Probetrics — Sports Analytics
College Football slate
at
Sat, Sep 26, 10:30 PM ET
Stanford Stadium
Stanford Cardinal
1-1 · #81 Elo
Spread Total Moneyline

The read

On rating alone Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets are 6.1 points better (#45 vs #81 of 240), and STAN add 0.0 for home field. The clearest mismatch is the passing game: GT passing ranks #15, STAN defends it at #109; the other way STAN #97 into GT's #87.

Who has the edge

Rating
Clear edge
GT
GT rated 6.1 points better on Elo (#81 vs #45).
Home & rest
Even
STAN gets 0.0 points for home field.
Passing game
Clear edge
GT
GT passing ranks #15, STAN defends it at #109; the other way STAN #97 into GT's #87.
context · not in the margin
Rushing game
Slight edge
GT
GT rushing ranks #29, STAN defends it at #11; the other way STAN #130 into GT's #70.
context · not in the margin
Third down & red zone
Clear edge
GT
GT third-down conversion ranks #22, STAN defends it at #103; the other way STAN #90 into GT's #79.
context · not in the margin
Form (last 5)
Clear edge
GT
STAN −14.5 per game over the last five, GT −1.0.
context · not in the margin
Market
not priced
No line yet.
context · not in the margin

The margin, factor by factor

Georgia Tech Yellow JacketsStanford Cardinal
1603 Elo · #45
RatingThe Elo gap in points — the model's core read on who is better, before the situational pieces below.
GT +6.1 pts
1494 Elo · #81
road
Home field
not priced
home
Rest
even
−0.3 pts vs STAN D
Offense vs defenseEach offense's scoring rating against the other defense's — what drives the model total. Shown as an edge, though the winner call runs on Elo.
GT +5.6 pts
−6.0 pts vs GT D
L · −1.0
Form (last 5)Average margin over the last five games. Already inside the ratings — listed so you can see when recent form and the rating disagree.
GT +6.8 pts
L W · −14.5
MarketThe consensus spread, read as points. Compare with the model margin above it.
not priced

Bars are in points toward the favored side. Blue factors are inside the model's margin; grey ones are context it does not add on top (form and offense/defense are already in the ratings; injuries beyond the quarterback are not priced).

Dissect the matchup

CollegeFootballData, garbage time excluded · 2025 season (last season until three games are in)

Biggest mismatches

  • GT completion % (#6) against a STAN defense ranked #119 at stopping it
  • STAN interception rate (#5) against a GT defense ranked #108 at stopping it
  • GT yards / pass attempt (#15) against a STAN defense ranked #113 at stopping it
  • GT passing ppa / play (#15) against a STAN defense ranked #109 at stopping it
  • STAN defense (#24 rush explosiveness allowed) against a GT offense ranked #109

A mismatch is a rank gap of at least a fifth of the league between an offense and the defense it faces on the same measure. Descriptive rows (pass rate, pace, direction) are shown for reading the game, not ranked. ▲▼ mark where the last three games sit clearly above or below the season number, in the direction that helps that side.

Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets offense vs Stanford Cardinal defense

ranks of 135
GT offSTAN defEdge
Identity
Pass rate / Pass rate faced46%57%·
Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains).75%67%·
Plays / game6565·
Possession / game29:0330:11·
Passing
Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD).+0.42#15+0.34#109GT
Pass success rate49%#1243%#84GT
Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are.1.49#981.58#83·
Yards / pass attempt8.7#157.8#113GT
Completion %70%#666%#119GT
Interception rate / Interceptions forced1.0%#102.7%#51GT
Rushing
Rushing PPA / play+0.19#29−0.02#11·
Rush success rate51%#742%#70GT
Rush explosiveness0.88#1090.88#24STAN
Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed.3.38#82.88#67GT
Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line.16%#3317%#89GT
Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2.71%#7474%#88·
Yards / rush5.6#93.8#46GT
Situational
Standard-down PPA+0.22#24+0.09#65GT
Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+).+0.44#23+0.35#95GT
Third-down conversion46%#2242%#103GT
Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40.3.61#773.46#52·
Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play.11.8%#1014.6%#94GT
Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game1.15#511.08#94GT

Stanford Cardinal offense vs Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets defense

ranks of 135
STAN offGT defEdge
Identity
Pass rate / Pass rate faced51%49%·
Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains).67%70%·
Plays / game5961·
Possession / game29:4930:57·
Passing
Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD).+0.20#97+0.29#87·
Pass success rate37%#11644%#107·
Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are.1.55#651.50#46·
Yards / pass attempt6.8#887.5#92·
Completion %57%#11562%#73GT
Interception rate / Interceptions forced0.8%#51.7%#108STAN
Rushing
Rushing PPA / play−0.03#130+0.11#70GT
Rush success rate37%#12543%#82GT
Rush explosiveness0.75#1330.98#82GT
Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed.2.63#1202.99#89GT
Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line.18%#6219%#69·
Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2.82%#766%#27·
Yards / rush2.6#1344.6#91GT
Situational
Standard-down PPA+0.00#118+0.15#97·
Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+).+0.19#111+0.31#74GT
Third-down conversion38%#9040%#79·
Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40.3.02#1213.56#58GT
Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play.17.2%#10413.7%#107·
Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game1.42#900.69#130STAN

Season

GTSTAN
0-1Record1-1
13.0Points for / game21.5
14.0Points against / game36.0
0-1 / 0-0Home / road1-1 / 0-0
0-1Against the spread1-1
0-1Over / underOvers–unders in this team's games. A tendency, not a lean.2-0
LLast 5L W

Power ratings

GTSTAN
1603Elo1494
#45 of 240Rank#81 of 240
+1.8Offense ratingPoints per game above league average scored, opponent-adjusted.+0.8
+6.8Defense ratingPoints per game below league average allowed, opponent-adjusted. Positive is good.+2.1
1388Strength of scheduleMean Elo of opponents faced this season.1684

Elo drives the winner call. Offense/defense ratings drive the total.

Advanced

GTSTAN
+5.9SP+ (this season)Bill Connelly's SP+ rating, points above average.
0.272Offense PPA / playPredicted points added per play, garbage time excluded (CFBD).0.064
0.195Defense PPA / playPPA allowed per play — lower is better.0.173
49% / 44%Success rate (off / def)36% / 42%
1.16 / 1.25Explosiveness (off / def)1.20 / 1.29
752Talent composite247Sports team talent composite for the current roster.
13%Returning production

Advanced stats are from 2025 until this season has about three games. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Head to head

No meetings in our history.

How the margin was built

Rating gap
GT +6.1 pts
Home field
STAN +— pts
Rest
Even
Weather / roof
— pts on the total
Model margin
Model total

Market

Spread
Total
Moneyline

Per-book prices appear once the multi-book feed has this game (about a week out).

Informational only. Winner probabilities are backtested and calibrated; spread and total calls are tracked leans. 21+, 1-800-GAMBLER.