Georgia Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.0925th
  Defense+0.2614th
• 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.
  Offense41.0%33rd
  Defense47.6%10th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2540th
  Defense+1.2650th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1663rd
  Defense+0.0185th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0613th
  Defense+0.591st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.7%45th
  Defense51.1%25th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.7%11th
  Defense38.1%6th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2066th
  Defense3.2819th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.7%60th
  Defense14.0%22nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.7%41st
  Defense13.0%8th

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, 2021

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
   NIU
2. W
   KENN
3. L
   CLEM
4. W
   UNC
5. L
   PITT
6. W
   DUKE
7. L
   UVA
8. L
   VT
9. L
   MIA
10. L
    BC
11. L
    ND
12. L
    UGA

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

Players, 2021

1. Jeff SimsQB228 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 105th of 219 QBs
   0.74WAR0.30 to 1.21
2. Jahmyr GibbsRB133 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 65th of 387 RBs
   0.51WAR0.38 to 0.63
3. Jordan YatesQB141 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 139th of 219 QBs
   0.44WAR0.18 to 0.66
4. Kyric McGowanWR40 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 137th of 474 WRs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.19
5. Jordan MasonRB57 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 251st of 387 RBs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.21
6. Dontae SmithRB42 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 262nd of 387 RBs
   0.13WAR0.10 to 0.17
7. Adonicas SandersWR28 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 215th of 474 WRs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.13
8. Malachi CarterWR30 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 288th of 474 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  70770732nd of 130Roster talent: 707, 32nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19919942nd of 130Recruiting: 199, 42nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  83%83%52nd of 128Returning production: 83%, 52nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.7−6.796th of 130SP+ rating: −6.7, 96th 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, 2021

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.12 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 DUKEQ3 0:50 4th & 1 at GT 29, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.6 pts
2. at CLEMQ4 12:41 4th & 1 at GT 26, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. vs BCQ2 2:33 4th & 18 at BC 34, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
4. at CLEMQ4 0:15 4th & 2 at CLEM 2, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
5. at CLEMQ4 1:19 4th & 5 at CLEM 5, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs VTQ4 3:02 4th & 10 at GT 30, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs VTQ2 6:45 4th & 2 at GT 33, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs PITTQ2 11:32 4th & 4 at GT 29, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

113th 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. L

   NIU
2. W

   KENN
3. L

   CLEM
4. W

   UNC
5. L

   PITT
6. W

   DUKE
7. L

   UVA
8. L

   VT
9. L

   MIA
10. L

    BC
11. L

    ND
12. L

    UGA

What moved it, 2021

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−1.05
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts−0.03
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.24

Game by game

• NIUL 21-22 vs NIU90% → 34%Before kickoff +40 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −23, Possession & field position +1
• KENNW 45-17 vs KENN92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +10
• CLEML 8-14 at CLEM5% → 9%Before kickoff −45 · On the field +3: Scoreboard −10, Possession & field position −1
• UNCW 45-22 vs UNC18% → 100%Before kickoff −32 · On the field +82: Scoreboard +61, Clock −1
• PITTL 21-52 vs PITT39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −43, Clock −1
• DUKEW 31-27 at DUKE64% → 96%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2
• UVAL 40-48 at UVA29% → 33%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +4: Scoreboard −6, Possession & field position +4
• VTL 17-26 vs VT63% → 4%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• MIAL 30-33 at MIA22% → 11%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −18, Possession & field position −3
• BCL 30-41 vs BC45% → 4%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −48, Clock −2
• NDL 0-55 at ND13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −16
• UGAL 0-45 vs UGA2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4

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.