Georgia Tech

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.2286th
  Defense+0.1619th
• 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.
  Offense49.3%96th
  Defense43.9%27th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1613th
  Defense+1.2455th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1366th
  Defense+0.0746th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3892nd
  Defense+0.2723rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.6%93rd
  Defense50.5%17th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.8%90th
  Defense28.7%54th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3895th
  Defense2.9934th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.1%76th
  Defense18.9%50th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.8%93rd
  Defense13.7%20th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   COLO
2. W
   GWEB
3. W
   CLEM
4. W
   TEM
5. W
   WAKE
6. W
   VT
7. W
   DUKE
8. W
   SYR
9. L
   NCSU
10. W
    BC
11. L
    PITT
12. L
    UGA
13. L
    BYU

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

Players, 2025

1. Haynes KingQB478 plays · +0.255 pts/play · 5th of 231 QBs
   2.28WAR1.55 to 3.07
2. Eric RiversWR69 plays · +0.305 pts/play · 5th of 451 WRs
   0.39WAR0.26 to 0.53
3. Jamal HaynesRB137 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 92nd of 365 RBs
   0.23WAR0.15 to 0.33
4. Malachi HosleyRB102 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 103rd of 365 RBs
   0.21WAR0.16 to 0.27
5. Aidan BirrPK26 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 19th of 112 kickers
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.18
6. Malik RutherfordWR42 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 225th of 451 WRs
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.16
7. Isiah CanionWR42 plays · +0.071 pts/play · 292nd of 451 WRs
   0.06WAR−0.03 to 0.14
8. Marshall NicholsP33 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 34th of 100 punters
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.10

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  71671639th of 134Roster talent: 716, 39th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20620637th of 134Recruiting: 206, 37th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  67%67%13th of 132Returning production: 67%, 13th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.3+9.335th of 134SP+ rating: +9.3, 35th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.14 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. at BYUQ4 5:44 4th & 1 at GT 18, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.5 pts
2. at WAKEQ4 9:45 4th & 2 at WAKE 2, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.7 pts
3. at WAKEQ4 3:55 4th & 10 at WAKE 46, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. at BYUQ3 0:55 4th & 2 at BYU 18, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. at COLOQ2 0:00 4th & 2 at COLO 26, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. vs GWEBQ3 9:50 4th & 19 at GWEB 36, up 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
7. at DUKEQ2 4:26 4th & 3 at DUKE 49, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs UGAQ3 4:33 4th & 3 at UGA 26, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

68th of 136 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

   COLO
2. W

   GWEB
3. W

   CLEM
4. W

   TEM
5. W

   WAKE
6. W

   VT
7. W

   DUKE
8. W

   SYR
9. L

   NCSU
10. W

    BC
11. L

    PITT
12. L

    UGA
13. L

    BYU

What moved it, 2025

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+0.08
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.54

Game by game

• COLOW 27-20 at COLO69% → 86%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• GWEBW 59-12 vs GWEB99% → 12%Before kickoff +49 · On the field −87: Scoreboard −33, Clock −2
• CLEMW 24-21 vs CLEM46% → 95%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +39, Other +1
• TEMW 45-24 vs TEM96% → 99%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +8
• WAKEW 30-29 at WAKE84% → 54%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −31: Scoreboard +18, Possession & field position −4
• VTW 35-20 vs VT86% → 99%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1
• DUKEW 27-18 at DUKE48% → 96%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +50, Clock +3
• SYRW 41-16 vs SYR91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +12
• NCSUL 36-48 at NCSU63% → 2%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −2
• BCW 36-34 at BC88% → 77%Before kickoff +38 · On the field −11: Scoreboard +23, Clock +3
• PITTL 28-42 vs PITT61% → 2%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• UGAL 9-16 vs UGA16% → 16%Before kickoff −34 · On the field 0: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• BYUL 21-25 at BYU47% → 5%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts −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.