South Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.0731st
  Defense+0.1520th
• 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.
  Offense39.8%20th
  Defense46.9%17th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3088th
  Defense+1.1567th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0437th
  Defense+0.186th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1238th
  Defense+0.1353rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.9%9th
  Defense50.8%20th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.0%63rd
  Defense38.0%15th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7735th
  Defense3.1515th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.2%14th
  Defense15.4%14th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.2%34th
  Defense2.7%84th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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
   UNC
2. L
   UK
3. L
   UGA
4. W
   UCF
5. L
   MIZ
6. L
   LSU
7. W
   VAN
8. L
   TA&M
9. L
   TENN
10. L
    FLA
11. L
    CIT
12. L
    CLEM

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

Players, 2015

1. Perry OrthQB251 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 93rd of 205 QBs
   1.01WAR0.54 to 1.47
2. Pharoh CooperWR113 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 14th of 411 WRs
   0.39WAR0.22 to 0.53
3. Brandon Wilds?126 plays · +0.116 pts/play
   0.27WAR0.19 to 0.37
4. Elliott FryPK24 plays · +0.412 pts/play · 14th of 115 kickers
   0.19WAR0.12 to 0.26
5. Connor MitchQB43 plays · +0.203 pts/play · 178th of 205 QBs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.23
6. Sean KellyP46 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 16th of 92 punters
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.21
7. David WilliamsRB81 plays · +0.050 pts/play · 227th of 333 RBs
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.13
8. Lorenzo NunezWR42 plays · +0.048 pts/play · 343rd of 411 WRs
   0.04WAR−0.01 to 0.09

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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  72672622nd of 128Roster talent: 726, 22nd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  23523521st of 128Recruiting: 235, 21st of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  35%35%112th of 127Returning production: 35%, 112th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.4+3.465th of 128SP+ rating: +3.4, 65th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.13 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 VANQ3 3:11 4th & 1 at VAN 1, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.3 pts
2. vs VANQ4 9:07 4th & 2 at midfield, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. vs UKQ4 14:14 4th & 3 at UK 3, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. vs VANQ4 5:27 4th & 4 at VAN 4, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. vs UCFQ2 15:00 4th & 2 at UCF 43, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at TENNQ3 8:29 4th & 7 at TENN 7, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at TA&MQ4 6:27 4th & 8 at SC 47, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at TENNQ4 9:09 4th & 2 at SC 23, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

124th of 128 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

   UNC
2. L

   UK
3. L

   UGA
4. W

   UCF
5. L

   MIZ
6. L

   LSU
7. W

   VAN
8. L

   TA&M
9. L

   TENN
10. L

    FLA
11. L

    CIT
12. L

    CLEM

What moved it, 2015

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−1.94
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.10
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.10

Game by game

• UNCW 17-13 vs UNC53% → 96%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +4
• UKL 22-26 vs UK65% → 7%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• UGAL 20-52 at UGA14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −17
• UCFW 31-14 vs UCF80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +1
• MIZL 10-24 at MIZ35% → 1%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −1
• LSUL 24-45 at LSU73% → 1%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −56, Possession & field position −1
• VANW 19-10 vs VAN62% → 97%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +2
• TA&ML 28-35 at TA&M12% → 3%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts −1
• TENNL 24-27 at TENN11% → 7%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts −1
• FLAL 14-24 vs FLA26% → 4%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −36, Clock −1
• CITL 22-23 vs CIT93% → 14%Before kickoff +43 · On the field −79: Scoreboard −35, Clock −4
• CLEML 32-37 vs CLEM11% → 10%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −22, Clock −2

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.