South Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1460th
  Defense+0.1820th
• 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.
  Offense44.4%62nd
  Defense49.1%7th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2148th
  Defense+1.0495th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0219th
  Defense+0.1715th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3284th
  Defense+0.2036th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.1%49th
  Defense55.8%4th
• 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%71st
  Defense32.4%54th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9350th
  Defense3.0823rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.5%73rd
  Defense17.0%25th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.8%40th
  Defense14.9%28th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2018

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
   CCU
2. L
   UGA
3. W
   VAN
4. L
   UK
5. W
   MIZ
6. L
   TA&M
7. W
   TENN
8. W
   MISS
9. L
   FLA
10. W
    UTC
11. L
    CLEM
12. W
    AKR
13. L
    UVA

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

Players, 2018

1. Jake BentleyQB302 plays · +0.261 pts/play · 52nd of 225 QBs
   1.47WAR0.99 to 1.94
2. Rico DowdleRB105 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 156th of 351 RBs
   0.28WAR0.20 to 0.36
3. Mon DensonRB52 plays · +0.189 pts/play · 220th of 351 RBs
   0.18WAR0.14 to 0.23
4. Michael ScarnecchiaQB38 plays · +0.252 pts/play · 187th of 225 QBs
   0.18WAR0.13 to 0.23
5. Deebo SamuelWR72 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 89th of 434 WRs
   0.16WAR0.06 to 0.26
6. Shi SmithWR44 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 91st of 434 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.21
7. Ty'Son WilliamsRB64 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 245th of 351 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.19
8. Joseph CharltonP37 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 9th of 91 punters
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.20

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  75075021st of 130Roster talent: 750, 21st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22922921st of 130Recruiting: 229, 21st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  89%89%8th of 129Returning production: 89%, 8th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +14.9+14.920th of 130SP+ rating: +14.9, 20th of 130 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2018

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 0.08 of the 0.15 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 MIZQ4 13:54 4th & 12 at SC 27, up 2Went for it; the numbers favored punting−4.8 pts
2. vs TENNQ4 5:52 4th & 3 at TENN 8, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.9 pts
3. vs TENNQ1 0:37 4th & 2 at TENN 2, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
4. at UVAQ3 1:57 4th & 11 at UVA 11, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at VANQ3 10:16 4th & 3 at VAN 19, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at UKQ2 12:31 4th & 1 at SC 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at FLAQ2 12:10 4th & 2 at SC 28, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at MISSQ1 2:38 4th & 3 at MISS 3, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

91st of 130 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

   CCU
2. L

   UGA
3. W

   VAN
4. L

   UK
5. W

   MIZ
6. L

   TA&M
7. W

   TENN
8. W

   MISS
9. L

   FLA
10. W

    UTC
11. L

    CLEM
12. W

    AKR
13. L

    UVA

What moved it, 2018

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−0.82
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.19

Game by game

• CCUW 49-15 vs CCU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• UGAL 17-41 vs UGA26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2
• VANW 37-14 at VAN60% → 100%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +45, Clock +1
• UKL 10-24 at UK61% → 1%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −60: Scoreboard −46, Timeouts −2
• MIZW 37-35 vs MIZ52% → 76%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +13, Possession & field position +1
• TA&ML 23-26 vs TA&M47% → 7%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3
• TENNW 27-24 vs TENN78% → 93%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts −1
• MISSW 48-44 at MISS50% → 94%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +49, Clock +3
• FLAL 31-35 at FLA35% → 4%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2
• UTCW 49-9 vs UTC98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• CLEML 35-56 at CLEM5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −8
• AKRW 28-3 vs AKR98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• UVAL 0-28 at UVA72% → 0%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −61, Timeouts +1

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.