Georgia

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.3698th
  Defense+0.0480th
• 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.
  Offense52.5%98th
  Defense38.2%79th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2439th
  Defense+1.2653rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2698th
  Defense+0.1523rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.5096th
  Defense+0.0396th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense55.1%97th
  Defense45.8%64th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense44.6%99th
  Defense23.9%95th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3280th
  Defense3.0258th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.6%61st
  Defense19.8%76th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.8%94th
  Defense17.1%61st

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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 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
   UTM
2. W
   BALL
3. W
   SC
4. W
   UAB
5. W
   AUB
6. W
   UK
7. W
   VAN
8. W
   FLA
9. W
   MIZ
10. W
    MISS
11. W
    TENN
12. W
    GT
13. L
    ALA
14. W
    FSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Georgia.

Players, 2023

1. Carson BeckQB305 plays · +0.342 pts/play · 23rd of 250 QBs
   1.95WAR1.35 to 2.60
2. Daijun EdwardsRB141 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 73rd of 383 RBs
   0.29WAR0.16 to 0.41
3. Brock BowersTE43 plays · +0.236 pts/play · 15th of 212 TEs
   0.19WAR0.10 to 0.29
4. Kendall MiltonRB80 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 146th of 383 RBs
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.26
5. Dominic LovettWR39 plays · +0.252 pts/play · 84th of 457 WRs
   0.18WAR0.08 to 0.28
6. Ladd McConkeyWR32 plays · +0.221 pts/play · 131st of 457 WRs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.19
7. Rara ThomasWR18 plays · +0.302 pts/play · 184th of 457 WRs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
8. Marcus Rosemy-JacksaintWR29 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 194th of 457 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.16

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'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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9789782nd of 130Roster talent: 978, 2nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  3103102nd of 130Recruiting: 310, 2nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  43%43%80th of 128Returning production: 43%, 80th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +31.2+31.22nd of 130SP+ rating: +31.2, 2nd 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, 2023

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's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.06 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 AUBQ3 10:22 4th & 3 at AUB 47, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
2. at ALAQ3 11:37 4th & 2 at UGA 45, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
3. vs SCQ4 5:59 4th & 4 at SC 40, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
4. at FLAQ3 11:22 4th & 4 at FLA 42, up 19Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at VANQ4 9:05 4th & 3 at VAN 12, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. vs MIZQ2 9:49 4th & 2 at UGA 36, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs SCQ2 12:34 4th & 3 at SC 46, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs MIZQ4 3:57 4th & 5 at MIZ 30, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

38th of 133 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Georgia's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   UTM
2. W

   BALL
3. W

   SC
4. W

   UAB
5. W

   AUB
6. W

   UK
7. W

   VAN
8. W

   FLA
9. W

   MIZ
10. W

    MISS
11. W

    TENN
12. W

    GT
13. L

    ALA
14. W

    FSU

What moved it, 2023

Every game starts at Georgia'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+1.58
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.01

Game by game

• UTMW 48-7 vs UTM100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• BALLW 45-3 vs BALL99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +1
• SCW 24-14 vs SC95% → 97%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +11, Timeouts +1
• UABW 49-21 vs UAB99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• AUBW 27-20 at AUB83% → 96%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +28, Clock +2
• UKW 51-13 vs UK86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17
• VANW 37-20 at VAN98% → 98%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +8
• FLAW 43-20 at FLA83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +24, Clock +1
• MIZW 30-21 vs MIZ84% → 95%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts −1
• MISSW 52-17 vs MISS80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +24
• TENNW 38-10 at TENN74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +1
• GTW 31-23 at GT95% → 98%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +13, Clock +1
• ALAL 24-27 at ALA63% → 5%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −2
• FSUW 63-3 at FSU89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +16

Points of win probability, from Georgia's side.

Closest call

GT 42-44 UGA (2024) - Georgia dropped to a 4.5% win probability before pulling it out.