A Data Analytics Look at the SEC Showdown
The Alabama-Georgia game was a classic SEC battle filled with momentum swings, big plays, and strategic adjustments. With Alabama pulling off a 41–34 victory, the game unfolded like a chess match where every move had significant implications on the outcome.
From the start, Alabama came out firing, putting up a dominant 21 points in the first quarter while keeping Georgia scoreless. Georgia struggled to find its footing early, unable to capitalize on offensive opportunities. However, they began to claw their way back in the second quarter, scoring 7 points to Alabama’s 9. Despite this effort, Alabama held a comfortable lead heading into halftime.
The third quarter saw a shift in momentum, with Georgia outscoring Alabama 8–3. This change was marked by a series of key plays that chipped away at Alabama’s lead. Georgia’s offense found a rhythm, executing effectively on second and third downs, as shown in the offensive PPA comparison charts. Meanwhile, Alabama’s defense, though strong in certain moments, couldn’t completely contain Georgia’s resurgence.
The fourth quarter is where the drama truly unfolded. Georgia mounted an impressive comeback, outscoring Alabama 19–8. The win probability chart paints a vivid picture of the wild swings in this final quarter, especially around play number 155. Here, Georgia managed a 75-yard pass from Jalen Milroe to Ryan Williams, capped off with a successful two-point conversion — a play that resulted in a staggering 46% change in win probability. This moment electrified the game and put Georgia on the brink of an upset.
But Alabama responded. Despite the late-game heroics from Georgia, Alabama’s offensive efficiency and key plays, like Dillon Bell’s 67-yard pass from Carson Beck, helped them regain control. Though the win probability fluctuated dramatically, Alabama’s cumulative performance across key metrics — especially quarterback Jalen Milroe’s PPA contribution — proved decisive in securing their victory. Milroe ended the game with the highest cumulative PPA, solidifying his impact on the game’s outcome.
The betting lines suggested this would be a close contest, with Georgia initially favored by a narrow margin (Bovada and DraftKings having them at -2). The over/under figures hinted at a relatively high-scoring game, which turned out to be spot-on with a total of 75 points scored.
In the end, Alabama’s resilience and ability to convert critical plays on both offense and defense allowed them to fend off Georgia’s late surge. This game was a showcase of talent, strategy, and the razor-thin margins that define college football’s biggest matchups.
Win Probability Swings
The graphic below shows the win probability for Alabama and Georgia measured play-by-play. The y-axis shows win probability, while the x tracks the play number. The variations in the lines show how momentum swung back and forth. Early in the game, there were fluctuations, with back-and-forth plays where both teams had chances to take control. But as the game progressed, Alabama gained a dominant position, holding a high win probability for most of the game, win probabilities near the 80–100%.
Plays are annotated where win probability shifted significantly.
- Around play number 17, a successful pass to Dominic Lovett resulted in a 24% swing in win probability, giving Georgia a chance to fight back.
- Later, near play number 155, a dramatic 75-yard touchdown pass from Jalen Milroe to Ryan Williams followed by a successful two-point conversion caused a 46% change, showcasing one of the game’s biggest momentum shifts.
The game appears to have dramatic shifts again toward the end. Plays like a 67-yard pass from Carson Beck and a 3-yard run by Dillon Bell illustrate moments where Georgia tried to claw back. However, Alabama’s late-game execution, especially the big plays that swung win probabilities by significant margins, ultimately sealed their victory.
Player Impact on Game
This graphic below shows top individual performances in the game using Points Per Attempt (PPA), which reflects how much a player contributed to their team’s success on each play they were involved in. The left chart ranks players by their cumulative PPA, highlighting the total impact they had over the course of the game, while the right chart ranks players by their average PPA, indicating how effective they were on a per-play basis.
Top Players: Cumulative PPA (Left Pane)
- Jalen Milroe (Alabama QB) was the standout performer, leading the chart with a significant cumulative PPA total. This indicates he was consistently effective throughout the game, driving Alabama’s offense and contributing heavily to their scoring.
- Ryan Williams (Alabama WR) and Carson Beck (Georgia QB) also had high cumulative PPAs, showcasing their crucial roles in their respective teams’ offensive efforts. Williams was likely a key target for Milroe, while Beck orchestrated Georgia’s offense, keeping them in the game.
- Georgia’s top contributors, like Arian Smith (WR) and Dillon Bell (WR), also made substantial impacts, showing how their individual efforts helped Georgia push back against Alabama’s early dominance.
Top Players: Average PPA (Right Pane):
- Here, Cole Adams (Alabama WR) topped the list, suggesting that while he might not have been involved in as many plays, the ones he was involved in had a high impact. This kind of performance indicates he made the most of his touches, possibly making some key receptions at crucial moments.
- Ryan Williams again shows up near the top, reinforcing his influence in Alabama’s offensive strategy. Meanwhile, Arian Smith appears high on this list as well, reflecting his efficiency in each opportunity he got.
- On the flip side, Kendrick Law (Alabama WR) and Trevor Etienne (Georgia RB) show up with negative values on the average PPA chart, hinting that their contributions were less effective or that they might have struggled in this matchup.
Team Points Per Attempt
This set of charts compares Alabama and Georgia’s performance in different offensive and defensive situations using PPA (Points Per Attempt), giving us insight into where each team excelled or struggled.
Offense PPA Comparison (Left Chart):
- Third Down Efficiency: Georgia was much more effective on third downs compared to Alabama. Their positive PPA on third down shows they were able to sustain drives better and convert in clutch situations, while Alabama struggled to find the same success.
- Second Down: Alabama, interestingly, was more successful on second down plays, particularly in negative PPA for Georgia. This suggests Alabama had explosive plays or key gains that put them in favorable positions on second downs, while Georgia didn’t have much success here.
- First Down Performance: Georgia shines here with a positive PPA, indicating their ability to gain solid yardage on first down plays, setting up easier second and third downs. Alabama was also effective, but Georgia had the edge in getting off to strong starts in their offensive series.
- Rushing and Passing: Georgia’s rushing offense performed better than Alabama’s, with a strong PPA indicating they were able to move the ball effectively on the ground. Alabama’s passing game, on the other hand, was more successful, outperforming Georgia in creating positive plays through the air.
- Overall Offense: Both teams were relatively balanced overall, but Alabama had a slight edge in PPA, suggesting their offensive success was more efficient across the board.
Defense PPA Comparison (Right Chart):
- Third Down Defense: Alabama’s defense showed its strength on third downs, with a strong negative PPA, meaning they frequently forced Georgia to fail on third down conversions. Georgia’s defense was effective but not as dominant in stopping Alabama.
- Second Down Defense: Alabama’s defense excelled again here, with a negative PPA, indicating they limited Georgia’s effectiveness on second down plays. Georgia’s defense, though positive, wasn’t quite as successful in preventing Alabama from gaining significant yardage on second down.
- First Down Defense: Georgia’s defense was particularly effective on first downs, preventing Alabama from gaining momentum early in the series, which put them in tougher second and third down situations.
- Rushing and Passing Defense: Both teams’ defenses show similar trends as their offensive counterparts. Georgia had a better rushing defense, controlling Alabama’s ground game effectively, while Alabama’s passing defense limited Georgia’s aerial attack more efficiently.
- Overall Defense: Both defenses performed fairly evenly, but Alabama’s defensive PPA was slightly better overall, reflecting their ability to contain Georgia’s offense across most scenarios.
Summary
Alabama’s offense found more success in the passing game and made the most of second down situations, while their defense thrived on third downs and against Georgia’s passing game. Georgia, meanwhile, had a stronger rushing attack and better third-down offense, with their defense performing well on first downs and against Alabama’s rushing plays. These offensive and defensive dynamics reflect how the game played out, with Alabama’s more balanced performance giving them the slight edge they needed for the victory.
