Georgia Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.2080th
  Defense+0.1243rd
• 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.
  Offense45.9%80th
  Defense42.3%41st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2335th
  Defense+1.2747th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1158th
  Defense+0.0275th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3086th
  Defense+0.2132nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.2%63rd
  Defense49.1%32nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.5%94th
  Defense27.4%82nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8526th
  Defense2.5692nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.2%29th
  Defense25.7%98th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.9%84th
  Defense15.8%45th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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. W
   GAST
3. L
   SYR
4. W
   VMI
5. L
   LOU
6. W
   DUKE
7. W
   UNC
8. L
   ND
9. L
   VT
10. W
    MIA
11. W
    NCSU
12. L
    UGA
13. L
    VAN

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

Players, 2024

1. Haynes KingQB331 plays · +0.370 pts/play · 14th of 232 QBs
   2.30WAR1.65 to 2.85
2. Jamal HaynesRB170 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 50th of 373 RBs
   0.39WAR0.27 to 0.52
3. Aaron PhiloQB64 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 183rd of 232 QBs
   0.19WAR0.09 to 0.30
4. Zach PyronQB76 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 184th of 232 QBs
   0.18WAR0.06 to 0.31
5. Eric Singleton Jr.WR72 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 105th of 452 WRs
   0.13WAR−0.01 to 0.26
6. Aidan BirrPK19 plays · +0.277 pts/play · 36th of 114 kickers
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15
7. Jackson HawesTE13 plays · +0.216 pts/play · 52nd of 221 TEs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.08
8. David ShanahanP44 plays · +0.060 pts/play · 59th of 106 punters
   0.05WAR−0.07 to 0.15

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  70370346th of 131Roster talent: 703, 46th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  19319346th of 131Recruiting: 193, 46th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  85%85%10th of 130Returning production: 85%, 10th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +1.9+1.964th of 131SP+ rating: +1.9, 64th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 11 clear-cut ones account for 0.17 of the 0.24 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 NCSUQ4 11:25 4th & 7 at NCSU 39, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
2. at VANQ3 3:16 4th & 2 at GT 10, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
3. at UNCQ4 1:45 4th & 2 at GT 33, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. vs NDQ2 0:11 4th & 10 at ND 22, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.8 pts
5. vs MIAQ4 2:00 4th & 3 at GT 40, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
6. at UGAQ4 0:04 4th & 1 at UGA 46, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
7. vs MIAQ2 7:54 4th & 1 at GT 20, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
8. at UNCQ4 8:59 4th & 4 at UNC 32, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

58th of 134 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. W

   GAST
3. L

   SYR
4. W

   VMI
5. L

   LOU
6. W

   DUKE
7. W

   UNC
8. L

   ND
9. L

   VT
10. W

    MIA
11. W

    NCSU
12. L

    UGA
13. L

    VAN

What moved it, 2024

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+0.33
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.14
• Timeouts+0.23
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.24

Game by game

• FSUW 24-21 vs FSU27% → 95%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +3
• GASTW 35-12 vs GAST94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• SYRL 28-31 at SYR62% → 9%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −35
• VMIW 59-7 vs VMI99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• LOUL 19-31 at LOU34% → 4%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −2
• DUKEW 24-14 vs DUKE79% → 98%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +1
• UNCW 41-34 at UNC62% → 91%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +3
• NDL 13-31 vs ND20% → 1%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• VTL 6-21 at VT24% → 1%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −1
• MIAW 28-23 vs MIA26% → 97%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +3
• NCSUW 30-29 vs NCSU75% → 72%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −2: Scoreboard +9, Timeouts +2
• UGAL 42-44 at UGA12% → 72%Before kickoff −38 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +19
• VANL 27-35 at VAN65% → 3%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −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.