Skip to content
CFB/LAB
Menu

Georgia Tech

2026 season

ACC
2026 preseason report

Historical preseason snapshot from 2026-07-29, including roster context and illustrative season projections. This is not a live injury feed.

What every system says

Georgia Tech's rank in each system (1 = best). Middle rank 104 across 8 systems; best 83, worst 110, so they disagree by 27 places.

Lab EPA
#110
Through week 92026 · 138 rated FBS teams · Through week 9. Rank 1 is best; lower rank numbers are better. Higher rating values are better. Equal ratings take separate places, ordered by team name.
Lab SRS
#105
down 72026 · 138 FBS roster teams, including prior-only teams · Through week 9 · built 2026-11-06T12:26:24.430328+00:00. Rank 1 is best; lower rank numbers are better. Higher rating values are better. Equal ratings take separate places, ordered by team name.
SP+
#92
down 172026 · 138 published SP+ teams · Provider week 10 · captured 2026-11-02T14:10:13.208713+00:00. Rank 1 is best; lower rank numbers are better. Higher rating values are better. Published provider ranks; tie handling is not documented in this snapshot.
Elo
#91
down 22026 · 138 rated FBS teams · Through week 9 · captured 2026-11-06T12:01:15.459089+00:00. Rank 1 is best; lower rank numbers are better. Higher rating values are better. Equal ratings share the best tied rank; the next rank skips places.
FPI
#83
down 32026 · 138 rated FBS teams · Event cutoff not supplied · captured 2026-11-06T12:01:15.459089+00:00. Rank 1 is best; lower rank numbers are better. Higher rating values are better. Equal ratings share the best tied rank; the next rank skips places.
CORE
#108
up 2 · Through week 9 · captured 2026-11-06T12:01:15.459089+00:002026 · 138 rated FBS teams · Through week 9 · captured 2026-11-06T12:01:15.459089+00:00. Rank 1 is best; lower rank numbers are better. Higher rating values are better. Equal ratings share the best tied rank; the next rank skips places.
CFBD SRS
#103
down 82026 · 138 rated FBS teams · Event cutoff not supplied · captured 2026-11-06T12:01:15.459089+00:00. Rank 1 is best; lower rank numbers are better. Higher rating values are better. Equal ratings share the best tied rank; the next rank skips places.
WEPA
#110
up 22026 · 138 rated FBS teams · Event cutoff not supplied · captured 2026-11-06T12:01:15.459089+00:00. Rank 1 is best; lower rank numbers are better. Higher rating values are better. Equal ratings share the best tied rank; the next rank skips places.
Compare every team

FPI context

ESPN FPI via CFBD · 2026

Résumé and schedule

Results earned and schedule difficulty

Strength of record
#110 of 138
Schedule strength
#65 of 138
Remaining schedule strength
#7 of 138
Game control
#90 of 138

Unit efficiency

Performance by unit

Overall
#88 of 138
Offense
#81 of 138
Defense
#101 of 138
Special teams
#41 of 138

Ranks calculated among rated FBS teams; ties share rank. #1 means strongest résumé, hardest schedule, best game control or highest efficiency. These are separate measures, not a combined forecast. Captured Nov 6, 2026, 06:01:15 CST. FPI supplies no results-through week; capture time records when we received it.

Why the ratings disagree

Georgia Tech · 2026. Each system answers a different question. The cards show each source's rank (published or computed here) and coverage, so a rank gap can also reflect which teams have data.

Record

2-6 wins–losses

No rank assigned

Results earned. Wins and losses do not account for opponent strength or victory margin.

2026, provider Week 10; captured 2026-11-02T14:10:13.208713+00:00

SP+ workbook record

Descriptive EPA

-0.094 net EPA/play

#110

2026 · 138 rated FBS teams · Through week 9. Rank 1 is best; lower rank numbers are better. Higher rating values are better. Equal ratings take separate places, ordered by team name.

Observed per-play efficiency after opponent adjustment. FBS-vs-FBS plays; no preseason strength prior. Sparse schedules can produce sharp early movement.

2026, through CFBD Week 9; opponent adjusted ridge

Lab EPA from CFBD plays

Local predictive SRS

-6.67 points

#105 · Down 7 places since the previous CFBD cutoff

2026 · 138 FBS roster teams, including prior-only teams · Through week 9 · built 2026-11-06T12:26:24.430328+00:00. Rank 1 is best; lower rank numbers are better. Higher rating values are better. Equal ratings take separate places, ordered by team name.

This season's 8 games, with recent games counting a bit more: average margin -7.34 (with blowouts capped at 35 points and overtime games counted as a 1-point result, then 2.5 points of home field removed) against opponents averaging -1.90, schedule #66 of 138 (#1 = toughest); 1 FCS opponent counts at −25; FBS opponents alone average +1.10. That is worth -9.24 on its own; the preseason prior of +2.17 still carries 22% of the weight, giving -6.67.

How each game enters this SRS rating

Georgia Tech · 2026, through CFBD Week 9. Margins are team minus opponent. The fit caps margins and treats overtime as a one-point result before adjusting for venue. Recent games carry more weight; the fit share includes the preseason prior in its denominator.

GameRaw margin → transformedVenue adjustmentRecency weightFit shareOpponent ratingMargin termOpponent termTotal term
Week 1 · Colorado
home · 2026-09-04 · ID 401856776
-1.00 → -1.00-2.500.73498.26%-5.30-0.289-0.438-0.727
Week 2 · Tennessee
home · 2026-09-12 · ID 401856681
-21.00 → -21.00-2.500.76378.58%+11.97-2.0171.028-0.989
Week 3 · Mercer
home · 2026-09-19 · ID 401858228
+33.00 → +33.00-2.500.79378.92%-25.00 (fixed lower division)2.721-2.2300.491
Week 4 · Stanford
away · 2026-09-27 · ID 401858240
-7.00 → -7.00+2.500.82499.27%-8.16-0.417-0.756-1.173
Week 6 · Duke
home · 2026-10-10 · ID 401858255
+3.00 → +3.00-2.500.890910.01%+7.010.0500.7020.752
Week 7 · Virginia Tech
away · 2026-10-17 · ID 401858264
-10.00 → -10.00+2.500.925910.41%+2.07-0.7810.216-0.565
Week 8 · Boston College
home · 2026-10-24 · ID 401858273
-22.00 → -22.00-2.500.962210.82%-4.76-2.650-0.515-3.165
Week 9 · Pittsburgh
away · 2026-10-31 · ID 401858281
-23.00 → -23.00+2.501.000011.24%+4.62-2.3040.519-1.785

Game terms -7.16 points; prior term +0.49 points. Their unrounded sum is the fitted rating -6.67 points. The preseason prior is +2.17 with 22.48% of the fit weight. Displayed values are rounded; the producer checks the unrounded identity within 0.00000001 points.

These are additive terms of the current fit, not the effect of removing a game. Opponent ratings already reflect the connected schedule. Lower-division opponents use the fixed anchor, not an individually fitted rating. The rating's model-based 95% band is ±8.8 points; this decomposition does not reduce uncertainty or assign causal effects.

Download fitted terms and source hashes

Estimated strength from schedule-adjusted scoring margins, margin caps, home-field adjustment and recency weighting. Half of prior-season strength, including postseason, carries forward with two games of weight. SRS includes FCS opponents under a fixed strength assumption. 8 current games; prior available.

2026, through CFBD Week 9; generated 2026-11-06T12:26:24.430328+00:00

Lab SRS from CFBD scores

External SP+

-4.5 SP+ points

#92 · Down 17 places

2026 · 138 published SP+ teams · Provider week 10 · captured 2026-11-02T14:10:13.208713+00:00. Rank 1 is best; lower rank numbers are better. Higher rating values are better. Published provider ranks; tie handling is not documented in this snapshot.

Bill Connelly's published predictive strength estimate. Its method and scale differ from local SRS.

2026, provider Week 10; captured 2026-11-02T14:10:13.208713+00:00

Bill Connelly SP+ workbook

External CORE

-10.29 net points per 100 offensive + 100 defensive plays

#108 of 138 by overall (ranked here; CORE publishes no rank)

2026 · 138 rated FBS teams in this CORE board · 2026, through regular Week 9; model core-v1; captured 2026-11-06T12:03:20.826325+00:00. Rank 1 is best; lower rank numbers are better. Higher rating values are better. Equal ratings share the best tied rank; the next rank skips places.

CFBD's context- and opponent-relative efficiency. Offense is higher-better; defense is points allowed above average, so lower is better; overall is offense minus defense. It counts only pass and rush plays from FBS-vs-FBS games, with no special teams, overtime or garbage time; early-week values are pulled toward average but are still uncertain, and it is not a résumé ranking. Its scale is not comparable to EPA, SRS or SP+. Offense -0.32 on 419 plays; defense 9.98 on 496 plays.

2026, through regular Week 9; model core-v1; captured 2026-11-06T12:03:20.826325+00:00

CFBD CORE ratingCORE board: offense vs defense

EPA ranks Georgia Tech 5 places lower than local SRS at the matched cutoff. This identifies a disagreement; it does not isolate its cause. SP+ movement compares provider weeks 9 and 10. Provider weeks may differ from CFBD weeks, so no cross-provider rank gap is calculated. CORE reports its own inclusive cutoff and is shown beside these systems for comparison only; it is an external research rating and is never blended into the lab's opponent-adjusted EPA, local SRS or any pick.

Team ratings and rank gaps are not matchup spreads or win probabilities. Matchup context and a calibrated forecast mapping are required. Do not average EPA, SRS, SP+ and CORE values across their different scales.

Read local SRS assumptions and forecast evidence

Program context

2026 · CFBD records, polls, recruiting, coaches
Record
2-6 · conf 1-4 · home 2-3 · away 0-3 · expected wins 2.2
Polls (Week 10)
unranked
CFP latest
unranked · 2026 regular Week 10 · captured 2026-11-06
CFP final
not published
Against the spread
2026: 1-7 ATS (-8.7 avg) · 2025: 7-6 ATS (-1.1 avg)
Head coach
Brent Key · hired 2022-11-29 · 23-16 over 4 captured seasons
Recruiting classes
2024 #33 (214 pts) · 2025 #21 (241 pts) · 2026 #41 (217 pts)
Returning
13% of production · 14% of usage
Passing, receiving and rushing detail
CategoryProductionUsage
Passing0%0%
Receiving11%14%
Rushing35%28%

Shares of prior-season PPA and usage returning in each category. Missing values are unavailable.

Provider values from CFBD captures dated 2026-09-22, 2026-11-06. head coach for the season; tenure counts cover only the captured seasons, hire date is the provider's. Returning usage carries no signal beyond returning production in this repo's research; neither is a model input.

Recruiting by position group

2023–2026 classes · High school · CFBD · captured 2026-11-06 UTC

Position groupCommitsAvg. starsAvg. ratingTotal rating
Defensive Back153.270.879813.20
Defensive Line163.060.873013.97
Linebacker93.000.86387.77
Offensive Line183.110.874715.74
Quarterback43.250.88113.52
Receiver133.080.872111.34
Running Back43.500.88403.54
Special Teams113.090.86559.52

Recruiting class aggregates, not current roster strength. Commits count recruits across the window; total rating also reflects class size. JUCO, prep-school and transfer ratings are excluded. These values do not enter the prediction model.

Player efficiency and usage

2026 · observed 2026-11-06 UTC

Passing and rushing WEPA adjust efficiency for opponents. Kicker PAAR measures points added above replacement. Higher is better within each metric. Metric rows are ordered by sample size, followed by usage-only players. Usage is the share of team plays involving the player within each category; categories overlap and should not be added. CFBD definitions

Player / historyMetricValuePlays / attemptsOverall usageUsage detailRecruiting
Alberto Mendoza · QB

CFBD athlete 5191162. Georgia Tech (2026–2026); Indiana (2024–2025)

Passing WEPA0.22123353.6%
Pass 89.0% · Rush 9.9%

1st 42.9% · 2nd 60.9% · 3rd 69.4%

Standard downs 46.0% · Passing downs 70.2%

2024: 3★ · 0.8506
Justice Haynes · RB

CFBD athlete 4870760. Georgia Tech (2026–2026); Michigan (2025–2025); Alabama (2023–2024)

Rushing WEPA0.1018927.2%
Pass 6.2% · Rush 52.7%

1st 34.3% · 2nd 25.2% · 3rd 14.9%

Standard downs 32.4% · Passing downs 16.0%

2023: 5★ · 0.9884
Trelain Maddox · RB

CFBD athlete 5103639. Georgia Tech (2024–2026)

Rushing WEPA0.3224614.4%
Pass 7.8% · Rush 23.5%

1st 15.7% · 2nd 11.5% · 3rd 11.8%

Standard downs 16.4% · Passing downs 10.0%

2024: 3★ · 0.8656
Aidan Birr · PK

CFBD athlete 4876720. Georgia Tech (2022–2026)

Kicker PAAR-2.00013—
Pass — · Rush —

1st — · 2nd — · 3rd —

Standard downs — · Passing downs —

2022: 3★ · 0.8222
Chad Alexander · RB

CFBD athlete 5125580. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——3.5%
Pass 2.3% · Rush 5.1%

1st 2.7% · 2nd 2.1% · 3rd 8.2%

Standard downs 3.7% · Passing downs 3.1%

Not linked
Chris Corbo · TE

CFBD athlete 5085509. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——4.2%
Pass 7.7% · Rush 0.0%

1st 4.3% · 2nd 3.5% · 3rd 6.0%

Standard downs 4.4% · Passing downs 3.7%

Not linked
Chris Elko · WR

CFBD athlete 5159888. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——1.4%
Pass 2.9% · Rush 0.0%

1st 0.0% · 2nd 2.2% · 3rd 3.4%

Standard downs 0.0% · Passing downs 4.3%

Not linked
Dalen Penson · WR

CFBD athlete 5199859. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——8.4%
Pass 15.3% · Rush 0.0%

1st 8.3% · 2nd 9.0% · 3rd 9.2%

Standard downs 8.0% · Passing downs 9.3%

Not linked
Darnell Collins · WR

CFBD athlete 5289797. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——3.9%
Pass 6.5% · Rush 0.0%

1st 0.0% · 2nd 8.3% · 3rd 5.6%

Standard downs 4.5% · Passing downs 3.1%

Not linked
Debron Gatling · WR

CFBD athlete 5079441. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——2.0%
Pass 4.0% · Rush 0.0%

1st 2.3% · 2nd 3.3% · 3rd 0.0%

Standard downs 2.2% · Passing downs 1.7%

Not linked
Gavin Harris · TE

CFBD athlete 5154262. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——3.9%
Pass 6.7% · Rush 0.5%

1st 3.7% · 2nd 3.6% · 3rd 4.7%

Standard downs 3.8% · Passing downs 4.3%

Not linked
Grady Adamson · QB

CFBD athlete 5207610. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——17.6%
Pass 26.9% · Rush 7.5%

1st 17.0% · 2nd 12.9% · 3rd 22.5%

Standard downs 14.3% · Passing downs 24.2%

Not linked
Isaiah Fuhrmann · WR

CFBD athlete 5224790. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——2.7%
Pass 4.9% · Rush 0.0%

1st 2.9% · 2nd 2.2% · 3rd 2.3%

Standard downs 2.0% · Passing downs 4.3%

Not linked
Jaiven Plummer · WR

CFBD athlete 4703030. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——3.2%
Pass 5.9% · Rush 0.0%

1st 3.2% · 2nd 5.3% · 3rd 0.0%

Standard downs 3.9% · Passing downs 1.4%

Not linked
Jordan Allen · WR

CFBD athlete 5141362. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——10.8%
Pass 19.2% · Rush 0.4%

1st 6.3% · 2nd 18.6% · 3rd 10.2%

Standard downs 6.9% · Passing downs 19.3%

Not linked
Kevin Roche Jr. · TE

CFBD athlete 5215629. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——10.6%
Pass 19.2% · Rush 0.0%

1st 8.3% · 2nd 10.3% · 3rd 17.3%

Standard downs 9.1% · Passing downs 13.7%

Not linked
Malachi Hosley · RB

CFBD athlete 5155366. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——8.5%
Pass 0.0% · Rush 17.2%

1st 10.3% · 2nd 11.5% · 3rd 0.0%

Standard downs 9.9% · Passing downs 5.2%

Not linked
Rahkeem Smith · WR

CFBD athlete 5085830. Team attribution from the captured season usage record.

Not available——2.1%
Pass 3.7% · Rush 0.0%

1st 2.9% · 2nd 0.0% · 3rd 4.2%

Standard downs 2.0% · Passing downs 2.3%

Not linked

Transfers

Incoming · 19 reported
PlayerFromDateStars / ratingEligibility
Alberto Mendoza · QBIndiana2026-01-203★ / 0.8600Immediate
Alex Bacchetta · PRice2026-01-063★ / —Immediate
Chris Corbo · TEDartmouth2026-01-063★ / 0.8400Immediate
Favour Ebuka Edwin · OTAuburn2026-01-103★ / 0.8500Immediate
Gavin Harris · TENew Mexico State2026-01-163★ / 0.8600Immediate
Isaiah Fuhrmann · WRElon2026-01-183★ / 0.8400Immediate
Jaiven Plummer · WRCalifornia2026-01-173★ / 0.8600Immediate
Jaylen Mbakwe · WRAlabama2026-01-054★ / 0.9000Immediate
Jonas Duclona · CBSouth Florida2026-01-153★ / 0.8600Immediate
Jordan Walker · EDGERutgers2026-01-043★ / 0.8700Immediate
Joseph Ionata · IOLAlabama2026-01-063★ / 0.8600Immediate
Justice Haynes · RBMichigan2026-01-144★ / 0.9500Immediate
Markell Samuel · OTOklahoma State2026-01-063★ / 0.8600Immediate
Noah Carter · EDGEAlabama2026-01-104★ / 0.9300Immediate
Spencer Mermans · TEYale2026-01-133★ / 0.8500Immediate
Taje McCoy · EDGEOklahoma State2026-01-113★ / 0.8700Immediate
Tawfiq Thomas · DLColorado2026-01-093★ / 0.8600Immediate
Tim Griffin · DLCincinnati2026-01-153★ / 0.8500Immediate
Vincent Carroll-Jackson · DLUConn2026-01-083★ / 0.8600Immediate
Outgoing · 20 reported
PlayerToDateStars / ratingEligibility
Aaron Philo · QBFlorida2026-01-063★ / 0.8900Immediate
Bailey Stockton · WRFlorida2026-01-053★ / 0.8600Immediate
Benjamin Galloway · OTFlorida Atlantic2026-01-093★ / —Immediate
Blake Belin · DLNot reported2026-01-173★ / —Immediate
Christian Pritchett · SKansas2026-01-083★ / 0.8500Immediate
D.J. Moore · SSouth Alabama2026-01-173★ / 0.8200Immediate
Harrison Moore · IOLFlorida2026-01-093★ / 0.8700Immediate
Isiah Canion · WRGeorgia2026-01-084★ / 0.9400Immediate
Jackson Hamilton · LBNot reported2026-01-173★ / —Immediate
Jamauri Brice · WRNot reported2026-01-033★ / —Immediate
Jamie Felix · RBNot reported2026-01-023★ / —TBD
Joseph Stoever · LSBuffalo2026-02-04— / —Immediate
Landen Marshall · DLNot reported2026-01-173★ / —Immediate
Luke Harpring · TEFlorida2026-01-113★ / 0.8800Immediate
Melvin Jordan IV · LBNot reported2026-01-023★ / —Immediate
Peyton Joseph · OTOklahoma2026-01-103★ / 0.8600Immediate
Tah'j Butler · LBOle Miss2026-01-163★ / 0.8700Immediate
Tana Alo-Tupuola · IOLArizona State2026-01-083★ / 0.8700Immediate
Troy Stevenson IV · CBNot reported2026-01-174★ / —Immediate
Zion Taylor · WRNot reported2026-01-033★ / —Immediate

Transfer observations can include unresolved destinations. CFBD supplies no timezone for transfer dates and no athlete ID linking these records to the efficiency table. These observations do not establish current roster membership or game availability.

Descriptive context only; no player or transfer value enters the prediction model. Adjusted metrics require unambiguous season/team history. Usage-only rows use the captured athlete ID and team; conflicting usage identities are omitted. Missing values are unavailable, not zero. Provider coverage is incomplete.

Coaching eras

Continuous appointments at Georgia Tech. Records are CFBD-attributed results; active tenures and the current season may be incomplete.

Brent Key · career 27–20 across 5 seasons and 1 schools

Tenure timeline · 16 appointments
  1. 2022–present · Brent Key · active at capture

    27–20 · 47 attributed games · 5 seasons · incomplete attribution

    Hired 2022-11-29. Exact effective dates unavailable.

  2. 2019–2022 · Geoff Collins

    10–28 · 38 attributed games · 4 seasons · incomplete attribution

    Hired 2018-12-07. Exact effective dates unavailable.

  3. 2008–2018 · Paul Johnson

    83–60 · 143 attributed games · 11 seasons

    Hired 2007-12-07. Exact effective dates unavailable.

  4. 2007–2007 · Jon Tenuta

    0–1 · 1 attributed games · 1 seasons · incomplete attribution

    Hired 2007-11-26. Exact effective dates unavailable.

  5. 2002–2007 · Chan Gailey

    44–32 · 76 attributed games · 6 seasons · incomplete attribution

    Hired 2001-12-29. Exact effective dates unavailable.

  6. 1994–2001 · George O'Leary

    52–33 · 85 attributed games · 8 seasons

    Exact effective dates unavailable.

  7. 1992–1993 · Bill Lewis

    10–12 · 22 attributed games · 2 seasons

    Exact effective dates unavailable.

  8. 1987–1991 · Bobby Ross

    31–26–1 · 58 attributed games · 5 seasons

    Exact effective dates unavailable.

  9. 1980–1986 · Bill Curry

    31–43–4 · 78 attributed games · 7 seasons

    Exact effective dates unavailable.

  10. 1974–1979 · Pepper Rodgers

    34–31–2 · 67 attributed games · 6 seasons

    Exact effective dates unavailable.

  11. 1972–1973 · Bill Fulcher

    12–10–1 · 23 attributed games · 2 seasons

    Exact effective dates unavailable.

  12. 1967–1971 · Bud Carson

    27–27 · 54 attributed games · 5 seasons

    Exact effective dates unavailable.

  13. 1945–1966 · Bobby Dodd

    165–64–8 · 237 attributed games · 22 seasons

    Exact effective dates unavailable.

  14. 1920–1944 · William Alexander

    134–95–15 · 244 attributed games · 25 seasons

    Exact effective dates unavailable.

  15. 1904–1919 · John Heisman

    102–29–7 · 138 attributed games · 16 seasons

    Exact effective dates unavailable.

  16. 1902–1902 · John McKee

    0–6–2 · 8 attributed games · 1 seasons

    Exact effective dates unavailable.

Season résumé · 2015–2026

Coach-attributed records appear beside team-season ratings, recruiting and poll context. Shared seasons appear once per coach; rows are not assigned to individual stints. Ratings describe team performance, not a causal coaching effect.

Season / coachRecordConferencePostseasonSP+SRSRecruiting rankFinal poll
2026 · Brent Key · incomplete attribution0–0——1.9-7.541—
2025 · Brent Key9–46–20–19.37.821—
2024 · Brent Key7–65–30–11.95.533—
2023 · Brent Key7–65–31–00.32.162—
2022 · Geoff Collins · incomplete attribution1–3——-11.8-654—
2022 · Brent Key · incomplete attribution4–4——-11.8-654—
2021 · Geoff Collins3–92–70–0-6.7-3.647—
2020 · Geoff Collins3–73–60–0-1—26—
2019 · Geoff Collins3–92–60–0-12-10.851—
2018 · Paul Johnson7–65–30–10.33.444—
2017 · Paul Johnson5–64–40–08.98.748—
2016 · Paul Johnson9–44–41–07.87.360—
2015 · Paul Johnson3–91–70–094.644—
Download coaching history JSON

Source: CFBD · captured 2026-10-26T02:02:59.394463+00:00 UTC. Season résumé covers 2015–2026; timeline spans all returned tenures. — means unavailable. Career summaries cover active coaches at capture. This snapshot is descriptive and is not a pregame cutoff.

CFBD season overview

2026 stored season snapshot, including postseason and garbage time. Raw CFBD PPA is not opponent-adjusted EPA or player WEPA. No week cutoff; these values do not enter our forecasts.

Captured 2026-11-02 13:51:41.272114 UTC · Source data

Stat rankings

CFBD FBS ranks · source updated 2026-11-01 14:05:30 UTC · calculated 2026-11-02 13:47:25 UTC · provider cache expiry 2026-11-02 13:57:25 UTC. Rank 1 is best; percentiles use CFBD’s 0–100 scale.

StatisticOffense rank / populationPercentileDefense rank / populationPercentile
PPA / play83 / 13840.1120 / 13813.1
Success rate86 / 13838.0104 / 13824.8
Explosiveness35 / 13875.267 / 13851.8
Standard-down success77 / 13844.566 / 13852.6
Passing-down success99 / 13828.5129 / 1386.6
Pass PPA94 / 13832.1108 / 13821.9
Rush PPA66 / 13852.6119 / 13813.9
Pass explosiveness93 / 13832.8137 / 1380.7
Rush explosiveness28 / 13880.359 / 13857.7
Line yards104 / 13824.8127 / 1388.0
Second-level yards57 / 13859.1126 / 1388.8
Open-field yards8 / 13894.995 / 13831.4
Stuff rate120 / 13813.1113 / 13818.2
Power successT111 / 13819.3T70 / 13848.5
HavocT128 / 1386.9T110 / 13819.3
Front-seven havocT128 / 1386.9T63 / 13852.9
DB havocT90 / 13834.3T131 / 1384.4
Points / opportunityT94 / 13831.8107 / 13822.6
Average field positionT96 / 13829.6129 / 1386.6
Field-position expected points92 / 13833.6126 / 1388.8

Player PPA and usage

Ordered by overall usage. Open a player for pass, rush, down and situation splits. Usage is the provider’s share of team plays in each situation; PPA is the provider’s average or total for that player. Missing values stay blank (—); play counts are not supplied here. Standard downs are 1st down, 2nd-and-7 or shorter, and 3rd/4th-and-4 or shorter; other situations are passing downs.

Alberto Mendoza · QBUsage 53.6% · Avg PPA 0.172 · Total 47.138
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall0.17247.13853.6%
Pass0.18947.29489.0%
Rush0.4068.9419.9%
1st down0.16917.44642.9%
2nd down0.33431.75760.9%
3rd down0.33722.89469.4%
Standard downs0.13521.69746.0%
Passing downs0.22525.44170.2%
Justice Haynes · RBUsage 27.2% · Avg PPA 0.137 · Total 16.852
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall0.13716.85227.2%
Pass0.5327.9746.2%
Rush0.0828.87952.7%
1st down0.0151.09534.3%
2nd down0.0551.91125.2%
3rd down0.3674.76514.9%
Standard downs0.12012.00632.4%
Passing downs0.2114.84616.0%
Grady Adamson · QBUsage 17.6% · Avg PPA 0.017 · Total 0.589
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall0.0170.58917.6%
Pass-0.183-5.13826.9%
Rush0.8185.7277.5%
1st down0.2503.74817.0%
2nd down0.0270.21412.9%
3rd down0.0580.52622.5%
Standard downs-0.085-1.61914.3%
Passing downs0.1382.20824.2%
Trelain Maddox · RBUsage 14.4% · Avg PPA 0.164 · Total 10.842
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall0.16410.84214.4%
Pass-0.010-0.1977.8%
Rush0.24011.03923.5%
1st down0.31310.65515.7%
2nd down0.2353.76211.5%
3rd down0.2102.10111.8%
Standard downs0.28915.02716.4%
Passing downs-0.299-4.18610.0%
Jordan Allen · WRUsage 10.8% · Avg PPA 0.761 · Total 41.864
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall0.76141.86410.8%
Pass0.84845.80319.2%
Rush-3.940-3.9400.4%
1st down0.5317.9666.3%
2nd down0.81423.60918.6%
3rd down1.42314.22810.2%
Standard downs0.60814.5836.9%
Passing downs0.88027.28119.3%
Kevin Roche Jr. · TEUsage 10.6% · Avg PPA 0.177 · Total 9.547
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall0.1779.54710.6%
Pass0.1779.54719.2%
Rush—0.0000.0%
1st down-0.049-0.9908.3%
2nd down0.0400.63910.3%
3rd down0.3786.43417.3%
Standard downs0.1635.2019.1%
Passing downs0.1984.34613.7%
Malachi Hosley · RBUsage 8.5% · Avg PPA -0.162 · Total -2.596
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall-0.162-2.5968.5%
Pass—0.0000.0%
Rush-0.162-2.59617.2%
1st down-0.154-1.38910.3%
2nd down-0.172-1.20711.5%
3rd down—0.0000.0%
Standard downs-0.237-3.0759.9%
Passing downs0.1600.4795.2%
Dalen Penson · WRUsage 8.4% · Avg PPA 0.659 · Total 28.358
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall0.65928.3588.4%
Pass0.65928.35815.3%
Rush—0.0000.0%
1st down0.3837.6538.3%
2nd down0.86512.1149.0%
3rd down0.9558.5919.2%
Standard downs0.54015.1168.0%
Passing downs0.88313.2429.3%
Chris Corbo · TEUsage 4.2% · Avg PPA 0.350 · Total 5.593
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall0.3505.5934.2%
Pass0.3505.5937.7%
Rush—0.0000.0%
1st down0.6415.1284.3%
2nd down0.1350.5423.5%
3rd down-0.019-0.0766.0%
Standard downs0.4645.5664.4%
Passing downs0.0070.0273.7%
Darnell Collins · WRUsage 3.9% · Avg PPA 0.189 · Total 0.568
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall0.1890.5683.9%
Pass0.1890.5686.5%
Rush—0.0000.0%
1st down—0.0000.0%
2nd down-0.305-0.6118.3%
3rd down1.1791.1795.6%
Standard downs0.3830.7654.5%
Passing downs-0.198-0.1983.1%
Gavin Harris · TEUsage 3.9% · Avg PPA -0.089 · Total -1.608
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall-0.089-1.6083.9%
Pass-0.171-2.9146.7%
Rush1.3061.3060.5%
1st down0.4403.5203.7%
2nd down-0.519-2.5963.6%
3rd down0.3981.5944.7%
Standard downs-0.194-2.3303.8%
Passing downs0.1200.7224.3%
Chad Alexander · RBUsage 3.5% · Avg PPA -0.095 · Total -1.040
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall-0.095-1.0403.5%
Pass-0.760-3.0412.3%
Rush0.2862.0015.1%
1st down-0.426-1.7032.7%
2nd down0.5641.1292.1%
3rd down-0.093-0.4668.2%
Standard downs0.0750.5983.7%
Passing downs-0.546-1.6383.1%
Jaiven Plummer · WRUsage 3.2% · Avg PPA 0.862 · Total 6.897
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall0.8626.8973.2%
Pass0.8626.8975.9%
Rush—0.0000.0%
1st down1.6546.6153.2%
2nd down0.0710.2825.3%
3rd down—0.0000.0%
Standard downs1.0197.1333.9%
Passing downs-0.235-0.2351.4%
Isaiah Fuhrmann · WRUsage 2.7% · Avg PPA 0.284 · Total 3.413
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall0.2843.4132.7%
Pass0.2843.4134.9%
Rush—0.0000.0%
1st down-0.334-2.0062.9%
2nd down1.6144.8422.2%
3rd down2.1644.3292.3%
Standard downs-0.334-2.0062.0%
Passing downs0.9035.4194.3%
Rahkeem Smith · WRUsage 2.1% · Avg PPA 0.141 · Total 0.423
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall0.1410.4232.1%
Pass0.1410.4233.7%
Rush—0.0000.0%
1st down0.3060.6122.9%
2nd down—0.0000.0%
3rd down-0.189-0.1894.2%
Standard downs0.3060.6122.0%
Passing downs-0.189-0.1892.3%
Debron Gatling · WRUsage 2.0% · Avg PPA 0.897 · Total 3.587
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall0.8973.5872.0%
Pass0.8973.5874.0%
Rush—0.0000.0%
1st down0.1770.3552.3%
2nd down1.6163.2323.3%
3rd down—0.0000.0%
Standard downs0.9802.9402.2%
Passing downs0.6470.6471.7%
Chris Elko · WRUsage 1.4% · Avg PPA -0.536 · Total -1.071
SplitAverage PPATotal PPAUsage
Overall-0.536-1.0711.4%
Pass-0.536-1.0712.9%
Rush—0.0000.0%
1st down—0.0000.0%
2nd down-0.669-0.6692.2%
3rd down-0.402-0.4023.4%
Standard downs—0.0000.0%
Passing downs-0.536-1.0714.3%
Where Georgia Tech sits · 2026 FBS distributions138 teams · raw PPA

2026 · Through provider Week 9. Each metric uses only published FBS teams with a numeric value. Higher percentile is better; tied values receive the midpoint of their positions, rounded to a whole percentile. Missing values are unranked.

Offense PPA/playOffense PPA/play: 0.101 (40th percentile; 138 teams)40thOffense success rateOffense success rate: 0.413 (38th percentile; 138 teams)38thOffense explosivenessOffense explosiveness: 1.296 (75th percentile; 138 teams)75thOffense pass PPA/playOffense pass PPA/play: 0.135 (32nd percentile; 138 teams)32ndOffense rush PPA/playOffense rush PPA/play: 0.096 (53rd percentile; 138 teams)53rdDefense PPA/playDefense PPA/play: 0.185 (13th percentile; 138 teams)13thDefense success rateDefense success rate: 0.433 (25th percentile; 138 teams)25thDefense explosivenessDefense explosiveness: 1.219 (52nd percentile; 138 teams)52ndDefense havoc createdDefense havoc created: 0.136 (19th percentile; 138 teams)19th
Values and percentiles
Georgia Tech metric values with FBS percentiles, 2026
MetricValuePercentileBetter
Offense PPA/play0.10140th138 teamshigher
Offense success rate0.41338th138 teamshigher
Offense explosiveness1.29675th138 teamshigher
Offense pass PPA/play0.13532nd138 teamshigher
Offense rush PPA/play0.09653rd138 teamshigher
Defense PPA/play0.18513th138 teamslower
Defense success rate0.43325th138 teamslower
Defense explosiveness1.21952nd138 teamslower
Defense havoc created0.13619th138 teamshigher

Passing profile

2026 · CFBD passing family · raw PPA

Captured 2026-11-06. Offense: 98% of 269 attempts charted. Average depth of target 7.3 yards (14th percentile of FBS). Yards after catch 4.7 per completion. Completion 67.7%, 7.3 yards per attempt, pass PPA 0.23.

Completion percentage over expected (CPOE)
SideActualExpectedCPOE (pp)Qualifying / all attempts
Offense67.9%62.7%+5.2243 / 269
Defense allowed54.6%59.9%-5.3196 / 212

Actual and expected use the same qualifying attempts, which can be fewer than all passes. CPOE is their difference in percentage points (pp); higher is better on offense, lower allowed is better on defense. CFBD models FBS-vs-FBS passes, excluding spikes, throwaways, intentional grounding and attempts without air yards. — means unavailable; small samples have fewer than 40 qualifying attempts.

Depth of target vs yards after catch, FBS offenses
Air Force: ADOT 13.0, YAC 3.9Akron: ADOT 7.7, YAC 4.9Alabama: ADOT 9.9, YAC 5.3App State: ADOT 8.5, YAC 5.3Arizona: ADOT 8.1, YAC 5.8Arizona State: ADOT 7.9, YAC 6.1Arkansas: ADOT 7.6, YAC 5.4Arkansas State: ADOT 9.0, YAC 5.3Army: ADOT 12.5, YAC 3.7Auburn: ADOT 7.9, YAC 5.1BYU: ADOT 8.8, YAC 5.9Ball State: ADOT 7.6, YAC 5.4Baylor: ADOT 10.2, YAC 5.1Boise State: ADOT 7.6, YAC 5.0Boston College: ADOT 8.0, YAC 6.6Bowling Green: ADOT 6.4, YAC 5.6Buffalo: ADOT 10.1, YAC 2.2California: ADOT 6.2, YAC 5.6Central Michigan: ADOT 9.0, YAC 5.5Charlotte: ADOT 7.1, YAC 5.5Cincinnati: ADOT 7.2, YAC 6.7Clemson: ADOT 6.9, YAC 5.8Coastal Carolina: ADOT 10.6, YAC 5.8Colorado: ADOT 8.6, YAC 7.1Colorado State: ADOT 5.6, YAC 8.3Delaware: ADOT 9.4, YAC 6.4Duke: ADOT 8.6, YAC 6.6East Carolina: ADOT 8.9, YAC 6.2Eastern Michigan: ADOT 7.2, YAC 5.3Florida: ADOT 7.1, YAC 6.7Florida Atlantic: ADOT 8.4, YAC 4.5Florida International: ADOT 8.0, YAC 5.3Florida State: ADOT 10.4, YAC 8.1Fresno State: ADOT 8.0, YAC 6.0Georgia: ADOT 8.2, YAC 7.7Georgia Southern: ADOT 6.9, YAC 5.1Georgia State: ADOT 8.3, YAC 6.3Hawai'i: ADOT 8.4, YAC 4.2Houston: ADOT 8.3, YAC 6.7Illinois: ADOT 9.9, YAC 4.0Indiana: ADOT 11.3, YAC 4.9Iowa: ADOT 7.5, YAC 6.2Iowa State: ADOT 9.2, YAC 5.3Jacksonville State: ADOT 8.3, YAC 5.8James Madison: ADOT 8.5, YAC 5.1Kansas: ADOT 12.5, YAC 5.2Kansas State: ADOT 7.8, YAC 5.3Kennesaw State: ADOT 6.7, YAC 4.9Kent State: ADOT 9.4, YAC 5.2Kentucky: ADOT 6.7, YAC 7.0LSU: ADOT 8.0, YAC 6.9Liberty: ADOT 11.3, YAC 6.0Louisiana: ADOT 8.5, YAC 5.1Louisiana Tech: ADOT 6.5, YAC 6.2Louisville: ADOT 9.1, YAC 7.1Marshall: ADOT 8.9, YAC 5.3Maryland: ADOT 6.9, YAC 6.0Massachusetts: ADOT 10.4, YAC 4.6Memphis: ADOT 10.3, YAC 5.6Miami: ADOT 7.3, YAC 7.2Miami (OH): ADOT 10.7, YAC 6.2Michigan: ADOT 9.9, YAC 4.8Michigan State: ADOT 7.6, YAC 4.1Middle Tennessee: ADOT 8.0, YAC 5.5Minnesota: ADOT 6.1, YAC 6.1Mississippi State: ADOT 8.8, YAC 5.6Missouri: ADOT 10.1, YAC 5.1Missouri State: ADOT 8.6, YAC 5.7NC State: ADOT 8.9, YAC 5.4Navy: ADOT 13.8, YAC 8.0Nebraska: ADOT 8.6, YAC 5.9Nevada: ADOT 8.4, YAC 6.1New Mexico: ADOT 9.9, YAC 6.1New Mexico State: ADOT 9.6, YAC 4.4North Carolina: ADOT 7.4, YAC 6.4North Dakota State: ADOT 10.0, YAC 4.6North Texas: ADOT 9.2, YAC 6.0Northern Illinois: ADOT 8.4, YAC 5.5Northwestern: ADOT 8.8, YAC 5.5Notre Dame: ADOT 9.6, YAC 4.9Ohio: ADOT 9.6, YAC 6.1Ohio State: ADOT 11.0, YAC 5.1Oklahoma: ADOT 8.3, YAC 5.3Oklahoma State: ADOT 8.5, YAC 6.2Old Dominion: ADOT 10.9, YAC 4.3Ole Miss: ADOT 8.7, YAC 4.1Oregon: ADOT 7.6, YAC 6.5Oregon State: ADOT 8.8, YAC 7.7Penn State: ADOT 9.8, YAC 5.1Pittsburgh: ADOT 9.2, YAC 5.6Purdue: ADOT 8.5, YAC 6.9Rice: ADOT 10.8, YAC 4.9Rutgers: ADOT 11.3, YAC 5.5SMU: ADOT 8.4, YAC 6.3Sacramento State: ADOT 8.2, YAC 4.3Sam Houston: ADOT 7.8, YAC 5.5San Diego State: ADOT 9.7, YAC 5.2San José State: ADOT 10.0, YAC 3.7South Alabama: ADOT 10.7, YAC 5.2South Carolina: ADOT 8.8, YAC 5.9South Florida: ADOT 7.7, YAC 6.3Southern Miss: ADOT 8.2, YAC 5.1Stanford: ADOT 8.9, YAC 4.9Syracuse: ADOT 8.9, YAC 5.5TCU: ADOT 9.5, YAC 4.6Temple: ADOT 9.0, YAC 6.9Tennessee: ADOT 6.9, YAC 6.8Texas: ADOT 8.3, YAC 6.3Texas A&M: ADOT 8.8, YAC 5.3Texas State: ADOT 8.6, YAC 6.8Texas Tech: ADOT 9.6, YAC 4.7Toledo: ADOT 9.1, YAC 6.1Troy: ADOT 8.9, YAC 6.5Tulane: ADOT 9.2, YAC 4.9Tulsa: ADOT 8.7, YAC 4.7UAB: ADOT 9.8, YAC 4.4UCF: ADOT 7.0, YAC 5.4UCLA: ADOT 9.1, YAC 5.8UConn: ADOT 11.2, YAC 6.3UL Monroe: ADOT 8.1, YAC 5.8UNLV: ADOT 10.5, YAC 4.3USC: ADOT 8.0, YAC 6.4UTEP: ADOT 8.7, YAC 4.9UTSA: ADOT 7.1, YAC 6.0Utah: ADOT 9.5, YAC 5.8Utah State: ADOT 9.9, YAC 4.5Vanderbilt: ADOT 9.2, YAC 5.1Virginia: ADOT 8.3, YAC 5.3Virginia Tech: ADOT 6.5, YAC 7.0Wake Forest: ADOT 8.7, YAC 6.0Washington: ADOT 7.9, YAC 6.5Washington State: ADOT 7.1, YAC 4.0West Virginia: ADOT 13.8, YAC 8.5Western Kentucky: ADOT 6.9, YAC 5.4Western Michigan: ADOT 8.5, YAC 5.1Wisconsin: ADOT 7.5, YAC 6.9Wyoming: ADOT 8.4, YAC 5.6Georgia Tech: ADOT 7.3, YAC 4.7Average depth of target (yards) →Yards after catch per completion →

138 teams with at least 40 charted attempts. The highlighted point is Georgia Tech.

Target mix by zone, Georgia Tech offense
Short left31% · 80Short middle28% · 71Short right33% · 85Deep left3% · 9Deep middle3% · 7Deep right2% · 6

Highlighted bars are deep zones. Shares are of located attempts only.

Defense and rushing detail
Georgia Tech passing defense and rushing profile, 2026
SideAttemptsChartedADOTYACComp %PPACPOECPOE att
Passing offense26998%7.34.767.7%0.23+5.2 pp243
Passing defense21299%8.96.555.7%0.33-5.3 pp196

Rushing production

SideAttemptsYards / carrySuccessPPALine yards / rushSecond-level yards / rushOpen-field yards / rushStuff ratePower success
Offense2414.343.3%0.142.801.101.6018.1%65.5%
Defense allowed3525.248.8%0.213.501.201.2012.3%72.5%

Second-level yards are gained 5–10 yards past the line; open-field yards are beyond 10. These are provider per-rush averages, not totals. Power success measures success with two or fewer yards needed. Exact line-metric and power-success denominators are not supplied in this feed.

Rushing sample and attribution

SideYards recordedIndividualUnattributedSacksKneelsTeam rushesMultiple carriersDirection located / eligible
Offense226 / 2412212020461212 / 215 · 98.6%
Defense allowed338 / 3523074511790332 / 332 · 100.0%

Counts are attempts. Team totals include sacks, kneels, team-only rushes and unresolved attribution; these categories can overlap and must not be summed. Direction coverage uses ordinary direction-eligible rushes, not all attempts. Missing fields in older captures remain unavailable.

Raw provider values, no opponent adjustment; not model inputs. CFBD metric definitions.

Game-by-game passing and rushing

2026 · Passing CPOE · percentage points. Dashed line: season +5.2 pp. 7 of 8 captured games have this metric. Missing observations break the line.

-10.41.713.8W1W1 vs Colorado: +11.0 ppW2W2 vs Tennessee: +0.5 ppW3W4W4 vs Stanford: +5.5 ppW6W6 vs Duke: +11.8 ppW7W7 vs Virginia Tech: +13.8 ppW8W8 vs Boston College: +10.8 ppW9W9 vs Pittsburgh: -10.4 pp

CPOE is completion percentage over expected on qualifying FBS-vs-FBS attempts; positive means more completions than expected. PPA is raw provider PPA. These are game observations, not opponent-adjusted forecasts. P labels postseason weeks.

Game log and attempt coverage
WeekOpponentPass attCPOE attComp %*Expected %*CPOEADOTPass PPARush attRush yds/carryRush PPA
W1Colorado242373.9%62.9%+11.0 pp7.40.67302.0-0.21
W2Tennessee404065.0%64.6%+0.5 pp5.9-0.12314.00.26
W3Mercer220———8.00.80403.90.20
W4Stanford393966.7%61.1%+5.5 pp7.60.25316.70.38
W6Duke303076.7%64.9%+11.8 pp5.60.47276.10.20
W7Virginia Tech383775.7%61.9%+13.8 pp9.00.47216.10.04
W8Boston College333271.9%61.0%+10.8 pp7.6-0.07283.60.08
W9Pittsburgh434252.4%62.7%-10.4 pp7.1-0.13333.00.06

*Completion and expected rates use the same CPOE-eligible attempts. ADOT uses available air-yard attempts; a game needs at least one. No missing family is filled with the other family’s data.

Punting and returns

2026 season to date · CFBD · captured 2026-11-06T12:25:52.746993+00:00. Descriptive totals, including postseason when present.

Our punts

34 punts · 42.6 gross yards/punt · 37.8 net yards/punt

7 inside the 20 · 2 touchbacks · 1 blocked

Known gross yards: 34/34 punts. Known net yards: 26/34 punts.

Our punt returns

7 returns · 15.9 yards/return · 1 touchdowns

2 muffs · 1 opponent punts blocked

Known return yards: 7/7 returns. Return totals include team-only and unattributed plays.

Recent games
GamePuntsGross yd/puntNet yd/puntKnown net yards
Week 9 · Pittsburgh843.440.76/8
Week 8 · Boston College439.031.73/4
Week 7 · Virginia Tech540.623.33/5
Week 6 · Duke444.844.84/4
Week 4 · Stanford243.543.52/2
Team style
Rating history