South Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.0937th
  Defense+0.2610th
• 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.
  Offense41.5%40th
  Defense49.9%7th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2546th
  Defense+1.2067th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1780th
  Defense+0.2213th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0120th
  Defense+0.3119th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.6%47th
  Defense56.0%6th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.0%38th
  Defense33.5%38th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7129th
  Defense3.3210th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.2%28th
  Defense14.5%10th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense21.2%2nd
  Defense11.8%5th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   TENN
2. L
   FLA
3. W
   VAN
4. W
   AUB
5. L
   LSU
6. L
   TA&M
7. L
   MISS
8. L
   MIZ
9. L
   UGA
10. L
    UK

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

Players, 2020

1. Kevin HarrisRB183 plays · +0.220 pts/play · 4th of 338 RBs
   0.75WAR0.59 to 0.90
2. Collin HillQB195 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 90th of 212 QBs
   0.36WAR0.00 to 0.72
3. Deshaun FenwickRB54 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 165th of 338 RBs
   0.20WAR0.17 to 0.23
4. Shi SmithWR64 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 73rd of 409 WRs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.21
5. Parker WhitePK15 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 22nd of 97 kickers
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.08
6. Luke DotyWR25 plays · +0.071 pts/play · 320th of 409 WRs
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.06
7. Nick MuseTE27 plays · +0.058 pts/play · 31st of 191 TEs
   0.03WAR−0.01 to 0.07
8. Xavier LegetteWR12 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 344th of 409 WRs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.04

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  77277221st of 127Roster talent: 772, 21st of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  24224220th of 127Recruiting: 242, 20th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  42%42%102nd of 127Returning production: 42%, 102nd of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.4−2.480th of 127SP+ rating: −2.4, 80th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.01 of the 0.06 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 9:27 4th & 5 at MIZ 8, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
2. at MISSQ4 6:09 4th & 11 at SC 24, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts
3. vs MIZQ3 10:13 4th & 4 at MIZ 30, down 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
4. at LSUQ2 5:22 4th & 3 at LSU 27, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs AUBQ4 3:13 4th & 6 at AUB 44, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs AUBQ4 9:13 4th & 4 at AUB 21, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at MISSQ4 2:15 4th & 13 at MISS 19, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
8. at FLAQ4 0:48 4th & 4 at FLA 4, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

108th of 127 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

   TENN
2. L

   FLA
3. W

   VAN
4. W

   AUB
5. L

   LSU
6. L

   TA&M
7. L

   MISS
8. L

   MIZ
9. L

   UGA
10. L

    UK

What moved it, 2020

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−1.72
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.61

Game by game

• TENNL 27-31 vs TENN36% → 5%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −41, Clock −3
• FLAL 24-38 at FLA16% → 1%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1
• VANW 41-7 at VAN85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +21
• AUBW 30-22 vs AUB40% → 93%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +1
• LSUL 24-52 at LSU37% → 0%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts +1
• TA&ML 3-48 vs TA&M22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −28
• MISSL 42-59 at MISS18% → 1%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −1
• MIZL 10-17 vs MIZ41% → 5%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −44, Clock −2
• UGAL 16-45 vs UGA8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −12
• UKL 18-41 at UK21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −24, 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.