75%75%42nd of 129Returning production: 75%, 42nd of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.3+0.374th of 130SP+ rating: +0.3, 74th 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, 2018

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 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 MIAQ2 10:24 4th & 1 at GT 28, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
2. vs DUKEQ4 1:18 4th & 17 at DUKE 25, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
3. at USFQ2 8:02 4th & 2 at GT 35, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
4. at PITTQ2 1:22 4th & 17 at PITT 40, down 21Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
5. vs MINNQ2 6:18 4th & 18 at MINN 37, down 13Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
6. at PITTQ1 8:38 4th & 7 at GT 28, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.1 pts
7. at PITTQ1 12:16 4th & 1 at GT 22, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at PITTQ2 10:12 4th & 5 at PITT 23, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

85th of 130 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. L

   USF
3. L

   PITT
4. L

   CLEM
5. W

   BGSU
6. W

   LOU
7. L

   DUKE
8. W

   VT
9. W

   UNC
10. W

    MIA
11. W

    UVA
12. L

    UGA
13. L

    MINN

What moved it, 2018

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−0.28
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock+0.16
• Timeouts−0.21
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.47

Game by game

• ALCNW 41-0 vs ALCN99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• USFL 38-49 at USF65% → 4%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −44, Possession & field position +3
• PITTL 19-24 at PITT65% → 5%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −1
• CLEML 21-49 vs CLEM12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −18, Clock −1
• BGSUW 63-17 vs BGSU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• LOUW 66-31 at LOU69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +36, Clock +1
• DUKEL 14-28 vs DUKE57% → 2%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• VTW 49-28 at VT40% → 100%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +57, Clock +3
• UNCW 38-28 at UNC58% → 97%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +45, Clock +3
• MIAW 27-21 vs MIA49% → 97%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +40, Clock +1
• UVAW 30-27 vs UVA71% → 81%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts −17
• UGAL 21-45 at UGA11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −14
• MINNL 10-34 vs MINN69% → 1%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −63, 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.