Georgia Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.0321st
  Defense+0.1444th
• 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.
  Offense42.8%52nd
  Defense43.9%43rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3579th
  Defense+1.2647th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1572nd
  Defense+0.0363rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.105th
  Defense+0.2629th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.9%70th
  Defense47.3%53rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.8%31st
  Defense36.4%13th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9660th
  Defense2.9940th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.0%23rd
  Defense18.7%39th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.6%14th
  Defense15.0%33rd

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   FSU
2. L
   UCF
3. L
   SYR
4. W
   LOU
5. L
   CLEM
6. L
   BC
7. L
   ND
8. W
   DUKE
9. L
   NCSU
10. L
    PITT

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

Players, 2020

1. Jeff SimsQB331 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 49th of 212 QBs
   0.71WAR0.05 to 1.29
2. Jahmyr GibbsRB96 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 81st of 338 RBs
   0.34WAR0.27 to 0.41
3. Jordan MasonRB82 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 133rd of 338 RBs
   0.25WAR0.17 to 0.32
4. Jam GriffinRB50 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 199th of 338 RBs
   0.16WAR0.13 to 0.20
5. Jalen CampWR32 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 122nd of 409 WRs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.13
6. Adonicas SandersWR18 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 252nd of 409 WRs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
7. Pressley Harvin IIIP35 plays · +0.067 pts/play · 23rd of 77 punters
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.09
8. Malachi CarterWR29 plays · +0.078 pts/play · 301st of 409 WRs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.08

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  68468430th of 127Roster talent: 684, 30th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19819840th of 127Recruiting: 198, 40th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  99%99%5th of 127Returning production: 99%, 5th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −1.0−1.075th of 127SP+ rating: −1.0, 75th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.01 of the 0.11 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 PITTQ4 2:00 4th & 6 at PITT 21, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
2. vs PITTQ4 0:16 4th & 6 at PITT 9, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
3. at NCSUQ2 0:33 4th & 6 at NCSU 17, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
4. at FSUQ2 1:48 4th & 3 at midfield, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at SYRQ2 9:37 4th & 8 at SYR 24, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at NCSUQ4 11:32 4th & 5 at NCSU 5, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at SYRQ4 8:10 4th & 11 at GT 17, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at BCQ1 2:58 4th & 1 at GT 34, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

88th of 127 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

   FSU
2. L

   UCF
3. L

   SYR
4. W

   LOU
5. L

   CLEM
6. L

   BC
7. L

   ND
8. W

   DUKE
9. L

   NCSU
10. L

    PITT

What moved it, 2020

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−0.88
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.34

Game by game

• FSUW 16-13 at FSU23% → 95%Before kickoff −27 · On the field +72: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• UCFL 21-49 vs UCF31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −36, Clock −1
• SYRL 20-37 at SYR76% → 2%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −74: Scoreboard −52, Possession & field position −1
• LOUW 46-27 vs LOU40% → 98%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +46, Timeouts −1
• CLEML 7-73 vs CLEM5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −8
• BCL 27-48 at BC47% → 0%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −1
• NDL 13-31 vs ND11% → 1%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −18, Clock −1
• DUKEW 56-33 vs DUKE52% → 100%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +1
• NCSUL 13-23 at NCSU36% → 4%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −2
• PITTL 20-34 vs PITT34% → 1%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −42, 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.