South Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.0112th
  Defense+0.0765th
• 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.
  Offense40.3%22nd
  Defense41.5%64th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.075th
  Defense+1.1763rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0121st
  Defense+0.0164th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0119th
  Defense+0.1461st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.9%29th
  Defense47.8%47th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.7%18th
  Defense30.1%78th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8545th
  Defense2.9347th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.7%57th
  Defense16.6%19th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.7%58th
  Defense19.9%49th

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, 2019

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

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

Players, 2019

1. Ryan HilinskiQB317 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 123rd of 228 QBs
   0.51WAR−0.04 to 1.00
2. Tavien FeasterRB113 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 95th of 349 RBs
   0.40WAR0.32 to 0.48
3. Rico DowdleRB104 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 157th of 349 RBs
   0.26WAR0.16 to 0.35
4. Bryan EdwardsWR90 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 59th of 439 WRs
   0.21WAR0.09 to 0.33
5. Joseph CharltonP61 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 2nd of 100 punters
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.26
6. Parker WhitePK18 plays · +0.513 pts/play · 19th of 114 kickers
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.22
7. Jake BentleyQB36 plays · +0.236 pts/play · 195th of 228 QBs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.22
8. Shi SmithWR51 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 149th of 439 WRs
   0.13WAR0.06 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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  76376321st of 130Roster talent: 763, 21st of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  23323322nd of 130Recruiting: 233, 22nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  72%72%40th of 130Returning production: 72%, 40th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.8+4.846th of 130SP+ rating: +4.8, 46th 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, 2019

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.18 of the 0.26 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. at UNCQ4 11:43 4th & 1 at SC 49, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.2 pts
2. at UGAQ4 0:40 4th & 3 at UGA 40, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.6 pts
3. at UGAQ3 1:12 4th & 1 at SC 26, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
4. at TENNQ3 5:07 4th & 1 at SC 34, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. at UGAQ3 6:29 4th & 2 at UGA 49, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
6. at TA&MQ2 0:15 4th & 10 at SC 25, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.4 pts
7. at UGAQ4 6:26 4th & 5 at UGA 46, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
8. at UNCQ3 1:47 4th & 6 at UNC 38, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

114th 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. L

   UNC
2. W

   CHSO
3. L

   ALA
4. L

   MIZ
5. W

   UK
6. W

   UGA
7. L

   FLA
8. L

   TENN
9. W

   VAN
10. L

    APP
11. L

    TA&M
12. L

    CLEM

What moved it, 2019

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−1.63
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.19
• Timeouts+0.15

Game by game

• UNCL 20-24 at UNC81% → 13%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −2
• CHSOW 72-10 vs CHSO99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• ALAL 23-47 vs ALA5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −10
• MIZL 14-34 at MIZ29% → 0%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −31, Possession & field position −1
• UKW 24-7 vs UK63% → 99%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +1
• UGAW 20-17 at UGA8% → 74%Before kickoff −42 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +16
• FLAL 27-38 vs FLA38% → 3%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3
• TENNL 21-41 at TENN58% → 0%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −52, Clock +1
• VANW 24-7 vs VAN87% → 98%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +18
• APPL 15-20 vs APP70% → 14%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −46, Clock −4
• TA&ML 6-30 at TA&M23% → 0%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −27
• CLEML 3-38 vs CLEM4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −8

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.