Georgia Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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−0.027th
  Defense+0.0575th
• 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.
  Offense36.1%8th
  Defense43.3%35th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2862nd
  Defense+1.1485th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0436th
  Defense+0.0653rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.015th
  Defense+0.1374th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.7%6th
  Defense48.2%40th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.9%17th
  Defense31.7%37th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9425th
  Defense3.2524th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.8%9th
  Defense14.9%28th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.8%10th
  Defense16.4%54th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   CLEM
2. W
   WCU
3. L
   MISS
4. L
   UCF
5. W
   PITT
6. W
   DUKE
7. L
   UVA
8. L
   FSU
9. W
   VT
10. L
    MIA
11. W
    UNC
12. L
    UGA

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

Players, 2022

1. Jeff SimsQB210 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 103rd of 234 QBs
   0.70WAR0.31 to 1.12
2. Zach PyronQB83 plays · +0.238 pts/play · 143rd of 234 QBs
   0.37WAR0.20 to 0.54
3. Zach GibsonQB76 plays · +0.237 pts/play · 146th of 234 QBs
   0.34WAR0.17 to 0.57
4. Hassan HallRB121 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 89th of 384 RBs
   0.31WAR0.21 to 0.41
5. Dontae SmithRB73 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 174th of 384 RBs
   0.18WAR0.13 to 0.22
6. Nate McCollumWR57 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 191st of 455 WRs
   0.11WAR0.03 to 0.21
7. E.J. JenkinsWR20 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 267th of 455 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
8. Malachi CarterWR22 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 281st of 455 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  71571530th of 129Roster talent: 715, 30th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19619642nd of 129Recruiting: 196, 42nd of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  63%63%57th of 128Returning production: 63%, 57th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −11.8−11.8100th of 129SP+ rating: −11.8, 100th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.19 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 DUKEQ2 0:57 4th & 2 at DUKE 36, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
2. at PITTQ3 2:33 4th & 2 at GT 39, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. at UCFQ4 12:06 4th & 2 at GT 17, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. at PITTQ2 2:50 4th & 1 at PITT 16, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. vs UVAQ2 0:24 4th & 1 at UVA 8, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. at PITTQ4 12:40 4th & 3 at PITT 13, up 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
7. at UCFQ4 7:23 4th & 9 at UCF 15, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
8. at VTQ2 6:48 4th & 2 at GT 19, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

20th of 131 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

   CLEM
2. W

   WCU
3. L

   MISS
4. L

   UCF
5. W

   PITT
6. W

   DUKE
7. L

   UVA
8. L

   FSU
9. W

   VT
10. L

    MIA
11. W

    UNC
12. L

    UGA

What moved it, 2022

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+0.22
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.21
• Timeouts−0.25
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+1.04

Game by game

• CLEML 10-41 vs CLEM6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• WCUW 35-17 vs WCU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +9
• MISSL 0-42 vs MISS15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −20, Clock −1
• UCFL 10-27 at UCF8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −12
• PITTW 26-21 at PITT10% → 74%Before kickoff −40 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +33, Possession & field position −4
• DUKEW 23-20 vs DUKE42% → 88%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts −20
• UVAL 9-16 vs UVA57% → 13%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −45, Clock −2
• FSUL 16-41 at FSU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9, Clock −1
• VTW 28-27 at VT41% → 90%Before kickoff −9 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• MIAL 14-35 vs MIA51% → 0%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• UNCW 21-17 at UNC8% → 96%Before kickoff −42 · On the field +87: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• UGAL 14-37 at UGA1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −3

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.