South Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.1963rd
  Defense+0.1623rd
• 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.
  Offense45.1%62nd
  Defense41.6%45th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2652nd
  Defense+1.2739th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2384th
  Defense−0.0477th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2147th
  Defense+0.3911th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.7%73rd
  Defense45.9%50th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.9%39th
  Defense32.7%27th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4988th
  Defense2.4589th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.7%73rd
  Defense23.5%84th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.3%69th
  Defense14.1%26th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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 South Carolina 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
   KENT
2. W
   TOW
3. L
   MSST
4. L
   ALA
5. L
   UK
6. W
   FLA

Bars above the line: better than expected for South Carolina.

Players, 2026

1. LaNorris SellersQB167 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 12th of 192 QBs
   0.53WAR0.27 to 0.77
2. Nyck HarborWR25 plays · +0.239 pts/play · 30th of 364 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.16
3. Matt FullerRB62 plays · +0.071 pts/play · 115th of 320 RBs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13
4. Malik OrsanPK10 plays · +0.258 pts/play · 10th of 82 kickers
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.07
5. Mazeo Bennett Jr.WR23 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 177th of 364 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.07
6. Mason LovePK12 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 33rd of 82 kickers
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
7. DJ BlackWR14 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 262nd of 364 WRs
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.04
8. Nitro TuggleWR6 plays · +0.110 pts/play · 292nd of 364 WRs
   0.01WAR0.01 to 0.02

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 South Carolina'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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  86386315th of 138Roster talent: 863, 15th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  24924918th of 138Recruiting: 249, 18th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  69%69%24th of 136Returning production: 69%, 24th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.9+9.937th of 138SP+ rating so far: +9.9, 37th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 South Carolina'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 0.07 of the 0.07 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. vs UKQ4 2:00 4th & 3 at SC 43, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−4.4 pts
2. vs UKQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at UK 30, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
3. vs MSSTQ4 3:50 4th & 4 at MSST 25, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
4. vs TOWQ1 10:13 4th & 3 at SC 47, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
5. at FLAQ1 6:00 4th & 5 at FLA 30, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
6. at ALAQ4 0:35 4th & 7 at SC 46, down 31Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

106th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   KENT
2. W

   TOW
3. L

   MSST
4. L

   ALA
5. L

   UK
6. W

   FLA

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at South Carolina'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−0.52
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock+0.16
• Timeouts−0.19
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.05

Game by game

• KENTW 57-0 vs KENT98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• TOWW 45-9 vs TOW99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• MSSTL 34-41 vs MSST62% → 6%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• ALAL 18-49 at ALA21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −1
• UKL 34-35 vs UK65% → 11%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −19
• FLAW 38-19 at FLA24% → 99%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +76: Scoreboard +67, Clock +3

Points of win probability, from South Carolina's side.

Closest call

SC 23-20 FLA (2014) - South Carolina dropped to a 4.3% win probability before pulling it out.